It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 11:58 AM

originally posted by: Christosterone
George W. Bush would've seen us back on the moon but president Obama stopped and dismantled both the constellation and Ares V programs respectively…

You are aware the NASA is still working on the SLS which is the replacement for Ares? Right?
edit on 20-11-2016 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 11:59 AM
a reply to: crazyewok

This is why I always and still do question if we ever went, even if it was multiple "times".
Are you kidding me? We could travel to the moon in the '60s 70's and now we can't or won't cause of a shuttle disaster?
Who f'in cares if a shuttle exploded? We lose military aircraft all the time many soldiers lives lost.but a few astronauts and we hitch a ride?
No one smells rotten fish here?
Obama suddenly changed NASA to an environmental oversight committee?
this sh#t
Trump, please bring back some sort of balls to this government. And not in the form of warhawks who invaded countries that can't feed themselves.
We are still the big boys on the block.
Dollar is still somehow strong.
Lets go take the f'in world by storm.
We invented all this sh#t. I've had just about enough losses.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:01 PM
a reply to: intrptr

hehe, i see where u are comming from.
I have my own theories about humanitys past, but i cannot support them with any tangible evidence, so i dont mention them ^^.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:03 PM
a reply to: VinylTyrant
U have to look at it from the perspective of the politician.
Would u, as president, find it advisable to spend billions of dollars to go to a piece of rock u've been to before, just for the sake of doing it? I highly doubt that.

Untill better tech is made there is/was no point in going back to the moon. At least not at the money it would cost doing so with 60's methods.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:06 PM

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Christosterone

#ing bravo! It is about time we focus on space again, because the Chinese certainly never stopped. We cannot allow them to edge over our capabilities. I say we need to focus on constructing bases on the moon that would also be research stations. ISS can be evolved into a go between. Then we should have satellite laser weapons for the aliens that will eventually step up against us.

Obama already set a plan in motion to explore the solar system. I even did a thread on it but it went un-noticed here on ATS.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:07 PM
a reply to: Justanotherman

I have my own theories about humanity past, but i cannot support them with any tangible evidence, so i dont mention them ^^.

Opinions, though not always welcome are always allowed. Everyone has access, everyone has a say. This is an alternative site, why I come here.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:08 PM
a reply to: VinylTyrant

That is what annoys me.

Astronughts know the risk.

They dont sign up because it us a safe job.

To halt space flights because someone might get hurt is well....cowardly.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:13 PM

originally posted by: Xeven
US can make money back by mining the moon. Set up a Colony and deep space launch facility. Much cheaper to go into deep space from the moon once you got the infrastructure going.

Cost of all that Infrastructure aside, whats the point of returning a 1000 tons of gold to earth and missing the landing, impacting the deep ocean or your hometown by mistake? The cost of that and even the cost of the insurance premium would be astronomical.

Deorbiting space junk is done to burn it up in the atmosphere, de-orbiting a dense object or 'ingot' could be disastrous.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:17 PM
Did any of you watch the Bolden video in the op???

Obama's PRIMARY directive [issued to the NASA administrator of his own choosing] had NOTHING to do with space travel but instead with his "Cairo Initiative" and an out reach to Muslims...

Btw, how did Obamas Cairo Initiative work out?
Pretty sure Egypt was stable for the past couple of millennia until that speech...which causality teaches sprung the "Arab spring" as it were...


posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:23 PM
Only about time that there is a serious push to renew space exploration. I know I was sick of that hat rack of an organization that NASA had become since the Challenger blew up.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:38 PM

originally posted by: crazyewok
Go Trump!

Our future is out there among the stars, not looking at stupid ice and polar bears.

Let Mother Nature do its thing and get us the hell of this planet before the human race is doomed...and take some polar bears with us

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:40 PM
a reply to: Justanotherman

Come on buddy, we're not on this site to sound like politicians. The money wasted by government could've sent us there a couple times in modern times. Until we do something monumental on a scale like this we will continue our mediocrity and continue to play by the script, which is to make America common. Just tourism alone would make for a new frontier.
The fact that no other country has went stinks to me

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:45 PM
a reply to: VinylTyrant

Europe and US = pretty much the same space program, so if US didnt have a reason left to go there, neither did europe.
I do indeed find it weird that Russia never went however.

But if we w8 a few years this point might become moot, as China is (probably) going there. (really hope they will)

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:50 PM
I've seen a couple posts about colonizing another body inside this system being "pointless" and that we really need to focus on going to other star systems. I'm going to explain there are some very good reasons for colonizing here first.

