NASA Chief Says US Will Return To Moon Within Trump's Second Term (cnbc.com) 130
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, who was confirmed by the Senate just last week after a turbulent nomination process that stretched across most of 2025, said Friday that the United States will return to the moon within President Donald Trump's second term. Isaacman made the comments during an interview on CNBC, calling Trump's recommitment to lunar exploration key to unlocking what he described as an "orbital economy." He said: "We want to have that opportunity to explore and realize the scientific, economic and national security potential on the moon," he said.
The potential opportunities include establishing space data centers and infrastructure on the moon, as well as mining Helium-3, a rare gas embedded in the lunar surface that could serve as fuel for fusion power. NASA is currently working on its Artemis campaign alongside SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Boeing. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act allocated $9.9 billion to the agency earlier this year.
The Artemis II mission, NASA's first crewed test flight using the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft, is expected to launch in the near future. SpaceX is contracted to build the lunar landing system for the subsequent Artemis III mission. Isaacman was first nominated by Trump in December 2024 but had his nomination pulled in May over unspecified "prior associations." Trump renominated him in November.
The potential opportunities include establishing space data centers and infrastructure on the moon, as well as mining Helium-3, a rare gas embedded in the lunar surface that could serve as fuel for fusion power. NASA is currently working on its Artemis campaign alongside SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Boeing. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act allocated $9.9 billion to the agency earlier this year.
The Artemis II mission, NASA's first crewed test flight using the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft, is expected to launch in the near future. SpaceX is contracted to build the lunar landing system for the subsequent Artemis III mission. Isaacman was first nominated by Trump in December 2024 but had his nomination pulled in May over unspecified "prior associations." Trump renominated him in November.
False promises (Score:2, Informative)
The only reason we will establish a moon base is so we can eventually turn the moon into a giant advertising billboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Just install uBlock into your interactive contact lenses.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason we will establish a moon base is so we can eventually turn the moon into a giant advertising billboard.
It's already been done in Science Fiction - refer to Heinlein's "The Man who Sold the Moon". That seems appropriate given the degree of Science Fictional 'thinking' going on in the squirelly brains of people like Trump and Thiel.
Re:False promises (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's the biggest problem. A completely unserious government, run by crooks, liars and couch-fuckers, who are beyond stupid, beyond corrupt, and who don't care about anything except their own ego and self-enrichment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: False promises (Score:1)
Re: False promises (Score:4, Insightful)
I get that they're both brown, so it can be confusing.
Re: False promises (Score:2)
I was told the pyramids were built by little grey men.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:False promises (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason we will establish a moon base is so we can eventually turn the moon into a giant advertising billboard.
And so Trump can put his name on it -- The Donald J. Trump Moon Base.
(For sure the base will be painted gold, btw.)
(sigh)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wish you were joking.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish you were joking.
Wait until he wants one of his new "Trump-class" "battleships" on the Moon.
Re: False promises (Score:3)
I've heard they're to have giant "lasers"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that's what it takes to get the US to go back to the moon after the sclerosis of the manned space program over the past 50 years, fine.
Republicans AND Democrats have made big talk about space exploration and Congresses of BOTH parties have failed to follow through with budgets to match.
If convincing Trump that putting his name in it will guarantee his name will persist into the future I'm all for it .
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, It has to be about the future golf course. Just think how far he could hit it off the tee?
Re: (Score:2)
He couldn't do as well as Alan Shepard.
Re: (Score:2)
And militarize it.
Re:False promises (Score:4, Funny)
You mean like this?
https://www.generationbd.com/i... [generationbd.com]
He probably knows something we don't (Score:3, Insightful)
which is that Trump doesn't intend to let go of power in 3 years.
Re:He probably knows something we don't (Score:5, Informative)
which is that Trump doesn't intend to let go of power in 3 years.
In three years, Trump will likely be either dead or drooling away what's left of his sorry-ass life. Captain Eyeliner, aka Couchfucker, is the one we have to worry about.
Re: (Score:3)
You say that but we watched Mitch McConnell have a brain reboot on live tv and he's still upright and mobile (kind of).
Re: He probably knows something we don't (Score:2)
Mitch knows when to say nothing, has a filter, and doesn't spend every minute on the toilet sending xeets on Xitter.
Trump's spiral into madness will be something else.
Re: (Score:3)
which is that Trump doesn't intend to let go of power in 3 years.
In three years, Trump will likely be either dead or drooling away what's left of his sorry-ass life.
You do understand that DT is not the only person named Trump who could run for president in 2028, right?
Re:He probably knows something we don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Captain Eyeliner, aka Couchfucker, is the one we have to worry about.
Vance went from "Trump could be America's Hitler" to serving as his VP.
