posted 05-02-2019 10:09 AM               

NASA is developing a two-phased approach to quickly return humans to the Moon and establish a sustainable presence in orbit and on the surface. The two phases run in parallel, and both have already begun.

Phase 1 is driven exclusively by the administration’s priority to land the next American man and the first American woman on the Moon by 2024. In this phase, NASA and its industry partners will develop and deploy two Gateway components: the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) that will launch in 2022, and a minimal habitation capability that will launch in 2023. Both will launch on commercial rockets. This initial Gateway configuration represents the beginning of its capability buildup, and the primary components required to support the first human expedition to the lunar South Pole.

Phase 2 is focused on advancing the technologies that will foster a sustainable presence on and around the Moon – a lasting and productive presence enabled by reusable systems, access for a diverse body of contributing partners, and repeatable trips to multiple destinations across the lunar surface.

While the Gateway is the first of its kind to be funded, the concept has been proposed for decades as a necessary and foundational capability for a sustainable return to the Moon, and a port for vehicles embarking to farther destinations. It supports every tenet of Space Policy Directive 1 and the infrastructure it provides is critical to an accelerated return to the Moon.

posted 05-13-2019 04:49 PM               

Under my Administration, we are restoring NASA to greatness and we are going back to the Moon, then Mars. I am updating my budget to include an additional $1.6 billion so that we can return to Space in a BIG WAY!

Big NASA news! The President has submitted an FY2020 budget amendment that provides an increase of $1.6 billion for our Moon 2024 efforts. We are going.

This is the down payment NASA needs to move forward with design, development and exploration. It includes funding for:

• Human lunar landing system
  
• SLS and Orion
  
• Exploration technologies
  
• Robotic exploration of the Moon's polar regions

While there are many steps ahead in the budget and appropriations process, this is an exciting time to be a part of the NASA family!

posted 05-13-2019 05:45 PM               

America to the Moon by 2024

NASA's FY 2020 Budget Amendment Summary

The President challenged NASA to land the first American woman and next American man at the South Pole of the Moon by 2024, followed by a sustained presence on the Moon by 2028.
This FY 2020 budget amendment provides an increase of $1.6 billion above the President's initial $21 billion budget request to accelerate our return to the lunar surface. This additional investment is a down payment on NASA's efforts to land humans on the Moon by 2024, and is required to achieve that bold objective. It's the boost NASA needs to move forward with design, development and exploration.
For 60 years, American investment in NASA has yielded innumerable returns through advances in science, technology, medicine, education and industry. Exploring the Moon helps us create a vibrant future:

• Establishes American leadership and strategic presence
  
• Proves technologies, capabilities and new business approaches for future missions to Mars
  
• Leads groundbreaking science about the Moon and the solar system
  
• Inspires a new generation, and encourages careers in STEM
  
• Drives development of technologies of the future
  
• Expands U.S. global economic impact; and
  
• Grows U.S. industry and international partnerships.

Budget Amendment Breakdown

This is a good budget amendment for NASA, on top of a strong initial budget request. It adds funding for deep space exploration, science and technology. Outside of descoping Gateway capabilities, no NASA programs were cut:

• Human Lunar Landing System: This budget includes $1 billion to enable NASA to begin supporting the development of commercial human lunar landing systems three years earlier than previously envisioned to bring humans to the Moon's surface by 2024.
  
  • This acquisition strategy will allow NASA to purchase an integrated commercial lunar lander that will transport astronauts from lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back.

  • Focusing Gateway development on capabilities needed to support a lunar landing of 2024 allowed a scope reduction of $321 million. This budget amendment shifts potential development of additional Gateway capabilities into the future.
  
  
• Space Launch System Rocket and Orion Spacecraft: With an additional $651 million for SLS and Orion, this budget supports the most powerful rocket in the world and our new spacecraft to ultimately take the astronauts to the staging point for reaching the lunar surface, the Gateway in lunar orbit.

• Exploration Technology: An additional $132 million for technologies that will support NASA to advance key precursor capabilities on the lunar surface. This includes various exploration technologies like solar electric propulsion and a demonstration converting polar ice to water.

• Science: An augmentation of $90 million to enable increased robotic exploration of the Moon's polar regions in advance of a human mission.

