NASA plans to send equipment to Moon from 2020

NASA plans to return humans to the Moon by 2024, for the first time since the Apollo program ended in 1972
NASA plans to return humans to the Moon by 2024, for the first time since the Apollo program ended in 1972

For the first time since the 1970s, the United States is planning to send equipment to the surface of the Moon in 2020 and 2021, in anticipation of a crewed lunar mission in 2024, NASA said Friday.

The US space agency has chosen American firms Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines and Orbit Beyond to send instruments and other scientific equipment to the Moon as part of the Artemis program.

The administration of President Donald Trump has accelerated the timetable for putting humans back on the Moon with 2024 the new target date—moved up by four years.

Each company has developed lunar landers of different sizes and shapes: one is tall, and the other two are more compact.

The landers will deliver up to 23 small payloads of equipment provided by NASA. That should include materiel that will gather information to help astronauts later on to land, navigate and protect themselves from radiation.

Orbit Beyond will land in Mare Imbrium, a lava plain in a , by September 2020, after being launched by one of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets.

Intuitive Machines will try to land by July 2021 in Oceanous Procellarum, a dark spot on the Moon visible from Earth. SpaceX will also facilitate that launch.

Astrobotic, which is based in Pittsburgh, will target Lacus Mortis, a large crater on the near side of the Moon, by July 2021. It has yet to choose a delivery rocket.

NASA awarded the companies $77-97 million each for development of their landers.

"Next year, our initial science and technology research will be on the lunar surface, which will help support sending the first woman and the next man to the Moon in five years," said NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine.

"Investing in these commercial landing services also is another strong step to build a commercial space economy beyond low-Earth orbit."

The United States last sent a crewed mission to the Moon in 1972, the year of the final Apollo mission.

NASA regularly sent lunar probes into orbit, but it only has two active missions today: the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the ARTEMIS probes.

China has meanwhile landed twice on the Moon in recent years: in 2013, and in January on the far side.

The Chang'e 4 probe and its motorized robot Yutu-2 are the only probes active on the surface right now.


Explore further

NASA dubs 2024 Moon mission 'Artemis,' asks for $1.6 billion

© 2019 AFP

Citation: NASA plans to send equipment to Moon from 2020 (2019, May 31) retrieved 26 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-nasa-equipment-moon.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
557 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 31, 2019
dam all that time money effort and lives we wasted flying Nixon's shuttle to nowhere.

May 31, 2019
dam all that time money effort and lives we wasted flying Nixon's shuttle to nowhere.
We learned how to build a large, complex vehicle and habitat prototype in orbit with the cooperation of several countries, and occupy it over time to gauge the performance of structures, materials, systems, and occupants.

Doing this in orbit rather than halfway to mars is an essential step in establishing a permanent presence in space. We couldn't do anything else until we did this first.

Jun 01, 2019
NASA should also invest more money in more cost effective ways to launch vehicles into orbit including landers.

We might just be missing out on something until that aha moment.

NASA or even Space X should create a competition for the general public to come up with creative ideas.

Maybe Science X could roll out such competitions as there are most certainly very creative minds amongst the general public that remain untapped.

Jun 01, 2019
Imagine being able to lift 10,000 TONS into orbit and the Moon or Mars using just one ship. Enough the take colonists and the materials to build a colony and do it in three weeks. There is only one way, and it's not chemical rockets:
The Orion nuclear pulse drive combines a very high exhaust velocity, from 19 to 31 km/s (12 to 19 mi/s) in typical interplanetary designs, with meganewtons of thrust.[5] Many spacecraft propulsion drives can achieve one of these or the other, but nuclear pulse rockets are the only proposed technology that could potentially meet the extreme power requirements to deliver both at once

Jun 01, 2019
So whenever someone or something mentions NASA, I start laughing. I know comedy, just saying.

This is a reminder why, it's official NASA footage, on CNN.
https://www.youtu...youtu.be

On a more serious note, they shouldn't let their website admin be doing the CGI too. There are numerous errors in the footage hinting that they should hire more experienced and capable graphics designers and animators. Maybe they can contact me, I mean I used to actually make more convincing stuff about 20 years ago with 3dsmax 2.5

Oh right, I'm actually FROM Orion, go figure.

