President Trump Is Sending NASA Back To The Moon (npr.org)

President Trump has formally told NASA to send U.S. astronauts back to the moon. From a report: "The directive I'm signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," he said. Standing at the president's side as he signed "Space Policy Directive 1" on Monday was Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, one of the last two humans to ever walk on the moon, in a mission that took place 45 years ago this week. Since that time, no human has ventured out beyond low-Earth orbit. NASA doesn't even have its own space vehicle, having retired the space shuttles in 2011. Americans currently ride up to the international space station in Russian capsules, though private space taxis are expected to start ferrying them up as soon as next year.

Comments

Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[rahvin112]

So with his proposed cut to NASA of 30% how exactly does he expect to fund ANY human space travel? They can barely fund robotic exploration at the current funding levels.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[jwhyche]

But didn't you hear about Trump's grand plan? To do more, with less!!! Christ on a crutch, even I'm getting tired of this clown.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Tulsa_Time]

Less Climate Change, more Aeronautics and Space.

Let NOAA deal with the climate.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA overspends on most things by nearly an order of magnitude, as is becoming very clear as private entities such as SpaceX and BO eat it's lunch. One would assume that cutting a lot of the dead weight and inefficiencies along with renegotiating some of the contracts could get us to the moon much, much cheaper than what the people at NASA will tell you is possible. Establishing some key performance goals along with penalties for missing them and assuring accountability will be key. Also, all NASA employees should be made to re-interview for their position - it's likely that many, possibly most, are unnecessary. Lastly, we need to prevent NASA from being the global warming cheerleader role it currently is in. It has no business being apart of the global warming debate.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, Just stop funding all that useless "climate change" studies. Boom! plenty of money now.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

So with his proposed cut to NASA of 30% how exactly does he expect to fund ANY human space travel? They can barely fund robotic exploration at the current funding levels.

They'll probably just hand massive tax breaks to private companies to give them a lunar lift. Space exploration is becoming so privatized the government hardly holds a justification anymore to maintain their own agency (which they can't fund for shit anyway).

As far as ultimately affording it, don't worry. I'm sure our $20-trillion dollar national deficit hole can hold another 10 or 20 trillion more (Obama certainly felt so). It's not like anyone's counting anyway.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate deniers don't have any place in any space program.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we send Trump to the moon? (and leave him there!)

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give him a hard time. He saw the idea on cable news this morning and now it's national policy and that's final.

Someone else can worry about the numbers.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[sycodon]

Climate research doesn't really belong in a Space program.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? You think we get climate measurements by people sending in their thermometer measurements?

You are aware that the miliary's space progarm is for satellites, too, and not because the US Air Force is building star destroyers, right?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno... I imagine that it'd be much cheaper is there wasn't a new directive every four years telling them to do the opposite of the last guy. We're going to the moon! No, to Mars! No, to the moon! No, just robots! No, moon + Mars!

Geez, why don't they ever get anything done, we keep telling them what to do!

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking morons are real One Trick Ponies.

That comment has been made thousands of times by Twitter. Are those just your sock accounts?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, Just stop funding all that useless "climate change" studies. Boom! plenty of money now.

Earth observation comprises 10% of NASA's budget, and climate accounts for only a small portion of that, so deleting all climate research from the budget-- in fact, deleting all Earth science of any kind-- would only free up about 10% more budget.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Less Climate Change, more Aeronautics and Space. Let NOAA deal with the climate.

Well, NASA launches satellites for NOAA, of course: https://www.nasa.gov/press-rel...

But it's so small a part of NASA's total budget that cutting this won't make very much more money available to NASA.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe NOAA can build the satellites with their budget, and NASA can figure out how to get them up in orbit with their budget?

Wait a sec, that's exactly what's already happening.

Except that today, NASA had earmarked some of their budget to also develop climate change monitoring satellites (4 missions).

Instead, Trump has said use that money to get back to NASA's core strengths, which is blowing up said satellites on the launch pad.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The key is to replace NASA utterly with Virgin Spaceways. $400,000,000 will buy you and the sweetie of your choice the ultimate honeyMOON suite- in a bubble on the moon. With five star chef inspired microwavable meals and enough champagne to keep you drunk from liftoff to splashdown.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[pots]

Let NOAA deal with the climate.

Ha ha. 17% cut to the NOAA's budget too.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it does. They're talking about making the fucking MOON HABITABLE, you think studying sciences like climate won't be required? That's partisan-grade stupid, go figure denialists.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[pots]

This is simple: cut everything that NASA does that Trump can't put his name on.

If humans go back to the moon, Trump can take the credit for it and people will cheer. If NASA does some critical atmospheric research that no one pays attention to, does it really matter? How critical could it be if it doesn't fit into 140 characters?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[viperidaenz]

Every 4 years?
Obama was president for 8 years.
Bush was president for 8 years.
Clinton was president for 8 years.
Bush Sr was 4 years
Reagan was 8 years

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[arth1]

Less Climate Change, more Aeronautics and Space.

He probably heard what an enormous amount of pollution and climate gases the big rockets cause, and wanted it just in case it would annoy someone.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that the miliary's space progarm is for satellites, too, and not because the US Air Force is building star destroyers, right?

I was assured they had half a dozen battle cruisers and some sort of gate.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

The moon has no climate, unless you enjoy the fresh smell of Vacuum.

As for climate in a habitat, that's what fucking hangers for for asswipe.

Talk about Third Grade shit.

Or do you really think the moon can be teraformed?

Even Third Graders are smarter than that.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Rick Schumann]

You're assuming that facts and logic have anything to do with any 'decision' that orange-headed jackass makes. The way he operates seems to indicate he believes that being POTUS means being an authoritarian dictator or a king, and that whatever he says will happen or heads will be severed from necks.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Strider-]

A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure...

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean atmosphere? Because you do know the difference between climate and atmosphere right? Maybe you should go back to third grade?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Dishevel]

Maybe they could take funds from the part of NASA that was supposed to make Muslims feel better?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Verdatum]

Adding to this: This was the original intention way back in the 1970s: NOAA comes up with the experiments, NASA helps to jam them into an appropriate satellite or whatever, and get it into space. Then, after massive budget cuts to NASA, NOAA, and the USGS (who also likes looking down at Earth for learnin' stuff) that took place shortly after this plan, NOAA had to drop out of the satallite climate change investigation, and NASA had to cancel much of its planetary and lunar investigation programs. So they did cheaper terrestrial research instead, since, you might as well do something useful while you're learning how to get better at doing space stuff. During that time, NASA did indeed do some things that inherently simultaneously taught them about "Air And Space" as well as about climate-change. Looking into the effect of the ozone layer, solar-activity, and investigation into the atmosphere on Venus, which is what initially tipped us off that carbon-dioxide operates as a greenhouse gas. But certainly, if there's a desire to move back to the model where NASA works in tandem with NOAA for the sake of climate change research, that's perfectly fine by me at least...So long as NOAA has a sufficient budget to participate in the development and execution of these experiments, and NASA has sufficient budget to help get their experiments and equipment up into orbit or wherever else it may need to be.

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_...

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Verdatum]

You seem like a friendly person. You wanna go ride bikes? I know some really good hills!

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Verdatum]

I mean, it depends. The Soyuz rockets all burn hydrocarbons, but our old Saturn V rockets used liquid Hydrogen+oxygen for stages two and three. And our space shuttle used a combination of solid rockets and that big orange thing in the center was again, Hydrogen+oxygen. No pollutants or greenhouse gasses during that portion!

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Gavagai80]

You think Trump cares about NASA's science mission? They'll find the money to go to the moon by scrapping all science and all robotic missions, no problem, it's actually a great plan to help ensure there's less data about climate change in the future.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Retarded conservative snowflakes have no concept of science, thanks for demonstrating.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

all that money nasa wastes on climate science and weather research that never goes anywhere useful?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Verdatum]

NASA was the entity doing quite a lot of the cutting edge research on earth-science, merely because it had to remain useful, but couldn't afford lunar or planetary missions. From that, it did indeed learn quite a lot about the mechanisms that drive global climate change. Now, if you want to shift those responsibilities back to NOAA where it was originally intended, that's fine, but then they need sufficient budget to run their experiments, and the ability to work with space agencies (NASA or otherwise) to facilitate any space-based research they feel to be useful. As is, Trump is talking about cutting their already underfunded budget. As is, we only have three weather satellites in operation; they are all way past expected lifetime. The most recent one sent up malfunctioned last year, and it's replacement was ordered to be destroyed by Congress just last September in order to save on storage costs. If we lose just one more, we stand to have blackouts in coverage, which is terribly dangerous for tactical reasons.

As far as NASA overspending, well, you generally need to in situations where you are innovating and pioneering technology. SpaceX and such is able to save a ton of money by reading NASA publicly available research, and learning from them what things work and what things do not. As far as the contracts, they all get renegotiated constantly. Rarely does a contract run more than 2 years without investigating the feasibility of doing a rebid. But sure, privatized spaceflight is fantastic. Once it gets off the ground, then NASA's job should be to fund the massive investigatory projects that require the resources of a world superpower to accomplish. Commercial companies are only able to act when the pure-monetary-profit-potential is immediately evident.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[MerlTurkin]

Exactly.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need a budget at all. How much does it REALLY cost to just make up numbers?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Tenebrousedge]

Venus is in no sense what tipped us off to the atmospheric properties of CO2. Those were established by Tyndall in the late 1850s, or Arrhenius 1896 if you want the whole theory. Neither mention Venus. The origin of studies into climate change was the evidence of changing climate here on Earth, i.e. Ice Ages, with evidence beginning in the early 19th Century. Alternately, if you were referring to when AGW became well established, that would presumably be Keeling 1959, just after the founding of NASA and launch of Sputnik.

I'm not sure if you're referring to some more specific events, or if you're just weak on the history of AGW, or both.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[AmiMoJo]

This. These programmes take a decade or more to come to fruition. President's last at most 8 years, although didn't Trump say he would only do 4? Anyway, too long for the current administration to take credit.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[murdocj]

Right. Because you'd never use a satellite for earth science. What a crazy idea.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[murdocj]

To make stuff up all you need is trump's twitter account.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[murdocj]

It's also a bit cheaper when NASA has laid the groundwork. Developing stuff from scratch is a lot more expensive.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Bartles]

Modeling climate science doesn't get us to the moon. It also has nothing to do with aeronautics or space exploration. Guess what NASA's largest spending category is?

$2,032 million for Earth Science to improve climate modeling, weather prediction, and natural hazard mitigation,
through Earth observation from space. The budget supports launch of Landsat 9 as early as 2021, and Landsat 10 in
approximately 2029. The request also includes funding to increase the capabilities and uses of multi-spacecraft
constellations of small scientific satellites.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Bartles]

Guess what NASA's largest science mission budget item is?

