Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lagavulinski t1_ixei56b wrote

Reply to comment by DeadFyre in Bruno Le Maire: Europe needs ‘unwavering unity’ against China, US in space by Soupjoe5

You can say that about a lot of things, like, "The winners are the internet providers who collect all the money wasted on what is an expensive, polluting publicity stunt." but you're using the internet right now, so clearly the internet is not a publicity stunt. You already use GPS everywhere you go. Who the hell do you think set up those satellites in orbit? Clearly GPS is not a publicity stunt.

The irrational, illogical reasoning you've got is that there can only be winners or losers. That's not how the world works.

7

HolyGig t1_ixem6ev wrote

>The irrational, illogical reasoning you've got is that there can only be winners or losers.

That is actually what you are doing. China and the US are "winning" in space while Europe is losing, according to this statement which you are defending.

Europe already has Galileo. They already have independent access to space. Your examples makes no sense. This is a French politician whining that Europe should spend more on space because most of that money would go to French companies lol, not because they actually give a fuck about space.

−6

lagavulinski t1_ixevi61 wrote

What statement am I defending? I think you're lost. I'm responding to the person who says that aerospace contractors are the only winners here. That's just factually completely wrong.

With regards to the statement about the need to compete in space: Historically, in the context of developing the next generation/era of technologies (agriculture, horse riding, archery, sailing, the whole industrial revolution, technological revolution, information age, and now, the space age), countries that don't invest in gaining the knowledge and innovation in that technological age tend to get left behind. By pushing to be competitive with the leaders in the field, it forces advancements on a quicker timeline, and benefits everyone.

Edit: You're just going to downvote me without any counter-argument?

2

HolyGig t1_ixeyruo wrote

Somebody is certainly lost, yes.

We are not talking about individual countries, we are taking about Europe. The French want Europe to pay them to be the space power on behalf of the whole EU. If you don't see any issue with that then I don't know what to tell you.

>aerospace contractors are the only winners here.

A singular French aerospace contractor specifically, but yes that would be correct.

−1

DeadFyre t1_ixem18q wrote

No, you can't. Whiners on the internet pay for the privilege of going onto the internet with their own money. They pay their ISP, and the platforms that cater to their whining earn money from sponsors, all without anyone being coerced into paying someone else.

If you want to DONATE to a space exploration plan, or volunteer time, I salute you. Enjoy it! Live your best life. But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.

−16

bookers555 t1_ixeqeo6 wrote

I have no idea why people so ignorant on the technologies that space travel research has brought us even come to the space subreddit. Seems like this sub has way too many people for whom science is just knowing "fun facts".

14

GameTourist t1_ixeuieo wrote

exactly that, and it also completely ignores the economic stimulus it generates

7

DeadFyre t1_ixftkrq wrote

I'm perfectly aware of what technologies were pioneered in the Space Race. That was 60 years ago, and there's no reason to believe any of those technologies required a lunar mission to achieve. But that's not my principal objection. You want to fund scientific research, I am with you. You want to fund research into the physics necessary to unlock energy sources that can get us to an adjacent solar system, I am on board.

What we're doing is none of those things. We're re-using 1960's technology to go back to a place we've already been, and thence re-using 1960's technology to visit another planet in the solar system, and plant a flag and a plaque. That's IT. There's no payoff, no other objective, no practical payoff for the billions in taxpayer dollars and millions of tons of CO2 we'll be producing to carry of what can only be a P.R. stunt.

We don't have the technology to terraform Mars, or to even build a permanent settlement there. You want to colonize the solar system? Start by creating a self-sufficient settlement in Antarctica. Because that's about a hundred times more feasible than Mars. Prove you can do that, and then we'll talk.

0

lagavulinski t1_ixeu1eh wrote

>But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.

Amazing. You're in the Space subreddit, and you think that all of our exploration has no practical benefit? I'm sure Krog the caveman said the exact same thing 10,000 years ago when his buddy Glab started building the first raft/boat for fishing in the river and getting to the other side.

6

DeadFyre t1_ixfsxn2 wrote

At present level of technology, it's certain to have no practical benefit. There is no habitable planet within the reach of our current propulation technology, nor within the THEORETICAL limits of any technology we have postulated. It's just not feasible. So, all that is left is an expensive P.R. stunt. If you'd take a second to research the matter yourself and use a little objectivity, you'd agree with me.

0

lagavulinski t1_ixfy2wd wrote

Again, I'm amazed that you're on the space subreddit. Habitable planets? Is that the only purpose for innovating in any form of space age technology? It is most definitely an epic failure of imagination to assume (as you said, "all that is left") that space has no other practical purpose or benefit. I'm not even going to start listing them. If you don't have an idea what they could be, it won't even make sense to you.

I run a design and engineering firm, I am an investor, and sit on an incubator board to provide funding to new medtech startups. I've bet on many, many companies over the years, and only a few make it, but I've learned two things in the last 35 years. One: Failure and improvement can lead to riches, and Two: I've always failed to predict where tech goes, but it has always been better than what I anticipated.

3