NASA Cancels Moon Mission Despite Trump's Space Policy Directive 1

Well this certainly seems a little bit suspicious if you ask me. Apparently the new lunar rover mission was cancelled on the 23rd of April, which is the exact same day a new administrator was assigned at NASA, so it appears Jim Bridenstine is the reason behind why the mission was cancelled. It seems quite a few people are upset he was given that position at NASA because he's a politician with no science background. Also keep in mind he made this decision despite Trump signing the Space Policy Directive 1 which directs NASA to focus on returning to the Moon and eventually to Mars.

Scientists helping NASA put a rover on the moon are scratching their heads about why the mission was canceled and why they were told to end their operations within the next month
---
“This action is viewed with both incredulity and dismay by our community, especially as the President’s Space Policy Directive 1 directs NASA to go to the lunar surface,” the LEAG said in its letter (emphasis theirs). “RP was the only polar lander-rover mission under development by NASA (in fact, by any nation, as all of the international missions to the lunar poles are static landers) and would have been ready for preliminary design review at the beginning of 2019.”

Phil Metzger, a planetary physicist at University of Central Florida and a member of the Resource Prospector science team, told The Verge, which broke this story, “There are no other [NASA] missions being planned to go to the surface of the Moon.”

NASA Cancels Moon Mission, Frustrating Scientists

Bridenstine, 42, brings some odd qualifications to the job, and some controversy.

Typically, NASA administrators are chosen from within NASA’s ranks, come up through the military, or have a background in science. Bridenstine has none of that. His qualifications: He’s former Navy pilot who once ran the Air and Space Museum in Tulsa. He also sits on the House Committee that oversees NASA. The third-term representative is now the first member of Congress to hold the administrator job.

Even members of Bridenstine’s own party have voiced concerns over what putting a politician in charge could mean for the future of the agency.

Trump’s next NASA administrator is a Republican congressman with no background in science

What have we gotten from Moon missions?
A few rocks and Tang?
There are more pressing issues and more interesting places to explore on this planet.

originally posted by: skunkape23
What have we gotten from Moon missions?
A few rocks and Tang?
There are more pressing issues and more interesting places to explore on this planet.

We need to go to the moon and mars.

'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.

a reply to: skunkape23

Nonsense, the first missions to the Moon taught us a great deal about rockets and forced us to push our tech to the limits, much of that knowledge leaked through into the public sector and we would not be where we are now without those early missions. As for why we should go back, it's very important to constantly push the limits of our ability to explore space so that one day we can leave this planet. And science doesn't always have a clear benefit, some times we just like to research things for the sake of knowledge, and then years later we may find out that seemingly useless science actually has a very useful purpose, I've seen it happen many times. This is about advancement of the human species, getting us to the next level of space exploration, regardless of those who wish to see that never happen.

I say we shift focus to exploring the oceans until more advanced forms of propulsion are developed.
Rockets are expensive and they aren't going to get us very far.
All that fuel to visit a barren rock in space?
We can do better.
A manned mission to Mars will be a raging success if the astronauts make it back alive.
NASA is shooting low.

a reply to: skunkape23

What is Tang?
Is it that Citrus orange powder ?

I used to have it here in australia when i was a kid, but of course, like everything else, it is discontinued ....i think

a reply to: skunkape23

I agree we do need a better form of propulsion to reach most other planets in our solar system, and quite frankly I think that technology probably exists already, but the Moon is the closest rock to us and we have supposedly sent men there before so it shouldn't be a huge deal using technology we have now.

So then we have to ask why we haven't been back in so long and why they keep cancelling these missions. People seem to have a very hard time believing we could already have bases on the Moon yet they very easily accept that we sent men there several decades ago using less computing power than a modern calculator possesses.

If we managed to send men there half a century ago using such primitive technology I actually find it hard to believe a single nation wouldn't have a base on the Moon by now, it just makes sense that they would. There is still a great deal to learn from the Moon, it's as unexplored as our deepest oceans are and holds many mysteries.

Why do we need to go to the moon? Because we can?

Why haven't we been back to the moon? Erm....

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Typically, NASA administrators are chosen from within NASA’s ranks, come up through the military, or have a background in science. Bridenstine has none of that. His qualifications: He’s former Navy pilot who once ran the Air and Space Museum in Tulsa.

That needs clarifying because last time I checked, a navy pilot is military...by their own admission he meets the basic criteria even though they say he doesn't???

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Typically, NASA administrators are chosen from within NASA’s ranks, come up through the military, or have a background in science.

I keep seeing that statement, and it annoys me. It is misleading.

Three.

Three NASA administrators had background in science.


