4 ms·

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 t

• foltik 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
      [dead]