Thursday 9th October 2025
Blog Page 847

Cable shouldn’t fool himself – he won’t make it to Number 10

0

Jeremy Corbyn and Vince Cable are undeniably getting on a bit. The former is now 68, while the latter, at the age of 74, is only five years off the average age at which a UK male dies. Not only are they old, however, they also do old things. Jeremy Corbyn’s love affair with his North London allotment is well documented, as is his passion for jam-making.

Meanwhile Vince indulges in ballroom dancing and his choices on Desert Island Discs ranged from old classics such as ‘Love Letters on the Sand’ to even older classics: Mozart, Bach, Handel and Beethoven. Some see this as a barrier to Cable’s success. He has had to deny that he’s long in the tooth for the job as leader, whilst Jo Swinson’s team commenting that the replacement of Farron must not result in a switch “from the Dad to the Grandad”.

Yet age has not prevented Corbyn’s success; his vote in the general election instead sat at 64 percent in the 18-29 category. This might give hope to Cable. It suggests old age is not a barrier for this demographic, provided there is an appealing policy platform and image alongside. But Vince shouldn’t get his hopes up as a far greater barrier stands in his way: that of experience in high office.

Unfamiliarity with the reins of power seems to be a blessing instead of a curse these days. The largest political names of the past year have come from unexpected areas: Corbyn is of course one example, with the other obvious candidates being Trump, who swept aside establishment Republicans and then the establishment Democrat and Bernie Sanders, who at the age of 76 still a front-runner for 2020.

Meanwhile the youth vote is still suspicious of Cable’s stint in the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, which featured the infamous backtrack on tuition fees and a sharp program of austerity.

It’s debatable to what extent these can be attributed to Cable and the Lib Dems, but what’s clear is that by straying too close to the political heart of Britain Cable has made himself damaged goods. He has been tried and tested, and is therefore of little interest, particularly to a youth vote more concerned with change than experience.

Cable will therefore need to present an image of dynamism and conviction if he wants to win a commanding vote, especially among the youth demographic. I suspect that even if he managed the unimpressive feat of being more interesting than Farron, he has already lingered too long for the tastes of many voters, both young and old.

They say that age is just a number, and for once it appears to be true. The problem is not Cable’s years, it’s his experience in Whitehall. In today’s politics, that experience won’t help him.

Life Divided: Cycling

For: Charlie Cheesman

Picture this. It’s 8:59am, you have a 9am tutorial and, as you lie tucked up in your thermal pyjamas, you’re quite clearly late. There are many reasons why you might have ended up in this mess: an extra hour in Bridge chasing that special someone, a case of the infamous freshers’ flu forcing you to have an extra ten minutes in bed, or an alarm which you ‘forgot’ to set (we’ve all been there, pal).

Such inevitable moments are why you come to love the revolutionary invention that is the bicycle. Yes, you might arrive with a slight sheen on your forehead and yes, you might look a bit silly when you eventually join the cycling club and start wearing lycra on a daily basis. But as you storm through the crowds of tourists like a hero from Greek mythology, greater than Hercules, Artemis and Zeus combined, with the wind in your face and your heart pumping away all remnants of last night’s Jäger, these are worries soon forgotten – mostly because you’ve just seen your tutorial partner still a ten-minute walk away, and that means you can choose to talk about the only article on the reading list you actually read.

Cycling has its flaws, yet it is one of life’s simplest pleasures. Oxford’s traffic can be intimidating at rst, but cycling is one of the city’s defining features and, most importantly for students, it’s fantastically cheap. It’s easy when you first arrive at university not to exercise as you rush sporadically from soon-to-be- regretted nights out to whoops-I-forgot-that-was-today lectures, but the bicycle is there to help you through all of this.

Not only will it keep your cardiac muscle in some semblance of working order, and your hips from bursting your jeans, you can sleep soundly knowing that you’re doing something for the planet, that good ol’ Boris Johnson would probably love you, and that Oxford just wouldn’t be Oxford without its bicycles.

