# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Trump to send astronauts back to the moon -- and eventually Mars

## phill4paul

So I read this earlier and immediately went to see what progressives were saying about it on fedbook. Now, the progressives just looove them anything to do with the government funding space travel. To them it is the natural progression to a 'Star Trek' universe, where everyone is equal and everything that is needed is provided with a voice command.
  So far I've read, "He just wants to set up a Trump hotel there," "he just wants to mine it, if he is in charge we will never have a full moon again," " it seems more like one Pharaoh etching his face on to those who preceded him."
  Lol, if Trump came out tomorrow and said he will give everyone single payer healthcare by executive order these SJW's would still find something to excoriate him about it.

   Trump to send astronauts back to the moon -- and eventually Mars




> President Donald Trump wants to send astronauts where no man has gone before.
> 
> Trump authorized the acting NASA administrator Robert M. Lightfoot Jr. to "lead an innovative space exploration program to send American astronauts back to the moon, and eventually Mars" during a White House signing ceremony.
> 
>   Standing with retired astronauts and Vice President Mike Pence, Trump touted the initiative as the first step in establishing a foundation on the moon for "an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps someday to many worlds beyond."
> 
>   "The directive I am signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," Trump said. "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 plan on flag and leave our footprint."


 http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politi...oon/index.html

----------


## Suzanimal

> President Donald Trump wants to send astronauts where no man has gone before.


We've been to the moon.

I'm not an SJW but my first thought was that he was going there to look for cheese. o_O

----------


## oyarde

Rumors in Dankes favorite Chinese bar are that Trump and  Putin will make this journey themselves , and take a tiger .

----------


## phill4paul

> We've been to the moon.
> 
> I'm not an SJW but my first thought was that he was going there to look for cheese. o_O


  Mars, darling. The headline referred to "an eventual trip to Mars."  Though it is CNN, so who knows?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Mars, darling. The headline referred to "an eventual trip to Mars."  Though it is CNN, so who knows?


I didn't see the point in going back to the moon but now I get it. 




> "The moon will be a stepping-stone, a training ground, a venue to strengthen our commercial and international partnerships as we refocus America's space program toward human space exploration," Pence said.


Any idea how much this is gonna cost?

----------


## Jamesiv1

spending trillions on outer space when we have humans starving on Earth is retarded.

----------


## Ender

> We've been to the moon.
> 
> I'm not an SJW but my first thought was that he was going there to look for cheese. o_O


LOL- the best thing he could do is to get .gov out of the space program and let free enterprise take over. We'd have outer space pioneers exploring the universe in no time.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL- the best thing he could do is to get .gov out of the space program and let free enterprise take over. We'd have outer space pioneers exploring the universe in no time.



It's more likely we wouldn't, but at least we wouldn't be wasting the money either way.

----------


## navy-vet

> We've been to the moon.
> 
> I'm not an SJW but my first thought was that he was going there to look for cheese. o_O


*Helium*-*3* among other things. It would certainly be in our best interests to establish a moon outpost there. The Chinese and the Russians are going to sooner or later.

----------


## navy-vet

The spin off technology alone will benefit the human race as it has in the past. A cooperative effort between NASA and the private sector is the way to go.

----------


## phill4paul

> *Helium*-*3* among other things. It would certainly be in our best interests to establish a moon outpost there. The Chinese and the Russians are going to sooner or later.


   How much of your paycheck are you willing to contribute to corporatocracy? Should others be required to do the same?

----------


## Superfluous Man

Hopefully conservatives will respond to the idea as negatively as those liberals.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The spin off technology alone will benefit the human race as it has in the past. A cooperative effort between NASA and the private sector is the way to go.


Why not just eliminate NASA and let the private sector do it then?

If you fear that not enough of your money is getting taken from you to spend on that, you can always donate more.

----------


## navy-vet

Hopefully humanity will soon realize the innermost secrets of physics and construct matter replicators and more advanced 3D printers so as to eliminate the need to acquire wealth to prosper all together. - translated from the writings and visions of Dr Arthur C Clarke and Gene Roddenberry

----------


## Raginfridus

> *Helium*-*3* among other things. It would certainly be in our best interests to establish a moon outpost there. The Chinese and the Russians are going to sooner or later.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Could-Buy-You




> The spin off technology alone will benefit the human race as it has in the past. A cooperative effort between NASA and the private sector is the way to go.


