The Trump Patriotic Education Problem & Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits That Will Change Everything
PDS Published 04/09/2025
-
There’s so much news coming out of the White House every day, once we talk about it once, it’s easy to forget that it ever happened.
And with that, now, we’re gonna take a deep dive into something that Trump announced in the second week of his presidency but we haven’t heard much about since.
And that’s this whole idea of “patriotic education.”
And specifically, I wanna talk about not just the US, but the way we’ve seen this very idea implemented in other countries around the world over the past few years, and what we can maybe learn from that.
But with that, let’s go back to Trump’s first term in office.
Right, that’s actually when he first declared a new national campaign to promote “patriotic education.”
With him claiming that, quote, “Leftwing rioting and mayhem” were “the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools.” []
Denouncing what he he described as a "twisted web of lies" being taught in U.S. classrooms about racism in America – even calling it "a form of child abuse." []
And warning that “the crusade against American history is toxic propaganda” and “ideological poison” that, if not removed, would destroy the country.[]
And with that, he set up the so-called 1776 Commission to fight back, promoting a version of events that critics said warped the history of racism and slavery in America–
According to them, not only excusing the country’s dark past but even in ways condemning the civil rights movement.
With some outraged historians calling it “‘A hack job” and ‘outright lies’.
Of course, Biden? He rescinded the order.
But now, it’s 2025, Trump is back, and so is the 1776 Commission.
Right, with an early executive order entitled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” relaunching the initiative, while claiming that:
“In recent years,...parents have witnessed schools indoctrinate their children in radical, anti-American ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight.” []
And with that, not so subtly making it clear that such concepts as white privilege, unconscious bias, systemic racism – as well as any acceptance of transgender identity – all fall under that umbrella of radical, anti-American thinking.
With all of this paving the way for the Department of Education to enforce penalties against schools that stray from the themes of patriotic education.
Sending a warning to schools that defying the order could mean facing investigation or losing federal funding.
And with that, the call for patriotic education, it’s not without precedent in American history.
Right, the 1776 Commission came after decades of conservative outrage about what some on the right have seen as left-wing corruption of the country’s youth.
In 1940, for example, you had a parent writing an essay in American Legion Magazine criticizing radical, progressive, and communist teachers for not painting a perfectly complementary picture of the founding fathers.
And in fact, by the mid-twentieth century, many teachers accused of Communist sympathies lost their jobs or were taken to court.[]
By the 1960s, sex education became another big target of conservative backlash.
In ‘62, for example, the Supreme Court ruling that school-sponsored prayer violated the first amendment.
With one parent reportedly saying in response:
“They’ve taken God out of the schools and put sex in.”[]
But in any case, now looking beyond the US, there’s also of course plenty of precedent outside of American history.
With some having highlighted how education became an instrument of control in Nazi Germany.
But ironically, the specific language of “patriotic education”?
It’s perhaps most reminiscent of decades-long policies of the Chinese Communist Party, which of course, Trump and Republicans have fiercely criticized.
Right, with that, patriotism and propaganda have been a key part of education and other aspects of life since the CCP came to power 1949.
But back in 1994, the country explicitly adopted the language of patriotic education, unveiling new guidelines in an effort to reassert control over the country in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
But notably, in just the past decade, we’ve again seen a resurgence of this idea.
In 2016, for example, the government issuing a directive calling for “patriotic education” to permeate each stage and aspect of schooling –
With this being not only through textbooks, assessments, and museum visits, but also through the Internet…
Which, of course, is a highly controlled but still very important source of information for many young Chinese people. []
And with that, the directive specifically demanded that university and college students be, quote, “clearly taught about the dangers of negativity about the history of the party, nation, revolution and reform and opening up, as well as of vilifying heroic figures.”[]
And with that, in 2019, China stepped it up again, coming out with a sweeping new update to the guidelines.
Notably, at the same time as a new wave of mass protests sprung up in Hong Kong against mainland interference.
And in the past few years, as China has worked to solidify its grip on the territory, education has been a big focus.
Right, in 2024, coming out with a new “Patriotic Education Law” aimed at, quote, “enhancing national unity.” []
With the new curriculum being implemented in Hong Kong, including lessons on “Xi Jinping (Shee Jin Ping) Thought”
The personal philosophy of the Chinese president which was actually enshrined in the country’s constitution in 2018.
