How seriously should Trump's proposals regarding space exploration be regarded?

During a press conference, at which the President was speaking of the importance of US space exploration, astronaut Buzz Aldrin was present. No doubt Mr. Aldrin wishes to promote human space exploration, given his having been the second man to walk on the moon. Aldrin did not have much to say at the event, but sometimes facial expressions can speak louder than words.

Aldrin appeared bemused by Trumps comments:

Before signing the executive order Trump joked with Aldrin, saying, "There's a lot of room out there, right?"

The astronaut's responded, "To infinity and beyond."

But Trump didn't seem to get the joke referencing Buzz Lightyear's catchphrase in "Toy Story."

"This is infinity here. It could be infinity. We don't really don't know. But it could be. It has to be something, but it could be infinity, right?" the president replied. (Aol)

See the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGFcC5IZyvs

Edited 12/12/2017 15:20:18

Hint: Look at the NASA budget (steady at $19BB, declining as a percentage of the overall budget, and now having its climate science cut for political reasons). Does this budget look like a serious commitment to space exploration? Every President comes in and gives NASA some new ambitious set of goals.

NASA itself probably would not want to spend its budget this way. It's far more efficient for them to keep performing fundamental astronomy research and using robots for exploration (you can't exactly engineer astronauts to survive in extreme conditions).

Why is this happening, then? Certainly not cause scientists asked. It's cause senators and representatives in certain states (incl. Florida) are using this to get some money thrown at their state so they can look good while campaigning for re-election and say they created jobs. What's happening to NASA, meanwhile, is that they're forced to not only use their budget in sillier ways with each administration (for the benefit of congressmen and companies like Boeing/Lockheed- not humanity) but they will also have their goals re-imagined again 4-8 years from now. In reality the whole time NASA really gets less and less ambitious in practice on manned space exploration and the timeline for going back to the moon keeps getting pushed decades down the line.

On top of that, the rhetoric of NASA going back to some original goal is very reminiscent of what Trump et al. have been using to kill off NASA climate science.

Modern NASA is a great example of why you shouldn't put a society's scientific resources in the hands of politicians who are generally both ignorant and uninterested in their research. This isn't just for Trump but for every administration I've been alive for.

I don't know why this is getting any airplay; anyone who's been paying attention to US space politics kind of expects this bullshit new set of goals whenever an administration changes.

Our best shot of Mars colonization is still private industry (mainly just SpaceX) so NASA still helps there by throwing contracts at them once in a while.

Edited 12/12/2017 16:22:53

A measure of how seriously both the scientific, and the commercial use of space is taken would be to ask how many people know what the Kessler syndrome or effect is.

The Kessler syndrome is the name given to a possible state of affairs which grows ever more likely with each year. The notion is named after a NASA scientist, Donald Kessler, who in 1978 described the phenomena.

What is it? In a word, garbage, specifically garbage in space. Since the launch of the USSR's sputnik 1, in 1957, each year more objects have been placed into orbit. Many of those objects remain in orbit. For example the United States first satellite Vanguard 1 is still in orbit. There are some 2000 odd operational satellites, and some 600 thousand objects ranging in size from 1 to 10 cm.

The Kessler syndrome is especially insidious because of the domino effect and feedback runaway wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of collision. The shrapnel can then hit other objects, producing even more space debris: if a large enough collision or explosion were to occur, such as between a space station and a defunct satellite, or as the result of hostile actions in space, then the resulting debris cascade could make prospects for long-term viability of satellites in low earth orbit extremely low.

Each year on average one satellite is rendered permanently inoperative (destroyed) by being struck by some random junk. This according to the BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28948367

The collision of satellites would inevitably create tremendous amounts of debris, and it has already happened. In February of 2009 the Russian Cosmos 2251 and the American Iridium 33 satellites collided creating a massive number of large objects which all have their own orbits.

The use of anti-satellite weapons would create vast amounts of debris, and it has already happened. In 1985 the United States Air Force with the encouragement of the Reagan administration tested the ASM-135 against the Solwind astrophysics satellite.

NASA learned of U.S. Air Force plans for the Solwind ASAT test in July 1985. NASA modeled the effects of the test. This model determined that debris produced would still be in orbit in the 1990s. It would force NASA to enhance debris shielding for its planned space station. Earlier the U.S. Air Force and NASA had worked together to develop a special target for ASAT experiments, so as to avoid producing long-lived debris. However after informing Congress of the intention to live test the ASM-135 missile, the Congress introduced a bill to ban such testing. Before the bill could become law the Department of Defense acting in accord with the Regan administration used the missile.

In 2007, in an inexcusable act of vandalism the Chinese government did the same damn thing.

Do you just start every thread with the intention of using it as a segue into reposting some Wikipedia article you just read?

Not always.

Sometimes I am inspired by Sandra Bullock movies.

How seriously should Trump's proposals regarding space exploration be regarded?

Trump can't even make a republican candidate win a race in Alabama, the US isn't going to Mars any soon...

He could turn water into wine and would get criticized

And knyte of course NASA which has a monopoly on space exploration is going to minimize costs. The ideal politician pressures bureaucracy to be high quality and productive because otherwise they would not be. Of course the US is a social democracy so politicians must invest in vote buying through welfare programs rather than space exploration.

He could turn water into wine and would get criticized.

The grapes would be sour.

He could turn water into wine and would get criticized

So far he's been turning America from a flawed country into an even more flawed country. Your prestige in the world has been shaken and the tax reform bill, the only major reform he'll be able to pass is an abomination, in terms of social AND economic cost as well.

And the worse of all is that he's so incompetent that you can't even say for sure if he's doing all of this in purpose...

Donald's handwriting is enough proof to show that he's incompetent.