Against: Bessie Yuill

On our way back from a dinner out last term, my friends and I came across a quintessentially Oxford sight. An inebriated lad in black tie was weaving his way through Magdalen Street on a bike, with a girl, half-asleep, balanced side-saddle on the back wheel.

Seeing them roll down the street with such reckless abandon made me realise something: it’s the confidence of cyclists, not the bicycles themselves, which is the main scourge of Oxford’s streets.

I haven’t used a bike since the cycling proficiency test, so I’m far from an expert. But surely helmets are still a thing, right? We didn’t figure out sometime in the past decade that we never needed them, and people had looked like round-headed twats for no reason. Or do Oxford students just have more solid skulls? You’d think the Complete University Guide would factor that in, if so.

I haven’t asked any of these questions out loud, in case I’m shunned by the cycling elite who control this university and constantly talk about ‘locking up’ (elitist cycling slang?). It’s the same intimidating confidence behind this terminology that leads to wheeling about while wasted.

Basically, my number one complaint with cycling in Oxford is that seeing drunk people cycle makes me nervous. I have a delicate constitution and can only handle so much second-hand stress. So next time you ‘saddle up’ (elitist cycling slang again), please think of a passer-by’s blood pressure and walk the extra 20 minutes instead.

Ignore the naysayers, opera is for everyone

0

Opera is more affordable today than ever. The Royal Opera House, for example, is one of several venues to underline its commitment to the new generation of classical listeners. Signing up as a student costs you nothing, but gives you access to over 10,000 dedicated student tickets with prices ranging from £1 to £25. There is simply no truth to the idea opera is inaccessible. A cinema ticket, a football match, or even a haircut will set you back further than a trip to experience one of the world’s premier cultural centres.

Moreover, opera is as relevant today as it has ever been. With increasing political engagement amongst today’s youth, the ideological and philosophical questions posed by opera make it a fascinating response to its times, offering perspectives that make it pertinent as well as entertaining. For proof, look no further than John Adams’ exploration of power and politics in Nixon in China

Mark Anthony-Turnage’s examination of racism, unemployment and AIDS in Greek. The stereotype of sweeping staircases and glass chandeliers implies a world distant to the one we inhabit, but this is far from true. Opera is as engaging and engaged as ever. It is more youthful than you would expect too. The Royal Opera House’s Jette Parker Young Artists Programme provides paid work for fourteen talented young musicians. The Youth Opera Company also commissions and films its own operas, and has over fifty participants. Then there is the Young Creatives annual project, providing mentoring to six choreographers aged 16 to 25. Young people already make up a huge part of the House’s vibrant community.

Opera has too long been a victim of inverted snobbery. With engaging storylines, thrilling music and spectacular staging, the world of opera is a world for everyone.

Oxford throws freshers in at the deep end without teaching them how to swim

0

You have been at Oxford for less than a week when your first dreaded tutorial arrives. As a consequence of freshers’ week you have read the bare minimum from the reading list. Having just about survived the tutorial, realising that you managed to read one slightly relevant book, you have a look at the feedback from your essay. “Not great.” Very helpful.

Oxford is famed for its tutorial system and emphasis on independent learning – it’s the reason many apply here. But this system is often too much too soon for freshers, and it’s clear that the way we are taught here, especially in our first few weeks, needs to be revised. Most essay subjects typically comprise of a couple of hours of compulsory contact time per week, and aside from that we are expected to be reading and writing essays for these tutorials.

It is a radical difference from having a full school timetable, and there is no advice given on how to structure your learning time. Even in lectures that supposedly relate to the topics a student is studying, there is a surprising discrepancy over what is covered, no doubt due to the differences between tutors and what they deem to be important.

Aside from being given no guidance on how to work or how long to spend on essays, many incoming students have never written a proper academic essay before arriving at university. They won’t know how to structure it, or how to reference for it, or even what they should be reading for it.

