this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
470 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43138 readers
1580 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anti-space/science rhetoric on the left.
A lot of it comes from people who are anti-Elon and are against everything he touches. So they become anti SpaceX. Then they become anti-aerospace.
They don't understand, or even want to understand, the science and importance behind it's advances. The thought process just goes Musk Bad>SpaceX Bad>Aerospace Bad.
Remember how in Interstellar, there's that teacher who was casually teaching that the moon landings were fake? Like, society had reached a point where they cared so little for space, that they actively turned a blind eye towards its accomplishments or just straight up dismissed them? I feel like that's the path we're on. Because of people's blind hatred towards a rich douche, an entire EXTREMELY IMPORTANT industry is becoming reviled through sheer ignorance.
I've noticed this trend as well. These far-left people hate the ultra rich so much that they are demonizing the whole idea of space tourism. It's infuriating because just like nearly everything else, development costs are very high and only early adopters can really afford the latest bleeding edge products.
Do these people think that some 50" 4K TV today could be had for just a few hundred bucks, if they weren't going for many thousands 5 years ago? That's simply how the breakdown of costs works out. You need rich people to buy into something at low volumes, so the masses can afford those things at higher volumes but lower prices in the future.
Musk and Bezos absolutely are douchebags, but realize that without their space companies, we'd be decades away from regular space travel. I love NASA and all, but their goal is space exploration, not space tourism. We need the ultra rich to pay for the development of space tourism to drive down costs.
This is a horrible take. Absolutely awful, ultra-capitalist drivel. Why does every action or accomplishment have to be viewed through the lense of economic benefit? Not even holistic or utilitarian, just stakeholders and making the ultra-wealthy even wealthier... Who gives a fuck about space tourism? What the hell does that give us as a species?
The original comment about the importance of aerospace and space exploration is absolutely correct, but the idea that the end goal is space tourism is more than enough to make me turn against it also. The end goal is exploration, technological advancements, and a greater understanding of how our universe works. We should be taxing the ever-loving shit out of sociopaths like Musk and Bezos and feeding some of that in to NASA, and ESA, so scientists can make discoveries for us all, rather than businessmen making discoveries so they can exploit, gatekeep, and profit off it.
You can say that about tourism as a whole.
Exactly what I was thinking. Like what the fuck is space tourism going to do for us?
If you weren't so utterly braindead, you'd understand that if the cost to bring tourists up to space drops, that drops the cost to bring more scientists and equipment up to space as well which would lead to a massive growth in discoveries.
Except that you are so caught up in your tiny little world of hate, that you can't possibly expand it enough to understand that things cost money, and thus reducing what things cost, makes it that much better for institutions like NASA. One of the single biggest concerns of setting up a new space telescope or sending a rocket to a comet or a trip to Mars is money. It isn't the only concern, but it is a massive one. Driving down those costs by increasing a launch schedule, trying out reusable rockets and investing a bunch to allow space tourism, helps everything space-related.
You're not smart enough to come back here and admit how wrong you were.
Obviously things cost money, you patronising jackass, but pining all your hopes on CEOs and the ultra-wealthy to cut in to their own profit margins for the sake of humanity makes you more braindead than I am. It's scientific innovation that drives discovery, cost reduction, and economic growth, not profit-hoarding conglomerates.
A large portion of our discoveries and inventions in the past fifty years or more are building on top of innovations made during the 60s, 70s, and 80s by NASA's launches. Electrical engineering, structural engineering, communications and data, materials sciences, all needed to be advanced for space travel. Handing this responsibility off to SpaceX just leads to all the data, discoveries, innovations, and corollaries being patented, trademarked, and locked away to make sure no competitor can take advantage of it.
Shell knew climate change was going to devastate the planet over 50 years ago. Did they capitalise on that opportunity to develop green and renewable energy first and completely dominate that market for the betterment of themselves and the planet? No. They locked down that information, spread misinformation for decades, and made short term profiteering decisions to advance their own individual careers. Now we're watching the planet slowly burn. So sure, let's trust the corporate pigs.