6 ms·

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 pow

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 20d ago
[dead]
1970-01-01 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d ago
        You're supporting the USA decisive victory with this take. We are not disagreeing on the winner.
      - bee_rider 20d 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 20d 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.
        WalterBright 20d ago
        > first living mammals in orbit And left to die in orbit.
  - tekla 20d ago
    This is such a bad response. The space race was to get to the moon. There is a reason the USSR dropped any crewed lunar plans instantly when the USA landed (also they couldn't get the N1 to stop exploding) and went all in on satellites. They also kept the crewed tests secret because they knew they were behind the USA and was embarrassing. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericaBad/comments/1apgsc9/regarding_the_acktually_russia_won_the_space_race/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericaBad/comments/1apgsc9/regardi...
    - orbital-decay 20d ago
      >The space race was to get to the moon. That's either revisionist or ignorant (likely the latter, looking at cheap memes). The term was coined by American journos in the early 50's, and the actual events started in 1955, very publicly. And objectively speaking it never ended until the USSR crashed. You should probably read something on the Soviet space program (starting with Rockets and People, for example), and the US one while you're at it. The Soviets didn't went all in on satellites. They simply returned to the original ideas Korolev & co had long before Sputnik ever flew, namely LEO modular assembly tech followed by manned circumnavigation of Venus (before the surface conditions were known) or Mars (after that) as a meaningful first step in deep space exploration. Which was pretty pragmatic and long-term thinking, although it's hard to say how realistic it was politically: they would have finished by the late 80's at best and securing the funding without propaganda-worthy progress wasn't a given. Regardless, they succeeded at actual LEO colonization, which was presumably "not space race" (I'm sure Space Shuttle/Freedom being a massive failure and NASA seeking Soviet expertise after the crash has nothing to do with that framing...). Lunar missions, let alone single-flight ones without modular spacecraft, were a practical dead end and a distraction, the engineers understood that perfectly. The party however got successfully baited by JFK's advisors into the race they couldn't win because they still needed to close the "reverse missile gap" after the US panicked and closed the actual missile gap they imagined existed by building a ton of Titan IIs. The Apollo people were also in perfect understanding that the program had no practical followup and only existed for novelty, see anything written by Chris Kraft and Gene Kranz who were actual participants. STS was a colossal blunder and a setback as well, in practical terms, and it was obvious before the first flight. The race was never limited to manned missions either. For example most of what we know about the Solar System comes from the JPL, which is hugely underappreciated. The Soviets only succeeded with Venus missions.
  - JKCalhoun 20d ago
    Well, President Kennedy kind of spelled out the finish line. Although, to be specific, he did not say it was a race, but rather something the U.S. should strive for—even specifying a deadline.
  - Ekaros 19d ago
    I have always seen Moon as absolutely sore loser mentality. Ofc they have bigger propaganda and infinitely more gullible population and lot more money to waste on that propaganda so mind washing succeeded. But in the end they(USA) were the losers.
  - m4rtink 19d ago
    The Soviets scrapped their N1 after multiple launch failures & then pretended they never were in the race. You can argue if US won, but the Soviets definitely lost the race.
    - abcd_f 19d ago
      First Lunar flyby, first Lunar probe landing, first photos from surface, first Lunar rover - all Soviets. Crewed landing is a massive achievement, but it being the finish line of the race is the US framing, primarily due to getting beaten in all other firsts.
      - m4rtink 18d ago
        Sure, but another aspect of winning a race can be the other party quitting. The Soviets scrapped the N1 (like, they scrapped functional hardware, including many flight ready engines) and pretended they never were in a race to land on the Moon. They did start on many LEO space stations that the US had no good answer to, but its questionable if this was still the same race or a race at all. Many people expected the race to just go on - lunar bases, Mars, etc. Given that nothing like that really happened post US landing on the moon, one could really say the race was over the final victory belonged to the US.
- orbital-decay 20d 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 20d ago
  That’s like saying the goal of the process is the process. It is a recursive definition and a pointless, expensive endeavor.
bluGill 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d ago
  Another good program to watch is Space: 1999. Just sayin'... :)
bryanlarsen 20d 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 20d ago
  Pretty sure we are talking about the endless AI money glitch.
- Planktonne 20d 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 20d ago
    [deleted]
  - wat10000 20d 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 19d 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 20d 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 20d ago
  cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Metha... cough
  - sajithdilshan 20d ago
    It’s still a chemical reaction
    - pfdietz 20d 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 19d 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 20d 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 19d ago
anovikov 20d 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 20d ago
[flagged]
OroPla 20d ago
Saddest part is that all the tech was apparently so utterly useless for anything that NASA lost it.
GMoromisato 20d 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 20d 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 19d 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. :)

shusjsjns 20d ago

[dead]