The immense reading lists give very little indication of which articles are the most relevant, which means that often a student will completely miss the most important parts of the topic. The lack of a centralised curriculum means that many have no idea what the main issues of the week’s reading are, and if the tutors only discuss what you have written in your essay, then you will never learn about these main themes before sitting the exam.

Independent learning is a baptism of fire which means that students are forced to improve and adjust rapidly – but that does not mean that we have to throw freshers in at the deep end with no advice on how to swim. An awful first essay is not only demoralising, it’s impractical – the essay, alongside the following two weeks will likely be useless for revision.

This is not to say that freshers should be spoon-fed information or that tutors should hold their hands until they work out how to write good essays. But there is a strong argument for a transition period at the start of first year so that freshers can get used to working independently. Freshers already have a lot to adapt to when they first arrive – more should be done to ensure that their transition to independent work is a smooth one.

Cliché of the week: “He’s really enjoying his football at the moment”

0

This phrase really irks me, and I think it’s high time someone picked up on it. Commentators have been trotting it out for years, and it’s recently struck me just what a ridiculous phrase it is. What it actually translates into English as is “he’s playing well at the moment”, so why commentators and pundits turn this into an assessment of how much fun a player is having out on the pitch is a mystery.

They have no idea whether a player is actually enjoying himself – all they can assess is how well he is playing. Some players have the capacity to play well even when you sense that they would rather be anywhere else, rendering the link even more ridiculous. Alexis Sánchez, for example, has been consistently excellent for Arsenal, yet I have my doubts as to whether he is even remotely enjoying himself. Wouldn’t he rather be walking out at the Allianz for Bayern Munich, or playing for Pep Guardiola at Man City, than having to dig Arsenal out of holes against mediocre German sides on a Thursday night?

Equally, I enjoy playing for my college side, but remain a distinctly limited footballer. The link between performance and enjoyment is a false dichotomy. The term is complimentary of course, but perhaps does not send out the best message about your career as a whole. It indicates an element of surprise that a player is performing well – you would never hear it used of Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi. It suggests that a player is undergoing a sudden burst of good form, often contrary to popular expectation. A likely recipient would be Theo Walcott after one of his triannual scoring flurries, when the nation yet again wonders if he will finally, yes finally, fulfill that infamous potential. At 28 and counting, I somehow doubt it.

Anyway, enough of the cynicism: I hope that you all “enjoy your football” this term.

University Press defends ‘sex scenes’ in kids books

0

Oxford University Press (OUP) has defended itself from criticism after Twitter users pointed out “dubious scenes” in one of its publications, the childrens’ book series Biff, Chip and Kipper.

Social media users have claimed that one of the picture books suggests a sexual encounter behind a bush, in a scene involving three middle aged men.

Suspicion was heightened by a scene in which an elderly lady reacts in shock to what she sees behind the bush.

Some have speculated that the men are ‘cottaging’, a gay slang term for anonymous sex in public places. One Twitter user commented: “Biff and Chip go dogging”.

The controversy began after Ed Brody posted the images in question on his Twitter feed with the caption: “Somewhat dubious scenes spotted in the background of a friend’s 4yo’s school book”.

Brody’s tweet garnered 12,000 likes and nearly 6,000 retweets, despite OUP’s reply that “some of the pages are missing from this title!”

The controversial images led online users to post other suspect images from the Biff, Chip and Kipper series online. These included a child spelling ‘hepatitis’ out of building blocks, and a Priest in a girls’ changing room.

OUP defended the popular children’s books in a statement, remarking it was: “aware of the recent Twitter and media coverage referencing the illustrations from two Biff, Chip and Kipper books.

“We would like to reassure you that our books are created with the utmost thought and consideration.

“We take the utmost care to ensure that our content is age appropriate and would not cause harm or offence to any child who reads our books.”

The publisher, a department of Oxford University, added that the so-called ‘sex scenes’ in question were taken from the title Pond Dipping and that “there are pages missing in the original tweet, which takes the images from Pond Dipping out of context”.

OUP added that the hepatitis reference was removed in 2003 “as soon as it was drawn to our attention”

There are over 400 Biff, Chip and Kipper books in the Oxford Read Tree series.

