It’s official: Trump administration turns NASA back toward the Moon

[Grey Havoc]

There is another topic that touches on this elsewhere in the forum but at the moment I can't find it for some reason.

http://spacenews.com/trumps-space-policy-reaches-for-mars-and-the-stars/
http://spacenews.com/nasa-awaits-transition-and-budget-details/

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/9/13574194/nasa-earth-science-trump-presidency-space-policy-private-partnerships

http://www.space.com/34677-president-trump-nasa-space-policy.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/trump-space-policy-nasa-moon-earth-exploring-mars/

http://aviationweek.com/space/trump-nasa-transition-set-motion (Registration may be required)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/11/18/with-trump-gingrich-and-gop-calling-the-shots-nasa-may-go-back-to-the-moon/

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306741-big-change-on-the-horizon-for-nasa-under-trump

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2016/1118-nasa-under-trump.html

http://qz.com/841099/what-a-trump-presidency-means-for-nasa-and-the-future-of-space-exploration/

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-rep-jim-bridenstine-seen-as-top-choice-for-nasa-chief-1483213187

Rep. Jim Bridenstine, an Oklahoma Republican with a record supporting both commercial space ventures and traditional manned exploration programs, appears to be the leading candidate to become the next NASA administrator, according to people familiar with the matter.

The lawmaker’s name emerged early during the Trump administration transition process, and he has been interviewed by Vice President-elect Mike Pence, these people said. But they emphasized that Mr. Bridenstine, a former Navy pilot who has actively sought the position, still is waiting for a final signoff by President-elect Donald Trump and top aides.

A third-term congressman from Tulsa and an outspoken Trump supporter before the general election, Mr. Bridenstine also has been considered and interviewed as a possible nominee for Air Force Secretary.

But Sen. Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma’s senior GOP Senator, has expressed opposition to such a choice for political and policy reasons, according to two people familiar with the details. And transition officials believe others are more likely to be tapped for the Air Force job, these people said.

An announcement about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s leadership could come as early as next week, according to aerospace industry officials and others tracking the process, though they cautioned the timetable may stretch and the outcome could change.

[snip]

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/02/under-trump-astronauts-might-chart-new-path-familiar-place-moon/97415554/

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/under-trump-moon-regains-interest-possible-destination-060128841.html

 

[Flyaway]

All I can say to this is good, shame it’s about a decade late.

"We will refocus America's space program toward human exploration and discovery," Pence wrote. "That means launching American astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit for the first time since 1972. It means establishing a renewed American presence on the Moon, a vital strategic goal. And from the foundation of the Moon, America will be the first nation to bring mankind to Mars."

There are several notable phrases in there. The first, "on the Moon," is fairly obvious. In recent years NASA has talked about sending humans to a space station near the Moon but not landing astronauts there. Second, Pence identifies America as the "first nation" to send humans to Mars. This raises questions about the extent to which such a venture, which almost certainly must ultimately have international support to succeed across multiple administrations, will be cast as an international venture.

Finally, Pence refers to bringing "mankind" to Mars, rather than the more inclusive "humankind." This is curious, because when Pence visited Houston to introduce the 2017 astronaut class, five of the 12 candidates were women, as was half of the 2013 class.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1

 

[NeilChapman]

All I can say to this is good, shame it’s about a decade late.

"We will refocus America's space program toward human exploration and discovery," Pence wrote. "That means launching American astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit for the first time since 1972. It means establishing a renewed American presence on the Moon, a vital strategic goal. And from the foundation of the Moon, America will be the first nation to bring mankind to Mars."

There are several notable phrases in there. The first, "on the Moon," is fairly obvious. In recent years NASA has talked about sending humans to a space station near the Moon but not landing astronauts there. Second, Pence identifies America as the "first nation" to send humans to Mars. This raises questions about the extent to which such a venture, which almost certainly must ultimately have international support to succeed across multiple administrations, will be cast as an international venture.

Finally, Pence refers to bringing "mankind" to Mars, rather than the more inclusive "humankind." This is curious, because when Pence visited Houston to introduce the 2017 astronaut class, five of the 12 candidates were women, as was half of the 2013 class.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/?amp=1

Mankind, by definition is inclusive of the entire human race.

