/sci/ - Science & Math

That rocket is gunna be YUUUUUGE

>>8854680
>>8854681
>>>/pol/

>>8854684
make me

>>8854680
He makes a lot of claims and has no credibility. Unless he already sign the paper, not news worthy just from reading about his claims.

Build a wall and make the martians pay for it

>President Trump: We will put men on Mars

>President Obama: We will put men in women's bathrooms

>>8854691
Simply having a US president saying he wants to do it is a big deal, even if he doesn't have a clear plan yet.

Because there are options to make this possible. SpaceX was going to launch a Dragon to Mars next year. Maybe they can still get a push to do it. The next launch window is still within Trump's first term.

Dragon should be entirely capable of landing men on Mars.

So what else do we need? Bigelow can provide lightweight inflatable transit hab and surface hab modules. Space-storable propulsion is an old solved problem. If nothing else, Boeing can provide a modular storable propulsion solution based on its CST-100 pusher launch escape system. Dragon can land enough mass for a small hab or truly minimal ascent vehicle (a 2-tonne, Dragon-landed storable-propellant vehicie can get to low Mars orbit with about 600 kg of mass, enough to carry 2 crew to a rendezvous). With a small amount of additional development work, two-launch reusable-booster Falcon Heavy missions can dock a fresh upper stage with a departure payload waiting in LEO, and send hefty payloads to Mars transfer or to a lagrange-point assembly orbit (where Mars departure of the complete habitat will only need a small delta-V) by means consistent with a high launch rate (expending only upper stages). The rest is just a matter of sufficient supplies.

So we need to launch the transit hab, supplies for it, a Dragon each to land on Mars and Earth, propulsive modules for it to depart Earth and return to Mars, a propulsive module / space tug to fetch the astronauts back to the transit hab (parked in a high elliptical orbit) from low Mars orbit, and that's the main mission package. Additionally, several Dragons should be direct-launched from Earth to Mars, with supplies, the surface hab (possibly several modules), and the ascent vehicle (and possibly a spare).

The pieces are more or less there, waiting to be polished up and put together. Doable.

>>8854680
>Nasa
whenever i see this i just immediately close the article

>>8854914
Your mom did that with her legs when she read your ultrasound iq score

>>8854934
>Mrs. Anon, you might want to look at this...
>>What do you mean the ultrasound gave an IQ score of NASA?
>I don't know, it hasn't happened before!
>>Does an ultrasound even read IQ?
>Of course not.
>>Are you even a real doctor?
>I am an article.
>>Then I will close you with my legs.

>>8854789

kek

>>8854680
Ok, so did he propose any concrete funding to actually make this happen or is he just talking out of his ass?

>>8854970
pretty sure he just upped NASA's budget a little while ago.

big if true

>>8854680
All talk and no concrete plans.
Just what this board needed - more bait.

>>8854997
He did. He cut science missions in favor of this goose chase. More prestige when others succeed under hi regime. It always boils down to him.

>Trump now supports science
>Bill Nye is a pseudoscientist

wtf I love Trump now

He cancelled the Europa lander, and the asteroid mission, as well as NASA public education and outreach programs.

He also just recently shut down the EPA data center.

>>8854691
this. I voted for him specifically because he was saying he wasn't going to intervene in syria. look what happened.

>>8855587
He never once said that

>>8854799
just use mars direct ffs

>>8855530
Oh so progressives aren't interested in Mars colonization anymore.

>>8855558
So? You're going to fucking Mars.

You really want money to be spent on outreach programmes?

>>8855609
Remember what the first step in Mars Direct was? "Just tell NASA to build an expendable rocket out of shuttle parts! It'll be quick and easy and then you'll have something better than Saturn V!"

Remember what happened when they tried that?

Additionally, Mars Direct requires several technologies we don't have at all, which NASA would probably take 10+ years to develop, like long-term hydrogen storage in space, a way to land a huge liquid hydrogen tank on Mars, and a suitable nuclear reactor for use on Mars.

The stuff I'm describing can be done with technology that's done, nearly done, or can reasonably be put together in a couple of years. The only thing landing on Mars will be Dragons. The only launch vehicle is Falcon Heavy. The transit hab is just a Bigelow balloon, like the BEAM on ISS, with standard power and life support systems. The storable propulsive modules are a modified (and greatly simplified) version of CST-100 (a vehicle designed to be capable of docking in orbit and pushing what it's docked with).

The most novel part would be the Mars ascent vehicle, but we're talking about 2-3 tonne object with a couple of seats, a simpler thing than the Apollo lunar ascent module, with no more advanced technology needed anywhere on it. There's no margin for any backup options: it works correctly and makes prompt rendezvous or crashes.

The rest is just standard stuff: suits, airlocks, solar panels, various supplies and tools.

>>8855604
he literally campaigned on assad being victimized by the MSM and the rebels being nothing more than terrorist organizations.

>>8854680
>>8854970
I watched the stream. He was clearly joking around. It was more of a "wouldn't it be nice if that could happen during my presidency so I can take credit for it" moment. But of course once again clickbait media takes peoples jokes out of context to warp their meaning

Mars is expensive af, BUT if SpaceX is already going to be sending a Dragon capsule there, then why not tack on some extra funding to get a robotic base out of it? He ain't going to do shit though.

>>8854680
>3 years

Sounds legit

>>8854997
He cut funding by 0.25 Billion and claimed he increased funding.

Nothing this clown says is reliable even when it's on paper.