We Are Going Together

To land American astronauts on the Moon by 2024, we are working through the acquisition approach for the various projects. Our efforts will include new work at NASA centers to provide the key technologies and scientific payloads needed for the lunar surface, adding to efforts already underway across the country.

To achieve our goals, we will not go forward alone. Strong commercial partnerships will accelerate our human exploration plans. International partners also remain a vital part of our lunar plan and will contribute to the goal of creating a sustained lunar presence by 2028.

Going forward, additional funds will be required in the 2020s, and a refined estimate will be submitted as part of the FY 2021 President's budget request.

posted 05-13-2019 10:54 PM               

Officials insisted the re-allocation of the Pell Grant money would have no impact on those receiving grants, which help low-income students pay for college.

"This does not cut any spending for Pell Grant programs as the budget continues to ensure all students will get their full Pell Grant and keeps the program on sound fiscal footing," Office of Management and Budget spokesman Wesley Denton said in a statement.

posted 05-26-2019 09:23 AM               

Last month, Vice President Pence announced that we are headed back to the moon. I am with him, in spirit and aspiration. Having been there, I can say it is high time we returned. When Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and I went to the moon 50 years ago this July, we did so with a mission. Apollo 11 aimed to prove America's can-do commitment to space exploration, as well as its national security and technological superiority. We did all that. We also "Came in Peace for all Mankind." More of that is needed now.

Today, many nations have eyes for the moon, from China and Russia to friends in Europe and Middle East. That is all good. The United States should cooperate — and offer itself as a willing team leader — in exploring every aspect of the moon, from its geology and topography to its hydrology and cosmic history. In doing so, we can take "low-Earth orbit" cooperation to the moon, openly, eagerly and collegially.

Meanwhile, another looming orb — the red one — should become a serious focus of U.S. attention. Mars is waiting to be discovered, not by clever robots and rovers — though I support NASA's unmanned missions — but by living, breathing, walking, talking, caring and daring men and women.

posted 06-07-2019 01:23 PM               

From President Donald Trump on Twitter today (June 7):

For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!

posted 06-07-2019 02:49 PM               

...including Mars (of which the Moon is a part)

posted 06-07-2019 05:06 PM               

As the President said, NASA is using the moon to send humans to Mars! Right now, Curiosity and InSight are on Mars and will soon be joined by the Mars 2020 rover and the Mars helicopter.

posted 06-07-2019 08:28 PM               

Trump’s tweet took the space community by surprise. There was no indication prior to that tweet that the White House was reconsidering the goal of returning humans to the moon by 2024, or at all. A human lunar return has been national policy since President Trump signed Space Policy Directive 1 in December 2017...

A White House official, speaking on background, argued that Mars has always been the long-term goal of the administration. "We have asked Congress for additional resources to get to the Moon by 2024, which will enable us to get to Mars roughly a decade after creating a sustainable presence on the lunar surface," the official said.

posted 06-13-2019 08:00 PM               

That would mean adding another $4 billion to $6 billion per year, on average, to the agency's budget, which is already expected to be about $20 billion annually.

Bridenstine's remarks are the first time that NASA has shared a total cost estimate for its moon program, which is called Artemis (after the Greek goddess of the moon) and could send people to the moon for the first time in half a century...

The $20 to $30 billion cost estimate is less expensive than some had predicted — though they're not necessarily the final figures. Bridenstine acknowledged that spaceflight can be dangerous and unpredictable, so it's practically impossible to settle on an accurate price tag.

"We're negotiating within the administration," he said. "We're talking to [the federal Office of Management and Budget]; we're talking to the National Space Council."

posted 06-23-2019 09:55 AM               

On September 12, 1962, John F. Kennedy made his famous we are going to the moon speech. At that time we had nothing to get there. No flight hardware, no launchpads, no vehicle processing facilities, no rocket engines powerful enough to lift the payload, no lander to get us to the surface, no computers to help with the design and most of all no proven science to rely on for any of this, It was all new.

With the total lack of all hardware, software and support facilities it took the USA less then 8 years to develop all of this and to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth.

Now we are going back to the moon. We have everything listed above built, either flight tested or undergoing testing and almost ready to go. With almost no development needed, no infrastructure to build for launch operations, there is only habitat and lunar logistics to consider. NASA has been working on lunar operations for many years and we have super powerful computers to aid in our designs. With most of our issues solved our hardware built, our designs well underway, NASA now says it will take 10 years and 30 billion dollars to accomplish this task.

