5 ms·

This is so very, very cool. I did hear some horrible news. Seems the funding for the next-gen (or even current maintainence of) Chandra-X ray observatory (spac

This is so very, very cool. I did hear some horrible news. Seems the funding for the next-gen (or even current maintainence of) Chandra-X ray observatory (space based telescope) won't get approved which is a huge shame. Maybe politicians could be persuaded by sites like these and greater awareness campaigns to not lose such a worthwhile instrument for science. And if it does is there an international equivalent maybe via the ESA or another that could make up for it or should the science world suffer because of the lack of US funding?

system2 3y ago
Politics and religion slowed down our space exploration by many thousands of years.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  I... Don't think so? Soviet Union as a materially poor country will not pour so much money into exploring space if it wasn't so important politically at the moment. The US was much wealthier, but also skipped space spendings the first moment politics no longer persuaded space exploration. Stuff like GPS and especially Glonass were also borne out of political goals. Same for ISS. If anything, the only way we may get to explore solar system is via political push.
  - Fremololni 3y ago
    NASA asks for money and politicians say no.
    - hunter-gatherer 3y ago
      NASA often asks for money and politicians say yes.
      - Fremololni 3y ago
        Yes but that's not the criticism. It's the no saying
- jazzsouff 3y ago
  The post WW2 cold war is what pushed our understanding of space. So actually modern politics helped with that.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    But once the space race to the moon was won - and all major powers had proven they are capable of producing ICBMs - it feels like the energy and financing just went out of it. There's no more political or military gain to be had from space exploration so governments only put in a token amount, and there's only limited commercial gain from e.g. telecom, mapping and navigation, but that's all focused on earth itself. There's no major financial incentive go to the moon or mars, other than would-be space tourists or colonists that are willing and able to pay for their own trip. The only way spacefaring could be commercialised is with asteroid mining, and that's a long way away still. The eye-popping "this asteroid could be worth a hundred trillian dollars!!1" kind of headlines are sensationalised to attract investors to fund exploration missions to figure out if the theory matches the practice, but even if it was worth that amount, getting any material back to Earth is currently cost- and engineering-prohibitive. It may become viable in our lifetime, for example if they can get a Starship sized craft there, fill the hold with titanium and return all of it to Earth, but that's a long way away still.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      > There's no major financial incentive go to the moon or mars, other than would-be space tourists or colonists that are willing and able to pay for their own trip. I don't think there's any incentive at all. What reason is there for anyone to go to Mars other than to say they did, at enormous expense and technical effort? Best case scenario, after spending tens of trillions of dollars, we're able to build a base that needs continual resupply from Earth and in which you're basically living in a box - you'll never be able to set foot outside except in a suit, worse even than our Antarctic bases. And even then, we can expect long-term health effects. Well, you can live in a box on Earth. The reason there isn't major funding for space is because most people don't care all that much. It's a nice thing to have, and I wish more people did support increasing this sort of funding, but it's perfectly understandable why most people don't want to contribute significant percentages of GDP to a scifi dream.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  science is just a spinoff of philosophy which was religiously motivated. what kind of drug-induced state do you have to be in to think that the Romans would have been flying around the Earth if only everyone thousands of years prior was magically a self-absorbed nihilist
  - shigawire 3y ago
    Rude phrasing, you shouldn't do that.
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      I thought that atheists believed that politics and religion have caused most if not all wars in history? Guess what was the impetus for developing technology? War. i.e. politics by other means. Guess that Stalin developed technology for the love of the game, though. Not for war or politics or anything. Or are we saying that religion and politics have moderated the impulse to war? i.e. in an ancient atheist world, war would have been much more furious and necessary for survival, so the pressure to develop technology would have been much greater than it was with all those pacifist monks running around spoiling everyone's armed conflict fun with their woo-woo? -- Maybe ICBMs should have been invented around the time that Byzantium was founded
- olddustytrail 3y ago
  Indeed, if they hadn't made the pyramids so heavy they could have been spaceships!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dotnet00 3y ago
The politicians aren't going to be persuaded by this, they're corrupt snakes who are very open with their lack of regard for actually useful programs. Chandra et al are dying because Congress wants to pour more money into SLS (and thus into Boeing), but is unhappy that NASA isn't playing along (choosing SpaceX and a similar lander from Blue Origin, buying high risk, lower cost robotic landers from space startups). So they give NASA more money than they ask for when it comes to SLS, dont allocate enough to other Artemis goals and cut the overall budget.