Thomas Paine 1969-1970, chemistry [Nixon]
James Fletcher 1971-1977, physics [Nixon]
James Fletcher 1986-1989, physics [Reagan] (yes, twice appointed)
Michael Griffin 2005-2009, physics [Bush Jr]



Also, Bridenstine has a background in business administration and have been in the NASA oversight committee for, I think, half a decade, and have (at least some) leadership experience as an officer (Major) in the Navy.

One could ask oneself what kind of task the head of a $19 billion operation with 17,000 employees is most likely to deal with - business administration or trajectory calculations?


(Sorry, a bit of topic though not , I think, still relevant as his qualifications sort of are the topic.)

Humanity needs to stop thinking Earth is the only planet that we can live on. We are too intelligent not to realize our little blue marble won't be around forever and neither will our species if we do nothing but remain within the confines of this point in space.

We have to go to the moon - build a resupply/research base
We have to go to mars - build a second home away from home to prove we have the technology and knowhow of living on any reasonably harsh environment and being able to extend our reach outside of the Earth and Moon.

Humanity has a mandate to expand and explore the outer reaches of the known galaxy and beyond. If humanity will not commit to this mandate then humanity is destined to go extinct and replaced by more intelligent species that do not wish to share the same fate.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well it is a Vox article which made me hesitant to use it, I wouldn't have if I noticed that contradiction. But I still feel like this guy is shady and think someone with a science background is preferable to someone with a military background.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Typically, NASA administrators are chosen from within NASA’s ranks, come up through the military, or have a background in science. Bridenstine has none of that. His qualifications: He’s former Navy pilot who once ran the Air and Space Museum in Tulsa.

That needs clarifying because last time I checked, a navy pilot is military...by their own admission he meets the basic criteria even though they say he doesn't???

I noticed that . And , to be a pilot means you are a commissioned officer.
Very strange,

a reply to: Gothmog

I thought to be a fighter pilot you had to learn physics and maths ?

so surely he has some understanding of science right !

a reply to: scubagravy

www.amazon.com...

Just how can they do that ?
is NASA a private company ?
If not.. they need to be dealt with

originally posted by: skunkape23
What have we gotten from Moon missions?
A few rocks and Tang?
There are more pressing issues and more interesting places to explore on this planet.

I will literally never understand this mindset.

Well I for one try believe going to the moon is a critical path, logistically speaking, for future intra-solar and inter-Stella space travel. However, according to our own Apollo astronauts, we were told to “...not return to the moon...” by some other alien inhabitants. Is this the reason for the cancellation of the initiative? A reply to: ChaoticOrder


www.express.co.uk...

Just search it on google and you will see many inventions which we all use today like:
Long-distance Telecommunications. ...
Solar Energy. ...
Artificial Limbs. ...
Ventricular Assist Device. ...
Invisible Braces. ...
Scratch-Resistant Lenses. ...
Memory Foam. ...
Infrared Ear Thermometers.
and many more which were invented because of war, (The usual motivator) but for exploration and now daily life.
Not to mention we open a whole new universe to solving our petty issues as we reach out from our nest called earth.







a reply to: skunkape23

Dear NASA...if there is a reason you are killing our place in exploring the most useful and fascinating and profitable, realm of our universe......Tell Us!!!!!
A. You have been lying to us all these years.....which many think you have been.
B. You have had a secret space program much more advanced and you are getting ready to tell us. Or You just don't want to spend any more money on scotch tape and cardboard space ships when you have a sleek well chromed fleet.
C. The guardians of the Galaxy, Q or somebody has deemed us unworthy to to travel space, or they are just to darn powerful and mean to deal with and they wont let us come up there to play..
D. The earth is in danger from something you are not telling us about and we have to duck and cover and hopefully recover.
E. You are ready to carry out the plan to reduce the population of earth and you feel that this should come first rather then solving our problems with opening up the vast territories of space and the bounty of knowledge which will naturally come from it.
F. You are just a bunch of fat pigs who line your pockets with government money and have no real interest in the science.
G. Perhaps another world war is more imminent then you are letting on.
H. Or the U.S. is actually broke and can't afford anything.
I. Perhaps the United States government if fake and someone else is pulling the strings.

I think I could go on and on, but there is always a reason for things, and it always seems hidden in lies and selfishness.....Come clean and lets work together as a people to reach for the stars against whatever odds we have to overcome.

So, fire those who gum up the works and get to work....get our civilization out into the cosmos... It's like we took baby steps, fell down and decided to just crawl for the rest of our earth lives.
You look like fools sitting behind control boards which do nothing.......Sorry for the foul language or at least what I feel like calling you.
I never thought I would rooting for China or Russia to take us beyond the earth but I guess if thats all we have; truly not my first choice; but who would have thought it?
If we did walk on the moon, (which I have felt we have always done)....prove it! and not with a fake photo album.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder