There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive:
1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.
2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now. They could have built a “dumb” second stage at any time, but aren’t that short-sighted.
3. Blue Origin? I’ve had high hopes for the guys for two decades now. Don’t hold your breath.
4. Anyone else? Really, really don’t hold your breath.
This whole “race to the moon, part II” is almost criminally stupid. Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.
Re: 1. I think the America of Theseus mindset is a bit troubling. A lot of people like to identify with achievements that they played no role in. Based on zero expertise whatsoever, I have a sense that this is a bit self defeating. To be born a winner, to be taught you’re a winner… how can that be healthy?
Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past. But I think one way it can be a good thing is the, “we’ve done it before, we can do it again” attitude. Which is somewhat opposite to “we already won!”
My first job out of law school was at a 176 year old law firm. New lawyers were socialized to identify with the past achievements of the firm, like helping J.P. Morgan build the railroads. There was a good reason for that: it socializes people to adhere to a culture and practices that have proven to be effective.
You’re right that, if overdone, it can lead to complacency. But if you treat every generation as a blank slate, you abandon the valuable capital of experience.
it has nothing to do with how you treat each generation. it's whether or not you have a continuous shared work experience from the elders to the youngsters over and over.
if your company abandoned big projects for small local stuff and then a few generations later suddenly decided to go big again, you'd suck at it.
if you're good at it, it's because the people right before you were doing it already and passed on their experience.
(this doesn't mean something can't be done the first time - it just means if you don't have institutional knowledge, you have to suck at it first and then get better).
The first thing Steve Jobs did when he arrived back at Apple is he got rid of the little “Apple museum” they had in the building. A bunch of old machines. I believe he thought Apple shouldn’t live off its past.
Apple was failing so their current culture wasn't working and should not be passed on. He wanted a clean break. Plus Apple's past experience was traumatic for him personally. Even if they had been successful without him he'd not want the reminder for that reason alone.
Totally agree: esp when films are old and ongoing there's got to be some good there to be lifted and internalized. Why start at zero and relearn burning out customers or staff. And I like how you are wary because complacency is the net normal background drift for orgs.
Presumably that also works as a sort of “these are the standards we want to meet, to continue striving for this kind of work/impact/ethics/whatever”. In that sense the past is being used as reference and inspiration for the future. It’s done in a sense of (as your parent comment put it) “we’ve done it before, we can do it again”. Which is fine if you’re truly achieving that goal.
The trouble arises when it’s 2025 and the last great achievement you can point to was 150 years ago. Then you have a problem and referencing the past becomes a misguided attempt to rest on old laurels. Like (to use popular American movie tropes) a popular high school captain of the team, boyfriend to the head cheerleader, who has been out of high school for 30 years and still talks about a goal in a game as the best moment of his life. That’s the “we already won!” attitude.
The problem is - a lot of the achievements over the past decades were the result of investments of foreign nations in terms of education and capital. And now the one key capital of experience namely the integration of foreigners is deliberately destroyed.
Rail pioneered modern financial scams. I say modern because before that there were similar schemes in other areas like trade expeditions but the historical and written records on those are less complete and recent
This gets back to why there is a "we need to start making things in America again" sentiment. We made a national policy decision and underwent an economic transformation based on financialization and globalization. Kept the design and services aspects of our greatest companies in the US but the nuts and bolts of manufacturing and assembly went overseas, relying on patents and IP law to control production from afar.
This approach was always going to have holes in it and sure enough we're now facing a difficult and uncertain endeavor, for example, to ever be able to make the best chips in the world on American soil again. (Or as in the headlines today, to source and process rare earths for all manner of production.) It turns out that, surprise surprise, there was tons of process knowledge and tons of capacity for innovation in the people who were closest to the actual work of production, now those people are no longer American and couldn't care less what America can and cannot do. So we're in a bind. Americans keep claiming they can build all the things but they haven't actually done so in many years.
There's no way to solve the problem other than to try, and that entails clawing back as much of the people, processes and materiel as you can by whatever means you can until you start cobbling together some genuine innovation. My gut tells me enough of the political class supports the idea that the financiers will just have to get used to capitalizing a lot of production on domestic soil again, politicians will of course be happy to print billions more dollars of free money and hand it to them for this.
It's OK for people to want cheap stuff. But to me when I see the insistence that to get it cheap it has to be made somewhere else, I think that belief comes from cynicism and from ignorance of history.
Like, the whole story of the Industrial Revolution is that we invested continually in technology, training, process and plant, and the cost of producing things as measured by both dollars and labor decreased by orders of magnitude. It never stopped. It kept on working right up until we stopped trying and shipped production overseas. In fact even though they have cheaper labor and don't care as much in some of these overseas locations, usually it STILL happens. Technology, training, process, machinery, all get better, per unit cost of production just keeps on falling. Bring it back to America and focus on these four things and it will happen in America again too.
The failure to see this comes from putting the bean counters in charge. A bean counter can't model innovation. They don't know if and when a 10x cost reduction is going to happen somewhere in the industry and then spread. It's not their job to know, and they don't care. They see they can slash a cost by 20% right now by sending those jobs and factories offshore so that's what they do.
In most industries in America today the cost of production is still getting cheaper, but what's ballooning is management and administrative costs. They've grown so much that consumer prices are actually going up even as the cost of the essential process of producing the thing has gone down. That's the bean counters replicating.
It's all smoke and mirrors and lies. The forces that drove industrialization never stopped working. End the IP regimes, actually make stuff again, fire the bean counters, create competition for the consumer dollar in places where it was all acquired and consolidated into oblivion. The innovators will step in, deploy the next generation of plant, train the next generation of workers, stuff will get cheaper, and wages will actually be decent to boot because new and better processes create demand for new and scarcer skills.
You realize this statement is outdated. China is no longer cheap. They make stuff now because no one else can make them. Not a joke, and not trying to attack. This is the literal reality. Take a look at Tim Cook saying this:
Like this isn’t just manufacturing. If you go to China if you visit the tier one and tier two cities they look and feel Like cities of the future. You can’t even compare with US cities. One Chinese friend of mine visiting Los Angeles told me he didn’t realize that los Angeles was the country side.
He says it because The country side of China is literally just like Los Angeles. He’s talking about the backwardness and level of tech and density of the population.
America cannot possibly win the space race again, because it has already been won.
This is sort of like saying Leif Erikson and the Icelandic Commonwealth won the "the new world race" in 1000AD. Whatever Columbus et al were up to would surely be of trifling concern to future generations.
The space race was not a scientific endeavor either. It was driven by a political need.
It was to prove that your economic system could muster the correct machinery to get to the moon. Once we got to the moon, nothing significantly changed scientifically, but politically it was a bombshell.
The act of getting the moon now is, once again, not a scientific endeavor. It is once again a holistic test of whether the country still can do it.
And from the looks at it, maybe not. America is not all aligned like we were during the Cold War. Then again, the stakes during the Cold War seems higher.
It really was a race - you can find the original space fligh plans before the race started and they look much more sane and sustainable.
Incremental progress via building up infrastructure, including space station in Earth and Moon orbit, paving way to a lunar surface base. Also ways to make this affordable were explored, including reusable first stages, etc.
Then all focus switch to racing the Soviets and and anything that did not contribute flags and footprints on the lunar surface ASAP was skipped, opting for the fastest possible solution at all costs.
So no wonder that after the race was won, it was hard to do a meaningful followup with the architecture chosen.
One might even argue we would be further along space infra wise if the race did not happen or involved other objectives (possibly even including in space military buildup by both sides).
Just to take your point further, imagine if China establishes a base on the moon while the US is unable to do so. How is that (world wide) discussion going to look like?
Americans would be paranoid and xenophobic, but Americans are always paranoid and xenophobic, especially where China is concerned.
But this isn't the 1960s and the US has burned through its goodwill and ruined its credibility. I think the rest of the world would rather have a Chinese base on the moon than an American one.
As an American, is this really a true statement (“I think the rest of the world would rather have a Chinese base on the moon than an American one.”). I can no longer tell what our global reputation is.
I can only speak for my small sphere of awareness: it’s very poor. The above sentiment is apt. There’s been a big change in attitude around me over the past few years. “Wait, what again makes China worse than America? What makes it the enemy? Why aren’t we working with them more?”
It would be less depressing to think about if the questioning was due to a sudden improvement in China (human rights, government, environment etc) rather than due to a sudden decline in the USA.
It’s due to a sudden technological advancement and quality of life in China. You cannot discount this, the technological and economic growth China has seen within the last two decades has not been seen in the history of mankind.
Don't think so. People might say that but they haven't really grappled with what it means. China is neither particularly popular nor unpopular, and most people just don't have strong opinions about it because it's hardly ever in the news. But once they invade Taiwan that all changes.
Personally I don't currently like neither China nor America and I would refuse to visit either if my work asked me to go. Both have pretty authoritarian governments right now and I refuse to submit to that.
They're far from the only countries on my no go list though.
I think it's becoming increasingly true for many people - as a Canadian, I've often seen such sentiments expressed ever since the tariffs and Trump's annexation threats. I've also seen a lot of support for a general economic rapprochement with China, at the expense of our relationship with the US (which seems crazy and shortsighted to me). Even for those who won't go that far, I think there's a general feeling that our formally positive relationship with America is tarnished, and can longer be taken for granted in the future.
i had a conversation with a colleague today - we both said that we'd feel more comfortable to visit China over the US, and for his next vacation where he would have to fly via the US he's now considering to take a different flight-path which avoids the US.
as someone from europe one of my dreams as a kid was to visit the great United States. 20 years later this has drastically changed, still never been to the US, but would now rather visit other places.
people are trying to migrate away from US tech to other alternatives.
just last weekend i was joking with the person i watch Formula1 with - the last race was in the US. anyways, we joked that we used to laugh at races and events being held in Azerbaijan, just because it seemed weird to hold western sports events in dictatorships, similar to the football world cup in Qatar. now a world cup and F1 race in the US feels at least as bad as the other options.
but that's my POV. another friend still wants to visit the US for a third time and wants me to go with him and someone else i now even recently got married in the US.
but for me and the people around me - yes, the status of the US has taken a hard nose-dive, especially in the last 1-2 years.
also doesn't help to grow up and learn about the US history, by which i mean the overthrowing of foreign governments, global NSA scandals, needless wars for oil, trade wars etc. etc. etc.
no ill will against the average american citizen, but writing this comment made me a bit angry again. your country's government and some parts of the population cause so much pain on a global scale, but y'all seem too isolated and privileged to realize that. add to this that not even US citizens seem to benefit from this, i mean even y'all get swindled.
you know, i still feel like visiting the US. i want to meet the people and get to know the culture which influences my life in a big way. it just feels wrong, almost like visiting Germany in the early 1930s or late 1920s as a tourist. hope y'all calm down sometime, you'll maybe catch me on Route66, in one of the big cities or wherever.
that's kind of the essence of my rant i think. i could list soooooo many places in the US i'd like to see. but right now and since a couple of years, i'd rather not. the world is big, nice places everywhere. y'all have some great marketing, that's for sure.
YouTube has recently been feeding me clips of European citizens shocked at how different their trips to America end up being so different from their initial fear and expectation that was fed to them by their version of the main stream media.
Yes, you've removed the context of my comment and restated it in general terms. I don't know what the point was, though, given that the context of this discussion is specifically American politics and culture, but good on you.
Now try again, except imagine everyone is a horse.
>I don't know what the point was, though, given that the context of this discussion is specifically American politics and culture, but good on you.
the point is to exemplify how over-generalized and stupid it is to mention the universal human feelings of xenophobia and paranoia that occur when people witness an adversary during a war-action, land expansion, or anything near those concepts as if it was somehow a uniquely American/Chinese phenomena.
But -- the question asked was 'what will the world-wide discussion look like', not 'How will the Americans respond and feel?'
So, with that in mind, how about an answer to the question asked?
My personal opinion is that there will be a frenzy to remove the groups in power at the moment without much thought of who will fill the vacuum, and then about 40 years of bellyaching from the globe after the cards fall where they may.
And the USSR decidedly pwned America at every space medal but one. After America won one medal, we decided that was the one that actually counted, we forgot all that happened previously, because the USSR won them, and we stopped doing any more, lest the USSR win them.
If the point was to prove which economic system is better, the outcome was clear: totalitarian dictatorship with a solid education system far outcompetes capitalism with strong government intervention. In fact it seems that the more there's a guy at the top forcing everyone to work towards an achievable goal, the more likely the goal is to be achieved. There are other reasons to dislike totalitarian dictatorships, of course.
