6 ms·

Donald Trump signs directive to send astronauts back to Moon

27 points by tomduncalf 9y ago

cdancette 9y ago
> Correspondents say any realistic effort will probably need Congress to agree to a big funding boost. This is the real issue here. Trump can say all he wants, if the Congress doesn't allow more budget, nothing will happen.
- teleclimber 9y ago
  Exactly. A common adage in the aerospace world is that it's not aerodynamics that makes airplanes fly, it's money. Same thing here. The only way NASA is going anywhere outside LEO is with a commitment by congress to spend gobs and gobs of money every year over many years.
  - danblick 9y ago
    Instead of arguing to go to Mars, let's get the military interested in kinetic bombardment systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Clearly we need one because North Korea or terrorists or sharks or whatever. It's so expensive to put all that metal into space, they'll get interested in asteroid mining before long. And once there's a market for orbital-velocity asteroid metal... profit!
- sleepychu 9y ago
  "I want to make America great again but congress is blocking me, vote the dems out of congress"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - beobab 9y ago
    I actually get the feeling that he's going to do something about pollution and climate change, but on his terms. Probably by suggesting something outrageous off the bat, then winding back to something better than we'd currently expect. [clarifying: not a trump supporter - just a guy from the UK]
    - Amygaz 9y ago
      Well, only if someone in his entourage wants to do something about pollution and climate change. And then he will propose $50 millions to do it, while investing billions on other things that pollute and accelerate climate change... Otherwise, forget it, he hasn't done a single thing, good or bad, in almost a year.
      - RickJWag 9y ago
        Look on the bright side! No race riots like we had in St. Louis and Baltimore. Record low unemployment. Record high stock market. Record low illegal border crossings. There's a lot to be happy about, no matter what your politics may be. There's always something good to find.
        losteric 9y ago
        > There's a lot to be happy about, no matter what your politics may be. There's always something good to find. With the right optics, maybe. I see white supremacist riots, inexcusable wealth concentration, income inequality, stagnating wages, and high labor drop-out. Overall, it's feeling a lot like the 1920s. The stock market? I hope you time it right, Black Tuesday is coming up. Low border crossings reflect our underlying economic problem - illegals have been declining for over a decade due to automation, job exports, and declining middle-class jobs... rats abandoning a sinking ship.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        As opposed to the other side investing billions in stuffing all the stuff into Chinese landfills, or as we refer to it, "recycling".
- whack 9y ago
  > There is bipartisan support for further space exploration but parties disagree over the timeline and budget. Ironically enough, it's always the anti-government-spending Republicans who veto such efforts. Now that a Republican President is supporting this, they might finally get behind this as well. It's really a clever form of blackmail when you think about it. "Put our guy in the Oval Office, or we'll veto anything and everything in Congress."
  - savanaly 9y ago
    >Ironically enough, it's always the anti-government-spending Republicans who veto such efforts. It's more like appropriately enough, right?
- QuantumAphid 9y ago
  Congress is about to pass a tax cut which adds 1 Trillion + to the deficit. Anyone who thinks we'll be sending manned missions to the moon or anywhere else in the solar system is going to have to reconcile that with a 30 Trillion debt crisis looming on the horizon.
  - Amygaz 9y ago
    And you can his recent $700 billions in extra spending to DOD, which isn't part of the budget.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
aleksm97 9y ago
Instead of focusing our budget on resolving climate issues and pollution on our own planet, we somehow try to blow our money into space exploration. I get that it's a good thing to do in the long run, but until we fix the issues that are present around us, there won't be a long run.
- beobab 9y ago
  That's an interesting take on it. Is there anything that makes you think that they would spend it on climate issues and pollution if it wasn't spent on space exploration?
  - aleksm97 9y ago
    Considering that they already spend about 700B$ on the defense budget it would probably not happen and they would find something else to spend the money on which isn't nearly as reasonable as combating present issues. Anyhow I'm neither a communist nor a advocate for the poor, it's just that these are the type of problems that could end as all, not just the poor nor the middle class, thus people should voice their opinion more about it. But it seems to me that from the moment the election has been decided/won no one get's a say in the matter aside from the people that got elected, now don't get me wrong as winners they should have every right to make the final decisions, but sometimes asking the general public on what issues the government needs to tackle next is more reasonable then the old "I don't care about your opinion, you lost the elections, now wait 4 years and try again!".
- serf 9y ago
  we had some pretty pressing issues last time we went there, too.
- problems 9y ago
  Depends how you look at it - ditching the planet might be our only shot at a "long run".
  - AlphaGeekZulu 9y ago
stupidcar 9y ago
"With this directive, Mr Trump abandons plans set by his predecessor Barack Obama, to send humans to an asteroid near earth." Isn't this the problem? Every President gives Nasa a new set of priorities, which they work on for a while until the next President comes along and changes things again. Back in 2004, George W Bush was also announcing a return to the Moon: "Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods. " Jan 14, 2004 - https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm
- cgervasi 9y ago
  Yes. It makes me wonder if anyone believes these anymore. I don't know how they did it in the 60s. They had just barely gone 100 miles up, and they came up with a plan to send people 200,000 miles, land two of them on a gravity well, and get them back. It's insane. I don't understand how President Kennedy said something absurd, and it came true, yet now we say we want to do it again decades later, and it's all talk.
- eesmith 9y ago
  And George H. W. Bush in 1989: > WASHINGTON, July 20— President Bush proposed today that the United States establish a base on the Moon, send an expedition to Mars and begin ''the permanent settlement of space.'' > In a speech celebrating the 20th anniversary of man's landing on the Moon, Mr. Bush made the first major commitment by a President to these ambitious goals and set the stage for the first full-scale debate in years on the nation's troubled space program. > ... Mr. Bush pledged to commit the United States in the 1990's to the earth-orbiting space station as the ''critical next step in all our space endeavors.'' ''And next, for the new century, back to the Moon, back to the future, and this time back to stay,'' Mr. Bush told the select audience, which included nearly half the American astronauts who flew in space. ''And then, a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars.''
- 9y ago
cgervasi 9y ago
President Obama said he scrapped the plan to go back to the moon because he saw it as just recapitulating 60s technology development. He said he wanted "game-changing" new technologies instead. That made sense to me at the time, but maybe you need to fund rebuilding a project from the 60s, and then the game changing ideas will appear along the way. I am unclear if President Trump's order calls for bringing back the program Obama cancelled or if it's more of a general statement of direction.
bmcusick 9y ago
Without any details on whether this means funding SLS for another $4 billion/year to accomplish nothing vs. fund some real innovation like Blue Origin or SpaceX, it's kind of "Meh" as announcements go.
senectus1 9y ago
Do it for commerce. Enrol the likes of Elon Musk to build a space hotel. to do that you need space mining, smelting and construction industry. to do that you need fifo space miners. one thing will lead to another and next thing you know The US (or whoever does it first) will be the biggest active population space community.

