NASA rewrites Moon mission goals in quiet DEI retreat The purge of DEI language from US federal websites has claimed another victim. This time, it is NASA's pledge to land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon as part of the Artemis program. Artemis III is planned to be the first mission to put boots on the lunar surface in more than half a century, and the …
the 2050's, where people stop giving a [D-]Rat's ass about "identity" and just DO COOL STUFF, HIRE THE BEST PEOPLE, and STOP trying to DIVIDE and CONQUOR over UN-CONTROLLABLE things like "identity".
How about first 3-man moon landing crew where "man" can also mean WOMAN, because NOBODY CARES about "identity". And Canadians are welcome too.
We'll lead the way on this. You can follow if you want. DEI is **TOXIC**
I have watched the film, and read the book which is somewhat different to the film. I assume that the point you were making was that an astronaut relied on the calculations of a wonam of colour, and that the women of colour became the programmers/operators of the newly introduced computer.
“… We look forward to learning more from [and] about the Trump administration's plans for our agency and expanding exploration at the Moon and Mars for the benefit of all.”
Every day seems to be one step closer to pretty much every American institution and businesses grovelling and toadying to the insane whim of the Almightily Radiant Super Excellent Holy Orange Loony Emperor.
I read yesterday about some law firm throwing away its moral compass to appease the Great Orange Fuckwit. “Lack of integrity” doesn’t come within a million miles of describing them.
I think the Americans have a phrase for what’s going on - “Going to Hell on a Handcart”?
I always knew the Americans were nuts but this is getting to be well beyond what I thought was possible
"I always knew the Americans were nuts but this is getting to be well beyond what I thought was possible"
Not ALL Americans...
According to https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers:
"... voter turnout nationally in [the] 2024 [Presidential elections] was 63.9 percent"
"More than 155 million Americans voted in 2024: 156,302,318 to be exact."
(Pulls out Calculator) Based on the above numbers there are around 244,604,566 voters in America and around 88,302,248 eligible voters didn't vote...
"Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president."
"Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes or 48.3 percent of the votes cast.
Which means around 4,019,034 who DID vote DIDN'T vote for Trump or Harris as President...
Which means that, of eligible voters who actually voted, 79,018,200 (or 50.5%) DID NOT vote for Trump as President
Add in the 36.1% of eligible voters who didn't vote and it means that 68.4% of eligible voters DID NOT vote for Trump as President
So NOT ALL Americans...
(Bet that many who didn't vote now wish they had!)
"Doesn't make them not nuts. They still live there for a start."
One must be grateful for small mercies.
You wouldn't want boatloads of the ever so slightly not quite so nuts coming to the shores of the UK and signing up for Faredge's Reform Lunacy? And bringing their anti-vax, creationism, guns crazy ideas to boot.
Leave the blighters to the Hell they have created for themselves.
Umm, you are unlikely to like this, but: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/09/more-americans-are-now-seeking-uk-citizenship-three-of-them-tell-us-why
"A record number of Americans are seeking UK citizenship, according to recent data.
In 2024, more than 6,100 US citizens applied for UK citizenship, marking a 26% increase from 2023 and the highest number recorded since data collection began in 2004. The figures reveal a significant rise in applications during the final three months of last year, coinciding with Donald Trump’s re-election to the White House, when there was a 40% year-on-year rise in applications."
Still, 6,100 hardly registers compared to the hundreds of millions of USAfolk staying put.
(Sorry)
I know she went to Ireland, but many of them are the likes of Rosie O'Donnell.
And as an American who has a lot of respect for the UK, (if not necessarily your leaders), I'm sorry, you folks have enough problems without those people.
I also know many of you feel the same way about OUR leaders!
While this argument often gets rehearsed (and often for causes that I'm in favour of, for example the 28% who didn't bother to vote on Brexit is often touted as indicating that only about 37% were actually in favour of Leave), unless it can be shown that the majority of those not voting didn't because of voter suppression, then my view is that sadly you can only make conclusions based on those that actually did vote and that those who didn't vote didn't care enough one way or the other.