Outside of science fiction, there's really only one natural disaster that can actually cause the extinction of our race, and that's a very large comet or asteroid impact. Even supervolcano eruptions, while killing a high portion of our population, would probably not render us extinct because humans are so adaptable. Gamma-ray bursts are another possibility but moving to another planet in our system probably wouldn't help with that. As for asteroids/comets, the odds of one big enough to actually kill off our species are very low, but on a risk-reward scale, it's still worth planning against. While we do have the technology to deflect asteroids now, we can only deflect the ones that are relatively small and would only cause localized damage and moderate climate effects. The big kahunas are beyond our technology to move unless we had many decades or centuries to do it.

The point here is that, since it's possible (and over long time scales it becomes PROBABLE) we could be hit by something that kills every human on the planet, for long-term species survival, it's imperative that we get some of our people living on another body as soon as we can. We aren't anywhere even remotely in the realm of having practical interstellar travel, so just skipping interplanetary colonization until we have interstellar technology would be extremely dangerous, for this reason. Such a large impact can happen next year or a million years from now, we simply don't know because while we track and catalog a lot, we simply can't spot everything. Long-period comets are especially dangerous because they can remain beyond our ability to spot until they're only a year or two away from hitting us. It's all a probability game, but with a truly disastrous consequence. So that's the near-term case for colonizing inside our system ASAP.

The other reason colonizing another planet in our system will be necessary from a practical point of view is that our planet WILL continue to get hotter, not because of anything we've done but because the sun will increase it's energy output as it ages. Consequently, Earth will eventually become too hot for us to inhabit, so eventually we'll have to move the entire species off the planet. As our planet gets too hot to inhabit, bodies further out like Mars will get hotter so that will actually be beneficial.

EVENTUALLY, billions of years from now we would have to move to another star system, but in the looooooooong interim before that becomes necessary, it's anything but pointless for us to work towards being able to colonize inside our system.

One more thing, the shuttle has been mentioned, and I'd like to point out that the shuttle wasn't canceled because of a few accidents. They were already moving to end the program before the Columbia disaster. It was canceled because it really didn't do what it was designed to do, which was to make launching stuff into orbit more affordable. They designed it to be reusable hoping it would cut costs, but it cost so damn much to maintain them that it didn't work out.
edit on 20-11-2016 by face23785 because: Sorry that was so long-winded, I never learned Brevity.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:23 PM
a reply to: face23785

I say forget all that. All these endeavors like the u.n. and NATO and all these multi-government entities that have at best a questionable reason for existence to say the least, to build these teams that progress humanity nowhere and to not build them for a grandeur purpose become moneypits and alliances you end up losing yourself in.
At the moment, I still don't think space travel is possible. Its 2016 people. If we could, we would but no one does. Lotta smoke out there.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:25 PM
Being first in space outweighs being on the moon because once you in space you can go anywhere

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:28 PM
a reply to: Justanotherman

Do you mean to tell me it would be more expensive to maintain a base on the moon than it would to maintain the USS?
Doubt it. Might be less if it were feasible. Think about it. Never tried. Probably can't for whatever reason.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:32 PM
a reply to: suvorov

Are you crazy? Can you comprehend the feat it would be to land successfully on the moon in one chance in THE '60's?
No hiccup, no crash?
Then to do it multiple times after.
Then, decades and decades later, half a CENTURY later, no other country has even attempted it with a chimp, let alone people?
Put on your thinking caps please.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:34 PM

originally posted by: Xeven
US can make money back by mining the moon. Set up a Colony and deep space launch facility. Much cheaper to go into deep space from the moon once you got the infrastructure going.

There is a lot that has to happen in order to mine the moon. If we started it now, it would be 30 years away at the minimum.

Anyways, NASA has uncovered a lot of good and important information regarding climate change. It shouldn't be their main mission, but since getting into space involves studying the earths atmosphere, they're the ones best set up to look at the climate.

NASA is a great agency to spend money on.

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:47 PM
Just to touch on the other side of the OP.
I'm all for the environment. I feel ints an industry that should be heavily invested in, cleaning it up. What we've done to it during the industrial are is just sad. But to charge carbon taxes and to think you can alter the development of the climate is beyond ridiculous. I believe it's one of the cornerstones of the NWO and to call it out I applaud that man for it. Which he did in the debates which showed guts. I mean he openly attacked such a touchy topic on the biggest
Stage there is. Watch your back

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in