To The Moon Alice

[Fred Steeves]

So I reckon this is mostly posed to Frank, who holds the Mr. Science post around here.

For starters, I cannot find any actual images, much less video, of this new commercial craft that supposedly landed on the moon's south pole. The best I can find is a lot of talk about it, video of mission control celebrating just like in "the good old days", and some animation. Also, original reports were that the module was upright, and transmitting.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhZ7kB5_22o


But then, we hear that it actually tipped over upon landing. Well now if it were properly transmitting as first reports indicated, why were they unaware it had tipped over? WTF?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukHVtAUKRdY


When this thing first landed I was willing to wait for a bit to see some moon surface video, but now that there's STILL nothing new, it's starting to tickle my conspiracy nerve center.



And then there's Part 2;

For whatever reason, I never really looked into the whole moon landing conspiracy, so Frank, talk me down from the crazy tree here. I mean yes I've been through the stuff years ago about supposedly having backup video shot in the desert in case it was not possible to get the actual moon video, but I've never been one to really challenge things that need so many people who were actually there, to be lying.

But I gotta say, perusing over some of the old Apollo footage, that shit looks fake as hell. Especially, the shot of the module taking off to return to the mother ship:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs


Noe I'm supposed to just swallow whole that back in 1972 we had technology to have a camera set up with an antenna attached to film the takeoff, and even pan up to follow the ascent; but today in 2024, 52 years later, we are only able to view animations of such events?

And today they make it sound like such a big deal to get a robot back there, but 52 years ago they had the technology to not only land a manned module on the surface, but have it take back off and hook back up with the mother ship again?

Seems like either technology is somehow backsliding in that arena, of something strange is going on.

I'm all ears.

[Aragorn]

So I reckon this is mostly posed to Frank, who holds the Mr. Science post around here.

For starters, I cannot find any actual images, much less video, of this new commercial craft that supposedly landed on the moon's south pole. The best I can find is a lot of talk about it, video of mission control celebrating just like in "the good old days", and some animation. Also, original reports were that the module was upright, and transmitting.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhZ7kB5_22o


But then, we hear that it actually tipped over upon landing. Well now if it were properly transmitting as first reports indicated, why were they unaware it had tipped over? WTF?

Yes, it was first believed to have landed upright, but then it turned out to have tipped over. This need not necessarily have happened during landing, because the moon suffers from quakes just as Earth does, and the lunar surface is quite different too. It's mostly dust, and not always very stable. Gravity's also a lot lower there — about 1/8th of Earth's gravity — and there is no atmosphere.

I remember having read that it tipped over due to having been tripped in its descent by one of the landing legs catching on a rock or something, but I'm not certain whether that was with regard to NASA's probe or the earlier Japanese one, which also landed upside down. I think it was NASA's probe, but I could be wrong.

When this thing first landed I was willing to wait for a bit to see some moon surface video, but now that there's STILL nothing new, it's starting to tickle my conspiracy nerve center.

Well, it is possible that they're not receiving any usable video footage from the lander itself due to the thing not standing up straight and the cameras thus facing the wrong direction, showing nothing but the ground underneath the probe.

And then there's Part 2;

For whatever reason, I never really looked into the whole moon landing conspiracy, so Frank, talk me down from the crazy tree here. I mean yes I've been through the stuff years ago about supposedly having backup video shot in the desert in case it was not possible to get the actual moon video, but I've never been one to really challenge things that need so many people who were actually there, to be lying.

Actually, the shots that were filmed at a soundstage on Earth were fake, just as Kubrick's testimony. As the matter of fact, the guy pretending to be Kubrick was not Kubrick but an actor, and the whole thing was allegedly some sort of mockumentary to fuel the conspiracy theories. Likewise for that whole "Alternative 3" documentary, which was fake as well, notwithstanding that a certain Fearless Leader™ and his faithful flock of sycophants believe that it was real.

But I gotta say, perusing over some of the old Apollo footage, that shit looks fake as hell. Especially, the shot of the module taking off to return to the mother ship:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs

It was real, though. But as I explained — and I know that it's difficult to come to terms with — the moon is a very different environment to Earth, and things/objects do not always behave there as they would on Earth.

Noe I'm supposed to just swallow whole that back in 1972 we had technology to have a camera set up with an antenna attached to film the takeoff, and even pan up to follow the ascent; but today in 2024, 52 years later, we are only able to view animations of such events?

