3 ms·

Do you really disagree that it’s advancing science? Surely actually testing hardware, building knowledge on how to run this type of mission, learning to use lun

by foltik 6mo ago

Do you really disagree that it’s advancing science? Surely actually testing hardware, building knowledge on how to run this type of mission, learning to use lunar resources, figuring out how to keep people alive, etc. will teach us things we couldn’t learn any other way. Fwiw do share your concerns about the methods (sending humans on this specific mission is questionable, SLS is questionable compared to SpaceX approach).

duped 6mo ago
Do you think we will learn more from Artemis or the Asteroid Redirect Mission? Because that's a concrete example of how funding this mission caused other experiments to be cancelled.
- foltik 6mo ago
  Fair point, but that’s an argument about prioritization within NASA’s budget (and its size relative to other spending), not the scientific value of the mission.
  - duped 6mo ago
    There's never non-zero value to any challenging engineering problem. The question is whether the finite resources spent to solve it are best spent on it versus other projects. And in this mission in particular, you can't divorce science from politics. NASA's budget was reined in by Trump 45 and his admin picked Artemis because a manned mission to the moon invokes a particular feeling and memory, not because it benefits science. The moon is a known quantity, and going there is not more valuable than the other projects the government could have spent $100 billion on. Keep in mind, this is one of the most expensive single launches in history while there is a partial government shutdown and the rest of the federal government that does real research has been gutted by this same administration. So it's tough to talk about "scientific value" when it's obvious that this mission is doing little science at the same time the government has decreed it won't be in the business of paying for science.
    - foltik 6mo ago
      The moon isn’t a known quantity, we sent a handful of people there for a combined few days half a century ago. There’s immense scientific and engineering value in keeping a generation of engineers fluent in deep space operations. If you’re angry about this dumpster fire of an administration wasting money and gutting research (I am too), the answer is to fight for better funding across the board, not to tear down one of the few ambitious programs left that’s actually pushing the boundaries on what we can do. NASA’s budget amounts to a rounding error and isn’t zero sum with the rest of federal science funding, these are separate appropriations.
      - duped 6mo ago
        I'm going to tear down spending $2.5 billion to test the toilets on a space ship every chance I get. It is a massive waste of resources and depletion of human capital that would be better spent on other projects that could advance science and human understanding.
palata 6mo ago
It's not science, it's engineering. I don't think it's advancing science in a way that wouldn't be possible with a fraction of the cost without sending humans there.
- foltik 6mo ago
  The distinction is kind of meaningless, advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science. And as I said, agreed on the concerns about cost and sending humans.
  - palata 6mo ago
    > The distinction is kind of meaningless Only if it helps you to call this "science", I would say. > advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science In this case, we are advancing our engineering capabilities to make humans survive in space, which is arguably completely useless. Not only that, but we keep focusing on the easier and fun part for engineers. A real problem for surviving in space is life support, see e.g. this: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-long-duration-life-support https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-long-duration-.... But it is a lot less fun than sending humans around the moon in a ship that doesn't need them at all, isn't it?
    - foltik 6mo ago
      [dead]

by foltik 6mo ago

duped 6mo ago

Do you think we will learn more from Artemis or the Asteroid Redirect Mission? Because that's a concrete example of how funding this mission caused other experiments to be cancelled.

foltik 6mo ago
Fair point, but that’s an argument about prioritization within NASA’s budget (and its size relative to other spending), not the scientific value of the mission.
- duped 6mo ago
  There's never non-zero value to any challenging engineering problem. The question is whether the finite resources spent to solve it are best spent on it versus other projects. And in this mission in particular, you can't divorce science from politics. NASA's budget was reined in by Trump 45 and his admin picked Artemis because a manned mission to the moon invokes a particular feeling and memory, not because it benefits science. The moon is a known quantity, and going there is not more valuable than the other projects the government could have spent $100 billion on. Keep in mind, this is one of the most expensive single launches in history while there is a partial government shutdown and the rest of the federal government that does real research has been gutted by this same administration. So it's tough to talk about "scientific value" when it's obvious that this mission is doing little science at the same time the government has decreed it won't be in the business of paying for science.
  - foltik 6mo ago
    The moon isn’t a known quantity, we sent a handful of people there for a combined few days half a century ago. There’s immense scientific and engineering value in keeping a generation of engineers fluent in deep space operations. If you’re angry about this dumpster fire of an administration wasting money and gutting research (I am too), the answer is to fight for better funding across the board, not to tear down one of the few ambitious programs left that’s actually pushing the boundaries on what we can do. NASA’s budget amounts to a rounding error and isn’t zero sum with the rest of federal science funding, these are separate appropriations.
    - duped 6mo ago
      I'm going to tear down spending $2.5 billion to test the toilets on a space ship every chance I get. It is a massive waste of resources and depletion of human capital that would be better spent on other projects that could advance science and human understanding.

palata 6mo ago

It's not science, it's engineering. I don't think it's advancing science in a way that wouldn't be possible with a fraction of the cost without sending humans there.

foltik 6mo ago
The distinction is kind of meaningless, advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science. And as I said, agreed on the concerns about cost and sending humans.
- palata 6mo ago
  > The distinction is kind of meaningless Only if it helps you to call this "science", I would say. > advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science In this case, we are advancing our engineering capabilities to make humans survive in space, which is arguably completely useless. Not only that, but we keep focusing on the easier and fun part for engineers. A real problem for surviving in space is life support, see e.g. this: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-long-duration-life-support https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-long-duration-.... But it is a lot less fun than sending humans around the moon in a ship that doesn't need them at all, isn't it?
  - foltik 6mo ago
    [dead]