Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA To Cancel Lunar Resource Prospector Mission (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the strange-priorities dept.

New submitter XXongo writes: NASA has told the Lunar Resource Prospector Mission team to cease work on developing the mission by the end of May. The proposed mission was in development to send a rover to the lunar pole in 2022, with the objective to drill into ice frozen in permanently shadowed craters. Use of such ice has been proposed as a resource that could be processd into rocket fuel, oxygen, and water for life support systems.

The cancellation apparently is partly due to the mission having been shifted from the Human Exploration directorate of NASA, which is excited by the possibility of lunar resources supporting exploration, to the Science Mission directorate, which does not consider lunar ice a high priority for science. The cancellation of the mission has gotten some controversy from the lunar science community, with the members of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) writing an open letter to new administrator Bridenstine protesting the cancellation.

95 comments

  1. Idiots write an open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Instead how about they write some checks. They're so eager to spend everyone else's money, how about they pony up some and then they will have earned the right to complain.

    1. Re:Idiots write an open letter by Hillary+2020 · · Score: -1

      Indeed, space exploration is arguably a waste of time. We need to be fixing things at home so we have our priorities in order before we set out for the stars.

      Elect Hillary Clinton in 2020. She is humanity's best hope. And America's greatest hope against the Russians. I'm with her!

    2. Re: Idiots write an open letter by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      How do you know they don't pay taxes?

    3. Re:Idiots write an open letter by cyberchondriac · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, I'm all for electing Hillary to be put on a rocket and blasted off to the Moon. She won't be the first women President, but she'll be the first woman Resident.. of Luna.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re: Idiots write an open letter by saloomy · · Score: 0

      Taxes are not being spent how they want. They weren't elected and don't get to decide a budget for NASA. If they want to probe the ice in the lunar pole, let them write a check. Elon must wanted a human on the red planet, he wrote a check.

    5. Re:Idiots write an open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only idiots here, as has become the norm, is the slashdot commenters:

      1. Trolls;

      2. clueless ignorants;

      3. Basement dwellers with their worthless lives who delude themselves into thinking that they're smarter than NASA people.

    6. Re: Idiots write an open letter by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Would it be so easy for him to do if he didn't have a fat NASA contract.

    7. Re: Idiots write an open letter by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      He earned those contracts himself.

    8. Re: Idiots write an open letter by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yes he did. The taxpayers requesting that their money be spent on something they're interested in also earned that money that they paid taxes on. Are you suggesting that people who pay taxes should be required to pay the full amount for everything before they get a say?

    9. Re:Idiots write an open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. People who think Slashdot is still relevant today as it was 20 years ago.

    10. Re: Idiots write an open letter by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that people who pay taxes should be required to pay the full amount for everything before they get a say?

      No.

    11. Re:Idiots write an open letter by foxalopex · · Score: 2

      Speaking of budget, when you work out how much the US spends per person roughly a year. For military it's about $1,800. For NASA it's about $50! Sort of sad when you think about it.

    12. Re: Idiots write an open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of taxes I've paid over the years have not being spent the way I want. I have never been elected to anything. Are you saying I should shut up, be quite, go away, stop complaining, etc.? If so, then you really don't have a clue.

    13. Re:Idiots write an open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes sense, kind of like when England sent their criminals to Australia.

    14. Re: Idiots write an open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh here we go yet again with that same old BS argument that somehow 1) "The money could be better spent here on Earth" and 2) "We should solve every single problem here on Earth first, even if it means remaining here forever". This deluded, worn out cliche falls apart on a number of fronts and every time it is dredged up it remains completely unchanged and it adds NOTHING new or useful to the discourse. To counter these stale assertions will argue two of these points:

      First, the idea that the money will ever be redirected to anything that will actually improve our quality of life is absurd. It doesn't work that way and it NEVER WILL. The way it works is that any unused funds in any given fiscal year are plowed back into the General Fund, where it is then reallocated towards the top national priorities for the next fiscal year. The top priorities include servicing our national debt and maintaining a permanent state of military readiness to fight the Forever Wars around the world. Concerns about science, education, non-porkbarrel jobs and infrastructure are only paid lip service and in reality are de facto at the bottom of the list as well. Since all other space activity outside of the military and/or a tiny little superficial bump for science and limited commercial satellite launch (just to keep up a hollow appearance that we haven't totally abandoned our capabilities and become a technological backwater) lay so far down the priority list that it might as well not even be on it, political support for Civilian space activities has always remained broad but shallow and there is never enough of it to ensure serious discussion and consensus on a coherent vision. Rudderless and lacking in any Required Immediate Justification, NASA (and its Manned Spaceflight program in particular) is forced to limp along under a cobbled together kludge of pragmatic and aspirational arguments that by themselves individually are not enough to justify the existence of a non-military space program. Our civilian space program only continues to exist because it is joined at the hip to the military industrial base and because we are bound contractually to a small handful of international science projects. Donald Trump and Mike Pence don't actually give a flying f**k about anything else but weaponizing space as fast as possible and enabling a tiny little bit of nationalistic economic activity so long as it pleases the base. However, since infrastructure and public education spending are not actually real priorities either, not a single red cent will ever be spent the way you wish it to.

      My second point is that the "stay here and fix it all first" argument is often one big Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Either we're preparing to abandon our homeworld to become the very type of rapacious, greedy alien invaders we depict in so many science fiction movies, strip-mining every planet we come across until there's nothing left and moving on to the next one while leaving the rest of our kind here to die, or there's literally nothing out there that can ever be converted to a useable form, we're all completely alone as the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe and we might as well forever limit our physical, intellectual, spiritual and socioeconomic horizons to the surface of this Pale Blue Dot and stop dreaming of what could be Out There. No middle ground. Many contrarians argue that space exploration, technological development and exploitation of resources beyond Earth - and practical humanitarian concerns down here on Earth - are mutually exclusive. I argue otherwise on several grounds. Sure there's always the spinoff argument, and the aspirational goals such as the quest for life beyond Earth, and all the other romantic angles, etc. Sure I could argue till the cows come home that Earth's problems will never fully be absolutely 100% solved but that's no excuse not to do both space exploration and working to address the earthbound challenges of our civilization down here. I could and would argue about how space technology materially improv

    15. Re: Idiots write an open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the "escape hatch for the wealthy" and "insurance for humanity" arguments, those don't quite hold water either. A small early settlement cannot just survive on its own. For a significant length of time, possibly a few centuries, It will be mostly reliant on supply lines from Earth. If catastrophe were to befall our homeworld before these settlements can grow large enough and master ISRU and waste recycling to become self-sufficient, then they will die out soon after Earth does. Questions of legal enforceability aside, the current treaty framework also "tethers" these settlements to their respective terrestrial nation states. Until full self-sufficiency is achieved, full political independence may not be possible. That said, the "insurance for humanity" argument often touted by the likes of Elon Musk might be valid inasmuch as we need to start paying into the policy now, but there's always that risk that the whole endeavour could fall apart before we get a million-strong Martian city.

  2. Boston Robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Send Boston Dynamics to the moon.

    1. Re:Boston Robots. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      There's your problem right there.

      We keep sending robots into space, eventually they're going to wise up and quarantine the Earth for the safety of the rest of the universe.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:Boston Robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. so what's the downside?

    3. Re:Boston Robots. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      We keep sending robots into space, eventually they're going to wise up and quarantine the Earth for the safety of the rest of the universe.

      So bots will build a wall around us and make us pay for it?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Boston Robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not funny, Chris.

    5. Re:Boston Robots. by rworne · · Score: 1

      We keep sending robots into space, eventually they're going to wise up and quarantine the Earth for the safety of the rest of the universe.

      So bots will build a wall around us and make us pay for it?

      He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two dimensional thinking.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  3. Lunar Base by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Establishing a permanent lunar base is the logical first step towards a Mars trip.

    I heard someone once say that if you want to grind a 6 inch telescope mirror, it is faster and more prudent to grind a 3-inch mirror first and then a 6-inch mirror than to try to go for the 6-inch mirror on the first attempt.

    1. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a good reason to go is the first is the logical first step towards a Mars trip.