We can do it. Elon landing that gigantic rocket is proof enough.
Whether we can do it faster than China is the question. A question many people are in denial about because of patriotism. Many people can’t handle it if the answer in actuality was that China will be better.
It’s more about establishing a permanent base or some operational capacity, not allowing China to dominate that aspect.
And yes, it’s probably also about certain aspects of anxiety and probably some panic about the prospect of American decline after so many decades of squandering everything and letting itself both be bled dry and run off a cliff by a subversive element within.
>after so many decades of squandering everything and letting itself both be bled dry and run off a cliff by a subversive element within
After everything is all said and done, I wonder if it would be possible to build out a data project tracking the people and the decisions that led to the outcome and also where all the wealth went. I guess this is impossible because too many people are unnamed figures just doing their part succumbing to inertia.
Theoretically it would probably be more possible than you may think, but it would likely be a far bigger and more gargantuan project than you think too. We are largely talking about government money, which theoretically would need to have been tracked and accounted for, but just along getting access to that data would be an massive effort in and of itself, with massive interests groups fighting tooth and nail to keep that data secret by hook and crook.
For a bit of perspective, I just saw that James O'Keeffe just published a video yesterday that is related to that topic regarding the 8(a) set-aside fraud that he says amounts to $100 billion annually alone. Having some direct knowledge about that area in particular, I would not be surprised if it was even more than $100B annually, and that's just one of such schemes where I would guess about 80% of the money is full on defrauded by various means and methods, and of the remaining 20%, probably 15% are for things that are simply utterly useless, unproductive, pointless efforts; often even to do work in support of some other agency/department's work that is also utterly useless and inconsequential, i.e., a kind of circular fraud.
In case you are interested in the O'Keeffe video, even though it may be boring to some and utterly shocking to others [1]. Just remember, he is highlighting just one company and one tribe running this scheme/fraud, there are hundreds or even thousands of companies doing exactly that, and that is just one scheme/fraud of several that exist in federal contracting; even beyond just open and blatant corruption and nepotism and fraud you would not believe me if I told you, because you would not be able to square the fact that something so blatant could be occurring without law enforcement doing their jobs.
The problem with O'Keeffe is that he has burned his reputation in the past with false reports that have harmed innocent people. Reporters like Ken Klippenstein and Matt Taibbi have discussed the topic of how in the "old days" of pre internet, reporters would lose their careers over serious mistakes made in reporting. In the post social media era that no longer seems to apply anymore. However I refuse to accept that. There is so much noise that people are exposed to that there HAS to be some mechanism to filter out the chaff. I propose bringing back the reputation of a reporter based on their past work. If you cannot put in the work to thoroughly vet your major stories then you are not a true reporter in my eyes. How am supposed to vet this given im not familiar with the area? The only signal to go by is his history and it is not a good indicator in this regard.
There's very little _scientific_ motivation to send humans to do science instead of robots. Robots don't need to eat or drink (much more efficient payloads) and don't expect to survive the mission.
The motivations to send humans to other bodies at this time are political; to prove who is and isn't a superpower of the 21st century.
Is there anyone that thinks robots that we can do a 99% robotic mission on the moon and get value from it? I think it would be easier to create a permanent human moon settlement. Doing autonomous robotic missions is really hard at the moment even if they are just 20min away from humans. Even cutting grass is non trivial.
You made a big leap there from “robotic missions” to “autonomous robotic missions”, which I think very few think is realistic in the near-term. Some limited autonomy exists as a force-multiplier, sure, but pretty much all robotic space missions are still basically controlled remotely by a human.
What they mean is all the spinoffs of getting there do not count. Microelectronics, computers, leaps in materials science, massive advances in medical and health sciences, and techniques and processes for very-large-scale project planning and implementation hardly count as benefits, especially if you don't count them as benefits.
After all, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Not one dollar was spent in space during the first space race.
If you want massive returns on medical and health sciences, you get far better returns investing in medical research and public health programs. Same with technology - if you want better materials and electronics, invest in physics research.
The US spent 6% of its GDP to land on the moon, much of that money going into military and aerospace companies . It is far more efficient to spend that money on medical, health and physics research directly; the moon landing accomplished political and cultural objectives.
> money on medical, health and physics research directly
What precisely is the difference? Where was space-race money spent that shouls be reallocated? My point is you eventually need to put the research into practice.
Wouldn't, for example, a radiotelescope on the far side be scientifically valuable? It would be shielded from Earth's noise by a huge mass of lunar rock.
JWST is actually a good example. The (slow) unfolding of the telescope was a long-term nail-biting experience, because even very trivial problems that could have been easily fixed with a screwdriver or a finger poke on Earth could doom one of the most sophisticated pieces of scientific equipment ever produced.
We were lucky in the end, but if anything went wrong, the result would be immense frustration and the most expensive piece of space junk per unit of weight.
But in general, you probably don't need human bodies for such maintenance on the Moon, "just" very sophisticated and versatile robot mechanics. IDK what is easier.
We're going to spend many, many billions to send food to feed and house people on the moon just so they can go out and turn a screw driver and untangle some wires once in a while.
Maybe you can save a lot on the equipment itself (because it does not have to be 99,99999% reliable - those extra nines cost a lot) and thus can also deploy more equipment, and instead of a single telescope you can have several farms thereof.
Wouldn't you demand the habitation and transportation facilities to be even more reliable than the telescopes? Wouldn't they be even harder to build right due to now needing to incorporate lots of large pressure vessels and windows and airlocks and seals and actual buttons and what not? Plus, all the needed stuff to actually get these people home again?
So not only do we still need to have an incredibly high degree of reliability for core critical parts of the mission, that mission is now massively larger, and it's now human lives on the line if things go wrong.
Can't we still have farms of telescopes if we wanted even if a few of them don't deploy perfectly?
Can't we just have a humanoid robot go and turn the screws for us?
"Can't we just have a humanoid robot go and turn the screws for us?"
That would indeed be the best solution, if we can build such robots. Notoriously, computers are much better at "thinking" (or simulating thereof) than at folding laundry.
"it's now human lives on the line if things go wrong."
That is quite normal in many professions. Programmers are usually somewhat sheltered, so the very idea of risking your life on a job is shocking to them. But I grew up in a mining town and, well, some people will take that bargain for money. Some people even like the bit of a thrill.
I grew up in South Houston. I knew lots of families affected by workplace injuries at chemical plants and refineries growing up (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_refinery_explosion ). I grew up going to Challenger Seven Memorial Park all the time. I had met a few of the people on the Columbia. Many of my friends had their parents go up in the shuttle afterwards, very clued into the risks involved. The idea of risking your life on a job is not shocking to me, it surrounded me from a young age.
I'm just pointing out the risk of failure and its impacts on the overall program is much higher when we're talking about humans experiencing a massive sudden depressurization event compared to a foil sheet failing to unfurl. If you think its expensive trying to get a foil sheet to reliably unfold once, imagine how expensive it'll be to design a door to properly seal and unseal hundreds of times with sharp, hard, and fine regolith constantly working its way into the seams and hinges and seals. If you think it'll be difficult getting public support after your telescope isn't perfectly functional, imagine the reluctance of funding you'll get when you accidentally kill seven people in a horrific way.
It's not even clear the USA "won" the space race. America was first (and last) to land men on the moon, but arguably the USSR had far more space-related "firsts" than the US.
Landing on the moon only become the end-all-be-all when the US achieved it and the USSR could not (for various reasons).
first satellite? all sputnik could do was beep, and it ran out of batteries in three weeks.
first animal? laika died.
first station? there were two attempts to crew it -- the first failed to dock and everyone on the second mission fucking died. the soyuz 11 crew remain the only human deaths in space.
first *naut? yuri gagarin didn't even have manual controls.
Failing fast is easier when lives are valued cheaply. “If it’s not failing, you’re not pushing hard enough.”
You are selecting goalposts that suit your team, and being disrespectful of the USSR (presumably because you don't want to acknowledge their successes).
Not the OP, but even though I respect the Soviet space results, the USSR itself was an abomination, a prison of nations, a rehashed Russian empire rebased on a totalitarian creed.
The eastern half of Europe took the first opportunity to run away from its grip, including my nation.
Happy (and naive) are the people who never lived under Moscow's rule.
If you're from Eastern Europe (well, Central), like I am:
* two big totalitarian systems, the USSR and the Reich, start the war together by dismembering Poland, then divide the region according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, very nice,
* the USSR spends two years providing the Nazi war machine with necessary resources, thus indirectly aiding our local subjugation,
* then, as usual with bandits, one turns on the other,
* four years later, one loses, the other occupies half of Europe and introduces their own dystopian totalitarian systems there.
The Soviet rule was better in the sense that they didn't consider us racial subhumans, but "liberation" contains the word "liberty", and personal liberty was an extremely scarce good in the Stalinist era.
Nazi Germany started the war. Full stop. The USSR did engage in appeasement from 1939-41, after the French and British sold out Czechoslovakia (and Poland opportunistically took a piece), which the USSR wanted to defend. The USSR knew that it was very high on the Nazis' target list (ideologically, Hitler viewed the Bolsheviks as his primary enemy), so Stalin decided to make a rotten deal with him to delay the war by as long as possible. Stalin was cowardly and opportunistic, but painting this as if the USSR started WWII is absurd.
If it weren't for the Red Army, the Nazis would have physically annihilated the entire Slavic population of Eastern Europe. That was their plan.
The USSR absolutely co-started WWII, the whole meaning of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was to divide Eastern Europe into a Soviet part and a German part. Yes, they had several motives at once. So do regular gangsters. If a gangster teams up with other gangsters for a job, they are usually afraid of one another as well.
"The USSR knew that it was very high on the Nazis' target list (ideologically, Hitler viewed the Bolsheviks as his primary enemy), so Stalin decided to make a rotten deal with him to delay the war by as long as possible. Stalin was cowardly and opportunistic"
Of course the USSR knew, but they also knew that German forces would be engaged in the West, for some time at least. Moscow, together with everyone else, didn't expect France to fold so easily.
BTW I don't consider Stalin particularly cowardly, just psychopathic and evil.
"If it weren't for the Red Army, the Nazis would have physically annihilated the entire Slavic population of Eastern Europe. That was their plan."
True, I acknowledge that, and yet I loathe the USSR.
Imagine a girl caught by a murderer. A rapist comes along, saves her from the murderer, then proceeds to chain her in his house and rape her for several decades. Would you tell the girl "be at least somewhat respectful to your rapist, he saved your life"?
> The USSR absolutely co-started WWII, the whole meaning of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was to divide Eastern Europe into a Soviet part and a German part.
This is a complete rewrite of the history of WWII. The USSR did not initiate WWII. It was Nazi Germany that drove the escalating conflict and aimed to conquer Europe.
The argument you're making could be turned around to say that Poland co-started WWII when it conspired with Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia - something that Poland actually did in 1938. And by the way, at that time, the USSR was willing to go to war to defend Czechoslovakia from Nazi aggression, and it was Poland that blocked that idea by refusing to cooperate with the USSR. But that argument would be equally wrong as your argument: Poland simply acted opportunistically, while Germany was the one driving the conflict.
After the British and French sold out Czechoslovakia, the Soviets did an about face and decided to make a deal to save their own skin. Stalin was deathly afraid of a German invasion of the USSR, and wanted to make sure that Germany did not launch its war against the USSR first. Again, the driving factor in this was the knowledge that Germany was preparing for aggressive war. Without that, there simply would not have been WWII. The USSR was not planning any offensive war, nor was it in any position to launch one. Stalin was busy purging the Red Army officer corps.
Stalin was absolutely a coward on this issue. He was paralyzed by fear of a German invasion. He refused to accept the many different strands of intelligence which indicated that a German invasion was imminent. He kept sending supplies to Germany until the day of the invasion, in order to buy off the Germans. He was even told the exact date of the invasion by Richard Sorge, and he ignored it. The Red Army was caught completely flat-footed. Most of the air force was wiped out on the ground. That's not the sign of a country ready for an imminent war. Again, it was Germany driving events.
I do think you should be thankful to the USSR for saving you and your country from annihilation and extermination. They sacrificed millions of people to do so.
It's a bit harsh to demand that people are thankful for decades of oppression. Central and eastern Europe were caught between two monsters, but one of them lasted a lot longer.
