Moon trumps Mars in new US space policy The United States' National Space Council Policy has met for the first time in 25 years and issued a new “Policy for Future American Leadership in Space”. The Council was revived by president Donald Trump in a June 2017 executive order, after it stopped operating in 1993. Re-establishing the Council was a Trump policy. The …
The vice-president's response was to say “America must be as dominant in space as we are here on Earth” ...
Statements like this one is a sure-fire way to keep old friends and gain trust of the new ones. Especially coming from a nation which still has to hitch rides from those it treats like enemies - both in space and here on Earth.
“America must be as dominant in space as we are here on Earth”
As 'outer space' is a non weaponised environment (since 1967), wouldn't an ISS style spirit of co-operation be more useful and cheaper? Why the obsession with one nation being 'dominant' in an area where science and progress should be the only dominant thing? Does the Vice President have a micro-penis, that he's trying to compensate for?
...and "America must be as dominant in space as we are here on Earth”
It's really difficult not to interpret statements like these as indicative of a deeply rooted feeling of insecurity and paranoia in the American psyche.
Why, when the U.S. actually has a record of high achievement, should it feel this way? There must be an underlying reason for it.
"indicative of a deeply rooted feeling of insecurity and paranoia in the American psyche."
No. Think of it as part of "Make America Great Again". We used to lead everyone in things like this. The reasons why we do NOT do so now stem from "globalism", socialism, and various policies that stifle the private sector.
Besides, so many technologies sprung from the space program in the 1960's, we oughta just do it for that reason alone... [except for those who want to 'hold back our technological development' 'for our own good', this should be perceived as a GOOD thing!]
What I see being different is the role of the PRIVATE sector, this time around. Trump kept saying 'commercial interests' and so I bet that's what he's thinking. I think it's an EXCELLENT idea, and it can begin with the licensing of even MORE private space stuff.
As for Elon's Mars trip - interesting, but the reason _I_ would want to go to Mars would be to ESCAPE the SOCIALISM. Problem with Elon's plan, is that he'll have SOCIALISM ARRIVE BEFORE WE GET THERE.
"We used to lead everyone in things like this"
You mean, like the first artificial satellite? The first man in space? The first woman in space? The first space walk? The first fly-by of another planet? The first soft-landing on the moon?
"indicative of a deeply rooted feeling of insecurity and paranoia in the American psyche."That would actually explain a lot about where America is right now with regards to mass shootings, gun control debate, economics, driving habits, and interpersonal relations.
Oh! shit.
This post has been deleted by its author
This sort of off-again on-again crap is why NASA can't get it's shit together and accomplish anything.
Not that we can do anything in space anyway. We can't even put people in low Earth orbit. We have to ask the Russians to do that for us.
The head of the real American space program is named Elon Musk.
This sort of off-again on-again crap is why NASA can't get it's shit together and accomplish anything.
It might also have something to do with members of congress being bought-off by the big aerospace companies to keep their plants open, despite the projects they're working on being turkeys.
Someone read the Chinese space program and realized that if they succeed things will get really really interesting in near-Earth space. As a result we suddenly perform a volte-face and are now interested in the moon again.
Now, let's see how long until they finally realize that neither the moon, nor Mars are of any LONG TERM space-political value. He, who controls L1, L2, L3, L4 controls all space economically feasible long range space traffic from and to Earth (and Luna for that matter).
This post has been deleted by its author
I beg to differ. Either one allows us to have members of the human species elsewhere than on a single planet, which has the long term interest of keeping our species alive in case Earth gets wiped out by a major asteroid strike.
As for the Lagrange points, they only cover Earth access. When we finally become a space-faring species, that will have zero effect on colonies situated in the Outer Planet area. Assuming we get some people over there, of course.
Either one allows us to have members of the human species elsewhere than on a single planet
But they are not talking about sending humans to the moon, they are talking about sending Americans to the moon. Big difference.
I'm hoping for a giant Trump head in orbit with megawatt lasers in the eyes.
Nah, it'll have gigawatt speakers blatting out trump's latest tweets and ads sold to the highest bidder.
Wait, you say sound doesn't travel in space? That's 'fake news' spread by Trump's enemies! Gigawatts man, Gigawatts!
No. You can simulate gravity using spinning just fine. Just like we do on Earth for high-g pilot training and, of course, centrifuge for various purposes.
As for sheltered habitat, the moon has capacious lava tubes available with ample space for a million inhabitants or more, and these likely have water ice in them.
Musk isn't interested in the moon because a) people have already been there and b) it's not far enough to be safe from various doomsday scenarios (comet, asteroid, plague, a Trump dynasty).
This post has been deleted by its author
" is it hit by objects nowadays?"
Mostly lunar probes I think...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-1
Where as I wouldn't be in a position to differ, those boffins at NASA might:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2016/lro-lunar-cratering
...Around 200 decent craters from 2009-2016, and a lot of secondary debris from smaller stuff.
Tinfoil hats on lads! (any one of three icons here - which to choose?)
Impacts still occur on all bodies in the Solar System, in proportion to their cross-sectional area. For example, the Earth, with a cross-sectional area of 127516118 km2 will receive about 13.45 times as many impacts as the Moon, with its cross-sectional area of just 9478716 km2
However, the chances of an impact at any specific location, on any specific body, is the same across all bodies, so you'd be as likely to suffer an impact on a Moon base as you would in any particular city on Earth.
On the other hand though, the lack of an atmosphere on the Moon would likely ameliorate the effects of a large impact there, unless it was a more or less direct hit, because the atmosphere on Earth would act as a conductor for the energy of an impact Earth and carry it further away from the impact site in the form of shockwaves and high-speed winds, which can't happen on the Moon. There's not much to catch fire and burn on the surface of the Moon either.
> so you'd be as likely to suffer an impact on a Moon base as you would in any particular city on Earth.
Most small objects falling towards the Earth burn up in the atmosphere before they get close to the ground (cf "falling stars"). On the Moon a small rock could be disastrous if it punctured a building.
"i think the moon was hit by early solar system objects. is it hit by objects nowadays?"
Probably more than the Earth in proportion to the target area. No atmosphere to burn up the smaller stuff. A pea sized object won't make it to Earths surface but would kill like a gun shot on the moon.
Like this one?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054485/mediaviewer/rm1614091008
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
