Main Engine Cut Off - T+116: On the Moon by 2024

Episode Date: March 28, 2019

The National Space Council met this week and Vice President Pence announced the administration’s intentions to see humans land on the moon by 2024. I break down my thoughts and observations coming out of the meeting. This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 38 executive producers—Kris, Pat, Matt, Jorge, Brad, Ryan, Jamison, Nadim, Peter, Donald, Lee, Jasper, Chris, Warren, Bob, Russell, John, Moritz, Joel, Jan, David, Grant, Mike, David, Mints, Joonas, Robb, Tim Dodd the Everyday Astronaut, Frank, Rui, Julian, Lars and six anonymous—and 235 other supporters on Patreon. Fifth Meeting of the National Space Council - YouTube Remarks by Vice President Pence at the Fifth Meeting of the National Space Council | Huntsville, AL | The White House Pence calls for human return to the moon by 2024 - SpaceNews.com Email your thoughts, comments, and questions to [e-mail] Follow @WeHaveMECO Listen to MECO Headlines Join the Off-Nominal Discord Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Spotify, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn or elsewhere Subscribe to the Main Engine Cut Off Newsletter Buy shirts and Rocket Socks from the Main Engine Cut Off Shop Support Main Engine Cut Off on Patreon Music by Max Justus

Hello and welcome to Main Engine Cutoff. I am Anthony Colangelo and we've got massive stuff to break down today. Huge statements out of the National Space Council meeting this week about getting back to the moon by 2024. And this was quite a big show, as National Space Councils typically are. But I want to break down the announcements and I think why they are meaningful. I think most everybody out there is missing the point of this announcement and missing the actual statements made in it and looking at it as if it is another space exploration initiative or vision for space exploration.

But I think it's definitely different this time, but not for the reasons that I think we assumed it would be different. So I've got a whole bunch of thoughts to talk through, but first let's talk about what was announced. First, Vice President Pence gave this long speech about what the announcement was about. There was a bunch of other National Space Council business going on. Wilbur Ross was talking about space businesses. Real exciting. And Brian Simons there talking about this plan. There was talk about Space Force. There was talk about every other space issue that we've been discussing the past year or two. But this moon announcement really led the way. So what Vice President Pence said was that, well, there was a lot of big statements up front. He was standing, by the way,

this was in Huntsville, Alabama, just across the street basically from Marshall Space Flight Center, and he was talking about how the current plan to get us back to the moon by 2028, which is the stated policy right now, is just not good enough. In his words, that was a direct quote. That's just not good enough. We're better than that. So the idea here is that he wants to accelerate the plan and put us back on the moon by 2024 in five years was his statement. Notably, again, that is beyond the upper extreme of this presidential administration as these announcements do tend to be. So in that way, it is like all of the other announcements that there has been. But, you know, this is a big statement to make that this is going to happen. And most importantly, not just getting to the moon by 2024, but he kept pressing on this point

that it would happen by any means necessary, meaning, you know, however it's going to work, it's going to work. It's not wedded to SLS Orion. It's not definitely on commercial rockets. But he said in three or four different ways that whoever is going to do this best will be the one to take us there. He said we have to prioritize the mission over the means, meaning that we have to prioritize the mission of getting to the moon over the means of doing so, be it SLS Orion or otherwise. He also said, if our current contractors can't meet this objective, we'll find new ones that will. That's a direct quote from his statement. And he also said, if commercial rockets are the way that will get us there, commercial rockets it will be.

So there's all of those kind of statements. And obviously, all of that was still padded in grandstanding about SLS Orion, the Gateway, the ISS, all of the things that are current policy of NASA. All of that was couched within that. And of course, it's going to be, right? This is still politics. This is still how politics works. You have to play that game. Now, there were a couple of big changes in the way that this policy was talked about, as opposed to the fiscal year 2020 budget request that came out a week or two ago. Eric Berger was on the show. We were talking about what was in that, and part of it was the cancellation of the Exploration Upper Stage or the delay of it to the mid-2020s. And in this meeting of the National Space Council,

the Exploration Upper Stage came back in a big way. They were talking about how they need it for this plan. Even Bridenstine was talking about needing it. So it seems like that is re-entering the fold here, at least politically. And that could be because of the backroom conversations that have been happening since that budget request rollout. The other part of it is that the gateway was mentioned a little bit less than has been typical of these meetings. There were certainly still a couple of platitudes about how we need the gateway to land on the moon, but there was a lot less priority put on it in the speeches and the statements made.

