The current US administration’s plans were to send astronauts to Mars. That’s now been dropped, and the emphasis will now be to compete with China and try to build a base before them. Who starts a lunar base first matters. Although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits anyone from claiming lunar territory, whoever sets up a base can claim some sort of rights to the site and its vicinity.
The best site will be somewhere on the south pole (this means almost continuous sunlight) with access to frozen water at the bottom of craters. It’s possible that extensive lava tubes for radiation protection will be important, too. China’s plans envision its base being built inside these. The number of places with easy access to water and lots of lava tubes may be very small, and some much better than others. Presumably whoever gets there first will get the best spot.
Who will get there first? It remains to be seen. The US’s weakness is that it is relying on SpaceX’s Starship to first achieve a huge number of technical goals, and so far, SpaceX is far behind schedule on those.
Christ what if humans worked together 🙄
I mean, it makes sense anyway, since the moon is closer and doesn’t have that difficult atmosphere.
But… sigh…
The atmosphere of Mars is arguably a feature. Otherwise it’s the same thing, just way further away.
Honestly, if it doesn’t involve practical satelites, rockets, or somehow harvesting more raw solar energy or something, fuck the space tech and the space race. It is a fucking waste of resources built on romanticizing breaking away from Earth. It’s not happening. Travel times are too long and fuel costs too high. There is nothing particularly useful on the moon. There is nothing particularly useful on Mars. And before anyone suggests the bullshit that is terraforming, how about we start with terraforming our own planet and unfucking deforestation, desert expansion, melting ice caps, etc.
Although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits anyone from claiming lunar territory, whoever sets up a base can claim some sort of rights to the site and its vicinity.
I think what the Outer Space Treaty and its contemporary interpretation says is this:
- Claiming a whole celestial body (e.g. Moon, Mars) is NOT allowed
- Claiming a small territory (1 km² max) IS allowed, if you can set foot there and meaningfully utilize the land area (e.g. excavation)
Right, I’m pretty sure the outer space treaty is based on the Antarctica Treaty, and countries can still establish research facilities down there. This feels similar
The thing is that contemporary interpretations of the outer space treaty differ significantly from what’s actually written in the text. In the text, it just says that “no nation can claim a celestial body for itself”.
This contains not only one, but two fallacies:
- that it’s only “nations” that could possibly reach a celestial body to claim it
- and that only a whole celestial body could be claimed at once
both are wrong. and that’s why we have contemporary interpreters today saying that the paper is total bullshit and should be completely overhauled/rewritten.
How cute you guys think international law still matters to the US.
As if the US abides by any of its own agreements. Also there is no way in this current timeline that the US gets anywhere near a moon base before China does.
I was listening to a podcast and the guy was saying that the United States aimlessly pursues goals to outperform other countries. For example, the US wants to have the biggest military. The US wants to have the largest GDP. Chasing a goal for the sake of competition does not benefit the US at all. We should work towards fulfilling our own interests but there is no point in blindly pursuing every metric. BTW the US doesn’t try to outperform other countries in health care or education or any semblance of happiness.
The US wants to have the largest GDP. Chasing a goal for the sake of competition does not benefit the US at all.
Ironically, the two examples you listed are cases where the US did benefit immensely from winning the race. The US also benefited hugely from the Apollo space race, even if that wasn’t the intention.
As I understand, chasing a measurement of GDP is an effort to show work capacity. This capacity can be utilized in wartime to produce weapons and bolster security. Increasing work for the sake of increasing work does not benefit workers- it does not provide fair wages or safe workplace environments. It does not make citizens lives better. Similarly, there is an amount which must be spent on military for protection and to act as a deterrent, but engaging in a spending race is not beneficial to people. Those efforts could be used towards education, health, transportation and quality of life. I don’t see how you can argue that the US’s goals should be to work the hardest and spend the most on military.
I’m not making the argument that it should be chasing those specific goals, or that they benefited the citizens. I’m drawing a distinction between the country and the people - as far as the leaders of the country are concerned, winning those races gave them exactly what they wanted, and the country (the aspects of it they care about) benefited.
So when you say that the US benefited immensely, you really mean that a few people (politicians and the ultra rich) benefited. I can understand that you’re saying that the US was successful in achieving it’s goals i just don’t agree that the result was beneficial compared to a more strategic focused approach
The US has benefited greatly, it’s the poors who get the stick.
But that happens anyway.
poors are the US
No, they are not, nor they have ever been.
well, not the ones who are extremely poor. but majority is poor when compared to the ones who have all the power.
They are, but they were never represented in the history of their country.
It was always about the rich.
I always thought we should have done more on the moon. we should be working out automated construction and things likespace elevators. Things to push technology forward and just use the moon as a nice safe (in the sense that if things go wrong no one gets hurt) and relatively close mass of stuff. If we can do everything we might want to do there then the technology is that much more along for the next steps.
As much as technology has improved, building a base on Mars first is still stupid based on economics. If you’re going just to plant a flag, then fly once and be done. If you want a base, build manufacturing on the moon first, where the equivalent of a bottle rocket can get you to Mars.
where the equivalent of a bottle rocket can get you to Mars.
You’ve got your delta v wrong.
I’ve never figured out how to read these diagrams. Do you really just add the Delta-Vs of the partial steps together? Or is it more complicated than that
Yes. And you save a bit traveling in the direction of the arrow because you can scrub some speed by rubbing against atmosphere. Which is why it takes more energy to go to the moon than Mars.
It was just a joke bro
The USA keeps changing focus between Mars and the Moon, and the current administration let go of hundreds of NASA employees.
I wish the folks at NASA success but fear it’s going to be difficult with their current management.
Time to get boobs on the moon.
Turning out to be a prophetic show. I just hope John Malkovich gets to be part of it all.
