I guess I should follow up with the main point: Once you explicitly accept that you're going to use multiple launches to get back to the Moon, it opens up the trade space for lots of different architectures. If NASA doesn't already have a tiger team doing trade studies to present…
— Not-So-OK Boomer (@Rand_Simberg) April 28, 2025
No argument. There were lots and lots of different transportation devices that where attached to locomotives of the 19th Century.
…and more I think to your point, lots of way-points along the tracks?
Once you explicitly accept that you’re going to use multiple launches to get back to the Moon, it opens up the trade space for lots of different missions. Once people accept that we are going to be in space, working continuously we will get out of the hole we have been in since Apollo ended and the STS failed to make us a space fairing species.
A long time topic here has been the failure of the Apollo mindset for a continuous presence on the Moon. Flags and brags.
It shouldn’t matter whether or not we return to the Moon before China gets there for the first time. What should matter is what we do when we get there.
However, there isn’t anything wrong with beating China and a flags and brags isn’t mutually exclusive from doing other things.
What is the problem we are trying to solve? We aren’t trying to solve a problem but several problems and they should be worked on in parallel. Ideally, they would compliment each other but that depends on how important the government views beating China to the Moon and what the most efficient way is to do that.
A little flags and brags isn’t such a bad thing, as long as we keep working on everything else too.