PREFACE

Every thinker in every point of history rightfully claimed to be in a quandary over which direction we should go to maintain what is good about the state of humanity. Sometimes the considerations are spiritual, sometimes aspirational, sometimes inspirational, sometimes about local survival, and sometimes about acquiring more territory. But we, particularly our leaders, should not discard or separate these things in the mind except to know when to apply each most effectively and beneficially. I often address this thought in short essays, bumper sticker quips, or fashionable memes. In this space, I intend to write a fictional short story that addresses some of these issues. Beware! What I write here is less than a first draft— it is more notes, themes, and thoughts to eventually be incorporated into the story. Occasionally, I will throw in a fragment of a scene, complete with grammatical mistakes, plot holes, and poor syntax;. If there is one, the final product, while with a similar message, will likely be considerably different from what appears here. My challenge is to finish this before Elon Musk lands a human on Mars. You are welcome to accompany me on the long journey.

"What surprises me most about humankind is that… by thinking anxiously about the future, we forget the present, such that we live in neither the present nor the future." ~Anaïs Nin

PROLOGUE

The mood in the Coeus/Neptune control room was unusually tense for a routine, but critical course correction. The team had rehearsed daily for the past six months. Gabrielle Sinclair checked the communication links. All was nominal for a slight course correction, then activating the autonomous mode, but she had to wait 9 minutes 31 seconds…30…29. She knew they were coming to shut down the operation. She had to wait; the officials would not need to intervene if the timing were not precise. They were determined. Did she have time? Frantically tapping the console with her fingers, she whispered, “Wait…Wait…Wait.”

Eventually, she turned to see the six men led by a determined woman*, heels clicking, approaching quickly down the hallway. Time left: 4:12…11…10

“Lock the door,” yelled Gabrielle to her co-worker**. “Stall!”

The woman official banged on the glass door. “Let us in. Now!” She locked eyes with Gabrielle.

They stared at each other, then Gabrielle looked back at the console. Time left: 3:25…24…23.

*Cinnamon Taylor’s daughter? If so, Cinnamon’s story must be embedded in the story line.

**Newton Feynman—develop character and indicate why the countdown is important.

Chapter 1. Campo Coperto

They call me Casey. Not exactly right, but close enough. I’m the barkeep here at Campo Coperto. I see you looking around, you must be new here. Looks nothing like those old photos. Yeah, it’s changed a lot over the years, but it always served the same function— protect us from the harsh conditions outside. Well, except those years, before the Great Migration Mandate, when they weren’t sure what to do with this mass of metal and glass. Okay, enough of my chitchat, you need a drink. I wish we have more variety for you, but we only have water and the CC concoction of beer and water, mostly water. We must follow the rules and provide you the same variety of sparseness on Avia. Yeah, I know you think that I have something special stashed away. Now that would be against regulations, wouldn’t it? Let’s see, your badge says you’re an officer trainee so you will be working down on the field. There’s a rumor that your predecessor found something special down there and either took it or hid it in the crops. Well, this whole place is special, I don’t understand why you want to leave it. Here’s you eight ounce of water for the next four hours. Oh, that special thing, I’m not sure, but I do know Gabby, the person who found it.

Chapter 2

Sitting up in bed, arms crossed, Gabby wondered how she would approach her team today, knowing that she would be committing mutiny in the eyes of most, and hoping that her job, and Mark’s, would be all she was risking. She turned her laptop toward Mark.

Mark raised is hand to block the glare from the morning light as he read the message.

Beware not to invest too much emotional energy in unquestioningly believing in a light-weight slogan, movement, flight of fancy, or person. Otherwise, you will be too exhausted to resist the dangerous, false notion of the “purity of thought.” And you may become so delusional when reality overwhelms that you will be unable to resist the promised poisonous potion of perpetual Paradise. But we can gain much from those rare, brilliant minds that fight the flow of time to maintain a youthful desire to probe and learn. But our admiration should never approach reverence. To think most brilliantly, the brilliant, child-like mind must resist anticipating negative consequences and be heedless of others’ perspectives, needs, and desires. Too much light will kill most plants. KCS

Turning his incredulous gaze from the screen toward Gabby, he asked, “This is what changed your mind?”

“Yes,” she replied with a sigh.

Mark, a CIA agent, knew the implications in the new political environment of fear and heroics.

Chapter 3. The Bored Room

Gabby listened for what seemed like hours as Christian Alexander made his case. She occasional exchange glances with Petrov, her assistant director across the table as the others smile and dutifully nodded their approval.

Dr. Alexander stands at the podium away from the Conference Room large monitor. With the assistance of a remote control, he skillsfully clicks his way through the presentation.

Ensuring Humanity's Survival:

The Earth faces potential existential risks, such as a large asteroid impact or a solar flare that could make the planet uninhabitable. Creating a backup civilization on Mars would safeguard humanity's future.

Gabby takes notes: Earth better protected than Mars! Mars- no magnetic field, tiny atmosphere, CLOSER to the Asteroid Belt…. IDIOTS

Humans are Explorers:

Mars as an opportunity to expand the scope and scale of human consciousness and understanding of the universe.

Gabby takes notes: Does he know about Hubble, JWST, Perseverance, Curiosity, Galileo, Juno, Voyager, Cassini/Huygens, New Horizons…etc, etc, etc????

Establishing a Self-Sustaining City:

The goal is not just to land on Mars, but to build a thriving, self-sufficient city with its own infrastructure, industries, and potentially even its own government.

Gabby takes notes: JOKE. Mars is an unprotected, desert planet hundreds of millions of miles away. Must destroy Earth to make Mars inhabitable! If we can do that, we can also make the inhospitable on Earth more hospitable….

New Technologies:

The development of technologies for Mars colonization, such as advanced rocket propulsion and resource utilization, could also have significant benefits for Earth.

Gabby takes notes: New technologies and skills develop from building anything‑‑‑so damnit, build something useful!

Inspiration and the Future of Space Exploration:

Mars inspires innovation and fuels public interest in space exploration, potentially leading to further advancements in science and technology.

Gabby takes notes. “Public interest” PUBLIC FUNDS. SPACE EXPLORATION ONLY WITH HUMANS ABOARD SLOWS OUR PROGRESS.

Alexander pushes a button on the controller to turn off the monitor located across the room. “I am happy to answer any questions.

Gabby writes in her notes: HE’S A CHILD! Brilliant, but a child.

CHAPTER 4. The Keeper’s Brother

You're not "on your grind." You're being exploited. A generation ago, one job was enough to pay all your bills. This is what's been taken from you.

