Your beacon for the latest news and insightful commentary across the fields of space, science, technology, medicine, energy, AI, and more. To those who are excited about the future and weary of all the doomerism, welcome aboard!

Catch my commentary on Elon Musk's Starship & Mars update.

https://technooptimist1.substack.com/p/techno-optimist-2

Rick Tumlinson characterizes the U.S. "Moon to Mars" plans as short term "camping trips". See, for example,

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ricktumlinson_turkey-applies-for-china-russia-space-programme-activity-7184169933562343425-S7Q3/

That is, instead of focusing on building up infrastructure that will be useful to building an economy and civilization on places like the Moon and Mars, we're just doing short visits. The Moon to Mars program could be summarized as a series of short Moon visits (a few trips up to 5 days) done mainly as practice for a short visit to Mars (maybe a few weeks).

I'd say that in effect there are two space races now: one for political & economic power, and the other for "prestige" (like the Apollo program). China is doing a good job in both races, while the US still seems to lean mainly towards the "prestige". By contrast, the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program emphasizes finding and exploiting resources, human habitation, and "strategic needs".

Longer term development needs things like ISRU (In Situ Resource Utilization, including everything from resource surveys, using regolith for building material or mining it for water or metals, building solar cells as proposed by Blue Origin), agriculture, serious recycling, etc. NASA does fund studies on all these things, but that funding isn't really a major NASA or national goal. The majority of the spending goes to planetary science & astronomy, and to the "Moon to Mars"/SLS programs. The planetary science & astronomy is good stuff, but we seem to be skimping on serious funding on infrastructure on the ground where the resources are (Moon/Mars/Asteroids). These programs might only leave behind some vehicles and "camping huts" unsuitable for very long visits (because they won't have radiation protection, for instance).

On the other hand, I am encouraged by CLPS and other programs which are funding all kinds of useful technology like solar power grids and the like (although nuclear power really needs to be bumped up higher in priority). It just doesn't look the major Moon to Mars programs assume they'll really use much of it.

The Chinese program seems more focused on what it will take for a permanent lunar base. Their past successes and plans for the future are detailed (and compared to some US and Japanese efforts) at https://youtu.be/ihTY_r_Og4I (YouTube video, 20 minutes)

Hello!
I'm an entrepreneur at an early stage start up. I'm in at the stage where I'm testing out my hypothesis. I would like to talk to other entrepreneurs / product managers who use satellite buses for their own businesses.

Is anyone available to fill out a quick 5 min survey?

Thanks in advance!

The title pretty much. Also, while i'm at it, what are some good secondary sources?

SpaceX tried to demonstrate propellant transfer on Starship IFT 3 but it was stopped due to complications I can't remember.

I understand that propellant transfer is necessary in order of having enough fuel getting to Mars.

Although I don't understand what's so hard about it? Isn't it just to transfer propellant from the nose of Starship to the main tanks? What makes that hard to do?

I am writing a major assignment at my university about the Space Race of the past, but I am having significant trouble finding sources that compare the Soviet Union's N-1 moon rocket with the USA's Saturn V rocket (scientifically). Or just sources that explain the N-1's major flaws. Thank you in advance.

On the occasion of the International Day of Human Space Flight, we teamed up with Cosmos for Humanity to add 3 levels on the theme of "Humanity in Space" to our trivia game.

I hope you like it!

https://mixstory.playcurious.games

I’ve been active in learning about rocket engines for a long time, and never heard much about the turbine blades and whether or not they circulate fuel through them for regenerative cooling, like air breathing turbines often do(but with air instead of fuel), or like the nozzle itself does. If they don’t, why? You would be able to run the engine with way more power, as you got higher preburber temps, or trade that for longevity, with a cooler blade.