To the moon Alice! Trump seeks to land first woman on moon by 2024

[Has lost its way]

What is the point of it though? Woman physically are always going to be worse then men for that kind of work and given the difficulty of such a task why would you bother beyond pr points?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Knowing Trump, he probably meant with an uppercut like Archie Bunker.

That's Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) from the Honeymooners, not Archie Bunker (Carrol O'Connor) from All In The Family.

Ralph from the Honeymooners was married to Alice and Archie was married to Edith

[Voidwielder]

Only because the NASA budget is abysmally low and has been for over 3 decades or more.

Throwing money at problems is the wrong approach. Look at F-35. Or most modern military contracts. Add a few billions to SLS and Orion and the launch date won't move for an hour.

-

I highly doubt this will get the support it needs in Congress. Presidential requests don't matter any more.

[Mihalik]

Do you agree with this or think it's a waste of money?

Why?

Do scientists believe something amazing will happen when the lunar surface encounters a vagina?

Who we send back doesn't matter. What matters is sending people back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...re_of_the_Moon (The Moon is geologically active. There's a lot to learn about the internal functioning of planetary bodies, we need to install a network of modern seismometers, get drill samples etc.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...atform-Gateway

Returning to the Moon is essential. It is also essential we make it there before the Chinese do, who might catch up in this area a lot faster than we expect.

If sending a female scientist might score some political bonus points and extra support, good.

[Kyphael]

That's Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) from the Honeymooners, not Archie Bunker (Carrol O'Connor) from All In The Family.

Ralph from the Honeymooners was married to Alice and Archie was married to Edith

Oh yeah, Jackie Gleason! That's the one.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

NASA previously set a goal to land American astronauts on the lunar surface by 2028 — which was declared “not good enough” by Vice President Pence in March during a National Space Council meeting. The vice president then challenged NASA to get humans to the moon within the next five years and said the space agency must meet the new deadline by “any means necessary.”

I know Pence isn't a scientist or engineer, but does he really have to insist on being such a fucking idiot? If we are revisiting the moon then the absolute top priority should be safety, not some arbitrary timeline pulled out of the ass of our anti-science VPOTUS.

[Mihalik]

Throwing money at problems is the wrong approach. Look at F-35. Or most modern military contracts. Add a few billions to SLS and Orion and the launch date won't move for an hour.

-

I highly doubt this will get the support it needs in Congress. Presidential requests don't matter any more.

Considering that NASA is woefully underfunded, this is hardly "throwing money at a problem". The F35 program probably spent more money on lobbying than what NASA got in funding the past 10 years.

[Swnem]

Haha... he keeps busting the bank!

It will be hilarious when the interest rates come in.

But, better to give it to Nasa than to the rich guys.

[kail]

Eh the gender/sex of whomever visits the moon is meaningless to me. What would be the purpose of going this time?

[craigw]

a man who identifies as a woman will be the first woman. they already shattering womens athletic records, why not be the first "woman" on the moon.

[Mormolyce]

Ermagerd virtue signalling!

Am I doing it right?

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that NASA is woefully underfunded, this is hardly "throwing money at a problem". The F35 program probably spent more money on lobbying than what NASA got in funding the past 10 years.

Are there any public records of how much is spent on that kind of lobbying or is it all dark money?

[Jonnusthegreat]

Unrelated but Russia won the space race

Lol but not the moon race? Everyone knows this.

[shadowmouse]

Who we send back doesn't matter. What matters is sending people back.

Longer term it probably does though. Since women have been less involved, we don't have as much data about how conditions will effect them, but if we ever do try to expand beyond Earth women are going to need to be involved.

[Hotmail]

Why are we still enthusiastic about a program that's killed over 30 painfully expensive astronauts and crippled countless more?

I mean, the rich spend more on swinger rave orgies than they spend on public bullshit, so money isn't really a topic. But putting a man on the moon? Seriously?

Much spectacle, so wow. Do chase the NASA spotlight while you're being consumed.

[Aurrora]

Why?

Do scientists believe something amazing will happen when the lunar surface encounters a vagina?

Of course, we have to answer such questions as: can a woman get her moonblood while on the moon?
Does moonblood gain supernatural properties while on the moon? Etc.

[Adam Jensen]

If Trump would rather spend money on a moon landing than war in Iran, I'm all for it.

[smityx]

Oh boy there's going to be a uproar. No LGBTQRSTUVWXandsometimesY+-$* representation. Where's the diversity.

[schwarzkopf]

How about we try and get the US president to the moon for the first time ever.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Why stop there let’s one up the men and land a woman on the sun!

Only if it is Sarah Palin or Sarah Blergh Sanders...

[kasuke06]

Why?

Do scientists believe something amazing will happen when the lunar surface encounters a vagina?

We don't know, SCIENCE!