President Trump signs directive ordering NASA to return to the moon and beyond

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: projectvxn
All ANY president can do is set the agenda. Congress has to act on it and if you want any action on a particular initiative you have to do your part too. Write letter, e-mails, faxes, and phone calls.

Otherwise you're just blowing hot air expecting more from the executive than can be legally done.

It's ultimately on Congress, but the President can fight for the budget to make their directives happen. If Trump does that here, I'll be thrilled. But so far he hasn't, he's delegated responsibility and abdicated his own.

Ddo you follow the news? Hes currently fighting for a budget and a government shut down is looming. Right before christmas if they dont work something out the government employees will be furloughed.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm not 100% up to date on the budget situation, but that just feeds into my current point... he's not fighting for NASA funds right now. He's giving them a directive but he's not really following through on making that happen.

a reply to: dragonridr

Hes currently fighting for a budget and a government shut down is looming.

The 2018 budget has already been passed (in the Senate). The shutdown has nothing to do with the budget. It is about the debt ceiling.

a reply to: Imhere

Just like nonsensical walls, without the proper funding, this is a pipedream.

Trump should be on the first flight and go for a spacewalk without a suit, solve a hell of a lot of the worlds woes really.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Go to the moon makes the geek in me warm and fuzzy, but that same geek has to look at the reality. It is too damn expensive with current technology.

I really believe we need a moon base, but before that, we need new materials that can build a space elevator. Until such materials can be produced such an endeavor is wasting money and resources. Instead of spending 2 billion on a moon rocket they should spend it on RND of materials like graphene.

its not to expensive. we have all the technology from decades ago that we could rebuild today for cheaper then it cost back then. we could literally just rebuild saturn V's

It costs more than $10,000 to put 1 pound in space a lot more to get it to the moon.

The Saturn V rocket's first stage carried 203,400 gallons (770,000 liters) of kerosene fuel and 318,000 gallons (1.2 million liters) of liquid oxygen needed for combustion.

It is very expensive. Until we have a much cheaper option such as a space elevator space exploration and colonization will remain a distant dream.

everything in the aerospace industry is expensive but the apollo rockets arent all that expensive in comparison to other methods. people have actually done the math knowing what everything cost with inflation and it would have actually been cheaper for us to have used saturn rockets instead of the shuttle to achieve the same things with greater lift capacities. also depending on the mission you could use just 2 stages instead of 3 reducing costs further. we have the capacity to go back to the moon whenever we want its just a matter of funding.

I think with everything going on, it's great to put the thoughts of discovery in peoples heads. Something positive to think about for a change besides the doom and gloom of politics and trouble over seas.
I for one look forward to the journey back to the moon as i wasn't alive to witness it before.

a reply to: rhynouk

Somehow i imagine any dreams or goals Trump has regarding our Moon will end up in the same bin as our Star Wars program did.

It's not that we do not possess the technologies to go back to the Moon but the cost is simply not conceivable without profit to be had from any such endeavor.

Wait till we are able to utilize Helium 3 regarding energy production and we will be back to our Moon and in there like swimwear, because apparently she got said material in abundance.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The Moon is interesting... but Mars is a over the top crapshoot waste of time (super duper far away + antibacterial soil chemistry + complete lack of electromagneto shield).

If there's no electromagneto shield how does a decade and a half year old rover survive for so long? Wouldnt the electronics fry?

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The Moon is interesting... but Mars is a over the top crapshoot waste of time (super duper far away + antibacterial soil chemistry + complete lack of electromagneto shield).

If there's no electromagneto shield how does a decade and a half year old rover survive for so long? Wouldnt the electronics fry?

they are designed to handle radiation. one thing about our probes and satellites is that they are extremely robust. if i remember correctly the highest levels ever seen were when we whipped voyager around jupiter. radiation levels so high it would kill a human in under a min and almost killed the satellite