27 points by tomduncalf 9y ago

> Correspondents say any realistic effort will probably need Congress to agree to a big funding boost. This is the real issue here. Trump can say all he wants, if the Congress doesn't allow more budget, nothing will happen.

teleclimber 9y ago
Exactly. A common adage in the aerospace world is that it's not aerodynamics that makes airplanes fly, it's money. Same thing here. The only way NASA is going anywhere outside LEO is with a commitment by congress to spend gobs and gobs of money every year over many years.
- danblick 9y ago
  Instead of arguing to go to Mars, let's get the military interested in kinetic bombardment systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment Clearly we need one because North Korea or terrorists or sharks or whatever. It's so expensive to put all that metal into space, they'll get interested in asteroid mining before long. And once there's a market for orbital-velocity asteroid metal... profit!
sleepychu 9y ago
"I want to make America great again but congress is blocking me, vote the dems out of congress"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- beobab 9y ago
  I actually get the feeling that he's going to do something about pollution and climate change, but on his terms. Probably by suggesting something outrageous off the bat, then winding back to something better than we'd currently expect. [clarifying: not a trump supporter - just a guy from the UK]
  - Amygaz 9y ago
    Well, only if someone in his entourage wants to do something about pollution and climate change. And then he will propose $50 millions to do it, while investing billions on other things that pollute and accelerate climate change... Otherwise, forget it, he hasn't done a single thing, good or bad, in almost a year.
    - RickJWag 9y ago
      Look on the bright side! No race riots like we had in St. Louis and Baltimore. Record low unemployment. Record high stock market. Record low illegal border crossings. There's a lot to be happy about, no matter what your politics may be. There's always something good to find.
      - losteric 9y ago
        > There's a lot to be happy about, no matter what your politics may be. There's always something good to find. With the right optics, maybe. I see white supremacist riots, inexcusable wealth concentration, income inequality, stagnating wages, and high labor drop-out. Overall, it's feeling a lot like the 1920s. The stock market? I hope you time it right, Black Tuesday is coming up. Low border crossings reflect our underlying economic problem - illegals have been declining for over a decade due to automation, job exports, and declining middle-class jobs... rats abandoning a sinking ship.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      As opposed to the other side investing billions in stuffing all the stuff into Chinese landfills, or as we refer to it, "recycling".
whack 9y ago
> There is bipartisan support for further space exploration but parties disagree over the timeline and budget. Ironically enough, it's always the anti-government-spending Republicans who veto such efforts. Now that a Republican President is supporting this, they might finally get behind this as well. It's really a clever form of blackmail when you think about it. "Put our guy in the Oval Office, or we'll veto anything and everything in Congress."
- savanaly 9y ago
  >Ironically enough, it's always the anti-government-spending Republicans who veto such efforts. It's more like appropriately enough, right?
QuantumAphid 9y ago
Congress is about to pass a tax cut which adds 1 Trillion + to the deficit. Anyone who thinks we'll be sending manned missions to the moon or anywhere else in the solar system is going to have to reconcile that with a 30 Trillion debt crisis looming on the horizon.
- Amygaz 9y ago
  And you can his recent $700 billions in extra spending to DOD, which isn't part of the budget.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