$2,032 million for Earth Science to improve climate modeling, weather prediction, and natural hazard mitigation,
through Earth observation from space. The budget supports launch of Landsat 9 as early as 2021, and Landsat 10 in
approximately 2029. The request also includes funding to increase the capabilities and uses of multi-spacecraft
constellations of small scientific satellites.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Bartles]

In fact, the climate science mission, is NASA's largest budget item. It needs to stop, and refocus on aeronautics and space.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone should teach prez how to do a gofundme for NASA.

Re: Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Venus, even if it was located near mars would still be hot. Heat is is mainly due to the pressure as strong as deep oceans. Barely 1pc light hits the surface.

Re: Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

It's warming, so what more do you want , if anything cosmic rays change earth albedo.

Re: Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Are most people retarded pancake muppets? Seems to me true. A mobile phone has more capacity than the previous moon lands so why not use the previous tech to go to the moon seeing that that's what they did. Oh I hear you say...it costs so much in fuel..let me tell you you are moron and should intatutionize yourself! Just use the old tech and prove it you ding done!

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[MoarSauce123]

In case you haven't noticed, Trump and his administration are not rational and have severe issues with math. But rest assured, it will be HUGE and you will love it! Especially when NASA straps Trump on a booster on the first trial run.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

What "global climate change" would that be? The one that isn't happening?

www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[burtosis]

Definitely. I love subscriptions and am looking forward to the competitive monthly price of breathing air on Ganymede. I have to work for free for 2 years to pay off the voyage costs, but hey that's not bad for getting to a new world.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Xyrus]

And what do you think is going to be cut EVEN MORE over the next couple of years in order to give the rich their precious tax cut while adding massively to the national debt? I'll give you a hint, it won't be military spending.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what he implied you thick headed troll. There is no climate without an atmosphere, therefore "climate" science has no bearing on the moon. You're not even as sharp as a kindergartner.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Karmashock]

did you read any of it?... he cut the climate change stuff not the space exploration thing. Actually read it. If you want PDFs from the government on this then that can be provided... but only if you're going to actually read them.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

So with his proposed cut to NASA of 30% how exactly does he expect to fund ANY human space travel? They can barely fund robotic exploration at the current funding levels.

Where do you get 30%? From the Progressives at CNN? Has he revised the 3% cuts from his budget proposal in May?

The Trump administration’s fiscal 2018 budget request includes $19.1 billion for NASA, a $561 million decrease over previously enacted levels that would reduce the number of Earth science missions, eliminate the agency’s education office and do away with the Obama administration’s plans to robotically retrieve a piece of an asteroid as a precursor to eventual flights to Mars.

Sounds like the budget deals with under-budgeted robotic missions by eliminating them and shifting focus to manned lunar missions in partnership with private enterprise. Everything about your highly rated comment is complete bullshit.

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[micahraleigh]

Are you of the understanding that the current NASA budget goes to anything other than reaching out to Muslim nations?

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's send someone to Mars right away as a test to see if it works no return needed and the 1st to send is DJTrump

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[martinfb]

Military vehicles!
Just shove astronauts in with the next military satellite for a ride to space!
The military has tons of money now!

Re:Good luck with that 30% cut to NASA's budget

[Verdatum]

Man, that'd be fantastic if it wasn't happening!

I should warn you that Climatedepot is a website operated by Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which is a nonprofit organization that is primarily funded by Donors Trust, which is a conservative/libertarian donor-advised fund; a fancy legal term for a mechanism to hide the identity of the sources of money, which can include corporations. Still, it is known that one of the largest donors to Donors Trust in multiple previous years has been the Koch Brothers, who are _heavily_ invested in the fossil fuel energy industry. Now don't get me wrong, the Koch brothers are not total monsters who delight in human suffering and keeping the world ignorant so that they may continue to stay in power. They actually do some good things at times. But, they do have some ulterior motives and a heck of a lot of power that they do appear to use to further those motives. So you should be wary of those sort of sources. Unlike government-funded scientists, who's job is to investigate and report findings; this site's job is to make its donors happy. And it's donors are happy when people think that climate change is not a thing or that humans are powerless to influence it one way or the other.

Meanwhile, entities like NASA didn't particularly care about what results it got from investigating climate change. They were just told that they have to do something useful, and not just hang out and play golf on the moon, so they picked climate change, and they happened to get these results. And similar situations happened with other government entities both within the US and in other nations. People just wanting to learn how the world works, and finding that oh dear, perhaps taking all that sequestered carbon, that was pulled out of the atmosphere by plant life over the course of millions of years and burning all of it in a little over a century isn't exactly something that the balancing factors like plant-growth and ocean absorption can sufficiently handle to prevent earth from going back to how friggin' hot it was all those millions of years ago, when the atmospheric carbon levels were higher.

Unfortunately, 97% of scientists say quite strongly that human caused climate change is indeed real. This climate change is why we now have a Northwest passage for shipping during part of the year, and that season is growing every year. That clear pathway in the arctic hasn't been a thing going back at least as far as 5000 years. And this creates a chain reaction, because the white ice was quite good at reflecting sunlight, while the dark water and land is not. This causes more warming. It also causes the thawing of the permafrost, which causes a massive leap in preserved methane, produced from ancient broken down biomass (it's basically moss). And methane is demonstrably a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

I would urge you to try and get your proof of the existence or non-existence of climate change from less biased sources. Learn what research has been done, the justification for how they reached their conclusions, and then go back to the biased sites and scrutinize if their counter arguments hold up, or if they are possibly using sneaky logic and carefully represented data to make things look reasonable, so long as the information isn't scrutinized. Or if you're lazy, dis: https://xkcd.com/1732/ That said, if you happen to be a conspiracy theorist, that comic's author did briefly work for NASA so, um, maybe they "got to him" or something.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So with his proposed cut....

[p4nther2004]

Simple.

He's going to get Mexico to pay for it!

and it's going to be YUGE!

Re:So with his proposed cut....

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple.

He's going to get Mexico to pay for it!

and it's going to be YUGE!

Exactly. Get Mexico to pay for the wall, keep out illegals (criminals once they arrive in the US without going through proper channels), and use the billions saved paying social services to earmark the money towards other initiatives, like space travel.

Your idea is brilliant.

Re:So with his proposed cut....

[mean pun]

Simple.

He's going to get Mexico to pay for it!

and it's going to be YUGE!

Exactly. Get Mexico to pay for the wall [...]

Since you seem to believe this is a good idea, can you explain why Mexico would ever pay for the wall? Because for me that is the most unrealistic part of a highly unrealistic plan. What's in it for Mexico?

Re:So with his proposed cut....

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the idea is that you get them to pay you back after you've built it or you close the border gates

Re: So with his proposed cut....

[Anonymous Coward]

At this rate, it'll be better to live on the other side of the wall. Who are we really preventing from leaving their current country?

Re:So with his proposed cut....

[murdocj]

Don't be silly... he going to get the Lunarians to pay for it. And every time the Lunarians say no, the rocket gets 10X YUGER!

Re: So with his proposed cut....

[Anonymous Coward]

They send enough drugs for cash, just return the cash. And anyone can make tacos. Then grow pot.in USA, and sell it back to Mexico cheaper.

Re: So with his proposed cut....

[mean pun]

They send enough drugs for cash, just return the cash. And anyone can make tacos. Then grow pot.in USA, and sell it back to Mexico cheaper.

I'm sorry, but I cannot distill a coherent plan from this. You want to return cash to Mexico, and sell tacos and pot them? I, err, have seen more compelling business plans.

Re:So with his proposed cut....

[MoarSauce123]

Because Trump said so. Same with climate change, Trump declared it a Chinese hoax and that was the end to it. There is nothing in it for Mexico and Mexico will never pay for the wall. We have to pay for the wall and that includes the irresponsible morons who voted Trump into office.

Re:So with his proposed cut....

[MoarSauce123]

With so much stuff coming from Mexico closing the border is not feasible. Unless you don't care about produce, electronics, cars, car parts,..... The most effective means would be to work with Mexican governments to improve living conditions in Mexico eliminating the desire to go to the US. Instead big corps are bullied into ending investments in Mexico, removing thousands of decent jobs, and increasing the likelihood of Mexicans to pursue their happiness up north.

Re: So with his proposed cut....

[Anonymous Coward]

To keep out all the Hollywood big mouths that always claim to leave if $CANDIDATE is elected, but never do?

Canada might consider a wall too.

Re:So with his proposed cut....

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That's not how he's going to pay for it.

See -- and I don't know if you know this, not a lot of people know this -- but the moon is made of cheese.

NASA will harvest the cheese and use it to pay for the Moon program.

#maga

I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish it said, "NASA is sending Trump to the moon."

But then, of course, anything living on the moon would protest.

Where's the fucking funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is this a repeat of the 'public health emergency' (as compared to a 'national emergency', which would've brought actual money instead of the $57,000 in the public health emergency fund) bullshit?

Re: Where's the fucking funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll TRICKLE DOWN.. any day now... keep waiting..

Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Froth at the mouth and suddenly be "anti-science".
Of course Obama KILLED our space program out right and salted the earth for it for 8 years... but TRUMMMMMPPPP ARRRRRGGHHHHHH SMAASSSHHH!!!

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Sarten-X]

I'm a bit dry at the moment... I know I had a can of Instant Froth around here somewhere...

Much better... Now then...

It's not a question of being "anti-science" or not, but more the question of "why?"

In the 1960s, landing on the moon was a huge accomplishment. We conducted important science, established permanent lunar installations of ongoing significance, and it paved the way for our current space-based experiments on board the ISS. Even today, there is a long list (that I've seen before, but can't find at the moment) of experiments that we want to put on the moon.

However, one crucially-important thing has changed between 1969 and today: robotics. We can send a robot to the moon and call it disposable, rather than have to also send fuel for the return trip home, supplies to sustain life, and a pressurized vessel to contain it all while the astronauts are up there. There's a reason the Apollo program required the largest, heaviest, and most-powerful rocket ever flown: Putting mass into space is exponentially expensive. Each Apollo mission cost (on average) about four times as much as the whole Mars Science Laboratory program.

By sending robots to the moon (and Mars, and elsewhere), we can continue to reap the scientific benefits without literally burning American tax dollars and risking American astronaut lives. Once there, the robots can last for much longer than a human, running experiments until they fall apart... and then just a bit more. Frankly, robots are superior explorers to humans in just about every way except for three.

First, robots aren't as adaptable as humans, though they are getting better. Space-bound rovers are designed with adaptability in mind, and the engineers controlling them from Earth are brilliant at remote repair and alternative uses, but a rover won't likely be able to recover from an accidental roll down a hill, even if the damage is minimal.