    2. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is flat broke. Too many trillions squandered on war and entitlements. Mars will never happen. Nor should it! Simply a frivolous waste of effort.

    3. Re:Lunar Base by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never understood how going to the Moon is good practice for manned trip to Mars.

      For one thing, the voyages are completely different. Not just the distances and duration, but a Mars vehicle would use aerobraking (not possible on the Moon) which ironically takes total delta-V for a Mars mission below delta-V req for a Moon mission which has to expend propellant to land.

      And the destinations are so different. The spacesuits, tools, transports, infrastructure...not much similarity between what would work well on the Moon vis-a-vis what would work ideally on Mars.

      I think the manned-mission centric science that needs to be done in space is partial gravity research on biological systems. We have tons of experience and data telling us how bad it is for one's health to be in zero-g for extended periods. We basically have zero data on how bad 50% earth gravity is, or 10% earth gravity. Is the physiological impact of zero g vs. 1 g linear? Such to say if one is in gravity field 20% strong as Earth's for a long time, will they experience only 80% of the deleterious effects of zero G? Whats the scale there? Interesting very important aspect of our entire future in space and we have no data on it. Bizarre.

    4. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, I'd say start with 6 or 8 inch, then go to 16 or 20! But, I had the good fortune of knowing John Dobson!

    5. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      im sure it is if the earth wasnt flat

    6. Re:Lunar Base by edi_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Aerobraking and spacesuits are a small part of the equation. Probably the most relevant reason is the idea of people surviving off the 'grid', way off the grid for extended periods of time. Figuring out the mundane things like food, water, waste, breathable air. The moon, being much closer allows us to start figuring stuff out in this regards with a much more favorable plan B when things go wrong. . Also, and this is getting much farther down the timeline, but at some point it would make a lot more sense to use the moon as launch base for all things interplanetary. As all decent Sci-fi readers know the moon will become the industrial center of the solar system once we decide to start working in space for real.

      Ideally the two things could be done in parallel, get people living on the moon at the same time advanced robotic missions to Mars are occurring. I for one would trade the $406 billion dollar F-35 boondoggle for a real space program. Maybe we can reduce the nuclear arsenal to a reasonable 1000 warheads (down from 4000), that's save some cash. Also foreign wars...we should stop participating/starting in wars that do not pose at least somewhat of an existential threat. That should save a ton of money...and lives, and arms and legs.

    7. Re:Lunar Base by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Probably the most relevant reason is the idea of people surviving off the 'grid', way off the grid for extended periods of time.

      You don't need to practice on the Moon. Go build a self-sufficient habitat in the desert in Nevada. Only allow people outside in a space suit, slow down communication, and limit every transport to what could be done on a rocket.

    8. Re:Lunar Base by edi_guy · · Score: 2

      Ok, we can check that off the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    9. Re:Lunar Base by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As all decent Sci-fi readers know the moon will become the industrial center of the solar system once we decide to start working in space for real. Ideally the two things could be done in parallel, get people living on the moon at the same time advanced robotic missions to Mars are occurring.

      Aerobraking is not small part of equation. Aerobraking changes delta-V req's and also needs a heatshield and some aerodynamics for atmospheric entry; a Moon lander would essentially be different vehicle from a Mars lander - i.e. there is no practical experience gained practicing Moon landings in Moon-landers as it relates to doing anything like that on Mars. You'd actually get better practice just lobbing Mars lander up close to escape and aerobrake coming back down. (that technique actually employed during Apollo - which is good analog of what I'm talking about...compare the CM to the LM. They are both landers and yet nothing alike).

      Also the Moon becoming industrial center of solar system is more fiction than science. What resources are there (beyond the ice) is all diffuse in the regolith. Most everything you'd need on the Moon has to be shipped from somewhere else. It will always cost more delta-V (hence propellant) to ship something from point A to the Moon and then from Moon to point B instead of just going from point A to point B. Delta V is everything in space travel.

    10. Re:Lunar Base by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Biosphere 2 didn't have a mass/size budget limited by realistic rockets. Also, it was a failure. Looks like there's still a bit of work to do.

