this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
86 points (98.9% liked)

Futurology

3549 readers
790 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The current US administration's plans were to send astronauts to Mars. That's now been dropped, and the emphasis will now be to compete with China and try to build a base before them. Who starts a lunar base first matters. Although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits anyone from claiming lunar territory, whoever sets up a base can claim some sort of rights to the site and its vicinity.

The best site will be somewhere on the south pole (this means almost continuous sunlight) with access to frozen water at the bottom of craters. It's possible that extensive lava tubes for radiation protection will be important, too. China's plans envision its base being built inside these. The number of places with easy access to water and lots of lava tubes may be very small, and some much better than others. Presumably whoever gets there first will get the best spot.

Who will get there first? It remains to be seen. The US's weakness is that it is relying on SpaceX's Starship to first achieve a huge number of technical goals, and so far, SpaceX is far behind schedule on those.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (9 children)

I was listening to a podcast and the guy was saying that the United States aimlessly pursues goals to outperform other countries. For example, the US wants to have the biggest military. The US wants to have the largest GDP. Chasing a goal for the sake of competition does not benefit the US at all. We should work towards fulfilling our own interests but there is no point in blindly pursuing every metric. BTW the US doesn't try to outperform other countries in health care or education or any semblance of happiness.

[–] msage@programming.dev 0 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The US has benefited greatly, it's the poors who get the stick.

But that happens anyway.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)
[–] msage@programming.dev 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, they are not, nor they have ever been.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

well, not the ones who are extremely poor. but majority is poor when compared to the ones who have all the power.

[–] msage@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

They are, but they were never represented in the history of their country.

It was always about the rich.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)