Second, robots are still limited in their capability. We can't just drop down a new camera and say "here, use this." There has been some work into making reconfigurable robots that could upgrade themselves, but ultimately it's still just cheaper and easier to send a new set of wheels with the new camera.

Finally, robots just don't make good humans. Humans are fragile and sensitive, and we get so upset when one is damaged and is... decommissioned. If the goal is for humans to leave Earth and look towards colonizing other planets, we still have a lot of questions to answer about how to keep those people safe and healthy. That's why we have the ISS. There are a lot of ongoing experiments running on board the ISS, and that's satisfying our current science needs (and exhausting what little budget we have).

In summary, that's why we are where we are today. We use the relatively-nearby ISS to run human-based experiments, and send expendable robots to further places, maximizing the scientific knowledge gain while minimizing the expense of rockets, engineering, and lives. As much fun as it would be to fling more humans at that floating gray target for the sake of patriotic glory, it really doesn't contribute much to mankind's future. We've already taken the giant leap that was beneficial in 1969, by starting extraterrestrial exploration. The next one will be a permanent colony, but we're not quite ready for that yet, regardless of which president wants it.

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[CaptainDork]

Good points, unfortunately, they are irrelevant to the issue.

Other countries have announced that they are headed to the Moon. Déjà-moon. We went through this back in Kennedy's administration.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress but mining and space launches are money-makers.

Currently, there are international treaties that declare the Moon property of everyone.

Like the Paris Agreement, treaties are not binding.

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Sir Lurkalot]

Killjoy.

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points, unfortunately, they are irrelevant to the issue.

Other countries have announced that they are headed to the Moon. Déjà-moon. We went through this back in Kennedy's administration.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress but mining and space launches are money-makers.

Currently, there are international treaties that declare the Moon property of everyone.

Like the Paris Agreement, treaties are not binding.

Such agreements are nonsense anyway as the participants didn't have any claim to the moon to start with. The first people to actually settle on the moon will have a pretty good moral claim to the land that they settle, regardless of what major governments and organisations like the united nations have to say about it.

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Gavagai80]

However, one crucially-important thing has changed between 1969 and today: robotics.

Really it hasn't changed that much in the space science field. The Soviets sent robotic rovers to the moon in the 60s and 70s.

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Eravnrekaree]

Musk explained it by extending the light of consciousness to other planets. A person can interact with the environment, experience it, like a robot cannot. You can send a robot for you to Hawaii but its not the same as you going there yourself. That however does bring up a another point though, mars sounds like a rather odd place to be, rather cold and nasty and with suffocating air, but I digress.

Musk probably has the most viable technologies to actually do it, since its one man with some money who wants to make this happen in his lifetime, rather than a large lumbering organizations like the government which tends to lose focus on the goal, run by committees were an individuals aspirations are subservant to an organizational morass, and was hamstrung by nonsensical congressional mandates etc.

Re: Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations still require the theoretical research that only government can fund before they can work to make it cheaper and better. SpaceX can't afford to research all the necessary tech required to make a Mars trip possible, as it's expensive, time consuming, and doesn't reliably produce short term gains. It'll be more like a joint venture if anything else.

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[ElizabethGreene]

You are right that robots can be used for exploration dramatically cheaper than humans.

To me though, there are fundamental limitations to robotic exploration that can't be ignored. Robots are truly fantastic at exploring what they are designed to explore, but they fall flat in a bunch of ways.

For example, on Mars we've discovered that dust-devils are a fairly common occurrence. It took 5 robotic missions to get an inkling of that, and we didn't get a picture of one until mission 7. We didn't see it because we didn't have motion-triggered imaging until the newest robots because we didn't expect motion. A human would have seen it, said "hey, check that out", and snapped a picture.

Terrain "feel" is another example. We look at rover images and motor driver current graphs to try to understand what kind of terrain the rover is crossing. A human can observe "It's squishy here".

Robots fall terribly flat when you compare distances. A human, even in an EVA suit, can cover kilometers in a day. Our best robots cover kilometers per year.

When they get where they are going, the robots are still limited. The MSL carried a rock sample in its grinder for weeks because it was stuck and wouldn't fall out into the instrument. A human could have tapped or scraped that out. This dexterity has other benefits too. It's been 40 years since we dropped our first robot on Mars, and we still don't have the ability to flip over a plate-sized rock or dig a hole more than an inch deep.

Last but not least is Inspiration: This is important even though it's touchy-feely. Robots don't inspire human dreams the way manned exploration does. Those dreams are important, and I can prove it. Tomorrow a recycled rocket carrying a recycled spacecraft is going to fly to the ISS because one guy was inspired by the Apollo program and he really wants to go to Mars. Rovers don't do that.

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

These responses are typical for WHY us meat sacks will never venture too far into space beyond ISS anymore. This saddens me, fundamentally we are all explorers. Why do anything interesting anymore when we can just send a robot? Why climb mount everest? Why Jump out of a plane? Why surf, play sport, drink alcohol? when robots could potentially do this not only better, faster, longer but without loss of life?

Loss of life... That asteroid is out there and it has our names on it. Is that not a good enough reason than any to colonise "off-world"?

Re:Funny watching the pro-tech geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

The Why is He3

Mr. President. The only place you'll be safe

[presidenteloco]

from the North Korean strike is on the moon. The dark side of the moon to be specific, where all the cheese is.

Just step into this NASA Force 1 capsule here, Mr. President.

(Well it's not a crime to dream is it?)

Now in 4K HDR!

[Anonymous Coward]

A new fake for the 21st century, with realtime environmental backdrop replacement. So real, you can't tell its fake.(this time)

Space is fake. The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.

Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
Corona not shaped in a spherical configuration; orients toward Earth. Corona lines can be observed to move faster than the speed of light. Light of the corona can be observed on the back of the moon. Light of the chromosphere can be observed on the back of the moon. Light of protuberences can be observed on the back of the moon. Sun and Moon same size and near. Wiki: Allais Effect

Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881
Irregular shadow shape, progression. Shadow is black, then changes color to reddish: Shadows don't change color. Moon glow of uneclipsed portion increases as shadow becomes reddish, detail lost. Moon has no rotation(see Nikola Tesla): we always see the same face. Moon emits own light. Craters not from impacts: Too round.
No model of the lunar eclipse correctly captures it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/10/06/why-does-the-moon-turn-red-during-a-lunar-eclipse/
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/usa/scottsdale?iso=20140415
Next lunar eclipse: January 30/31, 2018 North America

Re:Now in 4K HDR!

[viperidaenz]

By the looks of your post, you were born on 2017-12-10

Re:Now in 4K HDR!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the cognitive capacity of a potato.

Re:Now in 4K HDR!

[mnemotronic]

Sail past Gibraltar and you fall off the edge of the world or get eaten by monsters. Known fact. Nicola Tesla never existed. Fake news.

Re:Now in 4K HDR!

[Anonymous Coward]

MOOOOO! MOOOOO! You flat earth cows! You all go MOOOOO!

Re: Now in 4K HDR!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an insult to potatoes.

Re:Now in 4K HDR!

[pnutjam]

I'm surprised Trump hasn't claimed to have visited the edge of the flat earth.
I think his presidency has finally put to rest the idea that the president has some sort of inside knowledge about extra-terrestrial visits. No way he would have kept that quiet.

This will end budget problem

[avandesande]

Just send them to the moon!

Pity he does not understand gubberment

[stabiesoft]

Congress would have to authorize a yuge increase in the NASA budget. He and Moore are perfect for each other, Moore wants to roll back the amendments.

Credit to the Russians...

[bogaboga]

Americans currently ride up to the international space station in Russian capsules

I keep wondering why this is the case. Don't we have the technology to ferry folks to the ISS? I guess we do but why do we rely on the Russians?

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[jwhyche]

Can't blame this one on Trump. This is the result of the last two idiots in office that decided to cancel the space shuttle program before we had a working replacement. Not that the shuttle was a shining example of success ether. But cancelling it before we had a working replacement was a stupid in a special order of magnitude.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[taustin]

The process of getting a human-rating certification takes years, and involves quite a few test launches, of both the rocket and the crew capsule. SpaceX is very close to meeting the requirements, and I believe at least one other private launch company is as well.

The Russians haven't designed a new rocket in many years. Their rockets already have the necessary certification for legal launches.

It's a political process, but one rooted in fatal failures in NASA's history.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those Russian rockets killed just as many Yanks as the shuttle did, right?

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Strider-]

I always thought that a rocket wasn't human-rated until the paperwork and documentation for the rocket weighed more than the wet mass of the rocket itself...

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Kjella]

The process of getting a human-rating certification takes years, and involves quite a few test launches, of both the rocket and the crew capsule. SpaceX is very close to meeting the requirements, and I believe at least one other private launch company is as well.

And it should be noted - increasingly difficult certification. They're not launching by Space Shuttle standards, to get a new launch system approved they have to be three times safer than the shuttle at least on paper. That said, I think a lot of it is red tape because the SLS will allegedly be crewed on its third launch and the first in a Crew 1B configuration and I really doubt you can make that sort of guarantee on so little data.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[crunchygranola]

But cancelling it before we had a working replacement was a stupid in a special order of magnitude.

Because continuing to use a system that has a proven 1.5% chance of killing everyone board is brilliant?

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Guspaz]

Difficult yes (the move back to capsule-on-top style launch vehicles with in-flight abort capabilities certainly helps a ton), but SpaceX will have spent far less money getting the Falcon 9 human-rated than the cost of vehicles such as the shuttle or SLS.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just operating the Shuttle sucked up every spare dollar NASA had and then some. If it hadn't been canceled there never would have been a working replacement due to no funds available. The US had a six year gap in crewed space flight capability in the 70's (which cost the loss of Skylab while it still had some capability) and I don't remember near the angst back then.
The Russians have avoided this gap by not trying anything new beyond Soyuz (well, except Buran, and to their credit they figured out it was a loser before betting their space program on it like the US did with the Shuttle). It remains to be seen whether this conservatism by the Russians will pay off long term.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[k6mfw]

and to think on 50th anniversary of the Soyuz (though first flight was not good, it killed their best cosmonaut) it is not certain when a rocket/spacecraft made and launched from US will happen. It is always next year or two (for how many past years? I've lost count). Imagine a half a century ago if someone were to say "those capitalists stooges will be buying rides on our rocket because they're too cheap to build their own." (heh, but we send them dollars).

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[HiThere]

Are you asserting that NASA currently has a working replacement for the Space Shuttle? I'm not real convinced that the current proposals will *ever* fly, despite what Boeing's VP of PR says.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparatively speaking. Yes. It's brilliant.