    11. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practicing anywhere on earth for mars isn't anywhere as realistic as practicing on the moon, as there is still gravity on earth that is higher than on mars, and much higher than in interplanetary space. You play like you practice, so you want your practice conditions to mirror the playing conditions as much as possible, and earth doesn't do that.

    12. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're going for a really fast scope (less than f/4.5), anything above 12 inches in a dob is a pain. For the average adult a 12 inch f/5 is the best ergonomic/aperture balanced scope you can ask for using a dobsonian mount.

    13. Re:Lunar Base by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Practicing anywhere on earth for mars isn't anywhere as realistic as practicing on the moon, as there is still gravity on earth that is higher than on mars

      Gravity on the Moon isn't like Mars either. Plus, there's a lot of stuff that can be tested that isn't dependent on gravity. Big advantage of testing on Earth is that it's dirt cheap.

    14. Re:Lunar Base by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best Mars-simulator available to humans is Antarctica here on Earth. Lets compare.... Atmosphere? Mars and Earth have one, Moon none. Weather? Well, with atmospheres come weather. Sorry Moon. Diurnal period? Earth's day = 24 hours. Mars day = ~24 hours. Moon day? About a month. Temps? Antarctica very good imitator of Martian temps; Moon swings hundreds of degrees just between light and shadow. The only thing Moon and Mars really share relative to us is that humans have to get on a rocket to go to either place. That's about it.

    15. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered what's the point of going to Mars at all?

      Colonization? No way. The most inhospitable place on Earth is, and always will be, infinitely better than Mars or the moon.

      Want to play space man? Go to the desert in Nevada - or anywhere - and pretend. And it has the added bonus that you can just drive there, and if you bust a seam in your spacesuit, you won't die.
       

    16. Re: Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Delta v for landing on Mars may be less than landing on Earth if your mission is one-way. If you want the astronauts to return it requires far less energy to reach escape velocity on the moon than it is on Mars.

      No one said the missions are completely analogous. The problem with sending people to Mars isn't getting there. It's surviving and dealing with the unanticipated problems that will arise on any missing of significant duration. While we spend decades perfecting the technology to survive and create fuel on Mars, we could be gaining operational knowledge by having astronauts learn to live far from Earth while still able to safely evacuate of necessary.

    17. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a failure, try again. If you can't do it in the middle of the US next to a major city, it's probably not going to work on Mars, the Moon or in orbit.

    18. Re:Lunar Base by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Aerobraking is not small part of equation.

      Neither is flight time and that's the main reason to start with the moon. We've already proven we can get to the moon and back in a few days. The issue isn't delta-v; it's life support and consumables for the fleshy humans. A Mars mission would take at minimum months to get to the red planet and months to get back. If anything goes wrong along the way that can't be fixed or compensated for, everybody dies. Shorter voyages mean less probable risk and easier recovery from incidents should they occur.

      Now if people will ever get their heads out of their asses about the use of nuclear propulsion -- in any form -- then the flight time to Mars becomes much more manageable. Unfortunately too many people are too ignorant to understand this concept and recoil in horror when you use the word "nuclear" in anything.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    19. Re:Lunar Base by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Well if you want to understand long term effects of partial gravity, the moon is the most obvious place to do it.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    20. Re: Lunar Base by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's a realistic plan on the table anymore for a manned Mars mission that doesn't involve in-situ production of propellant on Mars as part of the propellant budget.

    21. Re:Lunar Base by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 1

      Far cheaper (and safer) would be a spinning wheel in orbit a'la 2001. Doesn't have to even be human-sized (lab rats in space!); and the gravity level is user-selectable.

    22. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we suck all the air out of Nevada and transform it into the vacuum of space too? Cause I'd like to see that.

    23. Re: Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the dinosaurs.

    24. Re:Lunar Base by drgould · · Score: 1

      Establishing a permanent lunar base is the logical first step towards a Mars trip.

      Establishing a permanent lunar base is the logical first step towards going anywhere in the solar system; Mars, Venus, the asteroids, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, etc,

    25. Re:Lunar Base by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

      I was listening to an interview with one of the Biosphere 2 team the other day. It wasn't a failure, it was an experiment. One which didn't go exactly as planned. But that's not a bad thing. They learned a crap ton of stuff from it, probably more than they would have if it all went perfectly. The sphere is still out there and still being studied, though it's not a closed system anymore.

