Like it or not, the job of the NASA administrator is not to actually do science or engineering, it is to fight for the agency’s budget with the President and Congress—a job for which political schmoozer extraordinaire Bill Nelson is eminently qualified, much more so than “real astronaut” Charlie Bolden, who struggled in this role despite being the epitome of the hypercompetent NASA pilot. I know which one I want at the controls of my aircraft, and which one I want on the witness stand on behalf of my government agency.

Sounds like he’s so good at fighting for budget that he gets it in spite of questionable spending decisions.

A lot of the questionable spending decisions are part of the strings he has to accept to get the budget.

Remember, it's Senate Launch System.

"Dark" in this context could be ambigious. It is possible he meant that the sun didn't shine there (it was literally dark0, which is false. Another possibility its its "dark" to direct communication from Earth, which is what people who know what they are talking about understand it to mean and literally say.

What's more troubling is the next statement - "We don't know whats there". Well, we've done tons of imaging on that side, since the 1960s. So I think we know something about whats there. Its just that there doesn't appear to be that much interesting there, that merits a specific landing mission.

He probably thinks libration means a drink.

Relevant education and experience in aerospace fields is not important in Congress. Neither is factual correctness.

Politics and rules lawyering are what matter in that space.

Though there's a sense of the word "dark" that means it's unseen or that we are ignorant of it. Like "to leave someone in the dark", to "go dark" in communication, or a "dark match" in pro-wrestling (it happens but isn't broadcast and doesn't effect storylines).

Might be too much to hope for, but he could just mean it's always dark to us.

I'm getting of a kick out of this Trone calling it the "backside of a moon" and chewing on his glasses. Ain't no nerd. Tell me wut these Chinese is doing on the backside of the moon and leave the spacey mumbo jumbo out of it.

Did you watch the video? He also says, “we don’t know what’s on the back side of the moon”

I guess we have decided to elect political representatives are just egotistical camera whores, but why should the top decision maker at a technical agency be a complete idiot who is ignorant about many things the agency he runs has done? It would be like the head of the air force saying airplanes fly because of flubber

Do we have something in place to monitor the far side? We don't have a visual on it like we do the near side. Yeah, we've flown around it, imaged it in the past. Nothing ongoing though.

If you think about it in a national security sense instead of an astronomical one, the question is "what is a rival power up to", then indeed it is dark and unknown.

Mind I only watched from the timestamp, I might have missed something and this guy is a complete shit for brains.

Yes, this has been observing the moon, both near and far side since 2009

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

I don’t see how any NASA employee, who ultimately work for him, could have any respect for his ability to make strategic decisions for NASA

Thanks for sharing.

1. That's awesome

2. Yeah, he's a doofus.

The linked clip is pretty unequivocal, if you watch it. Nelson says: "They are going to have a lander on the far side of the moon, which is the side that is always in dark. We're not planning to go there."

Yeah, I watched it. I can hear it both ways. I don't know his mind or lack thereof, only that he hasn't necessarily spoken wrongly in that phrase

I could see governmental types having a colloquial use of the word at times like these that doesn't mean "it's always in the literal absence of light".

> Yeah, I watched it. I can hear it both ways. I don't know his mind or lack thereof, only that he hasn't necessarily spoken wrongly in that phrase

What line do I have to stand in to receive some of your overflowing charity?

I had a really good breakfast today.

The fact that he is an astronaut because of a congressional junket is just perfect from a bad faith argument perspective.

Probably because Congress isn't smart enough to realize his mistake. Here's one of them worried that Guam might capsize https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q&t=75s

Didn't Asimov write about half the moon being dark? TIL the "far side of the moon" is actually referred to as "the dark side of the moon". But yeah, it's funny/sad that nobody in the room seems to know anything.

The earth’s shadow has nothing to do with moon phases and only affects our view during a lunar eclipse.

I always thought the dark side of the moon meant from earths’ view: we can see the light side (even when it’s dark) but we can’t see the dark side (even when it’s light)

Uh, no. The ONLY time we see a new moon is during an eclipse. Other times the moon is above or below the sun and is too dim to see. A lunar eclipse is when the moon passes into the earth’s shadow and they happens during full moons

OK, we don't actually get to recognize the shape of the new moon with a naked eye because it's dark against the sky. It's still hot enough for some time to be visible in IR pretty well.

The point is that the lit part of the Moon moves widely, while the far / near sides don't due to the tidal lock. Hence they can't be used interchangeably.

I think if you’re somewhere free of light pollution you might notice a moon-sized gap in the stars.