You could equally add in the eligible voters to argue the other way, and say 69%-ish of eligible voters (can't be arsed to do the exact maths) didn't mind if Trump became president.
That is only if they were able to vote. In Florida, for example, convicted people may have some trouble getting the right to vote. See
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-restoration-efforts-florida
"In November 2018, nearly 65 percent of Florida voters approved Amendment 4, a constitutional amendment that automatically restored voting rights to most Floridians with past convictions who had completed the terms of their sentence. Shortly thereafter, in June 2019, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 into law, prohibiting returning citizens from voting unless they pay off certain legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed by a court pursuant to a felony conviction.
In June 2019, the Brennan Center and other civil and voting rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the law. The trial court found Florida’s “pay-to-vote system” unconstitutional, in part because it is often not possible to determine whether a returning citizen is eligible to vote because the State does not reliably or consistently track data on LFOs. However, the en banc Eleventh reversed and vacated the lower court’s ruling."
However!
While I will cut non-voting poms some slack about not thinking Brexit would make that much a difference (SOME! by comparison!), there is NO excuse for NOT getting your arse in gear to actively vote against a pussy-grabbing, authoritarian <understatement alert>, frankly dumb, serial bankrupteur, convicted criminal, who already did enough damage during his first lap.
That makes any US non-voter complicit!
You could also argue that many people did not vote on Brexit as under UK law it was not legally binding, essentially just an opinion poll, Plus lots of polling ahead of teh time indicating "Remain" was ahead so less incentive for "Remain" supporters to vote, more motivation for "Brexit" voters.
Big problem was the fuckwits in charge of the main UK political parties then joined together (most of their MPs following like sheep) to then go ahead with Brexit, despite a small majority. Had the majority being something really clear cut e.g. 60 - 40 then there would have been far less contention, but with a fine margin then (very dubiously) treating it as a binding vote was stupid on such small margins (but that is par for the course for most UK politicians) - ideal way forward would have used that to say it is very close and we will maybe try again in "n" years and see if anything more clear cut or alternatively, define a minimum "winning margin", publicise it massively and then do a proper vote where voters knew their vote really did matter in that one..
The government sent a leaflet to every household in the country; the leaflet was also widely available from e.g. libraries, and online.
Everyone received it, or, at least, if they were aware of the referendum, would have been aware of the leaflet.
It made the government case specifically for voting remain.
It also stated:
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
No ifs, buts or maybes. No exceptions or qualifiers. A clear, absolute promise. The winning result gets implemented.
It may have been advisory by strict application of the law. However, democracy is something more than just strict application of the law.
It was binding, because the government were explicitly clear beforehand that they would implement the result - would be bound by it.
To break that promise would have undermined whatever trust may exist between government and governed.
It was binding, because the government were explicitly clear beforehand that they would implement the result - would be bound by it.
But a huge part of the problem was no one knew what "leave the EU" actually meant.
Brexiteers lied that it did not mean a Hard Brexit when that's exactly what they were pursuing. It was lies, bait and switch, anti-government protest votes cast in expectation of being purely symbolic, which secured a narrow leave victory.
@Jason Bloomberg
"But a huge part of the problem was no one knew what "leave the EU" actually meant."
Nor did anyone know what remain actually meant. All either side meant was remain or leave the EU. I also bet you think leave options should have been we unilaterally dictate terms with the EU that may be unacceptable (such as not leaving the single market but leaving the EU).
Remain was fairly clear, there were constant push and pull against/for different bits of EU legislation by all UK governments prior to the referendum from start of our membership, it wasn't static, and that would have continued. We already had opt-outs for certain pieces of legislation and were the authors of many of the other pieces of the legislation used by other countries. In fact most of the engineering standards I use were just BS standards renamed to EN BS standards.