      The moon is a logical next step. The person interviewed said they had some rough times in Biosphere 2, but at the end of the day they knew that if it got to be too much they could just open the door and walk out. The moon is the next step up from that. You can't just open the door, but if things go sideways rescue is only days away, not months. Mars is far enough away that there's pretty much no hope of rescue. If things go wrong, all we can do is watch them die. We can't even send words of encouragement without a substantial time delay.

      Biosphere 2, like any Earth-based habitat, is a tricycle. It's hard to tip over, and if you do the worst that happens is you get a skinned knee. The moon is a bike with training wheels. You can tip it over and you might actually get hurt, but the injuries are unlikely to be fatal. Mars is a two-wheel bike in traffic. Failures are going to leave a pavement stain. It's a really good idea to have an intermediate stage between the tricycle and riding in traffic.

      (And to extend the analogy to the point of absurdity, I'd argue that colonizing a moon of Jupiter or Saturn is careening down Mt. Everest on a mountain bike. An interstellar colony is a unicycle on a tightwire over Niagara Falls. Blindfolded. In a hail storm.)

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    26. Re:Lunar Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grinding is easy, it's figuring a mirror that is hard. I like 20" f/3.3... but I can't figure that myself. 28" f/2.8 is pretty good and no ladder required if you are 6' tall and have $$$. If you can transport it that is about ideal for a Dobsonian. I'd go 50" f/4 with a Nasmyth focus if I had an observatory in a dark location.

      John Dobson himself always went big and said 10" was the smallest worth doing. He liked a scope that "sleeps three". Literally three people could sleep in the tube when he carted it around to national parks. I guess that was a 24 incher... but I forgot. He also liked long focal lengths and was always complaining how small the spaces were in San Francisco available to him for mirror grinding and figuring. You need twice the focal length for some tests while figuring. A 24 inch f/5 needs 240" for testing!!!! Wish I had spent more time with him.

    27. Re:Lunar Base by mentil · · Score: 1

      However, you're assuming that all delta-V is equal. Delta-V (fuel) being launched from Earth costs much more delta-V to launch to space than delta-V (fuel) being launched from the moon, coming from fuel created from resources mined from the moon's poles, due to Earth's stronger gravity. Now if we had a space elevator, then this might be moot.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  4. Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robots are the future of space exploration.

    1. Re:Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but space exploration is not a long term goal, just a step toward human space colonization. There's hardly a point in having knowledge for its own sake if we aren't going to act on that knowledge. Anything that hinders future action is short sighted.

    2. Re:Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " just a step toward human space colonization."

      This comes up over and over and over, especially with software people who have no concept of the complexities and limits of the real world. It's like a religion.

      Why do you believe this nonsense? No one is colonizing space, just like no one is colonizing the sea floor.

      "There's hardly a point in having knowledge for its own sake "

      I thought that was the usual explanation for "space exploration"? Knowledge!

      But try to push for life extension and anti-aging knowledge...

    3. Re: Not a priority for science. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Luckily the Earth's resources are infinite and it will always be habitable.

    4. Re:Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      space exploration is not a long term goal, just a step toward human space colonization

      There is no reason to "colonize" space, but there are many good reasons to explore it.

    5. Re: Not a priority for science. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Luckily the Earth's resources are infinite and it will always be habitable.

      Mars and the Moon are not habitable either, and they aren't exactly good places to find resources. Our effort is better spent preserving what we have here.

    6. Re:Not a priority for science. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      There's hardly a point in having knowledge for its own sake if we aren't going to act on that knowledge.

      Sometimes we're just curious. We look at far away pulsars and black holes without any plans to colonize them.

    7. Re: Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who thinks like that? God complex, much? If you're that worried about hypotheticals in the far future:
      1) Don't have kids.
      2) Realize that evolution is still happening. There were no humans a million years ago, there won't be any in another million.

      The Earth is the only place that supports life. There is no way to reach other habitable planets, ever. There is no way to make the other planets in our system habitable. Ever.

      You are evading your responsibilities as a human adult right here right now, by invoking quasi-religious sci-fi nonsense for teenagers.

