US Politics on Yik Yak | Spend billions of dollars to build nuclear reactor on the moon to troll our world enemies ✅ Provide funding to for universal housing, education, healthcare, childcare, public transportation, women’s reproductive health, mental health and wellness ❌

Yik Yak

Download

Join communities on Yik Yak Download

US Politics 6w

Spend billions of dollars to build nuclear reactor on the moon to troll our world enemies ✅ Provide funding to for universal housing, education, healthcare, childcare, public transportation, women’s reproductive health, mental health and wellness ❌

Anonymous 6w

I like how you think these are at all comparable. We already give government healthcare to like a quarter of the country now and it’s our single biggest budget item. We could put 1000 reactors on the moon and it probably would be cheaper than Medicare/Medicaid is right now.

-4

Anonymous

#1 6w

yeah… because those programs still work through the middlemen that drive up our prices. you have to get rid of the insurance companies, they are why we pay 100x more for drugs than any other country. universal healthcare would literally reduce the cost to the government, because currently all that money is going to useless middlemen.

Anonymous

#2 6w

I’m 100% on board, but even if we paid less for healthcare it is nowhere close to the tiny fraction of the budget dedicated to space exploration. It’s like comparing federal spending on sticky notes to the defense budget.

-2

Anonymous

#1 6w

the cost of putting a nuclear reactor on the moon would be more than our entire space program… if it’s even feasible (dubious at best)

Anonymous

#2 6w

And even if it was 10x the cost of the current space program it would still be significantly cheaper than our current level of government healthcare was my point. It’s not that crazy, I mean we currently have several nuclear reactors in space, famously both voyagers, and several mars rovers have nuclear reactors.

Anonymous

#1 6w

RTGs aren’t nuclear reactors… they operate off of radioactive decay, not fission. conflating the RTG of a rover with putting a fucking power plant on the moon is insane.

Anonymous

#2 6w

Why’s it insane, especially given the potential for nuclear fuel from the moon. Whats the worst case scenario, a failed reactor on a desolate rock. The upside is the potential start for permanent human habitation, seems 100% worth it.

-1

Anonymous

#1 6w

it is insane because it is logistically nigh on impossible… the weight of the materials alone, this would cost hundreds of billions. solar simply makes more sense. there’s obviously far more danger of an accident, not to mention R&D costs since… nuclear power plants depend on water for cooling and stream drive the turbine. how exactly do you plan to have a constant flow of cooling water and also somewhere for steam to escape on the moon… with no atmosphere.

Anonymous

#2 6w

Luckily we’re currently working on ways to move large payloads of material to the moon. I don’t plan to do anything, because I’m not literally a rocket scientist. But if they think they can do it I say by all means, and for a fraction of a percent of the American budget seems like a worthwhile investment as a taxpayer.

Anonymous

#1 6w

i mean i don’t think it’s a serious endeavor. this is the latest in a long list of outlandish things the trump admin is tossing out there to distract from the president being a child rapist. but i’m not opposed if there was underlying research that showed promise for this

Anonymous

#2 6w

Probably correct there, my point was that in terms of money it’s nowhere near the same as healthcare or anything OP said. It has potential benefits for everyone and isn’t close to the cost. I just can’t stand the anti exploration, we have issues here so why go over that next hill crap.