What might a second term of Trump mean for the US space program?
- Reference: 1731432666
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/11/12/trump_space_program/
- Source link:
"Trump is such an unpredictable person," said Garry Hunt, one of the original Voyager scientists, when considering possible scenarios.
As far as human spaceflight is concerned, not much is expected to change in the short term, particularly regarding NASA's [1]Artemis program, which aims to land a crew on the Moon. While the Space Launch System (SLS), consisting of an expendable rocket carrying the Orion capsule, might seem like a throwback to a previous era and potentially subject to scrutiny by an Elon Musk-favoring administration, the way it is constructed means it is unlikely to be dropped any time soon.
The Reg chats with Voyager Imaging Team member Dr Garry E Hunt [2]READ MORE
After all, it would take a brave politician to remove lucrative government contracts from a US state or district without having a replacement lined up and risk the wrath of lawmakers.
Instead, the return of Donald Trump could result in NASA's long dreamed of "return to the Moon" becoming reality rather than being delayed further. Trump, after all, was a major force behind what has become known as the Artemis program, and NASA is set to land a crew on the lunar surface during his second term in office. He is also staunchly supported by Musk, who will be expecting official scrutiny over the rocket projects of his company, SpaceX, to be reduced.
[3]
NASA depends on SpaceX's Starship to land humans on the Moon for Artemis III, and licensing and environmental [4]challenges have bedeviled Musk's rocketeers over the years. A change in regulatory oversight could allow SpaceX to increase the pace of Starship development, ready for the spacecraft to be pressed into service by NASA for a lunar landing.
[5]
[6]
It is also likely that a perceived threat from China to US leadership in space will be a factor in NASA funding for a return to the Moon and retrieval of samples from Mars. However, a dramatic boost is unlikely, considering the current economic situation. At least some of the cash may come from cuts to Earth science missions and anything related to observations or research into a changing climate.
Then there are NASA's international partners, such as the European Space Agency. In [7]2019 , ESA's then Director General, Jan Wörner, remained aloof from a US determination to land humans on the Moon by 2024, saying only that the agency's lunar effort was "proceeding the way it should" and that astronauts were unlikely to be bounding around on the Moon by then.
[8]
Wörner has been proven right, but it appears that Donald Trump will be in office when US boots stand on the lunar surface once again.
Being a significant supplier to NASA, Musk's ability to influence major changes at the agency is limited in the short term without accusations of a conflict of interest. SpaceX has contracts for crew and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), a contract for deorbiting the ISS at the end of its life, and work lined up for NASA's return to the Moon.
That said, with SpaceX planning to send a Starship to Mars before long, it would be difficult for NASA to justify a convoluted robotic mission to the red planet for retrieving samples when an alternative is set to exist. In October, NASA [9]announced that it would be assessing new proposals for the Mars Sample Return architecture, which include ideas from SpaceX, with a report "anticipated by the end of 2024."
Trump is hellbent to go to Mars, and most of us sane people know it ain't on guys
While science appears set to suffer under a new administration, the commercial space market is likely to benefit. Amazon's Jeff Bezos did not take a strong position during the US election campaign, and it would be difficult not to imagine him benefitting despite a rivalry with Musk. While much has been made of Musk's satellite constellation, Starlink, a more relaxed regulatory regime could assist competing systems, such as the impending Project Kuiper.
Hunt told El Reg , "Trump is hellbent to go to Mars, and most of us sane people know it ain't on guys, not with humans. You can go to Mars, but you've got to do it robotically.
[10]
"I think this is an issue that has got to be thought through."
[11]SpaceX Dragon gives ISS a helping hand with altitude
[12]Unbreakable Voyager space probes close in on a 50 year mission
[13]Japan's wooden cube-shaped satellite rockets to space
[14]If Trump gets elected, get your tech buying done asap
As for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is responsible for high-profile scientific missions such as Voyager, Hunt described the atmosphere as "nervous."
He said, "I think they're probably in a state of shock."
Although directed by the US administration, NASA has historically attempted to remain relatively non-partisan. Its missions, after all, tend to outlast administrations. An extreme example, Voyager, has sailed on for almost half a century while political upheavals have occurred on Earth.
However, it seems likely that human spaceflight and commercial interests will prosper under Trump's administration (with assistance from Musk), while science for science's sake might slip further into the background. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/29/nasa_narrows_artemis_iii_landing/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/18/garry_hunt_interview/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZzPeGNFJjItPH3TcefCJqgAAANM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/11/spacex_starship_red_tape/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZzPeGNFJjItPH3TcefCJqgAAANM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZzPeGNFJjItPH3TcefCJqgAAANM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2019/10/10/estec/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZzPeGNFJjItPH3TcefCJqgAAANM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/mars-sample-return/new-team-to-assess-nasas-mars-sample-return-architecture-proposals/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZzPeGNFJjItPH3TcefCJqgAAANM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/11/spacex_dragon_iss_boost/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/09/voyager_closes_in_on_a/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/05/japan_wooden_satellite/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/01/us_trump_tariff/
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Because he knew she was a loser, and not only that his paper is hemorrhaging cash because of what many see as it's strong left wing bias, and a Harris endorsement would have further cemented that.
So what. He still "took a position". The article is factually inaccurate.
> He still "took a position".
