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

[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.

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

[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?

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.