This seems to line up w/SpaceX BFR plans. No doubt the Trump administration will see this is a way of making serious progress during this administration. Smart move. Also will be good for SpaceX.

 

[sferrin]

"Finally, Pence refers to bringing "mankind" to Mars, rather than the more inclusive "humankind." This is curious, because when Pence visited Houston to introduce the 2017 astronaut class, five of the 12 candidates were women, as was half of the 2013 class."

Leave it to Ars to focus on the truly important. :

 

[Triton]

"Full Replay: 1st National Space Council Meeting with VP Mike Pence"
by Sarah Lewin, Space.com Associate Editor | October 5, 2017 12:44pm ET

Source:
https://www.space.com/38366-new-national-space-council-meeting-webcast.html

 

[Sherman Tank]

Given the administration's dismal track record at everything I'll believe this is a real program when I see the actual launch, and not a minute before.

This is meant as a huge distracting thing, and probably little else.

 

[jcf]

"a renewed American presence on the Moon, a vital strategic goal."

Strategic in what way?, that is very odd phrasing.

 

[NeilChapman]

"a renewed American presence on the Moon, a vital strategic goal."

Strategic in what way?, that is very odd phrasing.

PRC is planning on going. Plus, great staging base for Mars trips. Plus, you don't know what you can do until you get there.

 

[Moose]

Constellation 2.0, now with even less detail on funding plans.

 

[DWG]

great staging base for Mars trips.

Why climb out of one hole and then voluntarily drop yourself in another? If you want a staging post, the Lagrange points are accessible on a far lower energy budget.

 

[NeilChapman]

great staging base for Mars trips.

Why climb out of one hole and then voluntarily drop yourself in another? If you want a staging post, the Lagrange points are accessible on a far lower energy budget.

Poor choice of words. By great staging base I was thinking that it is a "political" staging base - a logical next step. It stokes the imagination in the public. It says "hey, great and cool things are possible!" It will create a sense of, literally, "other"-worldwide wonder about the United States. You learn how to "live and operate" on another stellar object. There will be problems that occur that create new opportunities - that you learn about while "closer to home".

 

[sferrin]

great staging base for Mars trips.

Why climb out of one hole and then voluntarily drop yourself in another? If you want a staging post, the Lagrange points are accessible on a far lower energy budget.

Because you have an entire planetary body to mine. You don't need to ship every single pound to your staging point. If you're not going to do that you may as well just use Earth orbit for your staging point.

 

[DWG]

Because you have an entire planetary body to mine.

And refine, and lift into orbit, and first you need to build the infrastructure to do that. The Moon makes sense if you are building an interplanetary civilization, where it can earn out the upfront logistical costs, it doesn't make sense for limited exploration missions to Mars. Lifting the resources direct from Earth is far lower risk than lifting the mining technology from Earth, bootstrapping an entire mining industry, with its own technological challenges, and hoping it comes through to allow you to lift the resources from the Moon.

The two primary risks to space programmes are cost and technical, and planning your Mars mission to be dependent on Lunar mining activity increases both. There are reasons to go to the Moon, but getting to Mars isn't one of them.

 

[NeilChapman]

Because you have an entire planetary body to mine.

And refine, and lift into orbit, and first you need to build the infrastructure to do that. The Moon makes sense if you are building an interplanetary civilization, where it can earn out the upfront logistical costs, it doesn't make sense for limited exploration missions to Mars. Lifting the resources direct from Earth is far lower risk than lifting the mining technology from Earth, bootstrapping an entire mining industry, with its own technological challenges, and hoping it comes through to allow you to lift the resources from the Moon.

The two primary risks to space programmes are cost and technical, and planning your Mars mission to be dependent on Lunar mining activity increases both. There are reasons to go to the Moon, but getting to Mars isn't one of them.

My experience is that many people have trouble "seeing" ones vision - until it actually happens. Then they get the spark.

 

[GTX]

Is it that time of this Presidency already...

George H. W. Bush
George W Bush
Barack Obama

 

[NeilChapman]

Is it that time of this Presidency already...

George H. W. Bush
George W Bush
Barack Obama

The difference seems to be Raptor engines and carbon fiber tanks.

 

[DWG]

Is it that time of this presidency already....

Well, he's already prepping two short, victorious wars; the desire to leave a glowing (hopefully not in the dark) legacy is clear.