The main reason that the USSR's role in the start of WW2 has been ignored for so long, is because they were part of the victorious side, and their contribution was absolutely vital to the defeat of the Nazis. But they did launch offensive wars, against Poland, Finland and the Baltic states. They're traditionally not seen as part of WW2 only because the Nazis weren't involved and they were initiated by one of the victors of the war, but they happened at the exact same time, while Germany was invading Poland and Scandinavia.
Russia's conquest of eastern Europe was no liberation.
He literally said the Soviets “started with genocide before the Nazis even arrived” and then listed three things that aren't genocide, as a way of downplaying the fact that the Nazis planned to exterminate most of the people in Eastern Europe. Baltic peoples, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs all exist today. That would not be the case if the Soviets had lost the war.
That really depends on how you look at it. By that argument, to Ukrainians, the Nazis were the liberators. The Soviets had starved millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor, and many, including the infamous Stepan Bandera, erroneously saw the Nazis as liberators. Thing is, liberation requires actually being free afterwards. Neither the Nazis nor the Soviets were liberators. They just replaced another oppressor.
And sure, the Nazis were even worse, but we should really stop pretending that the Soviet occupation was great.
Nazi Germany was stronger and could plausibly plan continent domination, true. But the USSR was an active, albeit smaller participant. Why precisely did they attack Finland and attack and conquer the Baltic States? Hitler made them do it again?
No, that was pure imperial expansion, finding some weaker and richer states to loot and control.
I will not defend the Western powers on Munich, they betrayed us completely and reaped the whirlwind.
"I do think you should be thankful to the USSR for saving you and your country from annihilation and extermination."
Intent behind your action matters and if the intent is to enslave you, that is a very bad, criminal intent. I noticed that you didn't address my analogy with a rapist that saves you from a murderer in order to chain you down in their dungeon. This is why I will not be thankful to the USSR as a country and a system. Immediately after the front units, "SMERSH" secret police units murdered and abducted people who were on Stalins hit list, should I be thankful for that as well? Should their families be thankful for such "liberation"?
"They sacrificed millions of people"
Stalin sacrificed millions of people. He also did so on other occasions, like the mad purges of the 1930s, destroying kulaks by artificial famines or deporting various minorities into barely survivable deserts and polar regions.
Death of millions was Stalin's thing, in peace or war.
"to do so."
Again, our survival mattered to Moscow only to the extent that most rational slave masters are interested in keeping their slaves alive and productive. (The Nazis were irrational in this regard.)
The Soviet Union did not see Central Europe as sovereign nations, but as a bounty to be conquered and abused, basically colonies for extraction. This view survives today in Russia. Visit any Russian-language forum where discussion turns to Ukraine and plenty of people will express the idea that we are their escaped property that, through negligence of Gorbachev, could find itself a new "master" (voluntary alignment between countries just does not register in this worldview) and now are being used as "pawns" against "the Russian civilization".
The view that smaller nations hate their previous subjugation by Moscow and don't want to repeat it is just incomprehensible to them. In their view, we should be thankful for being liberated from Hitler, and nothing else that happened afterwards counts.
You also seem to be of the idea that nothing else that happened afterwards counts... why?
I can at least see an argument to be thankful to individual Soviet soldiers who fought Hitler. They were often driven so by the threat of penal batallions, but still. But the USSR as a system was an evil totalitarian entity intent on occupying, looting and terrorizing everyone within their reach. Only the extent of their effective reach varied, from very weak in the 1930s to rather large by 1950. No thankfulness to this abomination, ever, that is what I will die upon.
They attacked Finland for the same reason the British invaded Iceland: they knew it would not be able to remain neutral, and they wanted to ensure that the Germans could not use it. The Germans were invading neutral states left and right, and the Soviets were not about to let a country whose border was just a few kilometers from Leningrad fall under Nazi control.
Just like the Western Allies, the Soviets were acting in reaction to the insanely aggressive moves that Germany was taking. They viewed it as a life-or-death issue. Germany, the strongest state in Europe, had conducted a massive military buildup and was bent on conquering the continent.
> They attacked Finland for the same reason the British invaded Iceland
Demonstrably false. The British aim was never to annex Iceland into the UK. The British did not establish a puppet government like the Soviets tried with the Finnish Democratic Republic. Nor did they start murdering Icelandic political and societal leaders to make it unselfgovernable, like the USSR did everywhere across Eastern Europe, nor did the British start resettling people to wipe out Icelandic culture and identity. Iceland's government continued to operate independently until the British forces withdrew in 1941. Russia still hold on to the ~11% of pre-war Finland that they grabbed and they've wiped out the native population.
The talking point about threat from Germany is also hollow, to put it mildly. The USSR and Germany were allies at the time, and their secret protocol had assigned Finland to the USSR for conquest. To support Germany's invasions under their agreement, the USSR supplied massive quantities of raw resources (such as oil, cotton and grains) to bypass the economic blockade of Germany and bolster the German war machine in 1939-1941. The USSR was delivering 140 000 tons of oil each month as Luftwaffe was bombing London and was short on fuel.
"They attacked Finland for the same reason the British invaded Iceland: they knew it would not be able to remain neutral, and they wanted to ensure that the Germans could not use it."
Given that this forum has some rules about being polite, I will just stop here without saying something awful.
It is very unfortunate that Stalinist apologia is still somehow acceptable in the West. It is a direct consequence of the fact that Stalin's concentration camps were never liberated by an external force that would forever document their horrors.
This is completely bullshit. Sweden stayed neutral. Finland is a lot further from Germany than Sweden is. If Russia hadn't invaded, Finland could easily have remained neutral. It was Russia's invasion that drove Finland into German arms.
You need to quit your revisionism and Soviet apologia. The USSR was oppressive and expansionist. Not quite as much as the Nazis, but they weren't that far behind. You painting them as friendly liberators who really had no other choice but to invade and conquer, is exactly the kind of propaganda that Putin uses today to justify his wars.
Sputnik was the first object to orbit the earth. It was the spark that lit the fire under the US space effort. It may not have been grand, but it was the first.
Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space, first to orbit the earth.
To minimize these achievements is like saying the Wright Brothers test was meaningless because it only lasted 12 seconds. In truth each "first" represents a milestone, each required substantial effort.
In more recent times Russia alone was capable of manned space flight (2011 to 2020).
To return to your question, the USSR was critical to the space race. You cannot gave a race with 1 entrant. Without USSR constantly being in the news doing things first, there would not have been a space race at all.
Indeed, by the time of JFK's speech there was not much to race for except the moon. Once the Soviets stopped the US stopped as well. It's taken the talk of a Chinese mission for the US to even bother.
Earth satellites are an enormously valuable use of space. But very unsexy. Trips to the moon have pretty much no value. But they make for good PR.
You are mixing up human space flight and going to the ISS.
Sure, for quite a while ISS depended on Russia for crew access, but China has been capable of human spaceflight since 1999, running many missions since & their own space station.
First satellite, first lunar flyby, first heliocentric orbit, first lunar landing, first animals returned safely from orbit, first human space flight. Those are some pretty solid goals.
What's a natural goalpost for the first "Space race" ?
I submit that a good candidate is: Space. It's in the name. It's not "the Moon race".
You know, getting a person to space and back. Yuri Gagarin, USSR, first successful crewed spaceflight, 1961.
Or, first artificial satellite in space. Sputnik, USSR 1957
I respect the USA's contributions to the space race too, but also I am amused by the USA under JFK picking something left undone, declaring that that as the only victory condition, doing it and then claiming total victory and celebrating it ever since. Got to salvage national pride somehow. Does that "steelman" it?
It's like the Olympics, you have to win the basketball gold medal every 4 years or accept that somebody else is better than you at that game. Every medal can be the last one forever. Sports are sports, not being good at other matters can have substantial consequences. Maybe landing on the moon is not one of them but the degree of technology and organization that it requires is certainly a proxy of the general standing of a country.
True, however if you want to be great on the world stage and have people look at you and say "wow they can do amazing things" I'm not sure landing on the moon really has much value. The obsession with beating China there this generation is certainly not very healthy, especially when it's built on a moon landing system that was primarily designed to keep space shuttle contractors in business.
Want to impress the world? End poverty. Advance cancer treatment. Build a viable nuclear fusion power plant. Make an HIV vaccine and sell it affordably across the world. We could be done with the Cold War-era rocket-waving.
China didn't _end_ poverty but they did lift hundreds of millions of people out of it and i've literally never seen anyone outside of China give them props for it
Really? I've seen the opposite. They get way too many props for it given that the main reason China was so poor to begin with was their own cultural history. You shouldn't get credit for solving a problem you created for yourselves.
> The idea that we need to land on the moon once a generation just to say that we are as good at landing on the moon as our parents is absurd.
In the sense that we don't need to do either, that's true. But if we want to claim we're still competent moon landers, we do need to repeat the task every once in a while to keep that capability. And there are good scientific benefits from continuing to do difficult space launches of many types.
Small sample, but in New Orleans, the US isn't even capable of maintenance.
I'm a tourist at the moment and everything looks like it is falling apart. The existing roading infrastructure is crumbling (apparently there's an Instagram about the worst examples). Everywhere I've driven, the roads are worse than earthquake hit Christchurch. Yet there is so much amazing old infrastructure that reeks of massive past investment.
Commonly I see power poles listing tipsily (or even broken); cable wires loose or hanging.
One bridge over the Mississippi has rust patches everywhere and needs a paint.
Is it just New Orleans, or a more general issue across the US?
New Orleans is built on top of a fishbowl-shaped sponge, as far as its foundational land is concerned. Road repair costs reflect this, but of course the other side of the coin is the decades worth of local government corruption here that makes any major progressive infrastructure changes feel like a perpetual pipe dream. At the same time though, it's one of the most beautiful cities in the country for endless historical + cultural reasons. You could say New Orleans is a highly concentrated gumbo of both the "good" and "bad" of some uniquely American ingredients. I love it here and hate it here; I get jealous when I visit other cities, but then I greatly miss home. Weird place.
For what it's worth, it's not quite so bad everywhere. In New England infrastructure decays faster due to the weather, so most of our infrastructure is more frequently maintained or replaced. There's definitely some blighted areas, but the image of quaint New England towns with covered bridges is not a lie, and gentrification has caused local governments in our richer cities to invest more in infrastructure. This leads to a dramatic difference in appearance between e.g. New Orleans and Boston.
The way things are funded in the US is pretty crazy. New projects usually rely on federal government grants, but that money normally can't pay for maintenance. So states and cities have to pay for their own maintenance. The federal government just prints new money for these new projects.
Everything is so car oriented and spread out, that there isn't enough value to tax to pay for the maintenance on all the spread out infrastructure. So states and cities are always on the brink of default, scrambling to maintain all this stuff.
I live in New Orleans (happy to meet for a coffee!) one thing to keep in mind is that the roads cost $7 million a mile to pave because of the subsurface.
I'd love to meet for a morning or midday coffee. I've got a temp number here - which I've put in my HN profile. Personally I like coffee from Marzocco espresso machines - my local cafe here is Cherry Coffee Roasters in Gretna, but I'm happy to meet anywhere in the city with parking or within 2 hours drive of the city.
Happy to meet anyone else too.
Background: I'm a geeky type open to everybody; I don't like being judgemental. Travelling because I retired as soon as I had the minimum necessary to have a basic house plus a small retirement fund (as soon as the SaaS company I helped found could meet that goal). I picked LA to travel to because I liked the sarcasm and honesty I received here previously. To avoid disappointment: I have an awesome girlfriend so I'm not fishing for a date.
Edit: Please resend. I looked at iMessage settings and I needed to also enable my US number for iMessage. Not sure that was the problem but it seems like a reasonable guess.
Was: Didn't get any SMS or iMessage and I've got no idea why. I've double checked everything, and I just forced Amazon to send me a verification SMS which I received on that number. I admit so far I've only had heartache with iMessage screw ups. Maybe due to dual eSIM : I have my roaming NZ number for SMS "two-factor" verifications and NZ calls, and my Metro/T-Mobile for data and US calls. I am avoiding doxxing myself since HN publishing feels so permanent. How about you reply here with a time and place for Thursday or Friday? I will check in the morning. I don't know why I'm continually surprised by my modern tech roadbumps -- I see everyone else struggle (regardless of age or skill)!
