Eric Berger, the author of this article [0] on this departure is a very good source for space news. You might want to check his Twitter feed [1], there is more about this.
The Ars Technica comments on any Eric Berger article are usually pretty awesome. But don't start with this one, there's not much rocket scientists can add to political rumour and speculation. Start with "Rocket Report" which comes out every Friday morning.
The "Sr. Vice President of Production and Launch" at SpaceX has also just departed from SpaceX. Berger writes in the piece below that "[t]he timing is not great, with the most important launch of SpaceX's history looming on May 27, a crewed flight of the Dragon spacecraft."
> It had nothing to do with commercial crew,” he said. “It had to do with moving fast on Artemis, and I don’t want to characterize it in any more detail than that.” Artemis is NASA’s program to return people to the moon.
Pence blindsights NASA and contractors by moving timeline arbitrarily forward without a plan in a grandstanding speech. "At the direction of the President of the United States, it is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts to the moon within the next five years”. It's not a Tweet so NASA must scramble to make a plan. Funding for a new timetable is not there.
Gerstenmaier is removed without explanation as a head of HEO almost immediately after he testifies to congress. Gerstenmaier quits NASA to consult SpaceX.
Loverro comes in, is very bullish about the timetable. Now Loverro quits suddenly.
I think it's time for Jared to come in. If he can handle Middle-East peace and Covid-19, why not a Moon landing as well.
"Two people with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the personnel matter said his resignation was spurred when Loverro broke a rule during NASA’s recent procurement of a spacecraft capable of landing humans on the moon."[1]
My guess is that he was told: "Keep the moon landing on track for 2024 or you're fired." And the only way he could do so was to illegally expedite the selection process.
He very well could have made an stupid but honest mistake at some point prior to coming over to his current position (it looks like he was hired last October), and it finally caught up to him.
He guesses that Loverro violated rules around procurement, potentially by pushing Boeing to improve their proposal because he favored a SLS based solution.
While Mr Loverro offered no further explanation, he told the Axios news website that his decision to leave the agency was unrelated to the upcoming launch. "I have 100% faith in the success of that mission," he said.
It's an eye-catching headline but maybe there's nothing to see here. The resignation may be unrelated to the upcoming mission. I couldn't see anything in the article to suggest otherwise.
UK style, and this article is from the Guardian, is to capitalize only the first letter of acronyms that are pronounced like words, "Nasa" and "Nato" being frequent examples. When each letter is pronounced (AKA an initialism), they capitalize each letter, such as for the WHO: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52294623
It is an acronym, but it is rendered according to the house style of any given publication. The Guardian's style guide [1] says:
Use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase.
They don't have a rocket although one may be ready within the required time frame. However, they definitely don't have a lander and there's no way any current MIC contractor can go from proposals in Oct. 2019 to working flight hardware in four years. All they're doing now is working on study concepts. 2024 will not happen.
The most obvious retort -- the one that springs to mind first, is, "What makes you think that?" But that's not really the most useful question...
More usefully, I'd ask, "Why the Moon?"
The US has been there, the science is well known (which is not the same as saying the science is all done) and all you (the US) can do in a international consortium to "Moon" is give away the crown jewels in knowhow and tech. Add to that, it's a research mission down another gravity well. I'd think that Mars is a more attractive science target (if you're determined to get stuck with gravity wells), one of the Lagrange points more useful from an engineering/space exploration perspective as a way-station, the asteroids for science and potentially minerals/engineering/learning to build/do stuff in space and outside the Earth's magnetosphere, or the gas-giants' moons for science/the search for extraterrestrial life. And all of those are things that (for large values of `true`) only the US has the capability to do. Leave other nations to go back to the moon.
Do the stuff no-one else can do and that will hugely enhance US space capability over anyone else. (I say all this as a non-US person.)
NASA will get itself tied in politics and paperwork, NASA's contractors will take in as much money as possible, while doing not very much work, and Musk will 'aim' for 2024, but be closer to 2042.
[+] [-] _Microft|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasas-human-spacefli...
[1] https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/
[+] [-] hackerbabz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chosenbreed37|5 years ago|reply
It looks like the departing chief hadn't had the job for long. Might be a hot potato at the moment...
[+] [-] eternalban|5 years ago|reply
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/relativity-hires-spa...
[+] [-] nabla9|5 years ago|reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/19/nasas-h...
[+] [-] Nokinside|5 years ago|reply
NASA has plan to get into the Moon by 2028.
Pence blindsights NASA and contractors by moving timeline arbitrarily forward without a plan in a grandstanding speech. "At the direction of the President of the United States, it is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts to the moon within the next five years”. It's not a Tweet so NASA must scramble to make a plan. Funding for a new timetable is not there.
Gerstenmaier is removed without explanation as a head of HEO almost immediately after he testifies to congress. Gerstenmaier quits NASA to consult SpaceX.
Loverro comes in, is very bullish about the timetable. Now Loverro quits suddenly.
I think it's time for Jared to come in. If he can handle Middle-East peace and Covid-19, why not a Moon landing as well.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|5 years ago|reply
My guess is that he was told: "Keep the moon landing on track for 2024 or you're fired." And the only way he could do so was to illegally expedite the selection process.
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/19/nasas-h...
[+] [-] koheripbal|5 years ago|reply
If more concrete information comes out, I'm all ears.
...then again, what's all the playground politics worth anyway? nada
[+] [-] antishatter|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zhdc1|5 years ago|reply
He very well could have made an stupid but honest mistake at some point prior to coming over to his current position (it looks like he was hired last October), and it finally caught up to him.
[+] [-] the_duke|5 years ago|reply
He guesses that Loverro violated rules around procurement, potentially by pushing Boeing to improve their proposal because he favored a SLS based solution.
[+] [-] dz0ny|5 years ago|reply
https://axios.com/nasa-head-of-human-spaceflight-resigns-692...
[+] [-] nickpinkston|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chosenbreed37|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bovermyer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abrowne|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samizdis|5 years ago|reply
Use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-a#...
[+] [-] xwdv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csours|5 years ago|reply
That said, I hope humans get back to the moon soon.
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikro2nd|5 years ago|reply
More usefully, I'd ask, "Why the Moon?"
The US has been there, the science is well known (which is not the same as saying the science is all done) and all you (the US) can do in a international consortium to "Moon" is give away the crown jewels in knowhow and tech. Add to that, it's a research mission down another gravity well. I'd think that Mars is a more attractive science target (if you're determined to get stuck with gravity wells), one of the Lagrange points more useful from an engineering/space exploration perspective as a way-station, the asteroids for science and potentially minerals/engineering/learning to build/do stuff in space and outside the Earth's magnetosphere, or the gas-giants' moons for science/the search for extraterrestrial life. And all of those are things that (for large values of `true`) only the US has the capability to do. Leave other nations to go back to the moon.
Do the stuff no-one else can do and that will hugely enhance US space capability over anyone else. (I say all this as a non-US person.)
[+] [-] londons_explore|5 years ago|reply
NASA will get itself tied in politics and paperwork, NASA's contractors will take in as much money as possible, while doing not very much work, and Musk will 'aim' for 2024, but be closer to 2042.
[+] [-] economicslol|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrower123|5 years ago|reply
The man has already launched a car into space as a stunt.