 

[sferrin]

Is it that time of this presidency already....

Well, he's already prepping two short, victorious wars; the desire to leave a glowing (hopefully not in the dark) legacy is clear.

Two wars? Where?

 

[Sherman Tank]

So you're saying all the things he's been saying about North Korea and Iran are hot air? I hope so. If so we can harness all that hot air to launch an aerostat station into the mesosphere and take a major step towards colonizing Venus.

 

[bobbymike]

So you're saying all the things he's been saying about North Korea and Iran are hot air? I hope so. If so we can harness all that hot air to launch an aerostat station into the mesosphere and take a major step towards colonizing Venus.

Let's stick to the merits of the policy not politics and personality.

 

[Sherman Tank]

So you're saying all the things he's been saying about North Korea and Iran are hot air? I hope so. If so we can harness all that hot air to launch an aerostat station into the mesosphere and take a major step towards colonizing Venus.

Let's stick to the merits of the policy not politics and personality.

The merits are about the same for either, sadly, since this proposal is almost certainly never getting off the ground.

The shame of it is I'd be ecstatic if this was a serious commitment on Trump's part.

 

[royabulgaf]

I don't see the strategic either. My guess is he watched "Iron Sky" and thought it was a documentary.

 

[sferrin]

I don't see the strategic either. My guess is he watched "Iron Sky" and thought it was a documentary.

I'll bet he knows how many states there are though.

 

[DWG]

Let's stick to the merits of the policy not politics and personality.

Space policy is politics, that's inescapable.

 

[bobbymike]

Let's stick to the merits of the policy not politics and personality.

Space policy is politics, that's inescapable.

So you're saying all the things he's been saying about North Korea and Iran are hot air? I hope so. If so we can harness all that hot air to launch an aerostat station into the mesosphere and take a major step towards colonizing Venus.

Let's stick to the merits of the policy not politics and personality.

Notice I said 'politics AND personality'

But that said please point to A SINGLE WORD from the post I commented on that has any relevance to the policy, this thread or even the 'politics' of the policy. Maybe it is the obviously scientific proposition that a politicians bloviation can launch an aerostat?

 

[fredymac]

Space policy is politics, that's inescapable.

Any government program of any kind is based on politicians voting their preferences. You can either focus on the program itself or you can attack the politician. Doing the former requires a little more effort.

I do not believe a Mars based project is financially viable based on NASA's spending behavior. Going back to the moon or building another space station both suffer the "been there done that" history. Doing something tangential in order to build an infrastructure that lets you do what your really want is too convoluted to attract sustained political support. I would have thought a program based on "anybody into space" via targeted R&D to drastically cut space launch costs might be able to garner public support but it seems I have to pin my hopes on private billionaires developing this capability for their own personal reasons.

 

[Moose]

I don't see the strategic either. My guess is he watched "Iron Sky" and thought it was a documentary.

Doubt he had even that much exposure to it, this has all the marks of a policy crafted for him to find out about when he reads it off a teleprompter. This is (supposedly) a major policy shift of the US yet the Chief Executive has yet to so much as tweet on it, without even super-optimistic early numbers given, and just after his administration announced a 3% cut to the agency's budget. Team Trump's desire for a Moon plan has been an open secret since long before the election, so sure I believe "go to the moon" is a goal his people are at least nominally behind. But he's not in the driver's seat on this decision, not even with the engine off and making "vroom" noises.

 

[NeilChapman]

I don't see the strategic either. My guess is he watched "Iron Sky" and thought it was a documentary.

Doubt he had even that much exposure to it, this has all the marks of a policy crafted for him to find out about when he reads it off a teleprompter. This is (supposedly) a major policy shift of the US yet the Chief Executive has yet to so much as tweet on it, without even super-optimistic early numbers given, and just after his administration announced a 3% cut to the agency's budget. Team Trump's desire for a Moon plan has been an open secret since long before the election, so sure I believe "go to the moon" is a goal his people are at least nominally behind. But he's not in the driver's seat on this decision, not even with the engine off and making "vroom" noises.

Not sure what he has to do to be "in the driver's seat." Does he have to run be program manager, run NASA or just say "Elon's got some good stuff here, see what we can do with it?"

