'Two bit country' ... goes to the Moon?

If we're going to turn America into a 'two bit', "one horse" country, perhaps we need to consider alternatives to achieving objectives, beyond raiding Pell Grants (and others) for funds to do so. Because, in this descent of a great country transactionally prostrating itself (and it's values) to gather chump change for such, it'll quickly drive up costs on everything else (due to decaying institutions), and things will never close on funding, as it searches for more coins in the sofa, shaking down pickpockets, and having cops solicit bribes to raise funds. And worse. I did visit Dachau and Auschwitz, in my youth (and I bothered to read much of the documentation in the museum myself of daily logs of what was accomplished) they got really good making an industry to extract value from unwanted things too.

Once I assisted a church in making it's finances work. Coping with things like those stealing from the collection plate when no one was looking - this reminds me exactly of that. Those ushers would have to watch carefully, would tally the amounts separately, then deposit in the bank same day. Entirely separate from the accounting/disbursement/financials/planning groups. So that the mission of the church could be unhindered from petty (or not so petty) theft. Took a lot of work, but I got it to exactly run to the penny (mean it). Doing so for a few months meant trust was restored, and that institution regained its focus away from mere money. Because it has to function in some ways like a business, but it's mission isn't a business.

Building a national mission off of such institutional "sell out" is the ultimate in "deplorable". It renders the mission worse then worthless, likely damaging efforts for a long time. You can't build a positive legacy on the basis of something negative, as it is "poisoned" from the start. (I could defend such programs as the Pell Grant, which I've personally witnessed American "greatness" emerging over decades, but they'll always be someone tearing it down - so I'll let someone else do that better.)

So I'm left with envisioning what to do after Artemis "two bit's" America. How does a dissolute country regain its greatest space legacy, lost by a two bit swindler who gulled his rubes into decimating a great country? Hmm.

Perhaps one realizes that such endeavors can only be done by those demented billionaires, who are looking for something beyond themselves, sort of how America once was during Apollo. So, perhaps the two-bit president can work out a "co-branding" deal, use the empty NASA and America brands to paste on the side of a New Armstrong or SuperHeavy, for a fractional investment stolen from kindergarten's "milk money"? Such a deal! And he can offer to swindle land deals and real estate development of lunar property now made accessible, just like Florida swampland just before the stock market crash of October 1929.

After all, America love's this kind of thing. The big flashy story, where they can imagine that they're the one gulling all the marks. Just take greatness, turn it into a thinly marketed spectacle, and rake in the dough as they gawk, ... and run away fast with the money, someone else can handle / pay for what's next.

Who needs anything more, after it's all done?

Perhaps an Andy Griffith's character builds a spaceship out of spare parts, collects up all the space debris, and auctions it off on eBay?

Apollo program was great because it was then a nation that could attempt to be great in everything, at the same time. It could fight the Cold War, lead the world in economic growth, build an extensive Interstate Highway System (same economic burden as Apollo), as well as deal head on with its sins like with the Civil Rights movement. And go to the moon. It didn't barter off one, sell another down the river, to get Apollo. Never came up the thought of doing so.

America chose to not be "two bit". The Soviets tried two bit ... and lost the Moon. Again, with Shuttle ... and the second loss was the Soviets themselves. How much might America lose? Will China compete with America ... and perhaps choose not to be two bit either?

Be careful in your passion here.

Addendum

Some remarks on this article made to me flesh out more to consider. I'd almost write another, but for fear of losing focus or the point I'll settle for a less focused tabulation/notes as these come in. Thanks to those who have communicated these perspectives.

Threat - "what is Artemis shooting at?"

In myth, Artemis shot Orion because Apollo tricked her into doing so. Many think this means that SLS/Orion is on the chopping block because it can't meet schedule, but that's clearly false, because (read past articles) its possible to adapt (although injured by division). But there's another read - because Apollo's agenda was to "undermine".

With the small budget short timelines, one knows either has to give. In targeting the budget for Pell Grants, clearly there's another point for that arrow - for a thug to "kill off" American institutions and steal budget. (These are the people to "train in" with STEM to do that work.) Stealing from the future, for the present, like what happened in Russian aerospace. Since said thug often tells you they don't care afterward, perhaps Artemis is a "false flag" operation, not meaning a lunar program, but simply a way to seize budget by killing off American institutions, to please the thug's "gang". "Shot them for me and you don't get it anyways", from someone who doesn't keep their deals, being transactional. After all, it's just business, right? Just "rubes".

Because this is exactly what thug's do. How would space advocates feel (or be regarded) if they are "used" to destroy American institutions? How would those at NASA regard "blood money" budget? Remember, there's history. Von Braun's V-2 was done off of slave labor and huge amounts of blood, not to mention less well known Cold War events.

Definitional - "what does it mean to be, in this case, 'American'?"

Many see no problem in "redefining" what America is arbitrarily, as "the means justify the ends". So the above concern expressed in the article is seen as theoretical. During the Cold War, the Soviets often made such temporary expediencies (Russians do so to this day). And currently the Chinese are often vexed with these choices in the same way.

However, the great surprise of the 1960's was that America "didn't" - and did Apollo. Some historians cite that as a reason for the win, without convincing explanation. Perhaps the reason might be found in the intentional decision to NOT sustain a means to reach the moon following program conclusion (unlike the Artemis goal) - that mattered. Because it meant "no overhang". Which was wise, considering the Vietnam war, and the 1970's recession that followed close on Apollo conclusion. (It's tempting to discuss the "what if's" of a "pausable" lunar exploration architecture following Apollo, and the need for it to be "fully commercial" to accomplish that, but inappropriate considering that Artemis is definitely NOT such as defined.

Back to "what is it to be American" - the founding fathers of America defined it. It’s institutions, including NASA, complete it’s description, and it’s success/failure in goals judge what it is. Perhaps those with Apollo - feared that overhang might distort America? Where it might give up certain institutions too easily. Perhaps, if we ran short of funds, accept loss of crew as a expediency?

Distorting America might make meaningless being American, and reaching for the moon no longer worth anything. Distorting NASA likewise injures its ability to guide further exploration.

Aspirational -"what do we aspire to as a national goal?"

Which leads to whats the actual goal here? If its not necessarily to be as founding fathers described American's?

They envisioned a just society working for a goal. Or is it to be a gang dominated by a bully's lash (crowd entertainment ?) to "get somewhere", or nowhere at all?

Or perhaps a different, unspoken goal, hidden from view, because it otherwise wouldn't be tenable. Because the puzzle is intentionally left incomplete, as would be in the case of such a disingenuous leadership, not bound by ethics, morality, or institutions. Possibly by exploiting desperation (like the kind that previously started world wars).

"Exploiting desperation of certain groups?"

There's "'old' aerospace (which I once was a part of), which want's to have a "last hurrah" in reaching the Moon that once was theirs. "New space", desperate for an "off planet" revenue stream to establish independent survival, practically at the point of tolerating any "bed partner". "Nationalists", wishing to demonstrate dominance at any costs, to prove that the most important means to an end is the application of sheer "power". "Futurists", among them "space fans", who simply want to get unbound, like Prometheus, from earthly/past limitations for potential abstract gains.

And true entrepreneurs, who see "stuff" they can get their hands on and work their will to get eventually "something"(goods, means) from "nothing" (unexploited resources).