Hacker News Reader

Comment by sidewndr46 | Hacker News Reader

We had different priorities because we realized going to the moon is mostly useless. NASA almost forgot to accomplish their original mission with Apollo, putting a scientist on the moon. They sent Dr Harrison Schmitt at the absolute last minute with the Apollo 17.

Post-Apollo it was realized NASA was a cute way to subsidize the defense industry and keep a large volume of people working and educated about building and maintaining rocket systems. Notably the Space shuttle required both liquid fueled and solid fueled rockets, ensuring a diversity of knowledge and skill in multiple domains. Conveniently the only practical difference between orbital manned spaceflight and suborbital weapon systems is the trajectory.

It is now politically expedient to support further manned missions as a spectacle to distract the US from real problems.

View on HN

I guess China, Japan, India, Russia, the UAE, and Israel are all just trying to distract from real problems too?

Not the examples I would use as all of those countries do have real problems and governments that would very much benefit from such distractions.

Is there any country on Earth who, if they launched a lunar mission, you would not consider it a distraction from real problems?

Norway, Switzerland, there are many others, most countries in fact.

Idk if I'd say most, but there's definitely a bunch.

I think there needs to be a combination of size of country and the degree that they're currently involved in unpopular actions that gives rise to the necessity of such distraction. For small corrupt countries I would definitely find it really weird if they had a lunar program but I would figure that they could more efficiently maintain consent of the governed through more traditional mechanisms and must be doing it for other reasons; perhaps quirky 'big man' of poor country likes to play with rockets.

You seriously think the main reason to have a lunar program is bread and circuses? The ESA launched a lunar probe in 2006 but haven't since. I guess they only needed the distraction that one time? I guess each of the 22 ESA members needed a little "consent of the governed" boost?

I do, the main reason yes. The ESA membership diffuses the distraction amongst the members to the point that it doesn't fulfil the same purpose.

Well, you're just flat wrong. These programs are meant to develop a country's domestic tech and spaceflight capabilities, test new technology, look for potential resources on the moon, perform science experiments, etc. Increasing national standing may be an objective but it's not the main one because there are cheaper and more effective ways to make circuses than launching a lunar lander. I bet more people know about the relationship Travis Kelce and Taylor swift than are even aware that the US has a lander on the moon. The headlines about it will be gone by Monday unless it explodes or something.

None of those need the Moon except for 'potential resources' and maybe some science. And the 'potential resources' is pharisaical. The US has already done the Moon thing, I guess the current Moon plan is to act as a stepping stone for Mars but honestly I don't see the point of going to Mars either. Humanity would be hard pressed to destroy the Earth to such a point that it would be more inhospitable than Mars already is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com