6 ms·

Our Fate Is in the Stars

48 points by ascertain 7y ago

alexgmcm 7y ago
There are currently four living people who have walked on the moon, the youngest of which is 83: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_walked_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_walked... It is probable that we will return to there being no living humans who have walked on the moon - something which must have been unimaginable at the end of the Apollo Project.
- axelfontaine 7y ago
  The incredible thing is that nobody born after 1935 has ever walked on the moon!
  - isolli 7y ago
    And they were all Americans, which underlines what a rarity moonwalking has been in the history of humanity.
  - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
    The really incredible thing is that nobody has ever walked on the moon.
coldtea 7y ago
There's no "fate" and no contract we've signed that guaranteers we're an interplanetary species. It's just that we wish we could be in the stars, but wishing doesn't always make it so. And in some cases, wishing never makes it so. Especially without installed bases, big haul ability, etc, it takes trillions and has zero to no returns (except the glory, curiosity, and scientific value) for companies to go to the planets, even more so to the nearest stars (which also can take decades). So while satellites lunches can make a profit, there's not much financial incentive to go beyond (real, tangible, the kind somebody will invest in, not future prospects which might take 2-3 generations to even pan out), absent state funding them (Space-X style, paid by NASA/the government). And contrary to popular belief, climate change problems will make it even more difficult to secure such space spending, not less (e.g. people will demand urgent Earth supports, states will go each to fight on its own survival, there will resource and trade wars, and so on).
- Razengan 7y ago
  If we die out here on our home (as far as we know) planet, then we didn’t “deserve” to colonize other planets anyway. Isn’t that the point of natural selection after all?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    I don't think natural selection has a point, or the universe cares for us anymore than it cares for bacteria or inanimate matter.
    - monkeynotes 7y ago
      Although, natural selection does have a bias toward propagating and persisting information. Since the information is part of the universe I would say some of the universe exhibits intent. Bacteria is part of the life, inanimate matter became life, life is a vehicle of transmitting and persisting information. To think about 'us' as something other than the universe is a folly. If we care, then part of the universe cares because we are part of the whole.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Propagating, yes. Persisting? Not necessarily - it depends on selection pressures.
        monkeynotes 7y ago
        Any selection pressure is there to trial the data and persist the useful data. What is considered 'useful'? Well, that's an existential question that is synonymous to `what's the point to life`. I don't have the answer but there does seem to be an intent in the process.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        I disagree. The process viewed at this level is closed over itself - the only criteria for what's useful is "whatever survives". There's no intent here - natural selection only amplifies the structure of the environment in which it happens.
idlewords 7y ago
This is an odd piece of nostalgia, unfortunately representative of a genre. The Apollo program grew directly out of a panic about nuclear weapons, and the technological race to build rockets that could rain those weapons down on an adversary on the other side of the planet. No nuclear bomb, no Apollo. The same geopolitical conflict that produced the space race also gave us the war in Vietnam, which in turn made the expense of ongoing lunar exploration unappealing (the war cost about 4x as much as the Apollo program) after the prestige milestone of landing on the moon was completed. The space program was a fluke of history. We had a frightening new weapon that gave an overwhelming advantage to the side that could develop orbital rockets, a rough balance of power, and a natural satellite just close enough to get to without having to learn to assemble stuff in orbit. Unfortunately, all the other destinations in space are far away (it's called space for a reason!) and sending primates to those places is expensive and hard. There's also no reason to do it (given advances in robotics and autonomous systems) unless you subscribe to a kind of cultish belief in humanity's manifest destiny to become an interplanetary civilization. If there had been an intermediate destination between the Moon and Mars for us to work towards after Apollo, things might have gone differently, but you work with the Solar System you're dealt.
- martythemaniak 7y ago
  It is well understood that history not a nice, neat, little linear progression. It is full of stop and starts, stagnation, dizzying S-curves, revolutions, backlashes and regressions. Apollo was a wonder, yes an outgrowth of the arms race, but also a manifestation of a purposeful and unified nation that just doesn't exist today. It was unsustainable, but it was also very long time ago. I find your views that "things are hard, so we shouldn't do that, and we should never get off this planet" unfortunately common. Here's two things to consider: - Sending people to space is not just fancy. Today's robotic missions are like trying to fill a swimming pool with a pipette. In 7 years Curiosity has driven a total of 8.6km - an slow afternoon stroll for a person. Every single little action is planned and executed at an excruciatingly slow pace. Nothing can be fixed or adjusted. InSight ran into a rock and now it might not be able to burrow it's instrument down. Digging down 3m might prove too much for that robot, a trivial task for any human. - If humans don't have outward goals, we're much more likely to just look inward and spend our collective energy tearing each other apart. Without looking outwards, the entire Earth will become one giant vapid high school.
classicsnoot 7y ago
It is probably a good thing that Asimov, Clarke, Feynman, Sagan, and Tesla don't have to see who inherited their legacies of thought, ambition, and deed. Imagine explaining to any one of them that the imagination and impetus of the future man, imbued with technology and options, is completely given over to spam email, ICOs, and dressing up 90s code as "innovation" so they can cash out early. I've been feeling this place degrade over time, and this thread is a red flag. SlackerNews: we know better; we won't change.
- vokep 7y ago
  I think they might be surprised it isn't worse. The fact the internet exists at all is insane. The internet in some form maybe was inevitable, but most likely alternatives would be companies growing ever larger walled gardens until interconnection was a necessary next step. Instead we got a ton of infrastructure for military and academic work allowed use by public resulting in a huge free network for all. Sure facebook is trying to undo that, but the fact they have to put in effort at all is awesome.
tshannon 7y ago
> "NASA commissioned two studies, with the twist that each team had to flesh out the other’s plan. Making the engineers step into each other’s shoes unstuck the debate, and Huntsville came around to Houston’s approach. That one decision ended up saving billions of dollars." I love this. I find that so many people get emotionally attached to a decision, simply because it was theirs or their teams.