According to the publishers, they are taught in around 80 per cent of British primary schools. The first set of stories was published in 1985.

The books are written by Roderick Hunt, and illustrated by Alex Brytcha. Both have been awarded MBEs for their services to children’s literature in light of the series’ success.

Some Twitter users suggested that the images were fitting entertainment for parents reading the books. One commented: “well, you know… parents have to read these books ENDLESSLY. Might as well put in some easter eggs for them to keep it fun.”

Others, however, were less amused. John Smith wrote: “What sort of twisted halfwit draws this kind of crap in a kids book? What corrupt company thinks it’s fit to print it?” The Biff, Chip, and Kipper series’ books, which were adapted for television in 2000, are now sold as educational literature in 130 countries around the world.

Union memberships are a waste of time and money

0

The Union gets you at your most vulnerable time. In freshers’ week, you wander the same corridors as some of history’s greatest thinkers and orators, following a Union representative as they snake their way through corridors lined with familiar faces.

Half asleep, you blankly nod along as they tell you that it is your privilege to spend hundreds of pounds to join them. It is that same vacant expression which stares back at you, two years down the line, as you accidentally pull out your membership card instead of your Tesco Clubcard, a cruel reminder of the money you once wasted on a piece of laminated card.

It is undeniable that the Union has boasted some amazing speakers and events and it gives students an unparalleled opportunity to broaden their intellectual landscape and discuss our time’s hottest topics. However, the reality of membership is, for the majority, quite different. When it comes to the most impressive speakers, you are actually paying for the opportunity to stand in the rain, in a queue that leads almost across the entirety of Oxford only to be turned away and be forced to watch it on YouTube.

Then there are the social events. You picture yourself sipping free cocktails and networking. But when it comes to it, it’s a Tuesday night, you have an essay due the next day for which you haven’t even started the reading and the thought of alcohol fills you with nausea after a week of poor choices. The deadline is at 10am – your friendships with future politicians can wait.

The debates come as a way to prove to yourself that you are still intellectual. Suffering from a heavy bout of Fresher’s flu and imposters’ syndrome, you make your way to the famous chamber to engage with the outside world once more. However, it seems oddly familiar.

The boy standing at the front, lecturing you more from a place of entitlement than wisdom, reminds you a little too much of the girl that stopped you the in the JCR to debate whether Brexit might actually have been the best thing for Britain since Thatcher. Your college kitchen, as it turns out, is just as much of a debating chamber as that of the Union.

Each week you promise yourself that you’ll ask a question, make a point, actually participate. But the debates are reigned over by the same few people whose arguments are so eloquently put that it doesn’t seem to matter if they are inherently flawed.

A Union membership card is the key to new experiences, to making lifelong friends, to challenging your every belief. That is, if you actually go. If you want posh boys arguing, I recommend the Bridge smoking area.

(This article first appeared in the 2017 edition of Cherwell’s sister publication Keep Off The Grass.)

Tommy x Gigi – an outdated vanity project?

0

For a collection titled “Rock Circus”, there was very little fantasy in the third season of Gigi Hadid’s collaboration with classic American brand Tommy Hilfiger. The show, held at The Roundhouse in London, opened on a darkened ring resembling a circus tent complete with acrobats, silks performers, and a David Bowie soundtrack – arguably the more fanciful elements of the entire show. The democratic layout of the room and the catwalk, winding up and around the various levels of seating, offered a large number of attendants the possibility of a front row view and had the dual function of guaranteeing a higher level of participation to most of its public, whilst maximising its social media appeal.

From the very first moments of the runway, the focus was clear: as poster girl and one half of the collaboration, this show belonged to Hadid. Despite Gigi and her younger siblings opening the show themselves, the cast of models was surprisingly diverse, including both well known icons of days past and members of the ‘new guard’ who helped populate the show with Instragram-famous faces, including Joan Smalls, Presley Gerber, Lucky Blue Smith, and Hailey Baldwin.