Edit extra: I really don't understand why it doesn't fallback to SMS if the number isn't enabled in iMessage... I'll also do a test tomorrow noonish from a friend's US phone. I've used dual SIM before without problems, but always in countries with lots of Androids, so I didn't need iMessage setting because SMS worked (and in other countries there's often a different messaging app that everyone uses so maybe I wouldn't notice iMessage failing)
But Apple didn't recreate the same mobile handset as Motorola or anybody else. There is very little value or scientific benefit in going back to the moon within the parameters of this mission; it's literally "do the same thing again".
Incredible lack of imagination. If we went back to the moon on the regular we could by now have high resolution cameras permanently installed there pointing back at Earth, sending video in real time.
but we have satellites for that
High resolution photographs of the entire earth (as opposed to tiny pieces of it) would have a massive positive emotional effect on people. The Earthrise photo's enduring popularity is proof of this. There's water on the Moon; we could have bases there by now, even if they were limited in functionality and size, like the ISS. We could have remote-control or autonomous moon rovers and bipedal robots exploring there 24-7.
Instead we have Moon landing denialists one one hand and jaded 'it's just a rock, who cares' nay-sayers on the other.
We already have this, it doesn't require being on the moon.
> There's water on the Moon; we could have bases there by now, even if they were limited in functionality and size, like the ISS.
The scale of going to the ISS versus the moon is massively different. Most of the research we'd be doing on the moon that isn't just for robots to do like digging in the dirt could still be done on an orbiting space station (like, how to mitigate effects of microgravity on the human body, how to cultivate plants in low gravity, studying microorganisms and chemistry in space, etc.)
> We could have remote-control or autonomous moon rovers and bipedal robots exploring there 24-7.
This doesn't require a human presence on the moon. We've had nearly uninterrupted robots on Mars for decades and haven't had a human on it.
> Instead we have Moon landing denialists one one hand
You had moon landing denialists even right after we landed. Us continuing to be on the moon isn't going to get rid of these naysayers. People are arguing the earth is flat, that anthropogenic climate change can't be possible, that the earth is 40,000 years old, and vaccines are mind control agents.
I get it would be cool and there probably is some science that could only be done with humans on the moon that I don't know about (I don't know everything, for sure). I think it would do a lot to push our engineering forward to have this kind of constant investment towards operating in space. But outside of being a means to funnel public funds to engineering firms to essentially find cooler ways to burn money I'm not sure it's all worth it.
Not saying we shouldn't have a space program! There's still lots we don't know about the universe and lots of cool science to learn. But do we need actual humans on the moon to achieve these goals?
Putting people on Mars US equally useless. Any colony on Mars would require enormous support from Earth. It would never be self-suffient.
Mars would need water, air, energy, raw materials, fuel and everything else for (basically) ever.
There is zero to be gained (here) from a Mars colony. Mars lacks a magnetic field, air to breath, water to drink or cultivate crops, a temperature suitable for plant or animal life, fuel sources to build industry, supply chains for the construction or maintainence of the simplest electrical systems.
Talk of Mars is purely a PR play. Someone will be first. Yay. But Mars will play no part in Earth's future.
I think we should aim for Ceres[1] instead, which is way more resources rich compared to Mars for a sustainable colony. And a perfect starting point for exploring the rest of the asteroid belt[2].
Mars has actually quite different environment to the Moon if you wan't to do surface testing: no atmosphere, different gravity, abrasive dust, different day and year length, different solar constant, etc.
For spaxe infrastructure however - sure, stuff mined and manufactured on the Moon can definitely help any planetary missions.
It’s a new race and a new contender and the simple premise is, what once was the US is now China, the country capable of bringing men to the moon. That position is open at the moment
What's the purpose of summiting Everest if it's been done already? What's the purpose of summiting again if you personally have already done so before? We don't do these things only to be the first to do it, we do them because it's an incredible achievement, the first time, and the 100th time.
Claiming that the new mission to the moon is a waste of time because "we already won the space race" is backward. Withholding an entire generation (multiple actually) from the awe and wonder that is associated with such an endeavour just because "it's been done before" is borderline criminal imo.
And frankly, the fact that the US is struggling to get it's rocket in the air, let alone get a human on the moon, even after they did so already and literally wrote the tutorial on how to do it, is very embarrassing.
It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. It’s an artificial challenge that focuses attention, with the goal of exercising government, industries, academics, etc. and maybe learn and invent a few things along the way. Yes, yes, Cold War and all those theories. But it had and can again have this greater effect.
It’s kind of like a FIRST Robotics Challenge for nations. The specific goal really doesn’t matter and can just as well be different than the moon. That’s not the interesting part.
It succeeded in the 60s because we didn't just focus attention, we focused a LOT OF MONEY on it. In comparison, today's NASA has a meager budget which has only been further slashed by the current administration.
I would love to see the kind of investment in NASA we had during the 60s. The scientific advancements were staggering. Today, the only thing we have money for is weapons and warfare.
This is a common misconception. The total amount spent on the Apollo program over its 13 year time span (1960-1973) was $25.8 billion as reported in 1973, around $240 billion inflation adjusted. That's around $18.5 billion per year, distributed on a bell curve. NASA reached it's minimum post-apollo budget in 1978 at $21.3 billion per year! Their current budget is $25.4 billion. [1] So based on current (and historic spending) NASA could have been constantly doing Apollo level programs, on loop, as a 'side gig' and still have plenty of money for other things.
The modern argument is that we spend less as a percent of the federal budget, but it's mostly nonsensical. The government having more money available has nothing to do with the amount of money being spent on NASA or any other program. It's precisely due to this luxury that we've been able to keep NASA's budget so high in spite of them achieving nothing remotely on the scale of the Apollo program in the 50+ years since it was ended.
The big problem is that after Nixon defacto ended the human space program (largely because he feared that an accident might imperil his reelection chances), NASA gradually just got turned into a giant pork project. They have a lot of money but it's mostly wasted on things that people know aren't going anywhere or are otherwise fundamentally flawed, exactly like Artemis and the SLS.
For what it's worth military research projects also come up with plenty of scientific advancements and the military also is doing things in space, including things they have had up there for years without explaining the purpose of.
Technological progress should allow us to repeat ancient feats for cheaper.
True excellence in engineering is being able to do amazing things within a limited budget.
(And overall, sending some primates to the moon should come out of our entertainment budgets. Manned space flight has been one giant money sink without much too show for. If you want to do anything scientifically useful in space, go for unmanned.
> Today, the only thing we have money for is weapons and warfare.
Huh? You remember the cold war? The US spends less of its total income on weapons and warfare than back then. Have a look at some statistics to find what the biggest items are these days.)
> The US spends less of its total income on weapons and warfare than back then. Have a look at some statistics to find what the biggest items are these days.
This is inaccurate. Here [1] is a nice table showing US military spending over time, inflation adjusted. Up, up, and away! And it's made even more insane because what really matters is discretionary spending. Each year lots of things are automatically paid - interest on the debt, pensions, medicare, social security, and so on. What's left over is in those giant budgetary bills that Congress makes each year that cover all spending on education, infrastructure, and all of the other things people typically associate government spending with.
And military spending (outside of things like pension) is 100% discretionary, and it consumes about half of our entire discretionary budget! And this is again made even more insane by the fact that discretionary spending, as a percent of all spending, continues to decline. This is because we're an aging population with a terrible fertility rate. So costs for social security, medicare, and other such things are increasing sharply while new revenue from our children is barely trickling in. Notably this will never change unless fertility rates change. Even when the 'old people' die, they will be replaced by even more old people, and with even fewer children coming of age.
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear when I said "spends less of its total income". I meant as as a proportion of GDP.
I agree that the US has some weird distinction between discretionary and mandatory spending. And I also agree that much of the 'mandatory' spending needs a reform, and should probably not be on the government's balance sheet at all. Eg a fully funded pension system that invests globally is both off the government's balance sheet, and doesn't care about domestic fertility.
(Of course, you still want to have a means tested welfare system to catch those people who couldn't earn enough for retirement and other poor people in general.)
I don't think percent of GDP is a meaningful metric. Dollar for [inflated] dollar we're spending a lot more on defense, and it eats up near to the majority of our discretionary spending. The distinction between mandatory and discretionary isn't weird - mandatory is payments that the government is legally required to make, discretionary is what they have the choice of spending. And so now a days near to the majority of what the government has the choice of spending, is spent on war.
Sovereign wealth funds of the sort you're alluding to have a problem - governments can't ever control their spending, so the funds always end up getting plundered. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a great example. It was created after massive oil reserves were discovered in Alaska resulting in a huge windfall of money to the government. The government proceeded to completely waste all of that money with nothing to show for it, which made people less than happy. So the idea of the APF was to create a fund that could provide social dividends in both the present and even after the oil eventually runs out.
But as the government started, again, blowing money, they started dipping into the fund and eventually changed the law to normalize it and it's gradually turning into a joke. This years dividend was $1000, compared to $3300 (inflation adjusted) at its peak in 1999. The problem with 'well just make it where you can't do that' is that the same people that make that law, are the exact same that can unmake that law and give themselves lots of other people's money, which they will do, sooner or later.
> I don't think percent of GDP is a meaningful metric.
Why not? I think it's close to the only useful metric across time.
> The distinction between mandatory and discretionary isn't weird - mandatory is payments that the government is legally required to make, discretionary is what they have the choice of spending.
Laws aren't god given. They can be changed. The political processes are slightly different, but if the voters want it, they can get it.
> Sovereign wealth funds of the sort you're alluding to have a problem - [...]
I'm not alluding to any sovereign wealth funds. What makes you think so?
I suggested to get pension systems out of the hands of government, not into them.
A fully funded pension system that invests globally outside the government's balance sheet is essentially exactly what a sovereign wealth fund is. Even when it is managed privately (as the Alaska fund is) the government has regulatory control of the fund, which is where the looting is, probably unavoidably, introduced.
As for money vs GDP, our discussion on mandatory vs discretionary spending is already one reason why $$$ is far more informative. Dollars can, after inflation, be compared and paint a relatively clear picture. Percent of some other metric, which has often changed wildly over time, is instead more likely just to mislead.
So for instance we now spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on the war machine than we did during the Cold War when we were facing a very viable threat of nuclear annihilation. That's an extremely valuable metric that does mean a lot. Why are we spending so much on war?
The fantasy about it creating some sort of unstoppable war machine has clearly been clearly shattered. It's not even clear that would have been desirable if true. One thing this administration got completely right was renaming the Department of Defense to its old moniker of Depart of War, because that is what it really is.
This reality is completely muddled if you start trying to frame things as percent of some other metric, be that budget, GDP, or whatever else.
> Have a look at some statistics to find what the biggest items are these days.
Note that if you attribute interest for military-related debt to military spending(roughly 40-50% of our interest payments) then it ends up climbing in the ranking. But it’s true that we have other major expenses as well.
Apollo was much better value for money. It inspired generations to study and enter STEM fields, it gave us multitudes of technological advances, and it gave the entire world something to marvel at. It gave us the earthrise image, which fueled the environmental movement. What has "AI" inspired? What marvels will the enshittificatement of googling, or the latest deepfake garbage bestow upon us? If "AI" is our moonshot we're all well and truly fucked.
Excellent point! I'd add that it also serves to inspire regular people and get them interested in science.
Unfortunately, I think that's the problem with some of the rhetoric like "the green revolution will be the next space race!" For better or worse, solar panels aren't as inspiring to most people as space is.
A lot of money and time were behind the space race propaganda arm that got people excited about advancements in space technology.
If the same resources were put into popularizing advancements in energy, you'd see more excitement. As it is, there are kids growing up excited about environmentalism like there were kids growing up excited about space.
No. Kids are not stupid. You can appreciate environmental innovation while also recognizing that it is fundamentally, qualitatively different from doing difficult things in space. Do you look at the Mars Rover and say to yourself 'big deal, we have cars right here on Earth'?
I never claimed kids were stupid, my point is that a ton of resources were dumped into things like fan clubs, movies, TV and radio programs, toys, collectibles, children's books, keeping it in the news, etc. We even sent a grade school teacher into space even if that ended in tragedy.
Look at the cult of personality the Soviet Union built around Yuri Gagarin, yes people were always going to find space exploration interesting, but manufacturing a folk hero means even more people will, too, and it becomes something aspirational and seemingly attainable. The Soviets were not unique in doing this, the US did similar things.
I agree that all played a role. I'm just not sure that a similar PR campaign would be able to produce comparable inspiration from, for example, public infrastructure. There's no afro-futurist movie called "The Interstate Highway is the Place".