I just think private companies should be spearheading this and footing the costs themselves. Why should the State have to be shock-absorber for their risks?

/brokenrecord

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Foolish. The moon was blasted out of orbit on Sept. 13, 1999. It was on TV. It's too far away now.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

He probably will nominate Mueller to be on the Mars ship.

----------


## Raginfridus

> He probably will nominate Mueller to be on the Mars ship.


Lets kill all the birds w one stone and send the whole DoJ, DoD, DoS, etc. to Mars with limited rations and forget about them.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Lets kill all the birds w one stone and send the whole DoJ, DoD, DoS, etc. to Mars with limited rations and forget about them.


And "accidentally" send them into the sun instead.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Lets kill all the birds w one stone and send the whole DoJ, DoD, DoS, etc. to Mars with limited rations and forget about them.


This reminds me of a surprisingly relevant old Al Franken video.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...-1/n9785?snl=1

----------


## RonZeplin



----------


## Raginfridus

> This reminds me of a surprisingly relevant old Al Franken video.
> 
> http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...-1/n9785?snl=1


I'd be OK volunteering as a space dummy, as long as I can drink whatever I want.

----------


## CaptUSA

And this goes here:

----------


## timosman

> Foolish. The moon was blasted out of orbit on Sept. 13, 1999. It was on TV. It's too far away now.

----------


## timosman

> And this goes here:


He could have wiped the floor with them and instead it was meh.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's more likely we wouldn't, but at least we wouldn't be wasting the money either way.


I disagree.

All manner and sorts of earthbound exploration has taken place for private economic gains, as opposed to restrictive and top heavy bureaucratic government funded space exploration.  

I have no reason to think space exploration would be any different.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Foolish. The moon was blasted out of orbit on Sept. 13, 1999. It was on TV. It's too far away now.


Best Sci-Fi TV show ever.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I disagree.
> 
> All manner and sorts of earthbound exploration has taken place for private economic gains, as opposed to restrictive and top heavy bureaucratic government funded space exploration.  
> 
> I have no reason to think space exploration would be any different.


I don't think it makes economic sense yet, or will for quite some time.

In any case if it were private then the market would decide and it wouldn't matter who was right.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't think it makes economic sense yet, or will for quite some time.
> 
> In any case if it were private then the market would decide and it wouldn't matter who was right.


The first European settlements in America didn't, either.

But, we'll see.

I'd just like to see government get out of it, so everyday people would have the chance to go to space.

----------


## EBounding



----------


## fedupinmo

> spending trillions on outer space when we have humans starving on Earth is retarded.


The moon is made of government cheese.




> *Helium*-*3*  among other things. It would certainly be in our best interests to  establish a moon outpost there. The Chinese and the Russians are going  to sooner or later.


I can't believe nobody got that one...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> LOL- the best thing he could do is to get .gov out of the space program and let free enterprise take over. We'd have outer space pioneers exploring the universe in no time.


He did propose cutting funding for NASA in his budget proposal. Now he wants to spend more money?  

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...et-cuts-2017-5




> If congress agrees with Trump’s latest budget proposal, NASA will have about* $561 million less to work with in 2018 than it did in 2017*.


I think he is looking at the military more than scientific view of the space program though- and using "jobs" to help sell it:  

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/moon-m...-details-come/




> During today’s ceremony, Trump put extra emphasis on the space effort’s implications for the economy and the military. *“Space has so much to do with so many other applications, including a military application,” he said. “So we are the leader, and we’re going to stay the leader, and we’re going to increase it many-fold.”*
> 
> As he sat down to sign the directive, the president made sure to cover the employment angle as well: “This is very exciting, and very important for our country, and it also happens to mean jobs. Jobs! And we love jobs, too, right?” he said.

----------


## sparebulb

> Best Sci-Fi TV show ever.


Don't forget the 8 episode run of Quark.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

The state has no business being involved in space exploration, obviously, but this is relatively less destructive than much of what they do.

...building things and then detonating them, for instance. 