So it certainly felt like the EUS was coming back and the gateway maybe was fading out. And an additional thing that was talked about in multiple different scenarios is nuclear propulsion. That was harped upon by Vice President Pence himself. I think Brian Stein mentioned it. A couple other people mentioned it as well. So there's this shifting of priorities, very subtle shifting of priorities, where the exploration upper stage is back in vogue. The gateway is maybe on the decline. Nuclear propulsion is on the upswing. And I think even

nuclear power on the surface of the moon was mentioned. Talking about the surface of the moon, another part of this announcement was that the South Pole would be targeted for a lunar landing with people on it, on that lander, by 2024. So that is where we would be headed based on this announcement. And I think that's kind of all of the newsy news of the announcements. So I want to get into why I believe this was meaningful. And there was a couple of different reasons that I thought was the case, but a couple of other things to pull out of the speech. First up, NASA is pissed at Boeing. There's no two ways around it. The first bit of the speech couched in all of the reverence for SLS was all of these different statements that I mentioned up front. Mission over the means, current contractors can't meet this objective, we'll find other ones

saying that 2028 is not good enough, talking about how 2021 for SLS isn't good enough and we need to fly it in 2020. There was a lot of pointed statements about current contractors, current status quo, and means over mission. There was a lot of pointed statements in that way that pointed to the fact that NASA is really, really angry with Boeing. And I think there was even a line in there about how we're not stuck with any given contractor, but we prioritize centers over contractors. So there's a lot there that I think if you're Boeing, you're not too happy with some of those statements in there. Now, by that same token, the commercial alternative to EM-1 was confirmed to not be an option. So, Bridenstine and Vice President Pence both said that they did this study to see if they

could fly EM-1 on commercial rockets, and I think the statement was that although it is possible, it is not optimal for schedule and budget reasons. So they are going to fly EM-1 with SLS Orion as of now. Pence stated it would be 2021. Bridenstine later said that they have a way to get that into 2020. So we'll see how that shakes out. There were some rumors recently about them dropping the Green Run test. That's the first full-up test of the SLS core stage. This was supposed to happen down at Stennis Space Center. They would have the core stage there, all four engines attached, and they would burn those engines to a full duration, full duration burn for SLS. There

is talks of dropping that out of the schedule and that that recovers six months of schedule. So they would opt to ship the core stage to Cape Canaveral. And at Kennedy Space Center, they would fire the main engines up for a couple of seconds, a la a SpaceX static fire. So that's maybe one way that they get that back into 2020. But we'll see what shakes out there. So if you're Boeing, you're not happy about the statements about contractors. And if you're Boeing, you're also happy that you've got another shot here to fly EM-1 on SLS. Now, coming out of this, there was a lot of negativity, I think, around the announcement because people saw it as just another space exploration initiative,

just another vision for space exploration. Every president that we've had in the past 20 years has made a grand statement about what NASA is going to do to return humans to some, you know, be it a moon, Mars, or an asteroid. There's always been these grand statements that have had very little follow-up. So I think most people just took, you know, I don't want to say the easy way out, but the simple take is this is just like every other time. The funding and the budget and the prioritization won't be there. And I have, that's where I start to have problems with the reaction to this because, well, for two reasons. Number one, I don't think that NASA human spaceflight needs more money. I think needs is the wrong word

for NASA human spaceflight and money. I think what they need is focus and clarity because right now the human spaceflight section of NASA is being tasked with three giant things, ISS, Gateway, and now lunar landers, all within the next five to 10 years. So right now, we're committed to the ISS through 2024. That is likely going to be extended to 2030. The Gateway is supposed to start being launched in 2021 or 2022 and continue through 2030. And now lunar landers are supposed to happen in that same time frame. So I don't think, yes, while more money would probably make that work better, I don't think that solves the root problem with NASA human spaceflight right now. I think it needs

clarity. It needs focus. It needs to really know what it's going after. Is it trying to do everything or is it trying to do one thing? I think maybe you could do two of those three things. I think you would still kind of be half-assing it in certain senses. You definitely, given the environment today, you can't do all three. It's just not going to work. I think there's a focus issue there. So ideally, I think what you do is, you know, we've got to see this get whittled down in the next two years if we're going to see being on the moon in 2024, you know, successfully.