I am sorry but the only rationale that I can come up with is mismanagement, waste and utter incompetence. SLS is years behind and billions over budget. We need management that can run an efficient operations and delegate operations to qualified and capable people, that can keep development and construction on track, that can see the problem during development and not far after the failure. We need contractors that return to quality manufacturing and be held to account when they fail and most of all a country that stands behind the idea of space exploration.

posted 06-24-2019 12:53 AM               

The Apollo program overcame some serious setbacks and disasters, including the Apollo 1 fire and crew loss, to successfully achieve the goal set upon it within the timeline laid down. Many of the interviews with the people involved with the Apollo program state that they felt that they were doing their part in a grand plan, and everybody knew what the goal was.

The programs in place today have happened from former programs and plans. Consecutive administrations laid out dreams and wish lists of what could be, however many of these schemes were fashioned to prevent job losses, maintain some kind of ability to conduct large spaceflight programs, and maintain the United States ability to lead the field of science and technology within the space industry.

While the space shuttle program was a fantastic engineering achievement, it missed a lot of marks and was never allowed to evolve as a system. I could rattle off a huge list of what should or could have happened if the shuttle flew before Skylab re-entered, of what may have been if the Saturn series of rockets had been maintained. All of these systems perhaps should have been allowed to evolve as designs and benefit from improvements and advancements made in materials and technology.

The SLS rocket has occurred because the space shuttle system retirement, with instructions to strip the old program of as many useable assets as possible, maintain some of the workforce and capability, and plod along at a rate that allows technology to overtake the design between missions.

There has not been a concise directive about what form NASA's next generation of development should take form consecutive administrations, and a failure to do so has left the industry scrambling to be a part of whatever was on the table.

A layman would have difficulty understanding why it is so problematic to take the fuel tank and solid rocket motors from the space shuttle, make them bigger, and still not have them ready to fly a decade after the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was signed. Part of this act stated to "Provide a sustainable space exploration program to incorporate new technologies and in-space capabilities." However, no program came to fruition within the 2016 timeline laid down. People familiar with the concept of the Apollo era heavy-lift rocket may have a hard time figuring out what is so difficult getting a heavy lift rocket into service without being aware of the intricacies of government budgets, programs, management.

I often wonder why the SLS rocket is allowed to continue development along the same path, while technology has overtaken the architecture of the time SLS was shoehorned into being.

The original intent of the service and propulsion module for Orion has been changed, delayed, taken off the table, or abandoned, and Orion has been designed to do many things well, but none of them great. The Apollo command module was designed for a specific purpose, and nothing more. This simple approach resulted in mission success, and it rode upon a service module overengineered and overpowered for propose (a module that also worked for LEO missions).

Questions about what directions need to be issued to enable NASA to manage the next phase of the journey further from Earth can be easily defined. The recent mixed messages being transmitted from Washington about going to the Moon seem to confuse the public and the space industry management about what level of commitment and intent any program in play will receive. Asking a dozen companies to put forward schemes and ideas on how to achieve things indicates that there is not a solid plan at play, and support of any potential program will wane without an enthusiastic public and industry to let the administers know what they want.

The technology to fly a crew to the Moon, land, walk around, drive around, and come home, exists. The technology to fly a vehicle to Mars, land it autonomously, and drive it remotely exists. The technology to launch and fly back a first stage rocket exists and the environment of the lunar surface is understood. Long duration spaceflight in LEO has established what type of questions need to be asked about extended time in space, and the hazards of radiation and other environmental factors can be addressed or reduced.

This leaves the unknowns and the risk, combined with the cost, as a counterbalance on the scale used to measure the feasibility of any program. Fear of any of these renders the whole thing moot, and programs will plod along touting benefits and advantages without achieving the mission objective.

Some of the children who watched Apollo land on the Moon now have grandchildren of their own. A generation of people grew up without seeing humans venture further from home, and government commitment to any program only continues while the governors believe that there is either something in it for them, of that that the program is what the people want.

The resultant from all this has equated in where we are today. A program without a clear destination or timeline. Every program that is delayed or stalled cost additional funds, and continually moving the goalposts has led many fans to pack up and leave. The risk-averse have filled the grandstands.