Personally, I hope to live long enough to see some serious (privately financed, entrepreneurial) space exploration.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The state has no business being involved in space exploration, obviously, but this is relatively less destructive than much of what they do.
> 
> ...building things and then detonating them, for instance. 
> 
> Personally, I hope to live long enough to see some serious (privately financed, entrepreneurial) space exploration.


Like this? https://mic.com/articles/38783/mars-...ion#.AdXcL379P




> *Mars One: Meet the Private Companies Dominating the Future Of Space Exploration*
> 
> Children born today will grow up wanting to become doctors, firefighters, policemen, and … corporate astronauts?
> 
> Yes, truly, gone are the days in which government-driven space exploration alone will take us beyond our imaginations and to a galaxy far, far away. And yes, that is a good thing!
> 
> Many have cried out in protest over the decommissioning of NASA's shuttle program in early 2012 and have heralded many budget cuts as the demise of man’s expansion into the galaxy. Despite this outcry, there lies evidence that there is more hope than ever for our children to become the next generation of explorers to expand the boundaries of man's reach.
> 
> In fact, in the spot left open by NASA, there now are dozens of burgeoning space companies vying for the opportunity to fill the government agency's shoes. NASA has already given a $1.2 billion contract to SpaceX to use their Dragon spacecraft to resupply the International Space Station, and could soon ferry astronauts at a much lower cost than using Russia's space shuttle to do the same job. NASA has also started a $1.9 billion partnership with another rocket company, Orbital Sciences, in an effort to create a robust and competitive space industry.
> ...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

@Zippyjuan




> Commercial spaceflight is also coming into its own — most notably, with  Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. In fact, the private space  company performed a landmark test flight of its SpaceShipTwo space plane  yesterday, lighting up the craft's rocket motor in flight for the first  time. This marks another major milestone for Virgin as the company is  planning to launch its first suborbital SpaceShipTwo flights by the end  of this year. And for those who can shell out $200,000 a head, passenger  flights are slated to begin in 2014.


This is no better than direct government involvement.




> Some visionaries want to escape the bonds of government-funded  spaceflight. And, Netherlands-based nonprofit, Mars One, has a novel  idea to do just that by privately funding a manned colony on Mars.
> 
> The venture plans to cover the estimated one-way, $6 billion cost by  creating a global reality television show depicting the selection of the  initial astronauts and the and the crew's first years on Mars and selling corporate sponsorships and the broadcasting rights to the series.


This is better, but as evidenced by their business plan, space exploration is still not economic in its own right.

The technology doesn't exist, as I understand it, to economically harvest the vast natural resources out there - yet.

But if we don't destroy ourselves here, it probably will at some point.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> @Zippyjuan
> 
> 
> 
> This is no better than direct government involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> This is better, but as evidenced by their business plan, space exploration is still not economic in its own right.
> ...


Due to the great distances and transportation costs, space will never offer great economic opportunity.  Money is mostly in satellites.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Due to the great distances and transportation costs, space will never offer great economic opportunity.  Money is mostly in satellites.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Due to the great distances and transportation costs, space will never offer great economic opportunity.  Money is mostly in satellites.


That's the main obstacle now. 

For all of human history prior to the railroad, the same had been true of overland transportation.

Assuming the required technology is physically possible, the main variable is the rate of economic growth.

In that sense, growth-retarding state spending delays space exploration.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> That's the main obstacle now. 
> 
> For all of human history prior to the railroad, the same had been true of overland transportation.
> 
> Assuming the required technology is physically possible, the main variable is the rate of economic growth.
> 
> In that sense, growth-retarding state spending delays space exploration.


For mining, there are places on Earth with significantly lower transportation and mining costs.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> For mining, there are places on Earth with significantly lower transportation and mining costs.


Things change.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> For mining, there are places on Earth with significantly lower transportation and mining costs.


Astronomically lower (pun intended).

Again, it's a question of possible future improvements in the efficiency of transportation.

----------


## Zippyjuan

There has recently been discussions about the possibilities of capturing an asteroid and parking it in orbit near the moon for mining its resources.   They say they could capture one up to 500 tons.  That is about 27 feet wide.  For mining, you need to plant equipment on that asteroid and break it down and collect what it extracts.  That doesn't leave you much space to work on.  Estimated costs of capturing it- $2.6 billion.  Then you need to move all of what you extract to a rocket to bring the ores back to earth for refining. That involves the costs of a trip to the moon and back.  SpaceX expects costs of about $90 million a launch for their rocket. 