Well, I can only speculate about the reasons why. I think that part of it is the attempt to keep the weight down by not including equipment that's not deemed absolutely necessary, in part also because back at the time, a round trip to the moon was the event of a lifetime — it had never been done before — whereas nowadays, it's more of an "Oh, if we forget about something then we'll take care of it on our next mission." The magic of that first excursion toward another celestial body is no longer there. With all of space exploration's endeavors of the last five decades, sending a robot to the moon is almost merely a simple routine now.

Secondly, this particular mission is also far more specific regarding its objectives. It's not a general-purpose "Let's try to get human beings to land on that rock and see what it's like over there"-thing anymore, but a specific geological survey.

Thirdly, then there's also how much time and attention the media are willing to devote to it in the midst of far "sexier" news, like the upcoming race for the White House between two rather controversial figures, the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and whatever sports game or reality show Joe Sixpack is interested in these days.

And today they make it sound like such a big deal to get a robot back there, but 52 years ago they had the technology to not only land a manned module on the surface, but have it take back off and hook back up with the mother ship again?

Yes, and the whole thing was controlled by two 8-bit Commodore C=64 computers. Okay, yes, and three humans too.

Seems like either technology is somehow backsliding in that arena, of something strange is going on.

I'm all ears.

Maybe it's not so much the technology that's backsliding, but rather human ingenuity. Furthermore, back in the day, the whole thing was one big NASA event, but nowadays most of the mission's logistical support rests in private hands. The rocket that launched the thing toward the moon was from SpaceX — the lander itself is from yet another company, called Intuitive Machines — and SpaceX has already long proven that they can not only launch the thing up into space, but also get it to land here on Earth again — and even on a floating platform at sea — after having sent its payload on the way. So the awe-moment of that particular aspect has already long expired, and especially since there are no humans onboard of the probe itself — it's a robot.

Perhaps not a good comparison, but it's a little like the first ship sailing toward an as yet uncharted continent, versus hopping on a plane in New York to go and sign a business contract in Abu Dhabi.

Another aspect is that there are no cameras on the lunar surface to film the touchdown due to the landing site now being near the lunar south pole, as opposed to near the equator, where the other lunar landings have occurred.

[Fred Steeves]

Well, it is possible that they're not receiving any usable video footage from the lander itself due to the thing not standing up straight and the cameras thus facing the wrong direction, showing nothing but the ground underneath the probe.

I suppose, but then no cameras were working on the way toward touch down either. Again we have animations, just not actual footage, one would think with all the hoopla, they would have gone out of their way to have footage of everything.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs

It was real, though. But as I explained — and I know that it's difficult to come to terms with — the moon is a very different environment to Earth, and things/objects do not always behave there as they would on Earth.

I'm not insisting it's not real, but to me it looks like special effects from like, movies from the 50's or 60's.

Also, are stars not seen from the moon? I would think the sky would should be fully ablaze with them.

Now I'm supposed to just swallow whole that back in 1972 we had technology to have a camera set up with an antenna attached to film the takeoff, and even pan up to follow the ascent; but today in 2024, 52 years later, we are only able to view animations of such events?

Well, I can only speculate about the reasons why. I think that part of it is the attempt to keep the weight down by not including equipment that's not deemed absolutely necessary, in part also because back at the time, a round trip to the moon was the event of a lifetime — it had never been done before — whereas nowadays, it's more of an "Oh, if we forget about something then we'll take care of it on our next mission." The magic of that first excursion toward another celestial body is no longer there. With all of space exploration's endeavors of the last five decades, sending a robot to the moon is almost merely a simple routine now.

There's cameras everywhere these days, people video everything and do so quite cheaply. And there's no mission creep going on here where we're doing this all the time and it's ho hum. This hasn't been done in 52 years.

The media was all over this, they just didn't have anything to show us, you don't find the lack of any evidence just a bit strange?

Yes, and the whole thing was controlled by two 8-bit Commodore C=64 computers.

Apparently those didn't hit the market until '82. Are you saying NASA first was using them 10 years prior?

And they were capable of things like remote controlling in real time the camera panning up that filmed the lift off? Even if they were, I thought all communications back then had a certain lag time, that would be really hard to remote control pan that camera for real time lift off.

Again I'm not throwing out the "Fake News" red flag here, but I do have questions.