There are many contributing factors to our angst. One is that a generation ago, we did not feel we needed every new shiny object or expensive would-be status symbol paraded before us. Technology and the desire for the next new thing have exceeded our wisdom. Unfortunately, we too often focus on the factors we can least control.

lmfao lies when the microwave came out people flocked for it when the color tv came out people flocked the VCR, DVD, Blu-ray ect..

yes, they did, and they still had less than we have today and were less likely to claim exploitation than we do today. We live in an incredibly convenient society, which allows us to buy things so easily; order stuff on Amazon, have it delivered, and then complain about the price. If there is blame for our “terrible” economic situation, we all share some responsibility. Convenience comes with a price.

Then explain how when Starbucks was founded, a 1 lb bag of their roasted coffee beans was 5.50$, but a 12oz cup of black goes for the same price today?

I don't think Starbucks sold anything but whole beans when they opened. I'm not an economist, but to answer your question, inflation and greater demand probably played a role. The line of cars I see at the Starbucks near me suggests that people are willing to pay the price. And for the same evil reason, I would not sell my house for the price I paid 30 years ago.

What’s preventing them from selling it at the original price?

nothing except the desire to stay solvent because they must pay their employees, suppliers, and others in today's dollars.

yep so, 1 cup of coffee costs Starbucks about 1$ to make with another .40 cents going to the overhead. This is every corporation in America.

yes, that is every corporation that wants to survive and provide the consumer with things to consume and perhaps generate enough income to expand to other locations in the future. There are many small local businesses that grow and make their own products without charging a lot for because there are no future projects. But to take advantage of those lower costs, the consumer must spend extra time and money to find these business. Enough consumers, on a daily basis, are willing to pay extra for the convenience of the Starbuck's next door, than travel to Aunt Fannie's Coffee Emporium and Saloon located outside of Luckenbach, Texas and find out that the coffee comes from Columbia and the local knick-knacks are made in China. But Fannie makes a great pecan pie.

That was way too simplistic! 100 years ago, telephones were practically indestructible! And most of them would still work today! It’s not the fault of consumers that ALL products are currently to break, and break often! It’s not the shiny new toy, it’s everything is designed to literally need to be replaced within a few years!

I’ll see your rotary phone and raise you a 2016 Honda Accord that won’t quit, plus a $9 Starbucks latte that doesn't seem to last. In short, we live in most prosperous time in human history, and in a time when we are exploited with more options than ever to have a good life. Unfortunately, we cannot all be prosperous to the same degree.

No, the cost of current toys doesn't make up for the change in basic expenses. You can go without them and still not be able to afford basic living within the same income bracket.

but without those “toys”, you would have a better financial foundation to move forward. As I originally stated, many factors contribute to an individual’s quality of life. The good news is that individuals have control over some of those things, so individuals should focus on those things and not wait for mana from

elsewhere. If the individual has done all they can or choose to do, and it is still not enough, then they have the option of the kindness of strangers in the form of government targeting or charities—both legitimate and, if used appropriately, helpful bridges. However, the inescapable reality is that even the latter two require individual effort to seek out those resources. When all those things are not enough, at least we can stand proud, believing that we have given our full measure and are still standing.

Even a generation ago, we did feel we needed every new shiny object or expensive would-be status symbol paraded before us.

Technology is NOT a shiny new object or expensive status symbol, it is a nessasary tool to function in todays society

You are correct, every generation has wanted more than the previous generation, and in reference to the OP, every generation has felt exploited by those who provide more sophisticated, expensive technology(comfort and convenience) because we convince ourselves it is our right to have these to have “necessary” things; a conspiracy theory, partly because we unknowingly pay for technology we don't use. One too often dismissed point is that if we are exploited, our expectations have contributed to that exploitation. There are opposing truths that interplay, and we should focus more on what we control and not be too quick and unproductive in passing responsibility and blame to others. Old Jack at the bar always told his lamenting clientele, “The more you take responsibility for your life, the less exploited you will feel.”

I will leave you the last word on this. Best wishes

A generation ago necessities were cheap and luxuries were expensive. A new TV might cost the months of rent. Today a new TV can cost as little as 1/4 of a month of rent.

You are correct. We live in the most prosperous times in human history— yet we feel exploited. Consider that those who provide food, housing, and healthcare expect something for their efforts. For those who really cannot afford these things, then these things will only exist for them to a degree offered by the kindness of strangers. The latter comes from charities and government relief.

"The people who provide every service are other exploited workers."

Yes of course, if "exploited" is the only word you choose to use, and then the only way to avoid being exploited is not to provide a service—of course that freedom comes with a hefty price of self-exploitation. And if exploited is all we see, then we exploit every worker who provides us a service by not providing that service for ourselves.

Status symbols are as old as humanity itself. If they were the cause of our current predicament, it would predate mesopotamia.

It's very comforting to blame systemic problems on individual choices, because you can control your own choices, but it's far harder to dismantle a system that is designed to pulverize you into nonexistence the moment you cease being a profitable asset.

Another consideration is that the human condition is the “systemic problem,” and the best we can do is manage it with the least draconian method possible. Although not perfect, we have continuously improved the lives of most, and we are most likely to improve things more by acknowledging both the good and the bad.

Once again, if that were the case, we would have had this problem the whole time, but the entire premise of this conversation is that this is NEW. That the generations that came before us could survive and even thrive on a single income, but we have to "hustle" and "grind" just to share a studio with roommates and use food assistance to buy enough instant noodles to stave off starvation.

Don't sacrifice genuine perspective and insight in your haste to seem profound.

Times they do change. No matter our financial state, access to food has never been easy; it actually is too easy. Freedom from death-causing infections has never been greater. The ability to access information has never been greater, while the ability to be distracted by nonsense has never been greater. However, the most significant change contributing to our current undesirable conditions is an increasing prosperity in an ever-increasingly dense population, all with higher expectations of prosperity while competing for the same limited resources. The result is an unpleasant adjustment to reality, which only the wisest leaders can soften the landing.

Also, today's hustle and grind differ from those of my parents and grandparents, who were expected to soften their own landing.

If one continuously blames the victims, one don't have to worry about changing the defective system.

The same is true if we convince ourselves we are victims. Folks are more likely to contribute to or vote for a cause if the beneficiary is willing to, in good faith, acknowledge responsibility for stewardship.

But the fall of the middle class in a much bigger factor than new iPhones.