I just watched some archived news video of automobile factory closings in 2009 as well as other plant shutdowns and unemployment reporting. Visceral stuff. Proud men and women that had worked for decades had to shut down plants and, as a parting humiliation, actually pack and ship their equipment to Mexico. POTUS tapped into that with the campaign slogan. I'm sure he recognizes the value, you could even say the "show business" value of "winning" in space.

SpaceX had 20 launches between 2010 and 2016. They're on track for 20 launches in 2017. In part, because of SpaceX success, the USAF alone is planning 48 launches in 2018. SpaceX has made significant headway on Raptor engines and reusable stages for their redesigned BFR concept. These advances, associated cost reductions and the possibilities for nation have not even gotten the public attention yet.

If SpaceX continues to be successful, no doubt there will be opportunities for public-private partnerships that may allow NASA to rethink it's future development and mission planning spend. So, is POTUS planning on "riding the gravy train?" You bet. He'll be the first one to claim success for the "humongous, big, beautiful rocket that we built."

 

[sferrin]

So you're saying all the things he's been saying about North Korea and Iran are hot air? I hope so. If so we can harness all that hot air to launch an aerostat station into the mesosphere and take a major step towards colonizing Venus.

You're going to be really upset when he wins in 2020.

 

[Moose]

I don't see the strategic either. My guess is he watched "Iron Sky" and thought it was a documentary.

Doubt he had even that much exposure to it, this has all the marks of a policy crafted for him to find out about when he reads it off a teleprompter. This is (supposedly) a major policy shift of the US yet the Chief Executive has yet to so much as tweet on it, without even super-optimistic early numbers given, and just after his administration announced a 3% cut to the agency's budget. Team Trump's desire for a Moon plan has been an open secret since long before the election, so sure I believe "go to the moon" is a goal his people are at least nominally behind. But he's not in the driver's seat on this decision, not even with the engine off and making "vroom" noises.

Not sure what he has to do to be "in the driver's seat." Does he have to run be program manager, run NASA or just say "Elon's got some good stuff here, see what we can do with it?"

I just watched some archived news video of automobile factory closings in 2009 as well as other plant shutdowns and unemployment reporting. Visceral stuff. Proud men and women that had worked for decades had to shut down plants and, as a parting humiliation, actually pack and ship their equipment to Mexico. POTUS tapped into that with the campaign slogan. I'm sure he recognizes the value, you could even say the "show business" value of "winning" in space.

SpaceX had 20 launches between 2010 and 2016. They're on track for 20 launches in 2017. In part, because of SpaceX success, the USAF alone is planning 48 launches in 2018. SpaceX has made significant headway on Raptor engines and reusable stages for their redesigned BFR concept. These advances, associated cost reductions and the possibilities for nation have not even gotten the public attention yet.

If SpaceX continues to be successful, no doubt there will be opportunities for public-private partnerships that may allow NASA to rethink it's future development and mission planning spend. So, is POTUS planning on "riding the gravy train?" You bet. He'll be the first one to claim success for the "humongous, big, beautiful rocket that we built."

Not saying he "has" to do any particular thing, I'm just trying to push back on the notion that this "yuuge" shift announced by the VP in a zero-detail speech that got less attention than POTUS' belated discovery that canned chicken is a thing that exists means Great things are going to happen because obviously it has robust support from the man on the golden toilet.

Sure, he will absolutely ride any gravy train that's within genital-grabbing distance, of that I have no doubt. And he'll not be the first nor last POTUS to get undeserved credit for a milestone achievement. But to get this done requires more than someone claiming credit, or it would have happened decades ago. So far there seems to be little more than wishful thinking behind the notion that this is something Donald Trump's going to put in serious time and effort rallying for.

As for the jobs issue, Well...A previous Administration bent over backwards to keep the Auto Industry's head above water and wasn't well rewarded for it, on the other hand many of the Mars Program jobs which do exist are in some regions with important electoral ramifications. The aforementioned administration found this out the hard way when they attempted a studied, comprehensive change of goals. SLS jobs might not follow Carrier jobs overseas if we ditch it to buy from SpaceX, but there's a lot of Congressional support for the current plan which will only be overcome with a lot of effort.

 

[Sherman Tank]

So you're saying all the things he's been saying about North Korea and Iran are hot air? I hope so. If so we can harness all that hot air to launch an aerostat station into the mesosphere and take a major step towards colonizing Venus.

