Trump advisers' space plan: To moon, Mars and beyond

[Neil]

Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?

Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.

We have those things here, with much more reasonable recovery costs.  As things stand, there is nothing in space that is worth the expense of retrieving it.

[Neil]

shuttle orbit speed is 18k mph. we've figured out how to go 200k mph. if we science it some more and reach 1 million mph, we can get there in around 2684 years. science that down so much that you get 100 years and we'll be traveling there the time we figure out how to do it. really, we need more mega computers I think to figure out the physics

Speed isn't the issue, but rather fuel efficiency (and at a certain point, materials science).

[Syt]

Reminder where Trump wants to take some of the money from.

https://qz.com/919982/a-nasa-engineer-explains-why-trumps-plan-to-cut-the-space-agencys-climate-science-program-is-a-lot-harder-than-it-sounds/

A NASA engineer explains why Trump's plan to cut the space agency's climate science program is harder than it sounds

Within weeks of the US election, president Donald Trump said he intended to scrap NASA's research on climate change, shifting those resources—less than $2 billion of the agency's $19 billion budget—to its space program.

Other Republicans have echoed that goal. Oklahoma state senator Jim Bridenstine, who is reportedly being considered (among others) to run NASA, once called on Barack Obama to apologize to the people of Oklahoma for funding climate change research. Texas representative Lamar Smith, chairman of the House committee on Science, Space and Technology, said earlier this month that NASA should be focused on space, not climate change, because "another dozen agencies" are already studying the latter.

But cutting NASA's climate science research could prove to be an expensive, logistical nightmare, according to a contractor who works as an engineer for one NASA satellite that collects climate data. The engineer requested to remain anonymous to avoid jeopardizing their employment at the agency.

NASA currently has 16 earth science satellites in orbit (and three other earth science instruments attached to the International Space Station) that, in addition to climate data, collect information on the atmosphere, oceans, and land-based phenomena like wildfires. The satellites make up the core of NASA's climate science program, and the most immediate problem with eliminating climate research is what would be come of them.

"If you stopped operations—if nobody manned the satellites—they would crash and spread space debris," the engineer said. NASA currently tracks around 500,000 pieces of space debris traveling at extremely high speeds; satellite engineers must steer their spacecraft to avoid them. If a satellite crashes into a piece of debris, the satellite would splinter, possibly sending "40,000 or 50,0000 pieces of space debris into low earth orbit," the engineer said. "Then you have to try to account for all those pieces of debris. That would be truly a crisis. They wouldn't de-staff our teams just because of that danger."

Transferring satellite operations to a different agency would be costly. NASA's earth science satellites are operated in large part by contractors, many with five-year agreements, who use specialized equipment at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. Severing those agreements, and physically moving those machines to a different agency's headquarters, would be a massive headache. "All the engineers and scientists are geographically living near the center where we work," the engineer said. "All the resources—all that stuff is geographically tied down."

Even if the Trump administration wanted to remove those satellites from space entirely, the logistics and red tape surrounding the "deorbiting process"—delicately bringing a satellite back to Earth—can take "years and years," said the engineer, who worries more about the administration leaving the satellites in place and simply ceasing data collection.

Budgetary waste is a common refrain among those seeking to end climate science at NASA. Since other US agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also study climate change and earth science, critics argue, there is a degree of redundancy in NASA's work.

But redundancy isn't wasteful; it is a basic tenet of high-quality science. If more than one set of data point to the same trend or conclusion (especially if they were collected by entirely separate scientists at separate agencies), scientists can have more confidence that the conclusion is correct. For that very reason, climate scientists often use climate data gathered by NASA, NOAA, and the EPA. Eliminating any of these data sources would reduce the overall diversity of data and, by default, the scientific rigor of US research. It would also consolidate data collection into the hands of fewer political appointees.

Already, grassroots efforts are underway at universities around the country to download and store federal science data. "Data rescue" groups have managed to harvest NASA's earth science data, as well as much of NOAA's and the EPA's data. NASA employees have taken notice. "We're all pretty excited by it," the engineer said. The data rescue initiatives have gained urgency in the wake of Scott Pruitt's confirmation as EPA administrator, as NASA employees worry he could pull the EPA's climate data from public view.