If I were you I'd worry more about who's going to be pulling that spineless nonentity's strings because, unlike Trump, Vance seems to have no convictions whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Vance went from "Trump could be America's Hitler" to serving as his VP.
Which is probably why he wanted to be VP. /cynical
Re: (Score:2)
Vance went from "Trump could be America's Hitler" to serving as his VP.
If I were you I'd worry more about who's going to be pulling that spineless nonentity's strings because, unlike Trump, Vance seems to have no convictions whatsoever.
The benefit of Vance is nobody likes or cares about him. He doesn't have the legitimacy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's as may be, but if Donald died or somehow became obviously incapacitated (meaning something obvious even to MAGA, like he can't get a word out), then it doesn't matter what people think of Vance--he automatically becomes president.
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Eyeliner, aka Couchfucker, is the one we have to worry about.
Vance went from "Trump could be America's Hitler" to serving as his VP.
If I were you I'd worry more about who's going to be pulling that spineless nonentity's strings because, unlike Trump, Vance seems to have no convictions whatsoever.
We already know who that is... It's the same people pulling the cheeto-faced Buttplug's strings. Miller, Vought and the Heritage foundation.
They're currently Trumps masters (and minders it seems).
The problem the US has are millions of people who only watch Fox news and refuse to admit there's even a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Vance will be sidelined as soon as he becomes too uppity for his master the Donald.
Not if The Donald dies, retires with a blanket pardon, or is ousted 25A style before the end of his term.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of increasingly possible futures where Trump loses the ability to make coherent sentences before the end of his term, but doesn't actually die.
Why not? That worked for the Soviet Union, didn't it? Remember Andropov?
Re: (Score:2)
And no, this is not about "trump's handlers".
Who is it about, then? It's clear that Trump cannot shepherd a complete cogent thought from one end of his brain to the other.
Re: (Score:2)
J.D. Vance does not have the charisma to pull it off. He is ...bland.
Even if the presidency was handed to him by Trump retiring from office early, Vance would not be able to hold together the various groups required to maintain power.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the American way.
Data centers on the moon (Score:2, Informative)
The potential opportunities include establishing space data centers and infrastructure on the moon,...
Unless you've got quantum networks up and running that's not going to fly for realtime applications: there's an (average) 1.253 second communication delay between the earth and moon... each way!
Re:Data centers on the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
The potential opportunities include establishing space data centers and infrastructure on the moon,...
Unless you've got quantum networks up and running that's not going to fly for realtime applications: there's an (average) 1.253 second communication delay between the earth and moon... each way!
Yes, but that's really not the big problem at all. It would obviously exclude some applications requiring low latency, but it's a insignificant issue as a whole.
With the naive approach, a data-center is simply lot of computers. Rows after rows racks filled with computers. And when you look closer, those computers require power and power distribution. And those also fills up racks, and in a large data-centers it's thousands of those power racks. A power converter/distribution rack with decent power density easily clocks in at 2000kg or more. And when it's estimated that to launch 1kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), you need a minimum of about 30 Megajoules. And something like additional 800MJ to get it to the Moon, it kind of adds up. The estimates are somewhere above 1million $ per kilogram delivered to the Moon. So 2000million$ for one power distribution rack, and you probably need at least a thousand for a small/medium size data-center. It quite fast becomes obvious that data-centers on the moon is nonsense. And the same conclusion are also apparent for data centers in space/orbit. Not something to take seriously, either just nonsense or some kind of scam.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but those are problems that could actually be solved. Difficult, but possible. I'd question the benefit, and see it as only reasonable as a research project. And I think the farside radio telescope more worthwhile. (Also easier.)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, carp. Commenting to undo bad mod.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but those are problems that could actually be solved.
Not without fundamentally new solutions to the problems and new understanding of the physics involved.
Todays data-centers are huge and require huge amounts of power. Simply distributing that power require lots of big heavy hardware. And putting things in orbit and beyond is insanely expensive. Perhaps quantum computing may give some mitigation to the power and weight requirements, but the cost will still be to high. For the transport part, there are noting currently theorized about that may solve it as f
Re: (Score:1)
Are your calculations for AC? As I've just heard of popular developments of DC local zones gaining momentum to simplify all the power management and save on energy losses due to conversion - for sure it would simplify the power units and on the Moon no point of using AC in data centers.
Howerer the Earth's orbit is a better place IMO - having constant Sun exposure for power and easier maintenance, so I wonder why the Moon then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The temperature fluctuations are not problematic. We have electronics that have been up there for actual literal decades.
Re:Data centers on the moon (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
GOES 3, built in the 70s, operated for 38 years before being shut down.
Pointing out the engineering challenges to electronics in space (which again, almost entirely all apply on the lunar surface as well) while acting like it's not a very solved problem is silly.