>>8855813

>>8854680
I'd rather have EPA

>>8855774
Mars is NOT expensive
It's just that Space is a giant pork program for government bureaucracies

>>8856677
WE WILL MAKE MARS PAY FOR THE TRIP

Great. Republicans will waste government money on useless shit instead of science and education and then complain about useless government spending.

>>8854680

That's because he knows he'll lose in the next elections and won't be able to brag about landing on Mars. What an egoistical clown.

We should try to fix our own problems(racism, misogyny, refusing to help refugees) before making a stupid trip for white people.

>>8854680
>three years
Nah, I don't think I have to apologize. He's still a fucking moron.

>>8854799
>Doable.
It's been doable since the 1980s.

>>8854680
In the wake of Bill Nye The Genders Studies Guy's absolute cancer of show, I'm really REALLY fucking glad Trump won the election. There was a brief moments before and after the election that I had doubts if the memes were worth it. But after seeing that clip of Bill Nye The Mental Illness Guy's new show, it's so clear now. It does not matter if it's worth it or not, What matters is normies and liberals getting triggered and assblasted by a literal meme President. The faggots that made that horsehit normie level ""science"" show was probably crying their eyes out when he won. That thought really activates my serotonin at night.

>>8856883
you, my friend, sound like you care more about politics than science.

if you actually cared about facts, you wouldn't give a shit about what anybody says on gender. opinions totally irrelevant to science

>>8856817
Exactly his point.
If enough interest are present for the government to finance and put together the necessary pieces, then we can finally do what we could have done since 3 decades ago.

>>8856924
>literally what
Thanks for the (You) but what's your point? I'm just saying I'm happy Trump won LOL. I'm literally posting about my feelings. You can refute that you dumdum brainlet.

>>8856883
You can tell this is his first ever post in /sci/

>>8855558
>moments away to colonizing a planet
>lets direct funds to outreach programs

>>8856883
You mention liberals getting triggered. I assure you that you are the triggered one friendo.

>>8854680
I won't apologize. I voted for the man.

>>8856942
nah
>>8856955
been comfy since december

>/sci/ - people butthurt about drumpf don't want to colonize mars

almonds my activates

>>8854950

>>8854680
I bet money that the people Trump gets to birth this Manned Mission to Mars will get so hyped about sending a rocket into space, that their pre-flight checks will be the least of their missteps, and there will be a Challenger-level incident on launch day. If not, we will probably lose the first manned crew to the void of space.

What a time to be alive and on Earth.

Getting someone to mars isnt the problem
Getting them back is

I remember them talking about going to Mars under Bush, until I actually see it happening I won't believe anything

>>8855558
>He cancelled the Europa lander,

The lander was a sub mission that was just going to poke at the surface ice.

>and the asteroid mission,

Stillborn before Trump came along.

>as well as NASA public education and outreach programs.

Not NASA's job.

>>8855683
No he didn't.

>>8855813
Trump requested more money for NASA than Obama did.

>>8857299
Why would we want to bring them back after going through all that trouble to get rid of them?

>>8857408
sure he did haha. He cut funding for all the NASA programs concerned with observing the earth which had way more resources allocated to them than exploring outer space. Overall it's a 0.25 billion decrease in budget.

how many times did he flip flop on this statement in his speech ( presume he delivered it while playing golf for the 100th time this week). i can handle the occasional bullshit from politicians but this guy is something else.

Oh, I posted this in the wrong thread before:

Mars one-way is entirely feasible in 3 years. Pay now to rush Red Dragon back on schedule so there's a demonstrator next year. That gives you your capability of repeatably landing substantial payloads on Mars.

You also want Bigelow (currently planning to launch a large commercial space station in 2020) to refocus its efforts on a small, simple transit hab which can start orbital testing no later than 2019.

And you've got to get SpaceX working on a stretched upper stage for Falcon Heavy, which can survive in LEO long enough to dock with a payload for an Earth departure burn. This will make launching Red Dragons cheaper and possible at a higher rate (two launches with full booster reuse, rather than one fully expendable launch), and with a fully expendable launch, will make it possible to launch 30 tonnes to Mars transfer, which is plenty for the transit hab and a Dragon.

One demonstrator Dragon to Mars in 2018, then in 2020, maybe six supply Dragons and one crew launch. Whole program should be doable for $1 billion/year, if you cut out the usual NASA bullshit that strangles everything interesting to death.

After that, you're committed to at least another resupply every window (roughly two years and two months apart). If the ITS program goes well, they could have the option of getting home as early as 2024.

>>8854680
and yet he isn't providing any funding for it, in fact he wants to cut NASA's funding in FY2018.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-wants-to-get-to-mars-sooner-rather-than-later

>>8857701
Trump's FY2018 budget request for NASA was .4% larger than Obama's FY2017 budget request, changing how NASA spends its money isn't cutting its budget.

>>8856883
>What matters is normies and liberals getting triggered and assblasted by a literal meme
Why are you even in /sci/

>>8854680
he also wanted a wall, that isn't happening either.

Trump is the kind of guy you have to judge by his actions and not by his words.

>>8857678
Because they broke the no-sex rule and we want to know what a baby conceived on Mars looks like.

Going by the Wall = Fence trend he's just going to put a guy in a shuttle and have him watch the Martian for 228 days. Then explode the shuttle.

NASA has been damaged for at least another decade if they put in motions to change.

No way can they get a man on Mars within that time.

Drumpf just can't stop winning can he?

>>8857263

No

NASA won't do something that can't do, which is why we won't see a Mars mission within even 2 terms of Trump

The private sector might try, and that's where you might see an accident

>>8857873
>inflation projected at 2%
>budget growth of 0.4%

dae le slob on trumps knob???