aleksm97 9y ago

Instead of focusing our budget on resolving climate issues and pollution on our own planet, we somehow try to blow our money into space exploration. I get that it's a good thing to do in the long run, but until we fix the issues that are present around us, there won't be a long run.

beobab 9y ago
That's an interesting take on it. Is there anything that makes you think that they would spend it on climate issues and pollution if it wasn't spent on space exploration?
- aleksm97 9y ago
  Considering that they already spend about 700B$ on the defense budget it would probably not happen and they would find something else to spend the money on which isn't nearly as reasonable as combating present issues. Anyhow I'm neither a communist nor a advocate for the poor, it's just that these are the type of problems that could end as all, not just the poor nor the middle class, thus people should voice their opinion more about it. But it seems to me that from the moment the election has been decided/won no one get's a say in the matter aside from the people that got elected, now don't get me wrong as winners they should have every right to make the final decisions, but sometimes asking the general public on what issues the government needs to tackle next is more reasonable then the old "I don't care about your opinion, you lost the elections, now wait 4 years and try again!".
serf 9y ago
we had some pretty pressing issues last time we went there, too.
problems 9y ago
Depends how you look at it - ditching the planet might be our only shot at a "long run".
- AlphaGeekZulu 9y ago

stupidcar 9y ago

"With this directive, Mr Trump abandons plans set by his predecessor Barack Obama, to send humans to an asteroid near earth." Isn't this the problem? Every President gives Nasa a new set of priorities, which they work on for a while until the next President comes along and changes things again. Back in 2004, George W Bush was also announcing a return to the Moon: "Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods. " Jan 14, 2004 - https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm

cgervasi 9y ago
Yes. It makes me wonder if anyone believes these anymore. I don't know how they did it in the 60s. They had just barely gone 100 miles up, and they came up with a plan to send people 200,000 miles, land two of them on a gravity well, and get them back. It's insane. I don't understand how President Kennedy said something absurd, and it came true, yet now we say we want to do it again decades later, and it's all talk.
eesmith 9y ago
And George H. W. Bush in 1989: > WASHINGTON, July 20— President Bush proposed today that the United States establish a base on the Moon, send an expedition to Mars and begin ''the permanent settlement of space.'' > In a speech celebrating the 20th anniversary of man's landing on the Moon, Mr. Bush made the first major commitment by a President to these ambitious goals and set the stage for the first full-scale debate in years on the nation's troubled space program. > ... Mr. Bush pledged to commit the United States in the 1990's to the earth-orbiting space station as the ''critical next step in all our space endeavors.'' ''And next, for the new century, back to the Moon, back to the future, and this time back to stay,'' Mr. Bush told the select audience, which included nearly half the American astronauts who flew in space. ''And then, a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars.''
9y ago

cgervasi 9y ago

President Obama said he scrapped the plan to go back to the moon because he saw it as just recapitulating 60s technology development. He said he wanted "game-changing" new technologies instead. That made sense to me at the time, but maybe you need to fund rebuilding a project from the 60s, and then the game changing ideas will appear along the way. I am unclear if President Trump's order calls for bringing back the program Obama cancelled or if it's more of a general statement of direction.

bmcusick 9y ago

Without any details on whether this means funding SLS for another $4 billion/year to accomplish nothing vs. fund some real innovation like Blue Origin or SpaceX, it's kind of "Meh" as announcements go.

senectus1 9y ago

Do it for commerce. Enrol the likes of Elon Musk to build a space hotel. to do that you need space mining, smelting and construction industry. to do that you need fifo space miners. one thing will lead to another and next thing you know The US (or whoever does it first) will be the biggest active population space community.