top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 63 points 1 year ago (16 children)

It’s easy to see why people thought we would be a lot more futuristic by now.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    i have a little tablet in my pocket that gives me access to the sum total of all human knowledge and can contact anyone else more or less anywhere on/around the planet for instant voice communication.

    We can take organs out of dead people and put them in living people and have them survive.

    I can be anywhere on the planet within 48 hours

    We have cars that can drive themselves

    We have robots being controlled live(ish) on mars

    We have planes that can stay airbourne indefinately

    And there's many more examples

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Phones can also video call, lead you to just about anywhere you want to go on the planet, and store millions of pictures/videos/writings of a person's personal history. Unprecedented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Yup, i was in three completely unfamiliar cities in the last month that speak languages i do not speak.

    I was never lost once, i was able to learn how to take public transport, and i was able to effectively communicate with people who do not speak english

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    With the exception of smart phones, most of the things that make the now bad were unrelated to the tech

    Climate change is happening because changing the way the world gets its energy is slow. Fossil fuels way predate flight

    Lack of social cohesion is due to the car allowing us to isolate ourselves in sparse suburbia rather than to live in neighbourhoods

    Wars are older than humanity but are affecting fewer of us now than in the past, though things were even more peaceful a couple of decades ago

    The capture of almost all the value of labour by the owner class could probably have happened anyway, it started before computers, perhaps it was accelerated by computers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • We’ve had a lack of social cohesion way less time than we’ve had suburbia.

    I think the lack of social cohesion is due to the fragmentation of our media. Before the turn of the century everyone watched the same TV, heard the same music, and got their news from the same places.

    Now we’re all so siloed that we don’t have shared cultural base so even people in cities aren’t cohesive.

    And the group today with the most social cohesion are the folks who all watch Fox News religiously.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I always thought those scifi stories where companies basically rule everything were overblown, but you just see it changing to that in real time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It happened before, it could and is happening again. The East India Trading Company was the most profitable company in the world after looting and conquering India for a while before the British government formally took over.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    We killed our trajectory by shutting down nuclear investment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    We killed our trajectory because the cold war ended and we were no longer engaged in an arms race involving rockets. Once capitalism figures out how to exploit space for infinite growth we'll get back on track assuming we don't great filter ourselves first.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Forget the moon. We're all within a few generations of the first people who had access to indoor toilets on a mass scale.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    India basically introduced toilets in a single generation.

    According to this article, in 1993, 70.3% of the Indian population did not have access to toilets. By 2021, the number dropped to 17.8%. So literally more than half the population of India got access to toilets within 30 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    the flushing kind or the hole in he ground kind?
    the there's a sink kind. or there's a communal soap bar to wash your asshole with and the other hand to eat with kind?
    wonder how many Indians are left-handed, or if that's even culturally accepted

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    the flushing kind or the hole in he ground kind?

    Any kind. There's further breakdowns in access to flushing toilets, dry latrines, composting toilets, etc., but this is part of a long standing project to get people to stop open defecation in places where untreated human waste will mix into drinking water, food supply, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I want to know about this shared soapy ass bar and also I don’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Just a nitpick, the fastest transportation for thousands of years were boats.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Just a nit pick, but you could run faster than sail boats, so they're only faster for long distance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    even sailboats have their own history of getting faster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_sailing_record

    Sure you could run faster than average but best speed as of 2012: 121.1kmph 75.2mph

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The top speed of Columbus' ships was about 8 knots, and the average speed was about 4 knots, or 7.5 km/h to 15 km/h. Typical jogging speed is about 6 km/h to 10 km/h. So, they were a bit faster than typical running speed. But, those were the cargo ships.

    Ships designed for speed were much faster. In 1852 the fastest ship was the Sovereign of the Seas which topped out at 41 km/h.