1970-01-01 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d ago
      You're supporting the USA decisive victory with this take. We are not disagreeing on the winner.
    - bee_rider 20d 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 20d 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.
        WalterBright 20d ago
        > first living mammals in orbit And left to die in orbit.
- tekla 20d ago
  This is such a bad response. The space race was to get to the moon. There is a reason the USSR dropped any crewed lunar plans instantly when the USA landed (also they couldn't get the N1 to stop exploding) and went all in on satellites. They also kept the crewed tests secret because they knew they were behind the USA and was embarrassing. https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericaBad/comments/1apgsc9/regarding_the_acktually_russia_won_the_space_race/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericaBad/comments/1apgsc9/regardi...
  - orbital-decay 20d ago
    >The space race was to get to the moon. That's either revisionist or ignorant (likely the latter, looking at cheap memes). The term was coined by American journos in the early 50's, and the actual events started in 1955, very publicly. And objectively speaking it never ended until the USSR crashed. You should probably read something on the Soviet space program (starting with Rockets and People, for example), and the US one while you're at it. The Soviets didn't went all in on satellites. They simply returned to the original ideas Korolev & co had long before Sputnik ever flew, namely LEO modular assembly tech followed by manned circumnavigation of Venus (before the surface conditions were known) or Mars (after that) as a meaningful first step in deep space exploration. Which was pretty pragmatic and long-term thinking, although it's hard to say how realistic it was politically: they would have finished by the late 80's at best and securing the funding without propaganda-worthy progress wasn't a given. Regardless, they succeeded at actual LEO colonization, which was presumably "not space race" (I'm sure Space Shuttle/Freedom being a massive failure and NASA seeking Soviet expertise after the crash has nothing to do with that framing...). Lunar missions, let alone single-flight ones without modular spacecraft, were a practical dead end and a distraction, the engineers understood that perfectly. The party however got successfully baited by JFK's advisors into the race they couldn't win because they still needed to close the "reverse missile gap" after the US panicked and closed the actual missile gap they imagined existed by building a ton of Titan IIs. The Apollo people were also in perfect understanding that the program had no practical followup and only existed for novelty, see anything written by Chris Kraft and Gene Kranz who were actual participants. STS was a colossal blunder and a setback as well, in practical terms, and it was obvious before the first flight. The race was never limited to manned missions either. For example most of what we know about the Solar System comes from the JPL, which is hugely underappreciated. The Soviets only succeeded with Venus missions.
- JKCalhoun 20d ago
  Well, President Kennedy kind of spelled out the finish line. Although, to be specific, he did not say it was a race, but rather something the U.S. should strive for—even specifying a deadline.
- Ekaros 19d ago
  I have always seen Moon as absolutely sore loser mentality. Ofc they have bigger propaganda and infinitely more gullible population and lot more money to waste on that propaganda so mind washing succeeded. But in the end they(USA) were the losers.
- m4rtink 19d ago
  The Soviets scrapped their N1 after multiple launch failures & then pretended they never were in the race. You can argue if US won, but the Soviets definitely lost the race.
  - abcd_f 19d ago
    First Lunar flyby, first Lunar probe landing, first photos from surface, first Lunar rover - all Soviets. Crewed landing is a massive achievement, but it being the finish line of the race is the US framing, primarily due to getting beaten in all other firsts.
    - m4rtink 18d ago
      Sure, but another aspect of winning a race can be the other party quitting. The Soviets scrapped the N1 (like, they scrapped functional hardware, including many flight ready engines) and pretended they never were in a race to land on the Moon. They did start on many LEO space stations that the US had no good answer to, but its questionable if this was still the same race or a race at all. Many people expected the race to just go on - lunar bases, Mars, etc. Given that nothing like that really happened post US landing on the moon, one could really say the race was over the final victory belonged to the US.
orbital-decay 20d 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 20d ago
That’s like saying the goal of the process is the process. It is a recursive definition and a pointless, expensive endeavor.

bluGill 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d 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 20d ago
Another good program to watch is Space: 1999. Just sayin'... :)

bryanlarsen 20d 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 20d ago
Pretty sure we are talking about the endless AI money glitch.
Planktonne 20d 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 20d ago
  [deleted]
- wat10000 20d 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 19d 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 20d 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 20d ago
cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Methane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant#Metha... cough
- sajithdilshan 20d ago
  It’s still a chemical reaction
  - pfdietz 20d 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 19d 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 20d 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 19d ago

anovikov 20d 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 20d ago

[flagged]

OroPla 20d ago

Saddest part is that all the tech was apparently so utterly useless for anything that NASA lost it.

GMoromisato 20d 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 20d 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 19d 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. :)