8 ms·

A rough guide for going back to the Moon

61 points by gmays 27d ago

Planktonne 26d ago
It's hard not to see this as a consolation prize. In 1969, we went to the moon. In 2026, with all the benefits of a tech industry that has become ever more powerful, with endless money poured into innovation, our 'rough guide back to the moon' is an AI model that maps it. It's powerful and impressive, of course, and doubtless very useful to researchers, and space exploration is not a priority--all of that is true, sure. But to have the fruits of 50+ years of technological progress result not in going back to the moon, or onto other challenges, but just a refinement in looking at the moon. Is this the best giant leap we can muster now? So much innovation and yet we lack a capability we used to have. I know there are all sorts of ways to explain this away, but it still makes me sad.
- shusjsjns 26d ago
  [dead]
- 1970-01-01 26d ago
  The goal is entirely different. Apollo - Cold war. USA must do it before Russia and win the space race. Money is not a restriction. USA did it before Russia and won the space race. Artemis - Prove a multi-national program can function under financial, economic, political, and even technical restrictions. We can't simply land and observe, it needs to be a team effort under a tight budget. https://www.planetary.org/charts/apollo-vs-artemis-spending https://www.planetary.org/charts/apollo-vs-artemis-spending
  - abcd_f 26d ago
    > won the space race Some of it. Not first to the space, not first to the Moon, not first in human spaceflight, not first in spacewalk, etc.
    - 1970-01-01 26d ago
      That remains a ridiculous argument. The thing about a race is you can always think of excuses for not winning. Plans for Mars were being met by all accounts, however Nixon still cancelled them because the Apollo victory was so decisive.
      - asdfasvea 26d ago
        Thats a ridiculous comment. The thing about the space race is we were getting are ass kicked, then said 'Oh the finish line is actually this. Oh look we kicked your ass " It was like we lost the first 9 events of a decathalon and then won the 1500 and declared ourselves the winner.
        1970-01-01 26d ago
        You're supporting the USA decisive victory with this take. We are not disagreeing on the winner.
        bee_rider 26d ago
        Actually, in Russia do they have a pitch for where they’d rather draw the finish line? I admit it is probably influenced by having a US upbringing, but “landing on the Moon” does seem like a natural finish line for a space race. The move of picking an advantageous finish line is easily countered by… picking an obvious successor finish line. If they’d stuck a base on the moon that’d have been a pretty compelling “actually, here’s the next finish line.” Maybe they have some space-station based claim.
        roryirvine 26d ago
        But the finish line did keep changing: first satellite in orbit, first living mammals in orbit, first human in orbit, multiple humans in orbit, spacewalk, moon landing, human moon landing, planetary landing, space station, reusable space plane, modular space station. I think both sides broadly agreed on all of those as their "next big goal" (with slight question mark over the space plane, as you could reasonably say the Soviet programme was purely reactive). The race ended after the fall of the Soviet Union (with the Challenger disaster being an additional factor), not because it had been definitively won.
  - orbital-decay 26d ago
    >and won the space race ... or maybe just called some convenient events "space race" and refused to notice the others. Like a literal space colony circling above, for example. If you control the framing you control the reality.
  - next_xibalba 26d ago
    That’s like saying the goal of the process is the process. It is a recursive definition and a pointless, expensive endeavor.
- bluGill 26d ago
  Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in something else. (including less working hours...) Most of the things we developed for the moon would have been done anyway, and we don't know what things would have been developed sooner if we were not focusing on the moon. Be realistic. You can support going to the moon. However be honest: there isn't much value from it and there are plenty of reasons to say we shouldn't.
  - ramesh31 26d ago
    >"There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science)." The arguments are entirely romantic. But then, what exactly is life without romance? That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete.
    - bluGill 26d ago
      At that point though, there are lots of other romances to peruse. Somebody could go to the moon, but it won't be me. I could however go to my local art museum - at a much smaller costs than my share of sending someone else to the moon, but I'd get more value from my trip to the art museum than someone else on the moon. Or in my case I just went to my local high school marching band competition, and got to hear some great music. YMMV on what you find more romantic.