    Probably for a long time the fastest transportation would have been a horse. Or, if you want a "vehicle" or some kind, a chariot. But, for at least a century a fast sailboat was probably the fastest thing around.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Orville Wright (of the Wright brothers) also only died 21 year prior and was able to fly on a jet before his death.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Imagine how much pressure that jet pilot was under. The guy who literally invented flying is your passenger

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Eh, there were a dozen different guys that invented flight (or were close to it) around the same time. The Wright Brothers were just the ones to successfully defend their patent

    The technology had just progressed to a point where fixed-wing flight was viable, so the invention became inevitable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    One of the Wright brothers managed to live to see the end of WWII. Imagine the weird janky flying machine you and your dead brother designed in a bicycle shop in Dayton is being used to decimate Europe while boats full of the things are redefining naval warfare across the whole of the pacific before one drops a weapon so powerful that it becomes the basis of mutually assured destruction

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    That looks like the 14-bis from Santos Dumont in the picture. He did not live enough to see WW2, but he ended up helping design planes for WW1 and got terribly depressed about it, commiting suicide later.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Feels like we're going backwards now with like anti-vax stuff. A lot of tech seems to be getting worse for users, too, like IoT gadgets that stop working for remote reasons

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 239 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (54 children)

    And fifty years later we still mope around in low earth orbit. Progress has slowed down a lot since the billionaires took over.

  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 109 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    Fifty years later we have reached mars with drones and created space probes to expand our knowledge of space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    We reached Mars with probes 50 years ago. I'm not in any way trying to denigrate the amazing achievements of the Mars rovers. But the fact remains that a human crew could have done all that and more (like drill a hole) in a few weeks at best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    And 59 years after landing on the moon we’ve just been watching Space X rockets explode instead of going back on rockets NASA proved it could engineer with slide rules and drafting tables.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Relying on Starship as a moon lander is one of the most hare brained decisions of NASA in recent years. OTOH, it would be perfectly feasible to get a moon mission going using Falcon 9 as the launch vehicle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    SpaceX had a brilliant track record for safety with their novel reusable rocket boosters. Even the first couple of Starship prototypes were incredibly successful, massively exceeding mission goals.

    Unfortunately Musk seems to have entirely lost the sauce and is killing all of his companies, diving into conspiracy nonsense while funding an incredibly unpopular election campaign, gutting the federal government and tanking the economy by single-handedly raising the national unemployment rate through expensive and unnecessary layoffs. And during that same time Starship has become incredibly unreliable with prototypes not only failing to reach orbit but even exploding on the pad before attempting liftoff.

    Meanwhile competitors are popping up around the world trying to recreate SpaceX's falcon rocket boosters, and many are starting to achieve success. Musk could have owned space but instead gestures wildly at everything and nothing in particular

    Musk should have stepped down from all of his companies about 5-10 years ago and let them continue on without him. Maybe he'd run a funky tiny/manufactured home startup to try to "disrupt housing" or an online healthcare startup to try to "disrupt healthcare" or maybe he'd be running a drone startup to "disrupt warfare" or maybe he'd just sail off into the sunset impregnating as many women as he can convince to carry his kids while shitposting away on twitter. We can only dream only such an alternate reality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The Falcon series would be very limited for a moon mission. The Saturn V could get 47 metric tons into a trans lunar injection. Falcon 9 can get about 27 metric tons into GTO--not even to TLI (which isn't even listed in public information I could find, though one random Reddit post claims 3 metric tons). The Apollo lander was 17 metric tons, and it could take two people and a rover for a little tour on the surface. We can maybe shave some of that weight off with a new design, but probably not by half or anything really significant like that.

    If we want to go back to the moon, it should be for more than taking pictures and picking up some rocks. You may not even be able to do that with a Falcon rocket.

    NASA doesn't exactly rely on Starship for this, though. SLS does technically exist. It's just expensive, took far too long to build, and should probably be written off. Bezos might have something coming up, but who knows. Still relying on another space billionaire either way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It wouldn't be a one shot mission, of course. SpaceX have proven that they can launch a bunch of those in quick succession. That would still be a fraction of the cost of the idiotic SLS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Maybe if they could get in-orbit refueling to work on the Falcon? IIRC, Starship would require that for trips out of LEO, anyway. Nobody has done it before with a crewed rocket, and there's been some criticism that Starship's plan relies on this thing that hasn't been proven.

    The Lunar Gateway is supposed to have a final assembled mass of 63 metric tons. May or may not be able to make that work at all with Falcon.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    We have even figured out aviation on mars so thats kinda cool :D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No no, it's cooler than that. We tried out aviation on Mars to make sure we figured out how to do aviation on Titan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Incidentally, that mission was one of those surprising successes. The drone they sent was really barebones so it could tag along on another mission. Lots of people thought even doing that was a waste of launch mass. Nobody expected it to work all that well. It ended up working incredibly well and got used far beyond its planned mission until its rotor blades broke.