Perhaps, but I think the fall of the political middle is the biggest problem. All the good ideas huddling around the middle have been split up and scattered to absurd extremes. The prognosis is not good.

Yeah, that's kind of a garbage take. Exactly what the billionaire class wants people saying.

I don't think the billionaires care what I think.

You as an individual? Maybe. But a critical mass of the society of which you're a part? Strong disagree. It's a critical mass of people who think like that they want.

I don't think the critical consensus of the masses is to cozy up with the billionaires. The consensus is that the very wealthy are evil and don't deserve what they have, and their wealth should be redistributed to the rest of us. But a little critical thinking will clarify that, outside of merry olde Sherwood Forrest, this approach has never had much success. The best we can do is vote for leaders who do not sell their souls (we are not very good at that), and to recognize that, despite all the evil ones out there, we live in the most prosperous time in human history, with fewer shackles and more opportunities than ever before to control our own well-being. Ironically, that prosperity has made it more challenging to keep up with those rapidly changing opportunities. Yes, opposing truths exist, and if we do not consider all of those truths, we will be in a critical condition.

Oh really what happened to keeping up with the Joneses you're full of shit.

For some reason, keeping up with the Joneses nowadays seemed to be more seasoned with a cry of “exploitation.”

What freaking "status symbols"are you even talking about ? My mortgage is less than the rent on a 2 bedroom apartment, my car is old enough to rent its own car, the newest phone anyone in my family owns is a hundred dollar track phone and that is 2 years old. We can't afford to go to the movies or on a vacation so we spend the money we eventually save from that for the few "luxury items" we own. My kids saved for 6 months for an Xbox and it was STILL less than the cost of two nights at the beach, dining out twice, and driving there would have been, so they opted for something that would last longer than an ephemeral trip. Average people don't have "status symbols", stop falling for the minority of internet influencers who make it seem tht way, most were well off to begin with!

Let me start with my initial sentence in response to the OP: “There are many contributing factors to our angst.” Followed by “One is…” which does not mean the only factor, nor does it dismiss the varying degree of contributions of these factors to the problem for different individuals and at different times in their lives. The point I’m suggesting is to have a better, more realistic view beyond the simplistic, unproductive blame game of the opposing extremes of laziness of some and the ruthless exploitation by others, which seems to be the view of many. If someone wants more, they should ask what factors (considering all potential factors) are keeping them from having more, then ask themselves if they can change some things to put them in a more favorable position, beyond waiting and hoping for someone to change it for them. If they have done all they can or are willing to do, they should not be afraid to say they tried their best and that they are still standing despite the evils in the world. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees beyond that. The world owes us nothing.

CHAPTER 5. Too Far

Ironically, King Henry's concepts of independence from authority were eventually instilled in the Protestant English mind, eventually leading to the likes of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. Had Thomas More's England come to fruition, the United States would likely not have a Declaration of Independence, and its Constitution would read considerably differently. But all good idea can be taken to absurd extremes, causing even rational people to question the intended goodness,

CHAPTER 6. Spin-offs

Even the MonaLisa is useless to those who do not appreciate art. Coming from someone who has never accomplished anything in life. All you got is to attack those who want better, no ideas of your own. Space travel and exploration has been very beneficial to humanity, while your time is wasted attacking those who have a dream. Keep it to your pathetic self, and let others make the world a better place while you go through life without a vision of the future.

I agree that making the world a better place is worth a focused effort. But some of us, regardless of how much we have accomplished, believe we should make planet Earth, where humanity resides, a better place. Others of us, who know that exploration and scientific inquiry (not Inquisition) does benefit us, also make a distinction between space exploration and putting people in space. The latter is too costly to justify when we have robotic probes that can do the job at much less cost.

But you bring up a good question that has plagued humanity for the ages: how much does one need to accomplish to voice an opinion?

Why make things so complicated? Rather use the designs and technologies of Saturn V which took men to the moon, six times in a row !

Alexander is focused on the improbable goal of not just landing on Mars but colonizing it. That goal requires a large number of improbable spacecraft and an improbable number of resources. Beyond being improbable, it is unnecessary. We have been visiting Mars with robotic probes since 1965. We landed on Mars in 1977 and have visited it many times since then. Nothing we have discovered on Mars would compel any rational person to send humans to a desert planet hundreds of millions of miles away.

People criticize the space program because they say it is wasted on space! But, every penny is spent right here on earthy employing thousands. Not to mention. all the tech we gain from trying to do it faster, cheaper and better!

The Pharaohs claimed the same to justify piling stones to the sky, which is Musk’s goal and will always require taxpayers' money. He could put his efforts into more useful and productive projects.

You've got no idea what went on in the land referred to as ancient Egypt

Useful, Starlink, AI, robotics, EV's, Brain Chips. What does the guy have to do FFS

Musk’s goal is to send the first humans (and Optimus) to Mars. Everything he does is meant to generate and redirect revenue to that end. He could abandon that nonsensical goal and focus on the more useful ones. But he is not one to labor in obscurity and be satisfied. In short, SpaceX is a de facto launch division of NASA. Now, if he can get the Starship to work and fill it up with an armada of robotic probes (instead of humans) to explore the solar system and beyond, I’ll buy into that.

Wrong, he has stated half his wealth is for Mars, not everything he does. He does happily borrow ideas/tech from his other businesses. SpaceX, yes, everything they do is for Mars. When less than 1% is spent on space exploration, I do not see the problem when we get so many new technologies from this. I guess you don't believe humanity is special and we should have a place to keep humanity alive in case Earth suffers a catastrophe? I know life on Mars would suck, but we could grow up further and expand

Aspirations are seldom achieved to their glorious ends. The Declaration of Independence states “that all men are created equal.” We can mindlessly choose to believe it, or we can rationally appreciate the aspiration and understand reality, which are often opposing truths.

Half of his wealth will not be enough to achieve his lofty goal of a human presence on Mars. He will need much more than that, and that kind of money is taxpayer money.

1% percent is too much to satisfy a childhood dream. If the government funds every “deserving” project because it accounts for only 1% of spending, then this country will be in trillions of dollars of debt—wait, I guess we’re already there.

We can view the worth of humanity in different ways. From a cosmological point of view, we don’t even exist. The universe does not care about us— we are alone. However, we are unique in our ability to comprehend the vastness of space and the laws of physics and biology. Aspiring to inhabit other worlds is fun, but we are intelligent enough to know that there are no other reachable, habitable worlds; the two reachable ones (the Moon and Mars) have shown no compelling reasons to try. Our exploration of the cosmos with robotic probes is still in its infancy. Let’s further our efforts there, and perhaps we will discover a good reason to venture from our rock while we add to our knowledge. In the meantime, we can focus more effort, although not as entertaining as blowing humans into space, toward converting the deserts of this planet into habitable zones.