I do not have an issue with NASA per se, my issue is with the lack of specific direction and support for any program, a lack of accountability for failed or undelivered enterprise, and constant failure to enable design evolution and development of the existing design. There is no one administration or party to blame for this lack of motivation. The decline has been in force for many decades through many administrations. I put some slight hope in the 'Return astronauts to the moon by 2024' announcement made by Pence, and I admit that a part of me felt excitement over a new program of action.

Recovering an asteroid and towing it somewhere to study can only yield results that boffins and scientists understand or care for. Today's public wants spacecraft with cameras showing every angle of a launch or mission, with surround sound and immersive experiences that cater to everybody. The next people to walk on the Moon, whatever nation they are from, better take some time out to shine a spotlight back on earth, so that the neigh Sayers have something new to discuss. NASA needs to provide the public with the entertainment so that they receive the support needed.

posted 09-19-2019 01:00 PM            

If that aspirational date of 2024 is to be realised then it will take a miracle of epic proportions.

posted 09-19-2019 06:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
A layman would have difficulty understanding why it is so problematic to take the fuel tank and solid rocket motors from the space shuttle, make them bigger, and still not have them ready to fly a decade after the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was signed.

---

Once one really looks into Apollo, knowing how many things NASA really didn't "get" even during the program, it becomes amazing we sent astronauts there and had them all come back from those launches.

Simply put, without such a high-speed and pressing mandate to go to the Moon, supported politically for a little while, we never would have landed people there. Losing the orbiters Challenger and Columbia slapped America back to reality more so than the Apollo 1 fire had, in my opinion. After that, the laymen SURELY understood the risk and the cost of going into space.

Accordingly, in a risk-adverse world we live in now where even those in the military are practically bubble-wrapped for combat (seriously, nobody wore bullet proof armor when I served in the 90s and early 2000s), nobody wants to accept the risks that NASA took send people to the Moon in the 1960s.

posted 10-01-2019 11:00 AM               

The (Republican-led) Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 26 approved (31 to 0) an appropriations bill that provided $744.1 million for lunar lander development, versus the White House's request for $1 billion. The committee report stated:

While there is support for the mission, it is difficult to weigh the impacts of the accelerated mission on the overall budget of NASA with only a single year budget proposal.

...the Committee has provided funds to allow for NASA to advance its human exploration program and awaits further definition of the program and its estimated associated costs.

posted 01-27-2020 09:54 AM               

"The Moon to Mars program shall have the interim goal of sending a crewed mission to the lunar surface by 2028 and a goal of sending a crewed mission to orbit Mars by 2033," the bill states.

The bill would direct NASA to have "full ownership" of a lunar lander rather than buy services from companies. It would also require at least one uncrewed and one crewed test flight of the lander, something not explicitly required by NASA in its current plans...

Moreover, the bill directs NASA to develop a human lunar lander "as an integrated lunar landing system carried on an Exploration Upper Stage-enhanced Space Launch System," known as SLS Block 1B...

The bill directs NASA to identify "the minimum set of human and robotic lunar surface activities that must be completed to enable a human mission to Mars" and how NASA will complete those activities within five years of the first crewed landing under the program.

posted 01-27-2020 11:15 AM               

1. Looks like there will be more reporting back to Congress than ever before. Is this micro-managing? I think there have been several Dilbert cartoons about this.

2. The 2024 lunar landing goal seems too close to me to adequately design and build the equipment. Heck, Bridenstine hasn't even been able to deliver a detailed cost breakdown for Artemis to Congress and it has been almost three-quarters of a year. A 2028 date seems too far as it only allows five years between the lunar landing and the Mars landing. Maybe 2026 would be a better choice? That way there is a seven year period until the first Mars landing.

3. I like the idea of different Orion service modules for different missions. Hope to see this expanded upon, better yet, funded.

4. Having NASA take ownership of the lunar lander is interesting. I wonder what motivated THAT shift?

5. This is certainly a windfall for Boeing. The proscribed rate of two lunar landings a year means four SLS launches a year, plus those for other non-lunar landing missions such as the Europa Clipper etc.

6. This bill does not address the fact that Pad 39B is, inofitself, a single-point failure. One pad explosion of an SLS at the pad and that 2033 Mars landing date goes right out the window. As info, the spreadsheet I examined gave an April 2033 launch for a December 2033 arrival at Mars.