    Now the team gets to build a real one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Actually the rate of major mission launches and new "firsts" was highest in the late 60s/70s, slowed significantly in the 80s/early 90s, and resumed at a moderate and consistent pace from the mid-90s until today (although today missions became far more complex and focused on detailed science rather than just achieving things).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    We need some kind of automated workshop on Mars. Send a boatload of refined materials up there and a small autofactory that can craft marginally useful gear and replacement parts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    First, we need an autofactory. This is not a minor step.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    We need a hardened autofactory, capable of self-repair and or serious fault tolerance.

    Power, protection, temperature stability, something capable of 3d printing without a lot of finish work. How cool would it be to print a new wheel for a rover and install it? Imagine rovers being delivered batteries and solar panels by mini helis...

    It's sci-fi for now, but not impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The problem is time.

    You're just considering human spaceflight. Keeping humans alive and equally importantly sane for years is very different to sending a probe somewhere, and we've been getting better at the latter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thats because the only good progress now is up or positive on the stock markets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah you're right, there was no such thing as stock markets until 2010 I heard

    Before capitalism was invented in 2010 we were just guided by happiness and the pursuit of science and art and improving our livelihoods 🥰

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The reason why spaceflight stagnated for 50 years is because IT came in the middle of it.

    All the smart people went to build computers instead of rockets, and now we have smartphones and the internet.

    Now that IT is stagnating (enshittification), smart people will probably go back to spaceflight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The bigger issue is that there isn't much point to having humans in space.

    After the Wright Brothers flight, aviation took off because aviation is genuinely useful. First it was mostly for delivering mail, but that was an incredible change. Instead of a letter taking weeks to get somewhere it would take days. Places that used to be completely isolated from communication now had an easy way to keep in touch. Then with passengers aviation you had something that changes the world in a positive and measurable way.

    Humans in space is extremely expensive and there really isn't much worthwhile to do up there. Sure, you can do some science experiments about how zero gravity affects something, and learning things is useful, but there's no obvious immediate payoff. If going into space made your bones stronger and not weaker, space travel would have developed massively because there would be a reason for millions of people to go to space for the health benefits. Or, if ballistic travel made sense economically, there might be rockets that cut the travel time from New York to Melbourne down to a couple of hours. But, having to get all that mass above the atmosphere means that it's far too costly to make economic sense.

    People talk about mining asteroids or the moon, but there really isn't much that's valuable up there. The moon is mostly made of cheese [wait, my sources need updating] lunar regolith, which is composed of elements that are just as common on earth: silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, iron, etc. But, on earth you don't have to deal with the difficulty of processing it on another celestial body, nor do you have to deal with the spiky, unweathered nature of regolith that means it destroys space suits and machines.

    The only reason the US landed on the moon with humans in the first place is that it was in a dick measuring contest with the USSR. Now that the cold war is over, nobody's willing to pay for something that useless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    They followed the money. The US Congress saddled NASA with a mandate for a Shuttle without funding it properly. The Russians never even developed crewed rockets that could do anything interesting beyond LEO. Everyone else wasn't doing much until the last decade or so.

    There have long been plenty of smart people at NASA, and they're wasted on poor funding and management. It has nothing to do with IT.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    All the smart people went to build computers instead of rockets, and now we have smartphones and the internet.

    I work in software, most of my peers are not spacefaring material. The issue is budget and ability/desire to do things that are bold instead of sending robots up there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sure, but is bet some of them would be pretty useful for programming fuel pump controllers or navigation systems. Neil Armstrong flew Apollo 11, he didn't design or build it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, they would not. The kind of software development done in aerospace is very, very different from the commercial industry at large. Writing 20 lines per week might be considered a breakneck pace because of all the formal verification that needs to be done on every single line.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Eh, some parts are that critical but also someone has to write the logic for the bathroom occupancy light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    How many people is that going to employ?

    Remember, this thread started by saying "smart people" got sidetracked into IT rather than building rockets. There are a lot of problems with that claim, but at the very least, it has to assume that these less important items would be able to employ lots and lots of programmers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

    What are you talking about? Everyone was a capitalist back then as they are now. The space race was as much a capitalist conquest for glory as it was beneficial for technology/science.

