all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

With what's being done to the education system we'll be lucky if the average American believes the moon is real a few years from now.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why would we win? Are we even capable of having high end scientists anywhere?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I'm visiting China right now. I was in the states a couple years back. If someone thinks that the US has any chance of winning this space race, even without Trump and his anti-science administration, they're just delusional.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Is the US trying to get back to the moon again? If so, why?

    I'm more entertained by China absolutely spanking the US on EV and hybrid EV cars.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's no higher ground than the moon, and this time whoever gets there will stay there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I have no doubt that China will get people to the moon, but stay there? Long term habitation on the moon is an unsolved problem even conceptually, let alone the part where you actually have to build it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 7 comments in c/spaceflight@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    "Senator, what was your government doing instead of beating China to the moon?"

    "We were busy kicking out immigrants, scientists, and the gays while cracking down on gender flexibility in kids' sports."

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We've known for years that China would be back on the Moon before the US. When NASA decided to go with spacex solution of sending 20 rockets to get 2-3 people up there, that's when we knew China had already won.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    As opposed to Blue Origin's solution, which was to be assembled from three different spacecraft in orbit? Or the Dynetics solution, which was over its own mass budget?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    It's wild that the crazy overbuilt and overcomplicated SpaceX lander is the best option.

    The Blue Origin lander, which won the 2nd place consolation contract, changed to be more like Starship than their original 3-part proposal. They also rely on orbital refueling now.

    I wish Dynetics could have made their mass margins work. I liked the size and shape of that lander.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Along with every other practical yardstick for measuring human progress. Hygiene too!

  • source