This message was self-deleted by its author

[PeaceWave]

This message was self-deleted by its author (PeaceWave) on Thu Nov 6, 2025, 10:33 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Klarkashton]

1. Sorry but there is practically nothing to be

Achieved by doing this moon thing again 60 years on.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Wrong. Much to gain, but claiming territory is anti-productive.

tRump is all anti-science but pro military.

[Disaffected]

9. Except that money spent on space travel & exploration

is almost exclusively better spend on unmanned ventures and, by a wide margin (benefit estimates seem to typically run about 10 to 1). And, with the current rapidly increasing robotic & AI capability, that ratio is rapidly increasing.

Even so, monetary return on investment is likely to be very low for the foreseeable future (mining minerals, space power generation etc.).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Your point about robotics is good but not definitive. Monetary return is not from the prime motive. . . nt

[Disaffected]

12. Yes. it's not the only motive.

Hegemony, politics and "my dick is bigger than yours" are other (insignificant) significant factors.

National defense/security is also sometimes presented as justification but is almost equally specious IMO.

Space exploration beyond earth orbit should be a scientific endeavor - pretty much all else is greed & theatre.

[electric_blue68]

18. Space exploration should be scientific; absolutely. I'm for the unmanned ptobes etc And I also think we need the human..

experience of going there ourselves when possible.

I do know developments in space stuff result in usable advances in other areas here back on earth.

[Disaffected]

19. I dunno, even the space station

really hasn't accomplished much that uncrewed could not do and at far lower cost. We do however gain experience in lengthy human exposure to micro-gravity and increased radiation levels (FWIW).

Yes, there have been some spinoffs but they AFAIK are sparce and don't come anywhere near to justifying the huge additional expense of putting humans in space (not excluding the burden of risk and loss of life). I expect the time will soon come thru robotics and AI where humans in space make little practical sense at all (hell, that may even happen here on earth ).

[Melon]

15. I have a relative working on technology to be used in spaceflight

He is specifically working on humidity reduction in air handling systems, but the advances are huge steps beyond current technology and can be used on earth as well. This is how it works. We as a country try and take large leaps and we solve a 100 smaller problems at the same time. And every so often, a game changing breakthrough occurs. No other country can touch out innovation.

[LudwigPastorius]

13. Anti-productive and illegal.

The Outer Space Treaty has been law since 1967.

Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Of course, what is law to a pestiferous scumbag like Trump?

[tavernier]

2. Nope.

My grandpa hung the moon FOR ME long ago.

[Diamond_Dog]

4. Does he want to ruin it with another ugly gold palace?

[NameAlreadyTaken]

5. The Sea of Chaos

[generalbetrayus]

6. With China's economy in question these days, outside of the Chinese stock market, one has to wonder

if the Chinese will actually put a man on the Moon by 2030.

"... Duffy has repeatedly indicated he views beating China as a national security imperative." Duffy is a doofus.

[rsdsharp]

7. Maybe we should first land in the Sea of Tranquility, and pry the plaque off the LEM.

The one that says “We came in peace FOR ALL MANKIND.”

[MineralMan]

8. Cool! Let's send him there so he can stake out his claim!

Yes, indeed.

[Vinca]

10. It would only be official is the President himself lands on the moon and signs his Sharpie edict on site.

Tell him to look sharp, too. None of those puffy space clothes. Just the regulation blue suit, 12-mile-long tie and hair glue will be fine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I sometimes wonder if the Trump regime thinks something is only worth doing if it breaks a law or treaty

3. Non-Appropriation of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
12 Before the space flights, the Moon and other celestial bodies were considered res nullius; this meant that claims of sovereignty on the basis of an effective occupation were theoretically possible. However, already UN resolutions dealing with outer space activities preceding the Outer Space Treaty (eg UNGA Res 1721 [XVI] of 1961) declared outer space and other celestial bodies as not being subject to national appropriation and prepared the floor for changing their regime into res extra commercium.

13 The entry into force of the Outer Space Treaty turned this rule into a binding provision of universal international law. Article II OST provides for the ban of national appropriation of the Moon and other celestial bodies by claims of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. Unfortunately, the adjective ‘national’ opens the door for discussions whether an appropriation of the Moon or parts thereof by private natural or juridical persons other than States or international organizations is allowed.

14 Article 11 MA goes further: it prohibits ‘any’ appropriation of the Moon, celestial bodies, or their natural resources; the addressees of this comprehensive ban are not only States and international organizations, but explicitly also non-governmental entities or natural persons. As the exploitation of natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies ‘is about to become feasible’, an international regime governing such exploitation shall be established among the States Parties of the Moon Agreement (Art. 11 (5) MA).

15 At present, there are two exceptions from the non-appropriation rule as formulated by the Moon Agreement: one of them regards the right to use minerals and other substances of celestial bodies ‘in quantities appropriate’ for the support of space missions in the course of scientific investigations (Art. 6 (2) MA). The second one concerns the right to collect and remove—not closely defined or quantified—‘samples’ of minerals and other substances from celestial bodies (Art. 6 (2) MA).

https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1198?d=%2F10.1093%2Flaw%3Aepil%2F9780199231690%2Flaw-9780199231690-e1198&p=emailA8olYPSiQpjo2&print#:~:text=13%20The%20entry%20into%20force,or%20by%20any%20other%20means.

[ananda]

16. Trump is crazier than a green luna-tic!

!@#$%

[sakabatou]

17. Once again, Dump doesn't care about treaties