48 points by ascertain 7y ago

There are currently four living people who have walked on the moon, the youngest of which is 83: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_walked_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_walked... It is probable that we will return to there being no living humans who have walked on the moon - something which must have been unimaginable at the end of the Apollo Project.

axelfontaine 7y ago
The incredible thing is that nobody born after 1935 has ever walked on the moon!
- isolli 7y ago
  And they were all Americans, which underlines what a rarity moonwalking has been in the history of humanity.
- Chris_Chambers 7y ago
  The really incredible thing is that nobody has ever walked on the moon.

coldtea 7y ago

There's no "fate" and no contract we've signed that guaranteers we're an interplanetary species. It's just that we wish we could be in the stars, but wishing doesn't always make it so. And in some cases, wishing never makes it so. Especially without installed bases, big haul ability, etc, it takes trillions and has zero to no returns (except the glory, curiosity, and scientific value) for companies to go to the planets, even more so to the nearest stars (which also can take decades). So while satellites lunches can make a profit, there's not much financial incentive to go beyond (real, tangible, the kind somebody will invest in, not future prospects which might take 2-3 generations to even pan out), absent state funding them (Space-X style, paid by NASA/the government). And contrary to popular belief, climate change problems will make it even more difficult to secure such space spending, not less (e.g. people will demand urgent Earth supports, states will go each to fight on its own survival, there will resource and trade wars, and so on).