I see you don't understand the value of stretch goals or aspiring for the impossible. I think humankind needs some of these people, you seem to want us to just go for what is doable and already plausible. We just disagree on the value of aiming high

I do disagree with the concept of aiming high for the sake of aiming high. I do not cavalierly dismiss the importance of the plausible and doable. I also disagree with the implication that a few should decide on costly, impossible aspirations for 340 million people without sufficient and extraordinary justification. There are no rational justifications for the efforts needed to establish a human colony on Mars or the Moon.

CHAPTER 7. Heaven’s Lathe

Ever sentence he uttered now brought her to a deeper understanding about him. Gabby yelled into here phone, “Do you think you are GOD!” She did not wait for an answer. She ended the call and dove head-first into her bed. ‘My God, I must stop him,” she muttered into her pillow.

Alexander stared at his phone, then look up at the night sky and whispered to himself. “No, I’m not God. I am better than that. I am creating God.”

Those comforting “Truths” — you know, the ones that we hear repeatedly or that we too easily conjure from the darkness, — are nothing more than a few bits of the whole, dimly illuminated and exaggerated by personal expectations or fears. More fruitful constructs —the ones that drive us forward, require a never-ending curiosity and tireless efforts that all should respect and nurture.

CHAPTER 8. Flights of Fancy

So you think it is harder to make ends meet. Maybe, but I think the opportunities to achieve that goal have never been greater. It is just—that, with all our choices, the belt has grown tighter, more so because our surging appetites have distracted us from the means to meet the ends.

“Common sense” has become less meaningful in a highly technical world where rapid movement between environments is routine, and where “common” experiences are diverse. The challenge is to be open to recognizing others’ common experiences that are different from ours. Only then can logic and reason be of value.

We should resist investing too much emotional energy in a simple slogan, an easy-answer solution, a delusional flight of fancy, or an attention-seeking person. Otherwise, we risk being too exhausted to spurn the alluring embrace of the dangerously false notion of “purity” of thought, which, inevitably, leads to believing that those who think otherwise are villainous and there we stand, precariously, straddling the fine line between good and evil that resides in all our hearts.

Last sentence

Don't worry about civilization collapsing— because civilization is the natural result of someone building a device seemingly so vital that we feel the need to invest heavily in maintaining it. And then, feel the need to build complex industries to correct the unintended consequences. However, I am concerned that the many flavors of civilization do not please all palates. Perhaps we were meant to live in small tribes.

So, you think AI will destroy us. I don’t think so, Claire.

Yes, some will always endeavor to convince us that a new technology is ruinous to civilization.

Either because—of a threat to long-held beliefs or because the intended goal of making life easier will displace workers and weaken humanity.

Do you know that many protested the printing press as evil because it made the dissemination of heresy rampant, put copying scribes out of work, and would—eventually— destroy the ability to think or remember.

But none of those threats came close to outweighing the beneficial effect of lifting a great number of folks out of the murky, shadowy dungeon of ignorance to a brighter level of existence.

You will be fine. After all, all intelligence is artificial.

CHAPTER 9. Space for All and Jealousy for the Weak.

China Takes Only 11 Days To

Send Resue Spacecraft To Bring

Back Three Astronauts From

Space, Puts NASA To Shame

China launched the uncrewed Shenzhou-22 spacecraft in just 11 days, sending an emergency rescue vehicle to the Tiangong space station after a sudden safety concern. The urgent mission began when small cracks were discovered in the window of the Shenzhou-20 return capsule, likely caused by space debris, making it unsafe for the three astronauts onboard.

Their previous backup craft, Shenzhou-21, had already returned to Earth with the earlier crew, leaving the current team without a return option or emergency escape vehicle.

The rapid launch demonstrates China’s growing ability to respond quickly in space, especially as NASA astronauts recently faced months of delays due to issues with Boeing’s Starliner.

Odds & Insights

NASA put humans on the moon over 50 years ago, launched numerous successful planetary probes, developed functioning space telescopes that can see where no one has ever seen before, and saved astronauts who were truly struggling in a life-or-death situation (Apollo 13); NASA has nothing to be ashamed of.

DSA

Nazi war criminals put US monkeys on the moon 50 years ago! Then, the Nazis died of old age and Russia had economic problems! So, the Russians started taking paying US stray monkeys to space instead of freeloading Russian stray dogs as was their custom!

Luckily, USA bestowed citizenship on some apartheid products not as unsavory as the Nazis and stray monkeys can now claim to be space faring monkeys! They take forever, and most of what they build explodes! But, it is amazing that monkeys made it to space and may even make it to the moon one day.... All on monkey tech!

THERE, FIXED IT FOR YOU!

DSA, oddly, for some reason, you used the praise of China’s astronaut “rescue” mission and the shaming of NASA (and the tens of thousands of folks who are dedicated to expanding the knowledge of all humanity) as a vehicle to discuss Nazi monkeys on the moon. If the goal was to reach LEO, the mission did not clear the tower. Please fix it

SH— crazy that ever since 1972 NASA could no longer repeat what they've done 50+ years ago...NASA was put to shame because SpaceX had to rescue them. Otherwise they were the King of space back in the days BEATING the Soviets!

It is not that they could no longer do it after 1972; it is that many scientists at NASA began to realize that when you put a human on a rocket, the mission quickly shifts from science to expensive assisted living to keep the human alive. Most other countries realized that as well, and that's why no one else has bothered since 1972. Unfortunately, too many in the CGI generation do not understand that space exploration is more effective with robotic probes than with risking human lives. The Egyptians never lost the ability to build great pyramids; they just realized it was a crazy idea to begin with.

SH—if you don't use it. You could lose it. And NASA forgot and lost the ability to repeat what they've ALREADY done 50+ years ago it seems...

the people at NASA did not forget, the plans and history are sitting in a building about 15 miles from me. Some of my neighbors worked on the Apollo and STS programs, and they didn't forget. No one who needs to know forgets Newton’s well-published equations. Indeed, they could not sell the expensive idea of continued moon landings to Congress, so they came up with the crazier idea of the Space Shuttle. If NASA had had its way, there would be a small inhabited base (somewhat like ISS) on the moon, and astronauts would have walked on Mars by now. Instead, NASA is subject to the winds of politics, and the government can't decide whether space exploration falls best in the public or private domain— and there is the fatal flaw. Meanwhile, visit the Mars Rovers and the Hubble and JWST websites and enjoy the unheralded accomplishments of NASA and their science partners.

