←back to thread

NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

(www.cnn.com)
404 points voxleone | 1 comments | 21 Oct 25 12:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.258s | source
Show context
allenrb ◴[21 Oct 25 20:38 UTC] No.45661384[source]▶
There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive:

1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.

2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now. They could have built a “dumb” second stage at any time, but aren’t that short-sighted.

3. Blue Origin? I’ve had high hopes for the guys for two decades now. Don’t hold your breath.

4. Anyone else? Really, really don’t hold your breath.

This whole “race to the moon, part II” is almost criminally stupid. Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.

replies(37): >>45661569 #>>45661650 #>>45661812 #>>45661864 #>>45662019 #>>45662078 #>>45662268 #>>45662530 #>>45662636 #>>45662805 #>>45662869 #>>45663083 #>>45663232 #>>45663254 #>>45664108 #>>45664333 #>>45664434 #>>45664870 #>>45665102 #>>45665180 #>>45665389 #>>45665607 #>>45665948 #>>45666137 #>>45666225 #>>45666739 #>>45667016 #>>45667353 #>>45667484 #>>45667622 #>>45668139 #>>45668273 #>>45671330 #>>45671920 #>>45674500 #>>45674624 #>>45680644 #
Waterluvian ◴[21 Oct 25 21:41 UTC] No.45662078[source]▶
Re: 1. I think the America of Theseus mindset is a bit troubling. A lot of people like to identify with achievements that they played no role in. Based on zero expertise whatsoever, I have a sense that this is a bit self defeating. To be born a winner, to be taught you’re a winner… how can that be healthy?

Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past. But I think one way it can be a good thing is the, “we’ve done it before, we can do it again” attitude. Which is somewhat opposite to “we already won!”

replies(11): >>45662345 #>>45662614 #>>45662879 #>>45663082 #>>45663420 #>>45663980 #>>45665687 #>>45666641 #>>45667851 #>>45668570 #>>45670573 #
rayiner ◴[22 Oct 25 00:09 UTC] No.45663420[source]▶
My first job out of law school was at a 176 year old law firm. New lawyers were socialized to identify with the past achievements of the firm, like helping J.P. Morgan build the railroads. There was a good reason for that: it socializes people to adhere to a culture and practices that have proven to be effective.

You’re right that, if overdone, it can lead to complacency. But if you treat every generation as a blank slate, you abandon the valuable capital of experience.

replies(10): >>45663513 #>>45663675 #>>45663774 #>>45665145 #>>45665650 #>>45666901 #>>45667258 #>>45667635 #>>45667728 #>>45671529 #
1. latexr ◴[22 Oct 25 16:24 UTC] No.45671529[source]▶
Presumably that also works as a sort of “these are the standards we want to meet, to continue striving for this kind of work/impact/ethics/whatever”. In that sense the past is being used as reference and inspiration for the future. It’s done in a sense of (as your parent comment put it) “we’ve done it before, we can do it again”. Which is fine if you’re truly achieving that goal.

The trouble arises when it’s 2025 and the last great achievement you can point to was 150 years ago. Then you have a problem and referencing the past becomes a misguided attempt to rest on old laurels. Like (to use popular American movie tropes) a popular high school captain of the team, boyfriend to the head cheerleader, who has been out of high school for 30 years and still talks about a goal in a game as the best moment of his life. That’s the “we already won!” attitude.