      - edgyquant 26d ago
        People want to go to the moon, you could make your same argument for lots of things humans have done but at the end of the day science is not the reason 99% of people care about or want to colonize space. People have a desire to colonize space
- heaney-555 26d ago
  You should look into the Artemis program! Not only are we going back, but we're building a base, which will effectively be the spiritual successor to the ISS.
  - edgyquant 26d ago
    I’ll have to see it to believe it. Artemis was slow but seemed to be making progress and now things have been shaken up again and plans totally changed. To me that seems like it’s not going to happen
  - xfact192 25d ago
    Another good program to watch is Space: 1999. Just sayin'... :)
- bryanlarsen 26d ago
  > endless money poured into innovation The US put 5% of the federal budget into the original moon mission. NASA and SpaceX and the US Space Force combined don't spend anywhere close to that on R&D.
  - emj 26d ago
    Pretty sure we are talking about the endless AI money glitch.
  - Planktonne 26d ago
    That's part of my complaint. More and more money is poured into 'innovation' across our society, but what do we have to show for it?
    - deleted 26d ago
      [deleted]
    - wat10000 26d ago
      A huge variety of tools and technology that billions of people use daily. What did we ultimately have to show for the money poured into Apollo? I'm a big fan of space exploration but putting twelve people up there for a few days at a time is pretty small potatoes compared to, say, the creation of smart phones or vast improvements in solar power and batteries or a thousand other things that have been done since 1972. I can push a (virtual) button on a rectangle I carry in my pocket and be instantly on a video call with my mother who lives a thousand miles away. And I don't even have to pay by the minute. That's positively magical, and in terms of actual real-world impact on average people it's far more significant than moon landings.
      - m4rtink 25d ago
        The Appolo Guidance Computer was one of the first applications of silicone integrated circuits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Logic_hardware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Logic... "Following the use of integrated circuit (IC) chips in the Interplanetary Monitoring Platform (IMP) in 1963, IC technology was later adopted for the AGC.[17] The Apollo flight computer was one of the first computers to use silicon IC chips.[4][8]" A lot of money went to IC technology thanks to that, directly leading to the phones you mention. It is quite likely that without just these specific Apollo investments into ICs, we would be quite a few years behind on computer technology.
- sajithdilshan 26d ago
  I think the problem is not the technological advancement, it’s the limits of physics which are the same as in today as it was back in 1960s. We have immense computing power now compared to 50 years ago. But that doesn’t help to escape the gravity well of earth. We’re still using the same chemical rockets to go to space, haven’t invented any new type of rocket drives
  - ashika 26d ago
    cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Metha... cough
    - sajithdilshan 26d ago
      It’s still a chemical reaction
      - pfdietz 25d ago
        Now estimate how much that propellant will cost per kg of payload to orbit. The problem with expensive launch in the past wasn't due to propellant cost.
    - m4rtink 25d ago
      Bah, this is the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls... (Unfortunately if you do launch from Earth, neighbors will likely by a bit annoyed).
  - pfdietz 26d ago
    That's a very bad take. Rocket costs are not driven by physics, they're driven by more mundane issues, like single-use hardware. The cost floor dictated by cost of propellant is remarkably low.
    - m4rtink 25d ago
- anovikov 26d ago
  There is a dumb ass simple explanation: in about the same time it took to build rockets that took people to the Moon, we figured out that there was nothing to do there for humans. Or anywhere in the Solar System for that matter. I mean until 1960 people expected to find whole civilisation or at least intelligent life on Venus and until 1964, at least some life on Mars. By then, it was too late to stop Apollo, but already no point to go anywhere else or expand Moon presence.
- simonedepertis 26d ago
  [flagged]
- OroPla 26d ago
  Saddest part is that all the tech was apparently so utterly useless for anything that NASA lost it.
- GMoromisato 26d ago
