4 ms·

There’s a lot of good that shows up all across the economy from satellites. For example, how important is weather prediction to you? Genuinely, I’m not sure ho

There’s a lot of good that shows up all across the economy from satellites. For example, how important is weather prediction to you? Genuinely, I’m not sure how much it is to me, but the value isn’t nothing. GPS is another thing like that: it’s only a little bit useful to me, but it enables a lot of economic activity (like farm automation). And the fact that getting lost went from a regular thing that happens to rarely is probably at least somewhat valuable. Remote telecom is another thing. For sure, there are diminishing returns, but going from no access to some access for very remote places (think ships at sea, polar research stations, oil rigs, very rural communities) is probably valuable. How many ships haven’t sunk because they got a satellite weather update? You’re absolutely right, it’s not a strategy to invest randomly. And it’s quite possible that we’re over-investing in space. But there are direct returns in addition to the “exhaust”.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Ah, satellites yes I agree. I wasn't thinking of this critique against putting things in space, but against manned missions to outer space. I'm all for sending up robots and sending those to other planets to figure out the situation.
- Vegenoid 2y ago
  I thought that most technically interested folks saw growing into the stars as a worthy endeavor. It is indeed the only way for humanity to survive in the (long) long term. I’m surprised to see that there are so many people here that don’t share that view.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Space is way, way, way bigger and way, way, way less hospitable than "technically interested" folks on here understand. And being multiplanetary isn't really a great hedge against the types of risks that are existential to a species that's capable of being multiplanetary.
    - Vegenoid 2y ago
      I can't speak for most people, but I am aware of the size and inhospitality of space, which is why I think we should be be studying and reaching into it now, to give us as much as time as possible to succeed.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        I really don't think you are. Without looking it up: how far away is Proxima Centauri and how long do you think it'd take to reach it given our current propulsion technology? Obviously propulsion will continue to get better and better, but it's a good way to anchor oneself back to technical reality. What's your gut feeling on how long it'd take to reach our nearest neighbor if we were to travel at the top speed of the fastest spacecraft we've ever made?
        Vegenoid 2y ago
        I don't know the answers to these questions confidently without looking them up, and if you think that means my opinion isn't worth much then so be it. I have no influence on space exploration beyond being a voting US citizen if it makes you feel better. I believe that Proxima Centauri is ~10 light years away, and that it would take tens of millions of years to travel that distance based on current propulsion. Looks like I wasn't wildly off. I still think that putting humans in space is a worthwhile endeavor, and that the amount we spend on it relative to many other things is not disproportionately high.
        shkkmo 2y ago
        This isn't an appropriate rhetorical technique. For HN. If you want to make a point about the size of space, make it without demeaning the intelligence and understanding of the people you are talking to.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  You said "spaceflight", not "manned spaceflight". Manned spaceflight has brought and continues to bring many important advances in science. I would argue that the science dividends of the ISS (which is mainly a research station) are quite worth the relativly low costs. How familiar are you with the science currently being done on the ISS? It often doesnt get heavily talked up, so I suspect your "fringe" assertion is coming drom a place of ignorance. Do you have speficic experiments that you think are a waste of time and money? Manned expeditions to the moon are harder to justify. However, given the track record of technological and scientific payoffs, betting against a positive return, if even from the "exhaust" isn't safe. I do wish that Artemis wasn't our approach though. FYI we spend more money subsidizing fossil fuels than we do on space travel. If we can afford handouts to oil companies that are killing our planet, we can afford to pay for the research that will help save it.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    > How familiar are you with the science currently being done on the ISS? It often doesnt get heavily talked up, so I suspect your "fringe" assertion is coming drom a place of ignorance. Do you have speficic experiments that you think are a waste of time and money? If you'll recall from my initial comment: "How exactly is it useful?... Honest curiosity here, I don't know what a lot of the purpose is!" Which you haven't answered. P.S. I'm not the one who said spaceflight as all, though yes I did interpret it as manned spaceflight, as I just stated

llamaimperative 2y ago

Ah, satellites yes I agree. I wasn't thinking of this critique against putting things in space, but against manned missions to outer space. I'm all for sending up robots and sending those to other planets to figure out the situation.

Vegenoid 2y ago
I thought that most technically interested folks saw growing into the stars as a worthy endeavor. It is indeed the only way for humanity to survive in the (long) long term. I’m surprised to see that there are so many people here that don’t share that view.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Space is way, way, way bigger and way, way, way less hospitable than "technically interested" folks on here understand. And being multiplanetary isn't really a great hedge against the types of risks that are existential to a species that's capable of being multiplanetary.
  - Vegenoid 2y ago
    I can't speak for most people, but I am aware of the size and inhospitality of space, which is why I think we should be be studying and reaching into it now, to give us as much as time as possible to succeed.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      I really don't think you are. Without looking it up: how far away is Proxima Centauri and how long do you think it'd take to reach it given our current propulsion technology? Obviously propulsion will continue to get better and better, but it's a good way to anchor oneself back to technical reality. What's your gut feeling on how long it'd take to reach our nearest neighbor if we were to travel at the top speed of the fastest spacecraft we've ever made?
      - Vegenoid 2y ago
        I don't know the answers to these questions confidently without looking them up, and if you think that means my opinion isn't worth much then so be it. I have no influence on space exploration beyond being a voting US citizen if it makes you feel better. I believe that Proxima Centauri is ~10 light years away, and that it would take tens of millions of years to travel that distance based on current propulsion. Looks like I wasn't wildly off. I still think that putting humans in space is a worthwhile endeavor, and that the amount we spend on it relative to many other things is not disproportionately high.
      - shkkmo 2y ago
        This isn't an appropriate rhetorical technique. For HN. If you want to make a point about the size of space, make it without demeaning the intelligence and understanding of the people you are talking to.
shkkmo 2y ago
You said "spaceflight", not "manned spaceflight". Manned spaceflight has brought and continues to bring many important advances in science. I would argue that the science dividends of the ISS (which is mainly a research station) are quite worth the relativly low costs. How familiar are you with the science currently being done on the ISS? It often doesnt get heavily talked up, so I suspect your "fringe" assertion is coming drom a place of ignorance. Do you have speficic experiments that you think are a waste of time and money? Manned expeditions to the moon are harder to justify. However, given the track record of technological and scientific payoffs, betting against a positive return, if even from the "exhaust" isn't safe. I do wish that Artemis wasn't our approach though. FYI we spend more money subsidizing fossil fuels than we do on space travel. If we can afford handouts to oil companies that are killing our planet, we can afford to pay for the research that will help save it.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > How familiar are you with the science currently being done on the ISS? It often doesnt get heavily talked up, so I suspect your "fringe" assertion is coming drom a place of ignorance. Do you have speficic experiments that you think are a waste of time and money? If you'll recall from my initial comment: "How exactly is it useful?... Honest curiosity here, I don't know what a lot of the purpose is!" Which you haven't answered. P.S. I'm not the one who said spaceflight as all, though yes I did interpret it as manned spaceflight, as I just stated