Jun 01, 2019
The Orion nuclear pulse drive combines a very high exhaust velocity, from 19 to 31 km/s (12 to 19 mi/s) in typical interplanetary designs, with meganewtons of thrust.[5] Many spacecraft propulsion drives can achieve one of these or the other, but nuclear pulse rockets are the only proposed technology that could potentially meet the extreme power requirements to deliver both at once
Only for emergencies. "In case of hellfire break glass"

Meanwhile this'll work

"For the first time since the 1970s, NASA is developing nuclear propulsion systems for its spacecraft.

"NASA didn't request any money for a nuclear propulsion program, but it will get $125 million for the research as part of the space agency's $22.3 billion budget that Congress approved last week"

Jun 01, 2019
Perhaps someone can explain why these projects are landing all over the place? I mean I'm sure there will be good science done at any location, but if the goal is to land humans and set up a colony near the south pole, why not target the projects to places near the south pole?

Jun 01, 2019
Perhaps someone can explain why these projects are landing all over the place? I mean I'm sure there will be good science done at any location, but if the goal is to land humans and set up a colony near the south pole, why not target the projects to places near the south pole?


Excellent point DrSteve. I mean, as Goering incarnate, the propaganda agenda has been far more effective than initially planned. They actually thought Hitler was the Nazi leader and Goebbels headed propaganda. Tsk tsk...Anyway, as you know, Antarctica hosts a number of alien artifacts, including tetrahedral "spaceships" that are soon to be activated, so the attempts to establish colonies on planets we can't leave is an appropriate ruse to distract from that fact.

Jun 01, 2019

"For the first time since the 1970s, NASA is developing nuclear propulsion systems for its spacecraft.

"NASA didn't request any money for a nuclear propulsion program, but it will get $125 million for the research as part of the space agency's $22.3 billion budget that Congress approved last week"


That's a whole lot of fraud and laundering, I wholeheartedly approve of the misappropriation of funds for ultimately meaningless tasks and ventures over simple, immediate existential crises that could otherwise be easily addressed.

Jun 01, 2019
Also it would be much cheaper "I think" to utilise all the redundant space satellites and send to the moon or even Mars. After all no need to get it into space other than collecting and acceleration which would be far cheaper than a total new launch.
I'm sure there is a lot of materials and technology on these satellites which could be disassembled and put to use at its new destinations.

Jun 01, 2019
dam all that time money effort and lives we wasted flying Nixon's shuttle to nowhere.
We learned how to build a large, complex vehicle and habitat prototype


building in orbit could have been done regardless of shuttle. and F a bunch of cooperation, the should be begging for us to spend their money.

had Apollo continued Manned Mars by 1986 was the plan

Jun 01, 2019
building in orbit could have been done regardless of shuttle
Of course this has been debated elsewhere...

"No other vehicle at the time provided all the elements of EVA capability, 50klb payloads, and a manipulator arm to carry out the assembly tasks."

"This is correct. No other spacecraft could support long-duration, multi-person EVAs (3 separate 2-crew, 7 hour excursions on STS-88, for example), let alone carrying 25 ton payloads on the same launch."

"In summary, the ISS components could have been (and frequently were) launched on non-STS rockets, but assembly in its current design required the support of the Shuttle."
and F a bunch of cooperation, the should be begging for us to spend their money
The intent was to develop multinational cooperation because many emergency scenarios (impactor mitigation) would require it. AND the shuttle was primarily a military vehicle. NASA is a military agency.
cont>

Jun 01, 2019
had Apollo continued Manned Mars by 1986 was the plan
What makes you think apollo-era tech could have gotten us to mars? MOST of the vehicles sent to mars back then, failed. We needed practice, experience, innovation. We needed materials and systems that hadnt been invented yet. We needed data from mars landers first to know where we were going and what we would find once we got there.

We needed to know how people would function long-term in space. We needed to know what diseases might emerge during the trip. Etcetcetc. No, there were no serious plans to send apollo to mars to establish permanent colonies.

Jun 01, 2019
"No other vehicle at the time provided all the elements of EVA capability, 50klb payloads, and a manipulator arm to carry out the assembly tasks."


Wrong, Mir station proves that you do not need Shuttle to build a large and complex modular station. In fact, without the Shuttle, ISS would be both larger because of payload bay volume limitations, and also built cheaper and quicker. Shuttle was a bad idea that failed to achieve its primary goal, to decrease launch costs.

