Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Veep to NASA: Stop your dilly dallying and go to the farking Moon   (arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Murica, NASA, Rocket, Moon, NASA's efforts, Apollo 11, National Space Council meeting, Kennedy Space Center, Spaceflight  
•       •       •

858 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Mar 2019 at 12:29 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-03-22 12:10:31 PM  
NASA to Veep, 'Then give us 5 trillion dollars Dickhead"
 
2019-03-22 12:34:43 PM  
But the aliens on the dark side told us to never come back... I saw that on the internet!
 
2019-03-22 12:35:40 PM  
And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.
 
2019-03-22 12:38:53 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-22 12:40:34 PM  
NASA dragging their feet in the expectation of a Dem win in 2020 and the resultant cut in funds to NASA.
 
2019-03-22 12:43:33 PM  
Did he threaten to touch one of their machined parts again?
 
2019-03-22 12:44:04 PM  

PvtStash: Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back?


Because Trump needs a "win," and he's terrified that China's going to set up their military bases on the Moon first.

Trump wants to militarize space. Bring back the SDI, create a military branch, piss away the Moon Agreement and lay claim to as much of it as he can, springboard to Mars so "the right people" can take over.
 
2019-03-22 12:45:52 PM  

PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.


Well, sort of.  Two decades ago NASA proposed the Constellation program to return to the moon.  It started in 2005 but was defunded in 2009.
 
2019-03-22 12:47:17 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

"If you don't hurry up, I'm going to touch all of your stuff!"
 
2019-03-22 12:51:57 PM  
He doesn't give a fark about any of the science or discovery process involved or even the point of it as much as just it being a symbolic achievement 'win' for the Trump presidency.
That's all it really boils down to
 
2019-03-22 12:52:08 PM  
Is this a sciencey thing? It is? Does the VP have power of the purse? Ok then, I think going to the moon again would be cool but I don't give two farking shiats what mike pence has to say about it.
 
2019-03-22 12:52:35 PM  
Using what for a launch vehicle?  SLS will never fly, no matter how many states get invited to the moondoggle.  And NASA hates SpaceX for demonstrating that private companies, without NASA's "supervision"*, can get a new system up and running for 1/10th the cost.

*Worked on Space Station Freedom (way back there).  Our NASA supervisor was the worst violator of every safeguard we had in place.
 
2019-03-22 12:58:24 PM  

PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.


Water ice.

It was long speculated, but they didn't have proof of water on the moon existing back then.
Water makes lunar colonization far more practical. It can also be used to refuel spaceships and it's easier to lift heavy things out of lunar gravity than earth gravity, so it's not a bad place for manufacturing.
So the moon is likely to be our gateway to other destinations and a place we can study the mysteries of the universe in great detail. You can built giant telescopes and radio receivers while making exploration probes and human transports for mars and beyond.
It's alot cheaper to get there now since commercial spaceflight has come this far. NASA's investments in programs like  COTS and CDEV are finally paying off decades later.

...But your big brains at NASA probably aren't interested in all that now.
Wrong person made the offer so they're just going to pout like a bunch of toddlers.

/Of course they aren't.
/If they hired a nazi scientist to get to the moon, they'll shake the hand of a Christian to go back.
 
2019-03-22 12:59:23 PM  

Snarfangel: [img.fark.net image 850x561]
"If you don't hurry up, I'm going to touch all of your stuff!"


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-22 01:02:11 PM  

natazha: *Worked on Space Station Freedom (way back there).


Freedom? Damn, that really is going back
 
2019-03-22 01:03:31 PM  

way south: PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.

Water ice.

It was long speculated, but they didn't have proof of water on the moon existing back then.
Water makes lunar colonization far more practical. It can also be used to refuel spaceships and it's easier to lift heavy things out of lunar gravity than earth gravity, so it's not a bad place for manufacturing.
So the moon is likely to be our gateway to other destinations and a place we can study the mysteries of the universe in great detail. You can built giant telescopes and radio receivers while making exploration probes and human transports for mars and beyond.
It's alot cheaper to get there now since commercial spaceflight has come this far. NASA's investments in programs like  COTS and CDEV are finally paying off decades later.