>>8854680
>Coke-head wants something big and pretty that screeches confidence so he can put his name on it

Color me surprised.

They're not sending their best and brightest, folks. They just aren't. They are probing anuses, they are abducting cattle and I assume some of them are good ayys. We're gonna build a force field to keep the ayys out and the ayys will pay for it.

Believe me, I know force fields. It will be the biggest, best force field within 10,000 light years. It will make the force field they have on Tau Ceti E look like it's made out of Legos. And after we build the force field we are sending every ayy that is here illegally back to their homeworld. It's time to make Earth great again.

I spoke to their leader, their head guy the other day, and he said "President Trump, you can't build a force field and we certainly aren't paying for it." You know what I said to him? I said "Draxzlor, the force field just got 10 miles higher."

>>8859308
>I know what NASA can or will do, trust me, my own father, god bless him, works at NASA

Go back to your hentai.

If he can bearly build a wall what makes you think we'll be able to get to Mars in one term?

>mfw Trump will be the president that put americans on mars

>>8859410
Doing absolutely pointless things as a show of power is actually pretty commonplace for dictators. Saddam rebuilt the Ziggurat, Kim Jong Il tried his hand at that yuuuge hotel etc.

>>8857741
You aren't doing all this in 3 years unless they start getting billions now
Even then it won't happen

Theres no point in doing a shitty footprints & flags mission to mars, rather than an ITS style mission.

No point going to Mars before going back to the moon, takes more or less all the same equipment/technology.

>>8859418
>going to mars is a pointless show of power

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THIS

>>8859418

Going to Mars isn't pointless, moron.

It's arguably one of the most important things in regards to survival of our species.

>>8859435
Will sending people to mars achieve anything concrete that sending a probe won't?

>>8859474
I guess not. Who cares about going to space anyways. Let's just build that wall instead right?

>>8859472
If we can... make it there, we can make it... anywhere!

>>8854689
>make me
good-bye /pol/itard

I mean Mars is cool, but I'd rather get a good sweep of Jupiter's moon that likely has life

Nasa are welfare queens. They have two options.
>kerbal the Challenge and fail spectacularly
>go the nasa way and do nothing gnawing at the patience and what political will there is to support the endeavor hoping the next administration lets them be as usual
Whatever they do the days of that agency running on already ancient glory are numbered. Good riddance.

>>8859435

If it weren't he wouldn't try forcing it to be completed under his first term. He only wants it to be finished before elections so he can boast about it during elections. That's a pointless show of power.

It's a gigantic task and putting such a short time limit only makes more chances for something to go wrong.

>>8859486

>lets just build a wall

I know you are joking but this is so ugly it shouldn't even be used as one. The nazis built the berlin wall to split families and repeating the same thing today is nothing short of crime against humanity.

>>8859676
Nice b8 /pol/friend.
The soviets built the berlin wall.

>>8859678

Who care who built what? Wrong is wrong no matter who does it.

From somebody that knows nothing about this, I have to ask.

Can it be done? Can we launch a rocket and go all the way to mars, land and set foot there?

>>8857362
nice gaslighting

>>8859679

>Wrong is wrong no matter who does it.


True, it was wrong for illegal aliens to illegally immigrate here, therefore we should apply the law independently of whether families are split because of their actions or not.

>>8854680
He's been a clown for months, this doesn't help you're position nor his. Face it, he will be the laughing stock of history.

>>8859472
>When a brainlet replies to you

>>8859871
He was already the laughing stock even before the election. He's set back the alt-right movement another 70 years for sure, like you want to be an edgy rebel and try to crash the system? Good, here you go.

>>8857357
>NSA largest employer of mathematicians
>NSA>NASA

>>8854799
Nerd

>>8859711
You say that like we have the money for it.
You say that like Trump isn't already doing his best.
If it's still not happening, it's never going to happen.

>>8854680
How about we send the big orange fatass to useless rocky cancerous overrated no atmosphere jello babies-Mars on his own with no way back instead?

>>8855624
>he wants to colonize a useless dead planet like Mars
>Mars colony will be fully dependant on Earth supplies though
>B-but we can t-terraf-form!!

>>8859908

>Denial
>What is I.C.E
>No more Sanctuary cities


Next time, follow the law.

>>8854680
>astronauts
Not science

>>8860353
Illegal immigration will always be a problem.

>>8854680
And reagan wanted an orbiting laser defense platform

>>8860435

Maybe, but we can certainly make it less so by applying the already agreed laws. Basically, when you have a wave of people breaking in stores and stealing, you increase police presence, not defend the robbers.

>>8856924
>>8856942
>>8856955
>>8859224


>t. Butt-blasted liberals

>>8859423
>Theres no point in doing a shitty footprints & flags mission to mars, rather than an ITS style mission.
This is Nirvana fallacy thinking. No Mars mission with a long surface stay time is "footprints & flags", let alone Mars-to-stay with Dragons.

The sooner we get humans living and working on Mars the better. A few astronauts on Mars can learn and set things up.

>No point going to Mars before going back to the moon, takes more or less all the same equipment/technology.
Only short-term surface survival takes the same stuff, and then only sort-of. Mars has a compressible atmosphere, protection against solar protons (by far the deadliest space radiation) and micrometeors, lots of water and nitrates in the soil, comparatively moderate temperatures, over twice as much gravity as the moon, and a very Earthlike day/night cycle. It's a much more suitable environment for long-term human occupation.

>>8859474
>Will sending people to mars achieve anything concrete that sending a probe won't?
The moon buggy travelled farther in a few hours than all of the Mars rovers did in years. The human astronauts who landed on the moon easily took many samples in a short time, including sub-surface ones. Remote-control robots have nowhere near the capabilities of human explorers, especially with a long communication latency.