Otto, you are a borderline conspiracy nut who naively thinks there are some hidden leaders doing everything with a purpose. Reality is different, Shuttle failed and the reason why it was not cancelled for three decades was simple incompetence, inertia and corruption.

Jun 01, 2019
[What makes you think apollo-era tech could have gotten us to mars?


If you look at modern design for a Mars vehicle, such as SpaceX Starship, then it is a relatively simple design made from stainless steel, natural gas powered rocket engines, and two stages landing vertically on legs. We could have done something like this back in the 70s. We did not because we were dumb in hindsight, not because Shuttle was in any way a better idea.

Jun 01, 2019
Wrong. Mir station proves that you do not need Shuttle to build a large and complex modular station
No comparison. Mir had no superstructure, no common systems, no external utilities. Look at it - it was basically a bunch of vehicles plugged together. ISS was constructed.
Otto, you are a borderline conspiracy nut
And you are borderline old codger a little bit yes I think? Those are quotes from discussions elsewhere. Google them and learn some new tricks.

Mir - composed of a core module that was launched in 1986 and several smaller modules that were launched subsequently [and merely docked together]
Cont>

Jun 01, 2019
Yeah I kind of lost interest there. The shuttle was a military vehicle, designed to orbit spysats and launch on short notice. It could loiter, change orbits, conduct multiple missions on 1 launch.

"Various international landing sites were also available in the event of a Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) scenario, as well as other sites in the United States and Canada in case of an East Coast Abort Landing (ECAL) situation. Space Shuttle landings were intended to regularly take place at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California for Department of Defense missions launched from the site..."

-Carter made it the primary vehicle for all missions commercial and military. I dont believe the military was ever happy with this and this is why challenger was 'tested to destruction' by flying it outside its parameters.

The military got it's necessary redundancy and the US got some martyrs. Very suspiciously a healthy mix of compelling stereotypes.

Jun 01, 2019
And the shuttles successor, U.S. Air Force's X-37B, fully robotic, comparable performance parameters, shamelessly military... this belies the true nature of the shuttle program.

Similar liberal meddling is why the US space program is in shambles. Nothing wrong with constellation. Even with overruns it would have been far cheaper than scrapping it and starting from scratch with SLS, basically the same thing. And we would be back on the moon already.

But then musk and the other commercial players wouldn't gave the impetus to develop independent projects, yes? More indication that NASA was, and is, and will always be, military. Recce, bridgeheads, outposts, patrolling shipping lanes etc... not settling and exploiting resources.

Jun 01, 2019
Families on board starships? Outrageous. Klingons laugh at progressive snowflake earthers. Military and commerce only combine when military has nothing to do to justify their existence, like the Republican guard. And then the results are always disasterous, as the military is by nature predatory.

This is why Alexander led his army through the Arabian desert rather than repatriate them. They demanded to go home and as a result 90% of them died on the way.
look at modern design for a Mars vehicle, such as SpaceX Starship, then it is a relatively simple design made from stainless steel, natural gas powered rocket engines, and two stages landing vertically on legs. We could have done something like this back in the 70s
Possibly. But it isnt quite milspec now is it?

Jun 01, 2019
You've got to ask yourself, why do we need a musk starship AND a robot spy plane with a form factor near-identical to the shuttle? Musk starship can still perform military missions in addition to bussing people and equipt to other planets (in theory).

Apparently that form factor was essential to a military presence in space back when launch systems were being discussed. And apparently it still is.

Jun 01, 2019
How about this; would it be appropriate for the musk fleet line to be armed? Transport weapons? How'd that work out for the lusitania?

Even nuclear explosives for plowshare-type missions on other planets... it might be politically expedient to at least orbit them with military vehicles. But I think the NRC/DOE would want to keep their delivery and application in military hands, using military personnel, systems, and vehicles.

Jun 02, 2019
VTVL rockets weren't really developed until after the year 2000, due to all the cash prize competitions around that time. For the 70-90's era of spaceflight, a controlled descent via the shuttle was just the next logical step to take after creating parachute space capsules. Yeah, America lost some brave folks in the process, but at the time it was the next best technology to pursue because parachutes are sketchy. It takes a certain type of person to be like: "Yay, I get to descend through the sky by parachute today."

