The building of President Trump’s envisioned Artemis Moon base will be dependent upon Earth’s two most powerful rockets—the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Starship/Super Heavy. The SLS will be sending four astronauts to Lunar orbit, and the Starship will act as the Human Landing System (HLS) to take astronauts and equipment down to the Lunar surface. We can learn quite a lot by examining the contrasting design philosophies behind the development of the two systems. Starship/Super Heavy is based on a successful creative attack on present technology and assumptions, resulting in fundamental breakthroughs.

It takes insight, genius, and courage to look at “obvious reality” and discover the flawed assumptions distorting its appearance. Sometimes that involves inverting perception—as when early Man conceived the possibility of harnessing deadly fire, instead of simply running from it. Or, when someone in the Arab world came up with the wild idea of taking biological material from a smallpox victim to inoculate a healthy person against the deadly disease.

Other insights involved asking the question: “What if _____?” Eratosthenes asked, “What if the land is not really flat?” He went on to measure the circumference of the Earth in the third century BC. Einstein asked, “What if light and matter are really just two forms of the same substance?”

The ascent of Man has been driven by such people and such insights. In fact, the pace of discovery and invention has been accelerating.

That always makes attempts to artificially set in stone a dogmatic organization and standardization of knowledge, methods, procedures, etc. a deadly drag on the flow of progress. In the long run, every such system falls apart. As Lyndon LaRouche emphasized again and again, the progress of Man is associated with leaps in science and technology which lift possible population densities to higher and higher plateaus—he referred to this as a process of moving from n, to n + 1, to n + 2 .... levels. Each level is associated with a particular state of technology. Failure to make the leap to the next highest level leads to demographic and societal collapse.

So, it’s ironic that there is a mad dash to develop AI by ordering the entire internet into a figurative kitchen pantry from which to remix ingredients to solve problems. Such approaches do work surprisingly well in areas which are fairly well understood—i.e. translation, or organizing existing ideas into documents—and promise autonomous control of robotic machines in the air and on the ground. However, such capabilities will never be able to replace the human mind’s ability to look at the “body of knowledge” as a whole and identify its faulty assumptions, or look at it from a totally new perspective, and lift science and knowledge to a higher and less imperfect plateau. You do not have to worry about the human mind becoming obsolete. What you do have to worry about are the attempts to force the creative human mind into the artificial boxes created by artificial bureaucratic or logical structures.

As Barbara Boyd pointed out in her LaRouche PAC presentation on December 2, 2023, “The Obama-British War Against Your Mind,” while the general recognition of the real intent behind the disastrous policies of recent decades has taken time to gel in Americans’ minds, Americans are not robots to be programmed to agree to die out in a British-conceived dystopia of poverty and war. That is why the American people are rallying around President Trump and his determination to break our society free of destructive British schemes. There is something in the fundamental nature of the human mind and of nature itself which is stirring in this revolt.

This brings us to the case of the SLS. On the one hand its successful first test launch was a miracle. After all, President Obama had attempted to kill all Moon rocket development. And Congress had nevertheless commendably continued funding for such a rocket program on its own—out of which came the SLS. But the long-term assault on NASA had left it in such a weakened political position that the best it could hope for was a system which could be derived from off-the-shelf Space Shuttle hardware and production systems. So, one of the premiere research and development institutions in the world was constrained to forego new ideas and was forced to stick with the “tried and true”—or obsolescent. And remember that the Space Shuttle, while a technical masterpiece and giant leap for the time, had also suffered “economizing” political interference that forced design changes that increased its complexity and cost, and compromised its safety. For the Moon rocket, London and Wall Street would tolerate only an evolutionary step instead of the required revolutionary leap that would enable Lunar or Martian colonization.

The British Empire has been actively sabotaging the American space program since Tavistock’s Robert N. Rapaport warned of the threat posed to the Empire by the optimism generated by the Apollo Project. NASA’s destruction became a primary focus of British psychological warfare run against the United States. From the King’s standpoint, modern society should be collapsed down to a semblance of Ye Goode Olde Dark Ages when royalty and their associated oligarchs were treated with fear and respect, and did not have to worry about impudent Americans or similar “deplorables” demanding independence and progress.

It was no accident that Lyndon LaRouche’s Fusion Energy Foundation, which built massive public support for expansion of American research and development across the space and energy frontiers, throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s became a primary target in the imperial lawfare campaign which imprisoned Lyndon LaRouche.  The FEF was bankrupted by the U.S. Department of Justice directly, in a first of its kind deathblow, later ruled a “fraud on the courts” after the damage had been done.

Instead of LaRouche’s updated American System economic policies, British monetarist economic theories of scarcity (the dismal science) were imposed upon us. Over and over we have been told that there is really only so much precious money to go around, so we cannot squander precious treasure on space exploration and settlement. Once you accept this axiom, you are set on the pathway of socioeconomic collapse.

Lyndon LaRouche had identified the false axioms underlying monetarism. He pointed out that not only is there no fixed supply of money, but that rapid research and development (as was demonstrated in the Apollo Project which even the monetarists admitted returned at least $14 to the American economy for every $1 invested) is the most profitable investment a society can make. Wealth is not created by manipulations of money and prices but by discoveries of new physical principles and physical action upon the universe by humans exercising their unique species characteristic of creativity.

So, we are very fortunate that, with a few million dollars that he could afford to risk on a radical idea, Elon Musk decided that he would intervene to try and help NASA get people to Mars. The success of SpaceX’s efforts so far has led to the formation of quite an array of space startups which aim to use the SpaceX model to develop revolutionary spacecraft and services in other space niches.

Because of SpaceX, private investors have come forward to invest in various “impossible” projects on the space frontier. Such initiatives are welcome, but truly bursting out of the still dominant British monetarist economic straight jacket will require the establishment of a new National Bank, able to inject long-term low interest loans into the many “impossible” ideas which still languish because of the lack of a few million dollars of credit to build and test hardware.

Yes, we will be using the SLS for the early years of the Artemis Project, (including in its first flight carrying astronauts around the Moon next year) but the SLS will soon be leapfrogged by new capabilities derived from the rapidly developing Starship/Superheavy system and the current fission and fusion rocket programs.

As President Trump’s Agenda47 program makes clear, one of the key foci of the new Trump administration will be the fostering of leaps in every technology from space exploration, to transportation, to agriculture, to fusion power, to water management, to city-building.

The British monetarists are wrong. We are going to take control of the dollar in general, and credit in particular, out of the hands of the Federal Reserve and its City of London and Wall Street masters. We are going to reestablish a National Bank to issue the credit required to make the technological and economic leaps we need. Not only will the leaps pay off the credits issued, but they will also pay off the mass of mostly illegitimate debts which have been dumped upon our society by the predatory operations of the British Empire and its Wall Street and Washington, D.C. accomplices.

In short, reality is 180 degrees opposite to its portrayal according to British monetarism. The more one tries to “economize” by cutting investment into precisely those “impossible ideas” which hold the keys to society’s advancement to the next higher level, the more a society puts itself on the direct path to bankruptcy and collapse. Reliance upon the “accepted common ideas and practices” promoted via the Imperial propaganda machine is the short road to Hell. And any attempt to systematically fix all such faulty axioms into AI lead to the same place. No matter the sophistication of your model, the old GIGO computer programming rule still applies: “Garbage in, equals garbage out.”