system2 3y ago

Politics and religion slowed down our space exploration by many thousands of years.

thriftwy 3y ago
I... Don't think so? Soviet Union as a materially poor country will not pour so much money into exploring space if it wasn't so important politically at the moment. The US was much wealthier, but also skipped space spendings the first moment politics no longer persuaded space exploration. Stuff like GPS and especially Glonass were also borne out of political goals. Same for ISS. If anything, the only way we may get to explore solar system is via political push.
- Fremololni 3y ago
  NASA asks for money and politicians say no.
  - hunter-gatherer 3y ago
    NASA often asks for money and politicians say yes.
    - Fremololni 3y ago
      Yes but that's not the criticism. It's the no saying
jazzsouff 3y ago
The post WW2 cold war is what pushed our understanding of space. So actually modern politics helped with that.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  But once the space race to the moon was won - and all major powers had proven they are capable of producing ICBMs - it feels like the energy and financing just went out of it. There's no more political or military gain to be had from space exploration so governments only put in a token amount, and there's only limited commercial gain from e.g. telecom, mapping and navigation, but that's all focused on earth itself. There's no major financial incentive go to the moon or mars, other than would-be space tourists or colonists that are willing and able to pay for their own trip. The only way spacefaring could be commercialised is with asteroid mining, and that's a long way away still. The eye-popping "this asteroid could be worth a hundred trillian dollars!!1" kind of headlines are sensationalised to attract investors to fund exploration missions to figure out if the theory matches the practice, but even if it was worth that amount, getting any material back to Earth is currently cost- and engineering-prohibitive. It may become viable in our lifetime, for example if they can get a Starship sized craft there, fill the hold with titanium and return all of it to Earth, but that's a long way away still.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    > There's no major financial incentive go to the moon or mars, other than would-be space tourists or colonists that are willing and able to pay for their own trip. I don't think there's any incentive at all. What reason is there for anyone to go to Mars other than to say they did, at enormous expense and technical effort? Best case scenario, after spending tens of trillions of dollars, we're able to build a base that needs continual resupply from Earth and in which you're basically living in a box - you'll never be able to set foot outside except in a suit, worse even than our Antarctic bases. And even then, we can expect long-term health effects. Well, you can live in a box on Earth. The reason there isn't major funding for space is because most people don't care all that much. It's a nice thing to have, and I wish more people did support increasing this sort of funding, but it's perfectly understandable why most people don't want to contribute significant percentages of GDP to a scifi dream.
iraqmtpizza 3y ago
science is just a spinoff of philosophy which was religiously motivated. what kind of drug-induced state do you have to be in to think that the Romans would have been flying around the Earth if only everyone thousands of years prior was magically a self-absorbed nihilist
- shigawire 3y ago
  Rude phrasing, you shouldn't do that.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    I thought that atheists believed that politics and religion have caused most if not all wars in history? Guess what was the impetus for developing technology? War. i.e. politics by other means. Guess that Stalin developed technology for the love of the game, though. Not for war or politics or anything. Or are we saying that religion and politics have moderated the impulse to war? i.e. in an ancient atheist world, war would have been much more furious and necessary for survival, so the pressure to develop technology would have been much greater than it was with all those pacifist monks running around spoiling everyone's armed conflict fun with their woo-woo? -- Maybe ICBMs should have been invented around the time that Byzantium was founded
olddustytrail 3y ago
Indeed, if they hadn't made the pyramids so heavy they could have been spaceships!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dotnet00 3y ago

The politicians aren't going to be persuaded by this, they're corrupt snakes who are very open with their lack of regard for actually useful programs. Chandra et al are dying because Congress wants to pour more money into SLS (and thus into Boeing), but is unhappy that NASA isn't playing along (choosing SpaceX and a similar lander from Blue Origin, buying high risk, lower cost robotic landers from space startups). So they give NASA more money than they ask for when it comes to SLS, dont allocate enough to other Artemis goals and cut the overall budget.