  But we are going back to the moon. By 2030, I would bet, humans will land on the moon again. Probably Americans first, but if not, definitely Chinese. And this time, both countries are planning ambitious missions--not just flags-and-footprints, but bases and resource extraction (ice from the lunar south pole). SpaceX Starship, the vehicle that will return to the moon, can carry 100 tons to the lunar surface--compared to less than 10 tons for Apollo. Moreover, whereas a single Saturn V launch cost almost a billion dollars to launch, Starship should cost a third the price. Effectively, we'll be able to deliver cargo to the moon for 1/30th the price of Apollo. That's real progress. I've been following the space program since the 1970s and I have never been more excited about it.
- jimbokun 25d ago
  The show For All Mankind is a truly bittersweet look at how space exploration could have turned out differently. I’m sure the technical challenges are much greater than how they are portrayed in the show. But certainly there has been a lack of will and optimism and imagination as well.
- m4rtink 25d ago
  Well, we had people swing by the moon for the first in decades this April, with a robotic mission planned for November & about 7 more robotic missions planned for next year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#Future_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#F... I would argue that is something & that things are finally moving in the right direction for the Moon at a respectable pace. :)
scrumper 26d ago
I read this a bit fast and with half a brain (because I'm in a boring meeting), but I'm not sure what an "AI model" is over just a common or garden model. I get the achievement here: it's quite difficult to combine data from these various sensors into one. Is the "AI" bit referring to how that integration was done?
metalman 26d ago
did not know we have -246°c to play with, which means the potential for the whole set of usefull volitiles is there, not just water/O²/H², and given that there is also the potential for +121°c very close to cold deposits, gives most of the basics for refining a whole host of molecules and compounds. Non of that changing the fact that bieng on the moon for any extended time is going to SUCK , the dust is horrible in every possible way, low gravity will weaken , radiation is heavy, and all of the many other risks will add up to a poor career choice, so the compensation will have to be 1 tour, and retire in guaranteed style. Basicly flying a great big ass laser in a lunar polar orbit and zapping the shaded dark sections of craters while some other satelites watch the resulting gass plumes, and of course carve your initials while no one is looking. The band where there is enough solar exposure for power and cold traps is going to be narrow and dramaticly reduce the number of candidates, which has very likely been figured out years ago, especialy for earth facing spots. Still going to need the heavy lift of multiple starship landings and some kind of 'moon link' satelite network.
hmokiguess 26d ago
I'm not gonna lie, I'm closer to a conspiracy theorist and non-believer than I am to trust history on the moon landing stuff. Doesn't help that I wasn't alive when it happened, and that we haven't since gone again. It feels so nonsensical to me, I would love for someone to help me educate myself on it from a more grounded point of view that can satisfy my paranoia. Did we really go there? How come we (as in humanity, any other nation whatsoever) haven't gone again since?
- scrumper 26d ago
  Yes we really went there, quite a few times in the 1970s. We have been again, also several times, with rovers and landers. As for why not humans since then? There's bugger all there to justify the extreme cost (at this time). It's an unpleasant ball made from tiny abrasive dust particles that is more easily explored with robots. The prestige thing is done; until we set up some base there in support of some broader mission (scientific or exploratory) there isn't a reason to send people. I've put a couple of resources here for you. The first one described the program from a neutral perspective (in line with what you ask - grounded POV to satisfy paranoia): https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/moon-landing/ https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/moon-landing/ This one is for people a little further down the conspiracy pipeline, and it debunks the various things that moon landing conspiracists like to talk about: https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-w... Both are worth a read! Finally this is an excellent jumping-off point to understand the Apollo program in more detail, once you're satisfied that it did happen (if you don't think so, you'll reject the source out of hand.) https://www.nasa.gov/the-apollo-program/ https://www.nasa.gov/the-apollo-program/ The program itself was really, really, really cool and is worth reading about. A truly enormous achievement involving millions of people and an entire country's scientific and engineering capacity.
  - hmokiguess 26d ago