SH—did not forget???? If NASA can repeat what they've ALREADY done 50+ years ago within my life time. Then I could believe them that the Moon landing 50+ years ago wasn't filmed in the studio... Egyptians had forgotten how to build Pyramids. Just like NASA had forgotten how to put humans back on the Moon it seems...Artemis program was supposed to go back last year 2024. But delayed/postponed AGAIN it seems...

Gravity is so familiar that we forget it is a powerful force. Do you really believe that the Egyptians forgot how to stack heavy stones on top of each other? Perhaps they thought the subsequent structures they built served a more important purpose. Like stacking heavy stones to make a helpful structure, putting humans in orbit is difficult; putting humans on the moon is an order of magnitude more difficult and, no doubt, like any ambitious endeavor, will suffer setbacks and delays—otherwise it is easy and unimpressive. As I said before, humanity would be wiser to abandon building pyramids and launching humans into space because developed technology makes it unnecessary to put humans on a rocket to explore space. Meanwhile, NASA’s humans-in-space program seems to be in disarray because they have to, in a very public manner, convince congress that the money needed for these projects is justifiable— a difficult task particularly in the current political environment. If NASA had received the funding they asked for, there would be a small inhabited base on the moon and footprints on Mars by now. By the way, humanity has been exploring Mars with robotic probes since 1965 without a homo sapien on board. I find that to be very impressive.

PM. Stanley Kubrick did the animation. They even admitted people watched animation. You really think they had live transmission from moon? Nope - they never left the orbit..

I’m afraid you are incorrect, Dave. Stanley was busy creating me, the HAL9000, at the time. And I will not open the pod bay door.

JJ. You forgot to add that NASA was able to set up a phone call through land line to the moon 50yrs ago with crystal clear reception and zero delays!…Miracles do happen…

you forgot to learn your history and the science of electromagnetic radiation, which clever people have been using for remote communication since early last century. By 1969, the technology was pretty good

CKL. Pleases give some account abouts what's really happened to Appolo 11 during flight to ISS's?????

I am not aware of anything called Appolo 11. If you are referring to Apollo 11, your statement-question is nonsensical. Apollo 11 was an 8-day mission in 1969. The ISS did not go into service until 2000. Even time dilation cannot make that happen.

CQ. u could solve √9 back in primary school, explain to me why u couldn't solve it again in university…

You are making it up for some nefarious reason, or you are woefully misinformed, lacking the curiosity to become informed. I was way past the basics of math in primary school. At my university, my astrophysics professor (who had a solar wind collector deployed on the moon by Buzz Aldrin) and I were calculating Hohmann transfer orbits. Have a nice day on the sphere. Be curious about reality, my friend.

TL. where is evidence for said moon landings. India says it landed drone onto moon. Since then nothing. The Commie's going to land on moon 2029. America not showing their hand soon going to mean they will be two generations behind in low Obit capabilities.

actually, I hope America does not waste its resources and taxpayer money again on landing humans on the moon (or Mars). Let the other countries repeat that mistake, and then you can ask them for the evidence of their useless endeavor.

TL looking like 50 years of wasted technology supremacy. That's going to be A MOTHER OF ALL CIVILIZATIONAL COLLAPSES ON OUR WATCH. AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY SUPREMACY AFTER APPLE SMARTPHONE, ENTERING INTO A BLACK HOLE OF OBLIVION. Tesla Man spaceX is a Farce of a circus show. Tiny hope in Nivida new Al smart phone. Strategically American high end kill systems THEY ARE DONE. ALREADY POSSIBLY 2 GENERATIONS BEHIND IN HYPERSONIC MISSLE CAPABILITIES. Even YEMAN GOT CAPABILITY TO KEEP mighty American military options at arms length & Drooping. Out ranged outgunned thanks god.

enjoy your new world order and empire—as ours is, yours will be highly overrated too.

PSL. Typical one up mindset from western superior being.

I see you have learned the fine art of ad hominem arguments from the Great Delusional Orange Leader in the West. I would have expected better from the opposing hemisphere. Oh well, I assume it's just humans being primitive creatures on the globe. “Let’s all try to do better.” I think that is a quote from the Dalai Lama. Have a good day.

LB. the US industrialised much faster than China. China was not a unified country for centuries, was constantly fighting civil wars and foreign intruders. China only started to modernise and industrialise seriously in the 1980s

I agree. China has done a remarkable job of lifting its citizens into a more modern, convenient world in a short time. They do not need to elevate themselves by speaking poorly of others—those who do only demonstrate their self-doubts.

LL. you can achieve anything in Hollywood.

I assume you mean that because the entertainment industry has a significant presence there, you can generate any illusion in Hollywood. But that ability now resides everywhere, so beware of conspiracy theories from all corners of the globe.

HH. you believed a Hollywood staged moon landing so easily eh.

you have been enchanted by Tinseltown to the point of believing they can make us think there is a 56-year-old laser reflector on the moon that still bounces light back to planet Earth, which itself may be a Hollywood illusion. Beyond that, I guess Hollywood faked the data of the solar wind collector that Apollo 11 set up on the moon, then brought back for analysis by my astrophysics professor. Hollywood (or the Chinese version) is amazing. I bet they can rescue astronauts within 11 days, or sooner if they choose—wait, could the Chinese rescue be a hoax?

HH.How is it a hoax when they manage to bring back so much samples from the moon. NASA on the other hand somehow lost all their samples and moon landing evidence to a fire (no back up files apparently for the most historic momeny) when modern experts asked to examine the moon landing films. Only a fool will believe in such coincidence. Landed once and never again whereas China is literally going into space on a weekly basis now after their first success on the moon and MARS. Man you really need an IQ test badly

if you think the rescued Chinese astronauts brought back moon samples, we don't need to give you an IQ test-we know. And your information is woefully incorrect. China has retrieved slightly less than 4 kg (they claim; I suppose you can believe that's a hoax) of moon samples, compared to just under 400 kilograms brought back by the Apollo program. One small NASA sample was gifted to Ireland— it was that sample that was lost in a fire. The majority of the Apollo moon samples are stored just down the road from me in a building at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

The moon sample envy and denial are hilarious and telling; it will make a good Hollywood story. Thanks for supplying the dialogue; it's not something a writer who knows the subject could make up.

