Three speakers argue that competition between the U.S. and China on the moon drives innovation faster than cooperation alone. The Apollo program showed how rivalry sparks progress, and both countries now aim to build lunar bases. Competition and collaboration can coexist, like they did with the International Space Station.
There's a huge tension in geopolitics where the going to space is really kind of a humanity effort, and I love the way NASA's always positioned that way. How do you take into account all the geopolitical tensions with China, India, Russia all trying to get to the moon? And long term, do you see that resolving in some way, or does it just stay a tension and you just figure, figure out how to navigate it?
Is the competition better than the collaboration for your budget, at least?
Yeah, of course it is. We're Americans, we like competition. It worked very well for us in the 1960s. What an example of where competition fueled so much for the benefit of all in early days and now turns into a collaborative effort of which without you would not be able to sustain the International Space Station. So look, where, where competition starts, uh, can lead to really totally fine outcomes in the end. Right now, China and the US for sure are both very committed to getting, uh, getting to the moon. The Chinese and their roadmap, it will lead to success. There's no doubt. I mean, they will absolutely do what the Soviets could not in the, in the 1960s. We would certainly like to get there before them, They're building a base, we're gonna build a base. This is fine, this is all good things, and certainly we've shown that even having a space race, if it turns into collaborative means like we have in the International Space Station, can transcend a lot of the geopolitical strife that can happen here on Earth.