My honest opinion, as things stand thanks to the last two jokers and the current political climate, you can effectively consider the USA out of the space race now. Why? Because the USA is now more focused on canceling each other's stuff rather than FINISHING things. Starting new stuff is fine, but if someone else cancels it only a few years or so down the road, then there's no point. As I said, most likely it's only going to get worse. Someone else will probably cancel Trump's Moon project AND cut the budget, again. After a few more presidents, there will probably be nothing left of NASA.

The USA simply lacks the vision, the unity, and the will to get it done.

Don't get me wrong, there's always good news coming out of NASA... For now. But that is merely the last gasps of hope before it finally crumbles to dust.

Our only hope is that someone else (like SpaceX) manages to accomplish something significant and relights the fire and passion for space, which results in a change into the current political climate and NASA is restored to some state worth talking about.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[jwhyche]

Because continuing to use a system that has a proven 1.5% chance of killing everyone board is brilliant?

Compared to what we currently have now, which is nothing, yes. Even with a 1.5% failure rate there was still plenty of volunteers that would gladly use the system. If they never launched another space shuttle again scrapping the whole system was plain stupid before we had a working system to replace it. They should have mothballed the fleet instead of scrapping it.

By scrapping the space shuttle those two morons put us completely at the mercy of a foreign power for at least two decades for manned access to space. If they would have mothballed the system at least we would have a system if we needed it.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckin A, sa{me with aircraft.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[dunkelfalke]

Actually they have designed quite a lot of rockets, but most of them have been cancelled. Only Angara actually ever flew and it looks more and more unlikely that it will ever be man-rated.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[angel'o'sphere]

Technology as in rockets and know-how yes, technology as a ready schematic to build a rocket to lift humans to the ISS, no.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[thegarbz]

But cancelling it before we had a working replacement was a stupid in a special order of magnitude.

Well, no one expected that we'd vote ourselves into a position where we would start another cold war. Clearly there is a replacement since USA astronauts are still travelling to and from.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[ElizabethGreene]

>> This is the result of the last two idiots in office that decided to cancel the space shuttle program

No, unfortunately the blame goes much further back than the last two. NASA has been warning Congress about the end of the Space Shuttle program and begging for funding to replace it since the 90s.

That can has been kicked so many times it needs its own odometer.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are probably off by an order of magnitude or so. Just certifying systems on a submarine (subsafe certification) requires the amount of paperwork you are talking about.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the space shuttle taught us something it is that anything can be human-rated when you ask the engineers involved to forget about the nasty technical details and think like managers instead.

Re:Credit to the Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

But... the 'last two idiots' extended the program for nearly 15 years beyond the Shuttle Program's expected lifespan.

Funding

[Anonymous Coward]

Penny for NASA... join it and help out. maybe we can get off this shit rock.

Re:Funding

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd give a dollar if it sent all the space nutters first.

Re:Funding

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tell them they'll be mining for Helium-3.

Actually Surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given his other stances on matters of fact and reason, that he's not in the moon landing hoax camp is quite astonishing. Many of the same defective reasoning skills are required.

"Oh wait! I know!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Democrats had that moonshot thing last year and that played well. How about we literally shoot people at the moon? That ought to be good!"

Fuck PopeRatzo

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to get that in before he shows up with a snarky comment.

BS. The headline is a lie.

[mcmonkey]

Saying something is not the same as doing.

If the president wants NASA to send men to the moon, stop signing directives and sign a check instead.

Also, veto the tax plan (if it ever reaches your desk) which would increase the cost of graduate studies that produce that sorts of scientists and engineers who put people on the moon.

Re:BS. The headline is a lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because signing checks works so well for education.

Re:BS. The headline is a lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because signing checks works so well for education.

I bet your momma learned you good every time she had to pay for one of your dumbass mistakes.

Re:BS. The headline is a lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying something is not the same as doing.

This is true when Trump is in the headline or summary.

When the name is replaced with Elon Musk, well, everyone will call you a commie deserving of nothing but -1 troll.

Re:BS. The headline is a lie.

[Megane]

stop signing directives and sign a check instead.

That's something only Congress can do, and as we all know, they are the opposite of Progress. They are the real problem with NASA funding. All the President can do is provide a goal so that Congress can fight over which districts get the pork that makes the goal happen.

Re:BS. The headline is a lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Also, veto the tax plan (if it ever reaches your desk) which would increase the cost of graduate studies that produce that sorts of scientists and engineers who put people on the moon.

Or universities can waive tuition rather than claiming tuition is covered as a tax write-off, effectively doing the same thing for the students. This would harm the universities come tax time, but they are run like giant profit centers anyway.

Economics of our Moon

[shuz]

There is real value in the resources of our moon https://www.space.com/28189-mo.... Staking a claim to those resources could be a bargaining chip even if there is no real value extracted. It isn't hard to see the value. For example if there was an island in the middle of the pacific that no government had laid claim to and was later found to contain 10 billion units of natural resources but would take 1 billion units of resources to extract. Anyone with the capacity to start the process of investigation or extraction would. Others with less resources may want to partner up or even try to pay off "the first to market." There has been increased interest from Russia and China to go to the moon. Industrial races can also be good for economies as well as uniting a divided populous. Even if the Trump administration doesn't actually back NASA monetarily they may have a lot to gain by lip service alone.

Re:Economics of our Moon

[crunchygranola]

But if, for a far more realistic example, the island had 1 billion units of resources that cost 10 billion units to extract then "staking a claim" would accomplish nothing, except possibly as the basis of a scam to sell worthless shares in the venture.

Re:Economics of our Moon

[crunchygranola]

The actual article linked to, and the original paper do not support the claim there is "real value in the resources of our moon". In fact the real situation is summed up by "..the overall case for any future payoff from exploiting the moon's resources has yet to be made, Crawford said." In other words, there is of yet no evidence of real value in the resources of the Moon. In his paper Crawford state flat out that he is not proposing looking for resources to use here on Earth. In other words these are resources for some future space civilization.

When we actually have this space civilization to provide demand, then we can talk.

He does mention, in passing "platinum group metals" as a possible resource for use on Earth, but provides no analysis of this at all. This really does not hold up if you just look at a few numbers. The notion is that one would mine asteroid bodies that crashed into the moon. The problem is the very low value of asteroids as PGM ore. The concentration of PGMs is about 10 times higher than the ores being mined on Earth, but the actual value of the PGM content of the ore of even the best types is only $3/kg. The idea that this is a plausible mining operation that can dig up and ship rocks to Earth at a profit at a value of $3/kg is ludicrous.

You can survey all the literature of space mining without finding anyone making an actual case based on the cost of real mining operations (a least I have never found any and I have looked).

Re:Economics of our Moon

[Gavagai80]

Actually, you'll find companies are very interested in staking a claim to an island that has 1 billion units of oil reserves that cost 10 billion units to extract with current prices and technology. Hold the island for a while and it can make you a fortune when commodity prices go up or extraction prices come down.

Re:Economics of our Moon

[deodiaus2]

Well, extracting ores from the moon is lucrative, but it is expensive getting them out of the moon's gravitational well. It probably will be more economical to mine the asteroids instead. Yes, there are probably international treaties preventing this currently, but I doubt that they are enforceable, compared to the economical motivation of pursing them.

Re:Economics of our Moon

[Megane]

And that is exactly the one thing that a moon base will be good for. It won't be good as a "stepping stone to Mars", because it's still in a gravity well. It won't be good as practice for living on Mars, because it's a quite different environment (vacuum and nasty dust vs thin atmosphere and nasty phosphates; the only common part is habitats and radiation shielding).

We need to go there to see what is up there, other than basalt regolith, that would be worth sending more people to bring it back. Even (as that article says) meteorites lying around could be worth the effort.

As for Helium-3, it's just a meme that lets you know who the space nutters are. We don't even have fusion working yet, and 3He is a second-tier fuel that we wouldn't be able to use for years after we do get fusion working.

Re:Economics of our Moon

[angel'o'sphere]

You don't really 'mine' asteroids.
Most asteroids have a pure core of iron/nickle or gold or patinum etc. You basically just cut pure blocks of the metal out of them. So you numbers of mining costs and yield are way off.

Re:Economics of our Moon

[hipp5]

Actually, you'll find companies are very interested in staking a claim to an island that has 1 billion units of oil reserves that cost 10 billion units to extract with current prices and technology. Hold the island for a while and it can make you a fortune when commodity prices go up or extraction prices come down.

But there is an opportunity cost to staking that claim. If it costs you 0.1 billion to stake and hold, that's 0.1 billion that could be used on other ventures with compounding growth potential. It may very well be that the 0.1 billion put into another project that is making returns today would grow to be worth more than the 10 billion you'd get from the claim at some date far off in the future.

No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[sycodon]

We don't need to be shooting people through space in tin cans.

At this point we have three options.

1. Continue pissing in the wind with half funded programs, then cancelling them partway through.
2. Go Full Robotic.
3. Build an for real spaceship.

I vote #3

A For Real Spaceship is...

1. Multi megawatt reactor for power.
2. Magnetic shielding.
3. Rotating living and working section for artificial gravity
4. Complete closed loop environmental system.
5. Non-chemical engines.

I would also throw in a descent and ascent module, but they can be added later since they will required chemical rockets regardless.

Every one of these required technologies (except 3...a NASA engineer told me they've done it already) would spur innovation on the same level as the Apollo program. When complete, we could then jump in and go where we want...among the moon and Mars at least.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[zlives]

option 4. Bang zoom, straight to the moon.
I am sure the budget cuts accurately reflect this methodology.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[viperidaenz]

5: You've been watching too much sci fi

Re: No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

But we don't know how to do:
4. Complete closed loop environmental system.
E.g., biofilms are a reality. Nature deals; we don't know how to. Etc.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Non chemical engines work just fine. The environmentalists don't like radioactive exhaust.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[sycodon]

Well, on the one hand, that's the entire point of this kind of endeavor, no? Take Sci Fi and turn it into reality? That's happened pretty much with Apollo.

On the other hand, Ion engines are a thing. Experimental, but functional. Still on a shoestring budget. So I expect those could really be ramped up with 50 megawatts of power available.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Green Mountain Bot]

That's an awful lot of money to spend on something we'll just park in the slow zone until the Free Navy decides to take it over.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[freeze128]

Because Sci-Fi got it RIGHT!

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[superdave80]

Yeah, it's not like NASA could ever develop something like an ion engine https://www.nasa.gov/centers/g...

Re: No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[sycodon]

We didn't know how to do a lot of things in 1962 that we eventually did in 1969.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[sycodon]

Free Navy sounds very familiar...help me here. It's been a while since my Sci Fi reading days.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

He's referring to The Expanse, a current Sci-Fi series.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

The thrust from them is small so you don't get much acceleration, it's the fact they give continuous acceleration that makes them beat chemical rockets providing you're in space already. But powered from a huge nuclear reactor you could imagine a cluster of them still giving an impressive acceleration.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Build an for real spaceship.

