6 ms·

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which gene

by bluGill 19d ago

Going to the moon is a publicity stunt. Been there done that. There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science). All the arguments for going to the moon need to be considered against everything else we can do - opportunity cost is real, but investing in the moon we are not investing in something else. (including less working hours...) Most of the things we developed for the moon would have been done anyway, and we don't know what things would have been developed sooner if we were not focusing on the moon. Be realistic. You can support going to the moon. However be honest: there isn't much value from it and there are plenty of reasons to say we shouldn't.

ramesh31 19d ago
>"There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science)." The arguments are entirely romantic. But then, what exactly is life without romance? That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete.
- bluGill 19d ago
  At that point though, there are lots of other romances to peruse. Somebody could go to the moon, but it won't be me. I could however go to my local art museum - at a much smaller costs than my share of sending someone else to the moon, but I'd get more value from my trip to the art museum than someone else on the moon. Or in my case I just went to my local high school marching band competition, and got to hear some great music. YMMV on what you find more romantic.
  - edgyquant 19d ago
    People want to go to the moon, you could make your same argument for lots of things humans have done but at the end of the day science is not the reason 99% of people care about or want to colonize space. People have a desire to colonize space
    - bluGill 18d ago
      Some people. I'm all for allowing those people do to it. However the context tends to include I'm being asked for fund the dreams of those people (via taxes) and that impacts my ability to fund my own dreams.
      - edgyquant 17d ago
        We all pay taxes for things we don’t agree with, such has it always been
- WalterBright 18d ago
  > That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete. What??? I bet you consume large quantities of art and romance, like everyone else. Like look at the tremendous choices you have for entertainment.
dabluecaboose 19d ago
I've heard a lot of arguments against human space exploration, but "We could put that energy into working less" is probably one of the more out-there arguments that's hard to take seriously.
- tempfile 19d ago
  Work is a necessary evil. If it is not necessary, then it is just a regular evil. There are no credible arguments that going to the moon is necessary, or supports some other necessary goal. Of course by work, I mean work directed by somebody else to serve their ends, in exchange for money to live your own life. If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then surely it is a moral obligation for us to do that. If you decide you want or need to do some kind of voluntary work to keep your mental health intact, so much the better. And if those happy people want to voluntarily commit some of their energy to going to the moon for no reason, then good for them. I really cannot imagine taking your position. Working less is the pretty much the only thing we should be putting energy into.
  - MiloLeo 19d ago
    > If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then surely it is a moral obligation for us to do that. I wonder what this would look like. I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends.
    - fodkodrasz 18d ago
      > I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends. like out-of-control global warming, depletion of freshwater reserves, destruction of soil, mass surveillance, extremely uneven distribution of resources. I mean all previous innovations which were supposed to allow working less somehow never materialized in working less, and the quality of life improvements are greatly questionable, basically keeping the production-consumption machinery takes up all the surplus it produces, while depleting the resources we have. The great achievements we have are much like the Moai statues on the Easter Island.
somenameforme 19d ago
I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like birds, with many thinking we'd never go anywhere beyond that. With space we're already a bit more advanced, yet we're far from where we need to be - and the only way we're going to get there is by going out and starting on a very long journey. We didn't do anything in 1969. Landing on the Moon and leaving a flag is like seeing the Wright Flyer go 260m, waving a Mission Accomplished banner, and then quitting with that as the state of art of flight - a mildly interesting novelty that was, at best, a proof of concept.
- dfgknionio 19d ago
  Even if you think a space industry is useful in general, there is no reason for humans to be involved. Robots are superior to humans for this application today and will only become more superior in the future.
  - fodkodrasz 18d ago
    Why pursue space exploration if all we can do is send robots there? The only meaningful thing for humanity is sending Humans to places. Gathering more resources so the overlords can have more humans enslaved with shinier golden handcuffs, who can consume more so number line goes up is not a meaningful goal to pursuit, and robotic-only commercially rationalized spaceflight has only this to offer. Scientific discovery, so we can have better simulations about things of no use or effect on us? Why? Taking people to places and utilizing the resources there, and building a more resilient humanity is a worthy endeavor, and while robots are useful for that, ultimately human spaceflight (or interplanetary/interstellar travel) is he goal, not having only a space industry.
    - m4rtink 18d ago
      Would not surprise me if people & robots did end up merging together in the long term for easier living in space.
GolfPopper 18d ago
>There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon Farside radio telescope: https://www.colorado.edu/project/lunar-farside/ https://www.colorado.edu/project/lunar-farside/
- bluGill 18d ago
  Very few is not zero... There is no reason the above cannot be maintained by robots, and many reasons it should be if we have it. We should also question if it is worth it.
- m4rtink 18d ago
  Also mass drivers so you can ship ridiculous amount of lunar oxygen, aluminium & even general dirt for shielding into the cislunar space. Not to mention any materials processed by high energy industrial processed provered by solar forges on the surface of the moon (both thermal & powered by locally manufactured solar panels).
GMoromisato 18d ago
Is that your litmus test--it has to have "value"? What's the value of Hubble? Of the Nancy Grace Roman observatory? Are you against those too? Maybe you prefer if they had left it as a spy satellite--at least that has real value. Humans are going to walk on the fucking moon! How can you not be excited about that? There is value in pushing the frontier, in doing things at the limit of human technology, in seeing new worlds through human eyes.
- bluGill 18d ago
  > Humans are going to walk on the fucking moon! How can you not be excited about that? Been there done that. Last happened in 1972, there is nothing exciting about it anymore. I have other things in my life that are exciting - things that really are exciting.
  - GMoromisato 18d ago
    Please share what you think is really exciting. Maybe I'll have something new to be excited about.
    - bluGill 18d ago
      I'm taking my local scouts camping this weekend. Should be an experience (it is expected to rain all weekend). I just finished helping my local high school marching band's annual event - I got to hear a lot of great music which I find exciting. I slept in the zoo next to the fishes with the girl scouts not long ago. You can guess by the above the ages of my kids - which in turn implies a lot of other excitement. There are plenty of other things as well. My local town art festival is exciting to a lot of people even though I didn't care enough to attend this year. There are a lot of museums, parks, concerts, ... in my local area to be exciting about. I have a shop full of tools for my various hobbies that I'm excited about. If you can't find a lifetime of things to be excited about withing walking distance of your bedroom you need to learn to enjoy your life more. (with apologies to the disabled who can't leave their bed)
mmooss 18d ago
While I agree that repeating a 60 year old achievement is pointless, one of NASA's goals for Artemis, etc. is having a platform for R&D for human exploration of Mars. There aren't other nearby large bodies on which, and around which, to work out and shake out all the new tech for Mars. R&D actually at Mars would be very expensive and slower. Then again, that could be NASA trying to justify or make the best of a pointless program imposed on them by politicians. An aside: Did anyone in the 1960s wonder at the bizarre choice of Apollo for a moon program? How is it that Artemis is still available as a program name?