Another aspect is that there are no cameras on the lunar surface to film the touchdown due to the landing site now being near the lunar south pole, as opposed to near the equator, where the other lunar landings have occurred

No, but even the Apollo missions filmed their own landing, no reason they couldn't have done that here. They went to the trouble of animating it, why not just flip on a camera and video it for real?

[Emil El Zapato]

Yes, it was first believed to have landed upright, but then it turned out to have tipped over. This need not necessarily have happened during landing, because the moon suffers from quakes just as Earth does, and the lunar surface is quite different too. It's mostly dust, and not always very stable. Gravity's also a lot lower there — about 1/8th of Earth's gravity — and there is no atmosphere.

I remember having read that it tipped over due to having been tripped in its descent by one of the landing legs catching on a rock or something, but I'm not certain whether that was with regard to NASA's probe or the earlier Japanese one, which also landed upside down. I think it was NASA's probe, but I could be wrong.



Well, it is possible that they're not receiving any usable video footage from the lander itself due to the thing not standing up straight and the cameras thus facing the wrong direction, showing nothing but the ground underneath the probe.



Actually, the shots that were filmed at a soundstage on Earth were fake, just as Kubrick's testimony. As the matter of fact, the guy pretending to be Kubrick was not Kubrick but an actor, and the whole thing was allegedly some sort of mockumentary to fuel the conspiracy theories. Likewise for that whole "Alternative 3" documentary, which was fake as well, notwithstanding that a certain Fearless Leader™ and his faithful flock of sycophants believe that it was real.




It was real, though. But as I explained — and I know that it's difficult to come to terms with — the moon is a very different environment to Earth, and things/objects do not always behave there as they would on Earth.



Well, I can only speculate about the reasons why. I think that part of it is the attempt to keep the weight down by not including equipment that's not deemed absolutely necessary, in part also because back at the time, a round trip to the moon was the event of a lifetime — it had never been done before — whereas nowadays, it's more of an "Oh, if we forget about something then we'll take care of it on our next mission." The magic of that first excursion toward another celestial body is no longer there. With all of space exploration's endeavors of the last five decades, sending a robot to the moon is almost merely a simple routine now.

Secondly, this particular mission is also far more specific regarding its objectives. It's not a general-purpose "Let's try to get human beings to land on that rock and see what it's like over there"-thing anymore, but a specific geological survey.

Thirdly, then there's also how much time and attention the media are willing to devote to it in the midst of far "sexier" news, like the upcoming race for the White House between two rather controversial figures, the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and whatever sports game or reality show Joe Sixpack is interested in these days.



Yes, and the whole thing was controlled by two 8-bit Commodore C=64 computers. Okay, yes, and three humans too.



Maybe it's not so much the technology that's backsliding, but rather human ingenuity. Furthermore, back in the day, the whole thing was one big NASA event, but nowadays most of the mission's logistical support rests in private hands. The rocket that launched the thing toward the moon was from SpaceX — the lander itself is from yet another company, called Intuitive Machines — and SpaceX has already long proven that they can not only launch the thing up into space, but also get it to land here on Earth again — and even on a floating platform at sea — after having sent its payload on the way. So the awe-moment of that particular aspect has already long expired, and especially since there are no humans onboard of the probe itself — it's a robot.

Perhaps not a good comparison, but it's a little like the first ship sailing toward an as yet uncharted continent, versus hopping on a plane in New York to go and sign a business contract in Abu Dhabi.

Another aspect is that there are no cameras on the lunar surface to film the touchdown due to the landing site now being near the lunar south pole, as opposed to near the equator, where the other lunar landings have occurred.

One big difference is that the NASA engineering approach was very 'mature', they did not rely on technologies that were not vigorously tried and true which is why it was such a big joke about how 'antiquated' the environment was. They had many failures on any account leading up to their successes. The private companies on the other hand, despite having people with domain knowledge lack the engineering maturity. I remember distinctly listening to 'silence' from a probe landing on Mars. (I felt bad for the people whose egos depended on its success) Purportedly, there was a curse but it was probably aliens. I felt that the U.S. turned over the space program to private enterprise prematurely but they have accomplished some amazing things in my opinion. (I remember listening to a presentation by a NASA bigwig talking about the positivity of joint efforts between NASA and private enterprise, I leaned over to one of my colleagues and remarked that the guy would be gone in no time. Heh, heh, guess what, I was right. All in all, it just wouldn't pay off to start putting humans on these craft for a good while yet.