    Thank you so much for this, I am super excited for this read, you made my day!
nullorempty 26d ago
We may be approaching technologically to expanding into the universe but we are certainly not there spiritually. Not to say that we shouldn't pursue this, there are probably war races in space already, but it seems to me that a better path would be growing spiritually before we expand. I wouldn't like to be in a place where we have the technical capability to reach Mars before we learn to live in peace on earth and take good care of our home.
- pfdietz 26d ago
  > spiritually Going back into space will require doing so with a hard nosed commercial mindset. Things on that scale are done because they are profitable, not because of putatively higher minded considerations. I think our collective spirit is in the best place it's ever been for actually going into space, it's just not the spirit you were probably imagining.
- deleted 26d ago
  [deleted]
flobosg 26d ago
Tangentially related, these articles by Maciej Cegłowski: * The Lunacy of Artemis – https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm * Artemis II Is Not Safe to Fly – https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.htm https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....
- bryanlarsen 26d ago
  Lunacies 5, 6 & 7 are the only things that make the Artemis program useful. Landing 1t on the moon is an expensive, useless, performative flags and footprints mission. Landing 100t keeps the other moon dreams alive.
westurner 23d ago
Will roughly crash landing scrap on the moon cause nearby cave systems to collapse, and where are the caves to shelter from meteorite bursts in? "Removing these 50 objects from orbit would cut danger from space junk in half" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45469259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45469259 : > When will it be safe and cost-efficient to - instead of deorbiting toward Earth's atmosphere - Capture and Haul and Rendezvous and gently Land orbital scrap on non-earth locations like the Moon or Mars or a thrust-retrofitted asteroid for later processing? Is there any amount of time in a higher altitude orbit - or an Earth-Moon lunar cycler orbit - that would sanitize the outer surface of a spacecraft like ISS? Or will all such attempts cause adaptation? Would ISS be more useful as an oxygen tank in earth-moon orbit than in Earth's atmosphere and ocean? But for the moon, From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45237426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45237426 : > What about solar sintering + induction heating of lunar regolith? > Basalt, Glass, > Molten oxide electrolysis of regolith would yield Oxygen, Silicon, Iron, Aluminum, and Titanium for 3d printing and for solar panels and semiconductors. > Is there a sensor for inside of a rover or a vehicle wheel to sample the regolith falling within the wheel before it pours out to self clear? Does this model include a regolith map or a soil map? Where is there Carbon on the moon? --- "Lunar soil machine developed to build bricks using sunlight" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45086238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45086238 --- From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42543663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42543663 : > I wonder if the ISS could instead be scrapped to the moon. [...] > Because of my love for old kitchens on the Moon. --- "Researchers simulated 30 million routes to the Moon and found a hidden detour through L1 that saves fuel and keeps spacecraft talking to Earth the whole way" https://spacedaily.com/sd-researchers-simulated-30-million-routes-to-the-moon-and-found-a-hidden-detour-through-l1-that-saves-fuel-and-keeps-spacecraft-talking-to-earth-the-whole-way/ https://spacedaily.com/sd-researchers-simulated-30-million-r... : > Most of a deep-space journey is coasting along gravitational contours that physicists collectively call the Interplanetary Transport Network — a web of low-energy pathways that connect orbits around planets, moons and Lagrange points - "Earth–Moon transfer via the L1 Lagrangian point using the theory of functional connections" (2026) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42064-025-0297-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42064-025-0297-x : > The results show a reduced fuel consumption of at least 58.80 m/s as compared to the literature. This difference can be useful for mission designers, while the efficiency of the technique can potentially extend the results to other types of transfers in space. Where are the L1 and L2 Lagrangian points when you consider the mass of the moon in addition to the earth and the sun? Lyapunov exponents in SQG/DDF too. This month I've been learning about the differences between SQG and DDF Dilatant Dark Fluid (Fedi) in regards to n-body gravity research.