You're going to be really upset when he wins in 2020.

What does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Jemiba]

What does that have to do with this thread?

Absolutely correct, please back to the theme of this thread, though some of the lasts post are funny to read !

 

[NeilChapman]

Not saying he "has" to do any particular thing, I'm just trying to push back on the notion that this "yuuge" shift announced by the VP in a zero-detail speech that got less attention than POTUS' belated discovery that canned chicken is a thing that exists means Great things are going to happen because obviously it has robust support from the man on the golden toilet.

Sure, he will absolutely ride any gravy train that's within genital-grabbing distance, of that I have no doubt. And he'll not be the first nor last POTUS to get undeserved credit for a milestone achievement. But to get this done requires more than someone claiming credit, or it would have happened decades ago. So far there seems to be little more than wishful thinking behind the notion that this is something Donald Trump's going to put in serious time and effort rallying for.

As for the jobs issue, Well...A previous Administration bent over backwards to keep the Auto Industry's head above water and wasn't well rewarded for it, on the other hand many of the Mars Program jobs which do exist are in some regions with important electoral ramifications. The aforementioned administration found this out the hard way when they attempted a studied, comprehensive change of goals. SLS jobs might not follow Carrier jobs overseas if we ditch it to buy from SpaceX, but there's a lot of Congressional support for the current plan which will only be overcome with a lot of effort.

Please refrain from the type of comments identified above.

--

Huh? Of course it's is a huge shift. The previous administration had no plans to send people to the moon. Here is the press release from the acting NASA administrator.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-on-national-space-council-policy-for-future-american-leadership-in

“The vice president also announced a call for renewed U.S. leadership in space – with a recommendation to the president that NASA help lead and shape the way forward. Specifically, NASA has been directed to develop a plan for an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system, returning humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations

The recommendation to the president would modify the existing National Space Policy to
provide focus and direction to some of NASA’s current activities and plans
and remove a previous guideline that NASA should undertake a human mission to an asteroid as the next human spaceflight milestone beyond low-Earth orbit.
...
Among new areas, we will work with industry and the international community on robotic lunar landers that explore the nature of the Moon and its resources, such as water.
...with the upcoming budget process, we will look to solidify this work with our new goals in place."

One wouldn't expect much detail with this being the NSC's first meeting. And there is no NASA administrator confirmed yet. Beyond that, between the DPRK is firing missiles over Japan and Kim Kardashian stating that "Selfies are over" it's no wonder there's not much attention. To be fair, people may not have listened, but POTUS made particular reference to "the private sector" when the NSC Executive Order was signed in June.

Perhaps you could be more specific about the "the current plan". I don't see anything that would take away from NASAs immediate plans other than the asteroid visit which had been already pulled from the budget prior to this meeting.

 

[Moose]

Please refrain from the type of comments identified above.

I shall do my best not to quote the man directly.

Huh? Of course it's is a huge shift.

My use of "yuge" in quotation marks wasn't an attempt to belittle the scope of any change of direction, I was using the man's own exaggeration of his accent to unsubtly point out that nearly all announcements and decisions from this Administration are padded with language intended to portray them as critical and earth-shattering. We are therefore reliant on our own ability to discern, based on the rest of the evidence available, just how much the current POTUS is interested in using the political power remaining to him to support/champion a major re-tasking of the space program.

I've not been trying in this thread to make qualitative judgement on a NASA plan which is so new it largely doesn't exist yet, I've been trying to point out that the Mike "kill the Shuttle to pay for Katrina Recovery" Pence speech is not the Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort. A big change requires a big commitment to take seriously, and so far there are nearly no signs of that commitment. Those who support a return to the moon, whatever the scope of that return, and who were critical of the previous Administration's vague plans to let non-NASA entities do things like lunar bases, should be critical of this lack of detail, lack of effort, and lack of commitment. Even while celebrating the goal, don't let the important things slide.

Perhaps you could be more specific about the "the current plan". I don't see anything that would take away from NASAs immediate plans other than the asteroid visit which had been already pulled from the budget prior to this meeting.