For the same reasons that we almost never use a robot to do work in an uncontrolled environment on Earth's surface, human explorers start to make more sense than robotic probes as the transportation costs come down.

>>8859308
>old space mentality

>>8860435
>down 70% this year

It is less of a problem if you actually discourage it.

>>8859329
>an increase is actually a decrease because it is not as large an increase as I want

>>8860740
>new national tragedies

>>8859308
Yeah, that's why I said people, and not NASA, though.

>>8859308
NASA has killed more astronauts than anyone, and their fair share of ground crew. Did you know the space shuttle killed someone before it even got off the ground? The Apollo capsule killed three before it took anyone to space. Now they're talking about putting crew on the first launch attempt of a new rocket and new capsule, on a week-long trip beyond LEO so no fast abort is possible.

They're not supercompetent at manned spaceflight or something, they've just been the world's richest country's government monopoly on it. They stupidly throw billions of dollars at worthless ideas. They're simultaneously near-paralysed with fear of fucking things up and incapable of responding to known issues that will kill people. They get less and less competent and efficient over time because they're a government bureaucracy: SLS/Orion will be inferior to the shuttle, which was inferior to Saturn V/IB + Apollo capsule.

Sure, commercial space might kill people trying to send them to Mars, but NASA's just as likely to kill people doing entirely pointless exercises in Earth-moon space that cost fortunes and lead to nothing at all.

Accepting a reasonable risk of crew death is the first step in doing anything interesting with human space exploration.

>>8860765
Yes, old space sticking with their cash cows like the shuttle lead to several national tragedies. In lives lost, money wasted and progress in space exploration being retarded.

>>8860863
Nothing bad ever happened to rockets!

>>8860762
>I don't understand math or the concept of money as a fluid, quantified representation of value

we have troops on mars.
we have since the 80's.
trump is below secret.

>>8859676
niBBa what

>>8854680
>apologize to the kike shill
don't think so, go the fuck back

>>8855629
Inspire kids to get into science and space travel? Yeah. Think of it as an investment.

the launch window is next year. so NASA and SpaceX better start building something in orbit now.

>>8861743
NASA doesn't do anything, It won't happen
They aren't even legally allowed to

All their current plans are is to do maybe 2 test launches of the SLS during the next 8 years

>>8861764
So we make a law to give NASA the funds and orders to do it then?

>>8861743
Launch windows come every 26 months, so they actually have over three years. Seven to do it by the end of Trump's second term.

SpaceX had been planning to launch Red Dragon (a self-funded launch of a propulsive-landing Dragon to the Mars surface) by next year's window. They've pushed it back to the next window, but might be persuaded/enabled to do one or two next year after all if there's NASA funding for it (it would be good to demonstrate both the normal pressurized Dragon, and an unpressurized variant that splits open completely and forms a ramp for bulky cargo and rovers/vehicles).

The launch windows are also not truly the only times when you can go. Launches at other times are possible, the travel time just gets longer. That's one way they could still do a Red Dragon test landing, or several, before the manned mission even if they miss the window. They can also do a manned mission between windows, if they're okay with a ~15 month deep-space coast to a ballistic capture. This would also allow the transit hab to be captured into Mars orbit with little to no delta-v, minimizing the departure mass for it to be able to return to Earth.

>>8861764
>They aren't even legally allowed to
If there are low-cost options, there's stuff they can do within their budget that doesn't need any new laws, the President just needs to be okay with it.

There are laws to earmark funds for certain programs, but some of the funds can be used for fairly general purposes, and there are no laws that forbid NASA from going to Mars. Furthermore, NASA just straight-up ignored the law for a lot of its policy during the Obama era. Trump could do some of that, too.

>>8859891
>He's set back the alt-right movement another 70 years
The term literally never existed until this election cycle, it's just a boogeyman the media uses to explain Gen Y/Z counter-culture

>>8854789
>President Bush Jr: We will put shoes in bins

>>8854680
>declares desire to put man on mars
>gives massive tax cuts to private companies to build space ships
>defunds National Space Program to pay for tax cuts
>Space ship companies do what all companies do and pocket as much money as possible while doing as little as possible
>No space ships get built
>No longer have space program

thanks a lot Trump

>>8861706
What's more inspiring to an eight year old. Sending a scientist to a school and having them tell said eight year old that science is cool, or sending men to the Mars and showing every eight year old in the country that clip for decades to come?

Where do you get more bang for your buck?

You can say what you want about Trump, but if nothing else than we must admit that he's very good at engaging with people on a large scale with minimum resources, and that's exactly the kind of outreach we want to have going forward.

>tfw Trump will be remembered by economists as the president that perfected political adsense

>>8862316
All that is provided we actually -get- to Mars, no?
I think that's rather doubtful at this point. He seems all bluster and no muster, especially after reneging on the border wall and any serious ethics reform in Washington for all the world to see. This soundbite strikes me as another moment's diversion like the Hamilton affair.

>>8862521
Of course. If he does it then it will be a spectacular boon to the world's scientific community. If he doesn't then it will be a minor PR failure.

I've said it a thousand times at this point. While I might disagree with some of the things Trump has done to point, I will reserve my judgment for now becuase I'm well aware that the presidency is more about long term management than day to day micromanagement. In that regard expecting conclusive results in the short term is silly.

We'll see what happens. I'm hopeful and I'll be watching closley, but I'm not expectant of anything in particular. I have no interest in getting into divination.