I think we were able to strike a chord with nationalist tendencies, which can be strong motivators, for public infrastructure during the New Deal era with the PWA and WPA and their associated propaganda. There was both a personal pride in bettering oneself with hard work, and larger shared pride of building huge, sometimes incredible feats of engineering, infrastructure that your neighbors and nation depend on, and quite literally rebuilding the nation for a new modern era.
There are already some related things in popular culture that seem to inspire younger generations, like new urbanism. The hope for a new way of living can be a huge motivating force.
Nah. You can argue that the goal "land on the moon" is artificial, but it being artificial doesn't make it fake or abstract. If you're the first to achieve it then you're the first, and that's it. What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new.
Now, if you're not able to repeat it at all, that does say something. But if it takes you a few years longer, well, so what? It's not a race anymore, because it's already been won, by the US of fifty years ago.
The winner of the race to Mars is still undecided, though.
It feels arbitrary to decide we can’t have a Space Race 2 (Space Harder) but we have Olympics every two years and Super Bowls and World Series and all that every year.
I’ve got to assume I’m misunderstanding the objection because it feels ridiculous to overstir the oxygen over semantics. Do we just need to call it Space Race 2?
A space race isn't a sport, it's a technological and scientific challenge. You can't invent the same technology twice, unless the idea is completely forgotten.
Also unlike sports, space races are massively expensive and it's untenable to forever go from one to the next.
The space race was not just about inventing, though. It was about doing.
You can do the same thing twice, and you can also lose the ability to do something.
The ability to do the thing is what is really being maintained and demonstrated.
Every country has the technology to go to the moon - it's well established now. But who can actually make it happen? That's a huge organizational, human, financial, industrial challenge. And people do notice when only one country can do it.
Yeah, I already covered that when I said that if you're not able to do it at all it does say something.
>But who can actually make it happen? That's a huge organizational, human, financial, industrial challenge. And people do notice when only one country can do it.
On the other side of the coin, it's such a huge expense just for bragging rights, that for any country it's not worth undertaking. It's much more preferable to just give the appearance that you could totally do it if you wanted to, but you just don't feel like it. I'd argue that the US is currently failing at this, but until anyone else flies a manned mission to the moon, it doesn't say anything.
Well, you could try to raise the challenge. Eg do it on a limited budget, or establish a permanent base, etc.
However I agree that manned space flight is a giant money pit with not much to show for. It should come out of our entertainment budget, not eat into our science budget.
> What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new.
Despite you throwing the word "obviously" at it, that is an extremely untrue claim. Even if we hadn't forgotten a lot of the details, we're solving new engineering challenges with modern material science and manufacturing, and learning a lot of new things about spacecraft design. There is a ton of invention in doing another landing after so long.
What I said was that you didn't have to invent anything new. And yeah, that is obvious. If you've already figured out how to build a Saturn V, to build a second one you just do the same steps you did for the first one. You don't have to use new techniques just because new ones exist.
But even as stated, I don't think your argument holds up. "What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new."
Even if it was technically possible to not invent anything new, that path is not going to be taken. It would be even more expensive and worse in every way. Nobody is going to launch a rocket with just 60s/70s technology ever again. A new moon launch will have lots of invention and learning, and claiming we can still do it does need proof.
Like I said, you didn't have to invent anything new. In this case you put yourself in the awkward situation of having to reinvent the wheel by your own incompetence. So if you actually do do it, what have you proven?
>It would be even more expensive and worse in every way.
Worse and more expensive than what? The only rocket that has flown men to the moon is Saturn V. What exactly are you comparing it to?
Let me make this point very clear with no distractions:
The "you're certainly not learning anything new" argument only works if we do reuse old techniques. "You don't have to invent anything new" is not sufficient to support the argument.
> Worse and more expensive than what?
Trying to reinvent old techniques and rebuild a bunch of machines and factories that used those techniques would be worse than inventing new things. You'd have to deliberately choose to not learn anything and to waste extra money in pursuit of that choice.
> The only rocket that has flown men to the moon is Saturn V. What exactly are you comparing it to?
We don't have a time machine, so the contenders are "2020s rocket with techniques invented before 1970" or "2020s rocket with techniques invented before 2030".
> So if you actually do do it, what have you proven?
If you actually do it, in a reasonable way, then in addition to the inventions and learning and any proof to do with that, you prove you can go to the moon, because saying "oh of course we can, we could use the old method" is not a particularly strong claim as industries change and workers retire over the course of more than half a century.
That there is a competitive race is part of the assumption. That there is value in winning this race at the expense of other competitors is an assumption. That there will always be "losers" and we can't create a scenario where "everyone is a winner" is an assumption.
An alternative perspective on both space races, companies and life in general would be a collaborative one. I like to work on a productive, effective, successful teams, but I don't view that in terms of "winning" and "losing".
I really don't get this sentiment. 80% of orbital launches last year were Americans. The USA hasn't been this dominant in the space race since the 60s.
SpaceX exists because of commercial resupply but that was still a good deal for the government since it was cheaper than the shuttles or buying extra Soyuz cargo launches.
I don't know. I also don't know why that is relevant. Just because a business is selling a good or service to the government doesn't mean it's not competitive, dominant, efficient or really anything.
Capitalism is incredibly efficient this way and it really should be appreciated as being such an advantage. I wonder if it’s not a free advantage though. I suspect there’s a risk that it might diminish the ability to accomplish projects that aren’t compatible with capitalism. Ie. ROI isn’t sufficiently short term, ROI is socialized, no ROI at all, excessive risk.
An open question as I really don’t have an answer either way: what’s the last mega project the U.S. succeeded in completing that wasn’t directly tied to a short term business plan? Something for future generations or a major environmental project or a transportation or infrastructure project, etc.
I mean, falcon 9 reusability is a decent example, if 13 years from work starts to reusability is proven commercially viable counts as a long term business plan.
The private space industry doesn't belong to the US, it belongs to the billionaires.
We might even be better to have no one advancing space travel than to have only the billionaires doing it. At least then they can't find some way to use it to screw us over.
Thez certainly have some Falcon 9 clones in full scale testing - would not he surprised if they have it working in a year or two, there is just too much money on the table.
Isn't the point we've been - and we've learned there really isn't much there and it's not worth the effort?
Even at the time people suspected that - but at least there was a chance of finding something unexpected.
As to the knowledge is has been done, and therefore could be done again - sure that's valuable, but that knowledge belongs to the whole world not just to America.
And in terms of national prestige or uniting goal - wouldn't it be better to have a goal to create a long term sustainable energy economy for example.
I think that has more strategic value than putting a man back ( or women for the first time ) on the moon.
America of Theseus is a great phrase, quite apt for describing "the American Experiment" and the numerous ways America reinvents itself. but I don't see how this usage of it provides any discernable meaning. Ship of Theseus is more a question than an answer, so saying "America of Theseus, therefore 1969 or any connection to it is irrelevant" doesn't follow.
I think it’s apt because the Ship of Theseus as a thought experiment is unanswerable. It’s both. It’s neither.
America does keep reinventing itself. It has few of the same parts as before, but it still resembles some concept of “America” in many ways. In that way it is the same ship.
But is it the same ship? Can it win a space race today that a previous manifestation of America could? Maybe it’s not the same ship and what it could do in the 60s it can no longer do today.
I certainly don’t think it’s a question that demands an answer. Perfectly valid to choose not to show up to the starting line. But having run that race under the same banner generations ago doesn’t tell us much about the America today.
My comment is borderline off topic, but I just can leave it at that. Sorry.
> I think it’s apt because the Ship of Theseus as a thought experiment is unanswerable.
It is answerable, you just need to go meta a little. You can argue that the Ship of Theseus doesn't exist (and didn't existed) because it is just a lot of wood. You can use reductionism further and say that wood doesn't exist, it is a bunch of atoms or quarks or whatever. The ship is just a leaky abstraction people are forced use because of their cognitive limitations. But if it is an abstraction, not a "real" thing, then I see no issues with the ship existing (in a limited sense) even after it changed all the atoms it consists of.
The other approach is to declare that a ship is not a thing, but a process. Like you do when talking about people, who change their atoms all the time, but they still keep they identity in a "magical" way. If you see people as a process, then it doesn't matter how often it replaces its matter with another matter. Like a tornado, which exists while exchanging matter with environment all the time and still being the same tornado. Or like a wave on a water surface, it doesn't have any atoms moving like a wave, but still a wave exists.
> It has few of the same parts as before, but it still resembles some concept of “America” in many ways.
It doesn't matter if there any old parts left, what matters is a continuous history.
> But is it the same ship?
It is the same ship, but its properties are changing over time. Like when people become older, some of them become wiser for example, some become physically weaker.
> But having run that race under the same banner generations ago doesn’t tell us much about the America today.
Yeah, with this I can fully agree. BTW we don't know was the Ship of Theseus becoming better or worse after repairs, but I'd bet that its maximum speed was changing due to repairs.
I agree with what you are saying, but feel that the original usage (above) had a POV, as if that POV was in keeping with the thought experiment. (now, any POV is in keeping from a thought experiment, but it cannot be said except in extremis to follow from the thought experiment
For the transgressions that the current generation had no influence in and can't meaningfully change, yeah, I think they mostly get a pass.
Though "zero points" is also probably a bit too harsh. I think Americans should be proud of their peoples' past accomplishments, but should recognize that they're distinct from their own accomplishments and kind of irrelevant to the current race.
The current space race is really just about the US trying to show that it isn't in decline, that it's still more capable than a rising China. So, "my grandfather was alive when America set foot on the Moon, so we've already won!" is kind of a sad statement.
Debt just shifts resources around in the present, but can't magic new resources into existence.
(Unless you borrow from foreigners, which taps resources from outside the country that later have to be paid back. But I'm not sure the Apollo programme was financed with foreign loans?)
Interest and repayment of the debt happens in the future. Though the government does sell bonds to individuals and organizations, much of the financing comes from the federal reserve.
> We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting
Of course, but there a few things to consider.
1. This is a new race. The olympics happen every four years to see which nation is the current best. It seems it’s time to find out again.
2. The last time the US was dominant was 56 years ago. That’s three generations. Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unlikely the US is still dominant.
Let’s find out.
>Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unlikely the US is still dominant.
Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is nowhere close. An American company, based in American, primarily staffed by American engineers.
I don't know by what measure you'd say that the US isn's still far, far ahead but I don't know of any other country currently re-using rockets dozens of times. What did I miss?
> Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is nowhere close. An American company, based in American, primarily staffed by American engineers
The whole point of this article, and the NASA admin steps to open up the contract and all of Berger’s recent reporting is that it’s almost a certainty China will beat the US back to the moon.
It is already too bad that the US's plan to get to the moon was so flawed that it has been delayed again and again and money was wasted.
Let's imagine that China puts people on the moon next year in a method similar to the way the US did it in 1969 (but probably better in some ways). They still are mostly doing something that has been done before by the USA.
In that same year, the USA will probably continue to launch 80% of the rockets to space. Maybe we don't do our next trip to the moon for another five years. But there's good chance by then we will be using much more advanced and reusable rockets. Does that really make the US behind?
I want to see us invest more into space exploration. I think its sad that NASA's plan has been dumb. But getting two or three people to the moon is more about showing that China is capable (which is a very reasonable goal for them) then showing they have some long term advantage.
Yeah, their plan is more extended than Apollo, but their initial part of the plan with which they can beat US to the moon is just like Apollo. The later parts of their plan need a rocket which doesn't exist yet (and they recently decided that it will be Starship-like). Meanwhile Starship may be delayed and be later than the first Chinese landing, but it allows to send unprecedented payload to the Moon from the start.
An American company, that the American government tried very hard to exclude and kill, built by the very immigrants it's attacking, the one that has twice now been threatened with contract cancelations just because the leader doesn't kiss the president's behind on a handful of issues.
It's rich seeing all this unearned bluster about having the lead due to SpaceX, when SpaceX had to drag America kicking and screaming into that position.
I believe space is actually a protected industry, and your run of the mill h1b isn't good enough, you need citizenship too - see the ITAR reqs on SpaceX job openings: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/8101417002
Personally, I think it matters whether its achieved by a private company versus by society. That's especially the case when the private company is so closely tied to someone who hates and alienates so much of society. I don't think that I could view a win for Musk as a win for anything that looks like my chunk of the US.
There's also the fact that part of NASA's mission is to share their knowledge with the public.
>Personally, I think it matters whether its achieved by a private company versus by society.