I vote #3

A For Real Spaceship is...

1. Multi megawatt reactor for power.

I wonder if we could design our next space station to more or less be this, once it is done. How do you get multi megawatt in space? If you scale nuclear up, can you cool it? It would be interesting to see the numbers.

What is the long term propellant? The reactor can add heat, but even so your on board supplies are finite. Maybe something like the old laser propulsion? link link (The first link is an ancient bit of Japanese animation, and not very accurate.)

Remember we don't need to accelerate fast. We just need to keep everyone alive and healthy and accelerate for a long time, and also be able to decelerate for a long time in the future and to make changes. I'd presume any on-board chemical propellant would be more for emergencies, unless there was a way to replace it.

Could you slingshot through the edge of a planets atmosphere and collect something that would work as propellant, perhaps after super heating it? Maybe you could compress a gas such as nitrogen into a liquid, store it, and use that as propellant? Assuming of course you could somehow work out a route that skims a planet just enough that you can collect and get free without using more propellant than you collect.

Nuclear pulse propulsion away from earth seems the most serious possibility. It is a pity that there is not a good way to study it further without contaminating our environment. Can we solve the problem of getting our payloads in orbit truly safely every time that we can afford to risk sending up something loaded with that much radioactive material?

There are a lot of possibilities. Just going back to the moon is stupid though, unless you have something more you are going to do. If that is the plan they might as well just use robots. They are at least cost effective. Actually most tech we develop will probably use robots, at least initially. Well, that, or people that don't mind that getting back is unlikely.

The idea of a small team of volunteers taking our first serious deep space craft out of our solar system would be very cool, even if it did use nuclear pulse propulsion. Even if there was only enough food for a few years or something, well there are bound to be volunteers that likely won't live much longer than that either way. At least we would be taking a small step forward as a society, which is something I rather suspect is slightly more impressive than Trump's magnificently great wall of bullshit.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[wyHunter]

Light sail?

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't launch with non-chemical rockets, you dumbfuck.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[ahodgson]

That's so last week. Laconia has it now.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the Mormons to fund it.

Re: No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the exhaust need to be radioactive? You build a nuclear reactor with a heat exchanger to push out hydrogen.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[viperidaenz]

ion engines still require "fuel". You need a big tank of something that's going to be ejected out the back of your space craft
Most of them use xenon gas as the propulsion medium. All the electricity does it accelerate the gas to produce thrust.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[viperidaenz]

They're great, until your tank of xenon runs out and there is nothing left to produce thrust.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[rtb61]

All you are getting though is, "bloody hell everyone thinks I am an idiot, a great big stupid orange orangutan, with a crappy toupe better make a press announcement to make myself look good, the idiots will never figure it out". They doesn't make for much of a space program, face it those in government no longer see anything beyond their own greed, no matter the program, huge chunks of funding are pretty much straight up stolen. To be honest, any body who wants to fly is a USA lowest tender space machine (designed purely to maximise profits), needs their head read. NASA is about the only decent US government agency and the US government is now hard at work screwing it over, turning it into a for profit scam.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[CrimsonAvenger]

ion engines still require "fuel".

No, ion engines require "reaction mass". Which is not quite the same thing as "fuel".

Since you apparently don't know the difference, I suspect you know rather less about the subject than you think you do....

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

And apparently, you don't recognize quotes around words - implying that he does understand that it isn't actually fuel.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[viperidaenz]

I would have typed fuel if I meant fuel. Instead I typed "fuel".
It's the thing the engine uses to produce thrust. You need to store it on your space craft and it gets expended out the back to move it forward. It's similar in concept to fuel, hence "fuel"

Regardless of how much you think I don't know about the subject, it doesn't change the facts. Ion engines may have a place, with their high specific impulse velocity to accelerate a space craft that is already in space. In theory they can get you to a higher speed than rocket engines. It's just going to take years to do it and a whole bunch of xenon.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need to be shooting people through space in tin cans.

At this point we have three options.

1. Continue pissing in the wind with half funded programs, then cancelling them partway through.
2. Go Full Robotic.
3. Build an for real spaceship.

2 and 3 = not enough funds!
1 = barely enough funds! especially after the latest budget cuts

for 1, 2 or 3, NASA needs some SERIOUS funding increase! But it will not happen, since NASA is all about the research now AND
they likely have a black budget space program that has taken over any other duties that was preformed by NASA.

NASA is left as a false flag to let us think that the US is no longer interested in space and space travel.. I call BS!

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Altrag]

1) OK we could do that, though it would likely have to be nuclear as we don't have any other technology that can bring that level of power online for any extended period of time, especially when refueling is not really simple.

2) I'm sure this would spur lots of innovation, seeing as it would require redefining a lot of what we know about physics.

3) We could do this, though you need a fairly large radius in order to be effective while not spinning people so fast that they get sick. Nobody wants to live in a tilt-a-whirl. We're talking the scale of hundreds of meters or into the kilometer diameter range.

4) We pretty much have this one, though again it needs to be fairly large, especially for food production.

5) We have lots of these already. None of them are especially fast but of course with no friction to slow you down, you can just keep on accelerating until your power source gives out.

I would also throw in a descent and ascent module

You might be able to manage descent with enough parachutes and whatnot to reduce the engine requirements, but ascent is directly contradictory with the size requirements needed for #3 and #4. If we were to build such a thing, it would have to be built in-orbit and the only way on or off would be a shuttle. There's not enough rocket fuel in the world to lift something that large into orbit from the ground.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[MoarSauce123]

It goes along with the Trump plan. Within a few months Trump ended any chance of industry or science leadership of the US in all areas except one: weapons. Killing people effectively is the only remaining skill the US has a top position in.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Salgak1]

Perhaps you've never heard of Project Orion. . . . exceptionally heavy lift via nuclear detonations. . .

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

option 4. Bang zoom, straight to the moon.

This plan will only work if our astronauts are named Alice Kramden.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

The key distinction is that the "fuel", that which provides the energy, is not also the reaction mass. A chemical rocket produces thrust by "burning" fuel and getting the exhaust pointed in some useful direction with relatively low velocity.

If you want to sit at the grown up's table, you need to use grown up words.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[pnutjam]

Until WW1, German was the language of science. I wonder what it will be in the later half of the 21st century?

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Green Mountain Bot]

Well, the novels specifically. But both are very good.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[DarthVain]

You'll be waiting awhile, like long past you and I are in the ground. Much of what you are talking about is not currently possible, nor will be possible anytime in the near future.

#2 is reality.

That said, the real spaceship "goals" are worthy on their own, but you don't need to actually build a spaceship to do any of them, or at least proof of concept.

One that I've always sort of thought about with all this talk about the moon and mars, is actually taking a serious stab at a closed loop environmental system, but here on earth where it is massively cheaper, and more controlled. There have been several attempts over the years, but no real successes. 1,2,5 are all somewhat related, but would also have terrestrial positive spin offs, so again focus on that as opposed to putting it in a ship. 3 is the only thing that is possible, but just expensive, and why bother unless you figure the rest of the stuff out. Better to use #2, and re-focus what money you save on R&D on the rest of the list. The gravity well is our enemy, and the support requirements for life over time are great.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor should you... unless you like living with that radioactive exhaust. I prefer something a little less destructive to us humans... and animals of all sorts... and plants... especially the plants we eat and other animals (that we eat) eat.

I grew up around Chicago when Lake Michigan, near the shore line, was an absolute sewer. You can thank environmentalists that you can swim safely in that water, let alone drink it (after treatment).

I remember a time when all large and many smaller cities were covered in layers of pollution. Well that isn't completely fixed, but it's much better than it was. Unfortunately we still have folks like you that prefer to rape the planet while assuming there are no consequences.

Try this... find a river or creek or such and drink from it. If you don't get sick (or die) then perhaps you have a point. Or perhaps you can thank an environmentalist that you survived the experiment.

Start small, try picking up your trash instead of throwing it on the ground. Or try picking up all the trash along a section of road, maybe you'll be surprised by all the folks, like you, that don't mind pissing in their own living space.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Shotgun]

I'm sure xeon is chosen as the gas for a perfectly reasonable reason, but surrounding the ship with a magnetic field will allow it to manipulate the rarified material in the solar wind. If the vessel is a space station that has an orbit that passes close to the Earth on one side and close to the moon on the other, it doesn't require much fuel to maintain orbit. Chemical rockets would be used to meet up with it at the appropriate time in its orbit.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Shotgun]

Put the station in an orbit that swings closely past the moon and the earth. Scaled down chemical rockets would meet up and dock as it passed close. No need to necessarily carry supplies for people if food can be grown on the station, and it has oxygen generating capacity. The generated magnetic field could capture, accelerate and eject the solar wind as a "base" control rocket. Chemical or ion engines with fuel reserves would be for emergency maneuvering.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[viperidaenz]

xeon is a line of CPU's from Intel
Xenon is used as a propellant because (according to NASA) it's a heavy element that is easily ionized, it's easily stored and is inert.
If you can't easily turn your propellant into a plasma, it's pretty useless for an ion engine as it's not going to react with a magnetic field. If it's too light, it doesn't produce much thrust.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[HeckRuler]

Right, but the ISP, the umph you get per kg of fuel, is fantastic compared to chemical engines. "VASIMR could reduce the amount spent of fuel for maintaining ISS altitude, using as little as 300 kg of argon gas instead of 7.5 tonnes of chemical fuel". In short, your fuel tank lasts a lot longer.

The bigger problem is that their thrust is so small. To scale that up you need a fuckton of watts. To make that many watts, you need a bigger power source, BOOM, you get into the exact same rocket equation you have with chemical engines. Well... not exact. When you're not scooting about the solar system you could use that power for other things. But you're typically always using it.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[viperidaenz]

There are satellites already in orbit that use ion thrusters to keep them in the right orbit.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. We are a group of hackers called Golden Group and we offer hacking services for everyone. Some of our services are: - Get any password from any Email Address. - Get any password from any Facebook,spy on facebook messages,hack snapchat,track your kids phone, Twitter or Instagram account. - Cell phone hacking (whatsapp, viber, line, wechat, etc) - Grades changes (institutes and universities) - Websites hacking, pentesting. - IP addresses and people tracking. - Hacking courses and classes. Our services are the best on the market and 100% secure and discreet guaranteed. Just write us and ask for your desired service: OUR EMAIL ADDRESS: charlescyberwiz@gmail.com.

Re:No Need to Go to the Moon or Mars

[superdave80]

To make that many watts, you need a bigger power source, BOOM, you get into the exact same rocket equation you have with chemical engines.

Or a combination of nuclear/solar could be used to produce power to drive the ion engine.