Leave on the other hand had many different types of leave (at least 4 I can think of) including second referendum options to decide later all pushed by different pro-leave campaigners, so many in fact that they objected to multiple leave options being on the ballot, because they would have diluted the leave vote and lost. And then when they won they quickly dropped those options and "leave means leave" became the only one. Almost immediately leave voters who believed that they could leave the EU but still be part of the trading agreement regretted their decision, enough to flip the vote the other way had they been a bit more skeptical of the leave arguments before the vote.
But remain is a hard argument to fight as you say, leave is easier because there's loads of options, enough to please everyone until you see which one you get, then half the leavers will oppose the option that prevails, which always was going to be totally out, regardless of the pro-leave arguments, and as warned by those dismissed as "Project Fear".
I can agree with you when you say we didn't entirely know what leave looked like. I myself thought that leave meant repealing the 1972 European Communities Act by the end of the year and trading on WTO terms. Furthermore I thought leave would void all EU legislation. As it was that shyster Bozo negotiated an agreement that was analogous to an affiliate membership agreement and now Starmer is even watering that down; albeit chances of him succeeding while he is still prime minister are looking slim as it is looking likely that the next government will be formed from a Tory/Reform coalition with perhaps DUP propping them up.
One think I will say though is this: Even though what we got was the most pathetic excuse for a deal that one could contemplate it is still so much better than being a member and the subsequent, albeit unrelated, idiotic lockdown would have left us suffering from mass unemployment on an unprecedented scale had we still been in the customs union and single market thanks to cheap imports of labour and goods from low tax, low wage, low overheads, low energy cost, light touch regulation countries that actually form the majority of the EU and are living off the backs of France and Germany.
2020-01-06 was too little, too late and 'organised' by an incompetent.
That fact that it came close to working incentivised competent people to plan something better. They spent four years planning and had people ready and waiting to go on inauguration day. The key objectives of version 2 have already been achieved. There might still be elections just for show. If there are there will only be one candidate who can win.
Looks like Turkey is having a go at it right now. Possibly incentivised by the US as a dry-run of their future plans. I would suggest that whoever is the next Dem candidate makes sure they are squeaky clean and document every moment of their life in preparation for a robust legal defence in case of any future pre-election allegations.
That'll be a short civil war then.
Despite everything (like VA cuts, the way the US treats its "heroes, thanks for your service!", and discards them like old rubbish), the US military overwhelmingly still leans strongly right. Heck, the Air Force has had a problem with extreme evangelical Xians in its ranks for years.
And the MAGA heads are also better armed.Some of them are like Andy "Two Swords" Hancock compared to the military.
Protest marches won't do a thing against opponents who, this time around, would use artillery and air strikes.
I read yesterday about some law firm throwing away its moral compass
I think that expecting law firms to have a moral compass is probably optimistic, but Columbia University, of which you might have higher hopes, appears to have caved, too. Trump's also ordered the AG to find ways of punishing other law firms that file law suits to which he objects, presumably to make it harder for people to have recourse to the law without the president's sign-off.
However, it's hardly suprising: Trump has a long history of throwing his weight about and he knows that people with mortgages and families are ultimately unlikely to put their livelihoods at risk. And, given that Trump himself has the comfort of being officially above the law, why wouldn't he?
Despite the bold, but empty, words of the commentariat, the defence of the US constitution is ultimately going to be down to those with nothing to lose, because everyone else is going to be keeping their heads below the parapet. Assuming that Keir Starmer isn't hogging all the space.
This is not a campaign to disbar them - lawyers disbar lawyers after due process and clear evidence of professional misconduct.
This is a campaign to intimidate them by threatening to arbitrarily remove their security clearances for purely political motives to stop the administration losing cases in court.
You know that.
Trump is so horrendously vindictive that, although I find it slightly sickening, I can't deny that the smart approach is to say publicly what he wants to hear. Whether that translates into any sort of actionable policy is a different matter. Regrettably, for so many american corporations, it has - the jury is out on Starmer, but I agree it's hard not to be discouraged.
