Hacker News Reader

Comment by hungryforcodes | Hacker News Reader

This was a commercial landing though. I guess its not there to do science or improve the human race.

What was behind it?

A commercial endeavor being able to land on the moon is an accomplishment in itself. That’s how you go from proof of concept to economic viability

> That’s how you go from proof of concept to economic viability

I don't think this is particularly coherent in this case. It's commercial, but there is no private sector customer.

All of the customers are government scientific agencies. It's all still very much science and/or nation-state prestige-driven. What's more, it's unclear what the commercial case for lunar landing would be in the near term, where "near term" means "any reasonable expectation of return on capital that doesn't come from taxpayers".

That’s a fair criticism, but one important distinction is that this develops infrastructure and expertise for purely economically/recreationally motivated projects down the line.

As for economic motivations in the near term, a lot I can think of are indeed still based on public funds, but one important thing about commercial landing being viable is that those publically funded endeavors don’t need to work the bureaucracy engine to get a government launch/can span governmental boundaries. If some US or UAE entity wants a telescope array on the moon, if they have the money for it, they could just pay for a commercial lunar lander. If the DOE wants to test he-3 mining they don’t need to go through congress to get NASA to deliver their payload.

It was a commercial craft carrying a payload from a few sources, including a rover from JAXA, the Japanese space agency, and a second rover built by the UAE.

Do the rovers at least still work?

Things tend to stop working after a crash landing

But, even if they did separate, find themselves on the ground, undamaged, still powered, they rely on the lander as a radio relay.

Most of the US fleet is now commercial as well, and they're doing plenty of science on NASA's behalf. This is the future. Or we'd be stuck with one SLS launch every decade instead.

Just because it’s a commercial endeavor does not make it useless, impactful, or suggest the people behind it genuinely care about the work they are doing. I’m willing to bet people working there right now watched in awe while humans first stepped foot on the moon, or watched the first space walk, or even witnessed some of the tragedies that happened during the shuttle program, all while dreaming to be part of them next team to do something even greater.

Most of the things that have improved the human race have been done commercially, and those motivated by profit have done a hundredfold more for humanity than those who were motivated by idealism.

Weird considering idealism got us things like free insulin[1] when none existed, Linux, important things like human rights, democracy etc.

[1] https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18293950/why-is-insulin-so-expe...

What if I told you that both can be true at the same time? A free market is one of the only vehicles that has allowed people to be lifted out of poverty, self determination and the freedom to decide one’s own destiny is a very profound idea that we take for granted when talking about different forms of governance that are fundamentally incompatible with that. On the other hand, we need a balance of power for the benefit and health of a society. Social safety nets, publicly beneficial infrastructure, and sensible regulations must exist, not in spite of, but to complement and protect the freedom we enjoy.

Idealism has brought us genocide, mass murder and war. Majority of the most awful people in human history have been idealists.

> free insulin[1] when none existed

Um, your reference is about how far from being free insulin is in the US.

> Linux

You think Linus built Linux out of idealism? Or that Linux is maintained at the quality level it has out of idealism?

It is to laugh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com