[Aragorn]

I suppose, but then no cameras were working on the way toward touch down either. Again we have animations, just not actual footage, one would think with all the hoopla, they would have gone out of their way to have footage of everything.

I will admit that it's odd that they're not showing us that footage. It probably does exist.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs


I'm not insisting it's not real, but to me it looks like special effects from like, movies from the 50's or 60's.

Well, the filming equipment wasn't high-resolution yet back then. Also, the detonation of the explosive bolts and the fast upward acceleration would be consistent with the moon's low gravity and absence of an atmosphere.

Also, are stars not seen from the moon? I would think the sky would should be fully ablaze with them.

Light pollution from the spotlights they had put down everywhere, and from the sun. It made the image so bright that the stars were no longer visible — or perhaps better put, "no longer distinguishable".

There's cameras everywhere these days, people video everything and do so quite cheaply. And there's no mission creep going on here where we're doing this all the time and it's ho hum. This hasn't been done in 52 years.

The media was all over this, they just didn't have anything to show us, you don't find the lack of any evidence just a bit strange?

Hmm... The word "evidence" may be a bit suggestive in this context. There is no doubt on my mind that they did go there and landed, albeit not quite on their feet.

That said, I don't know why they're not showing us more. Who decided on what to show us and what not? Was it NASA? Was it the networks? Was it the private contractor?

Apparently those didn't hit the market until '82. Are you saying NASA first was using them 10 years prior?

Yeah, you're right. It wasn't the Commodore C=64, but it was something similarly underpowered compared to the computers we have today.

And they were capable of things like remote controlling in real time the camera panning up that filmed the lift off? Even if they were, I thought all communications back then had a certain lag time, that would be really hard to remote control pan that camera for real time lift off.

There is a (very short) delay, yes, but it depends on how close the moon is to Earth — it won't be more than just a few seconds. But I'm guessing that the panning camera was either possibly controlled from within the lander or preprogrammed to track the lander module as it took off — the technology to do so already existed in the combat control systems of jet fighters in those days.

Again I'm not throwing out the "Fake News" red flag here, but I do have questions.

Understood.

No, but even the Apollo missions filmed their own landing, no reason they couldn't have done that here. They went to the trouble of animating it, why not just flip on a camera and video it for real?

It probably was filmed. We just didn't get to see it, but I have no solid answers as to why not.

[Fred Steeves]

It probably was filmed. We just didn't get to see it, but I have no solid answers as to why not.

Well, I guess that's the bottom line of this then. It was promised, but not delivered.

To me, this is the gray area of where conspiracy theories are born. When people who have looked into things enough where they're well aware of how much deception, at multiple levels is out there, and something like this comes along with zero video in an age where everything is videoed. It raises suspicions.

Why would they say they did this if they really didn't? I don't know. How did an ex Nazi SS officer (Werner Von Braun - 1st head of NASA), and an Aleister Crowley devotee (Jack Parsons - founder of Jet Propulsion Laboratory), wind up being the co-founding fathers of the US space program? What are the odds?

And then besides the couple of robots to Mars, why did NASA revert to basically a low orbit yawn festival for the next 50 years after all the dreams of how they were going to build on top of the moon landing era?

[Aragorn]

And then besides the couple of robots to Mars, why did NASA revert to basically a low orbit yawn festival for the next 50 years after all the dreams of how they were going to build on top of the moon landing era?

Well, that part has always been explained away as being due to budgetary reasons, which sounds plausible.

[Fred Steeves]

Right. Do you buy that? I've never known Uncle Sam to not have the funds needed to do, whatever it is that he wants to do.

I remember being in grade school and hearing about all the wonderful progress yet to be had with this new Space Shuttle coming online. And then, that was that, they never really did anything with it. And then by the time that was to be phased out, there were never even plans for its successor, just start hitching rides to the space station with Russia (back of course before "Russia Bad!").

Remember? The goal after man on the moon was to start building a base there, and use that for easier launching for more deep space manned explorations? Verner Von Braun had big visions since the 1930's of colonies on Mars, that's what he had in mind, and then they just shut that shit down.

[Emil El Zapato]

Well, that part has always been explained away as being due to budgetary reasons, which sounds plausible.

