26 ms·
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
by allenrb 1y ago
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.
- hinkley 1y agoSLS 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.
- bamboozled 1y agoI thought we wanted to save money ?
- tibbydudeza 1y agoThe Chinese is planning a space habitat - the US is aiming for the same - it is rather different from the Apollo objectives. Mars is out of reach and not feasible.
- thinkingtoilet 1y agoMars 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.
- imoverclocked 1y agoThis is a vastly oversimplified take; Mars will be a monumental effort, far beyond what it takes to get to/from the moon.
- postingawayonhn 1y agoYou'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.)
- wkat4242 1y agoYou'll need to sustain the astronauts for much longer and they'll be subject to a lot more radiation. That's not exactly easy.
- ramblenode 1y agoIt's a significant feat to even get a robot safely to Mars. We've never gotten one back to earth. I think you are underestimating the complexity.
- tibbydudeza 1y agoTo what end ?. 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 ?. "The Martian" was work of fiction. A lunar colony is cheaper and way more feasible.
- thinkingtoilet 1y agoI don't understand your response. I clearly said it's not worth it right now.
- Forgeties79 1y agoTheir 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.
- jmyeet 1y agoI 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.
- dfee 1y ago> I'm not at all convinced the US can build anything anymore. But it has! Look at all of our private industry! That's the point! > We don't have titans of industry anymore. What?!
- testing22321 1y agoSpaceX and to a much lesser extent Tesla are good examples. Excluding those for a minute, what else does the US have world-leading manufacturing of? Semiconductors? Nope. High speed rail? Nope. Auto industry? Nope. Major infrastructure projects like bridges, tunnels, airports, etc? Nope. Electronics (phones/laptops/etc)? Nope. ????? The US is not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse.
- GolfPopper 1y agoIt is a rent extraction/wealth transfer powerhouse. At least for now.
- shdh 1y agoCan you elaborate how SpaceX is an extraction/wealth transfer powerhouse?
- testing22321 1y ago> 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.
- bluGill 1y agoWhat 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.
- heavyset_go 1y agoThe electronics we're typing these comments on were only rapidly miniaturized originally to be small and light enough to shoot into space. There are second, third, etc order effects to things like a space race.
- alistairSH 1y agoSure. 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.
- tcmart14 1y agoI 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.
- Waterluvian 1y agoRe: 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!”
- itsnowandnever 1y ago100% - given the resources we have, America is far underperforming at the moment
- knowitnone3 1y ago[flagged]
- gpt5 1y agoI 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.
- timschmidt 1y ago99% of those were SpaceX
- gpt5 1y agoExactly. The US private space industry is thriving and profitable. That's exactly what makes it so efficient and dominant.
- Waterluvian 1y agoCapitalism 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.
- Stevvo 1y ago2) 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.
- ternus 1y agoArtemis 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). There's a lot left to do before it's ready to launch: https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/10/17/orion-spacecraft-arrives-at-vab-ahead-of-stacking-for-artemis-2/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/10/17/orion-spacecraft-arriv... Of course, compared to the decades-long SLS timeline, that's "ready to go".
- paganel 1y ago> 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.
- fwip 1y agoSailing vessels serve an actual purpose, though. The Dutch didn't build better boats for bragging rights.
- dekhn 1y agoNational pride has long been tightly coupled to seafaring capabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) 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"
- TomWhitwell 1y agoUnderrated comment
- fwip 1y agoSorry, you're right - they didn't build them solely for bragging rights.
- ramblenode 1y agoThe 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.
- femto 1y ago> when we can accomplish something there 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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
- antonvs 1y ago> not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo. Hasn’t that attempt at proof essentially already been lost?
- cma 1y ago> The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now. Well except with regard to astronaut travel: very different and controversial launch abort approach and no escape tower like apollo
- allenrb 1y agoThat’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.
- segmondy 1y ago#1 doesn't matter if we don't know how to do so anymore.
- philistine 1y agoIt's possible we've simply reached the next step in the relationship between Trump/Musk: inevitable betrayal by Trump after the cooling off period.
- rayiner 1y ago> Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious Boeing and Lockheed will deliver on time and on budget.
- inemesitaffia 1y agoHow much is this budget?
- HardCodedBias 1y agoIIUC 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.
- greenavocado 1y ago[flagged]
- LPisGood 1y agoWhy didn’t the USSR point this fakery out?
- greenavocado 1y agoIt 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.
- dmbche 1y agoWe didn't go to the moon but the ISS is real?
- greenavocado 1y agoLow earth orbit is way way easier and safer than any moon mission.
- KylerAce 1y agoTrue, Apollo 11 was famously filmed on mars
- dash2 1y agoAbsolutely super to meet my first bona fide moon conspiracy theorist, but on Hacker News of all places? Do you have any others? I guess not flat earth - I mean, those guys are crazy, right?
- greenavocado 1y ago
- gorgoiler 1y agoIf 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: https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/see-apollo-landing-sites-moon https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/see-apollo-... 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?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 1y agoThis 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.
- dash2 1y agoGoing 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.)
- anigbrowl 1y agoIf 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.
- scrubs 1y agoThe 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
- vincenthwt 1y agoHopefully, 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.
- halapro 1y ago> humanity’s future beyond Earth. Yes but why? 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?
- vincenthwt 1y ago"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?
- myrmidon 1y agoWe 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.
- effdee 1y agoRegarding 1, that's like saying the Mongols beat the US at owning China (and most of Asia for that matter) by 700 years. And counting.
- iamkonstantin 1y ago> We’ve already beaten China I can't wait for the time when "we" is we-humans/humanity/the planet Earth and not some inter-country trade bs.
- beAbU 1y agoRegarding 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.
- inglor_cz 1y ago"We’ve beaten". 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.
- dotancohen 1y ago> 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.
- artursapek 1y agoI 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.
- djexjms 1y agoSure 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
- kragen 1y agoChina 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.
- mortarion 1y agoRefueling 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.
- schiffern 1y ago>neither Super Heavy or any future Starship tanker will be rapidly reusable that much is clear by now Funny, because I would say for the first time there's a clear path to rapid reuse. What insurmountable problem(s) do you expect?
- dotnet00 1y agoPretty 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).
- exasperaited 1y agoBut also 5. The owner of SpaceX threatens to cancel projects when he gets into social media spats with the president he thought he'd bought, or his NASA chief I don't understand why anyone tolerates a man like Musk having material control over state projects.
- dotnet00 1y agoKind 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).
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deadbabe 1y agoWe can build a data center there. Off world file storage.
- intrikate 1y agoA truly interplanetary file system, lmao
- WhyNotHugo 1y ago> 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.
- ninetyninenine 1y agoGoing 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.
- SergeAx 1y agoAmericans have only the Orange Clown to blame. He wants "back to the Moon in 3 years", e.g., before the end of his term.
- bayouborne 1y agoThe 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.
- omgwtfbyobbq 1y agoI 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.
- tempera 1y ago[dead]