by bluGill 19d ago

ramesh31 19d ago

>"There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon, much less a human (which generally can do much less because all the life support needed can't be put into science)." The arguments are entirely romantic. But then, what exactly is life without romance? That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete.

bluGill 19d ago
At that point though, there are lots of other romances to peruse. Somebody could go to the moon, but it won't be me. I could however go to my local art museum - at a much smaller costs than my share of sending someone else to the moon, but I'd get more value from my trip to the art museum than someone else on the moon. Or in my case I just went to my local high school marching band competition, and got to hear some great music. YMMV on what you find more romantic.
- edgyquant 19d ago
  People want to go to the moon, you could make your same argument for lots of things humans have done but at the end of the day science is not the reason 99% of people care about or want to colonize space. People have a desire to colonize space
  - bluGill 18d ago
    Some people. I'm all for allowing those people do to it. However the context tends to include I'm being asked for fund the dreams of those people (via taxes) and that impacts my ability to fund my own dreams.
    - edgyquant 17d ago
      We all pay taxes for things we don’t agree with, such has it always been
WalterBright 18d ago
> That's probably the single greatest loss of modern society; that we've been convinced nothing matters but the material and concrete. What??? I bet you consume large quantities of art and romance, like everyone else. Like look at the tremendous choices you have for entertainment.

dabluecaboose 19d ago

I've heard a lot of arguments against human space exploration, but "We could put that energy into working less" is probably one of the more out-there arguments that's hard to take seriously.

tempfile 19d ago
Work is a necessary evil. If it is not necessary, then it is just a regular evil. There are no credible arguments that going to the moon is necessary, or supports some other necessary goal. Of course by work, I mean work directed by somebody else to serve their ends, in exchange for money to live your own life. If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then surely it is a moral obligation for us to do that. If you decide you want or need to do some kind of voluntary work to keep your mental health intact, so much the better. And if those happy people want to voluntarily commit some of their energy to going to the moon for no reason, then good for them. I really cannot imagine taking your position. Working less is the pretty much the only thing we should be putting energy into.
- MiloLeo 19d ago
  > If we could afford to have people work five hours a week and still maintain a functioning society, then surely it is a moral obligation for us to do that. I wonder what this would look like. I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends.
  - fodkodrasz 18d ago
    > I feel like nearly all of mankinds greatest achievements are due to our current structure of employment or at being forced to do something at the behest of someone elses ends. like out-of-control global warming, depletion of freshwater reserves, destruction of soil, mass surveillance, extremely uneven distribution of resources. I mean all previous innovations which were supposed to allow working less somehow never materialized in working less, and the quality of life improvements are greatly questionable, basically keeping the production-consumption machinery takes up all the surplus it produces, while depleting the resources we have. The great achievements we have are much like the Moai statues on the Easter Island.