...But your big brains at NASA probably aren't interested in all that now.
Wrong person made the offer so they're just going to pout like a bunch of toddlers.

/Of course they aren't.
/If they hired a nazi scientist to get to the moon, they'll shake the hand of a Christian to go back.


what can you mine and manufacture from the moon?
 
2019-03-22 01:03:51 PM  
Remember that article about trump having lunch with the director of NASA and asking them to put a man on Mars before the end of his first term in office?  Yeah, this is all about something he can point to.
 
2019-03-22 01:06:12 PM  

Guybird: Snarfangel: [img.fark.net image 850x561]
"If you don't hurry up, I'm going to touch all of your stuff!"

[img.fark.net image 500x343]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-22 01:10:50 PM  

Lady J: [img.fark.net image 850x251]


As someone with a small-ish cat named Nermal because he does think he's the cutest cat in the whole wide world, HEY!!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-22 01:15:46 PM  

PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?


Two reasons:
1.  Wave our big American dick around in a way that doesn't cultivate suicide bombers for once.
2.  Convert the Mooninites to Christianity.  The good kind, not that lovey-dovey crap.
 
2019-03-22 01:22:55 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

I thought I read that landing on the moon isn't going to be possible, if Trump's budget which defunded the Exploration Upper Stage goes through
 
2019-03-22 01:26:13 PM  
"Redo the same thing we did 50 years ago" doesn't sell.

And there's nothing there. Literally, nothing that we don't already have here, and we have to bring absolutely everything to sustain life.

End of story.

So if we're going to do this stuff, and there's any appetite for the stupid-huge price tag on it, let's go and do something new and amazing.
 
2019-03-22 01:30:25 PM  

You Are All Sheep: what can you mine and manufacture from the moon?


A number of things, but first consider that you'll be on the moon. So what you make on the moon first saves you money on shipping in bulk from earth. As we develop infrastructure there, You wouldn't mine the moon to ship to earth so much as to ship to other space based projects. It means more exploration for the investment.

We could make habitats for space colonists, larger spaceships, solar cells for orbital power (key to fighting global warming back home), rocket fuel, breathable air, satellites for jobs in earth orbit, food, medicine, clothing, etc...

Basically anything you can, because you'll get alot more payload on a starship leaving 1/6th gravity than  you will on one leaving earth itself.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-22 01:31:15 PM  

You Are All Sheep: way south: PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.

Water ice.

It was long speculated, but they didn't have proof of water on the moon existing back then.
Water makes lunar colonization far more practical. It can also be used to refuel spaceships and it's easier to lift heavy things out of lunar gravity than earth gravity, so it's not a bad place for manufacturing.
So the moon is likely to be our gateway to other destinations and a place we can study the mysteries of the universe in great detail. You can built giant telescopes and radio receivers while making exploration probes and human transports for mars and beyond.
It's alot cheaper to get there now since commercial spaceflight has come this far. NASA's investments in programs like  COTS and CDEV are finally paying off decades later.

...But your big brains at NASA probably aren't interested in all that now.
Wrong person made the offer so they're just going to pout like a bunch of toddlers.

/Of course they aren't.
/If they hired a nazi scientist to get to the moon, they'll shake the hand of a Christian to go back.

what can you mine and manufacture from the moon?


Helium-3, which is critical in fusion reactors. It's all over the lunar surface.
 
2019-03-22 01:32:06 PM  

berylman: He doesn't give a fark about any of the science or discovery process involved or even the point of it as much as just it being a symbolic achievement 'win' for the Trump presidency.
That's all it really boils down to


Well to be fair that's essentially why we went the first time, 'cept we were stigginit to the Commies instead of the libs.
 
2019-03-22 01:34:09 PM  
fark Mike Pence.
 
2019-03-22 01:36:22 PM  

PvtStash: Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back?


Republicans want to steal some of that sweet, sweet Kennedy moon visionary hero worship stuff. Going to the Mars is  waaay too far in the future for the ADHD administration.
 
2019-03-22 01:42:38 PM  

edmo: PvtStash: Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back?

Republicans want to steal some of that sweet, sweet Kennedy moon visionary hero worship stuff. Going to the Mars is  waaay too far in the future for the ADHD administration.