There is no denying that this collection is “cool.” Hadid sells a glossy incarnation of grunge, distilled and curated to edgy teen perfection. But this is not a collection that will shock or inspire—rather, it will slip straight from the runway onto street style blogs and Instagram feeds as a glorified version of what Hadid’s own personal style. Instead of making the show feel comfortable and more human, the recognisable nature of these looks leave the audience too entrenched in the realm of the familiar to find excitement. Hadid’s well-documented taste for athleisure and for street style is repeatedly represented in mesh leggings, layered turtlenecks, and graphic hoodies. When this is combined with the heavy 90s influence in the puffer coats, tartans, mesh, and oversized cardigans, the collection successfully sells the audience a packaged portrait of rich kids playing rock and roll. Somehow, however much we may try to resist, we still want to be them, or at least look like them. These clothes may not be clever, but they are charming, approachable, and have mass appeal.

The ambiguously “Rock-Sport” aesthetic with punk and Britpop influence marks a new direction for Hilfiger and Hadid, both known for their preppy, all-American approach. But while this may be tougher and edgier, it’s still a breezy and heavily curated take on the sleeker, palatable elements of movements that were all about rebellion. As expected, Hilfiger heritage demanded a recurring red and blue colour scheme and a distinct varsity flavour to the thigh high socks, bomber jackets, and track pants. All in all, it makes Season 3 a natural progression that walks the line between foreign and familiar by both leaning into and subverting the prepster vibe the brand holds dear.

Although this season was a slight departure from the norms of their ongoing collaboration, it didn’t feel brand new to its audience, with heavy resemblances to Hedi Slimane’s luxe-grunge approach to Saint Laurent A/W 2013. Even the, reception was similar: now, just as back then, the baby doll dresses, embellished fishnets, and oversize cardigans screamed young and cool but were largely criticised for lacking in innovation. The difference is that, at the time, the 90s hadn’t yet woven their way back into the mainstream. Slimane’s collection was successful largely because, like the majority of his work, it was controversial and preserved the anarchy of the movements that inspired it. Four years later, a similar aesthetic can no longer claim the polarising effect it did in 2013, and therefore loses even the accolade of subversion. Like Saint Laurent’s show, Tommy x Gigi Season 3 reinforced the idea of a hip LA A-lister playing at youthful rebellion by borrowing its look without reimagining. Hadid dressed the ‘it-girl’ of today in her own image, without wondering what she might want to wear tomorrow.

Despite the lack of any blatant missteps, only a few pieces – namely the floor length plaid overcoat worn by Gigi herself, a sequined blazer, and an androgynous blue and white striped oversized menswear sweater – managed to break the glossy department-store luster of the collection. The looks were largely approachable, versatile, and, most significantly, marketable, but they did very little to leave a lasting impression. To their credit, Tommy X Gigi have never pretended to be high fashion, and have sat comfortably in their aesthetic accessibility, even releasing most of the pieces online before the show to maximise its reach and increase their commercial value. But while this marketing focus as a brand justifies the lack of an avant-garde influence, it cannot compensate for its lack of creativity. There is no ambiguity in the collaboration’s intention: this is a show meant to sell, sell, sell.

It is clear from the outset that much of the collection was designed as glorified merch for a Gigi Hadid-led band that doesn’t exist, continuing a trend of young models and artists borrowing from 70s metal groups and 90s hip hop artists to amplify their own brand. Those “Gigi Hadid Tour 2017” tops may be cute, but they’re overdone, even considering Tommy Hilfiger’s long and complicated history with the music industry. Initially the street style trend of merchandise reinterpretation may have been clever, or at least light-spirited. But, it has increasingly revealed the potential for young moguls to claim something not their own, commodifying an aesthetic without deference to the hard work or the culture that produced it (see, for example, the Jenner sisters and their appropriation of rappers’ graphics and images for their own self-promotion). Unlike the Jenners’, Hadid’s take wasn’t directly problematic, but it feeds into the very same phenomenon.