My sense is that the gateway might be on its way out or maybe scaled down. Maybe they just kind of use it as a transfer hub, but they don't build up an entire infrastructure there. It certainly felt like it was a little prioritized, a little less in that meeting. And I think of the three things, if you're going to drop one, Gateway is the easiest to drop right now, especially if you're promising the SLS contingent and exploration upper stage. Maybe we can trade that because until now we've said, oh, well, the Gateway is the thing the SLS can build. And I think the SLS crew would be happy to have a future of SLS as opposed to a Gateway. So maybe that's the trade that gets made. And that helps the clarity and focus purpose. But I think, you know, at the root

of it is the root cause of the floundering of NASA human spaceflight in terms of expiration recently is that they are given too many priorities with the same budget. You could up the budget significantly, but that doesn't seem like it's happening, especially as I think we're getting into budget issues nationally across all programs. There's a bunch of things that are about to hit the fan, and I don't think any of that's good for NASA's budget to see a huge increase. So what you need to do is say, all right, well, let's focus on a couple of things and do what we can do. And that's what I think is more important than them getting another $20 billion. And that's what I think is more important than them getting another $20 billion. The other funny thing to me is that everybody that yells about NASA needing more money might also think that NASA could do it cheaper with commercial alternatives,

but yet the next statement is, but they need to wire SpaceX $10 billion tomorrow. So there's a little bit of incongruence there that I think is interesting to think about. But anyway, that focus issue is really just one part of my take on this announcement. I think there's a whole other side to it that I think people are really missing when they're talking about this event. So I wanted to get into that. But before we do, I want to say a huge thank you to all of you out there supporting Main Engine Cutoff over at patreon.com slash Miko. There are 273 of you supporting this show every single month, and I could not be more

thankful for your support. This episode of Main Engine Cutoff is produced by 38 executive producers. Chris, Pat, Matt, George, Brad, Ryan, Jameson, Nadeem, Peter, Donald, Lee, Jasper, Chris, Warren, Bob, Russell, John, Moritz, Joel, Jan, David, Grant, Mike, David, Mintz, Eunice, Rob, Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut, Frank,ui, Julian Lars, and six anonymous executive producers. Thank you all so much for your support for making this episode possible. If you want to help support the show, head over to patreon.com slash Miko and help there. If you're getting a little value out of the show, send a little back my way. If you're $3 a month or more, you get access to the headline show every weekend. I do a little show for you running

through the headlines of the week. It's a great way to stay up on Space News. So check that out if you want to help support the show. And thank you all so much. All right. So my grand thesis here of why everyone is missing the point. If we come out of this event and we say, OK, this is a great statement, but we need the massive funding increase to back it up. That to me sounds like every single other time that this was tried. And that to me is the mark of failure in this way. I don't think this is about doing it the same way that every other time in the last 20 years it's been tried. I think this is explicitly about doing it differently. And if you listen to the things that they were saying in this, and the things that that implies, I think you start to see where this difference comes down to.

Because even in the talks, Bridenstine and Pence said a couple of things. I think Pence even asked a question one time to, I think it was the panel with a couple of astronauts on it, that he said, why is this time different? This has been tried 15 years ago and even various other times, you know, among the history of NASA timelines since Apollo. Why is this time different? So there is a recognition there that this sounds a lot like those other pronouncements. And there is a recognition, especially among Pence and Bridenstine, whatever your politics may be, that you have to realize that those two are particularly interested in space and do know their history. And certainly Scott Pace, who's, you know, the head of the National Space Council and Pence's right-hand man in this sense, he certainly knows his history, so nobody would question that. But they are aware that this

sounds a lot like those other times. But the difference here is that these statements were made in the same way that you and I have been talking about this for the past couple of years, man. We're coming on three years of Miko here. I've been emailing with you every day about this stuff. And a lot of the things that he said in this speech were things that you and I have emailed about. The commercial alternatives exist. We can take advantage of that. We can do this cheaper. We can get there faster. This was putting on the line the ability for NASA to jump onto those initiatives if they work out. This was saying explicitly, if you're flying to the moon, once you're starting to do that, we're going to send some astronauts, we're going to send some cash your way. This was

not, here's a bunch of cash, go figure it out. This was, whichever of you contingents do this best, do it first, we'll be there on your rocket. So if Starship takes off tomorrow and is headed to the moon, we'll put a NASA logo on that. We'll put an astronaut inside when it's ready and we'll go there with you. If SLS Orion turns around in a year or two, then we're putting our astronauts on that. This was a very pointed statement at both camps, the new space, the old space crowd. The people that say the traditional contracting method of SLS Orion is the only way this is going to work. And the people that say the commercial companies with all the momentum are the only way this is going to work. This was a direct statement to both of

those camps that say, okay, we're right here right now. SLS Orion, you've got your money. Commercial companies, you've got cargo contracts, crew contracts, you've got external money that's building. Hell, SpaceX is welding together two different vehicles in a field in Texas. It's saying, you've got momentum. You've got what it takes. Show us. And whichever one of you camps shows us first, that's the one that we're flying to the moon on. But this was an explicit statement by NASA, by the vice president of the United States, that confirms what you and I have assumed for a couple of years, that if commercial space rises the way that it looks like it's going to be, and does it better, and does it first, that NASA would take advantage of that. Because up until now,