Budgets were always coming and going particularly after the U.S. won the moon race...that was the crowning glory of a propaganda coup. After that money was much harder to come by, particularly after the DOD and NASA split. The manned space program was less vital to accomplishing propaganda goals and became more of an actual science project...Now just consider how ho-hum by nature that is.
I worked on a project called CAU (Cockpit Avionics Upgrade). It was a high-value shuttle-related effort but after the 2nd shuttle accident...poof, the sheltered untouchable money went away. Most NASA engineers hated the Democratic Party because they were always lowering the budget in favor of entitlements (incidentally even then anti-Demos had an exemplary ability to fantasize).

My personal opinion which I voiced among my co-workers (without laughter) was that 'we' never went back to the moon because the aliens said, 'Stay the fork out'.

[Wind]

Right. Do you buy that? I've never known Uncle Sam to not have the funds needed to do, whatever it is that he wants to do.

I don't. They saw things in the moon they don't want us to know about. Also that whole space race was about who gets to be there first, USA or the Soviet Union. I think NASA faked certain aspects of it, but they did go there. I don't however buy the fact that they wouldn't have been there since the 70's. I am absolutely certain that they for sure have some black space ops we don't know about. They do know about aliens that visit us all the time and probably have always visited because they're so closely tied to the history of humanity. And just like with humans, some of them are bad and some are good. When you look at the world, you could almost see that there's an organized chaos to keep people busy with nonsense. That is organized by certain factions, quite possibly nonhuman elements are at the top.

The Pentagon is never going to address the UFO issue. They also changed the term ufo to uap so it would not have the baggage of the past. The truth won't come out from the news, the truth must be found. I don't think we would be seeing any mass landings anytime soon because it would be too big, however there could be isolated incidents like with the Phoenix "lights", which in fact was a massive spacecraft. I can buy that there is some pretty advanced tech hidden from us, but there's absolutely no way humans could have built that.

[Fred Steeves]

Right. Do you buy that? I've never known Uncle Sam to not have the funds needed to do, whatever it is that he wants to do.

I don't. They saw things in the moon they don't want us to know about.

I tend to agree. The original intent of this thread was not to "go there", but that was probably inevitable. Thus me eventually bringing something like the following into the mix:

Why would they say they did this if they really didn't? I don't know. How did an ex Nazi SS officer (Werner Von Braun - 1st head of NASA), and an Aleister Crowley devotee (Jack Parsons - founder of Jet Propulsion Laboratory), wind up being the co-founding fathers of the US space program? What are the odds?

Also that whole space race was about who gets to be there first, USA or the Soviet Union.

Yes. But then I reckon what confounds me, is the inherent colonial aspect of the West in that man on the moon was the launching pad to "the stars", for the sake of colonization, and then suddenly just washed their hands of it and walked away in lieu of low earth orbit purgatory.

I think NASA faked certain aspects of it, but they did go there.

I agree, but am not so sure in agreeing to every aspect of the story, or the evidence. That's more pointing to the original intent of this thread, of course it need not be confined to that, not my style.

I am absolutely certain that they for sure have some black space ops we don't know about. They do know about aliens that visit us all the time and probably have always visited because they're so closely tied to the history of humanity. And just like with humans, some of them are bad and some are good. When you look at the world, you could almost see that there's an organized chaos to keep people busy with nonsense. That is organized by certain factions, quite possibly nonhuman elements are at the top.

And something like that IMO, is where Corey Goode types enter the picture, being the proverbial turd in the punch bowl for any ideas along those lines.

[Wind]

And something like that IMO, is where Corey Goode types enter the picture, being the proverbial turd in the punch bowl for any ideas along those lines.

Corey Goode types are desperate for attention and money. He just somehow managed to become a star in the alternative scene and got his 15 minutes of fame until it all came down crashing down and not many would believe him and his nonsense anymore. Too many did for a while. I don't think he was a plant though, although it's always a possibility. David Wilcock just saw an opportunity to capitalize there. I think there are not many, if any genuine secret space travelling whistleblowers so for the most part it's hard to get to the truth that way.

[Fred Steeves]

Corey Goode types are desperate for attention and money. He just somehow managed to become a star in the alternative scene and got his 15 minutes of fame until it all came down crashing down and not many would believe him and his nonsense anymore. Too many did for a while. I don't think he was a plant though, although it's always a possibility. David Wilcock just saw an opportunity to capitalize there. I think there are not many, if any genuine secret space travelling whistleblowers so for the most part it's hard to get to the truth that way.