How exactly are you making the distinction? Space-X wouldn't exist without governemnt funding. CATL sells launches to commercial entities as well as servicing the government.
Official ownership? Because China seems to think a lot of what Space-X is doing can only be accomplished by the commercial sector and is funding startups in China to do the same thing.
> China seems to think a lot of what Space-X is doing can only be accomplished by the commercial sector and is funding startups in China to do the same thing.
That's how China's been running their economy for decades. Every few years, the government sets a direction everyone should row in, and generally lets private firms figure out which one of them will get there fastest.
> Personally, I think it matters whether its achieved by a private company versus by society.
People appreciate German cars just fine, and no one seems to be particularly bothered that they are produced by workers in private sector companies instead of 'by society'. Whatever that even means.
The space exploration is done by NASA using inputs from the private sector, like hammers or rockets.
> When I say "by society" I mean a non-private organization like NASA.
Is there any non-government organisation that can do any good in your opinion? What about a charitable trust? What about mostly unorganised protesters like those that moved Germany towards unification?
It's just wrong to say he hates and alienates society. As far as crime is concerned (which I brought up), he stands for those of us that live in violent areas and can't just scream what the other side does.
He is critical of the trans movement. He is not antisemitic. He supports pro Israel parties. If the right is hateful, why has there been an increase of liberal killers? This is a genuine question - I am neither liberal nor conservative
The vast majority of political killers are right wing.
Saying that his daughter is dead to him because she transitioned and working to remove trans rights is a bit more than just being "critical of the trans movement".
Again I don't know what to say. If sharing neo-Nazi material and doing a Hitler salute isn't anti-semitic then I don't know what is.
I've seen no indication that they see it in these terms. They've been pretty low-key about their progress.
To me it looks like the US obsession with reframe everything in terms of a "new cold war". From the US perspective, in end you look stupid if you lose, and you look stupid if you just spend a ton of money to repeat what you did last time
In world history, it's a common case that the number 1 is always inclined to stay at number 1 while beating down would-be contenders.
China has always been insular, and they don't think about space glories that much at the moment. It would take a couple more generations for them to care about something like that.
"Glory" can exist without comparing yourself to others. When they built the three-gorges dam they probably weren't thinking "our dam is better than those American dams". It's just impressive in its own right
They can be working on going to space without constantly bringing out the proverbial measuring tape to compare themselves to the US.
I'm not totally in the loop with the Chinese zeitgeist, so my post was a genuine question. Maybe they are comparing, maybe not. Both seem sensible reactions
Well if anything the general chinese working culture is to keep your head down and work diligently. If they do have to compare it's because of how connected everything is nowadays.
The US comparatively does boast a lot more that it's a bit of a meme on chinese social media.
What is the point of winning though? We could be doing other things in stead, and I'm going to submit that they are more valuable (you are of course welcome to disagree - this is an opinion).
Personally I hope no human lands on the moon again. I like telling my parents they are so old humans walked on the moon in their lifetime (last human left the moon December 1972 - before I was born). There is no value in this statement, but it is still fun.
To me, a significant part of the value presented by space exploration is the way that it inspires society. I think that whatever else we would do instead would need to be equally inspiring. Honestly, I can't really think of something comparable.
Sure. So let’s do something useful and new. We know how to go to the moon - it’s just a matter of money (and political will). If there’s something else to do on the moon, let’s be clear that is the objective.
I do agree with this. If we are returning to the moon just to say we did, as a space lover, I do have an issue with this and can't really get on board. I am hoping we have some other larger goal in mind, like maybe are back to the idea of a permanent moon base and a potential jump off point for other projects or we have a list of long term moon experiments to do. But yea, it just isn't exciting if we are going there to take a couple pictures and just to rub it in the face of China or India or some other nation. We've already done that.
The goal could be simply to learn how to do it again, since almost everyone who actually has done it--on any level, be it engineering, management, manufacturing, flight crew, ground crew, etc--is dead. That's a totally worthwhile exercise if it's actually a serious goal to explore further.
We have plenty of people working on space - we go to Mars with robots all the time which is harder than the moon. We have a space station (though it is nearing end of life). We have all the needed knowledge it is just applied elsewhere. There will be some things to learn about the moon that are different but not much.
Apollo made about a half dozen crewed trips to the moon (quantity deliberately left vague to account for quibbling over technicalities). They made it a relatively reliable, repeatable affair. My point is that organization--the team of people who have done that no longer exists. So until another team starts doing it again, we just don't know. Theoretically it's very probably achievable, but theory absent experiment doesn't really mean anything.
There is value in experience, but for something like this I'm going to submit that the larger value is in learning to spin up teams that do something completely different.
IF you were talking about building a good public transit system the value is in building a team and keeping it running. However this is - for all we know - just a one off show and so there isn't value in getting experience. The people looking at Mars have value in experience, and there may be value in robotic moon missions, but so far as I can tell human missions are just for showing off and should be treated like a one time show off and then get rid of the team for another 50 years.
Yea but it is also about opportunity cost. I would love if we can do everything, but we can't. Sure, we can put a man on the moon again, but is the cost that we are not gonna be able to send a probe to Titan? Ultimately it comes down to resource allocation. Is putting the man on the moon for just merely because the people who did it are not around worth the resources? No, not compared to the other things we can do in space. Actually, putting a man on the moon again probably very much robs resources from other project that will actually push novel exploration.
Unfortunately it feels more like the drive to return to the moon is just a way for the high school quarter back to relive his glory days, as the stereotype goes and is actually less about accomplishing something meaningful to push science and understanding. Tons of things we could do to push science and understanding that is novel that we may forgo to relive former glory.
I actually think getting the political will, money, and execution together would be the part that would be a noteworthy show of force (and I'd argue being unable to get it done would be equally noteworthy in the other direction).
But a show of force for who? We're not in the middle of a Cold War. Are we trying to upstage India or China? And could we get the same political ends via something more useful/with better returns?
Could we get the same ends via something more useful? In theory, sure, but it seems pretty evident that the answer in practice is no, since our congress has mostly been gridlocked for the past 16 years.
Yes and no, I'd say. Going back to the moon is big but it's also pretty self-contained, in a way. It just costs money (and doles a bunch of it out to the contracted companies). It's also mostly time-boxed.
Healthcare, worker's rights, voting rights, infrastructure, etc, are all more important (so I agree with you there), but also all have way more consequences that are wider-ranging and longer-term (which I'd say contributes do the political dysfunction around those topics).
This should be an "easy win" by comparison, and the "PR" impact of success (or failure) will be significant.
Edit: that said, if you gave me a magic wand to pick any one of these topics for the US to succeed at, it wouldn't be going to the moon.
Sure, I didn't mean to imply space is easy. It's absolutely not. I just want to get a return on investment. And up-staging India and China for the sake of it probably doesn't give much return.
Nah, that’s false. Miniaturization was already underway before the Space Race. The space program absolutely benefited from it, yes. But NASA wasn’t at the forefront of those developments.
I’ll give you an example: the technology in the Instrument Unit on the Saturn V, which was the computer that controlled the Saturn V during launch, was largely derived from System/360. By technology here I mean things like the Unit Logic Devices (ULDs) out of which the logic boards in the Launch Vehicle Digital Computer (LVDC) were made. No surprise, I suppose, given that it was contracted to IBM’s Federal Systems Division.
Sure, but compare density of a s360 mainframe and the Apollo Guidance Computer - they pumped a lot of money into integrated circuits just as they weee becoming viable to hit their size, mass and power targets.
Sure, this would likely have happend anyway, but possibly later with all related knock off effects.
> Sure, this would likely have happend anyway, but possibly later with all related knock off effects.
What are we missing because they did that though? Or what came latter? There is no way to answer this. It is easy to see what happened because of effort, but not what you didn't get (or got latter) because to focused on something else.
SLS is such a maintenance mode project that I have a failure of imagination in seeing how it helps aerospace companies with their ulterior motive of remaining in standby for a war posture. A lot of that so-called pork is really about keeping the home fires burning.
Realistically, the accomplishment will be a resource grab. It's not scientific. The moon will eventually be carved up by (disputed) territorial claims, like Antarctica. Countries will need to maintain bases to back their territorial claims. Eventually the claims will turn into mining rights. The resources are valuable for being in a reduced gravity zone. All those juicy water containing craters at the Lunar poles... [1]
> 1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.
The Portuguese used to have the best sea-worthy ships throughout the 1400s. They were soon followed by the Spanish. It didn't matter, because by the 1600s the Dutch, and then the English, had transformed the world's big seas and oceans into their playground.
In other words, if you don't use it you lose it, and right now the Americans need to "use" it, they need to show that they're still capable of getting to the Moon and beyond.
The British won out over the Spanish because they realized they didn't need enormous warships to win naval battles. The Spanish weren't ignoring the need for a navy--they miscalculated and misallocated resources.
The irony is that the commenters saying we must go back to the moon are more like the Spanish: sticking to a sentimental 1960s vision of human-based space exploration despite evidence clearly favoring robotics and remote control.
National pride has long been tightly coupled to seafaring capabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) "Richly decorated as a symbol of the king's ambitions for Sweden and himself, upon completion she was one of the most powerfully armed vessels in the worl"
I expect China to be the other major player in global space industries for the simpel reason that they're the only ones with the means and resolve to undergo such an endeavour. China is a command economy and they engage in long-term projects all the time. You can see with with all the intercity rail and metro systems they've built in the last 2 decades. It's crazy. As is all their power generation (hydro, solar).
the US may have gone to the Moon 50+ years ago but a lot has changed. There's no big enemy to rally behind as we manufactured in the Cold War. We don't have titans of industry anymore. We have titans of finance who coast on the inertia of early successes while raising prices, cutting costs and engaging in rent-seeking behavior.
There are serious design issues with Starship as a platform for going back to the Moon.
I'm not at all convinced the US can build anything anymore.
I'm not sure which company you're referring to here but I do here this claim a lot about SpaceX and while i'm anti-rent-seeking I don't see SpaceX as a rent-seeking company. Yes it has gotten some grants to develop particular programs and promises from the US government to buy services but all up we're talking about (IIRC) $10-20 billion.
We just gave $40 billion to Argentina for pretty much no reason whatsoever.
Now the US government has spent a whole lot more on SpaceX but they're buying services.
SpaceX is an incredible bargain compared to the alternatives like ULA.
The production of cutting-edge semiconductors requires a global supply chain. The US's main contribution to that supply chain is (very expensive) software required in the design of an IC.
The US is second in manufacturing and far ahead of numbers 3 and 4 (Germany and Japan IIRC).
> The US's main contribution to that supply chain is (very expensive) software required in the design of an IC.
EUV tech is from American universities, licensed by choice by the US Government. In a world where Nikon was a much smaller optics player, they'd be the ones building EUV machines, and we'd be pretending Japan was the source of this tech.
The US's main contribution is doing the research required to make this whole thing possible.
See the grandparent's comment about global supply chains. Everyone requires everyone else in those industries, no one does it all on their own.
I posit that software has no such supply chain dependency, literally anyone can do it, and thinking the US is unique in their ability to produce software isn't accurate.
Sure the SLS is a total mess, but from what I understand, there wasn't ever really a concrete plan on how to use SpaceX rockets to actually get to the moon. The following video is a presentation given at a NASA meeting explaining the issue.
The first time I ran into $ spent on manned missions v. space craft i was reflexively of course manned. That ended around Hubble (ok granted fixed by astronauts). I think better science is through robots to jupiter's moons, the next Webb, cosmolgy or dark matter experiments with probes, ligo in space etc. Going to the moon ... not feeling it ... even as a by way to mars
No, it wasn't "you". It was a generation that is mostly dead. As of now, Boeing cannot deliver a reasonably safe spaceship for mere travel to Low Earth Orbit.
Things change and without SpaceX, the US space industry would be slightly better than Roskosmos.
2) Artemis II is sitting on the pad ready to go. It will launch in a few months. But actually it's not relevant; the article makes no mention of SLS. There is suggestion of SLS getting the contract.
SpaceX doesn't even have a timeline for Starship; they have no idea when it will be ready, but the one thing that is clear is it wont be ready to take humans to the moon in 2027.
Artemis II is not on the pad. It's in the VAB, and it isn't stacked yet (source: my sister's an engineer with NASA Exploration Ground Support and is one of the people in charge of assembling it).
Going to the moon is a symbol. It’s symbolic to China being better if China gets there first. It is the only reason why we want to go. There is no one else who can do it except for spacex, it’s likely he’s just applying pressure onto spacex.