But with that, what’s notable is that it's far from just China where we’ve seen similar developments over just the past few years.
In Turkey, for example, a 2016 coup attempt led to an authoritarian crackdown in which thousands of teachers, academics, university administrators, and education officials were removed from their jobs.
With this being part of a wider purge the scale of which has been described as “nearly unprecedented”
With it also involving the firing of thousands of police officers, the detention of thousands of soldiers, and the shuttering of more than 100 media outlets. []
Not much later, you had President Erdogan (Air-do-wan) announcing his plan to raise a “pious generation” by expanding religious education in public schools.
In fact, even straight-up replacing secular public schools with religious ones.
Notably, with him justifying the measures by claiming discrimination against Muslims.
And with that, later saying:
"Our aim is to raise young people equipped with national values.” []
This, while in fact, his policies pushing religion and traditional or family values have actually reportedly led to increased discrimination against religious minorities and the LGTBQ community.
And actually, there’s some stuff in common there with what’s been going on in Hungary, where you’ve had Prime Minister Viktor Orban (Or-bon) also embarking on a campaign of “patriotic education”
– Revising school curriculums to restore national “self-esteem” and celebrate the country’s Christian identity.
And later, banning LGBT content in schools and on kids’ TV.
Of course, with this just one small part of a wider culture war largely being fought by attacking civil society, including and perhaps especially focusing on education.
Right, back in 2018, for example, forcing out Central European University, once considered one of the country’s leading institutions of higher learning…
But hated by some for the fact that it was founded by conservative boogeyman George Soros with the mission of promoting democracy and human rights after the fall of the Soviet Union.
And that brings us to Brazil, where Bolsonaro, the guy who’s been described as the Brazilian Trump?
He came to power campaigning in part against alleged “Marxist indoctrination” in the classroom.
With him then attempting to implement an overhaul of the education system in that fashion, announcing plans to revise textbooks to remove references to feminism and homosexuality.
And I will say, Bolsonaro isn’t president any more.
Right, he lost an election without conceding defeat, then sowed distrust of the country’s electoral system as part of an alleged coup attempt, and has since been barred from holding public office in Brazil until 2030.
Though notably, even with him still being investigated on various accusations, his party is attempting to amend the constitution so he can run for president in 2026.
In India though, Prime Minister Modi (Mo-dee) is still hanging on to power
And experts say he’s increasingly embraced the ideology of Hindu Nationalism.
And with that, also going back to 2016, you had high-ranking officials pushing to make the country’s education system “more patriotic.”
With them calling for a greater emphasis on "national heroes” in the teaching of history and even suggesting making the singing of the national anthem by schoolchildren.
And what we’ve actually seen is what's been described as a crackdown on dissent at universities and on college campuses.
As well as the rollout of new textbooks casting Modi’s policies in a positive light.
In 2023, for example, students in thousands of classrooms receiving new textbooks removing Muslim history and Hindu extremism.
For example, removing references to the links between Hindu extremism and the assassination of Gandhi, the secular foundation of post-colonial India, and riots in 2002 in which hundreds of Muslims were killed.
And then, also slashing or straight up removing chapters about a time when much of India was ruled by a Muslim empire. []
And speaking of empire, that brings us to Vladimir Putin and his efforts to return Russia to its glory days.
Right, since coming to power in Russia in the early 2000s, Putin has insisted that students learn “patriotic values” in schools.
But again, over the past few years, the effort has ramped up big time.
And specifically, while promoting patriotic education has always been a goal of Putin’s government, a recent study suggests that educational reforms picked up speed following the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
That year, for example, the Russian government approved a new set of history textbooks praising Putin’s "achievements." []
And then, in 2020, Putin put forward legislation adding patriotism and war history to the country’s existing law regarding school curriculum.
With his amendments specifically seeking to add, quote, “a sense of patriotism and citizenship, respect for the memory of the defenders of the Fatherland and the achievements of the Fatherland’s heroes.”[]
And of course, since 2022, he’s only placed greater emphasis on education in an effort to drum up support for the invasion of Ukraine –
Revising school textbooks and introducing teaching guides that help teachers deliver “patriotic” lessons.
As well as launching a new nationwide children’s and youth movement, dubbed the “New Pioneers” []
And with all that, researchers unsurprisingly say the increased emphasis on patriotism has coincided with a decline in freedom of speech in the classroom.