Without a doubt, Hadid is a powerful businesswoman, building her personal brand while slowly establishing credibility in an environment that continually seeks to undermine her legitimacy as a model and as a creative mind. But, for all its polish and marketability, the collection lacked freshness and was symptomatic of a more general shift in our approach to fashion. The clothes, images, and ideology of a designer, particularly on newer labels building a following through social media, no longer play the primary role in defining their brand. Rather, brands have become the people themselves, relying more on an extreme incarnation of a muse and thus on an individual’s appeal than on an artistic vision. Tommy x Gigi is not selling clothes, it’s selling Gigi Hadid.

‘Caesar’ at the Keble O’Reilly – preview

Set in modern-day America, the hotly-anticipated performance of Caesar at the Keble O’Reilly is shaping up to be an innovative and exciting new interpretation of one of Shakespeare’s most political plays. After watching a run-through of the first half in rehearsal, the prospect of returning to see the final performance is extremely exciting. With gender-neutral casting, and the unusual decision to utilise a traverse stage, this is an extremely accessible and inventive production which anyone in Oxford would do well to catch this week.

Performing Shakespeare on a traverse stage – one with the audience seated on opposite sides of a long strip – is an unusual move, and one which I haven’t seen since Kenneth Branagh’s production of Macbeth in 2013. Ben Ashton, Caesar’s director, explains that having the audience surround the action makes the speeches seem more public – a sense of political display is a central theme of the play, and the traverse stage enhances this. Ashton also argues that this staging harks back to the Roman amphitheatres of Caesar’s time. While the thrust stages of Shakespeare’s England might also make a useful comparison, it is refreshing to escape the distancing effect of the proscenium arch that characterises so many student productions.

Gender-blind auditions have resulted in a sterling cast where ability to embody a character has been prioritised over traditional casting. Perhaps the most interesting result of this is the altered dynamic in the scene where Caesar is warned not to go to the Capitol. In other productions, this often appears to make Caesar seem somewhat sexist as he casually dismisses his wife Calpurnia’s nightmares. In Caesar, however, the genders of these two characters are switched, arguably decreasing the power differential between the two, and resulting in a far greater sense of desperation as Calpurnius begs his wife not to travel to the capitol – this is extremely successful, lending the scene a whole new interpretation that moves away from the simple husband/wife dynamic towards an appreciation of the wider situation. It is also interesting to see a female Caesar in a production set in modern-day America. While the production admirably avoids direct parallels to Hillary Clinton, it is nevertheless intriguing to see such a topical exploration of what it means to be a woman in politics.

Beyond a very minimalist set, atmosphere is created via red and blue gels – while this binary lighting scheme could perhaps be a severely limiting factor, Caesar has embraced the simplicity of this set-up. It focusses on the connotations of pensiveness and passion that are evoked by blue and red light respectively, and utilising them to complement rather than distract from the language. In addition to this, the cast’s grasp of the text is superb, and I left the rehearsal with the feeling that they really were living Shakespeare’s words. Ashton explained that given how much of the play is about not just what is said, but what is left unsaid – Caesar’s ambition is entirely reported by other characters, for example, as she never explicitly mentions it – this production utilises very simple blocking which allows the audience’s attention to remain predominantly with the language. Rehearsals have focused on when and where to break from strict iambic pentameter, and from what I have seen of the production this has been a very worthwhile exercise. Tom Ames (Mark Anthony), for example, delivers “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” with such emotion and sincerity that the crowd scenes thereafter became all the more believable and immediate. There was a sense that Caesar’s audience will feel themselves swept along with Anthony’s rhetoric in a way that Shakespeare evidently intended but few productions manage to achieve.

The cast employs an impressive geographical range of American accents, which is perhaps both a blessing and a curse for the production. Given that the characters in Julius Caesar are some of Shakespeare’s most three-dimensional, with a variety of motives and personality clashes driving the action, Ashton argues that the audience’s automatic assumptions about character based on accent will be challenged as the play continues. He hopes that Caesar will lead the audience to reconsider their original feelings towards each character and hence leave them with a deeper connection to the play as a whole. This is certainly an admirable experiment and one which I am intrigued to see play out in the theatre.