Is it a valid reason? Depends on how prideful you are. Are you proud to be an American and are you proud to be the greatest economic super power on the planet?
For me it’s not valid. I don’t hold any pride about any country even though I’m American. Pride is a form of emotional bias.
If China becomes better, which is a highly likely possibility. The symbol of this being better is irrelevant.
In fact arguably China is already better than us in many ways.
That’s an upper-stage issue — I was talking about the booster (1st stage). A conventional stage could be placed on top, complete with a traditional abort system and/or something like what Dragon uses.
The most shocking thing to me about Blue Origin's New Glenn launch is that it didn't blow up. This isn't commentary on my opinion concerning Blue Origin's engineering expertise, just that I was expecting anything that big and complicated, on its inaugural flight, to fail fairly spectacularly. The historical trajectory of such space things is fail, fail big, fail less big, kinda work, kinda work, work mostly, etc.
If the second launch vehicle performs similarly, I might have to start watching them. We could use a decent alternative.
If Luna is a textbook then we’ve read the section headings for chapter 15 of 43 and stolen half a page by ripping it out and taking it home. Oh and that’s just Volume I. There’s a whole Volume II (The Far Side) for which we’ve barely even read the sleeve notes.
In terms of field geology alone, we deserve permanent human presence on The Moon. Apollo was an impressive first shot but it is completely unrealistic to act like we know anything more than one percent of one percent about Moon’s geology. They nailed the flat bits on the marine side, but you’d laugh at someone who claimed they knew Earth’s geology after a few weeks in Buenos Aires, Houston, and Miami:
Who will be woken up by the first moonquake? Who will visit the first mooncaves? Who will find the first water-based anomaly — some kind of periodic waterfall maybe, in a heat trap that warms up one day a year? Who will see the first solar eclipse?
IIUC there are few "prime" locations on the moon. NASA publicly named 13 specific candidate regions.
The nations will will likely use "safety zones" to exclude others from their base of operations. We'll see the radius of these zones but expect 200m - 2km for a start.
There is a reason to think that there is a race. Without very advanced automation all of this is pointless, but I am willing to wager that many think that advanced automation will occur within a short timeframe.
Mars is entirely within reach if we wanted to dedicate the resources to it. If we can get to the moon over 50 years ago, Mars is nothing today. I don't necessarily think it would be worth it given the cost, but it is totally possible if it was a priority.
You'll need to launch more mass to get there but the technology isn't really any more complicated. It's also a more hospitable environment (reasonable gravity, day/night cycle, some atmosphere, water, etc.)
Mars is a total boondoggle - a colony would require constant supply runs from Earth to support a double-digit population - who is going to field the cost and what are they going to do there ?.
Their point (I believe) is “why do we want to go there over the moon?” What is there that makes the effort worth it at all now or later (until we can truly move a large population there permanently/for very long stretches)?
If the point is a colony, then we should just do it on the moon. If the point is for the advances in technology it will bring, we don’t have to go to Mars to explore those things. We could just keep practicing on the moon.
Obviously it’s not exactly the same but idk, most of why I’d be interested in our going to mars can be answered with “it’s easier, more feasible, and generally just as useful to do it on the moon instead.” It’s still low gravity, no oxygen/breathable atmosphere, a hostile desert essentially, etc. but far closer. We can respond to emergencies more easily. We know for a fact we are currently capable of getting there and back safely.
TL;DR: we will likely get a lot more out of dumping our resources into trips to and from the moon and building something there than trying to go to mars for a very long time.
You don't need fusion power to melt ice, to move regolith over habitats for shielding, or to melt rocks to extract and process metals. I have absolutely no idea where you get the notion that it meeds fusion power? Solar power or things like kilopower reactors are a great option for Mars, especially for bootstrapping.
Space and the moon were so important that we famously put black female mathematicians on the job in the waning years of Jim Crow. The current admin is dismantling not just so-called DEI, but decades of civil rights protections that ultimately allowed things like SGI's 3D rendering pipeline to exist. This is just one of the myriad ways that America is not in any way serious about a task as monumental as reaching Mars with actual, human astronauts. It would require an intense and extreme dedication to facing factual reality, which we do not seem currently capable of. Rockets do not run on truthiness, they explode on it.
Racial quotas pertain to all people of a group. Legacies pertain to a select amount of people of a group. If a black kid in the heart of Chicago attends a bad elementary school, bad middle school, and bad high school, then the system that failed them is that one, not universities that ideally should measure people by their abilities. Disclaimer: I also dislike legacies.
Legacy admissions policies account for a larger number of admissions and a greater boost than affirmative action policies (which are not racial quotas, which have been illegal since 1978) did. You're clearing space on your hard drive by going after midi files instead of mp4s. AA policies (again, not racial quotas, which haven't existed for half-a-century) had little effect on the admissions of straight white and Asian men (essentially the only demographics not covered under them). They're also currently illegal in college admissions themselves, so there seems to be no good-faith point in harping on them as something that gets "abused" (because they don't, because they literally can't be employed in any sense).
The article misrepresents the data, and you're misrepresenting both MIT's policies and the degree to which they reflect on college admissions (even those of top schools) in general.
You're suggesting that the drop reveals a quota, but it really only shows a slight drop from the norm for black students from the period pre-Pandemic (from ~8% to 5%) and a slightly larger drop for Hispanic/Latino students (from ~17% to 11%). Most of the change across the larger timescale has been fewer white students and more Asian students.
Your "abuse" was a handful of years of slightly increased consideration of qualified black applicants post-George Floyd protests, after decades of racial considerations boosting black enrollment by maybe 2% or 3% compared to the most current incoming class's proportion. This boost is slightly higher for Hispanic/Latino applicants, but still not much to consider (insofar as it's roughly equal to the boost in proportion of Asian students).
We'll not talk about the fact that affirmative action is still alive and well in the admissions process, as gender is still a valid consideration.
This is specifically at MIT, which chooses its class from a pool of qualified applicants (which means that, even with the demographic changes, everyone who was there was someone who deserved to be there), without recognition of sports, legacy, and international student interests. This is decidedly not the case elsewhere, where racial consideration had little effect on class composition when compared to the aforementioned.
In short: your grievance is not serious. It's shallow and formed from misconceptions. If you cared about abuse in college admissions, you would accept that legacy and moneyed interests are more of a drag than racial consideration as a remedy to decades of discrimination. The protections were not only valid, but not even given serious consideration until after our most recent reckoning with America's structural racism, and just as quickly torn up at the first opportunity.
The have not had racial quotas since 1978, as it's been illegal since then.
>Why are you virtue signalling so much?
I'd ask the same of you. You're carrying water for ridiculous and irrational ideology-driven talking points, even after they've been shown to be ridiculous and irrational. To what end, I wonder.
This whole “race to the moon, part II” is almost criminally stupid. Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.
Not as criminally stupid as resting on our laurels and frittering away all the technical knowledge which we are now relearning the hard way. 'I can't think of things to do on the moon, therefore it's a waste of time' is an asinine argument.
Edited to add that I have long thought this dismissive smug attitude about how we already ticked that box and there's no need to tick it again directly contributes to the rise is nonsensical conspiracy theories like the the moon landing (or indeed space) being fake. And that acceptance of social and scientific ignorance goes a long way to explaining why we're currently governed by malicious fools.
Going to the moon isn't like weightlifting! If you need to preserve the technical knowledge, write it down. (Or record it in other ways if you think writing is limited.)
If it was that simple institutional amnesia wouldn't be a thing, nor bitrot. Think of all the articles pointing out how the US has lost much of its manufacturing edge because we gave up building precision machinery and generational skills atrophied in areas from metallurgy to mechanical engineering. We're now inflicting the same future on ourselves by trashing our public health research infrastructure.
Kind of overlooks the fact that the guys he's threatening are also the same, having threatened to cancel SpaceX's contracts because Musk dared disagree with them (and we have all seen how rarely he does that).
> Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.
I have been a die hard fan of space exploration since the first Columbia flight. It is one of my first memories. I dream of the day when the moon is populated, like the ISS. I am the largest proponent of space exploration you'll meet, if only just for the sense of exploration disregarding all other benefits. Humanity's future is either to progress beyond this planet, or stagnate here.
That's why I have been following the Artemis program since the beginning. And with all the funding changes, and all the mission profiles that have changed in accordance, two things have stood out as the primary goals. First, the cost. That space station double docking in the way down is not only unnecessary, it is also fraught with risk. The only possibly explanation for that component is to spend money. Second, the actual started goals have changed three or four times, but one goal has been consistent. Go look at NASA's Artemis webpage. It's the first words up there: "NASA's Artemis missions aim to land the first woman and first person of colour on the Moon ...". Really? That is the first, primary objective? And it is such a shame, because of you look at Glover's career and accomplishments, he is amazing. He should be flying that mission on his own personal merits, not because NASA was mandated to find some black guy. Frankly it is insulting to even see mention of that as a goal, much less the absolute first stated goal in the official materials, and the only consistent goal throughout the program.
I agree. DEI hiring is so offensive, to both white people and “diverse” people. The former because it punishes them for something outside of their control, and the latter because it rewards them and diminishes the hard work that they had to do if they’re actually qualified. DEI is such a low IQ policy.
I feel like “race to the moon, part II” is really just a race to prove someone can consistently land significant payloads outside of earth. The moon is just the closest place to test.
China beat "us" to movable type, if by "us" we mean Americans, by about 700 years. Me personally, I've neither landed on the moon nor made a letterpress print.
Refueling the HLS in orbit, before it sets off to the moon requires at least 10 launches, but likely closer to 20, and neither Super Heavy or any future Starship tanker will be rapidly reusable that much is clear by now. For this system to work, SpaceX will need to build many more launch pads and the refueling sequence alone will take months due to boil off.
It's a dumb system invented due to the whims of a madman who should listen to his engineers instead of trying to cosplay as a rocket scientist.
Pretty much everyone is heading in the direction of orbital fuel depots and orbital refueling.We're getting pretty good at launching rockets and docking things in orbit. Prior to Starship, ULA was considering having Vulcan's upper stage have refueling capabilities, but their parent company, Boeing, saw it as a threat to their SLS money and tried to get the associated engineers fired. All HLS proposals involved some sort of refueling and reuse capability, and both accepted proposals involve orbital fuel depots.
The only reason NASA hadn't already been investigating the relevant technologies is that politicians threatened to outright cancel space science funding if NASA so much as mentioned depots (the word was actually censored in documents from NASA about HLS until the relevant senator finally retired).
Regarding 1, I honestly don't think this comment is valid, and I believe the current generation should not rest on this particular laurel too much.
A lot of things have changed in the past 56.25 years. New people, new technology, hell I'd argue that the America of the 60's is not the same America as today. For all intents and purposes this "space race" is a completely separate and new thing, where two completely separate and new countries are competing for the crown.
China winning this will only further cement the perception that America is being leapfrogged technologically and left behind.
> We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.
China wasn't trying to land people on the moon 56 years ago. You "beat" someone when both are competing to do it.
I learnt Python, Rust and Go in my twenties and Trump is like twice my age and can't code in any of these languages. I didn't "beat him" at it though, because he's not even trying.
It would have made them a laughing stock and the prospect of future cooperation would have been slammed shut. It would have made the USSR seem like sore losers. They were already public enemy number one thanks to the media PR machine. The Russians have been cooperating with the USA and ESA for many years on LEO missions, culminating in the successful ISS project.
Hopefully, your view is in the minority. If this mindset becomes prevalent in the US, nothing new will ever be invented, and no new regions of space will be explored.
Modern moon exploration isn’t about repeating Apollo but progressing toward resource extraction and establishing humanity’s long-term presence in space. These missions are designed to achieve goals that were previously impossible and lay the foundation for humanity’s future beyond Earth.
It's cool that we can learn about what's around us, but in practice we're light years away from being interplanetary, we just can't afford it and our energy sources are laughable.
Realistically speaking, how far are we really from "moon travel" that is both remotely affordable and worth the trip?
"Yes, but why?" If humans had never ventured beyond perceived limits, like crossing oceans or building planes, where would we be today?
"We’re light-years away from being interplanetary; it’s too costly and our energy is laughable." If people doubted the Wright brothers or mocked the idea of landing on the Moon, should we have stopped trying?
"How far are we from affordable Moon travel that’s worth it?" Humanity thrives when it takes risks and embraces exploration. Space is where the next wave of innovation and opportunity lies, and waiting for "perfect timing" ensures we stay stagnant while others move ahead. Why choose doubt over progress?