We have electronics in space that are going to outlast the computer you're typing your responses on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CubeSats have off-the-shelf components.
The primary discussion was about the economic viability of putting data centers in space environments. Do you not see the disconnect?
Do you?
We're talking datacenters in space, and you have:
1) erroneously implied that space is somehow better than the surface of the moon, in spite of them facing the same problem, and having the same solutions.
2) ignored that all of the complexities of the radiation and thermal environment in space are largely solved engineering problems.
Now, perhaps you'll want to say "I never meant to imply the sur
Re: (Score:2)
But think how well vacuum tubes would do up there--you wouldn't even have to encase them, there'd be no need for the tube!
Re:Data centers on the moon (Score:4, Interesting)
The moon is probably less dumb than orbit. There are places on the moon that have virtually continuous sunlight, more places where you can get it by sticking something on a pole, and the whole thing is small enough that it's not really unreasonable just to put solar panels on both sides and run cables. Assuming the cables and the panels are manufactured there, of course, which is reasonable: the moon has lots of all the stuff you need.
The big advantage though is that you can use the moon as a big heat sink. You can't do that in orbit. You also get something to tie all those solar panels to, rather than having to manage a giant structure or a whole bunch of little satellites that have to maneuver or they die.
Both are probably vastly inferior to your nearest desert or ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
The moon is probably less dumb than orbit. ...
Good points, though the orbit still beats the Moon on latency and access, once the Moon had permanent bases then the access would be balanced and I'd assume people would start building astro observatories there - lots of data to process/store.
Both are probably vastly inferior to your nearest desert or ocean.
Of course, just we're discussing the beyond the Earth locations' pros and cons.
Re: (Score:2)
Are your calculations for AC?
No, primary based on DC 800V systems just started to roll out and systems in development staring to be installed next year.
As I've just heard of popular developments of DC local zones gaining momentum to simplify all the power management and save on energy losses due to conversion
DC have been in use for a while, the development are more about moving to higher voltages like from 400VDC to 800VDC. Same as seen in the EV segment. Not converter power loss tho, but transportation loss and need for less copper to transport the energy(cheaper). Reducing copper will reduce weight, but it will still remain significant in this case.
Howerer the Earth's orbit is a better place IMO - having constant Sun exposure for power and easier maintenance, so I wonder why the Moon then.
It's not quite right to call it a better
Re: (Score:2)
And when it's estimated that to launch 1kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), you need a minimum of about 30 Megajoules. And something like additional 800MJ to get it to the Moon, it kind of adds up. The estimates are somewhere above 1million $ per kilogram delivered to the Moon.
You're assuming that the availability and cost of energy within a system are fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
And when it's estimated that to launch 1kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), you need a minimum of about 30 Megajoules. And something like additional 800MJ to get it to the Moon, it kind of adds up. The estimates are somewhere above 1million $ per kilogram delivered to the Moon.
You're assuming that the availability and cost of energy within a system are fixed.
The amount of energy required to move something to orbit and to the Moon is indeed fixed, that's basic physics. And baring a new and revolutionary method of doing that, the cost estimates will not change significantly and the conclusion remains. Whether it's 1.2 or 1 million per kilo does not really change anything.
Re:Data centers on the moon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite a bit more direct than that. If you and I observe entangled particles we'll each just see random results. If we later compare notes we'll realize that our random measurements are actually correlated with each other. They're still random though, and we can't notice anything strange about them until we compare notes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read your article closely. Until you share classical information you cannot observe anything other than a set of apparently random measurements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about why you can't send information faster than the speed of light. Nobody said communication via entangled particles was the same as classical communication. It requires classical communication. In the case you're talking about, that classical communication even has to come first.
Actual result will be different (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The refueling logistics for such a Starship mission are frankly fucking staggering.
That said, they'll almost certainly be involved- but not at that price. I think they're getting like $4B for their role in Artemis.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, there will be a several billion dollar budget to fake the landing (funneled, of course, to big tech donors) with the propaganda budget needed to convince the masses that it did happen.
The good news is that Mexico will pay for it (Score:2)
When are we going to finish building the wall to keep Americans from leaving the country, anyway? I thought that was one of Trump's priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. It's done and Mexico did pay for it just like he said. He keeps his promises. At least that's what they tell me. Must be true.
Re: The good news is that Mexico will pay for it (Score:2)
>>just like drug prices, immigration is down 1500%
if drug price discounts over 100 means the companies are paying you to take the drugs, then immigration over 100 means people are leaving USA. Sounds about right.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr wall building has money allocated in the "big beautiful bill", and actually Biden continued building the wall in office. That's American politics, the things politicians say have nothing to do with reality.