Let's say you were after gold and gold is distributed in the same ratio as the earth.  Two tons of earth result in one ounce of gold.  500 ton asteroid would then have 250 ounces of gold at $1500 an ounce (yes, gold would not be the only metal they could extract).  $375,000 dollars.  

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...udget-science/

----------


## kpitcher

David Brin had an interesting post on this

https://www.facebook.com/thedavidbri...46?pnref=story

Aaaand... Putin wins again! With this decision to squander NASA resources on the same dumb goal as China, Russia, Europeans, Indians and various billionaires, DT sabotages our chance to do what none of those others - only we - can do...go where the real riches are. Asteroids & Phobos. Sure, a lunar orbital station is valuable for many reasons. (For one thing: we could sell services to all those wannabe groups desperate to plant dusty footprints on the (for now) useless moon.)

But repeating Apollo? Go ahead. Name any benefits for the US joining the symbolism craze - going back down that dusty gravity well! All you Republicans - (and return-to-the-moon' is a GOP catechism) - can offer is vague arm-waved justifications, zero facts. All this does is make us PART OF THE PACK! While we, alone could access the vast wealth in asteroids! Which is why Putin and the Kochs want to divert us.

Oh, and of course this associates NASA with both money-wasting and Trumpism, now. Undermining overall support among the US citizenry. Spaceba!

Dig what will happen. As costs mount, Trump will declare a diplomatic breakthrough! Turning the US moon landing effort into a wonderful "international cooperation" like the ISS! A new detente! And suckers will fall for it, kvelling as we subsidize Russian and Chinese footprints and technology sharing.

There are zero aspects to this announcement that serve long term US interests. Indeed, every outcome will favor the Kremlin... and mining interests down here who want us never to access the real riches in space.

Yes, doggie. Gooood doggie.

----------


## Republicanguy

Hi, well a week ago, a press conference at the white house put forward, a return to the Moon, and then a mission to Mars.

The crewed mission is probably around 2030, and may be end in 2033. I don't think it will be long term, some proven technology, and other countries won't have gone or will still be trying to get their first mission to go. 

I think it was a surprise, and good news. Finalised budget for this road will be next year in the NASA budget.

As for Mars, I think that will be in 2060's. There are just too many problems, its going to take a few decades to bring the risk down, nothing has been done on this, only studies, there has been some landing balloon ideas, and test for heavy cargo landing, in the past few years, but that is it. There have been budget problems, quite a small amount. For a moon mission, the budget would need to be increased. 

I watched a past clip about Mr Paul and other candidates, which was from when he was last a congressmen nearly six years back talking on the subject of NASA, he sounded like he was living in the past, or a time without orbital flight. 

Private space flight will be slower on this. It may happen, but I would state at least around the time NASA would of sent a mission to Mars under the previous government.

On the topic of the previous government, neither Barack or Joe, were really space enthusiasts. Barack claims he was the Mars President, nope.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Get lost, we don't need to waste money so Trekies can fulfill their fantasies.

----------


## Republicanguy

You can be ignorant, but NASA serves the country you people live in and the world.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You can be ignorant, but NASA serves the country you people live in and the world.


Then shouldn't the world chip in on the cost?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You can be ignorant, but NASA serves the country you people live in and the world.


NASA serves the empire.

----------


## Republicanguy

> Then shouldn't the world chip in on the cost?


It is a federal program, it then changed, with the satellites, so it helps the world too. May be all countries should have their own, but it is simply too much.

At the end of the day, it would be national first since every country has different priorities and history.

----------


## pcosmar

> You can be ignorant, but NASA serves the country you people live in and the world.


It is another arm of the Military/Industrial Complex.
It was from inception a weapon delivery test program disguised as exploration.
Ballistic Missiles are an expensive way into space when an efficient platform already existed.


Private Space companies have done such in a few years with less money.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You can be ignorant, but NASA serves the country you people live in and the world.


Uhhh.

What?

----------


## Republicanguy

Yes, NASA is a mixed bag, it is for national security quite right. I don't see that ending. And no, I quite doubt a private company will put anyone anywhere, not for fifty years.

----------