>>8854680
>NASA
~58y since they put a few men on the moon
~20y since they began on a collabed space station

>thinking anything will come from NASA's empty promises
Not that we should cut funding, that's part of the problem even.

A mars mission takes years of planning, wont happen in that timeframe.
Mars mission is long as fuck, most likely a one way trip; you have to find some brave souls who don't ever want to see their family again= or at least for 30 years and have their lives dependent on the whims of congress funding shit.
NASA has to be well funded, will be expensive as fuck
Trump talks out of his ass ALOT.

>>8854680
How incredibly fucking dumb do you have to be to believe this man?

>>8854799
>Dragon should be entirely capable of landing

>>8856704
Sitting presidents almost never lose and especially not after Dems wasted 1.2 billion dollars on their last candidate and still lost.
8 years, faggot.

>>8859249
The wall will be a wall with fences at sone places where you can't put concrete on.

>>8854680
Wow, when will he sign the meaningless decree?

>>8863109
If you don't know anything, you shouldn't comment.

Dragon 2 is designed for propulsive landing, on Earth or on Mars. It should be working by next year. Launching Dragons to Mars is a prominent part of the SpaceX plan.

>>8860683

>It's a much more suitable environment for long-term human occupation.

Mars is still deadly though. Mars may be more "habitable" than most other places in the solar system, but that just means it is a slightly less shitty place, but still an order of magnitude more shitty than Earth.

Humanity either learns to survive in space in general, or it wont. Focus on Mars specifically is overrated.

>>8863922
>still an order of magnitude more shitty than Earth.
Still an order of magnitude less shitty than "space in general".

>>8856704
>he'll lose the election by a landslide!
>he wins
>he'll lose the next election!

>>8856924
>if you actually cared about facts, you wouldn't give a shit about what anybody says on gender. opinions totally irrelevant to science
>if you actually cared about facts, you wouldn't give a shit about what anybody says on gender
>actually cared about facts
>wouldn't give a shit about what anybody says on gender
>if you care about science you wouldn't care when people are scientifically wrong

WHAT THE FUCK DID HE MEAN BY THIS?????????

>>8863922
An established, independent population on Mars would have a lot easier time moving into other locations in space than those on Earth will.

For one thing, it's far easier to get to orbit. You only need small, modest-performance single-stage vehicles. It's entirely plausible that a Martian will be able to fly to orbit, rendezvous with a LMO station, and then land on the surface again, anywhere on the planet, all in a car-sized rocket he can build, maintain, and fuel himself. For bulk launch, alternatives or supplements to rockets such as space elevators or catapults are possible.

Consequently, building large, well-shielded vessels for deep space exploration and colonization will be much easier for them (assuming suitable mineral resources are discovered on Mars).

For another thing, having accustomed themselves to the necessities of life on Mars (indoor life, indoor food production, the constant discipline of maintaining air pressure and quality, pressure suits or remote operation for all necessary outdoor construction or maintenance tasks), they'll find those of living deeper in space more familiar and easier to tolerate.

Of all the obstacles to moving into space, one of the largest is psychological: to give up the comfort and beauty of the environment we evolved in, and the freedom to walk outdoors unprotected. That's a terrible sacrifice, one most of us are likely to resort to violence to avoid, and the universe will likely belong to the descendants of those who make it willingly and early.

>>8865022
To be fair, known criminal above the law vs reality tv star with no experience can be a tough presidential election for most analysts, just because it defies their areas of expertise so deeply.

>>8865078
>Known criminal
How is that relevant at all?

>>8865179
Decreases electability

>>8865078
Is this the current excuse for intentionally biased polls not matching election results?

>>8865383
No, the intentionally biased polls mismatched the election results because they were intentionally biased. If I was arguing otherwise, I probably wouldn't have called Hillary a criminal.

My point was more along the lines of "this is harder to approach through a priori methods because it's an unprecedented election" and therefore analysts and pundits had some plausible deniability to make fantastical and partisan claims on that basis without being called out as clearly mistaken or irresponsible, which they took advantage of.

>>8854680
>there won't be any space explorations if there will be ww3
/sci/ btfo wil it evr recovr

>>8854799
>Simply having a US president saying he wants to do it is a big deal, even if he doesn't have a clear plan yet.
Yeah, remember all his promises during the election?

Where's your wall? Still no news on Obamacare?

>>8856949
One is useless and impossibly impractical while the other helps everyone and it helps them today.
I know what I would pick.

>>8866243
GIVE HIM A MINUTE

>>8863300
Bush Sr. lost his re-election bid. It's possible but hasn't happened in 20 plus years. Most Presidents also don't become President after losing by 3 million votes in the popular vote. Trump will probably lose by more in the popular vote considering his base will shrink in 4 years (old people die and get replaced by young people who tend to be left wing).

>>8865070
>An established, independent population on Mars would have a lot easier time moving into other locations in space than those on Earth will.

If you're already at hundreds of thousands, or millions of people on Mars, you've already solved any difficulty of launch problems. There would be large LEO stations built largely for tourism, but also for assembly of satellites/probes

Launching from the Moon via railgun would be better than Mars anyways

>>8866422
The old people today used to be hippies
The young people today are more right wing than in a century

The problem is the huge amount of non-whites that swing the vote to Democrats, even there the young blacks are starting to vote Republican.

>>8866243
>Yeah, remember all his promises during the election?
Holy shit, man. He's only a few months into his presidency. Democrat obstruction in congress means he doesn't even have his full cabinet yet. Activist judges are ruling his plainly lawful actions unlawful, and they take time to overrule and remove even when they're acting in obvious bad faith. Over the years, the Democrats have managed to stack the supreme court with a majority of political-operative judges, who completely invent law pretending it's valid "interpretation", and one of those has to die or retire and be replaced with someone honest before Trump is able to act without being bound by laws that exist only in leftist imaginations.