Not buying it (Score:1)
NASA may have made a mistake (Score:4, Informative)
:et me preface this with I hop they succeed, we need to bring back these types of acheivements.
However, I think that NASA may have made a mistake relying on commercial suppliers for the moon lander.
Not designing a lander and taking it with them on SLS like they did in the Apollo missions may be the thing which prevents success. Of course, that would have been more for the taxpayers to shoulder.
To get to the moon before 2028 seems like a long shot, and even 2030 seems doubtful.
I think the current regime has moved the goal posts. If the reason is to get there before China, then they should be taking the lander with them on SLS. If the reason is persistent presence on the moon, then commercial solutions are required.
China IS taking a lander with them.
The whole idea of orbital refueling is completely untested.
Re: (Score:1)
None of that plan had anything to do with "commercial provider".
That's the original, utterly-shit NASA plan.
Parts of NASA are still clearly capable of greatness.
Parts decayed to sludge under perennial short -funding, of course, but also the great distractions of diversity mandates and "Arab outreach" missions.
I want more than anything to see this mission succeed. We need to get to the moon and plant a base in at least one pole before the Chinese - this will have impact on future space development for centu
Re: (Score:3)
End of Tump's term gives them three years. China has said "around 2030", which seems more realistic, and they are on track for it.
It seems unlikely that SpaceX will get Starship working and man rated by then, let alone able to land on the moon and return to orbit. Ditto for Blue Origin's large rocket and crew capsule, but they are probably the closer of the two.
The worst part is that they could be putting lives at risk just to rush here.
Re: (Score:2)
Artemis' around the moon flight is scheduled for "early 2026" which means getting it done before 2028 is an actual possibility. He said "return to the moon" not "land a human on the moon."
Like the world has never seen (Score:1)
If I were an astronaut, I'd be a bit hesitant about being in the crew of a moon mission that was some sort of Trump initiative. It feels vunderable to a new dimension of risk.
Re: Like the world has never seen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, think of the ratings! Especially if there's a few explosions. Oh yeah, that is marketing gold right there.
reminds me of a sketch from Baroness Von Sketch Show the concept was a theatre troupe who was practicing in the wood. The joke was there was a flat tire and they could only think of theatre kid solutions. The news reported they died of exposure. Other theatre kids hearing that report were jealous of how much exposure they got and already planning a possible trek to the woods.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm dead, but everyone knows my name!
Serves as a reminder to (Score:2)
Reread Andy Weir's Artemis.
Pretty Please (Score:2, Troll)
Can they take Trump with them and leave him on the Moon?
2nd term ? (Score:2)
Section 1
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or
Good luck (Score:3)
Good luck with that with the cuts they've made to NASA and the general contempt for science in this administration. It would likely just be a way to funnel huge amounts of taxpayer money to a few favored companies. Like, ummmm, SpaceX.
Return? (Score:2)
You're implying we ever went in the first place. Nice try, Kubrick!
Re: (Score:2)
As should be well known, Kubrick filmed the Moon landings on location.
That's bravery (Score:2)
Alive or dead? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just fake it... (Score:2)
Just fake it, as that's the current approach, the facade and veneer of a "golden age"...
Futurama called it, build the fake moon landing set at Area 51:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Or as the movie "Capricorn One" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
One small step for the peasant commoners err man, one giant leap for... ???
--JoshK.
Not happening within 3 years.. (Score:2)
I don't think so (Score:2)
Wave goodbye (Score:2)
the United States will return to the moon within President Donald Trump's second term.
Will that be all of it leaving the Earth behind?
Though I suppose if they miss the target of going during Trump's second term, they can always make it during his third, or later term.
This administration has said a lot of things (Score:2)
oh my mistake he's a idiot shill not a normal one (Score:3)
At first "US goes to moon in 2nd term" I thought the dude was just an idiot who doesn't know Trump
Oh nevermind. He's an idiot shill trying to suck up to Trump who doesn't realize that Trump and Co would probably be happier shutting down NASA then going to the moon again. Just another case of "Just fake it, till you make it" except they don't particularly care about making it.
Rot (Score:2)
A fish rots from the head down. Given the unmatched incompetence of the Trump regime and its deliberate choice of the worst possible candidates to lead various departments, I won't be holding my breath.
Bon Voyage! (Score:2)
The US will go to the moon? Great. I just hope they don't intend to return.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, dream on comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: China will beat them (Score:1)
some Chinese people believe the US moon landing was fake, some Americans also think that too.
Re: China will beat them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Some would say 90% isn't a monopoly, but I think Russia's military definitely has one right now. If you don't believe me, watch the video in my signature.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's worse if we had that capability and then lost it.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump Admin burning more public funds.
It's all Biden's fault.