We have no lack of spending opportunities for "progress"; there are dozens of promising research fields, and the ressources we can realistically invest are limited.
Most historical progress was driven and motivated by incremental gains; exploration as an end in itself was not even enough to get Columbus funded, and big space projects are much more ressource intensive than that.
> Space is where the next wave of innovation and opportunity lies.
That's just, like, your opinion. I consider this extremely unlikely; to me, the most promising fields short and mid-term are AI and synthetic biology. Space exploration does not even come close-- even if we magically gained the capability to build large scale, self-sufficient cities on Mars and populated them with millions of people (which is extremely unlikely to happen in the next decades)-- what does that do for us? What progress do we gain? If you want to build habitats in unlivable, hostile environments, you can just as well do this in Antarctica, some desert or the deep sea, and I'd consider that likewise mostly an exercise in futility.
edit: To make my position a bit clearer: I think its fine to invest "reasonably" in space exploration; the current moon project I'd consider mostly a waste, but still somehwat justifiable. But spending twice or more of what NASA currently costs on Moon or Mars base projects would be a non justifiable waste in my eyes.
Reasonable cost is subjective, but NASA’s budget provides perspective. At 0.4 percent of the US federal budget, it amounts to just 27 billion dollars in 2023, while the defense budget is 842 billion dollars, or 13 percent of annual spending. Redirecting just 5 percent of defense funding, about 40 billion dollars, would more than double NASA's budget and allow for significant progress on Moon and Mars projects. This minor reallocation would not impact national security, making space exploration both affordable and worthwhile. When we consider the technological, scientific, and economic benefits, investing in space stands out as a smart, future-focused decision.
2. Are there any minerals on the Moon worth exploring?
The Moon holds valuable resources like helium-3 for clean fusion energy, water ice for fuel and life support, and rare earth metals for advanced technologies. Helium-3 could power nuclear fusion reactors and potentially yield trillions of dollars in energy benefits. Water ice can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen, creating rocket fuel that reduces reliance on costly Earth resupplies for space missions. Mining rare earth metals on the Moon could also lessen our dependency on Earth’s finite resources and help minimize ecological damage caused by terrestrial mining. The long-term financial value of these resources far outweighs the costs of extracting them.
3. Will Moon and Mars bases actually double NASA’s existing budget?
This claim is incorrect. The Artemis program, for example, is projected to cost 93 billion dollars over more than ten years, with yearly spending far below doubling NASA’s current 27 billion dollar budget. Additionally, technologies like reusable rockets, such as SpaceX’s Starship, have lowered launch costs by 90 percent, making Moon and Mars exploration increasingly achievable. With international collaborations and private investment, developing these projects is far less expensive than critics often assume, and will not significantly burden taxpayers.
4. What about other technologies, like AI or synthetic biology?
While AI and synthetic biology can offer exciting short-term benefits, they focus on Earth-based solutions and neglect humanity's long-term survival. Space exploration addresses critical long-term challenges, such as resource scarcity, reducing dependence on Earth, and avoiding extinction-level threats. Unlike efforts in Earth’s hostile environments like Antarctica or the deep sea, Moon and Mars exploration unlock completely new resources and pathways for innovation. Delaying investment in space exploration risks stagnating progress, and waiting for the "perfect time" could mean missing transformative opportunities that secure humanity's future.
1) Reasonable cost is what taxpayers/voters are willing to give. If you want a $100bn NASA budget, you are basically asking every American for $200/y. If you made that optional, I'd argue that a lot (most) Americans would not be willing to pay.
2) I see no probable route for fusion reactors to become a competitive source of terrestrial electricity for at least the next 50 years and possibly never; without that, Helium-3 is mostly worthless (even if your fusion bet works out, you rely on an approach winning that actually needs He3 instead of breeding its own Tritium). For everything else, I don't see extraterrestrial mining being able to compete with current prices, and any significant influx would have it crash/undermine its own market (e.g. we only extract hundreds of tons of palladium globally, per year; doubling the supply would have a major effect on price).
3) I'd argue that current Moon/Mars project are mostly ineffective showmanship/PR. If you actually wanted somewhat self-sustaining settlements/industry within the century, costs would easily eclipse our current defense budget, and without demonstrating the ability to build that on earth first the whole thing would not be credible anyway.
Our current approach to manufacturing (post industrialization) is totally incompatible with self-sustaining colonies, too. There is nothing we could realistically achieve on moon or mars even in a century that is anywhere close to self-sustaining, without basically reinventing how we build things.
So from a risk mitigation point of view the whole endeavour is useless, too (this might change within a century-- synthetic biology specifically would be very promising here).
1. You didn’t address my main argument: reallocating 5% of the U.S. defense budget to NASA could double its budget without raising taxes. Instead, you reframed it as additional taxation. My point is about redistributing current resources, not increasing taxpayer obligations.
2. Do you believe reallocating 5% of defense spending would harm national security? Or could it be a reasonable way to reprioritize national spending towards long-term scientific advancement?
Moon Resources
1. You claim extraterrestrial mining could "crash the market," but cheaper, abundant resources typically foster innovation and develop new industries (e.g., space-based solar power or advanced batteries), which could benefit consumers. Can you provide examples where resource surpluses caused economic collapse instead of creating opportunities?
2. You argue helium-3 is "mostly worthless" because fusion is 50+ years away. However, companies like Helion Energy predict commercial fusion by the 2030s, and technologies like aneutronic fusion could make helium-3 a critical resource. What specific evidence supports your lengthy timeline?
Effectiveness and Feasibility of Moon/Mars Projects
1. You claim Moon/Mars projects would exceed the defense budget but provide no data. NASA’s Artemis program, for example, is projected to cost $93B over a decade, far below $842B in annual U.S. defense spending. What data supports your claim of higher costs?
2. Reusable rockets, such as SpaceX’s Starship, have already reduced launch costs by up to 90%, directly countering your cost concerns. Why did you not address this?
3. Advancements in in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), 3D printing, and automated production are already paving the way for sustainable off-world colonies. Why do you dismiss these technologies entirely when critiquing the concept of self-sustainability?
4. While you note "showmanship" is a factor, history shows symbolic exploration fuels technological advancement. Apollo, for example, spurred breakthroughs in computing, communications, and materials science. Moon/Mars exploration could provide similar transformative benefits.
Comparison to AI and Synthetic Biology
1. You claim synthetic biology is more promising than space exploration, but can you provide evidence to support this? Space exploration directly addresses existential risks like resource scarcity and planetary threats.
2. Do you agree that space research fuels advancements in robotics, AI, and materials science, which vastly benefit Earth and humanity’s long-term survival? Why can’t space exploration and other emerging technologies work together to create a stronger foundation for humanity’s future?
3. Delaying space exploration may result in lost opportunities for innovation that could directly impact Earthly and extraterrestrial problems.
Conclusion
You raise important points, but much of your argument lacks supporting evidence and is based on speculation. I encourage further consideration of current research and advancements like reusable rockets, ISRU, and fusion energy, which prove the feasibility and value of space exploration. I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to continuing the discussion.
National budget items have to stand on their own merit. I agree that the US overspends on defense, but "waste" in one place is no justification for "waste" elsewhere. You could apply the exact same argument to bloat any number of budget items in the 10 billion range, e.g. US foreign aid, and for a lot of those the humanitarian utility (and possibly even purely financial ROI) is much easier to argue than for a space program, too.
# Feasibility
The problem with any kind of space industry or self sustaining settlement is that you have to get all things there, first. How we build things currently is simply not amenable for remote bootstrapping, at all, even disregarding the fact that many critical industrial inputs easily available on earth are just... not... in space. Contrast this with biological life, which is much better at this aspects by relying on small, self-replicating building blocks for everything.
Self-sufficient colonies are currently completely out of reach. The same applies to space mining, indirectly. For those to be a credible next step, we would need to have some baseline industry already established, that would e.g. be capable of growing tens of tons of food (or refine tens of tons of aluminum per year) as a fundamental input. That is an unskippable step on the path to self-sufficiency, and an incredibly early one, too. But not only do we not have that right now, there are not even fleshed out concepts (much less projects) in the pipeline for this currently.
I confidently claim competitive mining (or independent settlements) are impossible in the next decades even with the full defense budget because there are too many intermediate steps missing that all the money in the world can not conjure up (=> see paragraph above for examples).
Cheaper launch costs or 3D printers change absolutely nothing; the problem with doing anything in space is that it costs you more than its own weight in fuel (in practice: many multiples) to get anything there, and I see no realistic paths to get "overhead costs" (separate from fuel) lower than for, say, air travel.
If you had to build a self-sufficient industry on earth that would already be incredibly challenging for any non-trivial industrial output (just think: how large is the total footprint of every industry involved in building you keyboard alone, or phone? sure there is some potential for consolidation but MUCH less than you would like without changing everything fundamentally).
If you had to pay for every single ton of material/personnel to be flown like 5 times around the full equator just to get there, it would be impossible to achieve self-sufficient industry economically, even on earth, in atmosphere, with human workforce and finetuned processes and a lot of other helpful inputs we won't have in space, and this calculus is unlikely to change anytime soon.
# Effectiveness
Even at best, say you have massive space mining industry and self-sufficient cities on Mars by the end of the century (again: this is a complete pipedream): What does that actually change? What does it get us? Basically nothing. We have a ton of problems, but doubling the available iron, aluminium, or electric energy is not gonna solve any of those. If ressource allocation is fundamentally broken, multiplying the input side simply won't help at all.
As far as mitigating extinction threats goes: Thats nice to have, but almost worthless, and you won't have any real benefit until the space colonies are fully self-sufficient. With worthless I mean: given some very conservative assumption (an asteroid impact killing every single human every 50M years, $20M per statistical human life), the "extinction insurance" would be $100M per year for the US-- not enough to pay for anything in space, really.
# Sidenote
Did not want to derail this into a fusion energy discussion, but Helion marketing is most obviously going to give the earliest timeline imaginable because the want investment dollars.
Consider critically: How far away are they from a design that can be built industrially/economically? Has to be several generations/iterations of prototype plants (this is very obvious from what they have right now). If you compare their past timelines with the present, you will find that they were ridiculously overoptimistic and they are far from finished, this is gonna get progressively worse. Technical feasibility is one thing, but economics are hard if you have to compete with panels of refined sand that harvests kilowatts of direct electrical power in a few square metres and costs less than a window of the same size...
Your latest response still does not provide any concrete data or evidence to support your claims about space exploration being a waste, self-sufficient colonies being impossible, or AI and synthetic biology being more promising alternatives.
I have already asked for specific data to back up your assumptions, but none has been provided.
Without evidence, this discussion remains purely speculative. I recommend looking into the significant advancements in reusable rockets, in-situ resource utilization, and fusion research before dismissing their potential. Unsupported claims about feasibility or value are simply unsubstantiated opinion.
Crossing oceans and building planes wasn't done for the sake of it, those goals were clearly useful.
The biggest problem of the moon mission isn't SLS, it's that the moon is a big dry ball of rock with nothing of any value or use there. There's literally no reason to go.
Crossing oceans and building planes were not always seen as clearly useful by everyone. Skeptics at the time dismissed them as dangerous, impractical, or unnecessary, yet those who pursued these goals unlocked advancements that transformed human history. The same applies to the Moon. It is far more than just a big, dry ball of rock; it contains highly valuable resources with practical potential.
For instance, the Moon has helium-3, a rare isotope that could one day power clean nuclear fusion energy, a trillion-dollar industry waiting to happen. Lunar water ice can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel and life support, making sustainable space exploration feasible and reducing the need for costly Earth-based resources. The Moon also has rare earth metals that are vital for technology and renewable energy systems, helping us address resource scarcity and reduce the environmental damage caused by terrestrial mining.
We do not explore the Moon for its own sake. The point of space exploration is to create a foundation for future industries and innovation while solving long-term challenges, such as resource depletion and planetary risks. Given the enormous technological, economic, and environmental benefits these resources could provide, the Moon is far more than just a barren rock; it holds the key to securing humanity's future.
1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.
2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now. They could have built a “dumb” second stage at any time, but aren’t that short-sighted.
3. Blue Origin? I’ve had high hopes for the guys for two decades now. Don’t hold your breath.
4. Anyone else? Really, really don’t hold your breath.
This whole “race to the moon, part II” is almost criminally stupid. Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.