Well Corey was just an example off the top of my head, so take it or leave it; but the wonderful world of gatekeeping is a very real thing, in that why do some people enjoy a meteoric rise, while others remain in the doldrums.

And that can be for multiple reasons as well, in this case, to discredit any alternatives other than that of the official NASA story for instance.

[Aragorn]

And then besides the couple of robots to Mars, why did NASA revert to basically a low orbit yawn festival for the next 50 years after all the dreams of how they were going to build on top of the moon landing era?

Well, that part has always been explained away as being due to budgetary reasons, which sounds plausible.

Right. Do you buy that? I've never known Uncle Sam to not have the funds needed to do, whatever it is that he wants to do.

Budgets were always coming and going particularly after the U.S. won the moon race...that was the crowning glory of a propaganda coup. After that money was much harder to come by, particularly after the DOD and NASA split. The manned space program was less vital to accomplishing propaganda goals and became more of an actual science project...Now just consider how ho-hum by nature that is.
I worked on a project called CAU (Cockpit Avionics Upgrade). It was a high-value shuttle-related effort but after the 2nd shuttle accident...poof, the sheltered untouchable money went away. Most NASA engineers hated the Democratic Party because they were always lowering the budget in favor of entitlements (incidentally even then anti-Demos had an exemplary ability to fantasize).

The above explanation is in agreement with my own opinion. When the Soviet Union still existed, it was indeed a race to the moon for propaganda reasons — this was no different among the Soviets themselves — but once that goal had been attained and the success had been repeated a few times, the US government decided to allot much smaller budgets to NASA and even greater budgets to the Pentagon.

On account of NASA, the first phase of this shift in priorities was to aim less high, but make it more economic at the same time, i.e. via the reusable Space Shuttle — of which the Russians and the Chinese had built working clones. I even think that the Russian clone was an officially licensed one — i.e. that the Russians had paid the US for a legal copy of the blueprints.

In the meantime since the heydays of the Shuttle, the door has also been opened for privately funded and engineered space exploration. Virgin Galactic (owned by Richard Branson) was the first privately owned company to travel to (the edge of) space, soon followed by SpaceX (owned by Elon Musk) and Blue Origin (owned by Jeff Bezos). And now even more private companies have begun developing things that either fly up into space all by themselves, or that hitch a ride from one of the two US-based "specialist" companies, i.e. SpaceX and Blue Origin, with SpaceX probably having amassed the most experience in this area so far.

And meanwhile, other objectives have also already been thrown onto the table, such as the mining of asteroids for precious metals. This will most likely draw in more private companies, and will even so likely have a greater chance of employing robots and artificial intelligence than actual human astronauts.

So the goals have shifted and the related government budgets have become more regimented, while at the same time, private projects funded by private money have entered the arena.

[Emil El Zapato]

The above explanation is in agreement with my own opinion. When the Soviet Union still existed, it was indeed a race to the moon for propaganda reasons — this was no different among the Soviets themselves — but once that goal had been attained and the success had been repeated a few times, the US government decided to allot much smaller budgets to NASA and even greater budgets to the Pentagon.

On account of NASA, the first phase of this shift in priorities was to aim less high, but make it more economic at the same time, i.e. via the reusable Space Shuttle — of which the Russians and the Chinese had built working clones. I even think that the Russian clone was an officially licensed one — i.e. that the Russians had paid the US for a legal copy of the blueprints.

In the meantime since the heydays of the Shuttle, the door has also been opened for privately funded and engineered space exploration. Virgin Galactic (owned by Richard Branson) was the first privately owned company to travel to (the edge of) space, soon followed by SpaceX (owned by Elon Musk) and Blue Origin (owned by Jeff Bezos). And now even more private companies have begun developing things that either fly up into space all by themselves, or that hitch a ride from one of the two US-based "specialist" companies, i.e. SpaceX and Blue Origin, with SpaceX probably having amassed the most experience in this area so far.

And meanwhile, other objectives have also already been thrown onto the table, such as the mining of asteroids for precious metals. This will most likely draw in more private companies, and will even so likely have a greater chance of employing robots and artificial intelligence than actual human astronauts.

So the goals have shifted and the related government budgets have become more regimented, while at the same time, private projects funded by private money have entered the arena.

Over time the payoff could be immense, whole planets made of diamond...might wreck the market though...