      The definition of a Space Nutter.

      At the peak of our manned space capability, we were able to send three people at a time to the Moon, for a week.

      We are currently increasing our population by 200000 more people. Every. Day.

      You'd need 67000 Saturn V launches EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. just to keep up with population growth.

      For a week.

      There is absolutely no combination of chemical elements, technology, or resources that will prevent us from hitting that wall of reality that the planet is finite, our resources are finite, and our technology is limited, and that physics itself places those limits.

      We don't even have the Concorde anymore and you're planning the future of the Human Species in the Galaxy!??

      Grow up.

    8. Re: Not a priority for science. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What do you suggest should be done with the miniscule (relatively speaking) amount of money NASA gets every year?

    9. Re: Not a priority for science. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Remote exploration. Basically the stuff they've doing already, except for the ISS, which should be deorbited.

    10. Re: Not a priority for science. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      How is that going to preserve what we have here?

    11. Re:Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We thought the Galaxy was the entire universe up until the 1920s!!!

      Astronomers explored the universe more by staring into telescopes in the early 20th century than astronauts ever did.

      The knowledge that the universe is billions of times larger than our galaxy is less than a hundred years old, and it was "explored" by nerds sitting at desks!

      It seems that people have this romantic sci-fi idea of "exploration" being some kind of 1930s Buck Rogers notion of physically going to other planets that happen to have weird people on it and getting voluptuous women. (which Space Nutters can't have access to in reality)

      Jesus Christ, space is mostly EMPTY. The density of interplanetary space is 5 particles per cubic centimeter!

      There's nothing there! You have Star Wars movie imagery in your mind when the reality is: cold, empty, deadly, radiation-blasted hell.

    12. Re: Not a priority for science. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It isn't, but you asked me what to do with NASA's budget.

    13. Re: Not a priority for science. by scottrocket · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Human civilization was made by nutters, one footstep at a time. Then the practical naysayers came along and just ruined everything.

    14. Re:Not a priority for science. by tomhath · · Score: 0

      This comes up over and over and over, especially with software people who have no concept of the complexities and limits of the real world.

      It isn't software people. It's people who read science fiction and think it's real. They talk about "getting off this rock" as if there's some place else to go. And they say things like "all you need to do is break the laws of physics and what I'm imagining is possible".

    15. Re:Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " We look at far away pulsars and black holes without any plans to colonize them."

      Don't be so sure. Space Nutters probably think black holes are walking distance from the moon and could be easily colonized with 3D printers because "the species".

    16. Re: Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm saying we cancel it entirely. Immediately. Close up shop.

      Cancel my project. I'll cancel yours. Period.

    17. Re:Not a priority for science. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should read up on what real science is.

    18. Re:Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but hardware people also read the same sci-fi as teenagers but they don't fervently spout religious crap whenever space is mentioned.

    19. Re: Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget one thing, right now asteroids and comets impact can wipe out humanity in a heartbeat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5LCLljJho

    20. Re: Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human civilization was made by warriors, one foot-soldier at a time. Then the peacenik naysayers came along and just ruined everything.

      FTFY

      PS: Watch the PBS series on agriculture, conflict and civilization. Eye-opening and naiveté-destroying.

    21. Re: Not a priority for science. by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      The Earth is the only place that supports life. There is no way to reach other habitable planets, ever. There is no way to make the other planets in our system habitable. Ever.

      You use 'ever' incorrectly. What can be realistically done in a single human lifetime is sadly very limited yes.

      Planets aren't even the optimal colonization real estate in the solar system.

      Try SFIA on youtube for some current physics (and reasonable extrapolations) based capabilities.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    22. Re: Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feed the troll. He's a very maladjusted person. Also a repeated sex offender and on multiple watch lists.

    23. Re:Not a priority for science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afraid to grow old? Afraid to die? It's nature: get over it. You won't get to live any longer than it is possible now, and you will grow old. And die. Like everybody else. You can only blame yourself for unfulfilled ambitions and unrealized dreams, it's too late now, you should have done it when it was time. There is no stopping the clock, and your body will start slowing down, develop faults, shut down, and die. And you with it. Science will not help you. But there is a way out of your misery, you know. It can be painless.

