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

[ohwell]

Breaking News: Trumps misogyny has no bounds. Planning to send women off earth¡

Pretty sure that's the CNN/MSNBC/HuffingtonPost/WaPo/Buzzfeed headlines.

- - - Updated - - -

None of those are good reasons to send people to the moon.

The only good reasons to go to anything in our solar system is mining and that depends on what's actually there. Anything people here claim about colonization is ridiculous and implausible. Mars cannot be livable nor can the moon unless sustained by things from the Earth forever. Mars has no em field, and if the moon has one it's ridiculously weak. There is no reason to visit either if machines can mine them. Asteroids are already being attempted to be mined by machines.

[Stormspellz]

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

not a waste of money but reports has him taking the money from programs he shouldn't touch
https://www.apnews.com/bd8bce3a5e1445bc840db227182c2e82


far more eloquently then I can say it.

[Polyxo]

Pretty sure that's the CNN/MSNBC/HuffingtonPost/WaPo/Buzzfeed headlines.

- - - Updated - - -



The only good reasons to go to anything in our solar system is mining and that depends on what's actually there. Anything people here claim about colonization is ridiculous and implausible. Mars cannot be livable nor can the moon unless sustained by things from the Earth forever. Mars has no em field, and if the moon has one it's ridiculously weak. There is no reason to visit either if machines can mine them. Asteroids are already being attempted to be mined by machines.

There might be reasons to study to moon, and send spacecraft there. There just isn't any reason to do it with people.

[ohwell]

There might be reasons to study to moon, and send spacecraft there. There just isn't any reason to do it with people.

Right, except honestly we know a lot about the moon from previous visits or what we can do from here. I mean we can tell the composition of things we have never been to. I'm not sure WHAT is on the moon personally, but scientists do know and if it's worth dealing with, then send robots. Asteroids have some really valuable metals and ore so that would be something, but once again robots not people.

[Mormolyce]

no need to try, 99% of your posts already do.

My posts are "virtue signalling"?

Ahahaha, man you guys have set a low bar for virtue. Although I suppose that goes without saying.

[Kaleredar]

Might be feasible one day to send our harmful trash to the moon.

Yeah, like he said; send Trump there.


On that subject, I don't believe Trump has the capacity for scientific knowledge required to want to send anyone to the moon as anything more than a token gesture in an attempt to ingratiate himself, in this example, to 1) women and 2) scientifically literate people, both of which groups largely hate him.

How to inhabit it, how to set up a colony to use as a forward base for further exploration of the nearby solar system. How to eventually leave Earth and settle elsewhere before Earth becomes uninhabitable.

Plenty of reasons.

Those might be NASA's reasons.

But look at who's signing the check here.

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

I can almost guarantee you Trump has never heard of any of these things.

You inadvertently hit the nail on the head with:

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.

I don't think Trump cares about it much more than an attempted flex.

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

Again, nothing but lip service. He'll lose interest in this the same way he lost interest in "lock her up," "drain the swamp," and "build the wall": when they stopped being useful to him politically. I wouldn't put it past him that upon a loss in the 2020 elections he would threaten to spite-cut NASA's funding.


These missions require dedication, planning, technical know-how and follow through. All aspects Trump either lacks or actively shows contempt for. He is not the man to successfully initiate these kinds of missions.

[Dhrizzle]

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?

What work do you expect them to do up there?

- - - Updated - - -

The only good reasons to go to anything in our solar system is mining and that depends on what's actually there. Anything people here claim about colonization is ridiculous and implausible. Mars cannot be livable nor can the moon unless sustained by things from the Earth forever. Mars has no em field, and if the moon has one it's ridiculously weak. There is no reason to visit either if machines can mine them. Asteroids are already being attempted to be mined by machines.

The moon could be a pretty decent place for a permanent base at least until we get orbital construction perfected, it's gravity is much lower than Earth's.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Will it be Brie Larson?

[Ghostpanther]

Yeah, like he said; send Trump there.


On that subject, I don't believe Trump has the capacity for scientific knowledge required to want to send anyone to the moon as anything more than a token gesture in an attempt to ingratiate himself, in this example, to 1) women and 2) scientifically literate people, both of which groups largely hate him.

Lol! Your hatred of him is well known. But do you not think it would be better to bury waste which is harmful to the Earth's environment on the moon versus the Earth?

He does not need to be. Was Kennedy a scientist when he wanted us to go to the Moon? Same as being a military strategists to win a global major war. If Hitler had let his generals do the strategy for winning WW2, the outcome of that war may have been dramatically different. Roosevelt let his generals decide on what steps to take to win WW2 is one reason we won.

[Post]

Trump could cure cancer and everyone would just say it's a PR move that is putting cancer hospitals out of business, so I guess it doesn't matter.

[Kaleredar]

Lol! Your hatred of him is well known. But do you not think it would be better to bury waste which is harmful to the Earth's environment on the moon versus the Earth?

If you can get it to the moon you might as well just not land it there and continue it right on into space.

But the conservative platform seems to be that there is no waste or pollution crisis, and if there is it's not humanity's fault, and if it is there's nothing that can be done about it anymore because they wasted too much time in steps one and two. Same as their policy on global warming, really.

He does not need to be. Was Kennedy a scientist when he wanted us to go to the Moon? Same as being a military strategists to win a global major war. If Hitler had let his generals do the strategy for winning WW2, the outcome of that war may have been dramatically different. Roosevelt let his generals decide on what steps to take to win WW2 is one reason we won.

The difference is that Kennedy and FDR trusted the opinions of others.