>>8866467
>If you're already at hundreds of thousands, or millions of people on Mars, you've already solved any difficulty of launch problems.
There's solved and "solved". Even if you have highly reusable rockets, launching bulk mass from Earth to escape velocity is still very costly, and then there's the additional delta-v and travel time from Earth to reach the asteroid belt or outer solar system. Just look at the rocket equation: leaving Mars takes about 4 times as much propellant as anything else, while leaving Earth takes a multiplier of around 33. It's going to be worse than that, because the smaller that number is, the closer you're going to get to actually achieving it, especially if you're going reusable.

Energy's likely to be cheaper on Mars than Earth as well. Options like space solar power are more realistic.

>Launching from the Moon via railgun would be better than Mars anyways
Depends on what you need, and how much of it. Mars is clearly richer in the necessities of life, and we have reason to expect ore-body concentration from its wet past. The conditions are easier for travelling over the surface to work at many sites.

On top of that, you have to take into account Mars's own moons, which are essentially large carbonaceous asteroids.

>>8867026
>Even if you have highly reusable rockets, launching bulk mass from Earth to escape velocity is still very costly,

Not really, natural gas is not particularly expensive, and the bulk of the fuel is LOX, which is as cheap as it can be.
Once you've reduced launch costs to a small multiplier of fuel, then you have the oppurtunity cost of the 1+ year coast to Mars then back. In which time you might do 50+ runs to the Moon.

>Mars is clearly richer in the necessities of life

But, when it comes to launching payloads via railgun, you can't do it on Mars.
The moon will have all the same elements that Mars has.

>>8867264
>Not really, natural gas is not particularly expensive
Quantity matters. Also the size and performance level of the rocket.

>the oppurtunity cost of the 1+ year coast to Mars then back
It's not necessary to send the departure stage all the way to Mars, you can turn it around for reuse after it does the departure burn for the transit hab, then land the hab on Mars and keep it there as a building, pulling the landing rockets off for local use (aside from orbital launch, rocket aircraft will likely be a common transportation option).

>when it comes to launching payloads via railgun, you can't do it on Mars.
Sure you can, you can even use cannon launch on Earth, it's just a matter of how efficient it is. Anything you launch is still going to need rockets on it. Also: remember Mars's moons.

>The moon will have all the same elements that Mars has.
Not at remotely the same availability.

>>8860304
That's a "yes, progressives are not interested in Mars" answer.

>>8867645

They would rather waste the money needed for space exploration on food stamps and Ethiopian Feminist Literature degrees.

>>8854950
wew

>>8867026
> Democrat obstruction in congress means he doesn't even have his full cabinet yet.
Nope. The same republicans that left a SC seat vacant for a year by refusing to even debate Obama's nominee used the nuclear option to eliminate filibustering of appointees,
I'll bet my left pinkie you can't name the two positions yet unconfirmed without using Google.

>Activist judges are ruling his plainly lawful actions unlawful
>the first and tenth amendments aren't really a thing

>Over the years, the Democrats have managed to stack the supreme court with a majority of political-operative judges,
Only 4 of the 9 Justices are Democrat appointees.

> bound by laws that exist only in leftist imaginations.
Again, the judicial objections to his Muslim travel ban is the 1st Amendment, not any "imaginary" law.
The objection to the "sanctuary cities" plan is based on the 10th Amendment.

>>8867645
>>8867698

>>8867754

>muh nuclear option
Reminder that Democrats are the ones who made this possible because a few years ago they wanted to unilaterally confirm a bunch of judges (the Supreme Court justices aren't the only judges in America like you >implied) so they changed the rules to shit on the minority party. Don't cry now that the shoe is on the other foot and Republicans can use the tools created by Democrats to shut down minority opposition.

>>8867754
>Again, the judicial objections to his Muslim travel ban is the 1st Amendment

No it isn't, its just some district court making a bad baseless ruling because there is no way to punish him for it.

The Democrat traitors want judges to make garbage rulings, then at the same time are outraged at the Republicans for not giving them a supreme court majority

>>8854680
And I want to cure cancer by 2018.

Trump can say whatever he wants. It doesn't mean shit until he actually does something.

>>8867026
>Holy shit, man. He's only a few months into his presidency. Democrat obstruction in congress means he doesn't even have his full cabinet yet. Activist judges are ruling his plainly lawful actions unlawful, and they take time to overrule and remove even when they're acting in obvious bad faith. Over the years, the Democrats have managed to stack the supreme court with a majority of political-operative judges, who completely invent law pretending it's valid "interpretation", and one of those has to die or retire and be replaced with someone honest before Trump is able to act without being bound by laws that exist only in leftist imaginations.
Lmao, is this consciously supposed to be a parody of Obama apologists, or did you just settle onto the same rhetoric by accident?

>>8854934
>>8854950
BTFO
T
F
O

>>8859507
What did the libtard mean by this?

>>8867754
>it wasn't harry Reid and the Democrats that set the precedent in regards to the nuclear option
>what is the "Biden rule"
>the rest of your arguments
t. shill

>>8867754
>The same republicans that left a SC seat vacant for a year by refusing to even debate Obama's nominee used the nuclear option to eliminate filibustering of appointees
The Republicans controlled both houses of congress, the entire legislative branch, but Obama (the head of the executive branch, offiically responsible for implementing the policy of the legistlative branch) was ignoring them and ruling like an emperor. So yeah, they held it off until the next election.