I'd be more inclined to believe that they've just come up with a plan to siphon off tax dollars to their friends.

Two guys from Montana with no aeronautical experience should be able to get us there, right?
 
2019-03-22 01:46:23 PM  
Does he want to kill spaceflight, or just the crew?
 
2019-03-22 01:50:18 PM  

UsikFark: Does he want to kill spaceflight, or just the crew?


He just wants to sacrifice something to appease jesus. He doesn't care what.
 
2019-03-22 01:51:48 PM  
"Freedom? It is a holy word; you will not speak it."
 
2019-03-22 01:55:06 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Lady J: [img.fark.net image 850x251]

As someone with a small-ish cat named Nermal because he does think he's the cutest cat in the whole wide world, HEY!!

[img.fark.net image 679x535]


All packed and ready to go to Abu Dhabi?
 
2019-03-22 02:00:33 PM  

edmo: PvtStash: Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back?

Republicans want to steal some of that sweet, sweet Kennedy moon visionary hero worship stuff. Going to the Mars is  waaay too far in the future for the ADHD administration.


Hate to bust your bubble, but Kennedy wasn't actually doing a "for all mankind" thing. He was fighting back against the communist wave while secretly developing missile technology for the military. There's a reason why they hired a guy who made the scud's grandfather.
Trump is likely doing this to assert US military/civil dominance in space (and it's still good optics). He wanted to go to mars, but there's a practical reality in going back to the moon before that.

Mars is likely to be a mission that takes two to five years. The record for spaceflight is just over one year, and the Russian who set it suffered pretty badly for that length of zero gravity exposure.  We can't have a crew arrive at mars in that condition, assuming they even make it because we've never flown an unsupported spaceship that kind of distance. We haven't run a long term surface outpost before either, since Apollo landings only lasted a few days at most.

So there's alot of problems to iron out and alot of things to learn before you dump money on a giant rocket to mars.  Since it's fairly cheap to go to the moon now, it's a place where you can learn many of those things. If you set the precedent that we are staying on the moon then it's an easier leap to mars in the near future.
...And yes, its probably a good idea to renew our footprints there before someone beats us to it.
 
2019-03-22 02:03:58 PM  

Kalashinator: Dr Jack Badofsky: Lady J: [img.fark.net image 850x251]

As someone with a small-ish cat named Nermal because he does think he's the cutest cat in the whole wide world, HEY!!

[img.fark.net image 679x535]

All packed and ready to go to Abu Dhabi?


He wishes.  If he had his choice, he'd to go a land where the red dot is ALWAYS his to chase (he's a bit of a ball hog), and he gets all of the slices of turkey meat.
 
2019-03-22 02:31:06 PM  

LoneCoon: You Are All Sheep: way south: PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.

Water ice.

It was long speculated, but they didn't have proof of water on the moon existing back then.
Water makes lunar colonization far more practical. It can also be used to refuel spaceships and it's easier to lift heavy things out of lunar gravity than earth gravity, so it's not a bad place for manufacturing.
So the moon is likely to be our gateway to other destinations and a place we can study the mysteries of the universe in great detail. You can built giant telescopes and radio receivers while making exploration probes and human transports for mars and beyond.
It's alot cheaper to get there now since commercial spaceflight has come this far. NASA's investments in programs like  COTS and CDEV are finally paying off decades later.

...But your big brains at NASA probably aren't interested in all that now.
Wrong person made the offer so they're just going to pout like a bunch of toddlers.

/Of course they aren't.
/If they hired a nazi scientist to get to the moon, they'll shake the hand of a Christian to go back.

what can you mine and manufacture from the moon?

Helium-3, which is critical in fusion reactors. It's all over the lunar surface.


Yep, we should be focused on the moon instead of Mars. Because if we master the moon Mars will be cake.
 
2019-03-22 02:35:46 PM  
The moon is critical for manned solar system exploration (O2, He-3, for starters).   It's also a great platform for exploration (facilities that can be maintained, no atmosphere, slow rotation rate, easier to construct interferometers).