61 points by gmays 27d ago

It's hard not to see this as a consolation prize. In 1969, we went to the moon. In 2026, with all the benefits of a tech industry that has become ever more powerful, with endless money poured into innovation, our 'rough guide back to the moon' is an AI model that maps it. It's powerful and impressive, of course, and doubtless very useful to researchers, and space exploration is not a priority--all of that is true, sure. But to have the fruits of 50+ years of technological progress result not in going back to the moon, or onto other challenges, but just a refinement in looking at the moon. Is this the best giant leap we can muster now? So much innovation and yet we lack a capability we used to have. I know there are all sorts of ways to explain this away, but it still makes me sad.

shusjsjns 26d ago
[dead]
1970-01-01 26d ago
The goal is entirely different. Apollo - Cold war. USA must do it before Russia and win the space race. Money is not a restriction. USA did it before Russia and won the space race. Artemis - Prove a multi-national program can function under financial, economic, political, and even technical restrictions. We can't simply land and observe, it needs to be a team effort under a tight budget. https://www.planetary.org/charts/apollo-vs-artemis-spending https://www.planetary.org/charts/apollo-vs-artemis-spending
- abcd_f 26d ago
  > won the space race Some of it. Not first to the space, not first to the Moon, not first in human spaceflight, not first in spacewalk, etc.
  - 1970-01-01 26d ago
    That remains a ridiculous argument. The thing about a race is you can always think of excuses for not winning. Plans for Mars were being met by all accounts, however Nixon still cancelled them because the Apollo victory was so decisive.
    - asdfasvea 26d ago
      Thats a ridiculous comment. The thing about the space race is we were getting are ass kicked, then said 'Oh the finish line is actually this. Oh look we kicked your ass " It was like we lost the first 9 events of a decathalon and then won the 1500 and declared ourselves the winner.
      - 1970-01-01 26d ago
        You're supporting the USA decisive victory with this take. We are not disagreeing on the winner.
      - bee_rider 26d ago
        Actually, in Russia do they have a pitch for where they’d rather draw the finish line? I admit it is probably influenced by having a US upbringing, but “landing on the Moon” does seem like a natural finish line for a space race. The move of picking an advantageous finish line is easily countered by… picking an obvious successor finish line. If they’d stuck a base on the moon that’d have been a pretty compelling “actually, here’s the next finish line.” Maybe they have some space-station based claim.
        roryirvine 26d ago
        But the finish line did keep changing: first satellite in orbit, first living mammals in orbit, first human in orbit, multiple humans in orbit, spacewalk, moon landing, human moon landing, planetary landing, space station, reusable space plane, modular space station. I think both sides broadly agreed on all of those as their "next big goal" (with slight question mark over the space plane, as you could reasonably say the Soviet programme was purely reactive). The race ended after the fall of the Soviet Union (with the Challenger disaster being an additional factor), not because it had been definitively won.
- orbital-decay 26d ago
  >and won the space race ... or maybe just called some convenient events "space race" and refused to notice the others. Like a literal space colony circling above, for example. If you control the framing you control the reality.
- next_xibalba 26d ago
  That’s like saying the goal of the process is the process. It is a recursive definition and a pointless, expensive endeavor.
bluGill 26d ago
Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in something else. (including less working hours...) Most of the things we developed for the moon would have been done anyway, and we don't know what things would have been developed sooner if we were not focusing on the moon. Be realistic. You can support going to the moon. However be honest: there isn't much value from it and there are plenty of reasons to say we shouldn't.
- ramesh31 26d ago
  >"There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science)." The arguments are entirely romantic. But then, what exactly is life without romance? That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete.
  - bluGill 26d ago
    At that point though, there are lots of other romances to peruse. Somebody could go to the moon, but it won't be me. I could however go to my local art museum - at a much smaller costs than my share of sending someone else to the moon, but I'd get more value from my trip to the art museum than someone else on the moon. Or in my case I just went to my local high school marching band competition, and got to hear some great music. YMMV on what you find more romantic.
    - edgyquant 26d ago
      People want to go to the moon, you could make your same argument for lots of things humans have done but at the end of the day science is not the reason 99% of people care about or want to colonize space. People have a desire to colonize space
heaney-555 26d ago
You should look into the Artemis program! Not only are we going back, but we're building a base, which will effectively be the spiritual successor to the ISS.
- edgyquant 26d ago
