Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluGill | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I agree. While there are obvious benefits to cooperation, competition has benefits too.

I think the best cooperation is in terms of emergency rescue, backup communications, and sharing scientific results.

Emergency rescues mean compatible docking systems to that if an opportunity arises technical problems don't stop the rescue. Of course actually catching something in space in time to pull off a rescue is nearly impossible, but just in case the orbits line up...

Emergency rescue also means that moon/mars missions should plan to land ~10km from each other - while the area of exploration is greatly limited it means in the worst case you can walk to the other for safety. It also means a party in the middle one day - moral is itself an emergency.

Backup communication means that radio frequencies are compatible. That way "our relay can't reach our rover" can turn to "but we can - let us control it".

View on HN

The USSR and USA started cooperating in the 1970s and this has had very good results. For example being able to get to the ISS after the Space Shuttle accident, and arguably in easing political & military tensions. They continued to compete as well.

Competition between the USA and the USSR produced the first orbiting satellite in Oct, 1957 and a man on the moon, twelve years later, in July, 1969. The USSR gave up on Space tech and so did the USA so that we couldn't land a man on the moon if we wanted to 50 years later. If the USSR had continued on to try and go to Mars we would have been there decades ago. Only with Elon Musk's vision for a Mars colony and his company SpaceX, is space technology advancing again. He also has stated that he hopes for some competition as he knows it can really push people to excel.

Competition between the USA and the USSR also produced thousands of nuclear ICBMs... but I get your point that space tech development was faster. It's slowed but hasn't stopped and everyone has far from given up. I think we have to use our money & brainpower rationally - especially given the many threats we have on Earth - whereas competition and egos often go against this. For example, I think a manned colony on Mars in the next decade is definitely possible but would be an epic waste (what would it achieve?) - IMHO we should first develop far more advanced robotics, self-replicating machines, etc - to build a proper base before sending humans over.

> very good results

with diminishing returns. Post-Apollo funding was/is but a shadow of NASA's glory days. As soon as the military interest is gone, it's inevitable that a program will lose financial support.

> with diminishing returns

Let's see. From the start of Space Age, October 4th, 1957, to the peak of NASA funding in 1966 - almost 9 years. To the last Apollo flight to the Moon in 1972 - a bit over 15 years. Advancements: unmanned space flight, manned LEO flight, manned flight to the Moon and back (overall manned flights ~43, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights ).

From the Apollo Soyuz Test Project in 1975 to today in 2019 - 44 years. 3 times as much. Advancements: expanded unmanned space flight, permanent manned LEO outpost, reuseable vehicles (Gemini, STS, TKS, EB, X-37), commercial space flight, international space cooperation (overall manned flights ~270).

Per dollar modern space flights are quite competitive with 1970-s. Manned spaceflight is also safer than it used to be. Per unit of time... Mars flights are quite more robust, but Venus is kinda forgotten. Outer Solar system objects are visited more frequently... Russia retracted from unmanned spaceflight... India, China, Europe are growing...

I don't think funding is the only criteria here. In some aspects Apollo project catapulted humanity to the higher frontiers which are hard to keep, but some other indicators point to steady progress everywhere with way more sustainable longer term approach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com