Jun 02, 2019
Shuttle was partially a military design, which is indeed an important reason why it was so expensive. This is one reason why it was a failure. It achieved nothing significant militarily, and instead of lowering launch costs, became the most expensive launch vehicle ever. There was no hidden genius plan behind this, just incompetence and corruption. X-37B is much smaller, cheaper, and not a complete launch vehicle for general use, merely a payload.

Jun 02, 2019
VTVL rockets weren't really developed until after the year 2000, due to all the cash prize competitions around that time. For the 70-90's era of spaceflight, a controlled descent via the shuttle was just the next logical step to take after creating parachute space capsules.


VTVL rockets were demonstrated back in the early 90s, see DC-X, and were possible even earlier. But very little research and no practical application was pursued for VTVL until SpaceX came along. The only logical thing about the Shuttle was desire for reusability. Other than that it was a total mess.

Take Starship as currently designed, replace Raptors, the most advanced part, with a comparable methalox gas generator engine for modest payload hit. Now you have a spaceship that could have been built with 70s technology.

The fact that this is only happening 50 years later is quite an indictment of traditional spaceflight industry.

Jun 02, 2019
Musk is an NSA shill.

Jun 02, 2019
The fact that this is only happening 50 years later is quite an indictment of traditional spaceflight industry.


It wasn't the space industry's fault at the time. The public support and budget for Apollo (which ended short 3 missions I believe) and the planned subsequent mar's push was stunted because of the Vietnam War. People were in uproar at the time and they wanted a different president. Space exploration took a back seat to problems at home.

Jun 02, 2019
Meant to say Mars, not mar's

Jun 02, 2019
This is one reason why it was a failure
-Except of course that it was a resounding success, the most successful that NASA has ever had. Over 800 missions flown, nearly 800 passengers, ISS built, Hubble launched and repaired, ercetcetc.
It achieved nothing significant militarily
It launched a number of spysats. It repaired the Hubble, demonstrating the ominous ability to rendezvous and loiter. It constructed the ISS outpost.

But you're saying that since some weapons systems are never used in combat then they shouldn't have been built? This would include our entire nuclear arsenal.
and instead of lowering launch costs, became the most expensive launch vehicle ever
CHEAPER doesnt mean BETTER. The F22 is the most expensive fighter ever. Does that mean it was a mistake?

You've got to include all the critical tech that was developed and tested because of the shuttle. The program was beneficial far beyond what it actually did. Its main advantage was flexibility.

Jun 02, 2019
The shuttle was a strategic asset. It's full potential was never fully demonstrated, as far as we know. After its retirement another, fully robotic, replacement with an identical form factor was built to continue the mission and maintain the potential. This tells us how valuable it was as a deterrent and a potential weapon. The fact that it could be used for both civilian and military missions was an obvious asset, even if the military found it intolerable.

And of course this versatility and increased ops potential made it more expensive.

Quit your whining.

Jun 02, 2019
It wasn't the space industry's fault at the time. The public support and budget for Apollo (which ended short 3 missions I believe) and the planned subsequent mar's push was stunted because of the Vietnam War.


Nope, while NASA funding was reduced, it was still around half of that during Apollo, and much higher than anything we currently spend on commercial space sector and SpaceX. 20 billion dollars per year is enough to pay for a nice moon base and a Mars mission. Lack of funding was not the issue. Inefficient spending was the problem, and Shuttle was at the forefront of this inefficiency.

Jun 02, 2019
CHEAPER doesnt mean BETTER. The F22 is the most expensive fighter ever. Does that mean it was a mistake?


Yes, it was definitely a mistake and a cheaper fighter would have been better. However, F22 is a pure weapon, so we can maybe tolerate some corruption and overspending there.

Shuttle on the other hand was not just a weapon but vast majority of its use was for civilian purposes, with even military promptly running away from the dumpster fire after several years, and developing Atlas. The main reason for Shuttle architecture was desire to reduce launch costs, not military reasons. And it grossly failed there. ISS would be built cheaper, faster and bigger using ordinary launch vehicles instead. I am not going to stop whining because you are trying to rewrite history here. The consensus in spaceflight community is that Shuttle failed and was main reason behind being stuck in low orbit since Apollo ended. Your conspiracy nonsense about military justifications is just that.

Jun 02, 2019
Hilarious that you guys still try to push this stuff.