somenameforme 19d ago

I think this sort of view is quite myopic. In general space has practically infinite everything - land, resources, energy, and more. It has the potential to enable, in turn, infinite expansion of humanity. But we're not going to get to the endgame without playing the opening first. The path to international air flight began with often suicidal attempts to flap our arms with various instruments attached and act like birds, with many thinking we'd never go anywhere beyond that. With space we're already a bit more advanced, yet we're far from where we need to be - and the only way we're going to get there is by going out and starting on a very long journey. We didn't do anything in 1969. Landing on the Moon and leaving a flag is like seeing the Wright Flyer go 260m, waving a Mission Accomplished banner, and then quitting with that as the state of art of flight - a mildly interesting novelty that was, at best, a proof of concept.

dfgknionio 19d ago
Even if you think a space industry is useful in general, there is no reason for humans to be involved. Robots are superior to humans for this application today and will only become more superior in the future.
- fodkodrasz 18d ago
  Why pursue space exploration if all we can do is send robots there? The only meaningful thing for humanity is sending Humans to places. Gathering more resources so the overlords can have more humans enslaved with shinier golden handcuffs, who can consume more so number line goes up is not a meaningful goal to pursuit, and robotic-only commercially rationalized spaceflight has only this to offer. Scientific discovery, so we can have better simulations about things of no use or effect on us? Why? Taking people to places and utilizing the resources there, and building a more resilient humanity is a worthy endeavor, and while robots are useful for that, ultimately human spaceflight (or interplanetary/interstellar travel) is he goal, not having only a space industry.
  - m4rtink 18d ago
    Would not surprise me if people & robots did end up merging together in the long term for easier living in space.

GolfPopper 18d ago

>There are very few good arguments for putting anything on the moon Farside radio telescope: https://www.colorado.edu/project/lunar-farside/ https://www.colorado.edu/project/lunar-farside/

bluGill 18d ago
Very few is not zero... There is no reason the above cannot be maintained by robots, and many reasons it should be if we have it. We should also question if it is worth it.
m4rtink 18d ago
Also mass drivers so you can ship ridiculous amount of lunar oxygen, aluminium & even general dirt for shielding into the cislunar space. Not to mention any materials processed by high energy industrial processed provered by solar forges on the surface of the moon (both thermal & powered by locally manufactured solar panels).

GMoromisato 18d ago

Is that your litmus test--it has to have "value"? What's the value of Hubble? Of the Nancy Grace Roman observatory? Are you against those too? Maybe you prefer if they had left it as a spy satellite--at least that has real value. Humans are going to walk on the fucking moon! How can you not be excited about that? There is value in pushing the frontier, in doing things at the limit of human technology, in seeing new worlds through human eyes.

bluGill 18d ago
> Humans are going to walk on the fucking moon! How can you not be excited about that? Been there done that. Last happened in 1972, there is nothing exciting about it anymore. I have other things in my life that are exciting - things that really are exciting.
- GMoromisato 18d ago
  Please share what you think is really exciting. Maybe I'll have something new to be excited about.
  - bluGill 18d ago
    I'm taking my local scouts camping this weekend. Should be an experience (it is expected to rain all weekend). I just finished helping my local high school marching band's annual event - I got to hear a lot of great music which I find exciting. I slept in the zoo next to the fishes with the girl scouts not long ago. You can guess by the above the ages of my kids - which in turn implies a lot of other excitement. There are plenty of other things as well. My local town art festival is exciting to a lot of people even though I didn't care enough to attend this year. There are a lot of museums, parks, concerts, ... in my local area to be exciting about. I have a shop full of tools for my various hobbies that I'm excited about. If you can't find a lifetime of things to be excited about withing walking distance of your bedroom you need to learn to enjoy your life more. (with apologies to the disabled who can't leave their bed)

mmooss 18d ago

While I agree that repeating a 60 year old achievement is pointless, one of NASA's goals for Artemis, etc. is having a platform for R&D for human exploration of Mars. There aren't other nearby large bodies on which, and around which, to work out and shake out all the new tech for Mars. R&D actually at Mars would be very expensive and slower. Then again, that could be NASA trying to justify or make the best of a pointless program imposed on them by politicians. An aside: Did anyone in the 1960s wonder at the bizarre choice of Apollo for a moon program? How is it that Artemis is still available as a program name?