The Democrats have been defeated in both democratically elected branches of government, but are still using their minority position with the primary focus of making Trump look like a failure and a promise-breaker, to affect the next election, regardless of the harm done to America in the process. This kind of shit is exactly why they lost.

>Only 4 of the 9 Justices are Democrat appointees.
4 are entirely corrupt Democrat appointees, one is a still-appallingly-corrupt compromise between the two parties. The Democrats will never support a simply honest candidate for the supreme court, they demand "activist" (corrupt) judges.

>the judicial objections to his Muslim travel ban is the 1st Amendment, not any "imaginary" law.
>The objection to the "sanctuary cities" plan is based on the 10th Amendment.
Please. Don't try and pretend those are honest interpretations of the constitution, any more than the constitution guarantees a right to gay marriage. America's long overdue for a purge of these kinds of judges.

>>8868118
Allow me to respond to that, if I may. Mr Chairman, my time is up, but as a former prosecutor, "corruption," for me, has a very specific meaning. A very specific meaning. If you say "corrupt," I say, "why aren't we prosecuting them under the law?" They're only in there for good behavior! Sounds to me this poster is talking about justices who take their conscience and the implementation of the law into account, and conflating that with actual corruption! And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

>>8868220
>If you say "corrupt," I say, "why aren't we prosecuting them under the law?"
You know why, it's the same reason Obama didn't get removed despite his blatantly illegal activities: enough Democrats to block the impeachment. To prosecute someone like a supreme court justice, you need a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate, as long as the Democrats approve of the corruption and hold even one third of Senate seats, it can't be done. To prosecute anyone else, they can appeal up to the Supreme Court, and as long as the SC has 5 scumbags on it, they can overturn the conviction and set a precedent for all the lower courts not to convict anyone on these grounds again.

It'll be a whole other country when one of the 5 scumbags dies or retires, and Trump sets an honest judge in his or her place.

>>8868270
The chair does not recognize the gentleman from IP range [redacted]

>>8859357
underrated post

>>8859357
>And after we build the force field we are sending every ayy that is here illegally back to their homeworld.
D E P O R T O B A M A B A C K T O T H E R E P T I L I A N H O M E W O R L D
E N O U G H I S E N O U G H

>>8867832
>Democrats are the ones who made this possible
Wellll.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#History
>The history of the constitutional option can be traced to a 1917 opinion by Senator Thomas J. Walsh, (Democrat of Montana) who contended that the U.S. Constitution provided the basis by which a newly commenced Senate could disregard procedural rules established by previous Senates
and...
given further support in 1957 by an advisory opinion written by then-Vice President (and thus President of the Senate) Richard Nixon.
and....
Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush.
etc.
Seems pretty bi-partisan.

>Supreme Court justices aren't the only judges in America like you >implied
Show me on the doll where I implied anything like that.
I mean, even REMOTELY where did I imply that?
> tools created by Democrats
Again, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#History

Despite the dramatic name, it's just the notion that the Senate can make it's own parliamentary rules, hardly surprising since they've been making their own rules since the beginning.

Besides, none of this changes the fact that this Anon:
>>8867026
>Democrat obstruction in congress means he doesn't even have his full cabinet yet.
...was 100% wrong. Democrat obstruction is very limited, and isn't the reason Trump hasn't filled his cabinet yet, since MY point was the Dems can't really stop the Republicans from doing whatever they want.

>>8867858
>>Again, the judicial objections to his Muslim travel ban is the 1st Amendment
>No it isn't, its just some district court making a bad baseless ruling
>baseless ruling
>baseless

It's not baseless, even if you disagree with it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-travel-ban.html
> a “reasonable, objective observer” would view even the new order as “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

It's clear court's objection is based on Trump's unconstitutional religion-based motivation.
Of course, if Trump weren't STUPID enough to tell anyone who would listen that he intended to (illegally) ban people based on their religion, the court wouldn't be able to block his retarded ban.
Now go back to your containment board and stop shitting up the grown-up board.

>>8868337
>etc.
>Seems pretty bi-partisan.
Did you just "etc." over the Dems finally actually being the ones to do it during the last presidential administration?

The deal was, "We won't do it to you when we have a majority, so you won't do it to us when you have a majority." The Dems ripped that deal up and threw it out the window, along with agreements of similar character about the interaction between the president and congress.

Fighting like gentlemen is for fighting with gentlemen. During the Obama administration, the Dems revealed themselves to be Bolsheviks, fit only to be lined up and shot before they do the same to you.

>Democrat obstruction is very limited, and isn't the reason Trump hasn't filled his cabinet yet
Democrat obstruction is as much as they can get away with, and it's entirely the reason Trump hasn't filled his cabinet yet.

>>8868118
>but Obama (the head of the executive branch, offiically responsible for implementing the policy of the legistlative branch) was ignoring them and ruling like an emperor.
>but Obama was duly elected by a majority of Americans to (among other things) to appoint a new Supreme court justice when the need arose. Despite this, the Republicans chose to exploit yet another glitchy aspect of the constitution to block him from carrying out his duty.
FTFY
And let's stop moving the goalposts, shall we?
This Anon:
>>8867026
>Democrat obstruction in congress means he doesn't even have his full cabinet yet.
...was not only wrong, but his bile would be better directed against the "party of no", and not the Obama administration.

>>8868347
>countries were selected based on findings of Homeland Security during the Obama administration
>a fraction of Muslim majority countries effected
>liberal judge "I will call it a Muslim ban to hide my politically motivated action"

>>8868359
>republicans block end of term federal judge appointments by Obama because democrats blocked end of term federal judge appointments of Bush

Lets not get too stuck on playing the victim.