"Censorship is my number one concern," the NASA engineer said. "Once you consolidate the sources of data, it's easier to censor."

[CountDeMoney]

Big deal.  Drain the swamp.  Grab that pussy.  America first.

[jimmy olsen]

Fucking luddite.

http://www.iflscience.com/space/trump-cancels-europa-lander-asteroid-mission-earth-science-first-budget/all/

Trump Cancels Europa Lander, Asteroid Mission, Earth Science Satellites In First Budget

Trump's first federal budget is out, and while it's pretty terrible news for education and environmental science, it's a bit of a mixed bag for NASA. The headline news is that, sadly, the Europa Lander will be no more – for now.

The budget (which comes off the back of recommendations from Congress last week) covers fiscal year 2018, which begins on October 1 this year, and allocates NASA $19.1 billion – a decrease of 0.4 percent from the Obama administration's last budget.

It's not a final budget, as the House and Senate will now examine it, make changes, and send it back to be signed. But it does give an idea of what Trump wants to do with NASA – and there are some pretty big losers.

It proposes continuing funding for a mission to Europa in the 2020s called the Europa Clipper. This will fly past the moon multiple times to ascertain if its ocean beneath its icy surface might be habitable.

However, there had been tentative plans to also send a lander to Europa, either on this mission or on a separate mission. This budget would scrap that, although there's always the chance it will be picked up again in the future.

"[T]he Budget provides no funding for a multi-billion-dollar mission to land on Europa," states the document, somewhat stomach-churningly titled "America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again".

The funding for the Europa Clipper comes as generally good news for NASA's Planetary Science division, which would get a 20.1 percent boost in funding from the previous budget. But it's dire news for Earth Science, which is cut by 12.9 percent as a result. NASA involvement in several satellites would be cancelled – although some like DSCOVR could live on through the NOAA.


"The Budget terminates four Earth science missions (PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR Earth-viewing instruments, and CLARREO Pathfinder) and reduces funding for Earth science research grants," the budget notes. Great.

"We remain committed to studying our home planet and the universe, but are reshaping our focus within the resources available to us," NASA's Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot added in a statement.


The other major cut is to the Asteroid Redirect Mission. This was a proposed mission where an asteroid would be moved into lunar orbit, and astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft – which maintains funding alongside the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket – would fly to it and study it.

"We remain committed to the next human missions to deep space, but we will not pursue the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) with this budget," said Lightfoot, although he noted that some developments from the project – like solar electric propulsion – would be retained.

This mission has been up for the chop for a while, as some bemoaned its lack of clear purpose. Nonetheless, it leaves NASA's manned exploration with very little direction in place. The budget makes no specific mention of focusing on getting humans to the Moon or Mars, although it does pledge funding to support "astronauts on deep-space missions".

The other big losers are aeronautics, which is cut by 26.6 percent, and the Office of Education, which would be scrapped. Support would be maintained for NASA's commercial endeavors, though, which includes funding companies like SpaceX and Boeing to begin taking astronauts to low-Earth orbit in the next few years.

There are certainly some questionable decisions here. While NASA's funding remains stable, those hoping Trump wouldn't be aiming his chopping block at climate science and education are in for a bit of a shock. Save us, James Mattis – you're our only hope.

[viper37]

Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?

Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.

We have those things here, with much more reasonable recovery costs.  As things stand, there is nothing in space that is worth the expense of retrieving it.

- you have to pay royalties to government
- you have to bribe local authorities
- you have high environmental safety issues
- you have local opposition to your project, no matter how good or how safe it is

In space, no one can hear you scream.

[The Minsky Moment]

Reminder where Trump wants to take some of the money from.

the budget proposal cancelled three planned earth science missions, but appears that it's still funding the existing satellites.  With the exception of one at a Sun-Earth Lagrangian point that is already up and producing data.  The budget would still keep it in orbit and taking data, but would stop it from taking pictures of Earth.