15 ms·
India is preparing to land on moon for the first time in the country's history
- martin_a 9y agoMaybe provide basic supply with fresh water for the whole country first. But yeah, whatever.
- throwaway-hn123 9y agoOh do fuck off, you dull little prick.
- northwest66 9y agoPssst, I heard the last country to land people there laughable still hasn't even made it to the level of free health care for all! They still might, of course, it's not like any of these goals are mutually exclusive.
- adventured 9y agoFree healthcare? That'd sure be amazing. Oh, you mean non-free healthcare provided by taxes, paid for by anyone earning an income and only actually free for anyone not earning an income. Anyone not earning an income in the US gets 'free' healthcare and has for decades. It's anything but free, it's very expensive. Just ask any developed nation with socialized healthcare just how free healthcare is, as they all universally struggle to afford it (which is why Canada's wait times are so atrocious despite being held up as a good system). One can make a great argument for socialized healthcare without pretending it's free. Claiming it's free is just an absurdity, as it's extremely expensive.
- jogjayr 9y ago> Anyone not earning an income in the US gets 'free' healthcare and has for decades. It's anything but free, it's very expensive. My impression was that the only way it's "free" is if you walk into an emergency room with no money. And the fact that uninsured people can only go to emergency rooms (routine issues fester and become serious) is in part what drives up the cost. In places like Canada the wait times are atrocious due to triaging. If your problem is serious you will get looked at immediately. If it's not, you have to wait. And if you can afford it, you're still free to go to a private clinic. But it does seem like overall health outcomes and costs are better than the US. So...yeah it's true calling it "free" healthcare is a bit of a misnomer but no one actually thinks it costs $0 to provide. Think of free healthcare like freeways: paid for by tax money for the public good, and occasionally you'll have to pay a nominal toll (co-pay or whatever).
- classicsnoot 9y agoYou make some very good points. I think people use the term "free" in the same way that the term "free" tricks people into spending more than they would have otherwise. Calling it "free" let's you mentally sidestep the details.
- tigershark 9y agoYou can say that it's practically free given how much US spend for a non-free healthcare vs how much countries with universal healthcare spend.
- lamarpye 9y agoIt helps when another nation pays for your defense, frees up money for other things.
- tigershark 9y agoI can't understand your comment. Regardless of military expenses a lot of countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita than US where is not universal. Can you please explain me how military expenses affect the amount of money spent in healthcare?
- classicsnoot 9y agoJust for reference, the biggest (med-high, annually recurring) expenditures of Westernized Democracies tend to be social welfare (penchants and such), agrarian supply chain, healthcare, and security/defense. Water figures heavily depending on geography. The unifying factor is the need for continuing, consistent investment just to maintain, non inclusive of repair, renovation, or improvement. This is why these things are so expensive. The European Bloc has benefitted from defense/security being bolstered by US equipment/investment since the Marshall Plan. I believe this is what the other poster was referencing.
- throwaway-hn123 9y agoShoot yourself and do the human race a favour.
- sp332 9y agoI think that "free" does generally mean that someone else paid.
- 35bge57dtjku 9y agoIt seems like a specious claim that they're struggling to afford it, when so many do manage to afford it.
- northwest66 9y agoI mean free as in if I chop my arm off, no worries, no bills, I get fixed up. I mean free as in my wife is pregnant, no worries, no bills, my baby is delivered in a hospital. I mean free as in my kids gets cancer, no worries, no bills, they get chemo or whatever they need. I mean never going into debt because I need my life saved. I mean never not going to the doctor because it'll ruin me. I mean everyone pays consumption tax here, nobody gets a free ride, and everyone gets looked after. I mean not looking down on another country because they're not perfect when your country isn't either.
- throwaway-hn123 9y agofuck me you are a dumb cunt. Check how much healthcare costs in the United States of Cunts and compare it the other places. Then check the health outcomes. You dumb fucking loser.
- martin_a 9y ago"free" is a broad term, as someone obviously has to pay for it, either from his pocket or via taxes or whatever. Nevertheless, everybody has access to health care after all which isn´t true for India and water supply.
- jogjayr 9y agoBeg to disagree. If you have money in India you can get water supply. Even if you're located in a remote village with no plumbing, water trucks will deliver weekly and fill up your domestic water tank. So...the analogy to healthcare in the US isn't too far off. If you have money and/or a good job you can get healthcare in the US and water in India (healthcare too).
- mr_tickles 9y agoThe US doesn't even have a basic supply of fresh water to all.
- devereaux 9y ago_You_ may want that. However, _India_, as the biggest democracy in the world, chose to do a moon landing instead. What makes you believe you know better about what is best? Unless you are an astrophysicist specialized in economic development (not sure that exists) odds are not in favor of your judgement being the correct one.