  I’ll have to see it to believe it. Artemis was slow but seemed to be making progress and now things have been shaken up again and plans totally changed. To me that seems like it’s not going to happen
- xfact192 25d ago
  Another good program to watch is Space: 1999. Just sayin'... :)
bryanlarsen 26d ago
> endless money poured into innovation The US put 5% of the federal budget into the original moon mission. NASA and SpaceX and the US Space Force combined don't spend anywhere close to that on R&D.
- emj 26d ago
  Pretty sure we are talking about the endless AI money glitch.
- Planktonne 26d ago
  That's part of my complaint. More and more money is poured into 'innovation' across our society, but what do we have to show for it?
  - deleted 26d ago
    [deleted]
  - wat10000 26d ago
    A huge variety of tools and technology that billions of people use daily. What did we ultimately have to show for the money poured into Apollo? I'm a big fan of space exploration but putting twelve people up there for a few days at a time is pretty small potatoes compared to, say, the creation of smart phones or vast improvements in solar power and batteries or a thousand other things that have been done since 1972. I can push a (virtual) button on a rectangle I carry in my pocket and be instantly on a video call with my mother who lives a thousand miles away. And I don't even have to pay by the minute. That's positively magical, and in terms of actual real-world impact on average people it's far more significant than moon landings.
    - m4rtink 25d ago
      The Appolo Guidance Computer was one of the first applications of silicone integrated circuits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Logic_hardware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Logic... "Following the use of integrated circuit (IC) chips in the Interplanetary Monitoring Platform (IMP) in 1963, IC technology was later adopted for the AGC.[17] The Apollo flight computer was one of the first computers to use silicon IC chips.[4][8]" A lot of money went to IC technology thanks to that, directly leading to the phones you mention. It is quite likely that without just these specific Apollo investments into ICs, we would be quite a few years behind on computer technology.
sajithdilshan 26d ago
I think the problem is not the technological advancement, it’s the limits of physics which are the same as in today as it was back in 1960s. We have immense computing power now compared to 50 years ago. But that doesn’t help to escape the gravity well of earth. We’re still using the same chemical rockets to go to space, haven’t invented any new type of rocket drives
- ashika 26d ago
  cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Metha... cough
  - sajithdilshan 26d ago
    It’s still a chemical reaction
    - pfdietz 25d ago
      Now estimate how much that propellant will cost per kg of payload to orbit. The problem with expensive launch in the past wasn't due to propellant cost.
  - m4rtink 25d ago
    Bah, this is the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls... (Unfortunately if you do launch from Earth, neighbors will likely by a bit annoyed).
- pfdietz 26d ago
  That's a very bad take. Rocket costs are not driven by physics, they're driven by more mundane issues, like single-use hardware. The cost floor dictated by cost of propellant is remarkably low.
  - m4rtink 25d ago
anovikov 26d ago
There is a dumb ass simple explanation: in about the same time it took to build rockets that took people to the Moon, we figured out that there was nothing to do there for humans. Or anywhere in the Solar System for that matter. I mean until 1960 people expected to find whole civilisation or at least intelligent life on Venus and until 1964, at least some life on Mars. By then, it was too late to stop Apollo, but already no point to go anywhere else or expand Moon presence.
simonedepertis 26d ago
[flagged]
OroPla 26d ago
Saddest part is that all the tech was apparently so utterly useless for anything that NASA lost it.
GMoromisato 26d ago
But we are going back to the moon. By 2030, I would bet, humans will land on the moon again. Probably Americans first, but if not, definitely Chinese. And this time, both countries are planning ambitious missions--not just flags-and-footprints, but bases and resource extraction (ice from the lunar south pole). SpaceX Starship, the vehicle that will return to the moon, can carry 100 tons to the lunar surface--compared to less than 10 tons for Apollo. Moreover, whereas a single Saturn V launch cost almost a billion dollars to launch, Starship should cost a third the price. Effectively, we'll be able to deliver cargo to the moon for 1/30th the price of Apollo. That's real progress. I've been following the space program since the 1970s and I have never been more excited about it.
jimbokun 25d ago
The show For All Mankind is a truly bittersweet look at how space exploration could have turned out differently. I’m sure the technical challenges are much greater than how they are portrayed in the show. But certainly there has been a lack of will and optimism and imagination as well.
m4rtink 25d ago
Well, we had people swing by the moon for the first in decades this April, with a robotic mission planned for November & about 7 more robotic missions planned for next year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#Future_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#F... I would argue that is something & that things are finally moving in the right direction for the Moon at a respectable pace. :)