For example, surveys suggesting there are fewer opportunities for students to critically discuss what they were taught in history classes.
And also, teachers? They’re more likely to be fired for publicly expressing political views. []
And ultimately, of course, this is by design. Right, studies show that education serves as something like a long-term insurance policy for autocracies.
Right, if you teach young citizens to be loyal to the authorities, this helps promote long-term social and political stability. []
With the Washington Post explaining:
“Autocrats realize that schools help create generations who share their ruling values and principles and are loyal to the regime.”[]
But looking at these other countries were already or have become more authoritarian over the past few years, you see the parallels.
Right, the very notion of patriotic education, the justifications given for it, mass firings and purges, the role religion can play, the way the LGTBQ community has been victimized?
It rings a bell.
Right, in the US, the call for patriotic education is part of a bigger overhaul of the Department of Education.
In fact, you also have the Trump administration recently signing an order to virtually abolish the department.
And despite the fact that he lacks the constitutional authority to do so, he’s well on his way.
Right, dozens of staff have been put on leave, and DOGE has been directed to review education spending and already announced millions in cuts.
And beyond all that, Trump has signed orders that could reportedly drain millions from universities, with worrying this threat will be weaponized to bring universities into line.
Also signing an order seeking to expand access to private school vouchers
With critics like the president of the American Federation of Teachers arguing:
“This order hijacks federal money used to level the playing field for poor and disadvantaged kids and hands it directly to unaccountable private operators.”[]
Notably, with most of these private operations in the US being religiously affiliated, and more than half being affiliated with a Christian denomination –
Which is why you had the order most of all being celebrated by a movement that has already helped funnel billions in taxpayer dollars to religious schools.
And with that, you also had Trump signing an executive order not aimed specifically at education but aimed at “eradicating anti-Christian bias” in the US.
Announcing with Attorney General Pam Bondi would be heading up a task force to investigate the “targeting” of Christians.
And all that’s not to say the situation in the US is remotely on par with places like China or Russia where the country’s leaders are single handedly dictating what students see in their textbooks.
And there’s a lot of reasons it’s very hard to imagine things getting that bad.
Right, the president doesn’t have the power to set curriculum.
Congress ostensibly has the power of the purse, but schools are largely funded at the state and local level anyways.
Plus, even when states and localities have tried, surveys of teachers show that most don’t change their classroom materials or methods in response to conservative laws.[]
But it’d also be a mistake to think that there is nothing happening, or that there’s not a lot of room in the middle where we are and total control.
Right, as the New York Times explains, public school educators are often fearful of running into trouble with higher-level authorities.
And it’s possible, and even likely, that Trump’s executive orders will lead to some measure of self-censorship.[]
Plus, while federal funding to public schools is limited?
Most of what does exist helps prop up high-poverty and rural schools in areas with weaker tax bases.
Right, so they’re the ones most likely to be affected.
Similarly, the Education Department provides discretionary grants aimed at helping low-income students and minority groups, as well as students with disabilities.
But many of those programs are currently under review by the agency to determine whether they defy any of Trump’s executive orders. []
And in what’s been described as “an extraordinary step” the Department announced that the Office for Civil Rights had dismissed pending complaints people had filed to the office over efforts to ban books about race and gender.
With the office announcing that it had ended what it called “Biden book ban hoax”–
Basically referring to previous guidance saying book bans might create a hostile school environment or infringe on civil rights. []
And of course, all this at the federal level, while at the local level, some states and school boards have really taken a heavy hand in trying to dictate what can or must be taught.
But with that, I gotta pass the question off to you, especially if you’re involved in teaching or education in any way or at any level, if you’re from any of the countries we mentioned, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
“With notably, most private school students in the U.S. going to religiously affiliated institutions, with just about half going to Catholic or conservative Christian schools.”
-
The Supreme Court seems like it’s about to totally upend discrimination law, potentially opening up the floodgates for a TON of reverse-discriminated cases.
Right, and this story centers around the case of Marlean Ames.
She is a 60-year-old white woman who started working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) as an executive secretary in 2004 before making her way up to become an administrator of a program to combat sexual assault in juvenile facilities by 2014.
And throughout her employment, she regularly received solid job reviews and salary increases.
So in 2019, in an effort to continue her trajectory, she applied for a management job for the first time.
But instead of being offered the job, her direct supervisor presented her with a pin for 30 years of serving the public and told Ames — who was 55 then — that she should retire.