Distraction from Earth observation

[Anonymous Coward]

One can only assume that this is an attempt to soak up what little NASA budget remains in order to prevent them from launching any new earth observation satellites... you know, those ones that keep producing pesky global warming data. Clearly the best way to stop having a problem is to stop measuring it.

Re:Antarctica Outer Space Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

The Outer Space Treaty says no one may claim the moon, similar to how all claims in Antarctica are currently suspended.

Did you know after all these years, 'Outer Space' is still not defined? Lots of conventions and meetings expensed, however!

Space is fake. The Earth is flat.

really?

[slashmydots]

Why doesn't he send all the SJWs to the moon instead? Then they can live there and tell each other they're not being liberal enough. That'd be a guaranteed re-election next term.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't he send all the SJWs to the moon instead? Then they can live there and tell each other they're not being liberal enough. That'd be a guaranteed re-election next term.

Good luck getting them to move to the moon when they live in your head rent-free.

Re:really?

[jeff4747]

Nah, we should send all you rugged individualists, and you can show us just how wonderful a Randian paradise is.

He's Doing No Such Thing

[nealric]

Until there is an actual, specific, and funded plan, all Trump is doing is shooting his mouth off again.

Re:He's Doing No Such Thing

[argStyopa]

I remember Obama, and before him Bush II saying the exact same things.

Going to reinvigorate the space program.

Going to Mars.

Signing that order. ...and NOTHING.

It's not just that Trump's full of shit, they ALL are.

Re:He's Doing No Such Thing

[wyHunter]

Indeed. Obama cut funding to Orion. Bush cut funding to whatever - that was a while back. I think above someone mentioned the space shuttle. (It was probably time for that, no spare parts anymore)

Re:He's Doing No Such Thing

[k6mfw]

Yep. Until they start BUILDING and FLYING hardware like a transfer stage and a lander. Also need EVA suits, ability to communicate a quarter million miles away, and God knows what else. Otherwise this is typical, new president trashes the previous plans and introduces a new plan.

In meantime begin with a lander/rover mission to both poles as the first steps in a return to the Moon, http://www.spudislunarresource...

Re:He's Doing No Such Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just that Trump's full of shit, they ALL are.

But let's be fair. Trump is more full of shit than any previous president going back the last 100 years and he's been full of shit during a majority of his business career as well. He's certainly raised the bar.

Re:He's Doing No Such Thing

[mjwx]

Until there is an actual, specific, and funded plan, all Trump is doing is shooting his mouth off again.

This.

Just Trump passing wind again. Its been a year and its evident that he's going to be nothing but a seat warmer waiting to be replaced in 2020. The Republicans control the senate and the house and he's not able to pass any of his crazy ideas, his own party is ignoring him (because they care about their re-election in 2020).

Huntsville AL

[Anonymous Coward]

The Alabama special US Senate election is tomorrow. Must be a coincidence.

Just A Photo Op

[crunchygranola]

Sigh. Just a meaningless photo op, and a standard Trump boastful proclamation.

We aren't just going to the Moon, we are going to Mars and "many worlds beyond"!

There is no actual plan, or action involved here. No funding for the big words.

BTW - how is GHW Bush's Space Exploration Initiative going? Are we on Mars yet?

This announcement at least had some actual plans associated with it:

• Space Station Freedom
• Common Lunar Lander
• First Lunar Outpost

Ah, remember when we accomplished those national milestones?

No?

Of course not a single one of these actually got any funding to even begin actual work on the component of the plan.

Re:Just A Photo Op

[Anonymous Coward]

Space Station Freedom became ISS. So that one at least was accomplished, sort of.

Re:Just A Photo Op

[Guspaz]

NASA spent billions on Space Station Freedom before the program evolved into the International Space Station: it's not like it just disappeared.

Re:Just A Photo Op

[Trogre]

In his 1989 book Dave Barry Slept Here, the author predicts Mars will be renamed Planet Trump some time in the future.

I'm sure it was meant to be satire at the time, but it's looking much less absurd today.

 

Re:Just A Photo Op

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Just a meaningless photo op, and a standard Trump boastful proclamation.

Come now, surely....

There is no actual plan, or action involved here. No funding for the big words.

Who needs plans or actions? Especially from Trump? He just needs to declare it, and it will be so!

Of course not a single one of these actually got any funding to even begin actual work on the component of the plan.

Apparently Congress was not completely incompetent. Then. Now? I think we'll end up with Capricorn One.

true text of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

"The directive I'm signing today will refocus America's space program...PAUSE....

",Rocket Man!,"...

"(cough) on human exploration and discovery".

(crowd cheers).

Aren't moon hoaxers also Trump supporters ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a well known fact that most conspiracy theorists or all kind lean heavyly on the right side of the political spectrum. You know, the governement is evil and all that.

Will moon hoaxers finally admit that we went to the moon if their God Trump tells them so ? Which religious belief will they chose if they contradict themselves ?

Check the couch for change.

[Charcharodon]

Most of NASAs is eaten up by paychecks. Cut the number of admin people by 2/3rd and voila you have a enough budget surplus for all manner of space missions.

Better yet. Cut welfare/social spending at the Federal level by 1% and you can add another $23Billion dollars to NASA's anemic $17B budget.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Anonymous Coward]

The meat is the military budget.

Cut that by 0.02% and you can double NASA's budget. Cut the military by 1% and that gets you 3 times the budget for NASA. (Based on 2015 numbers)

Why the heck would you go after social spending first?

Re:Check the couch for change.

[JohnFen]

Or even better, cut military spending to something slightly less insane.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[CaptainDork]

This.

Stop the spiraling and unproductive costs of war and reroute that to the spiraling and unproductive costs of going to the Moon.

We'll save money by not spending money on not helping veterans.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Especially since, unlike most "welfare/social" spending, the military budget isn't made up of mostly mandated expenditures.

But no - let's cut grandma and grandpa's Social Security and Medicare benefits. Those old folks are living high on the government-sponsored hog.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Swave An deBwoner]

The esteemed Republicans just passed a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut.

Who cares about 23 billion here or 17 billion there? You're talking about pennies.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Charcharodon]

1% of 600 Billion (US military budget) is 6 Billion. Not sure how that is 3 times NASAs $17Billion budget. Public school education?

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Charcharodon]

I always love the guilt trip argument. They are just kindly old people you heartless bastard!!

Look around you. All those average fucktards you encounter day to day that make life just a little more miserable. Those same people will be old people one day and you will have to pay for them. That being said grandma and grandpa were those same people 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. Except they have you tricked in thinking that you owe them something.

Maybe they should have had kids to take care of them in their old age. Maybe they should have been nice to their kids so they would want to take care of them. Maybe they should have put some money away to last them through their golden years.

It doesn't matter that they are not living "high on the hog". The fact that there are 76 million of them (Baby Boomers) and each wants a retirement check and free health care out of you. At $50,000 per baby boomer for retirement and Medicare (that is probably too low of a number) that is $3.8 Trillion dollars per year. Our current Federal budget is $3.8 Trillion.

The reality is we cannot afford it even if we wanted to.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Charcharodon]

I have always argued we could do away with most of the military and replace it with an orbital bombardment system that is funded out of well funded a space program. A few thousand GPS guided kinetic weapons (think something the size of a bowling ball in space) and you no longer have to scramble jets or deploy troops. They could hit anywhere on Earth in under 50 minutes and there would be little to no defense against them.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Charcharodon]

Sounds good. Cut military ten percent and you get $60 Billion dollars.

Let's also cut social program/welfare spending 10% at the Federal level and we can add another $230 Billion dollars to that pile.

Round up NASA to a nice even $100 Billion and pocket the rest as savings.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[CaptainDork]

... think something the size of a bowling ball ...

Kim Jong-un's head comes to mind, as well.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Rather than make up numbers, why not look them up? Here are some real numbers - have fun with them.

Cost of Medicare per person per year is roughly $12000. Medicare isn't free, either - it's significantly subsidized, but the average subscriber is paying about $7600 a year. So that means that taxpayers are paying about $5400 per year per Medicare subscriber. Medicare payments currently make up roughly 15% of the total US budget, with enrollee premiums and deductibles returning a little over 60% of that.

Cost of social security per person per year is roughly $16320. It makes up about 20% of the total budget. Social Security is (ostensibly) paid for by current-worker taxes, but is certainly going to need retooling one way or another.

Military spending in 2015 was less than 16% of the US budget, although that is currently going up.

Also interest on the debt takes up 6% of the budget.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[angel'o'sphere]

The defense is easy:
o Terrorism to attack the cities and population of the owners of said system
o Assassins killing the operators, their families, the military and political figure heads

Re:Check the couch for change.

[painandgreed]

1% of 600 Billion (US military budget) is 6 Billion. Not sure how that is 3 times NASAs $17Billion budget. Public school education?

It's an AC post that you're replying to, so probably the Russian Public School system.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Shotgun]

Except that the military is one of the few functions actually assigned to the federal government.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Shotgun]

Given the amount of bombing we do (aren't we still bombing seven different countries), that satellite would have to be carrying a LOT of missiles as payload.

Re: Check the couch for change.

[Charcharodon]

Russian public school isn't that bad. Maybe California or Illinois public school

Re: Check the couch for change.

[painandgreed]

Russian public school isn't that bad. Maybe California or Illinois public school

Well, of course not, they obviously are able to speak a second language conversationally and have enough knowledge of the US government to troll about it.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[JohnFen]

True, but the Constitution doesn't require us to seriously overspend on it.

Re:Check the couch for change.

[Charcharodon]

Falcon 9 can take 50,000lbs to LEO. That would be 5,000 bombs per trip. Getting hit by a 10lb object that is moving 20+mach pretty much means a bad day for who ever is on the receiving end.

Larger ones would be needed for bunker busting, but 10lbs weapons would be more than enough to take out anything else on the surface.

Re:Wow! Space Theater!

[Hal_Porter]

At least he's not sending people to The Games.

Sounds just like JFK!

[mnemotronic]

I wanted to get a feeling for speaking style and vision.

JKF, 12-Sep-1962:

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic?

We choose to go to the Moon! ... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ...

Trump, 11-Dec-2017:

The directive I’m signing today will refocus America’s space program on human exploration and discovery. It marks an important step in returning American astronauts to the moon for the first time since 1972 for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps, someday, to many worlds beyond. This directive will ensure America’s space program once again leads and inspires all of humanity.

Beyond the basics, Kennedy had to request that Congress provide the funds and, as such, had to play preacher, cheerleader and salesman to make it happen. Trump seems less sensitive to the intricacies of politics, back-scratching and making deals; more of "I'm own this company. Do what I say".

Re:Sounds just like JFK!

[k6mfw]

And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic?

you left out "why does Rice play Texas?"

Re:Sounds just like JFK!