    In the USA we wasted time, money, and media resources going to the moon while black people were treated as less than citizens and millions were living in abject poverty. Not much has changed on that front for the countries entire history. What good did the moon landing do for the average man?

    Same with the USSR. As people starved and lived under a dictatorship, the ruling class wasted the countries money by getting into a dick measuring contest.

    The billionaires have taken over since colonialism became the status quo in the 15th century. Most of the technological progress since then is guided by capital and not something noble.

    — I forgot to add that most of the technological progress in the 20th century happened because we were so hellbent on murdering one another that we had to come up with new and efficient methods. Your concept of “progress” is skewed in favor of the same systems that you want to dismantle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    In the USA we wasted time, money, and media resources going to the moon while black people were treated as less than citizens and millions were living in abject poverty. Not much has changed on that front for the countries entire history. What good did the moon landing do for the average man?

    I'm sincerely wondering if you'd like an answer to your question. I can provide you the science perspective, if you like, not to mention a political one. Not interested in an emotional debate here, you're entitled to your point of view and your polemic, if that's all you prefer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    I would. The literature the other commenter provided really did not help me understand the benefits of it. Both articles they listed focused on how much of a cultural and political achievement it was. However, as I pointed out, that perspective leaves out a large portion of our population.

    The science achievements sound good. We learned the origin of the earth and moon and NASA invented a few good gadgets like wireless headsets- obviously good contributions. But I don’t see how those outweigh the cons of the Apollo program.

    It cost so much money and distracted the populace from the very real issues going on at the time. It was a great propaganda victory.

    My comment was trying to point out how the early space exploration was not any better/more noble/less capital focused than our current relationship with scientific exploration. It is foolish to act like everyone was perfect back then and all happy to go and colonize the moon.

    When we watched the blue origin flight we didn’t get excited by the science and its possible cultural impact. We got mad because it was a bunch of billionaires fucking around. I would hope that if we were alive for the space race, we would recognize how similar of a situation it was. The USA didn’t invest billions of dollars in scientific research. They invested billions in creating an image of the USA as the center of the scientific world and the leader of western nations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Politics reply:

    What good did the moon landing do for the average man?

    Directly, immediately? In the 1960s? Aside from the people employed working directly or indirectly on space efforts? Almost none. Is that really the answer you're looking for, though? Scientific knowledge can take decades or even centuries before it improves our lives tangibly. But I think you know that, so I won't argue with you about it.

    Concerning the waste of time, money and attention - LOL there was the Vietnam war, too. I'd argue was less beneficial to humanity than Apollo. I am only raising this point because I think it's unfair to place blame for lack of social progress at the feet of scientists, or a sub-set of scientists. We're collectively responsible.

    Otherwise, I generally agree with you. The Apollo program was not conceived or executed to benefit science. But Apollo did mobilize science irrevocably. "Planetary science" as a discipline, community and way of thinking didn't exist before Apollo. Very few people, even in the science community, were comparing planets and learning something from that before about 1970. Ditto for environmental science - and that community, too, barely existed before Apollo. Even though that field got a headstart due to people like Rachel Carson.

    Would you have improved social conditions for anyone by cancelling Apollo/Gemini in, say, 1964? I'm not so sure about that. 1968 certainly implies otherwise. I'm here to tell you that exploring neighboring worlds is a social good because you learn the parameters of your own environment, parameters you MUST keep an eye on to keep Earth habitable. But that social good is a joke if people can't walk down the street without worrying about ICE raids. So yeah, you're right, racial hatred obviates this beautiful and essential realization that we're connected to a bigger universe. Would you have the scientists of the world hide their knowledge away because we live surrounded by ugliness? All I can say to you is that we live here too, and this fight is ours as much as yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Science reply:

    We learned the origin of the earth and moon and NASA invented a few good gadgets ... But I don’t see how those outweigh the cons of the Apollo program.

    It's a lot broader and more subtle than just the origin of the Earth and Moon. Apollo rewrote your geology textbook. Not the lunar geology text - the one for Earth. And not just the chapter about origins. This tends to get obscured because there was another revolution going on in Earth science at the very same time - a little thing called plate tectonics.