And Ames claimed that the manager job was given to a woman who was less qualified than her and hadn’t initially expressed interest in the role.
And, not long after that, Ames said she was called into a meeting with an assistant director of the DYS and a human resources official, who gave her a choice: she could either take a demotion or lose her job entirely.
So Ames was deeply upset, but she agreed to go back to her old secretary job out of financial necessity.
Then, three days later, the administrator position she had just been forced out of was filled by a 25-year-old protégé of hers who she argued was also unqualified for the role.
But Ames believes there is one specific reason all this happened to her: because she is straight, but her direct supervisor, her former protégé, and the woman who got the management role are all gay.
Now, very significantly here, the assistant DYS director and human resources official who actually gave her the demotion — they are both straight.
But Ames still claims that she was skipped over for the manager promotion and then later demoted so her direct supervisor could offer both positions to less qualified gay applicants.
Alleging this was all part of a “long-running scheme” involving her direct supervisor, protégé, and others “to kick her out” because she is straight, arguing in a deposition that gay people “stick together.”
Right, and all those allegations are laid out in a lawsuit she brought against the Ohio DYS that accuses the agency of discriminating against her based on sexual orientation in violation of Title VII (Title 7) of the Civil Rights Act.
But here’s the thing about proving workplace bias under Title 7: past court rulings have set a precedent requiring folks from majority groups like men, white people, and straight people to meet a higher legal bar than those from minority groups.
Now, of course, Ames is a woman, but she isn’t claiming discrimination based on her gender.
She’s claiming that a minority group — in this case, homosexuals — discriminated against her because she is a heterosexual, which is a majority group.
So because this case involved a person from a majority group claiming discrimination from a minority group, she had to meet that higher bar.
Now, notably, that threshold isn’t uniform across the entire country, but it is required by nearly half of all federal appeals court circuits — including the one that covers Ohio, where Ames brought the case.
With the idea here being that this extra step is necessary to account for the fact that it’s rare to see reverse discrimination by a minority group against a majority.
Right, so here’s how it works: in order to prove a job discrimination claim in federal court, any plaintiff — majority or minority — has to do one of two things.
A) they can provide direct evidence of bias, like an email or recording of someone saying “you were not hired because you are straight.”
Or B) because it’s often hard to get that kind of direct evidence, they can instead build a circumstantial case — which is what Ames did.
And in order to prove a circumstantial case, both majority and minority plaintiffs must have evidence that they were rejected for a job they were qualified for and that the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications.
As well as refute any nondiscriminatory reasons the employer may offer for why they weren’t hired.
But then this is where that extra step comes in: members of majority groups ALSO need to show “background circumstances” to establish that their employer discriminates against majorities — a standard that minorities do not need to prove.
And in Ames’ case, a district court ruled that she failed to show background circumstances proving her employer discriminated against majority groups.
With the judge there noting that the bosses who actually demoted her were straight.
And that she didn’t provide any data to establish that the DYS had a pattern of anti-straight bias beyond her case.
Right, in an interview, Ames openly said she was unaware of any other examples of alleged discrimination against straight people in the department.
Adding that she was never told that she had been rejected for the promotion or given the demotion because she’s straight, and that no one ever made derogatory comments about her sexual orientation.
What’s more, the director of the DYS also refuted her allegations by claiming that Ames was demoted because her supervisors didn’t think she had the skills or vision to effectively manage sexual victimization in the state’s juvenile facilities.
With him also alleging that her workplace demeanor was “abrasive” and that she did poorly in her interview for the management job.
And adding that the applicants who got Ames’s former job and the manager position had skills and experience she lacked.
So Ames appealed that ruling, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision.
BUT — and this is a key thing here — in their ruling, one of the court judges questioned the validity of the background circumstances requirement.
Arguing that having different standards for different groups of people is exactly the kind of unequal treatment that Title 7 was created to prevent in the first place.
And that is also something that has been echoed by one of Ames’ attorneys, Edward Gilbert, who said that it was both unfair and very difficult to find the kind of statistical evidence that would show that an employer was biased against a majority group, adding:
“I mean, we would have to, when a person is hired, have asked the question, ‘Are you gay, and were you promoted because you are gay?’ That’s an illegal question, and it’s an inappropriate question.”
So Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the extra requirement on majority groups goes against the text of Title 7.
