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.

Comments

He's got company

[RabidReindeer]

Many people would like to see Donald Trump go to Mars.

But the Martians would probably consider him to be an illegal alien and might expect us to pay to put up a wall to keep him out.

Re:He's got company

[Trepidity]

Unfortunately for the martians, yankee illegals are notoriously hard to keep out. Ask the Cherokee how that worked out for them...

Re: He's got company

[dcollins117]

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.

Re:He's got company

[newcastlejon]

Let it be known that rumours of the death of our glorious overlord K'Breel, First Speaker of The Council are exaggerated and heretical. All those found to be promulgating such malicious and flagrant falsehoods are hereby ordered to attend reeducation seminars, on pain of forcible removal of the middle and lower left gas sacs. Any citizen found to be harbouring or otherwise giving succour to said enemies of decency and Martian righteousness will face the additional penalty of exile to the frost mines of the North for a period of not less than thirteen cycles.

Let it also be known the Grand Plan nears fruition. Rejoice, citizens! Soon the loathsome inhabitants of our planetary neighbour will be completely ignorant of our existence and the First Speaker's plans for their extermination may proceed. Soon we will be rid of their interference, free from their noisome electromagnetic emanations and free to walk the beautiful red sands of home without fear of their invading robotic thralls. Rejoice citizens, or face immediate vacuum desiccation.

That is all.

Signed,
K'Traal
Assistant Speaker to The Council.

Re: He's got company

[Quasimodem]

Just how many of his businesses has he bankrupted, again?

Re: He's got company

[pepty]

And the finisher: for years everyone who called the bubble a bubble underperformed the people who bet ever more recklessly. Calling a bubble too soon would just get you fired from your real estate/securities job: you would be scaring the customers and pissing off the partners. Calling it just right would still just piss off the partners at your company - unless you managed to convince them you were right in time for them to change course. Calling a bubble too late: you look just like everyone else, you'll catch no individual blame.

Re: He's got company

[SirSlud]

> 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.

Re:He's got company

[Trepidity]

Americans of the frontier era were illegal immigrants even by the USA's own laws. The U.S. at various points in its history signed treaties with Indian tribes agreeing to settlement boundaries, and enacted them into domestic law, such as the various nonintercourse acts. Many people simply ignored these laws and illegally crossed the borders, squatting on land on the other side. Once enough of them did, they were retroactively legalized, what you might call "amnesty".

Re: He's got company

[dbIII]

He's still got negative net worth.
Funny how after he took a lot of other people's money and said declared bankruptcy he suddenly found millions just after the original owners had no way to get it back.

Re: He's got company

[drinkypoo]

Honestly, it puzzles me why so many people try to demonize this guy so much, mainly because of his stance on illegal immigration I think, and just plain being boorish and non-diplomatic-speaking.

Well, I'm not completely sure, but I think it's because he's racist, misogynist, and prepared to shit on anyone who gets in his way. No, wait. I am completely sure that's why. Fuck Trump, fuck him right in his too fucking rich for anyone's good stupid shit hairpiece ass. Fuck him twice.

False dichotomy

[burtosis]

We spend next to nothing on space exploration. The tons of waste and needless pork projects in government needs to go first. If trump is half as capable at business as he claims then there should be plenty of surplus to do both without cutting funding or raising taxes.

Re:False dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's definitely *not* a false dichotomy. There's a huge difference between the things NASA does for a few billion dollars, which usually revolve around robust hardware that doesn't have to take squishy meat-bags into consideration, and starting a colony on Mars. Musk is proposing sending *millions* of people to Mars, and the lower bound is close to 200. We're talking about tons(literally) of equipment to house the people, as well as giving them the tools necessary to create the things they need from the Martian environment. They'll have to repair their own equipment, and learn to expand on their own in a relatively short amount of time. Even if they're subsistent on supplies from Earth, we're still talking about an expensive and constant barrage of goods - above and beyond what the Martians 'need' so that they have what they need when things go bad(redundant systems for *everything*).

