5 ms·

This is an incredibly small minded perspective. Difficult challenges require new technologies, new processes and new ways of thinking. More specifically, tech

This is an incredibly small minded perspective. Difficult challenges require new technologies, new processes and new ways of thinking. More specifically, technologies developed through the race to land on the moon (and space flight generally) are integral to almost every aspect of 'your' life and define what most of us consider human flourishing. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~:text=Well%2Dknown%20products%20that%20NASA,swimsuits%2C%20and%20CMOS%20image%20sensors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~:t.... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-wouldnt-have-without-space-travel https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-would...

tayo42 5y ago
These companies are just trying to shoot rockets further then each other. They're not science pr research companies. We're not learning more about space and the universe thanks to the them. What spin off tech have we gotten from them?
- sterlind 5y ago
  Starlink? But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are engineering and logistics problems more than science problems, but I think they're very important.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Those are all ways to squander the Earth's limited resources while sounding forward thinking. Colonizing Mars will likely never happen, there is simply no upside: huge challenges, with no interesting resources. The Earth has plenty of space, we're limited by resources, and there are no interesting resources on Mars. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we'll have a colony outside the solar system before a colony on Mars. Asteroid mining is more plausible, but still extremely unlikely given our current technology. There are massive hurdles, and few things that would massively improve life on Earth - it's much more interesting from a profit perspective than a future of humanity perspective.
    - __d 5y ago
      Musk's motivation, which he has expressed repeatedly, is to make humanity resilient to an event that makes Earth uninhabitable. Whatever that event might be (asteroid impact, nuclear war, environmental catastrophe, plague, whatever), I think the idea of having a second site of human habitation is not an unreasonable goal. Which is not, as has sometimes been stated, "giving up on Earth and the rich moving to Mars" -- it's just an insurance policy. The resources expended to achieve this are tiny. It's not a lot of money, and the consumables are ... literally drops in the ocean. That's not to say that there aren't other problems that could be addressed using that money, but it's not really a question of either/or: humanity could very easily do both, should it choose to do so. It's just that Musk chooses to focus on this problem, and its solution. We're all certainly free to make a different choice ...
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        Mars is already uninhabitable, so what would we gain from moving to Mars? The Earth is not going to become as bad as Mars with any possible disaster smaller than a planetary collision. Also, a Mars colony that could survive indefinitely if the Earth is wiped out is almost certainly impossible, given the extreme conditions on Mars' surface. We don't even know if there is enough water ice on Mars today to sustain a human city, nevermind the huge network of cities that would be required to produce all high tech products on Mars. Also, with no fossil fuels, it's very unlikely that you could launch rockets from a Mars colony entirely cut off from the Earth. Then, you'll also be missing nitrogen, and probably a lot of other nutrients. Oxygen will be in short supply, as will Helium. And remember, every time you leak water or other gases into the atmosphere, you've likely lost them forever, since there is no closed cycle of water on Mars, and solar winds are constantly stripping away Mars' atmosphere. Also, the cost of building a self sustaining colony on Mars is well above the GDP of the world many times over. It would be many times easier to establish a second global trade network on Earth, completely isolated from any existing trade hub. Imagine building chip fabs and growing enough crops for food and bioplastics in Antarctica, and now remeber that on Mars it's much colder, there is virtually no air, and you have to dig tunnels everwhere, since any sort of prolonged exposure to the surface would irradiate you. Oh, and make sure you do this without any dependence on fossil fuels, except perhaps a few tons every few months.
  - tayo42 5y ago
    How is star link moving the world forward. A small amount of rural people get faster internet is not a big deal. Satellite based internet already exists, it's not ground breaking. It's also at the expense of polluting the orobit around the earth. It's also just profit motivated, the intent isn't to make the world better, just sell more crap to more people
    - tigershark 5y ago
      No. There is a potential user base of millions of people that have no access whatsoever to broadband. And you can’t be serious in trying to compare starlink with the awful current geostationary satellite Internet offering.
- nickik 5y ago
  These companies work for NASA, NASA wants do research. Their tech enables that research. SpaceX uses that money to lower the price of space flight for everybody and enables a whole lot of other companies to do new things in space. SpaceX themselves does things like Starlink. SpaceX also shares materials tech with Tesla that get used in their products. It will also anable real exploration of Mars and the outer Solar System.
- B4CKlash 5y ago
  Reusable rockets with massive cargo capacity is just one example. SpaceX equipped rockets will soon be able to carry around 100 tons of cargo to any place on earth in less than an hour; massive implications for disaster response. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40865/rocket-delivery-of-cargo-anywhere-in-an-hour-in-new-air-force-budget-proposal https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40865/rocket-delivery-... Your whole perspective is a bit jarring. At any point in history - on the precipice of technological innovation - someone could have said 'Why go further, what's the point?' And that's just it, your limited ability to see the positive implications shouldn't define where progress goes. If we stopped at the horse-drawn carriage we would have missed the fire truck. If we stopped at Arpanet we would have missed every unforeseen positive associated with the internet today.

