4 ms·

Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.

by techteach00 6mo ago

palata 6mo ago
I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.
- anon291 6mo ago
  Independent of how scientifically awesome this is, this is probably the most cost effective long term propaganda. Why waste money on posters when you can orbit the moon.
- TeMPOraL 6mo ago
  Some are. Money being fungible and all, the rest can pretend their tax money is going exclusively to their favorite programs, whether that's healthcare or environment or building roads or starting wars or funding more startups or whatever.
- hn_acc1 6mo ago
  The space program has created some great technology we use every day now.
  - palata 6mo ago
    That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest I don't think so. Some people are good at small tasks and stewardship. Some people want to ambitiouslyl build. If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA cannot be assumed to have gone into semiconductors or material science. They probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers.
      - palata 6mo ago
        > If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA [...] probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers. I guess this is why in this timeline, all engineers in the world are at NASA working on sending humans to space, and everybody else in the world is a bureaucrat. Do you actually know any kind of engineering that is not happening at NASA? Because it may explain your bias here.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > guess this is why in this timeline, all engineers in the world are at NASA How does this follow? Are you arguing the Moon programs didn’t increase American engagement in STEM? The point is the people who worked on a partial solution to a terrestrial problem because they were working on space may not be inspired—or incentivized—to work on that problem directly. We’re willing, as a society, to spend big on the Moon. Spending big on creek maintenance and desal, comparatively, is boring. Yet both benefit from the first. > you actually know any kind of engineering that is not happening at NASA? Yes. Have you done any heavy engineering? > it may explain your bias here Do tell me, someone who has never worked at or particularly close to NASA, what my bias is here.
        palata 6mo ago
        > Are you arguing the Moon programs didn’t increase American engagement in STEM? Nope. You are arguing that without a space program, people don't go into STEM and instead become "bureaucrats or financiers". I am saying that this is preposterous. > We’re willing, as a society, to spend big on the Moon. No. Society doesn't have a say in how that money is being spent, that's my original point.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > You are arguing that without a space program, people don't go into STEM and instead become "bureaucrats or financiers" I never used such hyperbole. I’m arguing fewer people go into STEM. And the people who do cannot be assumed to work on the projects that matter to you. > Society doesn't have a say in how that money is being spent Of course we do. Space programmes are popular. That’s why they get funded.
  - tayo42 6mo ago
    The current one is?
    - buzzerbetrayed 6mo ago
      The current one will
- discardable_dan 6mo ago
  Bro, of all the stupid shit we spend taxes on ($50 billion on corn subsidies), you're mad about space exploration?
  - palata 6mo ago
    I will guess that farm subsidies go to... well, farming. Doesn't sound completely ridiculous at first sight. > you're mad about space exploration? Exploration? It's not exploration at all: it's sending 4 humans for a 10 days trip around the Moon. I wish they used the money for actual space exploration, though.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > will guess that farm subsidies go to... well, farming Or not farming. Lots of CRE. Also constant bail-outs because e.g. the soybean farmers got tariffed. Also ethanol.
- Teever 6mo ago
  Why does Rice play Texas? "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." https://www.rice.edu/jfk-speech https://www.rice.edu/jfk-speech
- kelnos 6mo ago
  The amount of my taxes that went toward people flying on this trip is so small to be not worth considering. I'm much more concerned about my tax dollars going toward the US military, especially with Trump wanting another $200B so he can murder more people in Iran while making the world and the US measurably less safe.
- buzzerbetrayed 6mo ago
  Because of all the bullshit that the government wastes our tax funds on, this is the least bullshit.

Because they want to be on the rocket. To see the moon up close with your own eyes? It's spiritual.

palata 6mo ago

I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.

anon291 6mo ago
Independent of how scientifically awesome this is, this is probably the most cost effective long term propaganda. Why waste money on posters when you can orbit the moon.
TeMPOraL 6mo ago
Some are. Money being fungible and all, the rest can pretend their tax money is going exclusively to their favorite programs, whether that's healthcare or environment or building roads or starting wars or funding more startups or whatever.
hn_acc1 6mo ago
The space program has created some great technology we use every day now.
- palata 6mo ago
  That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest I don't think so. Some people are good at small tasks and stewardship. Some people want to ambitiouslyl build. If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA cannot be assumed to have gone into semiconductors or material science. They probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers.
    - palata 6mo ago
      > If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA [...] probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers. I guess this is why in this timeline, all engineers in the world are at NASA working on sending humans to space, and everybody else in the world is a bureaucrat. Do you actually know any kind of engineering that is not happening at NASA? Because it may explain your bias here.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > guess this is why in this timeline, all engineers in the world are at NASA How does this follow? Are you arguing the Moon programs didn’t increase American engagement in STEM? The point is the people who worked on a partial solution to a terrestrial problem because they were working on space may not be inspired—or incentivized—to work on that problem directly. We’re willing, as a society, to spend big on the Moon. Spending big on creek maintenance and desal, comparatively, is boring. Yet both benefit from the first. > you actually know any kind of engineering that is not happening at NASA? Yes. Have you done any heavy engineering? > it may explain your bias here Do tell me, someone who has never worked at or particularly close to NASA, what my bias is here.
        palata 6mo ago
        > Are you arguing the Moon programs didn’t increase American engagement in STEM? Nope. You are arguing that without a space program, people don't go into STEM and instead become "bureaucrats or financiers". I am saying that this is preposterous. > We’re willing, as a society, to spend big on the Moon. No. Society doesn't have a say in how that money is being spent, that's my original point.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > You are arguing that without a space program, people don't go into STEM and instead become "bureaucrats or financiers" I never used such hyperbole. I’m arguing fewer people go into STEM. And the people who do cannot be assumed to work on the projects that matter to you. > Society doesn't have a say in how that money is being spent Of course we do. Space programmes are popular. That’s why they get funded.
- tayo42 6mo ago
  The current one is?
  - buzzerbetrayed 6mo ago
    The current one will
discardable_dan 6mo ago
Bro, of all the stupid shit we spend taxes on ($50 billion on corn subsidies), you're mad about space exploration?
- palata 6mo ago
  I will guess that farm subsidies go to... well, farming. Doesn't sound completely ridiculous at first sight. > you're mad about space exploration? Exploration? It's not exploration at all: it's sending 4 humans for a 10 days trip around the Moon. I wish they used the money for actual space exploration, though.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > will guess that farm subsidies go to... well, farming Or not farming. Lots of CRE. Also constant bail-outs because e.g. the soybean farmers got tariffed. Also ethanol.
Teever 6mo ago
Why does Rice play Texas? "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." https://www.rice.edu/jfk-speech https://www.rice.edu/jfk-speech
kelnos 6mo ago
The amount of my taxes that went toward people flying on this trip is so small to be not worth considering. I'm much more concerned about my tax dollars going toward the US military, especially with Trump wanting another $200B so he can murder more people in Iran while making the world and the US measurably less safe.
buzzerbetrayed 6mo ago
Because of all the bullshit that the government wastes our tax funds on, this is the least bullshit.