5 ms·

> but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? I think it's pretty much politically impossible. The first big space push was mostly a political pissing mat

by ska 6y ago

> but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? I think it's pretty much politically impossible. The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match (i.e. not really driven by doing it for its own sake). It's pretty easy to come up with other major challenges that most people will consider more important that also aren't getting funding ... so private industry looks more likely to get some traction. States might get interested if/when those efforts start to get more interesting or threatening. Mars in your lifetime is implausible, but not impossible I suppose.

NortySpock 6y ago
China's public plans include a semi-permanent base on the Moon. That oughta ruffle some feathers in Congress. Chinese paper on plant-based life support systems for extended crew stays. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.12.426282v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.12.426282v1
- Something1234 6y ago
  Did the Chinese build their own biosphere 2 (Arizona)?
  - andi999 6y ago
    Since you mentioned biosphere 2, I was really surprised to learn the Steve Bannon was director for 2 years of the project.
    - Something1234 6y ago
      I wonder what impact he had. Looking at his wikipedia page he had a very long career.
- lenkite 6y ago
  Really hope China ditches the Outer Space Treaty and claims sovereign territory on the moon. Only then will the space race ignite again. It seems only competition makes the human spirit move.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    I suspect any player powerful enough to have the means to claim territory on the moon, will ditch the outer space treaty eventually. Unless it is a purely scientific mission, but that is un likely at the moment.
newsclues 6y ago
Like the last space race you just need the military to fund the research under the guise of civilian space exploration.
peteretep 6y ago
> The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match And then next one will be too, only with China
bnralt 6y ago
> The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match (i.e. not really driven by doing it for its own sake). My understanding is that the Defense Department was interested in human manned spy satellites liked the planned Manned Orbital Laboratory early on, but that automation progressed to the point where it was preferable. I think that's one thing people miss when they talk about lack of progress in space. We use space, a lot. The thing is, in terms of things we actually want to do, automated vessels work a lot better than manned ones. People who are focused on manned space missions aren't focused on space, they're advocates for one particular tech stack that's extremely inefficient at doing the things we currently want to do in space.
- godelski 6y ago
  There's still a lot of defense reasons to go to the moon. You can put much larger telescopes there, though you're back to windows of time you can look at a location but you can have good will and dedicate time to scientists. Though they might not want to reveal the resolution even though this can be roughly back tracked through size. There's also the weapons incentive even though that's illegal. But if you're able to cheaply and consistently put people on the moon then you clearly have the resources to cheaply put large rods of tungsten in orbit (good luck responding to), being able to take out enemy satellites (nav, surveillance, missile launch detection, etc), replace/upgrade satellites quickly, etc. The Apollo missions were always about how much payload you could put in orbit. It's also beneficial if you want to start space mining, really essential for that actually.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    >being able to take out enemy satellites (nav, surveillance, missile launch detection, etc) You can easily do it without having objects in orbit. You can simply launch a ballistic cloud of debris at suborbital speeds and kinetic energy of the targeted satellite will do the rest. Time to hit could be shorter for an orbital system, but not significantly so. This is why I consider the recent news about the Russian orbital satellite killer to be a cheap fearmongering.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
blackrock 6y ago
But Elon says they’ll land on Mars in 2026. Say it ain’t so.
OJFord 6y ago
> Mars in your lifetime is implausible, Do you say that to mean 'anyone living's lifetime', or on the assumption that GP was alive for the 'moon landing 51.5 years ago' mentioned?

by ska 6y ago

NortySpock 6y ago

China's public plans include a semi-permanent base on the Moon. That oughta ruffle some feathers in Congress. Chinese paper on plant-based life support systems for extended crew stays. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.12.426282v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.12.426282v1

Something1234 6y ago
Did the Chinese build their own biosphere 2 (Arizona)?
- andi999 6y ago
  Since you mentioned biosphere 2, I was really surprised to learn the Steve Bannon was director for 2 years of the project.
  - Something1234 6y ago
    I wonder what impact he had. Looking at his wikipedia page he had a very long career.
lenkite 6y ago
Really hope China ditches the Outer Space Treaty and claims sovereign territory on the moon. Only then will the space race ignite again. It seems only competition makes the human spirit move.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  I suspect any player powerful enough to have the means to claim territory on the moon, will ditch the outer space treaty eventually. Unless it is a purely scientific mission, but that is un likely at the moment.

newsclues 6y ago

Like the last space race you just need the military to fund the research under the guise of civilian space exploration.

peteretep 6y ago

> The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match And then next one will be too, only with China

bnralt 6y ago

> The first big space push was mostly a political pissing match (i.e. not really driven by doing it for its own sake). My understanding is that the Defense Department was interested in human manned spy satellites liked the planned Manned Orbital Laboratory early on, but that automation progressed to the point where it was preferable. I think that's one thing people miss when they talk about lack of progress in space. We use space, a lot. The thing is, in terms of things we actually want to do, automated vessels work a lot better than manned ones. People who are focused on manned space missions aren't focused on space, they're advocates for one particular tech stack that's extremely inefficient at doing the things we currently want to do in space.

godelski 6y ago
There's still a lot of defense reasons to go to the moon. You can put much larger telescopes there, though you're back to windows of time you can look at a location but you can have good will and dedicate time to scientists. Though they might not want to reveal the resolution even though this can be roughly back tracked through size. There's also the weapons incentive even though that's illegal. But if you're able to cheaply and consistently put people on the moon then you clearly have the resources to cheaply put large rods of tungsten in orbit (good luck responding to), being able to take out enemy satellites (nav, surveillance, missile launch detection, etc), replace/upgrade satellites quickly, etc. The Apollo missions were always about how much payload you could put in orbit. It's also beneficial if you want to start space mining, really essential for that actually.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >being able to take out enemy satellites (nav, surveillance, missile launch detection, etc) You can easily do it without having objects in orbit. You can simply launch a ballistic cloud of debris at suborbital speeds and kinetic energy of the targeted satellite will do the rest. Time to hit could be shorter for an orbital system, but not significantly so. This is why I consider the recent news about the Russian orbital satellite killer to be a cheap fearmongering.
- Dylan16807 6y ago

blackrock 6y ago

But Elon says they’ll land on Mars in 2026. Say it ain’t so.

OJFord 6y ago

> Mars in your lifetime is implausible, Do you say that to mean 'anyone living's lifetime', or on the assumption that GP was alive for the 'moon landing 51.5 years ago' mentioned?