2 ms·
They also killed three astronauts in the process and had to stop the program and reevaluate their whole approach to safety. The risk of people dying is sometim
by mikkupikku 1y ago
They also killed three astronauts in the process and had to stop the program and reevaluate their whole approach to safety.
The risk of people dying is sometimes an acceptable risk. We accept it every time a firefighter goes into a burning building. Is a national vanity project like Moon missions worth the risk? Maybe then, when it was novel and inspirational, but now, when it's a retro throwback and the only reason we're doing it is to avoid losing face to the communist Chinese?
- fragmede 1y agoThey knew the risks and chose to do it in the face of that. People take insane risks for the fun of it. Seen any of the RedBull stunts on YouTube lately? Humans with jet packs flying alongside jetliners!
- torben-friis 1y ago>and the only reason we're doing it is to avoid losing face to the communist Totally unlike the first time.
- mikkupikku 1y agoUnlike the first time, it isn't new and isn't a technological flex. The payoff from the first time was marginal, measured mainly in the children it inspired to pursue STEM. This time, does anybody even care?
- torben-friis 1y agoI know, not disagreeing! You just left the ball bouncing and I couldn’t help writing the comment.
- busssard 1y agoi mean maintinaing a Base on the moon is definitely a technological flex. getting there not as much. Still challenging. Is it worth the risk and money? not sure, depends what our plan with this is. As a way to launch moon manufactured space probes? maybe.
- mikkupikku 1y agoMaintaining a base in the Moon absolutely isn't going to happen. SLS is such a pig NASA can't even afford another test with Orion.
- busssard 1y agoi mean it surely will not happen with SLS, but maintinaing a moonbase WOULD be the technological feat