5 ms·

It is incredibly disappointing to me that the USA didn't do this decades ago. The USA basically won the space race... then decided to chill out for 50 years. I

by kevmo 8y ago

It is incredibly disappointing to me that the USA didn't do this decades ago. The USA basically won the space race... then decided to chill out for 50 years. I understand that perhaps we did not want to continue to fund NASA at such a high rate, but NASA budgets still could have focused on this. Space is the next frontier of humanity's existence. A moon base is a logical, achievable next step in man's space exploration. The technology developed and lessons learned would have broad implications far beyond simply "We have a base on the moon." Newt Gingrich talked about this idea in his 2012 campaign for president. Despite being a fountain of bad ideas in general, the press seized upon this particular issue as a primary source for mockery of Newt. This is not to belittle any of the other work NASA has done, much of which is also extremely important. Space research is not a zero-sum game. But a moon base is a concrete, achievable (and still awe-inspiring!) goal that both the scientific and political classes could coalesce around. I hope to see it during my lifetime.

MichaelApproved 8y ago
> The USA basically won the space race... then decided to chill out for 50 years. The USA military got what it needed under the cover of a civilian space race. The US didn't chill after that. It put even more money into rockets but those were funded through the military for ICBMs.
- pluma 8y ago
  Sending things to (actual) space is expensive. Drones are a lot cheaper than orbital weapons and easier to justify than WMDs. There's not much profit in sending things beyond Earth orbit as Earth is where all the strategic targets are. So other than satellites there's not much to do in space from a military-industrial point of view.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    There is no friction in space, so things can move much faster and stay there longer. Sending a drone to shitistan at 7.8 KM/second is impossible to do in Earth's atmosphere with today's technology. Likewise for keeping an object airborne for more than a few tens of hours. In space, things can move quickly and stay up there for quite some time. See also the high Delta-V experimental craft, such as the X-37, which allow an asset to be in space for extended periods of time but also to adjust their orbit for short-notice action (presumably reconnaissance) at a specific location.
    - pluma 8y ago
      > shitistan Seriously? This isn't 4chan.
      - dotancohen 8y ago
        That's funny, I really thought that I just coined the word. I guess that rule 34 really applies!
        Jaruzel 8y ago
        It's more to do with dissing any -stan country by using the phrase I reckon. I think we strive to be better than that here.
        dotancohen 8y ago
        I see, thanks. The term -stan just means -land, I used it to deliberately have a foreign-sounding place for "other". I now know to be more politically correct. I'm sitting in a room with people from Uzbekistan and Kazahstan, they have absolutely no problem with the use of the term!
        pluma 8y ago
        Not saying you intended it this way, but "shitistan" implies a dismissive attitude towards the Middle East (because "sending a drone" strongly suggests Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc) by creating a category of "any of those countries ending of -stan" (implying they're all roughly equal as far as you're concerned) and via the expletive portraying them as inherently inferior, poorer, etc. This is basically the level of discourse you expect from 4chan and its wider ecosystem, not HN. Keep in mind that "these people who are X say they have no problem when I say this about X" is a bad test. Even ignoring the fact some people are just too polite (or anxious or oblivious or ...) to explicitly tell you when you're behaving badly, that defense is basically a version of "some of my best friends are black". This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's just about respect. Consider it this way: the reason you don't call someone who's black the n-word isn't that it's offensive but that it's just an extremely bad way to behave yourself. If you say "black" instead, that may be more "politically correct" but if your attitudes are the same, it only makes it harder to call you out but it's not much less hostile. IOW using a different word doesn't really help if your attitude is the same. But on the off chance you're blissfully unaware of the public attitude around "the -stans" (especially post-9/11, especially in the US) maybe just don't try to be edgy by coming up with what could easily pass for slurs when talking about things you are merely disinterested in.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "The USA military got what it needed under the cover of a civilian space race." This sort of cynicism is very popular but largely unfounded. In terms of rocket technology, the moon missions were following in the wake of ICBM tech, not the other way around. The Mercury/Redstone, Mercury/Atlas and Gemini programs were all using rockets that were designed initially as ICBMs (well, the Redstone was an SRBM.) Those rockets were already developed and paid for by the time a civilian applications were found for them. Consider this timeline of launches: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICB... 'Atlas D' and 'GLV' are the Mercury and Gemini programs, respectively. They both came after the majority of ICBM tests for their military siblings. The military wasn't using rockets built for NASA; NASA was using rockets built for the military. Then there is the Saturn V itself. A massive purpose built cryogenic liquid propellant rocket first flying in the late 60s. ICBM technology had moved on, cryogenic liquid propellant ICBMs were already discontinued by that time. In 1962 you had the introduction of solid fuel Minutemen and in 1963 the storable fuel Titan II's were brought into service. Both of these rendered cryogenic propellant ICBMs like the Atlas family and the Titan I obsolete, and both were finally fully retired in 1965 (and subsequently recycled as satellite launchers, roles that they served for many years following. The last Titan II launched a weather satellite in 2003.) This is years before the Saturn V ever flew. The Saturn V simply was not an ICBM program. Now, the Space Shuttle is another matter entirely...
pluma 8y ago
> The USA basically won the space race The USA lost the original space race, then redefined it as "race to the moon", eventually accomplished that and then dropped the ball. I don't want to denounce the amazing accomplishment of the Apollo programme, but Americans have a tendency to undersell the groundwork laid by the Soviet Union by focusing just on the moon landing.
- inn_shopper 8y ago
  Groundwork for a space race was laid out by Germany, V-2 program in particular.