I can't deny that the smart approach is to say publicly what he wants to hear
I think the flaw with that approach is that it assumes that there is a limit to how far Trump will go and that somehow if he can be publicly appeased the worst can be averted. However, it seems just as likely that Trump will treat each concession as permission to make a further demand.
I admit that the (former) US allies are in a weak position right now, but that position is not likely to change materially for 5-10 years even with a following wind. That's a lot of time to continue conceding. The alternative view is that a failure to push back strongly now will simply make the position worse. If ultimately Starmer thinks he doesn't have to make a choice between the US and Europe he'll find himself shunned by both of them.
If you make even the slightest hint of a concession to someone like Trump, you are not only sending them the message that threatening people is the correct way to get what they want; but emboldening them to demand more next time. The only thing that works against these thugs, unfortunately, is physical violence.
If you give them a millimetre, they will take the other 999 and still come back for more.
"The only thing that works against these thugs, unfortunately, is physical violence."
Assuming you are not in the USA, then that's your chances of being allowed in during this presidency up the creek. People are already being turned away for posting critical things about Trump, his administration or the US in general.
This pathetic small-willy-waving (for that is what it is) is absolutely ridiculous. Many different people, from all kinds of backgrounds, have all made important contributions to the successes of NASA (and of course also in other space agencies around the world) over many years, and, as long as they are a suitable person for the job, they absolutely should continue to do so. Everyone deserves to have at least one role model that they can look up to and think "that could also be me". It was and is "For All Mankind", after all.
Do we need to ask Margaret Hamilton to knock some sense into some people by standing next to Apollo program code print-outs once again, this time not very well balanced on a balcony railing above a certain someone's head?
Trumps "justification" for removing everything DEI related is that he claims all jobs should be assigned on merit only. Funny how that doesn't apply to the appointments he's made. I suppose he must be using his own definition of what is meritorious, eg do you lick his arse or not.
"I suppose he must be using his own definition of what is meritorious, eg do you lick his arse or not."
Ok Mr MAGA downvoter, point to a single Trump appointment who is someone that is the best for the job and is NOT an (R) or Trump supporter? Or are you claiming that ONLY Trump supporters can ever be the best for any job?
"The purge of DEI language from US federal websites has claimed another victim. This time, it is NASA's pledge to land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon as part of the Artemis program."
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. I am sure some groups would like to see some representation they identify with do something for them to quickly forget about. Most just appreciate the achievements without any of the divisions or ists being imposed. Of course the ists and those pushing the divide will be upset and I expect a few will downvote me too.
@Pussifer
"The proof will be if the woman slated for the trip stays on the Artemis II team."
If she is the best one for the job I hope so too. How insulting is it to work hard to qualify for something only for people to debate if the success was based on skill or divisive politics.
> Imagine codejunky's envisioned distant future, when a spaceship filled entirely with white men heads to the stars to propagate humanity throughout the galaxy...
Or just "the best person for the job" without getting hung up about something as childishly facile as what shade their skin is?
@Androgynous Cupboard
"Imagine codejunky's envisioned distant future, when a spaceship filled entirely with white men heads to the stars to propagate humanity throughout the galaxy..."
You sound very racist and sexist. What has that to do with my comment? At what point do I discriminate? You also sound pretty stupid as if its only men how can they propagate?
@ChodeMonkey
"Have you gone all woke, Madam? A newly minted member of the DEI Warriors? Well that's a real turn up for the books. A veritable plot twist."
In your trolling you do seem to realise the DEI rubbish being woke rubbish and through your mocking seem to realise it is discrimination and various isms. At least I am hoping you understand
spaceship filled entirely with white men heads to the stars to propagate humanity throughout the galaxy...
I pissed myself with the picture of an armada of incel filled spaceships being hurled into the void with the promise of an inexhaustible supply of scantily clad alienesses (all bearing a remarkable resemblance to Leia Organa) with whom they might freely propagate themselves. ("To boldly go where no man has gone before!" Come? :)
The Golgafrinchan solution?
