NASA knows how to get to the Moon. Give the contract to SpaceX. It is Congress that insists that money be given to Bezos because of campaign contributions from Amazon and Bezos himself. The relevant facts, not mentioned in the article, are that SpaceX is flying regular crewed flights to the ISS and even higher, is delivering cargo to the ISS, is launching orbital payloads for the military and private companies including to geosynchronous orbit with the most powerful rocket currently in existence, the Falcon Heavy. And SpaceX is making rapid progress on Starship which could do the entire Moon landing mission without SLS/ Orion if the politicians would get out of the way.

Meanwhile, Bezos has never put anything into orbit. He is running single engine pop-up flights for tourists. Even though Blue Origin got much more development money than SpaceX for the HLS lander, what they delivered to NASA was a fake prototype consisting of an inflated balloon instead of an actual crew cabin. Bezos is a con man who willl never get to the Moon no matter how much money you give him.

Personally, I would skip the Moon and go directly to Mars but if the Moon is what you want, then cancel SLS/ Orion and fund the Starship for the entire mission. Whether you like Musk or not (and he is a bit irritating at times) he is the DaVinci of our age and he is personally dedicated to colonizing Mars, no matter what the politicians want.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist who is not afraid to tell the ttuth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Why would anyone quote Jeff Bezos as to what constitutes innovation in rocketry. He has been pouring money into the rocket business for 20 years and has NEVER managed to put ANYTHING into orbit.

That shot which for you would be a booster (3rd shot) will give you near perfect immunity for at least 6 months. That same shot given as a first vaccination to someone who hasn't had one, will give poor protection, probably for much less than 6 months. Not sure which ethical system you base your objections on, but math would suggest that a booster is a more effective use of a shot than a first vaccination. If you want to argue that third world people who have less access to vaccines deserve equal protection, you will have to include more total doses in your plan.

In the English language, people who go to space (other than as tourists) are called astronauts. This article continues the silly convention of referring to Russian astronauts as cosmonauts. Or even worse, it calls them "Russian cosmonauts" as though there might be any other kind. This would be a great time to rid ourselves of a cold war relic in language that is related to dehumanizing the enemy. There is even a reference in this post to European Union astronauts. I don't think there is a rational explanation for this silliness.

If there is a problem with the "other billionaires" besides Elon Musk, it is that they are not accomplishing anything. And I laughed at the suggestion that it was ok when the government did it because that was a common project. Actually, the government is at this moment pouring billions of dollars down the rat hole of the SLS project which exists to serve as a conduit for faxpayers' money to be routed to Congressional campaign donors. A tidy little dance of money circling the drain. Now, to Elon who is not mentioned in the article but is an obvious target of it. It's Elon who has done more to bring electric cars into the race to reduce carbon emissions by producing electric vehicles that people want to buy and can actually afford. And I don't think Elon's billions could make even a small dent in the global problem of over-population, polution, resource depletion, and species extinction that is bringing our planet to its knees. Instead he is using his da Vinci level talents to create an offworld colony where humans and the millions of species still left on our dear Earth can survive an asteroid strike, global heating, pandemic, nuclear war and all the other natural and man-made disasters that could end our little experiment in life. Thanks Elon.

There is a lawnmower version of this. My brother in law sells them at his shop in Bessemer, Alabama called Advanced Mower.(877) 428-1546

Astronomers are being very short sighted about this. (pardon the pun) They are trying to protect Earth based astronomy which is not that great anyway due to atmospheric interference. SpaceX will in the near future offer low cost launches of space-based observatories that will far surpass the ones on Earth. The future of astronomy is in space.

Yes, it is also important for individuals to use small telescopes or just the naked eye to enjoy the heavens. But that type of viewing is not going to be disturbed by the Starlink satellites currently being put in orbit. City lights are a much worse problem for amateur astronomers.

Raising the orbit of these satellites would not benefit astronomers in the long run. If there was a malfunction of the satellite such that it could not deorbit under its own power, it would would still come out of orbit and burn up in a relatively short time. But if the orbit were raised as suggested, the satellite (or the pieces remaining after an explosion or collision) would stay in orbit much longer (maybe for thousands of years, depending on the altitude). That would eventually cause a much bigger and perhaps permanent degradation in astronomy.

Obama canceled the idea of returning to the moon and Biden should do the same. There is little scientific value to putting people on the moon. There may be a military motive but even that is not clear. Machines can do whatever needs to be done there.

The success of SpaceX is not just due to fixed-price contracts, although that is a good idea. SpaceX has a "fail early, fail often" approach to development that only recently has attracted notice from NASA administrator Bridenstine. Elon Musk favors building the "minimal functional" prototype and testing it to failure. Old Space (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman) try to design perfection the first time. Of course, that's expensive and usually does not work. So their real plan is to continue to collect NASA money and not really ever launch anything. That's why SLS is so expensive and will probably never launch. There is also a political motive since Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama has blocked more sensible plans in order to funnel development money to Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

I find the intro statement odd :"This reflects how legacy defense companies are racing to keep up with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos in space"

They are desperately trying to survive in the same market as SpaceX. But BO? Bezos has been in the space business for 20 years and has still not put one single thing into orbit. He is building the BE4 methane engine but it has never flown. Keeping up with Jeff is hardly a stretch goal.

This is not a reputable research article. It's more like an ad for a miracle cure. How do I know? The article does not identify the small molecular weight component that has these wonderful properties. That guarantees that no other lab can repeat the studies. I suggest ignoring this article.

The launch mentioned in the article is not happening on November 21. It is happening on November 22 at 9:56 PM

The premise of the comment may be a bit faulty. Free software programmers are not tired. Anyone who was tired and not enjoying the ride is free to hop off and presumably has already done so. As to the number of projects that are successful, obviously that depends on your definition. If you mean a giant project that brings corporate tie-ins and lots of money, there are a few. But they are generally very useful to everyone. Projects like Firefox and Chrome Browser, and LibreOffice for example. And yes, Linux. But there are many more small projects that do one thing very well. They meet a need that someone cares about and which is not being met by commercial software. Those projects solve a problem and it stays solved, even when the folks who solved it are long gone. The software lives on in the free license that made it possible to start with.

This does not explain how the vulnerable will be protected other than by excluding them from the "normal" functioning of society that others enjoy. This sounds more like "banish the vulnerable" so they don't interfere in our fun. Such a plan not only leads to more deaths of young, otherwise healthy people but also is unlikely to result in herd immunity. There is now a confirmed case of Covid re-infection and no proof that immunity is even possible. Also, allowing the virus to cavort uncontrolled in the public only increases the chances of a mutation that is more infectious or more lethal. All this because we don't have the discipline exhibited by New Zealand which has conducted hard shutdowns for short periods and has almost completely eliminated the virus so that society really can function as normal.