The whole cast is confident and assured in their delivery, though as they move from rehearsal to stage it is very possible that some will emerge as the stars of the show. At this early stage Jonny Wiles (Brutus) and Amelia Gabriel (Cassius) are extremely compelling and seem likely to make a strong impression on the audience.

Caesar runs from 11th-14th October at the Keble O’Reilly Theatre. Tickets available here: https://www.ticketsource.co.uk/cosmicarts

US and Russian space agencies to work on new moon-orbiting space station

On September 27th, NASA officially announced that it will collaborate with the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, in the development of a moon-orbiting space station in the near future. Such a station will allow easy travel to further locations such as Mars, as well as facilitating research on the lunar surface. This agreement demonstrates NASA’s belief that the key to future space exploration is cooperation: firstly, this project is expected to combine the efforts of multiple space agencies and aerospace companies such as Boeing; and secondly, having a space station like this in place will make it much easier to build missions on the efforts of multiple different groups, since supplies and components for missions can be delivered to the station at different times from different suppliers.

The agreement follows a March press release in which NASA indicated that they were researching the possibility of a ‘deep space gateway’ – a station above the moon where they could pool their resources and send off missions to other locations around the Solar System – Mars, of course, springs to mind, but this could also include the asteroid belt and the moons of the gas giants, which represent a vast range of environments including liquid water.These missions would be performed by reusable spaceships, which may never have to visit the surface again once in operation, vastly reducing the quantity of fuel required.

Now, the space agency has officially agreed to work together with Roscosmos, as well as commercial aerospace companies, to make this goal a reality. NASA and Roscosmos together signed a statement at the 68th International Aeronautical Congress in Adelaide that “reflects the common vision for human exploration that NASA and Roscosmos share”, announcing Roscosmos’ intention to work with NASA on the deep space gateway concept and bring their Russian commercial partners onto the playing field as well. As well as this agreement, NASA has been awarding contracts to companies including Boeing and Lockheed Martin to develop and test possible habitation systems for their astronauts.

The American space agency’s parallel efforts to include both Roscosmos and engineering companies in this project demonstrates two factors in how they are approaching space exploration at present. Firstly, they are willing to invest resources now to facilitate frequent and efficient missions in the future. Secondly, they believe in setting up a platform for a genuine space industry, so that in future government-funded agencies won’t have to do all the heavy lifting.

The possible moon-orbiting space station is something that will take a lot of resources to build initially, but will vastly reduce budgets if NASA intends to send out repeated deep space missions in future. Since most of the fuel and much of the equipment for space travel is used just to get off the Earth’s surface, projects based in the deep space gateway using a reusable craft would be very cost-effective for NASA. Combining this with the futuristic Solar Electric Propulsion system, which uses solar energy instead of exploding fuel to accelerate its propellant and is already in use today, future research of the asteroid belt or Saturn’s rings could require almost no non-reusable resources at all.

As well as a commitment to efficiency and frequency in future projects, NASA has also now shown that they want the future of space travel to be in the hands of many small organisations rather than a few governments. The space station concept would create a rich environment for independent aerospace groups, with big one-off missions replaced by a constant flow of small cargo shipments and equipment upgrades that commercial partners could handle. This is something we’ve already seen happen with the International Space Station, with SpaceX’s Dragon rockets now regularly delivering supplies, including ice cream. As well as allowing commercial groups to help with deep space missions, the lunar station will itself be made with the direct assistance of NASA and Roscosmos’ friends in the aerospace industry.

The world may not have sent humans any further since 1969, but our attitudes about how to travel in space have come a long way, and the agreement made in Adelaide last month shows it. NASA wants to lay the foundations for a space industry in which everyone can contribute to the same goals, and replace expensive, infrequent launches with a constant stream of small, efficient trips. And once we can get the infrastructure in place – hey, maybe we’ll finally get someone on Mars.