Jun 02, 2019
Shuttle on the other hand was not just a weapon but vast majority of its use was for civilian purposes
So you're saying that you would be happier if war or hostilities had broken out and the shuttle got to be used the way it was designed?
The main reason for Shuttle architecture was desire to reduce launch costs, not military reasons
That's what they told you. And that's what you believed. But you yourself said that it could have been done cheaper in other ways, even though it's hard to imagine how something else would have supported extended loitering and EVA needed to build ISS.

But if that was indeed the case, and the shuttle was a failed form factor, why do we have an identical robot one now?
you are trying to rewrite history here
You mean the propaganda you were fed? I'm merely pointing out the obvious.
Cont>

Jun 02, 2019
The military always goes first. Columbus was recce, quickly followed by military action that commandeered the caribbean islands, exterminated the indigenes, and began staging for the campaigns of conquest. Forts were established throughout north america to protect settlements. The state of Israel was established as a garrison state and a bridgehead into the Arab world.

There are countless examples throughout history which demonstrate the role of the military in exploration and conquest. Sputnik told the public why it was the military that had to get to space first, even if that effort was couched in a sham 'peaceful' venture into the cosmos. It was PR as usual.

Our first boosters were converted ICBMs. Russias first station was armed with an anti-gemini capsule cannon. Astronauts and cosmonauts were all military officers. And the shuttle was primarily a military craft. If it wasnt, then it wouldn't have been a shuttle.

Jun 02, 2019
main reason behind being stuck in low orbit since Apollo ended
And I'm sorry but most scientists will tell you that we didnt have the tech, experience, or knowledge back then to venture beyond low orbit in any meaningful way.

"Something like half of all Mars missions have failed, usually well before they approached the Red Planet, either because of launch failure or some error on its outward trip."
http://www.astron...missions

-It might very well be that it was decided to combine military and civilian efforts and build the shuttle fleet in par to slow down the impetus to attempt moon and mars bases until we had sufficient wherewithal to do so. Because we didnt have it back then. We barely have it now.

One vital tech we didnt have was nuclear power. We will need reactors on mars and the moon. And we needed decades of experience with subs and civilian reactors before we could use that tech off-planet. No sense going without it.

Jun 02, 2019
"In part" not "in par"

Jun 02, 2019
But if that was indeed the case, and the shuttle was a failed form factor, why do we have an identical robot one now?


Again, it is not identical. X-37 is much smaller and a mere payload, not a launch vehicle. Most importantly, it is limited for specific military use, and all the other payloads, civilian or military, go up on much more suitable rockets.

You are merely looking for reasons to confirm your pre-conceived stupid conspiracy theory. Here is the reality: There are no smart hidden leaders in control, no hidden justification for the prolonged existence of Shuttle that the sheeple merely do not understand. Shuttle was a failure kept around due to a combination of corruption, political inertia and incompetence. That is it.

We had the technology for a Mars mission, including nuclear power, since the 70s.

Jun 02, 2019
… Lack of funding was not the issue. Inefficient spending was the problem...


That's a bit of a fallacious argument though. If funding was not the issue then inefficient spending shouldn't have been either. The fact is nothing was greenlighted for beyond LEO because it wasn't politically supported. After Apollo 17, the next push was to satellite up the moon and conduct landings on the far side. It wasn't pursued, not because we couldn't have funded it, but because we were losing a war. In other words, it wasn't because the Shuttle program, or Skylab interfered, Congress did not approve it because Congress had it's hands full with a host of issues (Vietnam and Watergate being the biggest). The country simply did not have the available bandwidth to attempt settling other celestial orbs. Also, in this time period you have to consider that science takes a backseat to the military and domestic issues. The driving factor to extend beyond LEO was to beat the Russians and deny

cont


Jun 02, 2019
cont

..them the moon and mars. The science was secondary, everyone knew this. When we planted the flag at the Sea of Tranquillity in '69, we also closed out the year with about 12,000 men dead and almost 17,000 the prior year from fighting NVA/VC forces. Think of it this way - It's true the Apollo program cost over 200 billion in today's dollars, but guess how much the war in Vietnam cost us in today's dollars - over $1 trillion... Some things were more important to focus on.