It's embarrassing that it's taken 50+ years to go back when it only took 9 years to get there the first time.  But because of all the budget cuts, lack of maintenance, etc. we have no ready-to-go launch vehicle, and other countries are finding that it's easier to NOT collaborate with the US (since we have a tendency to pull funding mid-way).   So we're at a yuge disadvantage.

I'm surprised, however, that in all this time there hasn't been a non-US initiative for a manned lunar mission.
 
2019-03-22 02:41:55 PM  

natazha: Using what for a launch vehicle?  SLS will never fly, no matter how many states get invited to the moondoggle.  And NASA hates SpaceX for demonstrating that private companies, without NASA's "supervision"*, can get a new system up and running for 1/10th the cost and in half the time


FTFY
 
2019-03-22 03:08:45 PM  

You Are All Sheep: way south: PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.

Water ice.

It was long speculated, but they didn't have proof of water on the moon existing back then.
Water makes lunar colonization far more practical. It can also be used to refuel spaceships and it's easier to lift heavy things out of lunar gravity than earth gravity, so it's not a bad place for manufacturing.
So the moon is likely to be our gateway to other destinations and a place we can study the mysteries of the universe in great detail. You can built giant telescopes and radio receivers while making exploration probes and human transports for mars and beyond.
It's alot cheaper to get there now since commercial spaceflight has come this far. NASA's investments in programs like  COTS and CDEV are finally paying off decades later.

...But your big brains at NASA probably aren't interested in all that now.
Wrong person made the offer so they're just going to pout like a bunch of toddlers.

/Of course they aren't.
/If they hired a nazi scientist to get to the moon, they'll shake the hand of a Christian to go back.

what can you mine and manufacture from the moon?


Energy.  Lunar regolith is abundant in Helium-3, which is damn hard to come by on Earth.

Helium-3 in quantity could make a working, practical fusion reactor much easier to achieve.  Fusing He-3 does not produce the torrents of high-energy neutrons that other fuels produce, and which tend to eat away the innards of your reactor.

He-3 fuel with the new Tokamak design we heard about recently might actually get us somewhere.
 
2019-03-22 03:10:06 PM  

way south: Hate to bust your bubble, but Kennedy wasn't actually doing a "for all mankind" thing. He was fighting back against the communist wave while secretly developing missile technology for the military. There's a reason why they hired a guy who made the scud's grandfather.
Trump is likely doing this to assert US military/civil dominance in space (and it's still good optics).


Even by the time of Apollo, military and human rocket technology had diverged quite a lot.  Gemini was the last thing with significant crossover, and was a safety nightmare due to the mismatch between military and civilian requirements -- storable propellants are indispensable for an ICBM, but are pretty terrible for a manned vehicle.  I suppose the guidance systems were still sharing a lot of development, but missile guidance has long since pushed that technology further than what manned spaceflight needs.

The only way SLS contributes to the military is by keeping the solid propellant factories open when they're not making replacement Minuteman stages, and the hilarious inappropriateness of using solid boosters on manned rockets continues to exemplify the lack of commonality between human launch vehicle engineering and weapons engineering.

On the public relations front, I imagine SLS is meant to project the same message as Apollo: "Look what our aerospace industry can do!  Blowing the fark out of your country would be easy by comparison, so watch your ass."

Instead, it's telling the world "Look what our aerospace industry can't do anymore!  Don't worry about us interfering with you -- we won't do anything unless our politicians can get rich doing it."  We probably didn't mean to be that honest with it.
 
2019-03-22 03:12:06 PM  

Saiga410: NASA dragging their feet in the expectation of a Dem win in 2020 and the resultant cut in funds to NASA.


http://www.parabolicarc.com/2019/03/1​1​/trump-proposes-cutting-nasa-budget-50​0-million/
 
2019-03-22 03:16:58 PM  
Why not? There's a first time for everything.
 
2019-03-22 03:18:38 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Is this a sciencey thing? It is? Does the VP have power of the purse? Ok then, I think going to the moon again would be cool but I don't give two farking shiats what mike pence has to say about it.


The reason why is there in the article of you read between the lines a little. They're pushing NASA to get it done before Trump is out of office (the administration is assuming he gets a 2nd term).