[Subm]

Also, when Kennedy said it, it had never been done before. It had barely been dreamed.

Trump is suggesting something that's already been done.

Re:Sounds just like JFK!

[mnemotronic]

And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic?

you left out "why does Rice play Texas?"

Good eyes. I did. I probably should have inserted something (I don't know what) to indicate the removed content which seemed more confusing in the current context.

Re:Sounds just like JFK!

[k6mfw]

Going OT but this is example mentioned in a documentary how history subtlely gets rewritten where many enjoy this famous speech by JFK (rarity as not often hear "let's go for it!" in a positive way). So it's gotta be reposted, however, nobody gets the "Rice play Texas" so it is removed. Bzzt, this happens with many historical film footage, articles where younger historians don't relate to certain quotes so they remove them. In this case, small university football team from Rice has no chance of winning the bigger team from UT, but they do it anyways because it is hard like climbing the highest mountain.

Re:Sounds just like JFK!

[micahraleigh]

Do you think Trump was elected by people wanting more sensitivity, "to the intricacies of politics, back-scratching and making deals" ?

More importantly ... is that what you want?

Re:Sounds just like JFK!

[mnemotronic]

I believe that trump was elected by people who wanted to see what a businessman or someone outside the beltway stew could cook up. I'm sure some people bought into the "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Plus he's a master of media manipulation -- the reincarnation of PT Barnum. Just look how he can redirect attention elsewhere whenever things start getting too warm. His followers believe what he tells them to believe, as they should. This is the age of ISIS, beheadings on youtube and an ever-increasing body count of Americans at the hands of their fellow citizens. People are desensitized, numb and overloaded and can't see the trap. They need higher and higher doses just to get the buzz.

For me, the election is over. I want our elected representatives to start acting like leaders who aren't running for re-election. That's not possible, with the possible exception of John McCain who now, sadly, is the definition of "short timer".

Re:Sounds just like JFK!

[micahraleigh]

Acting like a leader who isn't running for re election?

As in disinterested in what voters think? Sounds like a tyrant.

Perhaps you are interested in a Mr. Chavez or a Mr. Mao in the white house?

GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[jmcbain]

The Space Shuttle program was cancelled by George W. Bush in 2004. See:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/q...
• https://www.nasa.gov/missions/...

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[JohnFen]

Plus, killing the shuttle program was the right thing to do and long overdue. With all of the money we blew on it (producing easily the most expensive, least reliable, and deadliest spacecraft in the history of the US space program), many experts think we could have gotten our asses to Mars by now.

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Which he did after the Discovery disaster after the analysis showed the shuttles were way past EOL and such issues couldn't easily be resolved - which was why Bush accelerated the Constellation rocket program to take its place.
Which Obama killed and offered NO replacement
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3520...

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[HiThere]

To be fair the Space Shuttle program was a disaster, because the design was first low-balled financially, then then they decided to go with ceramic tiles rather than Titanium because they didn't like the politics of the main sources of Titanium ore. I really *did* need to be replaced, and never lived up to the original promises (made before the budget cuts and redesign).

However, considering the recent advanced US jet fighter....possibly some of the blame should also go to the corporations that were bidding to construct things.

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[Gavagai80]

Discovery is still in fine shape sitting in a museum.

I don't blame Bush for his decisions, but I also agree with killing Contellation -- both were the correct decisions at the time in light of evidence that Contellation was going nowhere and SpaceX was going somewhere. Unfortunately we're stuck with the SLS boondoggle.

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[angel'o'sphere]

Instead of killing it you as well could have tried to improve it.
There speaks nothing against having an improved shuttle with cost and capabilities compareable with Elons space company.
America let the shuttly die a slow death, and took into account the death of two crews ...
That had nothing to do with costs, but political unwill, bad management etc.
The challenger loss was completely avoidable, especially the crew. The crew lived till the cockpit hit the ground. The parachute system to rescue the cockpit was canceled/scratched because of costs. WTF ... how much would the cost have been for a shuttle that does dozens of missions? To rescue one crew?

The shuttle was not expensive because it was expensive. All the stuff on ground was expensive ... the idea that a few companies get rich on it was expensive. Your stupid idea how capitalizem works in government versus company interaction was expensive.

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[JohnFen]

Instead of killing it you as well could have tried to improve it.

That was politically impossible. The shuttle as originally envisioned by NASA wouldn't have had these problems at all. It could have been improved by reverting to the original plan. But Congress didn't want that.

The shuttle was not expensive because it was expensive.

When I say "expensive", I mean the cost per pound of payload. That expense was mostly due to the insane level of complexity of the shuttle's engines, which wasn't as reusable as the PR flaks liked to say. They had to be completely rebuilt after every flight.

the idea that a few companies get rich on it was expensive. Your stupid idea how capitalizem works in government versus company interaction was expensive.

That was certainly a large factor, but not the most important one. By the way, you don't know what ideas I have about how capitalism works or doesn't work, so you have no basis on which to call them "stupid".

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[micahraleigh]

Let's give Obama the credit for sending NASA to do Muslim outreach.

Re:GW Bush cancelled the Space Shuttle, not Obama

[angel'o'sphere]

"you" as in "one"

makes sense

[cyberman27]

We need to use the moon to build ships that can actually operate in space, that manufacturing needs to be done in a low gravity environment. China is focusing on the moon because they understand the value in mining the moon + asteroids in near earth orbit. This rush to Mars is a waste of time.

Why?

[FrankSchwab]

Just, Why?

There's nothing on the moon of value, and nothing to be gained from redeveloping the technologies for going there. Helium-3 is said to be in abundance - but for the hundreds of billions of dollars it'll take to get the first kilogram back to earth (not including the money necessary to build the fusion reactors to use it) we could cover Arizona in solar cells and power North America.

There are likely the same kinds of rare metals on the Moon as on Earth - without, of course, the problem of 200,000 years of humankind picking up all the obvious bits of pretty gold. Even so, the value of the rare metals is mostly artificial - having 10,000 tons of gold dropped on Earth won't enable anything that we can't do today with the gold we already have.

So, the only explanation is that this is a dick measuring contest. Our tall, thick rocket standing erect on the pad is more manly than your short skinny rocket. And, frankly, I don't want to pay for that.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the only explanation. Another explanation is that it is a huge magic trick designed to convince you the Earth is round and spins.

Have you ever seen a gyroscope move because of the rotation of the Earth? Or your hard drive?

Re:Why?

[magarity]

having 10,000 tons of gold dropped on Earth won't enable anything that we can't do today with the gold we already have.

Gold is an extremely efficient electrical conductor. What if it was plentiful enough that power lines were made of the stuff...

Re:Why?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Gold sucks as a conductor, in comparison to silver and copper. Both of which are considerably lower cost AND lighter than gold. Gold does not oxidize, however - and that makes it valuable as a plating for connectors. It still has good conductivity, but does not build oxide layers which reduce the contact conductivity.

Re:Why?

[Guspaz]

Gold isn't much better than aluminum, which won't oxidize after the outer layer (so bad for connectors, good for conductors). Better to make conductors out of copper or aluminum and gold plate the connectors.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just, Why?

Simples. Donnie saw astronauts play GOLF on the moon.

We all know how he feels about golf.

Re:Why?

[angel'o'sphere]

You grossly overestimate what conductivity has to do with grid losses.
And you grossly overestimate how many miles of wires you can span with a mere 10,000tonnes of gold.
Grid losses are in the range of 5%-7% ... because of distance, and radiation, not because of conductivity, otherwise the grid would be made from aluminium etc.

Re: Wow! Space Theater!

[Anonymous Coward]

When Obama was President, 'The Games' involved unmanned drones for the most part.

"To the moon, Alice . . ."

[hduff]

Again.

Re: Wow! Space Theater!

[Hal_Porter]

Hey, I agreed with that. And him killing bin Laden.

As Deng Xiaoping observed "Who cares if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice?"

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

Check your math...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the most generous, social programs and welfare are ~$1.4B This includes medicaid, medicare, and welfare. If you include social security (a fully funded and currently net profitable expense), you get to your $23B number, but that's... disingenuous at best.

Alternatively, shift 1% of our military budget into NASA and get $60B

Re:Check your math...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Check your facts. Twenty four percent goes to Social Security, 26% goes to medical spending. Safety net is 9%, and interest on the debt is 6%. That's 65% right there. Sixteen percent is on defense/military. The balance is everything else. The military budget is $600 billion (and that includes salaries and pensions for soldiers and veterans). Shifting 1% will be $6 billion, not 60 billion. You're off by a few orders of magnitude in most of your numbers...

Re:Check your math...

[Charcharodon]

$1.4 Billion? Social Programs and welfare spending at the Federal level is $2,300 Billion or $2.3 Trillion dollars.

$1.4 Billion. That is about how much the social programs budget for toilet paper every year.

How can Trump be sure the moon is there?

[Memophage]

How can he be sure the moon is actually there? I mean, all Trump has is the word of scientists! There are Americans here who believe the Earth is flat and what we experience as gravity is caused by the Earth constantly accelerating through space! Don't we need to hear all sides of this debate?

We can't even trust those scientists to figure out if the Earth is warming up or not! How can we trust them to stick God-loving Americans on the front of a rocket, shoot them into space, and land them on the @#$% moon?

Re:How can Trump be sure the moon is there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody thinks the Earth is accelerating through space. That is 'fake flat Earth.'

The Earth doesn't move. Have you seen a gyroscope move from Earth rotation? Your hard drive? A Liebert flywheel UPS?

Re:How can Trump be sure the moon is there?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Isn't it "God-fearing"?
2) Whichever you prefer of "God-fearing" and "God-loving", it's worth observing that to the modern American, God is the United States Government.

Re:How can Trump be sure the moon is there?

[iggymanz]

sad news for you, according to our best model of gravity (General Relativity) objects don't fall to earth, the surface of the Earth indeed accelerates up to those objects which are in free fall, following a space-time geodesic.

No. A majority of all the smarter than average

[presidenteloco]

bears on the planet agreed that it would be a good idea to send Mr. Trump to the moon.

Polar bears agreed 98.6 % in fact.

Re:Antarctica Outer Space Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

The treaty. You can position conventional weapons above the moon, no problem. Kinetic and chemical explosions work really well - birdshot is deadly in space! And since the treaty states that a "State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object", simply cover the area of the moon you wish to control with a microns-thin film of Mylar or other material. No one else can control/move it, and you have just claimed your chunk of the moon - without making any explicit claim.

Do not worry.

[Anonymous Coward]

The next president will cancel the moon initiative and tell NASA to go back to Mars.

The one after that will cancel the Mars initiative and tell NASA to build a Legrangian space station.

The one after that will cancel the station and tell NASA to go to the moon.