And her suit has attracted support from across the political spectrum — with both the Biden Administration and a right-wing group founded by a former Trump aide filing briefs urging the court to side with her.
But, on the other hand, we’ve also seen groups like the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund filing briefs urging the court to rule against Ames.
Arguing that it’s necessary for majority groups to meet an extra burden of proof because of structural inequalities in the U.S. and given how rare instances of reverse discrimination actually are.
And that’s also a point the DYS has made, claiming that the background circumstances requirement isn’t really a higher standard that majority plaintiffs have to meet, but a necessary prerequisite to screen out meritless cases.
And arguing that Ames still would have lost her case even if she didn’t meet the background circumstances standard because she had no evidence that her employer’s actions were motivated by the fact that she was straight.
Claiming that the higher-ups who made the promotion and demotion decision knew Ames’ sexual orientation.
But during oral arguments back in February, the Supreme Court justices indicated that they would rule in Ames’ favor.
And I’m not just talking about the conservative supermajority — some liberal justices were also apparently receptive to her claims.
With justices across the political spectrum repeatedly questioning the Ohio solicitor general over the defense’s opposition to Ames’ arguments.
This including liberal Justice Elana Kagan, who noted a passage from a lower court ruling in Ames’s case, saying:
“It says, you know, Ames’s … case would have been easy to make had she belonged to the relevant minority group here, gay people.” (35:06-35:15)
With conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, further asking:
“You agree those passages are wrong?” (35:45-35:49)
And eventually, the solicitor general even conceded that he agreed that members of both majority and minority groups should be treated equally, saying:
“I think the idea that you hold people to different standards because of their protected characteristics is wrong.” (36:10-36:16)
Which prompted Justice Neil Gorsuch to respond:
“We're in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me..” (49:13-49:16)
So, by all accounts, it really seems like the high court will take Ames’ side and overturn the decision by the 6th Circuit Appeals Court.
But experts say a ruling in her favor would dramatically change the law governing workplace discrimination and make it easier for members of majority groups to sue for reverse discrimination.
With Johnny Taylor Jr., the chief executive of the human resources association SHRM, explaining:
“If she wins, the flood of reverse discrimination claims will be like nothing we’ve ever seen. Straight, White people everywhere could be filing.”
What’s more, such a ruling would also have sweeping implications for DEI initiatives at a time when Trump and the right have launched a full-blown assault on the programs.
According to Julie Levinson Werner, an employment lawyer, while Ames’ case doesn’t directly implicate corporate DEI programs, she still sees it as the next major turning point in the nationwide battle.
Noting that employers are watching the case as a test for whether they should pursue diversity efforts in an already hostile landscape.
With the director of the National Institute for Workers’ Rights also echoing that, adding that a decision in Ames’s favor would effectively create a springboard for the Trump administration as it works to “hollow out antidiscrimination law.”
But for now, we’ll just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court ultimately decides here and the scope of their decision, which isn’t expected until this summer.
And, in the meantime, I’d really love to know what you make of all this in those comments down below.
To subscribe & save 25% for life, head to For Wellness and use philipdefranco for free shipping on your first order.
-
You’ve heard of Moon Pies, the moonwalk, maybe a moon sign but have you ever heard of Moon Time?
Because that is one of the latest projects at NASA and a problem they were ordered to solve by the White House.
So back in the spring of 2024, the White House gave NASA a policy directive to give the Moon its own time zone - saying that it’s “foundational” to US efforts to explore the lunar surface.
And that is no small task because, if you didn’t know, time moves differently on the Moon compared to on Earth.
In fact, time moves differently even in some places on Earth.
Right, the way humans first started keeping track of time was pretty simple - sundials and stone formations using the shadows to mark a day’s progression. [B Roll 0:20-0:48]
And then using the Moon to track a month.
But when mechanical clocks joined the party in the 14th century, we started demanding more and more precision from our timekeeping devices.
And then Albert Einstein made things infinitely more complicated with his theories of special and general relativity.
Now, these theories are pretty complicated and we don’t need this video to turn into a lecture so the basic information we need is this:
General relativity is a framework that explains how gravity affects space and time. []
You’ve probably seen something like this before - it shows that the more gravity something has, the more impact it has on space and time.
Which explains why seconds tick by every so slightly faster on the top of a mountain than standing on the beach.
But planetside, scientists have accounted for this - they’ve placed several hundred atomic clocks at various locations around the world.