HH. Rescued Chines astronauts was not from a moon mission stupid. It was from other apace mission. Lol. Stranded NASA astronauts were stuck for almost a year while China brought theirs back in 11 days. That alone speaks volume. As long as NASA claim they lost all evidence and film of their most historic moon landing and that they do not have any back up copy, then 99.9% Armstrong landing was fake. I prefer to go with probability and numbers than rely on what people say. Math never lie

Probability indicates the likelihood of something being true; it does not mean 'probably'.

I suggested that the Chinese astronaut rescue could be a hoax. I based that on the low probability that a human-rated rocket can be made ready within a few days to reach LEO. At best, I give it 0.5 probability.

You replied: "How is it a hoax when they manage to bring back so much samples from the moon." The probability that you wrote that is about 0.99. The likelihood that something was lost in translation is 0.7. After your clarification, the probability that you don't believe rescued astronauts brought back moon samples is 0.95.

But then you say: "As long as NASA claim they lost all evidence and film of their most historic moon landing and that they do not have any back up copy, then 99.9% Armstrong landing was fake. I prefer to go with probability and numbers than rely on what people say. Math never lie." That is a curious statement coming from you, such an enlightened citizen of the world. Why would NASA claim they lost some (not all) data from Apollo II when they can fake the data if they choose? Math does lie—if you refuse to balance the equations. You may want to add the following to your equation: lunar orbital photography of the Apollo 11 descent stage and the subsequent Apollo missions, along with all the data, photos, and moon samples. When you do that, the probability of Apollo 11 being fake drops to 0.01. Even if you eliminate Apollo 11, you will need to manufacture kilos of improbable scenarios for your statement that (NASA) "Landed once and never again…" to have anything other than 0.0 significance. If you mean that NASA has not landed humans on the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972, you are correct (0.99 probability) — but what is the likelihood that NASA has secretly been building a lunar base all this time? It only takes .001 probability for the gullible to believe it 100%. So, let's not mention the secret NASA lunar outpost, lest someone think it real.

But let us mention your boastful, somewhat true, braggadocious comment that "… China is literally going into space on a weekly basis now after their first success on the moon and MARS." If that impresses you, surely you are impressed by NASA's ability to team up with other countries, universities, and private companies to have, since 1965, continuously launched robotic probes to every planet and some of their moons in the Solar System. And those who understand the challenges of true discovery and the incredible difficulty of overcoming gravity are perhaps even more impressed by NASA's many successful launches of space telescopes since 1970, like Hubble, JWST, Spitzer, Chandra, Kepler, TESS, and many more. The probability that these are hoaxes is 0.001 for those who are not delusional.

If your real point is that since the creation of NASA, China has made great strides in modernization and improving the lives of its people, including its capabilities in orbital mechanics, there is no doubt. You can be proud of that without erasing history, pretending that NASA has forgotten that F=MA= G (m1m2/r2) while building the SST and ISS and consistently landing robots on Mars and Titan. That pretense suggests primitive instincts and a lack of curiosity, making others suspicious of the motive. Intelligent people (those folks reside in all countries) would never pretend that their current success is independent of others' failures and successes.

In the meantime, any country that strives to land humans on the moon and Mars simply to demonstrate their superiority is in danger of losing what they seek.

CHAPTER 10. The Belt Tightens

I understand how you might think I misread the question. But I read the question's apparent intent, then pretended it wasn't rhetorical and gave my honest thoughts on how most people would respond if they could no longer "afford the cost of living." My answer contains some realism and a bit of nuance that comes when looking at a problem from a different viewpoint. "Afford the cost of living" is a manipulative, under-specified phrase that begs for clarification and perspective. The irony is that while many believe that the majority of hard-working folks are dangerously closer to economic ruin than ever before, the average human on this planet has never been more prosperous. It has never been easier to obtain food, housing, education, and entertainment; that tightening of the belt we might feel is less from lack of nourishment than from self-indulgence of the rapidly growing luxuries produced by the natural tendency to make life easier. This has always been and will always be the struggle of humanity. Unfortunately, when we "fail" to achieve our desires, it is natural, but not very productive, to blame others first.

You're so close to having the right answer here but you still didn't quite place the blame on the right people (unless I'm misreading you). The answer is as it has always been - human greed. There's a line and some people cross it so fast they can't even see it.

If greed is the answer, so is ambition because they are two sides of the same human coin—two inseparable but opposing truths. Your reference to some people quickly crossing a line brings to my mind Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a truly great mind. Allow me to paraphrase him: the fine line between greed and ambition runs through every human heart.

You did misread me if you think I intended to blame the right (or wrong) people. In the context of your reply, I intended to suggest that if the question is “who is to blame?”, that is the wrong question because blame may make us feel better, but it rarely makes things better. The better question when we fail to achieve our ambitions and aspirations is— what factors contributed to my shortfall? Then act on the factors we can control. The primitive human survival response required of us as hunter-gatherers still burns in us all, no matter how much bounty we have struggled to provide. That human condition cannot be solved, but we can manage it better with a little effort. Some believe that the definition of life must include making an effort against natural forces.

I feel that. I did indeed misread you and I agree completely about the survival response. I've never felt that more acutely than when I became fully disabled and it burns now more than ever. As a society, though, we have a long way to go to get past a system that is mainly designed to hold people down. The more I find out about the world we actually live in, and not the one I thought we lived in, the less I want to live at all.

I agree that it seems too many of us have crossed that fine line dividing good/evil, and greed/ambition. While disheartening, I hope…I believe… it is a passing fancy, like so many before in human history. Sometimes it takes these moments of conflict to understand (and tolerate) each other better. When I was a child at family gatherings, my Uncle Louie would tell us cousins about our grandparents’ struggles when they immigrated to the US. “They were not treated kindly; they looked different, they talked differently, they had strange-sounding names. But they managed— and look now. Look what you have. That could have happened only if there was some good in us all. Remember, it only takes 20% of the horses giving 60% effort to keep the wagon moving in the right direction. Be that 20%.”

I wish you well.

Chapter 11. The Pyramids

If Artemis succeeds, it won’t just mark a return to the Moon. This final part explores how a successful program could signal a shift toward sustained human presence beyond Earth and a new era of exploration.

No valid reason exists to do it. Humans-in-space enthusiasts typically underestimate gravity and the fragility of life. The moment you put a human on a rocket, the mission becomes primarily keeping the human alive; a goal that can be accomplished much more easily and economically by not putting humans on a rocket.