it was not a done deal that if Starship started flying, that NASA would jump onto it. Up until now, NASA has pretty much ignored Starship, and they've had very few conversations about it. But this was an explicit statement by the second highest ranking official in the United States that if that works out, at least this NASA would jump in on that. And that is a huge difference than the Vision for Space Exploration or the Space Exploration Initiative, all these things that said, here's a bunch of money up front, build us some stuff. Because what that does is it leaves it open for cancellation by the next person that comes along. And if you're looking down the line, the president that's going to happen in 2020 or 2024 could be drastically different from this one

in a lot of ways, priorities especially. So if you're going to do that same thing again and say, SpaceX, here's a bunch of money, the next person's going to come along and say, SpaceX doesn't need that money. But if NASA itself says, we're going to go with whoever has the momentum, with whoever pulls this off, we're going to go to the moon with whoever does this best, and there's a large contingent of industry that isn't dependent on who's president, that to me seems a lot more sustainable. And that to me sounds a lot different than the past times that this has been tried. And I think that's the big thing that everyone's missing here, is that this isn't the same old thing. This is saying explicitly to SpaceX, the people that are welding that thing

together in that field in Texas, this is explicitly saying to the people that are right now driving to an office in Kent, Washington. Right now, people are driving to offices in Colorado and everywhere else that that are working on something new something different than sls orion and saying hey if you do it we'll be right there waiting and it's also saying to the people driving to offices in the gulf states that are working on sls orion people that are working on orion today people that are getting things ready hey if you actually pull this out if if you've got the runway that we've given you and you actually pull this off, you pull your shit together in the next two years, we'll be there waiting. At the end of the speech, Vice President Pence looked out among

the audience and just said, step up. And I think that's the statement to both sides. It was at Marshall Space Flight Center, so it sounded like it was directed at SLS Orion, but I think that can go both ways. I think it's saying, hey, commercial companies, put your money where your mouth is. This is your chance to shine. You've got the opportunity. Step up and take it. So I think that tactic is explicitly different than we've heard in the past. And you and I, like I said, we've assumed that that would be the case, that the alternative to SLS would be taken advantage of once they're flying. And now the Vice President of the United States has said that that is the case, at least as far as this administration is concerned. at the same time as SLS Orion, that they'll be there. They'll be waiting to sign up and fly on that vehicle. And that is a really, really different thing. And that is the reason that I think it's different this time around is because there is this industry. Like I said, SpaceX is

welding something together right now. Blue Origin has a bunch of stuff up its sleeve. ULA and Mastin have had these ideas for years of Zeus. If you can land that kind of stuff on the lunar surface, NASA's going to take you up on it. So this was more of a call to action than an explicit statement of, here's a bunch of money, go do some stuff. Because NASA, like a lot of other organizations out there, tends to make things cost just a little bit more than they're given. They have an incredible knack for that. Most big organizations do. That's kind of the nature of things. And everyone's going to say, yes, we have to see how Congress weighs in. We have to see how budgets shake out. And that is all true. This is still politics. But to have a NASA administrator, a vice president,

and the people that run NASA, to have them explicitly say that they're open to that new way of thinking rather than us just assuming that they are. That is a very important change. And that's something that I don't think we should overlook and just lump this in with every other time this has been tried. This is an acknowledgement of where the industry is at today, where it is going, and the fact that NASA isn't going to miss out. They're not going to sit on the sidelines with SLS Orion

and let Starship and Newke Land and whoever else fly to the moon. They're not going to let that happen. They're going to take the opportunities when they're there. And this was an explicit statement to the people that are running SLS Orion, the people that are running these new companies, that you've got to step up and do it right now. Show that you're the ones that we should go with and we'll be there waiting. And that is exactly the inverse of all the other times that NASA has done this. And I think people are missing that today. And that's, to me, why I love this event, why I thought the message there is inspiring. If you're somebody driving in today to work on something that could do this in the 2020s, that should be inspiring to you. And I hope

that you jump in there today and do something great, build something great and take us to the moon. So in 10 years, if this pans out, if it doesn't, you can send me a link back to the show and we can laugh about it like I do sometimes pull up the Vision for Space Exploration and read through those PDFs or whatever else. It could very well be that the space news article that's written today about this is the thing we'll laugh out in five or 10 years. But to me, it was an explicit acknowledgement that things are different now and that things are changing and that NASA will be there to take advantage when it happens. So for now, that is it for this week. Don't forget that next week, we've got a Q&A episode coming up. So if you've got questions or topics you want me to take on, send them my way.

Anthony at MainEngineCutoff.com is the email or on Twitter at WeHaveMiko. But for now, thank you all so much for listening. Thank you all for supporting the show over at Patreon.com slash Miko. And I will talk to you next week. Bye.