You're arguing with a doorknob

[DogDude]

Trump isn't doing this for science. He's doing it for applause. He doesn't have the ability or interest to consider any of the points that you made.

Re:You're arguing with a doorknob

[penandpaper]

Honestly, I don't care so long as NASA gets to do great and amazing things.

Re:You're arguing with a doorknob

[wyHunter]

And so what? The original space program was a "male member measurement war" between Kennedy and whomever was head of the USSR at the time. But look what it accomplished? Almost EVERYTHING humans do is for applause.

Let me guess...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Somebody on FOX reported that the moon landings were faked; so now Trump doesn't believe they happened and thinks really landing a man on the moon will cement his place in history.

He'd better send them to the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise they might observe global happening back on Earth!

His thaight process ...

[angel'o'sphere]

So he thinks he can anulate all 'laws' of Obama.
So he thinks no one is anulating his 'laws'.
So bright!

I was hoping it was the other way around

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is sending President trump back to the moon.

With better GCI these days

[Anonymous Coward]

With better GCI these days, we should end up with some footage that at least looks realistic, perhaps they could add some little touches like dust blasting out when the rocket engines fire on the dusty surface, just the small things will really help to sell the story.

Re:With better GCI these days

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'story' is that Earth is round and spins.

No amount of attention to detail can fix the eclipses or make a gyroscope turn from Earth rotation that isn't there.

Back? conspiracy trump voters would say

[Anonymous Coward]

you have to have gone first before you can go back!

#3

[Zorro]

NERVA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

Diameter: 10.55 meters (34.6 ft)
Length: 43.69 meters (143.3 ft)
Mass empty: 34,019 kilograms (74,999 lb)
Mass full: 178,321 kilograms (393,131 lb)
Thrust (vacuum): 333.6 kN (75,000 lbf)
ISP (vacuum): 850 seconds (8.3 km/s)
ISP (sea level): 380 seconds (3.7 km/s)
Burn Time: 1,200 s
Propellants: LH2
Engines: 1 Nerva-2

Get over it, lefties.

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS, what kind of Slashdot reader complains when the President directs NASA to go to moon?

NASA budget cut -- They're getting $19 billion dollars next year. AMD had $4 billion in revenue last year. Juniper had $5 billion. Crunchbase tells me SpaceX has received $1.5 billion in total funding so far and does $4 billion in revenue. Who delivers more value for that money? And what exactly does NASA deliver for $19 billion _each year_?

NASA mission changes -- Which one of you works for a company that hasn't had a change in strategy in the past eight years? Put your hands up. Now keep them up if your company went bankrupt. That's what I thought.

Climate change -- Not an appropriate goal for the _Aeronautics and Space_ Administration. You have NOAA, the NSF, and all the universities researching climate change on the public's dime. Let NASA worry about space instead of your pet concern.

Hillary was an awful candidate. The Dems would have won if they ran Bernie, but DNC leadership decided they wanted to cram Hillary down everyone's throat. And they lost. And you were wrong. Embrace your cognitive dissonance and get over it.

Re:Get over it, lefties.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aha, the but Hillary card, let me guess, the email card, then the bowling green event card?
Your favourite nutty conspiracy card... RWNJ cards, so easy to play.

check your lies

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's your thing. Find one simple mistake 6 not 60.
And then boldly claim the rest is orders of magnitude wrong, when they are all correct? Show us the 'orders of magnitude' errors in the other 2 numbers...

Re:check your lies

[LynnwoodRooster]

At the most generous, social programs and welfare are ~$1.4B. This includes medicaid, medicare, and welfare.

It's actually about 1000 times that, around $1.4 trillion.

. If you include social security (a fully funded and currently net profitable expense), you get to your $23B number

Again, off by a factor of 1000.

Alternatively, shift 1% of our military budget into NASA and get $60B

Off by a factor of 10. So pretty much every single number you quoted was off. Way off. Not just one simple mistake - EVERYTHING was a mistake. Sorry. Oh, and for the source? The source is what I linked to originally. You're welcome.

Re:check your lies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually about 1000 times that, around $1.4 trillion.

Again, off by a factor of 1000.

Uh-Oh, LynwoodRooster, you failed in reading! The conversation isn't about the total spending, it's about a percentage of it.

Sorry, you're going to have to revise your faulty correction.

Re:check your lies

[LynnwoodRooster]

Really? Is that why you posted in billions of dollars? Because when talking about percentages, most people talk about percentages - not dollars. Go ahead, best to slink away now and just realize you were wrong. Better yet, man up and admit it - and at least gain some sort of appreciation for what you said.

Re:check your lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the billions of dollars are the important bits, the result. The percentages are needed to calculate the results. I noticed you

slink away now and just realize you were wrong. Better yet, man up and admit it - and at least gain some sort of appreciation for what you said.

Na you're a full Republican, you probably still think you are right...

OK Donald

[Anonymous Coward]

You should go to space, where everyone can appreciate your absence.

Re: Wow! Space Theater!

[Gavagai80]

If your cat frequently accidentally killed everyone in your house and your neighbors' houses as collateral damage when killing a mouse, you might start caring.

Re: Wow! Space Theater!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think the drones stopped flying the moment Trump got elected ?

If yes, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Even better: He will go there all by himself

[Anonymous Coward]

and convert it into a giant golf resort. The residual NASA budget will be used to cover the moon with gold - he'll be the greatest man on the moon EVER!

Re: Wow! Space Theater!

[Hal_Porter]

Cats don't care about collateral damage. They'd eat the whole mouse race if they could.

NASA could have a base on the moon within 10 years

[frank249]

If NASA put the $4B/yr they currently spend on the SLS into a fixed contract to SpaceX to develop the BFR they could have a base on the moon within 10 years. It may be wishful thinking that the US would abandon SLS after all the money that has been sunk into it but eventually someone will notice that a lot of money is being spent on a system that can only launch every two years.

Bang, zoom, straight to the moon

[mretondo]

I want to send Trump to the moon.

Re: Wow! Space Theater!

[Anonymous Coward]

If your cat frequently accidentally killed everyone in your house and your neighbors' houses as collateral damage when killing a mouse, you might start caring.

Where can I get such a cat? Or two?

Let him try...

[Freischutz]

Simple.

He's going to get Mexico to pay for it!

and it's going to be YUGE!

That is a nice idea and your president is free to go down south and ask them but something tells me that the closest he'll ever get to a Mexican funded trip to the moon is a phalanx of Mexicans mooning him with the words 'Ni un peso!' written in YUGE! letters across their backsides.

check you comprehension too

[Anonymous Coward]

So you caught a typo as well B instead of T everyone knew it was meant to be T and he obviously used T in his calculations.
It's very obvious to a half inteligent person when you add the $900M from SS to make $2.3T and 1% of that is the $23B. And using your own numbers the answer is correct, so it was clearly just a typo.
So how the fuck is $23b off by a factor of 1000?
Are you claiming 1% of the total is $23Trillion, or is it $23Million? Because both those amounts are clearly absurd.

Imagine the conversation

[Anonymous Coward]

*ring ring*

NASA: Hello this is NASA

Trump: Hey NASA I'm sending you back to the moon. Cool huh?

NASA: Oh, like back to the *moon* moon? Like the real moon? Well, you see, um, back in '69, haha, ya know, a funny thing...

Trump: Excuse me?

NASA: Oh um....sure! We'll get right on it sir! Thank you sir!

*click*

NASA: Quick! soneone fond out if Stanley Kubrick still alive!!!

Faked Moon Landing

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Trump is sending NASA back to the moon...the first landing was faked.

Greentext version

[Anonymous Coward]

> be 1969
> fake moon landings
> fool entire world
> usa! usa!
> be 2017
> actually try to send humans to mmon
> crew dies horribly radiation death passing through van allen radiation belts
> ohshit.jpeg
> coverup.mpeg
> remeber that we have really good CGI these days
> fuck it, fake it again
> usa! usa!

To the moon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the aliens for continuing help,theyâ(TM)ve been coming here for thousands of years already,spend the money on POVERTY and CLEAN DRaiNakING WATER!

Re: To the moon!

[GarryMcarthur]

Hey I ainâ(TM)t no COWARD! Asshole!

LOL made the same 'mistake'

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be add the $900B from SS to make $2.3T
See its an easy mistake to make. :)

Trump is Zuma

[Anonymous Coward]

Living on his own bubble, directing a "great future" while he's blind to the suffering of the people.

This will end poorly for #Freedumbs.

Re:Sounds just like JFK! not

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that was my impression of his announcement today - Kennedy's speech is one of the great aspirational speeches "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" is brilliant, something we all remember after we hear it, especially because it was actually done. Trumps speech today was just an old man mumbling.

And in other news

[Munich Munchkin]

Why is this shit even news ?

SEND TRUMP FIRST!

[Anonymous Coward]

And, uh, the way back? Oh, the budget cut... Y'know, you'd need to haul that much fuel up there... But we'll send some food and oxygen from time to time, promised.

Twitter? No, I fear there's no twitter up there. Perhaps we send a bi-annual CD.

Scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes climate change is very import.... HEY LOOK A WILD GOOSE !!

This is how it's going to work ...

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) SpaceX is going to land somebody on the moon in the next couple of years anyway.
(2) President Trump will get NASA to give SpaceX some money. My wagers are:
        40% on $100'000 or less
        50% on a friendly promise but no actual money.
(3) Trump will point to whatever Musk does and proclaim "I did that".

Better idea...

[p51d007]

Send the flat earth types & man made global warming types first.

it's all a bullshit shuck

[Thud457]

Every president promises some "big space plan" to try to show that they have "Vision".
Doesn't mean shit unless Congress also provides funding.


At this point NASA should be like kickstarter, they determine a set of prioritized goals, and however much Congress puts into their accounts determines how many of those goals can be achieved. That would also show how pathetically low our funding commitment is to space science.

Re:it's all a bullshit shuck

[viperidaenz]

It already is like kickstarter isn't it? They determine some goals, it gets funded way past what they said it really needed, then nothing really happens and if it eventually does, the delivery is late and a few of the promises have been broken.

ha-ha

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot Dolan finally doing some good and not just grabbing some alabaman pussy lol...
hit him on the head few more times and maybe he stays in Paris climate accord instead of setting the whole country on fire.

Send Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Trump take the first trip to the moon?

NASA Flight Control: "Oops. We didn't load enough fuel for the return flight."

moon shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's start by sending Trump.

Re:Antarctica Outer Space Treaty

[micahraleigh]

You're saying the moon could be as wonderful and successful as Antarctica?

Whoa !!

Seriously, though, who is enforcing this? And if this policy would never work in the US or the EU, why would we ever want it in space?

Eject the space treaty into space I say.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It truly baffles me why anyone pays attention to anything Trump says, much less debate it. It's all gibberish until there is some actual action.