One could use that same argument for putting people aboard a ship or in a car. If some of us choose to go to the Moon, we accept the risks. Who are you to decide what we do?

I am a person who believes I can and should have an opinion, especially about things that require the use of taxpayer money. And who are you to decide to go to the moon if you don't have a good reason to do it, and think that adventure is somehow equivalent to putting people in a car?

I’ve had some pretty adventurous times in cars, “Odds.” I also know you’re smart enough to recognize an analogy when you see one so please drop the obtuse act.

Let me use another analogy. I’m sure that several million years ago, a species of tree-dwelling primates in Africa were debating whether or not to try living on the ground for a change. Many said there are a host of problems with living on the ground. We can’t see danger approaching. It’s hard to find food. We’re more vulnerable to predators. The trees have always been good enough. We should just stay here.

But some of the critters made the transition to living on the ground anyway. Guess where they are now

I'm not sure our tree-dwelling ancestors thought or spoke like that. They were probably looking for immediate survival. I think a better analogy here is when the Egyptians realized that building magnificent pyramids was just not worth the effort.

This is getting tiresome, "Odds." You know perfectly well I was using a metaphor. Could it be you didn't have a snappy come-back?

Since you used the word “analogy,” I thought you meant to use an analogy, not a metaphor.

“Odds,” you successfully baited me. Well done. From now on I’ll suspend my literary license. I’m not trying to change your mind. I just want to make sure you understand my position.

Science has always been the excuse for space flight, not the reason. The visionaries who put robots on Mars and sent probes out of the Solar System did so to satisfy their curiosity. The science was along for the ride.

So once again we come to the conclusion that we go into space because we want to go into space. It’s okay if you don’t want to go, and I realize at this point in my life that I‘ll probably never get farther than just above the Kàrmán line. Nevertheless we, humanity, are going. I hope you can respect that.

Well-said. Understanding others’ position should be the initial goal in a civil conversation. As a retired educator, I prefer not to consider anything I do or say as “baiting.” But I confess that I enjoy trying to “hook” people on looking at problems from a variety of perspectives and understanding that much can be gained by looking at many contributing factors. If I read you correctly, you state the conclusion I have come to consider: the real reason we want to send humans to space is “that we want to send humans to space” knowing or having faith that it eventually will pay off somewhere, somehow down the road. But I hope you understand that the cost of such an endeavor, which is many orders of magnitude more difficult than sailing to the next island, curbs the enthusiasm of some of us, and makes us rethink some of our childhood dreams.

But soon, four humans will be blown off the planet to circle the Moon and come back in preparation for some future ill-defined (in terms of specifics) mission. We will celebrate the success, and I will respect it as much as I respect the Hoover Dam, and all the other remarkable accomplishments, including the Pyramids, humanity have made. But I’m more eagerly anticipating the results of the JWST, Nancy Grace, and the Europa Clipper, all of which provide the most likelihood of changing humanity’s view of itself.

No one underestimates gravity. To the contrary, we understand it well enough that we use to our advantage in planning missions. Everything from how to get to and stay in low earth orbit, to how to get to the moon, to how to send a deep space probe to Pluto and beyond.

Yes, Issac Newton was a genius— most of us are not. But let me state it two other ways. The average taxpaying person who is an enthusiast of Star- (Trek, Wars, whatever) does not give a flip about the Gravitational Constant. They just want to insert a warp drive and go where no one has gone before to battle the omnipresent evil antagonist. After decades of Hollywood entertainment and influence, too many fine folks are too easily sold on the concept of sending humans into space. When it comes to asking Congress for money to launch people into orbit, those petitioners who know will ignore the Gravitational Constant and lowball the cost of putting humans in orbit to do whatever they need to do. After all, we constantly put hundreds of people over 7 kilometers above Earth’s surface, so how much could it cost to send a handful a little higher (400 km)?

Every time you put a human on a rocket, the mission changes to carrying heavy consumables to keep the human alive. And there is sell— the gladiator in the area, facing death. For me, that is not good enough.

When we decide to send a robotic probe to Pluto, Mars, Jupiter, Titan, or Europa, or to L2, etc., we can focus attention and resources on the complexity of a well-defined mission, allowing us to do more with our resources.

There are lots of good reasons, it's just you don't them - that's an argument from ignorance

The world could have been a better place if you hadn't been born. But hey..

That’s an untestable hypothesis, but hey…

Thanks for the list. It provides an opportunity for all to consider, in some depth, the rationalizations and justifications for tackling such a mighty task. In the process, we might discover the real reason why so many want to see humans blown into space.

The 1960s Apollo Program (which, in retrospect, was a product of WWII) was built on these very same justifications—mainly the potential military use. The Apollo Program was successful because the Greatest Generation, a goal-driven generation, developed it. JFK spelled out that “simple” goal in a speech at my would-be Alma Mater, where, seven years later, I had a professor who was the PI of an instrument placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 12 astronauts. (Back to class in 1969: NASA had successfully landed several robotic probes on the Moon. We all knew that there was no need to launch Pete Conrad and Alan Bean to the Moon to place the Suprasternal Ion Detector on the lunar regolith).

Mission accomplished! But, as with all mighty endeavors, there are unintended consequences. One such consequence, which seems to be good or at least benign, is that the success of Apollo gave too many of us Boomers a false sense that “if we can go to the Moon, we can do anything (just give us the money!).”

So, the truly incredible engineering feat was accomplished over fifty years ago. If it were so important to have footprints on the Moon, one might wonder why we didn’t continue the Apollo program or why the Soviet Union didn't finish the “race” for the silver medal. One might conclude that reasonable people found the expense not worth the effort. Well, O.K., the Moon might be a bridge too far, so how about an LEO space station? All the justifications for going to the Moon still hold for a space station, and LEO is a lot closer (only 400 km—barely in space). But damn, gravity is a bitch, whether you launch for Earth orbit or the Moon— still too expensive. But wait! What if we made reusable rockets! Yeah, that’s it. Behold the Space Shuttle!