by kevmo 8y ago

MichaelApproved 8y ago

> The USA basically won the space race... then decided to chill out for 50 years. The USA military got what it needed under the cover of a civilian space race. The US didn't chill after that. It put even more money into rockets but those were funded through the military for ICBMs.

pluma 8y ago
Sending things to (actual) space is expensive. Drones are a lot cheaper than orbital weapons and easier to justify than WMDs. There's not much profit in sending things beyond Earth orbit as Earth is where all the strategic targets are. So other than satellites there's not much to do in space from a military-industrial point of view.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  There is no friction in space, so things can move much faster and stay there longer. Sending a drone to shitistan at 7.8 KM/second is impossible to do in Earth's atmosphere with today's technology. Likewise for keeping an object airborne for more than a few tens of hours. In space, things can move quickly and stay up there for quite some time. See also the high Delta-V experimental craft, such as the X-37, which allow an asset to be in space for extended periods of time but also to adjust their orbit for short-notice action (presumably reconnaissance) at a specific location.
  - pluma 8y ago
    > shitistan Seriously? This isn't 4chan.
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      That's funny, I really thought that I just coined the word. I guess that rule 34 really applies!
      - Jaruzel 8y ago
        It's more to do with dissing any -stan country by using the phrase I reckon. I think we strive to be better than that here.
        dotancohen 8y ago
        I see, thanks. The term -stan just means -land, I used it to deliberately have a foreign-sounding place for "other". I now know to be more politically correct. I'm sitting in a room with people from Uzbekistan and Kazahstan, they have absolutely no problem with the use of the term!
        pluma 8y ago
        Not saying you intended it this way, but "shitistan" implies a dismissive attitude towards the Middle East (because "sending a drone" strongly suggests Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc) by creating a category of "any of those countries ending of -stan" (implying they're all roughly equal as far as you're concerned) and via the expletive portraying them as inherently inferior, poorer, etc. This is basically the level of discourse you expect from 4chan and its wider ecosystem, not HN. Keep in mind that "these people who are X say they have no problem when I say this about X" is a bad test. Even ignoring the fact some people are just too polite (or anxious or oblivious or ...) to explicitly tell you when you're behaving badly, that defense is basically a version of "some of my best friends are black". This has nothing to do with political correctness. It's just about respect. Consider it this way: the reason you don't call someone who's black the n-word isn't that it's offensive but that it's just an extremely bad way to behave yourself. If you say "black" instead, that may be more "politically correct" but if your attitudes are the same, it only makes it harder to call you out but it's not much less hostile. IOW using a different word doesn't really help if your attitude is the same. But on the off chance you're blissfully unaware of the public attitude around "the -stans" (especially post-9/11, especially in the US) maybe just don't try to be edgy by coming up with what could easily pass for slurs when talking about things you are merely disinterested in.
darkpuma 8y ago
> "The USA military got what it needed under the cover of a civilian space race." This sort of cynicism is very popular but largely unfounded. In terms of rocket technology, the moon missions were following in the wake of ICBM tech, not the other way around. The Mercury/Redstone, Mercury/Atlas and Gemini programs were all using rockets that were designed initially as ICBMs (well, the Redstone was an SRBM.) Those rockets were already developed and paid for by the time a civilian applications were found for them. Consider this timeline of launches: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICB... 'Atlas D' and 'GLV' are the Mercury and Gemini programs, respectively. They both came after the majority of ICBM tests for their military siblings. The military wasn't using rockets built for NASA; NASA was using rockets built for the military. Then there is the Saturn V itself. A massive purpose built cryogenic liquid propellant rocket first flying in the late 60s. ICBM technology had moved on, cryogenic liquid propellant ICBMs were already discontinued by that time. In 1962 you had the introduction of solid fuel Minutemen and in 1963 the storable fuel Titan II's were brought into service. Both of these rendered cryogenic propellant ICBMs like the Atlas family and the Titan I obsolete, and both were finally fully retired in 1965 (and subsequently recycled as satellite launchers, roles that they served for many years following. The last Titan II launched a weather satellite in 2003.) This is years before the Saturn V ever flew. The Saturn V simply was not an ICBM program. Now, the Space Shuttle is another matter entirely...

pluma 8y ago

> The USA basically won the space race The USA lost the original space race, then redefined it as "race to the moon", eventually accomplished that and then dropped the ball. I don't want to denounce the amazing accomplishment of the Apollo programme, but Americans have a tendency to undersell the groundwork laid by the Soviet Union by focusing just on the moon landing.

inn_shopper 8y ago
Groundwork for a space race was laid out by Germany, V-2 program in particular.