←back to thread

404 points voxleone | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.975s | source
Show context
namlem ◴[] No.45657019[source]
This would be such a dumb move on the government's part. "Lose the new space race" is ridiculous PR-brain. We are not racing to the same goal! China is trying to land on the moon, we are trying to establish a permanent presence. There is no value to merely returning to the moon to say we did it, and Starship is the only vehicle that can plausibly deliver huge quantities of cargo to the lunar surface.
replies(2): >>45657163 #>>45658738 #
random3 ◴[] No.45657163[source]
What’s the main motivation for the moon? Is it a better location than the international space station? What’s the reasoning there?
replies(8): >>45657327 #>>45657333 #>>45657338 #>>45657672 #>>45658451 #>>45660453 #>>45663096 #>>45663887 #
vrindavan1 ◴[] No.45657333[source]
I think its to prepare for mars (sort of), its the closest place where we can build a self-sustaining civilization.
replies(4): >>45657841 #>>45660240 #>>45660896 #>>45669804 #
Ekaros ◴[] No.45660240[source]
Can we actually? And I mean in any reasonable time frame say 100 years? And by self-sustaining I take fully independent from Earth supply chain for absolutely everything. A civilization that could continue existing without single delivery for Earth.
replies(1): >>45660580 #
1. marcellus23 ◴[] No.45660580[source]
We have to start at some point don't we?
replies(1): >>45660652 #
2. Ekaros ◴[] No.45660652[source]
Many including myself would say we do not have to. And even we really should not.
replies(1): >>45661379 #
3. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.45661379[source]
Why do you say that we "really should not"?
replies(1): >>45661704 #
4. bamboozled ◴[] No.45661704{3}[source]
We should focus on simple problems here first.