Razengan 7y ago
If we die out here on our home (as far as we know) planet, then we didn’t “deserve” to colonize other planets anyway. Isn’t that the point of natural selection after all?
- coldtea 7y ago
  I don't think natural selection has a point, or the universe cares for us anymore than it cares for bacteria or inanimate matter.
  - monkeynotes 7y ago
    Although, natural selection does have a bias toward propagating and persisting information. Since the information is part of the universe I would say some of the universe exhibits intent. Bacteria is part of the life, inanimate matter became life, life is a vehicle of transmitting and persisting information. To think about 'us' as something other than the universe is a folly. If we care, then part of the universe cares because we are part of the whole.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Propagating, yes. Persisting? Not necessarily - it depends on selection pressures.
      - monkeynotes 7y ago
        Any selection pressure is there to trial the data and persist the useful data. What is considered 'useful'? Well, that's an existential question that is synonymous to `what's the point to life`. I don't have the answer but there does seem to be an intent in the process.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        I disagree. The process viewed at this level is closed over itself - the only criteria for what's useful is "whatever survives". There's no intent here - natural selection only amplifies the structure of the environment in which it happens.

idlewords 7y ago

This is an odd piece of nostalgia, unfortunately representative of a genre. The Apollo program grew directly out of a panic about nuclear weapons, and the technological race to build rockets that could rain those weapons down on an adversary on the other side of the planet. No nuclear bomb, no Apollo. The same geopolitical conflict that produced the space race also gave us the war in Vietnam, which in turn made the expense of ongoing lunar exploration unappealing (the war cost about 4x as much as the Apollo program) after the prestige milestone of landing on the moon was completed. The space program was a fluke of history. We had a frightening new weapon that gave an overwhelming advantage to the side that could develop orbital rockets, a rough balance of power, and a natural satellite just close enough to get to without having to learn to assemble stuff in orbit. Unfortunately, all the other destinations in space are far away (it's called space for a reason!) and sending primates to those places is expensive and hard. There's also no reason to do it (given advances in robotics and autonomous systems) unless you subscribe to a kind of cultish belief in humanity's manifest destiny to become an interplanetary civilization. If there had been an intermediate destination between the Moon and Mars for us to work towards after Apollo, things might have gone differently, but you work with the Solar System you're dealt.

martythemaniak 7y ago
It is well understood that history not a nice, neat, little linear progression. It is full of stop and starts, stagnation, dizzying S-curves, revolutions, backlashes and regressions. Apollo was a wonder, yes an outgrowth of the arms race, but also a manifestation of a purposeful and unified nation that just doesn't exist today. It was unsustainable, but it was also very long time ago. I find your views that "things are hard, so we shouldn't do that, and we should never get off this planet" unfortunately common. Here's two things to consider: - Sending people to space is not just fancy. Today's robotic missions are like trying to fill a swimming pool with a pipette. In 7 years Curiosity has driven a total of 8.6km - an slow afternoon stroll for a person. Every single little action is planned and executed at an excruciatingly slow pace. Nothing can be fixed or adjusted. InSight ran into a rock and now it might not be able to burrow it's instrument down. Digging down 3m might prove too much for that robot, a trivial task for any human. - If humans don't have outward goals, we're much more likely to just look inward and spend our collective energy tearing each other apart. Without looking outwards, the entire Earth will become one giant vapid high school.

classicsnoot 7y ago

It is probably a good thing that Asimov, Clarke, Feynman, Sagan, and Tesla don't have to see who inherited their legacies of thought, ambition, and deed. Imagine explaining to any one of them that the imagination and impetus of the future man, imbued with technology and options, is completely given over to spam email, ICOs, and dressing up 90s code as "innovation" so they can cash out early. I've been feeling this place degrade over time, and this thread is a red flag. SlackerNews: we know better; we won't change.

vokep 7y ago
I think they might be surprised it isn't worse. The fact the internet exists at all is insane. The internet in some form maybe was inevitable, but most likely alternatives would be companies growing ever larger walled gardens until interconnection was a necessary next step. Instead we got a ton of infrastructure for military and academic work allowed use by public resulting in a huge free network for all. Sure facebook is trying to undo that, but the fact they have to put in effort at all is awesome.

tshannon 7y ago

> "NASA commissioned two studies, with the twist that each team had to flesh out the other’s plan. Making the engineers step into each other’s shoes unstuck the debate, and Huntsville came around to Houston’s approach. That one decision ended up saving billions of dollars." I love this. I find that so many people get emotionally attached to a decision, simply because it was theirs or their teams.