Trump, by merit of his cabinet turnover, does not.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump could cure cancer and everyone would just say it's a PR move that is putting cancer hospitals out of business, so I guess it doesn't matter.

...But he wont, and isn't.

[Post]

...But he wont, and isn't.

Thank you for that valuable factoid.

[Ghostpanther]

If you can get it to the moon you might as well just not land it there and continue it right on into space.

But the conservative platform seems to be that there is no waste or pollution crisis, and if there is it's not humanity's fault, and if it is there's nothing that can be done about it anymore because they wasted too much time in steps one and two. Same as their policy on global warming, really.



The difference is that Kennedy and FDR trusted the opinions of others.

Trump, by merit of his cabinet turnover, does not.

- - - Updated - - -



...But he wont, and isn't.

Keeping on topic, it makes a lot more sense to colonize the Moon than it does Mars,considering the distances to reach them is vastly different. And thus the cost to do so.

[Fincayra]

People lost interest after Apollo 14. It just is not interesting, to repeat, what people did 50 years ago.

Popularity or not, I happen to think we set our species back several decades by not pursuing the moon with everything we had. If we did, we'd have space bases on the moon, and probably a colony there now.

[Breccia]

So I did some light research and have some thoughts.

Landing on the moon, in and of itself, does nothing. Trump might want to erect a flag up there, point, and say "Look at that! I did that! And therefore it's amazing!" Problem is, it was amazing 50 years ago. It's not amazing now. That's why Melania has a separate bedroom. Also, technology has improved a lot in 50 years. That's also why Melania has a separate bedroom.

We went. We hit the golf ball. We took back some rocks to feed to werewolves in case the vampires try to take over. It's one of the biggest science/tech moments of the 20th century, up there with the airplane, the internet, and Doom 2.

But it's the 21st century now. And we have more important things to deal with than taxpayer-funded nostalgia.



The real task at hand is Mars. This is no longer the pipe dream of the 20th century. We could, for example, create an actual interplanetary spaceship, a reusable "elevator" vehicle, an airtight tent, and Matt Damon. The tech here is far more involved than a lunar lander, and we all know what that means.

Money.

Just because NASA has money, doesn't mean they have the money to do what they're doing (including military work), and also head for Mars, and also satiate Trump's ego. The Space Shuttle cost about $7 billion. I can't imagine a "disposable" lunar lander costs anything less than double that. (So forget about that Pell Grant thing, $1.6B/year, unless you want Trump to salute the flag he ordered placed at the end of Biden's second term in 2028). Any dollar they spend on such frivolous activities is a dollar they don't have to make something that actually matters.

Oh, and none of that includes any cuts to the defense budget, which are still a risk. But that's another thread.

"But Breccia! This thing says it could go to the moon, possibly as a test run. Wouldn't that fit Trump's plan?"

First of all, probably not, Obama starts the ball rolling with Mars always the endgame. Trump will not follow and Obama plan, purely on principle. This, incidentally, marks the first time Trump decided to undo Obama's actions for something less effective on purpose. It usually just kind of happens, like the deficit/debt, GDP growth, unemployment dropping, real wages, the stock market, poll numbers both at home and abroad, and his 70-plus white penis.

Second of all, Pence is the one pushing for a 2024 landing. There is no way the above-pictured space platform will be ready by then. Therefore, Trump and Pence are very likely going to have to settle for a "standard" moon landing, which we've done (yawn) and would likely feature incompatible tech.

Third of all, based purely on what's happened so far, I have zero to negative faith that Trump isn't pushing for space in way that coincidentally happens to benefit his friends at Boeing. I'd be surprised if such a deal wasn't already in the works. Assuming I'm right, that means proprietary tech, which means all plans for the space platform would likely have to be restarted with Boeing tech.

And finally, I'm pretty sure Trump's stated plan of bringing back NASA's glory would be best served by a President who didn't shit all over science, especially climate change, on which NASA is probably the leading authority.

Any day now, @Skroe will come back and likely point out the dozens upon dozens of things I missed. Until then, however, to quote someone who knows space a lot better than Trump does, "Every word you just said is wrong."

[psiko74]

worst. sexist. ever.

[Mellrod]

People lost interest after Apollo 14. It just is not interesting, to repeat, what people did 50 years ago.

Well NASA projects aren't just for spectacle or public entertainment. Contrary to popular belief there is purpose and progress to be made with every space project NASA conducts. It really just depends on whether or not this proposed second trip to the moon actually serves a purpose. There is definitely a plethora of reasons to return to the moon (i.e. first attempts at colonization, setting up satellite structures, creating a base of operations for science experiments, harvesting certain resources, etc.) If the trump administration had announced this with any of that in mind i'd be all for it, but given that Trump and his lackeys are nothing but corrupt politicians with empty promises, I doubt they'll ever be the ones to make a second moon landing happen. Let alone for the sake of any scientific or human progress.

They can't even follow through with their promise to build a redundant wall, among countless other campaign fluff promises Trump has yet to do. Anybody who actually buys into this as more than just an empty promise for PR brownie points is kidding themselves.

[Perkunas]

Well, at least he's not a flat-earther or a fake moon landing person. Shit, at this point I'd have settled for him not believing in fucking chemtrails and satanic messages in backwards Beatles albums.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Well, at least he's not a flat-earther or a fake moon landing person. Shit, at this point I'd have settled for him not believing in fucking chemtrails and satanic messages in backwards Beatles albums.

Wait till fox and friends do a "report" about it and your hopes will be squashed.