- martin_a 9y agoI don´t need to be either of that to see that a country should have an aspiration to provide a certain standard of living (water that is safe to drink, basic health care and lots alike) for everybody before landing things on the moon. But India has a deeply fucked up society which gives a shit about people from "the bottom" of that society, so I am not really wondered that they do some publicity stunt instead of getting their country fixed.
- languageiunvs 9y agoFlint calling Vets on street calling Blacks in ghettos calling Unemployed blacks calling You sound like Chelsea "million dollars beginning salary" Clinton, blaming sanders about shutting Obama care
- ksk 9y agoThanks for looking out for India. I'm sure they appreciate that. You make a good point, all of us should get our own country fixed. Hopefully you're doing something about yours too..
- rishav_sharan 9y agoClearly by that rationale, because of Flint NASA should scrap all its programs
- shripadk 9y agoThe cost of this mission is 93 million dollars. If you can come up with a plan to provide basic supply with fresh water for the entire country for 93 million dollars I'm sure the Indian government will be greatly interested in your services. Heck you may even be offered a billion dollars to solve this problem. Maybe then you'll realise the logistical nightmare of getting supply of fresh water to 1.25 billion people. If you do not understand the dynamics of how developing countries function it's best you not comment. The same "poor people" for whom you feel sad for (in another comment you posted below) sport a smartphone in their pockets. This is the irony of living in a developing country. Technology advances faster and ends up becoming cheaper than building last mile connectivity and basic services. Infrastructure building is always slower and more expensive than tech adoption.
- CoongLiu 9y agoCountries don't generally operate on the myopic principle of addressing issues one at a time. When America first began the Apollo program, it was almost a full decade before the United States addressed a lot of the racial issues that have plagued it since its inception. By many measures, such as access to healthcare, incarceration rates, and even basic literacy, the United States still has severe equality issues. If the United States was operating according to this principle, they would still be waiting to send anyone to space. I'd be happily surprised if there was actually any country that had fully conquered this issue. Point being that every country, all the way up to the largest economy in the world, has unresolved issues. Issues which are fundamental to human rights and equality. Is your umbrage with India specifically, or are you promoting the idea of singular focus as a global concept? If the latter, I'd be interested (genuinely!) in seeing your reasoning and evidence. If the former, I'd encourage you to reflect on what you are saying, and discover why you are (I assume, and hope, inadvertently) applying your criticism in a discriminatory manner
- yawaramin 9y agoI think that would be the first time in any country's history except the US....
- whack 9y agoIf space transportation costs were to fall dramatically, would there be any commercial value in traveling to the Moon, or building a base on the moon? The only one I can think of is Tourism. Are there any others, such as rare minerals perhaps?
- arthulia 9y agoThe Moon has a fair bit of Helium-3. It sounds like that is partly what this mission is about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraction_from_extraterrestrial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraction_from_extra...
- agumonkey 9y agoI didn't know people were allowed to exploit the moon ..
- w-ll 9y agoAndy Weir (author of The Martian) has a new book coming out that explores tourism to the moon. He has done a ton of research on the topic, definitely worth checking out. He was recently on StarTalk Radio [1] give it a listen 1. https://www.startalkradio.net/tag/andy-weir/ https://www.startalkradio.net/tag/andy-weir/
- TrueGeek 9y agoIt just came out and is a great read. He goes into the issues of tourism, industry, and which countries will be driving efforts on the moon.
- baddox 9y agoIn the book, is the tourism is driven primarily by the inherent novelty and wonder of being on the moon, seeing Earth, experiencing the weaker gravity, etc., or is the draw primarily based on facilities that have been built there, like casinos, resorts, amusement parks, etc.? My guess is that you would need to have a lot of the latter, because while the former would be undoubtedly cool, I’m afraid the novelty would wear off quickly if the living and entertainment facilities themselves were anything less than spectacular.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoNot that there are many here that believe that NASA faked the moon landings, but if you are, I've got to say: I'd have thought that Bollywood would have landed them on the moon at least a decade ago.
- gfyrt 9y agoGoogle for "frogs in a pond story"
- sytelus 9y agoTo be clear this is rover landing planned around March 2018. This is not landing man on moon.
- known 9y agohttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5137359/Boy-18-invents-self-defence-SANDAL-ward-rapists.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5137359/Boy-18-inv... is more interesting from India today
- fellellor 9y agoThat's pretty cool, but you should see a shrink. Something's wrong with you.
- lexxed 9y agoI thought Nasa suddenly stopped going to the moon since 1972 is because they found an alien base on the far side of the moon. That or we are in a computer simulation and there's not enough processing power to simulate another planet.