It's hard not to see this as a consolation prize. In 1969, we went to the moon.

In 2026, with all the benefits of a tech industry that has become ever more powerful, with endless money poured into innovation, our 'rough guide back to the moon' is an AI model that maps it. It's powerful and impressive, of course, and doubtless very useful to researchers, and space exploration is not a priority--all of that is true, sure.

But to have the fruits of 50+ years of technological progress result not in going back to the moon, or onto other challenges, but just a refinement in looking at the moon. Is this the best giant leap we can muster now? So much innovation and yet we lack a capability we used to have.

I know there are all sorts of ways to explain this away, but it still makes me sad.

Tangentially related, these articles by Maciej Cegłowski:

* The Lunacy of Artemis – https://idlewords.com/2024/5/the_lunacy_of_artemis.htm

* Artemis II Is Not Safe to Fly – https://idlewords.com/2026/03/artemis_ii_is_not_safe_to_fly....

I read this a bit fast and with half a brain (because I'm in a boring meeting), but I'm not sure what an "AI model" is over just a common or garden model.

I get the achievement here: it's quite difficult to combine data from these various sensors into one. Is the "AI" bit referring to how that integration was done?

did not know we have -246°c to play with, which means the potential for the whole set of usefull volitiles is there, not just water/O²/H², and given that there is also the potential for +121°c very close to cold deposits, gives most of the basics for refining a whole host of molecules and compounds. Non of that changing the fact that bieng on the moon for any extended time is going to SUCK , the dust is horrible in every possible way, low gravity will weaken , radiation is heavy, and all of the many other risks will add up to a poor career choice, so the compensation will have to be 1 tour, and retire in guaranteed style. Basicly flying a great big ass laser in a lunar polar orbit and zapping the shaded dark sections of craters while some other satelites watch the resulting gass plumes, and of course carve your initials while no one is looking. The band where there is enough solar exposure for power and cold traps is going to be narrow and dramaticly reduce the number of candidates, which has very likely been figured out years ago, especialy for earth facing spots. Still going to need the heavy lift of multiple starship landings and some kind of 'moon link' satelite network.

We may be approaching technologically to expanding into the universe but we are certainly not there spiritually. Not to say that we shouldn't pursue this, there are probably war races in space already, but it seems to me that a better path would be growing spiritually before we expand. I wouldn't like to be in a place where we have the technical capability to reach Mars before we learn to live in peace on earth and take good care of our home.

I'm not gonna lie, I'm closer to a conspiracy theorist and non-believer than I am to trust history on the moon landing stuff. Doesn't help that I wasn't alive when it happened, and that we haven't since gone again. It feels so nonsensical to me, I would love for someone to help me educate myself on it from a more grounded point of view that can satisfy my paranoia. Did we really go there? How come we (as in humanity, any other nation whatsoever) haven't gone again since?

Will roughly crash landing scrap on the moon cause nearby cave systems to collapse, and where are the caves to shelter from meteorite bursts in?

"Removing these 50 objects from orbit would cut danger from space junk in half" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45469259 :

> When will it be safe and cost-efficient to - instead of deorbiting toward Earth's atmosphere - Capture and Haul and Rendezvous and gently Land orbital scrap on non-earth locations like the Moon or Mars or a thrust-retrofitted asteroid for later processing?

Is there any amount of time in a higher altitude orbit - or an Earth-Moon lunar cycler orbit - that would sanitize the outer surface of a spacecraft like ISS? Or will all such attempts cause adaptation?

Would ISS be more useful as an oxygen tank in earth-moon orbit than in Earth's atmosphere and ocean?

But for the moon,

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45237426 :

> What about solar sintering + induction heating of lunar regolith?

> Basalt, Glass,

> Molten oxide electrolysis of regolith would yield Oxygen, Silicon, Iron, Aluminum, and Titanium for 3d printing and for solar panels and semiconductors.

> Is there a sensor for inside of a rover or a vehicle wheel to sample the regolith falling within the wheel before it pours out to self clear?

Does this model include a regolith map or a soil map? Where is there Carbon on the moon?

---

"Lunar soil machine developed to build bricks using sunlight" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45086238

---

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42543663 :

> I wonder if the ISS could instead be scrapped to the moon. [...]

> Because of my love for old kitchens on the Moon.

---

"Researchers simulated 30 million routes to the Moon and found a hidden detour through L1 that saves fuel and keeps spacecraft talking to Earth the whole way" https://spacedaily.com/sd-researchers-simulated-30-million-r... :

> Most of a deep-space journey is coasting along gravitational contours that physicists collectively call the Interplanetary Transport Network — a web of low-energy pathways that connect orbits around planets, moons and Lagrange points

- "Earth–Moon transfer via the L1 Lagrangian point using the theory of functional connections" (2026) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42064-025-0297-x :

> The results show a reduced fuel consumption of at least 58.80 m/s as compared to the literature. This difference can be useful for mission designers, while the efficiency of the technique can potentially extend the results to other types of transfers in space.

Where are the L1 and L2 Lagrangian points when you consider the mass of the moon in addition to the earth and the sun?

Lyapunov exponents in SQG/DDF too. This month I've been learning about the differences between SQG and DDF Dilatant Dark Fluid (Fedi) in regards to n-body gravity research.