The news is full of it, excitement seems high, and I really don't get it. I'm not against space-related research, but why suddenly the moon? And why send people there? Can someone fill me in on what's to be gained or why one might be excited about it?
Allow me to use the linked article for my questions.
There have been three primary drivers of renewed interest in the Moon. The first was the discovery and confirmation in the 1990s and early 2000s that water ice is likely to exist at the lunar poles in permanently shadowed craters. The presence of abundant water, providing oxygen and hydrogen resources, has given space agencies a new reason to explore the poles.
Yea but so what? Hydrogen is literally the most common thing in the universe, no fucking way there is also some on the moon ๐คฏ. Then what's so spectacular about moon ice, water, or even oxygen? And why does it need people to explore it?
A second factor has been the rise of China's space program, which has sent a series of ambitious robotic missions to the Moon that have both landed on the far side and returned samples from the lunar surface. China has made no secret of its interest in sending astronauts to the Moon, leading to competing efforts between NASA's Artemis Program and China's lunar station goals.
Again why? Is this some repetition of the Cold War Soviet-US competition?
Finally, there has been some interest from private companies in the commercial development of the lunar surface, both to exploit resources there but also for other purposes. This has stimulated investment in private companies to provide transportation to the lunar surface, including ispace, Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines, and Firefly.
Exploiting resources has to be a joke, right? Do they want to sell us the newly found moon water? The only point I get is the tourism aspect. Because, of course, I always encourage billionaires to pursue dangerous hobbies ๐
Progress in one field often results in progress elsewhere, too. Apart from that, people working on projects on the moon would probably do the same work here, just under less good circumstances. It really is not a question of "throw enough money/personnel at the problems". What needs to be done on earth is very different from what's going on up there.
The money though. If they are not going to pry the money out of billionaires, it has to come from somewhere (less well off people). Those are arguably better spent to improve situations on the earth than on something that's likely to disproportionately benefit the wealthy as their plaything, extra income, escape or whatever. Especially because it should be clear to everyone except the absolute dumbest and delusional people how critical action is right now.
The USA spends 2.01 Trillion of its 6.1 Trillion USD budged on military annually. That's roughly 1/3 of its cash. If I were to repurpose some money for other purposes, such as fixing the infrastructure, that's probably where I'd start. Now, that's probably an argument everyone has heard so many times, you'll have gotten sick of it 20 years ago, but stricter regulations on taxation for ultrarich people, for example, would bring in more cash, and cracking down more on monopolies would help competition, ie. lead to more employment, and more sensible redistribution of money overall could help the environment, education and health of the people, and we wouldn't have touched space programs yet.
Then there's the argument that every Cent disappearing in private pockets, of which the overwhelming share (4.5 Trillion USD in the USA alone, as much as 2/3 of the country's yearly budget) goes to its 735 billionaires, is money lost to people. There are many ways to get more money, distribute it more productively (as in: better education, healthcare etc) than stuffing the pockets of a handful of people who then spend it on leisure projects. Every 5th or 6th yacht could finance not only one, but at least 10 schools or hospitals, and every 10th mansion would be enough to run homeless programs or battle drug addiction.
The fraction of money spent on space is negligible. It also has a ROI and provides real advances in tech and produces high-value work and income for people (which in turn leads to additional income).
It's really debatable if it's wise to start with space programs when it comes to redistribute money. And that's just the USA. Imagine the whole world came to its senses.
I think you are missing the point. The point isn't where the money is spent the most. The point is money has to come from somewhere. And yes, ideally it would be redirected from billionaires, mega-corps and military budget, but that's currently not happening. The money spent on space exploration is at least somewhere in the same vein as the ones spent on the environment, other researches etc. They are for the sake of making progress. Let's look at a hypothetical situation where space exploration is getting more traction again (more than now).
And that's the problem.