6 ms·

It also ignores the fact that empires can decline. (Although I think the moon landing is ridiculous there is no scientific reason for it).

by Yeul 1y ago

hopelite 1y ago
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.
- nebula8804 1y ago
  >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.
  - hopelite 1y ago
    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. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_CtRCLaSbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_CtRCLaSbY
    - nebula8804 1y ago
      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.
cratermoon 1y ago
What do you mean "there is no scientific reason for it"?
- solumunus 1y ago
  There is little useful knowledge to be gained from being on the moon.
  - inglor_cz 1y ago
    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.
    - vel0city 1y ago
      Why would that need bodies? Are there people manning JWST?
      - inglor_cz 1y ago
        Maintenance would be orders of magnitude easier. 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.
        vel0city 1y ago
        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.
harrall 1y ago
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.
- karmakurtisaani 1y ago
  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?
  - krapp 1y ago
    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.
    - kenjackson 1y ago
      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.
      - Waterluvian 1y ago
        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?”
anjel 1y ago
https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/mining-the-moon-can-you-make-money-harvesting-helium-3 https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/mining-the-moon-can-you...

It also ignores the fact that empires can decline. (Although I think the moon landing is ridiculous there is no scientific reason for it).

by Yeul 1y ago

It also ignores the fact that empires can decline. (Although I think the moon landing is ridiculous there is no scientific reason for it).

hopelite 1y ago

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.

nebula8804 1y ago
>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.
- hopelite 1y ago
  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. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_CtRCLaSbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_CtRCLaSbY
  - nebula8804 1y ago
    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.

cratermoon 1y ago

What do you mean "there is no scientific reason for it"?

solumunus 1y ago
There is little useful knowledge to be gained from being on the moon.
- inglor_cz 1y ago
  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.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    Why would that need bodies? Are there people manning JWST?
    - inglor_cz 1y ago
      Maintenance would be orders of magnitude easier. 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.
      - vel0city 1y ago
        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.

harrall 1y ago

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.

karmakurtisaani 1y ago
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?
- krapp 1y ago
  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.
  - kenjackson 1y ago
    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.
    - Waterluvian 1y ago
      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?”

anjel 1y ago

https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/mining-the-moon-can-you-make-money-harvesting-helium-3 https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/mining-the-moon-can-you...