The laws of physics and budgets haven't changed since the Augustine Report, so if the plan is to create a lunar base (or arguably even if it's just landings) then something in NASA's plans has to change rather drastically to pay for a lunar outpost/base. It's fair to say "raptor engines and carbon fiber tanks" potentially change what's available to craft an architecture with, but there is an existing architecture with entrenched political support which must either be killed or heavily revised to take advantage of those sorts of developments. Whether you believe the plan becomes "buy SpaceX hardware to make a better vehicle" or "buy SpaceX vehicles/rides on SpaceX vehicles," the support for "heritage hardware" in Congress (which killed the previous Administration's plan to develop things like high-performance engines in favor of "shuttle heritage hardware") must be overcome. Lest we forget the reasons there are no current manned lander programs or deep space habitat programs, and that items like the SEP program exist on a budget of spare change. The fuzziness of plans beyond the first couple SLS flights, be they last month's fuzzy plans or this month's, aren't a result of not having the desire to do more.

 

[carmelo]

In your opinion is possible for SpaceX build a lunar lander starting from a Dragon capsule design?

 

[TomS]

In your opinion is possible for SpaceX build a lunar lander starting from a Dragon capsule design?

The answer appears to be no. There simply isn't enough potential delta-v in Crew Dragon to make it into a lunar lander, because it's much too heavy. Even to make it a lunar orbiter, you need more fuel than Crew Dragon currently carries.

https://thephysicsofspacex.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/feasibility-of-spacex-moon-landings/

You could probably use Crew Dragon with an enlarged trunk for the "Command module" equivalent, but you would still need a specialized (and probably two-stage) "lunar lander" equivalent. Using the existing SpaceX Falcon family hardware, you'd need two Falcon Heavy launches, one for the lander and one for Crew Dragon-Plus.

 

[NeilChapman]

Please refrain from the type of comments identified above.

I shall do my best not to quote the man directly.

Huh? Of course it's is a huge shift.

My use of "yuge" in quotation marks wasn't an attempt to belittle the scope of any change of direction, I was using the man's own exaggeration of his accent to unsubtly point out that nearly all announcements and decisions from this Administration are padded with language intended to portray them as critical and earth-shattering. We are therefore reliant on our own ability to discern, based on the rest of the evidence available, just how much the current POTUS is interested in using the political power remaining to him to support/champion a major re-tasking of the space program.

I've not been trying in this thread to make qualitative judgement on a NASA plan which is so new it largely doesn't exist yet, I've been trying to point out that the Mike "kill the Shuttle to pay for Katrina Recovery" Pence speech is not the Address at Rice University on the Nation's Space Effort. A big change requires a big commitment to take seriously, and so far there are nearly no signs of that commitment. Those who support a return to the moon, whatever the scope of that return, and who were critical of the previous Administration's vague plans to let non-NASA entities do things like lunar bases, should be critical of this lack of detail, lack of effort, and lack of commitment. Even while celebrating the goal, don't let the important things slide.

Perhaps you could be more specific about the "the current plan". I don't see anything that would take away from NASAs immediate plans other than the asteroid visit which had been already pulled from the budget prior to this meeting.

The laws of physics and budgets haven't changed since the Augustine Report, so if the plan is to create a lunar base (or arguably even if it's just landings) then something in NASA's plans has to change rather drastically to pay for a lunar outpost/base. It's fair to say "raptor engines and carbon fiber tanks" potentially change what's available to craft an architecture with, but there is an existing architecture with entrenched political support which must either be killed or heavily revised to take advantage of those sorts of developments. Whether you believe the plan becomes "buy SpaceX hardware to make a better vehicle" or "buy SpaceX vehicles/rides on SpaceX vehicles," the support for "heritage hardware" in Congress (which killed the previous Administration's plan to develop things like high-performance engines in favor of "shuttle heritage hardware") must be overcome. Lest we forget the reasons there are no current manned lander programs or deep space habitat programs, and that items like the SEP program exist on a budget of spare change. The fuzziness of plans beyond the first couple SLS flights, be they last month's fuzzy plans or this month's, aren't a result of not having the desire to do more.

Just don't see how there could be any detail available at this point. NASA will look at existing programs and timelines and see if there is a way to leverage the gains made by industry in the last few years.

Perhaps that will create opportunities? If industry can handle transport (faster, cheaper, better) NASA may be able to focus their attention on other tasks.