>>8868356
>Did you just "etc." over the Dems finally actually being the ones to do it during the last presidential administration?
Both Republicans AND Democrats have used the "nuclear option", so you really can't point fingers at the Dems in particular, despite the fact that you're only 12, and can't remember any administration before Obama's.

>Democrat obstruction is as much as they can get away with, and it's entirely the reason Trump hasn't filled his cabinet yet.
So you're (correctly) claiming that the Dem's _can't _ filibuster a cabinet appointee, but they're still somehow (magically?) responsible for the last two vacancies, despite the fact that the Republicans have complete control over conformation process?

And check out this chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump#History
Trump's "weighted average" for appointees is shorter than the last 7 Presidents.

>>8868367
>>liberal judge "I will call it a Muslim ban to hide my politically motivated action"
[citation needed] on the part where this judge is liberal.
And "politically motivated action" clearly applies to Trump, not the judge.

>>8868367
>because democrats blocked end of term federal judge appointments of Bush
>because they fucking COULD
FTFY

>>8868367

Not him but let's call it like it is already. Trump ran on the position of controlling immigration especially from those of middle Eastern countries which also happen to be Islamic centric.

The move was more anti-ethnicity than anti-islamic since this ban didn't include south east Asia which technically host more muslims than the middle east and Africa.

The problem was Trump being the idiot he is openly told the public his intentions and fucked up his first try at the ban ruining any further actions involving it.

>>8868402
>[citation needed] on the part where this judge is liberal.
>BLM advocate
>conservative ideology

>And "politically motivated action" clearly applies to Trump, not the judge.

This is where you try and explain the judge's actions when Trump's EO was legal, constitutional and had precedent.

>>8868418
>Not him but let's call it what I want to view it as, instead of what facts indicate.

FTFY

>>8868379
>check out this chart:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump#History
Here's what I see: "By February 8, 2017, President Trump had fewer cabinet nominees confirmed than any prior president two weeks into their mandate, except George Washington.[63][64] Part of the lateness was ascribed to obstructionism by Senate Democrats"

Here's the truth:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/12/05/report-senate-dems-plot-path-to-delay-or-derail-trump-cabinet-picks-n2255298
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443698/trump-cabinet-democratic-obstruction
http://theduran.com/trump-cabinet-picks-confirmation-democrats-obstruction-unprecedented/

Senate Democrats have obstructed Trump assembling his cabinet in a way Republicans certainly didn't for Obama. They were shouting loudly that they were going to do so, and then they did what they said they would.

>the Republicans have complete control over conformation process
Only if they act in a purely partisan manner, and against the traditionally collegial, mutually-respectful nature of the Senate. The Dems are voting together as a block for every possible obstruction. If they get a few GOP senators to break ranks, they get their delay.

What they've achieved by this in the end was to get the GOP voting as a block as well. The traditions of the Senate are ending. Next they'll try and filibuster every bill they don't like, and force the GOP to go nuclear on that as well. Then they'll just be like little mice, squeaking angrily from the holes in the walls.

>>8868432

Fuck off you retard, we literally have footage and recordings of both Trump and Giuliani saying this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/

>Fox news

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE

>C-SPAN

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-sz0KY-3PbQ

They're biggest problem is they went public with their intentions and can never go back on it. Thus the entire plan for middle immigration is ruin because they couldn't keep their fucking mouths shut.

>>8868450
Let's not forget that Trump picked people that almost ANYONE would want to block, including mainstream Republicans.
But that's why yo voted for him, isn't it?
He was an alleged outsider, a foe to both parties, if you believe his rhetoric.

And then there's this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709
>It has taken longer so far for him to get the majority of his choices confirmed, although part of that is due to the lateness of a few nominations and delays in submitting background-check paperwork.
>Bill Clinton didn't have his final spot filled until 11 March. Republican George HW Bush took until 17 March. Barack Obama holds the modern record, as his last pick - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - didn't get her Senate vote until 28 April.
...and you conveniently overlook the fact that his average appointee has been confirmed faster than average appointee of any modern President.

>>8854680
> we've survived 100 days so far
> only 1360 days to go

>>8868506
>Let's not forget that Trump picked people that almost ANYONE would want to block, including mainstream Republicans.
So that's why the GOP didn't block a single one of them in the end?

>a foe to both parties, if you believe his rhetoric.
You just never get tired of misrepresenting stuff.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709
>9 February 2017
>Barack Obama holds the modern record, as his last pick - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - didn't get her Senate vote until 28 April.
It's April 28, and Trump still doesn't have his full cabinet.

Why are you linking fake news?

>you conveniently overlook the fact that his average appointee has been confirmed faster than average appointee of any modern President
I don't know what kind of number games you have to play to reach that conclusion when they haven't all even been confirmed yet, but the normal thing is to confirm the important ones immediately, in the president's first week, then the minor ones get confirmed as the senate gets around to them. Trump didn't get that, so important presidential business was held up like hasn't been true for any president since Washington.

>>8868561
I heard a good one about his approval rating being below 0 lol

> So Mr Trump's net approval rating — the percentage of people who approve of his performance minus those who disapprove — is -10 ...

>>8868500
>REEEEE STOP DESTROYING MY FEELS WITH FACTS

Was Obama banning Muslims from entering the country when he signed the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, which was the basis of Trumps EO?

>>8868571
Speaking of polling, I heard Trump was going to lose the election by double digits.

>>8868543
> only 2822 days to go
ftfy