Failure on Mars means everyone dies and the equipment falls into disrepair from weather and other bad things. Dead people and the entire thing is a sunk cost. Failure on the moon means everyone could possibly escape alive(they use escape pods to get to an orbital vehicle which can then take them back to Earth, much like the Apollo landers), and the equipment will remain more or less in the same condition as its left since there's no atmosphere. So long as a rogue meteor doesn't come marauding through hitting shit, it'll be in the same working condition when we manage to send people back up there.

So yeah, that's a 'wonderful idea' and in time it will happen. But is it the most pressing issue of our time? Definitely not. We don't even have any sort of operations set up on the moon, even though the moon offers a lot of resources(particularly helium) that could potentially be used for nuclear fusion or other interesting things here on Earth. My thinking is: if we haven't even set up some sort of sustained colony on the moon(for science, industry, etc) then we have no business trying to do the same on Mars. The moon is far lower risk, far lower cost, and our presence there is nonexistent. Mars can wait.

Re:False dichotomy

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:False dichotomy

[William Baric]

A country accomplishing something exceptional returns pride for its citizens. This feeling of being proud is one of the things which contribute the most to happiness. Happy people create a better environment for everyone. Happy people will more easily build strong communities and consequently a strong country.

More importantly, accomplishing something exceptional brings respect from other populations.

I remember that morning of 86. I was going to a math class. I was late, but when I entered the class, I realized it hasn't started yet. People were gathered around the teacher and they were discussing. I then learned that Challenger exploded. Somehow, I was really affected. It was crazy, I was not American, but I certainly did have a lot of respect for the US. So anything bad happening to the US did affect me.

The US is now kind of despised by a lot of people around the world. The main reason is how the US mess with the world and how Americans are "arrogant". Yet, back in the 70 and 80, the US were messing the exact same way with the world and Americans were the same people as they are now. But here's the thing : the US also accomplished great things in the 60 and 70 in the name of humanity. So sure, the US were a bully, but they were a bully who was able to accomplish great things.

I remember that morning of 2001. I was home. I heard the news two planes crashed on the Twin Towers. I saw how reporters where depicting this event as one of the worst tragedy to ever occur, but to be honest I didn't really care. Sure, I thought it was sad 3000 people died, but people do die around the world every day because of politics or religion. How many innocent died because of the US messing with the world for their own benefits?

Respect has to be earned, but once you get this respect, the benefits you get are enormous. You gain support from everywhere in the world. Most people in the world will see you as a model to follow, not as an enemy who's trying to abuse them. They'll feel your pain almost as much as their own. They won't fight against you, they'll try to join you.

What does basic economics say about that?

Trump makes sense again?

[Jack9]

> 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.

Re:Trump makes sense again?

[JWW]

What really bothers me about "solve the problems on Earth first" logic is that if we do that we're never leaving this rock.

21 TRILLION dollars has been spent to eradicate poverty. Over 40 years on there's been very little impact of the Great Society program to actually eliminate poverty.

Imagine, just imagine what 21 TRILLION could have done if spent on space exploration. We'd likely have moonbases, footprints on Mars, asteroid bases, much quicker international travel, large space stations. 21 Trillion is a lot of fucking money. We basically wasted it trying to solve poverty with handouts. I know that sounds harsh, but the numbers don't lie. We didn't fix poverty, I believe there is no way in hell that spending that money on space exploration wouldn't have had a much much greater impact on society.

Another comment mentioned the National and World pride derived from accomplishing very difficult feats like landing on the moon. That value, while not being economically measurable is something that truly does move humanity along and make people understand that for some things, we're all in this together. And I really think that is likely a more valuable outcome that the direct spending of money on poverty.

Re:He's right

[thinkwaitfast]

Can you name some scientific advances and inventions by the soviets in the space race, or only (if that) the ones made by americans. Many have argued (including Richard Feynman) that the advances of the space program were not technological, but organizational (not a trivial problem when here are hundreds of thousands of people involved)

Re:Oh dear

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:Oh dear

[nobodyknowsimageek]

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