7. I did not see any reference to the length of stay on Mars before beginning the return to Earth. Maybe the politicians are finally leaving something for the engineers.

posted 01-27-2020 02:15 PM               

To your last point, just to clarify, the 2033 mission is to orbit Mars only.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine shared his first public reaction to the bill on Twitter:

While there are challenges with the House Authorization Bill (limited commercial partnerships, limited Moon activities, etc.), consider the positives:

• Strong, bipartisan support for Moon to Mars agenda
  
• All major Artemis programs authorized
  
• Includes Gateway to Mars

More to come.

posted 01-27-2020 03:29 PM               

I guess my mind rejected the premise. I can't believe our representatives would insist on sending US astronauts on a risky seven-month trip to Mars, have them stay in orbit around Mars from December 2033 until March of 2035 (when the next Mars to Earth window opens) and not land. Then they will have to spend another seven months getting back home. If you want to check out the equipment, send the vehicle(s) without a crew. No need to unnecessarily risk lives for minimal scientific return and questionable bragging rights.

posted 01-27-2020 03:46 PM               

NASA Authorization Bill Update

I would like to thank the Committee for producing a comprehensive NASA authorization bill. I am particularly encouraged that the bill is proceeding on a bipartisan basis, reflecting a consensus on a Moon to Mars approach. Maintaining a bipartisan, consensus approach is critical to constancy of purpose and supporting a long-term national commitment to the human exploration of the Moon and Mars. The bill envisions a destination of Mars while supporting missions to the Moon as the most effective strategy to achieve that critical, shared goal. NASA would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee in a bipartisan way, as we did with the Senate Commerce Committee, on some modifications.

I am concerned that the bill imposes some significant constraints on our approach to lunar exploration. As you know, NASA has successfully fostered the development of a rapidly expanding commercial economy for access to space. We would like to continue building on this success as we develop the most efficient mission architectures and partnership approaches to accomplish our shared goals.

NASA seeks to expand the sphere of economic activity deeper into space by conducting space exploration and development with commercial and international partners. Without the dynamic participation of commercial partners, our chances of creating a sustainable exploration program are significantly diminished. In particular, we are concerned that the bill's approach to developing a human lander system as fully government-owned and directed would be ineffective. The approach established by the bill would inhibit our ability to develop a flexible architecture that takes advantage of the full array of national capabilities – government and private sector – to accomplish national goals. NASA would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee to develop language that would support a broader national and international effort that would maximize progress toward our shared exploration goals through the efficient application of our available resources.

NASA is fully committed to a lunar exploration program that supports and enables human missions to Mars. The Committee should be aware that the exploration of Mars is a very challenging goal both technically and from a resource perspective. If we are going to accomplish this goal, we will need the flexibility to rapidly develop technical expertise using the Moon and to fully engage commercial and international partners. We do think that the bill's concerns for limiting activities on the Moon could be counterproductive. If we are going to explore Mars in a safe and sustainable way, we will require a strong in situ resource utilization capability and significant technology development using the surface of the Moon. NASA would appreciate more flexibility in defining lunar surface activities that may contribute directly to Mars exploration.

NASA subject matter experts are now closely reviewing the available bill text to identify issues and concerns of a more technical, detailed nature, and we would appreciate an opportunity to share the results of this review with the Committee at the appropriate time.

We would welcome an opportunity to work with the Committee on a bill that would accommodate a broader partnership approach. I appreciate the Committee's bipartisan efforts and congratulate you on producing this bipartisan consensus in favor of a Moon to Mars exploration program.

posted 01-29-2020 11:35 AM               

While NASA had been planning on building an outpost on and around the moon, the House bill would direct the agency to focus instead on developing the technologies to put astronauts in orbit around Mars by 2033. Instead of serving as a staging point for the moon, as NASA intends, the lunar space station, known as Gateway, would exist to test technologies in deep space needed for Mars under the House bill.

posted 02-04-2020 09:35 PM               

In reaffirming our heritage as a free nation, we must remember that America has always been a frontier nation. Now we must embrace the next frontier, America's manifest destiny in the stars.

I am asking the Congress to fully fund the Artemis program to ensure that the next man and the first woman on the moon will be American astronauts — using this as a launching pad to ensure that America is the first nation to plant its flag on Mars.

posted 02-05-2020 07:40 AM               

Unlike Apollo, that had the nation behind the program, Artemis and Gateway keep getting changed. A new political reality occurs, so easy to cut the NASA budget and despite billions already spent, programs get canceled or delayed.

posted 02-07-2020 08:24 AM               

The increase includes nearly $3 billion in new funding to develop human landers, [administration] officials said, with total agency outlays projected to climb to $25.6 billion in one of the largest overall spending increases requested for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since the 1990s.