“a spaceship filled entirely with white men heads to the stars to propagate humanity throughout the galaxy...”
Captain: OK, time to let the women out of stasis.
First Officer: Women? No Captain, DEI instructions state clearly “No Women” And Betty the blow up doll is already running low on repair patches, sir.
No you just have to be a square jawed Marine test pilot. The air force and navy had already had their turn in return for cooperation in Apollo. The USMC are the only ones left with square jawed test pilots.
You can even be a women or black (as long as you are Christian)
Being a Marine test pilot really does help in the complexities of space though, especially since much of this equipment is made by companies specializing in flight hardware and processes.
As for a square jaw, aren't they exactly removing arbitrary requirements like that (and gender and skin color) from the list?
55 years after the first moon landing we don't seem to have made much progress in automated flight control systems that we still need a Neal Armstrong to pilot the craft
Obviously we have run out of Nazi rocket scientists. Perhaps we should recruit some of those Japanese chaps that landed a space probe on an asteroid and returned it safely.
"Obviously we have run out of Nazi rocket scientists. Perhaps we should recruit some of those Japanese chaps that landed a space probe on an asteroid and returned it safely."
The current US administration seem to believe the Russian line that Ukraine is full of Nazis. Some of them are probably rocket scientists since that was where a notable part of the USSR space program was based.
"As for a square jaw, aren't they exactly removing arbitrary requirements like that (and gender and skin color) from the list?"
No, they are replacing the arbitrary requirements with more "suitable" arbitrary requirements. Not a registered (R)? You don't get chosen. Ever said anything bad about Trump? Nope, not even if you are (R), you can't be one of the chosen either.
For the dozen humans who have visited the moon, it cost us $12.5 billion dollars each (inflation adjusted). That is an expensive ticket!
With that amount of my (taxpayer) money being spent, I want to maximize the value. Only the best. Other than their ability to function as an astronaut on the moon, I don't care anything else about them.
I imagine the NASA chaps† who chose the name knew the other 300 million largely lacking a credible education, let alone a classical one, knew if that unwashed thought at all, they would believe it was Artemus a bloke's name (like Artemus Gordon, James West's sidekick form The Wild Wild West.)
Probably why they didn't opt for the Roman Dianna.
† meant inclusively.
passed by Congress starts
Sec. 101. This act may be cited as the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958”.
DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE
Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.
and amended in 2010 to devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all humankind
Maybe NASA should be reminded of the 'all' in there.
Do you have a problem with Trans people being astronauts?
And just so you know, ESA are already looking at the possibilities of amputees becoming astronauts
"Trump got rid of the DEI Nazis."
Yes, unfortunately, as with many of his other over the top actions, he also got rid of the people who were actually doing good too. He likes throwing the babies out with the bathwater.
Although with the unfortunate deep and wide political divisions the US suffers from, almost any program designed to help can be weaponised and "maliciously complied" with to destroy the good intentions. Not helped by the 4 yearly new appointments of political supporters into all the important jobs.
"it is NASA's pledge to land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon as part of the Artemis program."
How about a simplified version that has NASA not taking into consideration race or sex on the input side and choosing astronauts based on skills and suitability for a mission? A professional basketball team doesn't go on a mission to hire white players to fill a massive slant the sport has with regards to race. The goal is to sell seats, merchandise and TV rights so the team owners want to have teams that have a good chance at winning championships. They'll even make allowances and excuses for top level players that have legal issues, temperament problems and a penchant for being a poor representative of the team in press interviews.
I think it was an interview with Sally Ride where she said that she wanted to be an astronaut and hunkered down and studied the skills and qualifications that NASA wanted to see in candidates. Being female wasn't a free pass as is often said about Valentina Tereshkova. So, if a black person wants to go on a lunar mission, they need to put in the work to be a top choice for selection. Any policy of race or sex being a criteria would only diminish their accomplishment should they be chosen since people might ascribe that assignment to their being of a certain race.