scrumper 26d ago

I read this a bit fast and with half a brain (because I'm in a boring meeting), but I'm not sure what an "AI model" is over just a common or garden model. I get the achievement here: it's quite difficult to combine data from these various sensors into one. Is the "AI" bit referring to how that integration was done?

metalman 26d ago

did not know we have -246°c to play with, which means the potential for the whole set of usefull volitiles is there, not just water/O²/H², and given that there is also the potential for +121°c very close to cold deposits, gives most of the basics for refining a whole host of molecules and compounds. Non of that changing the fact that bieng on the moon for any extended time is going to SUCK , the dust is horrible in every possible way, low gravity will weaken , radiation is heavy, and all of the many other risks will add up to a poor career choice, so the compensation will have to be 1 tour, and retire in guaranteed style. Basicly flying a great big ass laser in a lunar polar orbit and zapping the shaded dark sections of craters while some other satelites watch the resulting gass plumes, and of course carve your initials while no one is looking. The band where there is enough solar exposure for power and cold traps is going to be narrow and dramaticly reduce the number of candidates, which has very likely been figured out years ago, especialy for earth facing spots. Still going to need the heavy lift of multiple starship landings and some kind of 'moon link' satelite network.

hmokiguess 26d ago

I'm not gonna lie, I'm closer to a conspiracy theorist and non-believer than I am to trust history on the moon landing stuff. Doesn't help that I wasn't alive when it happened, and that we haven't since gone again. It feels so nonsensical to me, I would love for someone to help me educate myself on it from a more grounded point of view that can satisfy my paranoia. Did we really go there? How come we (as in humanity, any other nation whatsoever) haven't gone again since?

scrumper 26d ago
Yes we really went there, quite a few times in the 1970s. We have been again, also several times, with rovers and landers. As for why not humans since then? There's bugger all there to justify the extreme cost (at this time). It's an unpleasant ball made from tiny abrasive dust particles that is more easily explored with robots. The prestige thing is done; until we set up some base there in support of some broader mission (scientific or exploratory) there isn't a reason to send people. I've put a couple of resources here for you. The first one described the program from a neutral perspective (in line with what you ask - grounded POV to satisfy paranoia): https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/moon-landing/ https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/moon-landing/ This one is for people a little further down the conspiracy pipeline, and it debunks the various things that moon landing conspiracists like to talk about: https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-w... Both are worth a read! Finally this is an excellent jumping-off point to understand the Apollo program in more detail, once you're satisfied that it did happen (if you don't think so, you'll reject the source out of hand.) https://www.nasa.gov/the-apollo-program/ https://www.nasa.gov/the-apollo-program/ The program itself was really, really, really cool and is worth reading about. A truly enormous achievement involving millions of people and an entire country's scientific and engineering capacity.
- hmokiguess 26d ago
  Thank you so much for this, I am super excited for this read, you made my day!