... NASA aims to solicit competing plans for lunar landers, according to a senior administration official, which require a big initial government investment. Previously, NASA targeted some $600 million for such programs, which now are proposed to receive some $3.3 billion.

... Roughly $400 million is envisioned to demonstrate, among other things, extraction of water and oxygen from lunar sources and ways to produce fuel for both spacecraft and boosters on that surface. Human exploration to Mars and elsewhere will require such capabilities.

posted 02-10-2020 11:40 AM               

Leading the Exploration of the Moon and Mars

America is leading the world in a new era of space exploration that will send the first woman and the next man to the Moon in 2024 and build a sustainable presence on the lunar surface. Through learning to live and work on the Moon, the United States and our international and commercial partners will develop the experience, technology, and systems that we will need to eventually send humans to Mars. These efforts will continue America's standing as the world leader in space exploration and inspire the next generation of explorers, researchers, scientists, artists, and engineers around the world.

In support of this vision, the FY 2021 Budget is one of the strongest budgets in NASA's history.

Landing on the Moon by 2024, Sustainable Surface Missions, and Preparing for Mars

The Budget provides $25.2 billion for NASA in FY 2021, a 12 percent increase from the 2020 enacted level. Of this amount, $12.3 billion will support the systems, people, and facilities needed to land and operate on the Moon and prepare for a future human landing on Mars. The Budget provides sustained robust funding from FY 2021 to FY 2025 for exploration – through the date of the next lunar landing and beyond.

• Human Lunar Landers. The Budget provides more than $3.3 billion in FY 2021 to support the development of human lunar lander systems that will take astronauts from orbit around the Moon down to the surface. The strategy for developing these landers relies on competition, industry innovation, and robust Government oversight with the goal of delivering safe, reliable landing systems that can enable affordable and sustainable exploration.

• Transportation Systems. The Budget continues development of the Space Launch System rocket, Orion crew capsule, and their ground systems, which together will take astronauts from Earth to the orbit around the Moon, where they will rendezvous with lunar landers. With the $4 billion provided in the Budget, NASA will work to complete these systems and start to establish a regular flight cadence.

• Surface Capabilities. Once astronauts set foot on the Moon, they will need a range of capabilities for a sustainable long-term presence and in preparation for Mars exploration. The Budget funds surface spacesuits ($175 million) and initial work on a surface habitat and rovers ($212 million). The Budget also provides $254 million for commercial landing services that will deliver science, technology, and exploration-focused instruments to the lunar surface.

• Technology Development. The Budget funds more than $430 million for a Lunar Surface Innovation Initiative that will enable human and robotic exploration on the Moon and future operations on Mars. The Initiative includes support for technology development and demonstrations for utilizing the Moon's resources, generating the power needed for habitation and exploration, and navigating in extreme surface and subsurface environments. The Budget provides $20 million for research grants and competitions to initiate work on the most challenging parts of a human mission to Mars as well as $44 million for new technology development to address opportunities specific to Mars, such as the ability to use carbon dioxide in its atmosphere to generate oxygen for life support systems and rocket fuel.

• Robotic Exploration of Mars. The Budget provides $529 million for the robotic exploration of Mars to pave the way for future human exploration, including a mission that will return samples of Martian soil and rocks to the Earth for the first time and a new mission to map the near-surface water ice that future explorers will use.

Redirects Funds from Lower Priority Science and Education Programs to Higher Priorities. Consistent with prior budgets, the Budget provides no funding for the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, two earth science missions, and the Office of Science, Technology, engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) engagement. The Budget continues to support education activities such as internships and fellowships funded outside of the Office of STEM engagement. The Budget also proposes to terminate the SOFIA telescope, which has not proven to be as scientifically productive as other missions.

posted 02-10-2020 12:01 PM               

What have we accomplished and what's ahead in our mission to explore the Moon, Mars and worlds beyond? Tune in at 1 p.m. EST, Mon, Feb. 10 for a "State of NASA" update from NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine on the Artemis program and more. He'll speak live from Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.