It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House cancels NASA Lunar Base funding

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Just when it seemed like the US was starting to take steps to lead the human race to space exploration, the House Science, Space, and Technology committee decided to cancel funds for a lunar base and instead have Apollo like 'practice' landings to.prepare for a human mission to Mars. As someone who grew up about 10 miles from Cape Canaveral, this is a major disappointment. I was hoping to see a Lunar Base and Mars base in my lifetime and watch our civilization expand beyond our little pale blue planet but each year with budget cuts it is becoming increasingly unlikely. This is another setback for the advancement of space exploration.

Hopefully SpaceX and other private space programs like Blue Origin will fill the void and make their own bases on the Moon and Mars.

We have had the technology to build a base on the Moon and send humans to Mars since the 1970s but after winning the 'race' to the Moon, Congress has made huge budget cuts to NASA and stonewalled significant progress. The Space Shuttle was meant to be so much more but budget cuts got the best of the program. The budget cuts often contribute to more waste as programs that have had millions spent on R&D will be nixed and the projects and designs are lost.

dailycaller.com...


The bill, entitled HR 5666 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 2020, contains several provisions that run counter to the Trump administration’s current Artemis return to the moon program. Those provisions include:

*A prohibition of any funds to establish a continuously occupied lunar base.

*No funding for the use of lunar resources to sustain astronauts working and living on the moon.

*No funding for any activity on the lunar surface that does not directly relate to an eventual Mars expedition.

The House bill would in effect cancel a program in which the agency would assist private companies in developing lunar landers that NASA would then use as a customer of the companies by requiring NASA to “own” the lander.

The bill defers the return to the moon from the current date of 2024 to 2028. Also, starting eight years from now, NASA will be required to launch two expeditions to the moon per year using the Boeing heavy-lift Space Launch System. However, without a huge increase in funding, Boeing is not capable of building two SLS rockets per year.


edit on 27-1-2020 by jrod because: Bad snip




posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 03:57 PM
link   
One more disappointment in a long line of them. Still upset to no end about the shuttle. At least my kid is involved with SpaceX.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I’m not convinced they have overcome the technical challenges involved in living on the moon.
Dust, radiation, low gravity..
As for the shuttle, it was a turd.
Not entirely nasa’s fault though as bureaucracy intervened.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: billxam

The Shuttle was a compromise of an ambitious post Apollo plan to explore space, have a lunar space station, base, and prepare for a Mars mission. While impressive, the shuttle was a death trap that lost 40% of its fleet and resulted in 14 Astronauts fatalities. One of the main reasons it was not scrapped was because of its huge payload capacity, and the ability to not only launch but retrieve satellites. This was invaluable to the NRO/DoD and was the only space vehicle that could deliver their top secret spy satellites until the Delta IV Heavy was built.

Before the Challenger 7 disaster their were plans to also launch from Vandenberg, CA for polar orbits. Funding and cutting back on missions after Challenger nixed this plan. They did end up of having one very high inclination orbit launch from Cape Canaveral where the normal rules of flying over land with the ET Attatched were waived because it was considered a high priority DoD mission.

It is disheartening that our government can endlessly spend on military projects that go nowhere but will continue to make cuts to space exploration programs which has kept us from progressising from 1970's era missions.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is really unfortunate. It’s just another a signal of the times we are in. Defense spending is always on the rise. Space exploration on the decline.

The hard pill to swallow is, a vast majority of the people on the planet don’t care.

How many people around the world these days, would really tune in, like in 1969, and watch a live manned landing on Mars?

These days, this would be your average response, “oh a dudes stepping foot on Mars. Crap, my 8th favorite tv show is on. Ahhh, I’ll just watch the Mars Sh!t later on YouTube”.

It’s unfortunately pathetic and saddening. But true.
edit on 27-1-2020 by KKLOCO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 04:56 PM
link   
From memory, I think NASA had planned to carry out another manned moon landing in 2020 (that's literally this year... damn how time flies!), but the Obama administration canned it, which seemed to receive very little backlash from either side.

So... maybe its not actually a problem of either the left or right. Kinda just seems like the masses as a whole just don't seem to care much about space exploration, these days.

...Which is a damn shame, imo.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Damn, same kinda myopic mindset by shortsighted gimmidats just 40+ years later.

Stupidity



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

We need a space elevator.

Rockets will still have their place.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 05:27 PM
link   
From your source:




However, the language of the bill would make going to Mars harder, not easier. A study conducted by MIT concluded that the moon could be used as a refueling base for spacecraft headed to Mars. A lunar fuel depot would mine water ice from the moon’s poles and refine it into rocket fuel. A Mars ship would dock at the planned lunar gateway and top off with fuel brought up from the lunar surface. Ships headed for Mars would save a tremendous amount of weight by not having to carry rocket fuel all the way from Earth. Under the House bill, an expedition to Mars would have to take all of its fuel directly from Earth at great expense.


