Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A rough guide for going back to the Moon

research.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 158 posts

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#51

Post by bryanlarsen »

bee_rider wrote: post #26
asdfasvea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 “actu…

Russia has the first finish line -- Sputnik. You can pick a successor finish line to diminish the American accomplishment, but Russia will always have that first one.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#52

Post by fodkodrasz »

MiloLeo wrote: post #38
tempfile wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work is a necessary evil. If it is not necessary, then it is just a regular evil. There are no credible arguments that going to the moon is necessary, or supports some other necessary goal. Of course by work, I mean work directed by somebody else to serve their ends, in exchange for money to live your own life. If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then sur…

> If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then surely it is a moral obligation for us to do that. I wonder what this would look like. I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends.

> I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends.

like out-of-control global warming, depletion of freshwater reserves, destruction of soil, mass surveillance, extremely uneven distribution of resources. I mean all previous innovations which were supposed to allow working less somehow never materialized in working less, and the quality of life improvements are greatly questionable, basically keeping the production-consumption machinery takes up all the surplus it produces, while depleting the resources we have.

The great achievements we have are much like the Moai statues on the Easter Island.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#53

Post by bryanlarsen »

flobosg wrote: post #49

Tangentially related, these articles by Maciej Cegłowski: * The Lunacy of Artemis – 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....

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.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#54

Post by Planktonne »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #16
Planktonne wrote: post #2

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, su…

> 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.

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?

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#55

Post by dfgknionio »

fodkodrasz wrote: post #50
dfgknionio wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you think a space industry is useful in general, there is no reason for humans to be involved. Robots are superior to humans for this application today and will only become more superior in the future.

Why pursue space exploration if all we can do is send robots there? The only meaningful thing for humanity is sending Humans to places. Gathering more resources so the overlords can have more humans enslaved with shinier golden handcuffs, who can consume more so number line goes up is not a meaningful goal to pursuit, and robotic-only commercially rationalized spaceflight has only this to offer. Scientific discovery,…

What is the point in having a colony of maybe dozens of people completely dependent on shipments from Earth? Building a self-sustaining colony is so far outside the realm of possibility that it isn't worth thinking about, and building a symbolic outpost serves no practical purpose.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#56

Post by classified »

tempfile wrote: post #35
dabluecaboose wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard a lot of arguments against human space exploration, but "We could put that energy into working less" is probably one of the more out-there arguments that's hard to take seriously.

Work is a necessary evil. If it is not necessary, then it is just a regular evil. There are no credible arguments that going to the moon is necessary, or supports some other necessary goal. Of course by work, I mean work directed by somebody else to serve their ends, in exchange for money to live your own life. If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then sur…

> There are no credible arguments that going to the moon is necessary, or supports some other necessary goal.

“the superfluous is highly necessary”

– Voltaire

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#57

Post by mesrik »

scrumper wrote: post #36
hmokiguess wrote: post #34

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,…

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 mi…

Also to get the mood and sense how it felt following those flights media outlets back then there is great site

https://apolloinrealtime.org/

I've listened through those flights few times and it still each time takes me back to memories still giving me goosebumps. Especially Apollo 11 when I was nine year old kid listening tiny battery radio all nights at our summer cottage attic.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#58

Post by JKCalhoun »

abcd_f wrote: post #7
1970-01-01 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/cha…

> 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.

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.

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#59

Post by [deleted] »

Planktonne wrote: post #54
bryanlarsen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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]

Re: A rough guide for going back to the Moon

#60

Post by wat10000 »

Planktonne wrote: post #54
bryanlarsen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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?

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.

Post reply on HN