The article said that he did not take a "strong position". For someone commenting on facts, you seem to lack basic reading skills.
Thank you for your insight - you are probably right. However - re: "Pull the other one" - Richard didn't pull anything. Proper journalism sticks to the base truth and lets the readers exercise their own power of deduction and do their own moralizing. Jeff Bezos denied he made the call to endorse no one. The editor in chief of the WP claimed himself to have made the decision. Because we are not stupid we can read between the lines, but IMO Richard is right for not being patronizing and connecting the dots wherever some slow readers might be in danger.
I might add I (and apparently many others) got sick of reading the WP when every *news* article (not opinions) started connecting the dots for me because they thought I was too stupid to think for myself. Boring. Also close minded. I wonder if there are some dots between that and last Nov 5? I voted Harris, btw.
Elmo rubbing his hands together in glee.
A metric fuckton of cash for SpaceX I reckon.
Re: Elmo rubbing his hands together in glee.
SpaceX has money and Musk has even more. To make a difference with money congress would have to vote to send billions per year to SpaceX, which is concentrated in Texas, Florida and California. The only government space project that big is SLS and it gets votes by spreading money over fifty states. The thing that would make a big difference to SpaceX is to be able to launch Starship from Florida. The only practical launch sites for medium and bigger rockets are from coastal nature reserves. It took years to get a license to launch Starship from Texas and it was going to take years to complete the environmental impact assessment for Florida. Musk thinks Trump will short circuit the procedure. We shall see.
A kick in the Mars
> What might a second term of Trump mean for the US space program
Well, it will supercharge many people's desire to leave the planet.
Oh to Mars!
With all due respect to Mr. Hunt I've no doubt Humans will walk on Mars, and likely a lot sooner than many of us think.
As the great Arther C. Clarke said, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Musk might be a bit of flake, but he is a very smart flake, and he's already done a lot of things many people have said were impossible.
Re: Oh to Mars!
It's relatively simple to put a human on Mars. For a little extra they can survive landing.
It's even technically possible to get them back afterwards.
It's just a really, really stupid thing to do, because it will instantly make it completely impossible to ever learn whether or not there has ever been life on Mars.
A whole class of science would be instantly and forever destroyed because it would become impossible to tell whether a future discovery was contamination from the messy human or a native Martian microbe.
It is impossible to properly sterilise a human and have them survive the process.
If you've done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
I was rather hoping the universe would last longer than this. Oh well, easy come, easy go....
We live in a world with an ever increasing number of people with more money than they could possibly spend or even pass to their children.
Therefore. I foresee a future where a moon base will be built along with a tourist resort and a McDonald's.
Humans on Mars
Hunt is completely wrong about sending humans to Mars. It is absolutely within the realm of possibility. It can be done today, with existing technology.
Sending humans from Mars to Earth....that is a different topic to debate.
Re: Humans on Mars
The issue is that solar and cosmic radiation is very difficult to protect against, and can cause serious damage to human tissue with only a few days of exposure. All of the astronauts who went to the Moon suffered kidney damage due to being outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere for a few days. See for example:
https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/a-mission-to-mars-could-destroy-astronauts-kidneys#:~:text=Exposure%20to%20simulated%20space%20conditions,kidney%20function%20and%20permanent%20damage.
"... In seven of those simulations, mice were exposed to galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) doses equivalent to about two years in deep space, comparable to what astronauts would experience during a Mars mission. Each of them suffered severe kidney damage.
Increased risk of kidney stones in astronauts has so far been laid at the feet of bone loss. As the bones break down, extra calcium gets dumped into the urine and builds up in the kidneys. Stay in space long enough and you’ll start literally urinating your own bones. The new study suggests that damage to the kidneys also contributes. Exposure to simulated space conditions caused the kidneys to remodel themselves, shrinking structures which balance calcium and salt in the body. It’s not a huge problem in short-duration missions or those close to home, but a 2-year mission to Mars is likely to cause loss of kidney function and permanent damage."
Re: Humans on Mars
Can you cite the source for all of the Apollo astronauts suffering kidney damage?
I only heard Fred Haise got a UTI from wearing his “Texas Catheter” for so long.
Re: Humans on Mars
More likely to be something to do with not having gravity assisted flow than radiation?
Re: Humans on Mars
Yeah, its a lot more deltaV for a start.
Coat.... because theres a Kerbal in the pocket
Re: Humans on Mars
To be fair though there are lots of humans we should send to Mars. When they get there they can grow poop potatoes.
Earth Observation
NASA does a lot of Earth Observation satellites, and of course measurements and research here on Earth. Many NASA scientists supported the warnings about man-made effects increasing climate change during Trump's first term as President. I wonder how they will fare under Trump 2.0?
Elon already has money
What I would have expected him to want from Trump is completely uninhibited testing and release of everything from driverless Teslas to twice daily Starship launches, even if most explode and turn half of Florida into a toxic wasteland (IBF "how would people tell the difference?" snark)
Musk's ability to influence major changes at the agency is limited in the short term without accusations of a conflict of interest.
Do you really think that will bother either Musk or Trump?
"Amazon's Jeff Bezos did not take a strong position during the US election campaign"
Pull the other one. He blocked the Washington Post from endorsing Harris.
Can we please send all these entitled bazillionaires to Mars? One way preferably.