this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
124 points (91.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43866 readers
1703 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The news is full of it, excitement seems high, and I really don't get it. I'm not against space-related research, but why suddenly the moon? And why send people there? Can someone fill me in on what's to be gained or why one might be excited about it?

Allow me to use the linked article for my questions.

There have been three primary drivers of renewed interest in the Moon. The first was the discovery and confirmation in the 1990s and early 2000s that water ice is likely to exist at the lunar poles in permanently shadowed craters. The presence of abundant water, providing oxygen and hydrogen resources, has given space agencies a new reason to explore the poles.

Yea but so what? Hydrogen is literally the most common thing in the universe, no fucking way there is also some on the moon ๐Ÿคฏ. Then what's so spectacular about moon ice, water, or even oxygen? And why does it need people to explore it?

A second factor has been the rise of China's space program, which has sent a series of ambitious robotic missions to the Moon that have both landed on the far side and returned samples from the lunar surface. China has made no secret of its interest in sending astronauts to the Moon, leading to competing efforts between NASA's Artemis Program and China's lunar station goals.

Again why? Is this some repetition of the Cold War Soviet-US competition?

Finally, there has been some interest from private companies in the commercial development of the lunar surface, both to exploit resources there but also for other purposes. This has stimulated investment in private companies to provide transportation to the lunar surface, including ispace, Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines, and Firefly.

Exploiting resources has to be a joke, right? Do they want to sell us the newly found moon water? The only point I get is the tourism aspect. Because, of course, I always encourage billionaires to pursue dangerous hobbies ๐Ÿ˜Š

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] over_clox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The climate was basically holding its own fairly well for thousands of years, until humans got a bug up their ass to create this whole industrial/scientific age.

So the answer is to send even more space rockets and satellites and stuff up there? As if launching rockets ain't adding even more carbon dioxide and crap in the atmosphere? Hell we've already got so much junk in space right now satellites are already colliding with each other.

If there's anything I've ever come to realize about humans, it's that wherever we go, we're gonna trash the place up. We haven't even set foot on Mars yet we've already put our junk on it.

Quit looking at dead rocks and empty space, and figure out what to do with the trash and planned obsolescence crap going on right here on Earth.

Look at all the vehicles on the road right now. Ignore whether they're ICE or electric, both cause pollution. It takes about one barrel of crude oil to make one average car tire, so you can't tell me electric vehicles don't also use oil. Plus all the pollution it takes to mine lithium, plus the extreme dangers of lithium battery explosions...

When will people realize that mass transportation isn't a necessity, it's a luxury? Cars, trains, airplanes, whatever, once upon a time none of that even existed, yet somehow humans survived for over 100,000 years without all that stuff.

Mass manufacturing wasn't a thing either until fairly recent times, yet people did just fine without all our precious junk. It's pretty much all junk when you look at the whole picture. Hell, the very device I'm typing on will probably end up in a landfill within a few years. Same with whatever you're reading this on.

Companies don't even want to make things that'll last anymore, that doesn't make them as much money. They want you to throw your crap away and buy something new. Recycling? Hah, that's about a joke. That doesn't make them any money either.

With about 8 billion people on the planet, politicians wanna ban women's choice as to what to do with the contents of their uterus, as if there's some shortage of humans. Hell that's half the problem, there's way too damn many of us.

If we can't fix our problems right here on Earth first, we're just gonna bring our problems with us wherever we go. Humans are a cancer on the Earth.

Edit: Spelling

[โ€“] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It sounds like the suggestion you want to make is to go back to our pre-industrial state. Is that actually what you're suggesting?

[โ€“] over_clox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Go read my other comment under this thread. Start by banning planned obsolescence.

[โ€“] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Link? The only comment of yours that I can see that mentions planned obsolescence is the one I replied to.

[โ€“] over_clox@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you, that comment must not have synced to my instance or something.

That aside though, I don't think you realize how incredibly difficult it would be to outlaw planned obsolescence, or to shift a large chunk of the population to riding bicycles. In the US, one would require changing laws that currently benefit both politicians and business owners, the other would require mass infrastructure rework the likes of which hasn't been seen since FDR's New Deal.

What does any of that have to do with space exploration though?

[โ€“] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What's any of this got to do with the price of weed in Colorado?

Wasting resources on the wrong things. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against scientific exploration at all, but maybe sometimes people should look down at the grass once in a while..

[โ€“] Fondots@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what's your plan? How do you propose to solve all of our many problems?

Because if you don't have one, you're just complaining to hear yourself complain. And if you do have one, fucking do something to bring it to fruition besides being a contrarian asshole on a lesser-used internet forum.

[โ€“] over_clox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I just pointed out at least one problem we can easily tackle. Completely ban planned obsolescence.

Force companies to do everything possible to stop deliberately making disposable items. Go back to designing more reliable things that last longer, are easier to repair when things fail, and make spare parts more available again.

Basically go back to making things last 10+ years if taken decent care of, quit with all this disposable shit.

Also, as far as transportation, what ever happened to the good old days of horses? Your transportation doubles as your lawn mower, meaning you don't have to buy gasoline for your vehicle or your lawn mower.

Being more realistic about that last point, the bicycle is one of the greatest inventions mankind has ever come up with. It'll help the environment more if people ride bicycles more often and quit going out for luxury drives and flights and crap.