    Direct results from Apollo, corroborated by old Soviet and modern Chinese automated landers:

    • Planets are born hot, and their insides stay hot, for a very long time
    • The threat from impacts (asteroids/comets) is real, pervasive and ongoing
    • Planets don't stop evolving (their surfaces change, sometimes dramatically, and rather suddenly in geologic terms) for a very long time after they're born

    Indirect result from Apollo:

    • Earth is part of a larger natural system that affects it every single day - larger even than the solar system; let's call it the local Galactic environment

    Of the three direct results, two sound obvious. Naturally Earth is hot inside; where does lava come from? Of course space rocks can bang into us; what would stop them? None of this, however, was evident certain to a huge number of geologists, physicists, or chemists in the 1960s (or '70s, or even '80s... some people never change their minds. They just die). And when most workers in a given field are against you, progress tends to be rather slow. Walter and Luis Alvarez had a hell of a time convincing people that an asteroid strike could have ended the Cretaceous, not to mention the dinosaurs - I mean, there isn't even a crater in the Yucatan, it's flat down there! (LOL That debate still isn't over, even today...)

    As far as I can see, direct result #3 (about planetary evolution) hasn't entered the zeitgeist yet. Yes, people are (wisely) alerted to climate change, but that's just a little tweak compared to the immense environmental changes that we know took place on Venus, Mars and Earth - and I'm just talking about the ones that have occurred since complex life emerged here, not the ones from billions of years ago.

    And that indirect result? I still know a number of scientists who hem and haw and won't quite agree that Earth's environment doesn't suddenly end 100 km up. The Voyager probes show us how bad the radiation is when you get far enough away from the Sun, and I don't know if you even do Voyager without Apollo. But Apollo, uniquely, shows you something else - the Sun hasn't always protected us from that bigger dose of cosmic radiation that the Voyagers see. Sometimes that heliospheric shield shrinks, and the planets get a lot more radiation than we do today. And that's just one of the synergistic results, there are more.

    IMO the primary lesson we learn from geology is that environments change in time. Please note my use of the PRESENT TENSE in this reply, because none of what I am discussing is forever confined to a remote past - all of the planetary evolution processes I'm talking about can still occur today, and are certain to recur in the future. Geology left the silo to become a much more interconnected science partly because of Apollo - and the thing is, it became a science about THE FUTURE as well as the past.

    Apologies for the overly long reply. Apologies to my science people for oversimplifying here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Nah I get what you’re saying. Those are all good things and I agree with pretty much everything in your other comment. I just think that the Apollo missions and other space missions, despite bringing about good, did not occur because of good intentions.

    But yeah you’re right that by learning about other planets we learn a lot about our own and how to move forward. A part of my brain just refuses to recognize most of the good in space exploration because the common attitude towards space exploration is similar to our attitude toward colonization.

    Why when people describe living on the Moon or Mars do they use the word colonize? To me it implies that these spaces are only useful if we can extract profit. And now there’s talk of exploring other space rocks (sorry for broad term) because they contain precious metals we’re running out of on earth. It’s just gross to think that the only way space can be explored or properly funded is if it makes more money and ends up exploiting someone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    What good did the moon landing do for the average man?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.

    I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.

    Might want to work on your reading comprehension.

    Technology developed during the Apollo Mission has made everyday life easier – and safer.

    That's the first paragraph from a section on one of those links that's about technological advances.

    I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.

    Maybe not, but that wasn't the question you posed, it's where you moved the goalpost to. The US went to the moon, that happened already; but there were any number of achievements that resulted in life improvements for everyone while it happened.

    What you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    So funnily enough the introductory paragraph to part of an article isn’t the evidence portion, it’s just the intro. Yknow you could’ve just quoted from the part where they describe said technological advances or that author’s thesis.

    I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now. To be more specific

    I struggle to see how the scientific advancements required going to the moon

    is more of a statement than an answer to the question of “how did the moon landing help the average man?.” Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing? See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?

    And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis. What I’m trying to say is that we should not pretend that the moon landing and all early space exploration was a noble non-capitalist venture focused on the benefit of man (as the original commenter implied). Our current relationship with space is not stagnant because of billionaires for the same reason that our relationship with space post-war was so accelerated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now.

    This right here is moving the goalpost:

    I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.