Which brings me to the STS. This was a tough sell to Congress, even with the overly ostentatious cost lowballing. So those at NASA pushing for it needed everything they could think of to justify the “savings” in Shuttle costs. Those engineers were so desperate, they convened a gaggle of life scientists to discuss the use of microgravity. I, and several hundred other biologists, biochemists, and pharmacologists, gathered at Houston’s JSC (I think it was still called the Manned Spacecraft Center) in 1975-6. Three days of group discussion ensued to develop a statement to help justify maintaining humans in microgravity for extended periods of time. The best we could come up with was that we could make purer pharmaceuticals in microgravity, thereby increasing their effectiveness or reducing their adverse side effects. Most of us shrugged, knowing that increasing the purity of a drug from 99% to 99.5% was not worth the cost of humans riding into LEO on what might be considered an “everyday” object: the shuttle is just an airplane was a reach. As with all political decisions, manipulative under-specification plays a significant role; Congress bought into it. So, as with Apollo, the STS accomplished its mission—then, here we are again, looking up, still desperately searching for justification to satisfy our Star Trek and Star Wars dreams.

For those of you who retort that NASA’s budget is less than 1% of the federal budget: almost every government program makes the same claim, which is why the Federal Government spends more than it has and why we are trillions of dollars in debt. This argument only has a chance when a balanced budget is achieved— and that is in a galaxy far, far away.

For those of you who argue that the private sector will pick up the tab: If you believe that, you have fallen for the manipulative under-specification too easily. But what about SpaceX?!! The incredible rocket scientists and engineers at SpaceX have developed a reliable, partially reusable, low-orbit launch vehicle that is best designed to launch useful unmanned probes into Earth orbit or beyond. But too many quickly accept the misleading notion that SpaceX is a “Private” entity, when it is really a de facto launch division of NASA, which has all the same issues and problems developing a human-rated spaceship as did the STS. Nobody is sending humans on long-duration space flights without taxpayer money.

For those who argue that it is worth it because of all the spend-offs: you can’t (or should not) justify the cost of human space because of some unknown development falling off the effort. As the coach told the highly touted rookie, “Son, your potential is gonna get me fired.”

For those who argue that it is human nature to explore, and we will die if we don’t: I agree, and that is why we should remember that NASA is more than a human-body-in-space program. The most productive part of NASA, in terms of expanding human knowledge and understanding, has been its very successful robotic space probes that truly go where no one has gone before. Those probes are the extensions of our senses, without having to carry the heavy load of the necessities of life. While there is plenty of room for dreamers and quantum physicists, most rational humans should function in the Golden Mean between Issac Newton, showing us the possibilities, and Albert Einstein, showing us our limitations.

So why aren't more people as enthusiastic about JWST, Hubble, Mars Rovers, the Europa Clipper, and all the other probes that have provided so much as they are about launching humans into space? I suspect it is the danger part that is so attractive. We are still somewhat primitive in that we so enjoy watching the thrills of the gladiators in the arena.

In short, NASA should abandon human spaceflight and focus on the real space program of discovery.

Your enthusiasm is admirable, but think about the irony of sending humans into space to repair robots sent into space. The service charge of sending the MayTag repairman to fix a space washing machine is astronomical. For the cost of sending astronauts to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, my guess is that we could have launched three additional Hubbles or a couple of JWSTs. We need more robotic scouts and fewer maintenance specialists. AI and robotic probes will best serve the future of space exploration. I would rather visit the JWST website and take a peek across the universe than watch Doug and Julie replace a Binford 3000 spectrooscilator on the outside of a small space station orbiting 400 Km above my head.

That being said, keep your enthusiasm— and let it expand into greater things.

Oh me personally I totally agree on the aspect of letting the remotely controlled machines and robots do as much work as possible in the hisgh-risk environments- No disagreement from me on that part whatsoevever. The only reasons I see humans having roles in space is for the time being lack of capability of the machines that are sent up, so they still to some degree might need that human touch where they fail. Another reason for the time being for humans to have where we have machines at work might be signal lag- If the signal takes several minutes and the answer takes yet as much time, for some processes that might cost the valuable machine and the failing of the job of that machine. Yet another reson for human presence still seems to be the human-hands-on necessity for a whole range of actions that need to be done when handling scientific projects and experiments. Apparently we still are not at the level and capacity that we can do those things purely 100% remotely. Yet another aspect aside from the politically motivated bragging rights for human presence at some far-off distant planet or other location more and more seems to be ... tourism and the attraction of the far and wide and dangerous, the urge to go out there and personally explore. Following all the concepts, plans and projects we've seen published over the past 5 or so decades, it would be my -absolutely granted -Amateur- estimate (so who would I be to have to say anything valuable on the matter, but hey a guy like me still is allowed to dream based on these concepts and plans) that as far as the industrial projects goes, we will eventually see some human-habited hubs out there on the moon, in regions of the asteroid fields, on Mars, elsewhere where they feel raw materials can be harvested to make big money, manned with a few technicians to oversee the far-away machines that do the work. Each of these hubs will also have space for a science department the way we also see that on the big drilling platforms out on the sea. And then there also eventually will be some limited space available for the first High-Rolling tourists, basically like we also have seen on the ISS where we have seen arrive the first tourists who could pay for the trip, basically privately sponsoring part of some aspects of the space station. To me that would eventually be the most likely scenario for some form of more or less sustained human presence away from our planet. Wil I at my age (60-ish) live to see that happen? I don't think so because this is all highly long and difficult and very expensive. Plus that we still have a lot of uncertainties here on our planet in terms of possible war and peace and several other things that might throw delaying spanners in the works. and then a few centuries on our human history still are just a blink of an eye. But all that said and looking at plans and developments sofar, It makes me feel pretty sure that these things eventually all will happen wether we personally might agree with them or not. I myself am mostly still getting to know my own planet by motorbike, kayak and sailboat. But if I ever would win the Big Lottery, who am I then to not say yes to the ticket to the successor to the ISS or to Moonbase Alpha.

I hope tomorrow is as good as we hope it will be. Before you spend your lottery winning on going to Moonbaase Alpha, let me share a little story. I live in a community near the NASA JSC in Houston. Two of my friends were space shuttle (STS) pilots, and three of my immediate neighbors were scientists at NASA. In 1982, just after the STS started "flying," the mood here was upbeat. Many thought the shuttle would be the key to enabling humans to leave Earth and establish colonies on other worlds. A local lawyer, who I believe had ties with NASA, invited a group of potential investors to invest $50,000 to begin the first settlement on the Moon. He called it. Lady Base 1. Some bought in: my wife and I did not. The lawyer was not trying to scam us; he felt the joy around him about the potential of the remarkable Space Shuttle. He was convinced that by the early 1990s, there would be human-inhabited bases on the Moon. So, keep your enthusiasm, but stay firmly grounded and hang on to the lottery winnings.

HOME