tayo42 5y ago

These companies are just trying to shoot rockets further then each other. They're not science pr research companies. We're not learning more about space and the universe thanks to the them. What spin off tech have we gotten from them?

sterlind 5y ago
Starlink? But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are engineering and logistics problems more than science problems, but I think they're very important.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Those are all ways to squander the Earth's limited resources while sounding forward thinking. Colonizing Mars will likely never happen, there is simply no upside: huge challenges, with no interesting resources. The Earth has plenty of space, we're limited by resources, and there are no interesting resources on Mars. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we'll have a colony outside the solar system before a colony on Mars. Asteroid mining is more plausible, but still extremely unlikely given our current technology. There are massive hurdles, and few things that would massively improve life on Earth - it's much more interesting from a profit perspective than a future of humanity perspective.
  - __d 5y ago
    Musk's motivation, which he has expressed repeatedly, is to make humanity resilient to an event that makes Earth uninhabitable. Whatever that event might be (asteroid impact, nuclear war, environmental catastrophe, plague, whatever), I think the idea of having a second site of human habitation is not an unreasonable goal. Which is not, as has sometimes been stated, "giving up on Earth and the rich moving to Mars" -- it's just an insurance policy. The resources expended to achieve this are tiny. It's not a lot of money, and the consumables are ... literally drops in the ocean. That's not to say that there aren't other problems that could be addressed using that money, but it's not really a question of either/or: humanity could very easily do both, should it choose to do so. It's just that Musk chooses to focus on this problem, and its solution. We're all certainly free to make a different choice ...
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Mars is already uninhabitable, so what would we gain from moving to Mars? The Earth is not going to become as bad as Mars with any possible disaster smaller than a planetary collision. Also, a Mars colony that could survive indefinitely if the Earth is wiped out is almost certainly impossible, given the extreme conditions on Mars' surface. We don't even know if there is enough water ice on Mars today to sustain a human city, nevermind the huge network of cities that would be required to produce all high tech products on Mars. Also, with no fossil fuels, it's very unlikely that you could launch rockets from a Mars colony entirely cut off from the Earth. Then, you'll also be missing nitrogen, and probably a lot of other nutrients. Oxygen will be in short supply, as will Helium. And remember, every time you leak water or other gases into the atmosphere, you've likely lost them forever, since there is no closed cycle of water on Mars, and solar winds are constantly stripping away Mars' atmosphere. Also, the cost of building a self sustaining colony on Mars is well above the GDP of the world many times over. It would be many times easier to establish a second global trade network on Earth, completely isolated from any existing trade hub. Imagine building chip fabs and growing enough crops for food and bioplastics in Antarctica, and now remeber that on Mars it's much colder, there is virtually no air, and you have to dig tunnels everwhere, since any sort of prolonged exposure to the surface would irradiate you. Oh, and make sure you do this without any dependence on fossil fuels, except perhaps a few tons every few months.
- tayo42 5y ago
  How is star link moving the world forward. A small amount of rural people get faster internet is not a big deal. Satellite based internet already exists, it's not ground breaking. It's also at the expense of polluting the orobit around the earth. It's also just profit motivated, the intent isn't to make the world better, just sell more crap to more people
  - tigershark 5y ago
    No. There is a potential user base of millions of people that have no access whatsoever to broadband. And you can’t be serious in trying to compare starlink with the awful current geostationary satellite Internet offering.
nickik 5y ago
These companies work for NASA, NASA wants do research. Their tech enables that research. SpaceX uses that money to lower the price of space flight for everybody and enables a whole lot of other companies to do new things in space. SpaceX themselves does things like Starlink. SpaceX also shares materials tech with Tesla that get used in their products. It will also anable real exploration of Mars and the outer Solar System.
B4CKlash 5y ago
Reusable rockets with massive cargo capacity is just one example. SpaceX equipped rockets will soon be able to carry around 100 tons of cargo to any place on earth in less than an hour; massive implications for disaster response. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40865/rocket-delivery-of-cargo-anywhere-in-an-hour-in-new-air-force-budget-proposal https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40865/rocket-delivery-... Your whole perspective is a bit jarring. At any point in history - on the precipice of technological innovation - someone could have said 'Why go further, what's the point?' And that's just it, your limited ability to see the positive implications shouldn't define where progress goes. If we stopped at the horse-drawn carriage we would have missed the fire truck. If we stopped at Arpanet we would have missed every unforeseen positive associated with the internet today.