    Where in my comment that consisted of quoting your question and providing two links that answer that question did I address any of this?

    Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed (the links provided to address the specific quotation from you) and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded ("how the scientific achievements required going to the moon").

    Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing?

    I assume you meant wouldn't have been made without the moon landing? Either way, this is tacitly acknowledges the technological improvements made as a result which would be "good for the average man".

    See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?

    I'm not arguing with you. You asked the question and I provided links with answers to counter the allusion you were attempting to make that it didn't do "the average man" any good.

    As I already stated, what you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion. I have no interest in arguing that with you or anyone because it happened and that's not going to change.

    And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis.

    Yea, and it's a poor question, which is why I addressed it specifically. The moon landing and the space race leading up to it led to numerous advances and improvements for everyone, including "the average man" (sexist language by the way).

    Using that question for emphasis is disingenuous and attempts to minimize all of the advancement that occurred as a byproduct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔 I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.

    Tbh we operating on two different wavelengths. Let’s end it with this

    1. My original question was poorly worded, not fully thought out, and in the most literal sense was wrong. And yeah it does minimize all advancement made as a byproduct, that was the point of such a question.

    2. The argument that I am trying to tell you is not related to just the moon landing. It is a response to the original commenter who, in my opinion, implied that there was something greater about space exploration post-war. I think that it was a result of the USA’s imperialist and capitalist goals. Those goals (as they always do) lined up with the goals of the wealthiest and most powerful (non-politician) people of the time. Space exploration today isnt less exciting because billionaires have too much power. They still had a shit ton of power post-war and still ran the country.

    I believe that the space exploration boom was because it was an opportunity to gain capital and win an ideological battle. In 2025 space does not fill that role.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔

    I'm sorry I have a vocabulary? You should let people know you struggle with big words.

    I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.

    You clearly do since you didn't recognize when you did it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.

    And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.

    Do you need the definition provided again? I'm responding to the insult you started your last reply with. I addressed the parts that I had something to say about. I don't really care what your opinion on the moon landing is. Certainly not enough to argue with you about it; just your garbage question.

    And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else

    My first post which was a quote and two links? I'm sorry you struggle to use longer words but not everybody does.

    (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)

    I did. Do you get mad when people provide a definition from a Dictionary too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.

    The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes). You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.

    Also we both sound like idiots in case you haven’t realized. It’s sounds so stupid to be like “yeah I actually won the comment chain cause I was only responding to the one hyperbolic and purposefully angering statement and not the other parts. So you’re the idiot actually”

    And I sound stupid cause I keep responding to you. So how about we both agree we sufficiently wasted our time and leave it at that. 😣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.

    I'm not your buddy. As I said, I don't care about your opinion, which the rest of your original comment I responded to was. I addressed the question you asked which has basis in fact. What good did the moon landing do for the average man? Lots of good.

    The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes).

    I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the head of the MLA (that's the Modern Language Association, I'll let you click the link to work out why I referenced it). Let me cite something else for you:

    Definitional terms often fall into the category of common knowledge, meaning that they don’t necessarily have to be cited.

    You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.

    Or maybe I start with casual language because this is a message board and then get real specific with my language when dealing with people like you. Either way, that's your opinion and, as established, I don't care about your opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I’m not your buddy either 😡

    as established, I don’t care about your opinion

    • keep responding to the antagonizer whose opinion I clearly care about

    Calm down please

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago

    And destroyers.

    Just a few months into its reign, the US regime intends to ruin decades of progress in science and space exploration:

    On May 30, 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced a plan to cancel no less than 41 space missions — including spacecraft already paid for, launched, and making discoveries — as part of a devastating 47% cut to the agency’s science program. If enacted, this plan would decimate NASA. It would fire a third of the agency’s staff, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and turn off spacecraft that have been journeying through the Solar System for decades.

    Shutting down a working, completely functional mission like New Horizons, in particular, that may just be on the cusp of a huge discovery - it has seen signs of a new, second "ring" to the Kuiper Belt - is the ultimate repudiation of the American self-image as explorers of the frontier. And all of this at a time when the Chinese are just about catching up to "the West" in space science prowess.

    As a kid, I never understood what the Romans were trying to say with their Janus myth. Turns out that Orange Janus is simply the god of endings.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›