  5. Iron Sky by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA doesn't want to disturb the Nazi base under the Lunar ice cap, so they cancelled the project. And all because the president said they were some "very fine people".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Iron Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you're keeping a grip on yourself about Trump. Otherwise, people might think you're losing it and maybe preparing to shoot up a high school.

    2. Re:Iron Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losing it? Ratzo never had it to begin with.

    3. Re:Iron Sky by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Losing it? Ratzo never had it to begin with.

      Oh, I've got it alright. In fact, I've got so much of it that I'm full of it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. More money for outreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're obviously worried that a lunar mission will impact their primary focus of making Muslims feel good about their history.

  7. XX by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

    We need an XX prize. First one "mission accomplished" gets $50 million prize. Tired of supporting NASA inefficiencies and politics. $50m + 10% overheads, and that's all.

    We need to industrialize space first, but NASA isn't the way.

  8. What's the tinfoil hat angle here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what's the agenda? can't this water be used as a fuel source for unmanned missions? Isn't this a logical step in any further space exploration?

    1. Re: What's the tinfoil hat angle here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's where the store the chemtrails

    2. Re:What's the tinfoil hat angle here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With modern digital forensics technology being what it is, NASA knows that they won't be able to convincingly fake a moon landing the second time around. It was a lot easier when everyone was watching it live on 13" black and white TVs

    3. Re:What's the tinfoil hat angle here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of third party photographs of the Apollo landing sites.

  9. Mars Underground strikes again by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it was orchestrated by the Mars Underground. Unlike missions such as Curiosity, many lunar missions are short-lived so not good long-term employment.

    Sorry but this "lunar base is essential for Mars settlement" is a bankrupted expression. Otherwise everybody will start working on a lunar exit strategy before we can simply show we can put something on the moon that can do something useful (hey, how minable is that water ice?). Or put a man on the moon and bring him back safely. If we can't do these "simple" things, lots of luck expanding humanity into the solar system.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Mars Underground strikes again by mentil · · Score: 1

      The Moon is closer than Mars, and manned Mars missions have a tendency to get delayed to somewhere inbetween commercial fusion power and Half Life 3.

      lots of luck expanding humanity into the solar system.

      All that the purse-string-holders want to expand is the hot air coming out of their mouths, and the kickbacks going into their bank accounts.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  10. Tomorrow's headline by ArhcAngel · · Score: 0

    SpaceX and The Boring company pegged to drill ice on moon!

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  11. Trump Has Never Been More Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump Ended The Korean War Today.

    No, Mr. President. You're wrong again. I'm not tired of all this winning.

  12. Never been to the moon, and can't "go back" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stanley Kubrick, RIP.

    First they had him "fake nukes" (Dr. Strangelove), then they had him "fake space" (moon mission, for which "2001" was his job application).

  13. Almost a perfect haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fixed version:

    The only idiots here
    has become the norm,
    is the slashdot commenters:

  14. Lunar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its terrible for all of us I think we should destroy all the things https://leadcoder.blogspot.com

  15. Engineering Directorate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe NASA could have an ED that would focus on building capabilities for both the science missions and human exploration?

  16. just wait when Mars missions get weird... by chanio · · Score: 0

    ...They will suddenly become very interested and possessive, again, on this piece of rock.

    --
    Rwe obliged 2 save our future by choosing:O3 hole-greenhouse effect instead of accepting everydays gossip-nonsense chat?
  17. XXX Prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need an XXX prize. Big Giant Orange Head wants to bang some voluptuous Martians or Venusians.

    Besides, when they want to talk to the public about it, he can have them banned for, ah, er, terrorism!

    "Space Force! Think about it, Space Force. Let the Space Force deal with those dirty, nubile, voluptuous Martians! And our big, beautiful Space Wall will keep out those nasty, sexy, naughty Venusians! Jupiter is going to pay for that wall, believe me!! But we need holes in the Space Wall so we can spy on the Martians and Venusians dressing, because, ah, um, they are trying to take jobs from Americans! Believe me!"

  18. What has it done? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Fuck the Moon. What has it done for us lately?