nullorempty 26d ago

We may be approaching technologically to expanding into the universe but we are certainly not there spiritually. Not to say that we shouldn't pursue this, there are probably war races in space already, but it seems to me that a better path would be growing spiritually before we expand. I wouldn't like to be in a place where we have the technical capability to reach Mars before we learn to live in peace on earth and take good care of our home.

pfdietz 26d ago
> spiritually Going back into space will require doing so with a hard nosed commercial mindset. Things on that scale are done because they are profitable, not because of putatively higher minded considerations. I think our collective spirit is in the best place it's ever been for actually going into space, it's just not the spirit you were probably imagining.
deleted 26d ago
[deleted]

flobosg 26d ago

Tangentially related, these articles by Maciej Cegłowski: * The Lunacy of Artemis – https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm * Artemis II Is Not Safe to Fly – https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly.htm https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....

bryanlarsen 26d ago
Lunacies 5, 6 & 7 are the only things that make the Artemis program useful. Landing 1t on the moon is an expensive, useless, performative flags and footprints mission. Landing 100t keeps the other moon dreams alive.

westurner 23d ago

Will roughly crash landing scrap on the moon cause nearby cave systems to collapse, and where are the caves to shelter from meteorite bursts in? "Removing these 50 objects from orbit would cut danger from space junk in half" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45469259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45469259 : > When will it be safe and cost-efficient to - instead of deorbiting toward Earth's atmosphere - Capture and Haul and Rendezvous and gently Land orbital scrap on non-earth locations like the Moon or Mars or a thrust-retrofitted asteroid for later processing? Is there any amount of time in a higher altitude orbit - or an Earth-Moon lunar cycler orbit - that would sanitize the outer surface of a spacecraft like ISS? Or will all such attempts cause adaptation? Would ISS be more useful as an oxygen tank in earth-moon orbit than in Earth's atmosphere and ocean? But for the moon, From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45237426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45237426 : > What about solar sintering + induction heating of lunar regolith? > Basalt, Glass, > Molten oxide electrolysis of regolith would yield Oxygen, Silicon, Iron, Aluminum, and Titanium for 3d printing and for solar panels and semiconductors. > Is there a sensor for inside of a rover or a vehicle wheel to sample the regolith falling within the wheel before it pours out to self clear? Does this model include a regolith map or a soil map? Where is there Carbon on the moon? --- "Lunar soil machine developed to build bricks using sunlight" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45086238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45086238 --- From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42543663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42543663 : > I wonder if the ISS could instead be scrapped to the moon. [...] > Because of my love for old kitchens on the Moon. --- "Researchers simulated 30 million routes to the Moon and found a hidden detour through L1 that saves fuel and keeps spacecraft talking to Earth the whole way" https://spacedaily.com/sd-researchers-simulated-30-million-routes-to-the-moon-and-found-a-hidden-detour-through-l1-that-saves-fuel-and-keeps-spacecraft-talking-to-earth-the-whole-way/ https://spacedaily.com/sd-researchers-simulated-30-million-r... : > Most of a deep-space journey is coasting along gravitational contours that physicists collectively call the Interplanetary Transport Network — a web of low-energy pathways that connect orbits around planets, moons and Lagrange points - "Earth–Moon transfer via the L1 Lagrangian point using the theory of functional connections" (2026) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42064-025-0297-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42064-025-0297-x : > The results show a reduced fuel consumption of at least 58.80 m/s as compared to the literature. This difference can be useful for mission designers, while the efficiency of the technique can potentially extend the results to other types of transfers in space. Where are the L1 and L2 Lagrangian points when you consider the mass of the moon in addition to the earth and the sun? Lyapunov exponents in SQG/DDF too. This month I've been learning about the differences between SQG and DDF Dilatant Dark Fluid (Fedi) in regards to n-body gravity research.