Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Thinks Going To Mars Would Be "Wonderful" But There Is a Catch
MarkWhittington writes: Donald Trump, the mercurial real estate tycoon and media personality who, much to the surprise of one and all, has become the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president opened his mind just a little about his attitude toward space exploration, according to a story in Forbes. In an answer to a question put to him about sending humans to Mars, the current focus at NASA, Trump said, "Honestly, I think it's wonderful; I want to rebuild our infrastructure first, ok? I think it's wonderful." In other words, dreams of going to Mars must take a back seat to more Earthly concerns. It is not an answer many space exploration supporters want to hear.
> In other words, dreams of going to Mars must take a back seat to more Earthly concerns. It is not an answer many space exploration supporters want to hear.
That sounds perfectly sane. Sending people to Mars now, is a waste of resources. We send probes, probes tell us basically what we already know (its slightly less inhospitable than say...Venus) and we learn some new details about the inhospitable conditions. Artificial Intelligence or Genetically Engineered creatures to send to Mars is a much more efficient approach. Let's get that working on Earth, first and we can talk about the myriad of inhospitable places that open up. That's very long term thinking, which is part of what space exploration is about. I don't think Trump supposes to know anything about long term technological viability. He just happens to be on the right side of this.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Unfortunately for the martians, yankee illegals are notoriously hard to keep out. Ask the Cherokee how that worked out for them...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One person's 'government waste' is another person's salary. Obviously they'll vote to waste as much money as possible, to keep themselves employed.
space exploration returns next to nothing, its basic economics
Only if you assign a zero value to scientific and engineering knowledge.
But that's day one in MBA school I think.
Trump is also the most likely of the candidates to start World War III. Big ego, a propensity for insulting others, and access to nukes is probably not a good combination to have in a leader. Just look to North Korea to see the possibilities.
The Berlin Wall was built by East Germany to keep people from leaving not to keep invaders out.
The real problem not being discussed is you can either have open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both for long.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Please tell me what the president is not allowed to do now. I've seen a war with Libya, not approved by Congress. A new immigration policy, directly voted down by Congress. Changing a massive healthcare bill about 15 times, directly against the wording in the bill passed by Congress. A treaty signed with Iran, not likely to be approved by Congress but I am told it is still fully leagal. All in just the last few years.
The treaty and immigration things are directly in the Constitution under Congressional powers, but it appears the president can unilaterally decide them now. So what is he not able to do by himself now?
You seriously underestimate the ability of government to stick its nose in no matter what.
Just ask the people in Colorado how they like their new Arsenic flavored water
Romney's 47 percent.
The (economic) question is however are those advances better (more progress/$) than direct funding of consumer products? Analysis shows no.
I am aware of such analyses, but do not know if such analysis is the consensus opinion or more a conjecture at this point.
I would still argue that overall the other benefits I listed imply that government funding of such things would be good. If nothing else, business is sometimes very risk averse, and once government research proves something is feasible, then they will jump on it (see the various businesses that have popped out of projects started at FFRDCs, for example). So such funding would then jumpstart consumer products that wouldn't have been tried in the first place by the private sector.
Honestly, the biggest problem is financial cost.
There's plenty of cash hogtied up in the derivatives markets. And there is over 4.5 trillion in "excess reserves". Personally, I'd rather see it used for California desalination plants, but whatever. Like the water itself, the money is just not where we need it. It is being used to fix the toilet on somebody's yacht.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You are entirely neglecting the fact that the reason the toxins are there is from mining by a private corporation that never cleaned up its mess. But EPA bad, corporation good, right?
Moron
> track record of getting shit done and speaks his mind
Is good at going bankrupt and says incredibly stupid shit that no emotionally functional person would say? Americans are a fascinating species.
"Old man yells at systemd"
So wait, we should evaluate Presidential Candidates based on their performance in private industry BEFORE running for office?
Republicans were mocked for doing just that in 2012 and 2008, you know pointing out that Obama never held a private-sector job, never led anything, and never had to make a payroll before becoming the leader of the free world... Or pointing out Romney's success in the private AND public sector (Romney Care? Salt Lake City Olympics? etc.)?
Ken