This is, like EVERYTHING with Trump, a vanity project meant to be something he can use as an ego boost.
 
2019-03-22 03:22:16 PM  
Friendship is Magic Bitch
Youtube k4f9m4OYkCY
 
2019-03-22 03:31:22 PM  

Professor Science: The only way SLS contributes to the military is by keeping the solid propellant factories open when they're not making replacement Minuteman stages, and the hilarious inappropriateness of using solid boosters on manned rockets continues to exemplify the lack of commonality between human launch vehicle engineering and weapons engineering.

On the public relations front, I imagine SLS is meant to project the same message as Apollo: "Look what our aerospace industry can do!  Blowing the fark out of your country would be easy by comparison, so watch your ass."

Instead, it's telling the world "Look what our aerospace industry can't do anymore!  Don't worry about us interfering with you -- we won't do anything unless our politicians can get rich doing it."  We probably didn't mean to be that honest with it.


I think SLS is a bit different to the original space race.  It's more like the shuttle program where money was spread around to win political favor, but there were no clear objectives.  It maintains a bare minimal of capability at way too much of a cost.
No one really cared about the goals of SLS until the budget was cut, and now its only remaining mission (to test a capsule we also don't need...) is in jeopardy.
If it were to vanish and the money diverted into short term Moon missions then Trump might actually get a manned landing much sooner.

With how Elon is tooling around in Texas and Bezos is pouring concrete on his new factory, I think these people are chomping at the bit to prove themselves.

/Boeing let its timeline slip again, as did Lockheed.
/They really aren't looking too hot these days.
 
2019-03-22 03:31:42 PM  

LoneCoon: You Are All Sheep: way south: PvtStash: And yet decades ago the big brains at NASA pretty well found they likely had little to no real compelling reason to go back to the moon for much of any thing. So why?
Can the VP give any rational explanation as to why it is we ought go back? What is it we think we'll gain for the effort this time?

Please let us not be making circuses of the expense of such vast amounts of resources as that trip takes.

Water ice.

It was long speculated, but they didn't have proof of water on the moon existing back then.
Water makes lunar colonization far more practical. It can also be used to refuel spaceships and it's easier to lift heavy things out of lunar gravity than earth gravity, so it's not a bad place for manufacturing.
So the moon is likely to be our gateway to other destinations and a place we can study the mysteries of the universe in great detail. You can built giant telescopes and radio receivers while making exploration probes and human transports for mars and beyond.
It's alot cheaper to get there now since commercial spaceflight has come this far. NASA's investments in programs like  COTS and CDEV are finally paying off decades later.

...But your big brains at NASA probably aren't interested in all that now.
Wrong person made the offer so they're just going to pout like a bunch of toddlers.

/Of course they aren't.
/If they hired a nazi scientist to get to the moon, they'll shake the hand of a Christian to go back.

what can you mine and manufacture from the moon?

Helium-3, which is critical in fusion reactors. It's all over the lunar surface.


Never mind we still don't have practical fusion reactors.
 
2019-03-22 04:05:32 PM  

berylman: He doesn't give a fark about any of the science or discovery process involved or even the point of it as much as just it being a symbolic achievement 'win' for the Trump presidency.
That's all it really boils down to


If that's what it takes for NASA to actually be funded again, so be it.
 
2019-03-22 04:26:08 PM  
Establishing  a full time manned lunar station should be a number one priority for the US and the world for that matter.
Don't let your petty politics get in the way of science and the forward progress of the human race Farkers.
 
2019-03-22 04:53:35 PM  
(A) Give us the money.

(B) You and the dumpster fire go first.
 
2019-03-22 04:56:16 PM  

EvilJRoss: Establishing  a full time manned lunar station should be a number one priority for the US and the world for that matter.
Don't let your petty politics get in the way of science and the forward progress of the human race Farkers.


Ok, Newt.
 
2019-03-22 05:10:51 PM  

Kyle Butler: NASA to Veep, 'Then give us 5 trillion dollars Dickhead"


THIS. It's laughable that said that. The subtle jab from the Russians about how long it took us to get it together again must have gotten under their skin  especially congratulating NASA instead of Space X.
Subtle jabs are the best jabs.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report