Jun 02, 2019
and I'm sorry to have to scratch up such a scab, but we have to confront history for what it is. Seeing as we have all these domestic/government issues right now with Trump and his America first rhetoric, factionalizing the country, we're still not in the position to pursue gung-ho space exploration. Nasa is in a mothball and cannibalize technology mode due to all the directorate changes that ebb and flow with passage of presidential powers. Science progress is still stymied.

Jun 02, 2019
Again, it is not identical. X-37 is much smaller and a mere payload
-because spysats are smaller.
not a launch vehicle
Because that was the most critical factor with the shuttle. Its military missions are the same. It can change orbit, loiter even longer, launch in secret, land anywhere.
Most importantly, it is limited for specific military use, and all the other payloads, civilian or military, go up on much more suitable rockets
OF COURSE. That's the point. It is a military vehicle used as a military vehicle. The shuttle was a military vehicle sold to taxpayers in the only way they would pay for it. Advances in robotics means it doesnt need a crew to do exactly the same things the shuttle did. BECAUSE the shuttles blew up, the military now has it's own launch vehicles to put this thing and other payloads in orbit.

Also, the shroud offers protection from beam weapons and it can be launched unidentifiably.

Are you pretending to be dense or something?

Jun 02, 2019
beyond LEO because it wasn't politically supported
No, we didnt have the tech or the knowledge or the experience. The moon missions were stunts and we were damn lucky they worked.

BTW we won the war in vietnam. We did exactly what we needed to do and when we were done we got the hell out. The media and a few hundred gullible protesters painted the appropriate picture, just like they're doing with trump right now.

Southeast Asia was a multigenerational campaign of cultural destruction. When we left communist martial law finished the job. 28 MILLION ABORTIONS since, almost 20% of all pregnancies ABORTED every year.

Today vietnam is a stable, productive member of the world community. This is victory by any measure.

Jun 02, 2019
That's such a optimistically inclined way of justifying a war defeat, spreading medical technology to a place that was long held in possession of another country that wasn't even us.

I'll give it a thumb sideways

Jun 03, 2019
So ABORTION is a medical technology? I say it's a demographic tool.

Let me give you another example of such a 'defeat'

"About 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and about 35,000 were wounded. About two million Afghan civilians were killed."

-Now these are very interesting statistics indeed. Because the term civilians includes
"Afghan insurgents, The Afghan resistance, and The Mujahideen"

-and I could not find a breakdown of how many of the 2M civilians were combatants and how many were not. Compare this with stats from Syria, Bosnia, etc as well as vietnam, and the distinction is acknowledged and emphasized.

At any rate, what would victory have looked like in these countries had the virulent religionist cultures remained existent? Well we know in afghanistan because that culture still exists. The growth rate is around 3%, more than double the average rate of 1.15%. In contrast vietnam is around 1.1%. THAT culture no longer determines growth.
Cont>

Jun 03, 2019
VICTORY is the destruction of the cultures causing the problems. Look at the list
https://www.index...spx?v=24

-The ones at the top are the most unstable, the most problematic. They are still controlled by religions that maximize their growth for the purpose of outgrowing and overrunning the competition.

Destruction of these cultures takes many gens. China for instance is a work in progress. Its westernization began back when the brits fought 2 wars to maintain the flow of opium, a potent culture annihilator, into the country. It is still under communist martial law.

Vietnam as I say is stable, productive, peaceful. We did our part, as did the japanese, the french, the chinese, and the soviets. A team effort.

Afghanistan will take many more gens of suffering and death - and war - until it is no longer a problem.

Jun 03, 2019
You mean until after Afghanistan 'wins' right, and takes back its country? A very optimistic viewpoint you've crafted here Ghost. Maybe there is some reasoning to this line of thinking - about improving technology for 3rd world countries in terms of breeding micromanagement. But you do realize that something like that can be done without a war, and also that wars are normally the result of vying for resources and trade port access?

Trying to destroy the cultures of other countries will usually just mean they will try to destroy yours too if you don't defeat them.

Jun 04, 2019
Trying to destroy the cultures of other countries will usually just mean they will try to destroy yours too if you don't defeat them
Medieval abrahamic theocracies are designed to destroy other cultures. 'Be fruitful and multiply, fill up the earth (with more believers and fewer of everybody else)".

Reproductive aggression - 'warfare if the cradle' as teddy roosevelt called it. It means subjugating women and forcing them to reproduce until it kills them.