Leave it to some politicians to think this one up. Probably just another program to enrich themselves and their families by dumping our hard earned money into useless endeavors.
edit on 27-1-2020 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Dbl post
edit on 27-1-2020 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Users, did y'all bother reading the source? This is a House bill, therefore subject to Veto by Trump, nothing is happening.

However, lets cite some things via the OPs source...


The reason why the House authorizers would, in effect, direct a middle finger to NASA and President Trump’s space priorities is open to speculation.

So, in essence, could this simply be a partisan jab? If so, this goes to show how partisan politics can affect our progression, for better or worse.
Already we seen it with Congressional Democrats obstructing and stonewalling all of Trumps ability to govern using lower courts and ridiculous language, reasonings and broad interpretations, why would this be any different? Because it involves Trump.

The Daily Callers own speculation is that the Dems simply just don't like it, why give Trump a win?


Democrats have always been hostile to the idea of going back to the moon, especially by 2024. The idea is that the date was chosen so that President Trump would have a win to conclude his hypothetical second term.


Additionally, the House committee says the bill is Bi-Partisan, apparently House Repubs are okay with this? I guess it bares worth some explanation on their part, hmmm?


The press release from the House committee calls the bill “bipartisan.” Not only are the Democratic chairs of the full House committee and the subcommittee that oversees NASA co-sponsors, but so are the Republican ranking members. Why Republicans would sign off on the cancellation of NASA’s planned lunar base beggars comprehension.


Furthermore, there is a Senate version of the bill that's much more tame than the House democrats version.

Look folks, I didn't make this political, the House Democrats did, via TDS, lets be real.



It goes almost without saying that the House language needs to be killed in committee. If anything resembling the House language reaches President Trump’s desk, he should veto the bill and render a well written, caustic tweet to signal his displeasure.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Hah! Every time. But, hey. Can't build an aggressive Space Force by lollygagging around on the dusty ol' Moon.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Here is another take on it from a different source:
House legislators want to hand NASA’s human spaceflight program over to Boeing



The Boeing bill?
The House authorization act, which will now be considered in committee before going before the full House, rolls a lot of this back. Its proposed Human Landing System, which will take astronauts from lunar orbit, offers the prime example of this. The bill states that:

*The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract

*The lunar plans should utilize "the Orion vehicle and an integrated lunar landing system carried on an Exploration Upper Stage-enhanced Space Launch System for the human lunar landing missions.

*The Gateway to Mars shall not be required for the conduct of human lunar landing missions.


The net effect of this is to shut down all potential competition and cost savings for the lunar lander. It is particularly telling that there is only one company—Boeing—that has proposed building an integrated lunar lander, has the contract for the Exploration Upper Stage, and is building core stages for the Space Launch System rocket. Boeing has also tried to minimize use of the Gateway.

With the House bill, legislators seem to be trying to take NASA's human exploration program and give it over to the Boeing Company, going back to an era of cost-plus contracting.


If this is the case, it appears that Boeing's lobbyists are trying to squash the competition by handing the US human space program to Boeing. This is bad news for SpaceX and Blue Origin.

I think I understand why SpaceX is putting so much into their Starship program. They want to build a rocket that no one else can compete with. Blue Origin also has a big dog in this fight with their New Glenn design.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Boeing has the audacity to lobby for this? After all their failures??

Let's hope Trump intervenes.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Perhaps a more appropriate title would be "House attempting to cancel Lunar Base funding."

Fortunately Trump is a supporter of Elon Musk and SpaceX. If this bill gets passed by the House, it still has to pass the Senate and can be vetoed.

I will keep a watchful eye on how this progresses.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 06:06 PM
link   
It is a strange set of conditions for spending, especially if it is a bipartisan agreement. You can go to the Moon, but you cannot stay there. Only setup a storage shed for Mars travel stuff. On initial reading it sounds like a Special Access Program has already setup a Moon base, bit silly to build another base when we already have one.

The American Space industry does have a big privatization push. With how dysfunctional government has gone these days perhaps private industry is better at handling these matters? Is Trump thinking about setting up one of his towers on the Moon?



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I'll look for a better source before making any comment, 'Daily Caller' has a habit of making stuff up, or twisting it.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Boeing deserves exactly two things as it stands right now, jack and snip. The fact the house is trying to keep them up in spite of their failures as of late, shows those lobbying dollars hard at work. I sincerely hope this gets the veto if it makes it that far, they do not deserve it.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Already provided 4 posts before yours. This is legit and it appears Boeing lobbyist and Democrat House Reps have pulled a fast one. This would give the space program to Boeing while squashing government funding to SpaceX and others while sabatoging Trump's space vision.



posted on Jan, 27 2020 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

It's because the Democrats in charge of the house Ll get their marching orders from China. Cutti g funds only benefits our rivals space programs. Cannot wait until the 2020 election washes away all the sell out traitors in the house.




top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join