All of that said, I think that for science reasons there will be a push to get some women into the lunar program to see how their bodies react to the environment contrasted with men. I've met several woman astronauts that have flown on the Space Shuttle and they have all been highly qualified. Given opportunities on the front end of the process, I believe there will be a broad mix of people that have made space their life's goal, so meritocracy as a sole criteria isn't a problem.
>suitability for a mission?
The mission is purely to land a token crew on the moon.
60 years ago we proved we can land a crew of men on the moon, we even sent a golfer to the moon, it achieved nothing of any importance except a publicity win over the USSR
What else do you expect NASA to do as a publicity stunt today? Send a Tik-Toker?
You don't expect them to do something pointless like sending a robot scientific probe !
> ...it achieved nothing of any importance except a publicity win over the USSR
Quite aside from the shit-ton load of technology and science that typically come out of the pursuit of such endeavours, it was an immensely aspirational achievement, a feat that we are still talking about to this day.
Sure, it was a politically motivated stunt, but it was also a huge galvanizing and watershed moment for the US nation and for the rest of the western world.
We need more such positive achievements to inspire the future generations to do great things.
"@MachDiamond - You just described what DEI was supposed be, ie target unrepresented minorities and encourage then into areas they were not traditionally in."
Not the way I've seen it. It's been a way to exclude rather than include. People get points for being from certain races or having a penchant for certain adult activities and lose points for being a white male heterosexual. There have been laws in place for many decades that prohibit discrimination of somebody in a broad number of classifications. One should expect that the US government in this day and age would be careful about not falling afoul of those regulations.
I refer back to my basketball analogy. The sport is dominated by tall black players as the sport lends itself to tall muscular players. The market is the sieve since the team owners are focused on winning games and championships so more people will pay outrageous sums of money to see the games in person, TV networks will pay more for the broadcast rights and the sales of merch go way up. The last thing the owners would want is a DIE program where they had to hire short, lighter built players "to be fair". It would do nothing to help the sport and the owner's pocket books.
This is good news, clearly only the creme de la creme should be sent to the Moon: Donald John Trump, Elon Musk and JD Vance, (with perhaps Marjorie Taylor Greene as reserve) would be my choice. OK so they are all White and mostly Male, but can you think of a better crew to send to the Moon?
(Puts on steel helmet, hunkers down in bunker for the inevitable avalanche or downvotes. One day I'll learn to keep my big mouth shut, I hope.)
"Just think by using the "Starship" we could get the entire trump cabinet and quite a few congressmen up there too. I'd even vote to let Chuck Schumer have a seat. One way only."
There's so much work that needs to be done so there's even a way to get people onboard a Starship. It would much easier to crash a Starship on the Capitol building while both houses of Congress were in session and the President was nearby. Crashing and exploding hasn't been something that haven't done to date many times.
While the Trumpification of NASA is deplorable and sad, as far as Artemis is concerned the whole point is moot, I'm afraid. With Boing being unable to build a capsule that works, a conservative billionaire being put at the helm at NASA and the list of contractors including SpaceX which is owned by a guy who claims trying to go back to the moon is only a distraction from more important goals and who has his nose stuck up the presidential backside, can you really see Artemis actually going ahead and achieving its stated goals?
I can't.
"Honestly don't care who they send to the moon, just send anybody at this point just to prove it can be done (again)."
Since it had been done, they're raising the bar by adding a much more complex geometry, landing near the south pole in difficult terrain, using cryogenic fuels and trying to make the whole thing reusable in one go. I'd be much more confident in a mission with goals of landing someplace relatively easy, near what looks like a cave entrance that can be explored and setting up some sort of infrastructure that can be added to over time. A few rovers sent to the south pole to mooch around looking for ice would be much cheaper and safer while space agencies hone their chops in doing moon missions once again. There also needs to be some sort of commercial science goals that makes the efforts have some long term viability.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