People seem to have this odd preconception that these ancient cultures are static things. Leave them alone and they will be peaceful and passive. But they are designed to conquer. Moses mission was to take the holy land away from the heathens and infidels and goyim infesting it. That mission is primary and eternal.
Cont>

Jun 04, 2019
After 9/11 the west compartmentalized the middle east. If you look at a map you can see that the wars in Iraq and afghanistan effectively divided up the entire region from Israel to Pakistan in alternating east/west fashion. This was a preemptive campaign meant to prevent the formation of a caliphate, the ultimate goal of islamism. Obviously it was preconceived, planned well in advance, and triggered by the WTC attack... in exactly the same manner the archduke Ferdinand assassination was used to commence the world wars.

The people of afghanistan will finally be allowed to 'win' when they have shed their religionist ways and have proven they are able to live sustainably and responsibly.

"Child marriage is driven by gender inequality and the belief that girls are somehow inferior to boys."

-No, it is driven by the religionist mandate to begin reproducing as early and as often as possible. This behavior is inseparable from the culture. The culture itself needs to be destroyed.

Jun 04, 2019
It's not just the abrahamic religions. The only religions that have survived to the present have done so by maximizing their growth to the detriment of all others. Moses moses and Mohammad preached conquest from without, jesus and buddha from within.

This is why the bible has an old and a new testament - the old contains the mosiac instructions for conquest while the new teaches the christian doctrines of passive revolution.
Cont>

Jun 04, 2019
An incident while a student in Vienna... a bunch of us were standing in line along with some older tourists, patiently waiting to get in to see the lipazzaner stallions. Several buses full of high school students suddenly pulled up and these kids piled out, obliterating the line and surging toward the entrance. They were very quiet but very insistent, very innocent, not pushing and shoving but inexorable just the same.

An older Italian man was standing near me, growing increasingly alarmed and frustrated. He suddenly he let out a guttural growl, threw up his arms, and began violently muscling his way out of the crush with his panicked wife in tow.

This is how the passive religions such as buddhism are designed to conquer by revolution. But in reality they all include provisions for winning at any cost. Christians profess peace and martyrdom. Jesus marched into Jerusalem on its holiest holiday and proclaimed to the head priests that he was not only their king but their GOD.

Jun 05, 2019
History shows that no crusade has ever destroyed Islamic culture, so I don't understand why you think beating one of their tribes into submission will result in anything positive. Or the fact that you think you could beat them into submission in the first place, considering army generals were calling the conflict a stalemate years ago.

The best way a non-religious person can convert Abrahamic religionist cultures in my opinion is just to remind them of all the war and atrocities they've inflicted onto the world over the course of the last couple thousand years. They also hate it when you make up your own afterlife scenario and argue it versus theirs, that really shuts them up.

Jun 05, 2019
History shows that no crusade has ever destroyed Islamic culture, so I don't understand why you think beating one of their tribes into submission will result in anything positive
Before the world wars eurasian culture was controlled by religion. After the wars this stranglehold was broken, allowing for the emancipation of women, the institution of family planning, and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS to follow.

This created a world where it was safe for the dangerous tech we have today to emerge including nuclear weapons and power. Pop growth shrank to sustainable levels. Plenty of everything for everybody. Nothing to fight over.

Elsewhere where god still promises to provide for the faithful, and the faithful take this literally, chaos reigns.

People will never give up their fantasies but they won't be allowed to endanger the world. Islam is just another superstition, identical to all the others in what it promises and what it expects in return.

Jun 05, 2019
one of their tribes into submission will result in anything positive. Or the fact that you think you could beat them into submission in the first place, considering army generals were calling the conflict a stalemate years ago
These are generational wars of attrition. Pakistan was able to avoid the Arab spring because bin laden was siphoning all the idle, disaffected youth and sending them westward and into coalition guns.

One thing about standing armies - they need to fight. If they don't fight they turn into something that people cant trust and enemies dont fear. Especially given the rapid progress of tech which has to be proven in the field under actual combat against a genuine enemy.

These wars serve many useful purposes. Contrast the rapid destruction of the mesoamerican cultures with the drawn out north american indian campaign, which was essential in maintaining a world class military post-civil war. The US was designed to be the preeminent world power.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more