And these atomic clocks are super precise - they use the vibration of atoms to measure the passage of time. []
Those clocks show, like Einstein said, that seconds tick slightly slower the closer they sit to the Earth’s surface.
So we average out all of those readings from around the world to get a broad but accurate as possible sense of time for the planet as a whole - which is called Coordinated Universal Time or UTC.
Now, if this time thing is an issue we have here - you can imagine things get even weirder when we leave Earth altogether.
For example, a single Earth day is 24 hours, right?
Well, on the surface of the moon, a single day is just under 60 microseconds shorter than that. []
And to really put microseconds into perspective, let’s look at hummingbirds.
Right, a hummingbird flaps its wings roughly 50 times in a second - meaning each flap lasts about 0.02 seconds or 20,000 microseconds. [B Roll 0:00-0:20]
So while 60 microseconds seems miniscule or even negligible, as that adds up, it can have a serious impact when you’re talking about distance in space.
With Cheryl Gramling, lead on lunar position, navigation, timing, and standards at NASA Headquarters saying,
“For something traveling at the speed of light, 56 microseconds is enough time to travel the distance of approximately 168 football fields. If someone is orbiting the Moon, an observer on Earth who isn’t compensating for the effects of relativity over a day would think that the orbiting astronaut is approximately 168 football fields away from where the astronaut really is.” []
For some space missions, the solution has been simple - spacecraft keep their own time with onboard clocks. []
But those have to sync up with Earth time - with Gramling saying,
“And most of our operations for spacecraft — even spacecraft that are all the way out at Pluto, or the Kuiper Belt, like New Horizons — (rely on) ground stations that are back on Earth. So everything they’re doing has to correlate with UTC.” []
But now, humans are looking to get more involved with the Moon - like NASA’s Artemis campaign which, according to NASA, is looking to establish a, quote, “sustained presence on and around the Moon.” []
With Graming saying that when astronauts are on the Moon, they are going to need to leave a habitat and to explore the surface and carry out investigations.
Not to mention communication while they drive around in buggies on the lunar surface. []
And in order to do any of that, they’ll need a lunar time scale - an entirely new system of measurement to account for the roughly 60 microsecond difference.
With Gramling adding,
“When they’re navigating relative to the moon, time needs to be relative to the moon.” []
But the need for Moon Time isn’t limited to Super Official US Government Lunar trips.
There are other governments that have plans to become active on the Moon, too - not to mention the growing industry of commercialized space travel.
And according to Dr. Ben Ashman, navigation lead for lunar relay development, quote,
“A shared definition of time is an important part of safe, resilient, and sustainable operations.” []
And that “shared definition of time” is exactly what scientists are working towards with the Coordinated Lunar Time.
And researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have created a system to establish and implement lunar time that accounts for that 60-ish microsecond difference.
Their research, which was published in The Astronomical Journal, is focused more on the theoretical - the blueprints and mathematical models necessary to make this happen.
But essentially, it would do something similar on the Moon that we do here on Earth for the UTC - placing atomic clocks around the lunar surface and then determining the weighted average. []
With one NIST physicist saying,
“It’s like having the entire Moon synchronized to one ‘time zone’ adjusted for the Moon’s gravity, rather than having clocks gradually drift out of sync with Earth’s time.” []
But there are still a lot of important, unanswered questions there.
Like who’s going to pay for the clocks, exactly what type of clocks are going to go, and where on the Moon they’ll be positioned - just as a few examples. []
With Gramling saying,
“We have to work all of this out. I don’t think we know yet. I think it will be an amalgamation of several different things.” []
But once all those questions are answered and the system is implemented, it could seriously change the space game.
This system that the NIST proposed would be the first step in the development of a “lunar positioning system” - kind of like GPS. []
How it would work, simply put, is a network of highly precise clocks on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit would work in tandem to provide accurate timing signals for navigation.
Just one benefit we could see from this is more precise lunar landings - with an NIST physicist saying,
“The goal is to ensure that spacecraft can land within a few meters of their intended destination.” []
And while this whole thing sounds a bit like sci-fi, it may not be too far off.
With the White House’s deadline to NASA for the implementation of the Lunar Time Zone reportedly being the end of 2026. []
So this is definitely something that we’re going to have to watch out for.
Not only for the upcoming Artemis missions but also how this could affect any other space travel and other lunar missions.
But I would love to know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeakGeek
