Cmonnnnnnnnnnnnn Zefram Cochrane. Supposed to be born in 2030. :hexbear-posadist:
2024: Bell Riots
2026: World War 3
Not looking forward to getting through these two. At least we get Irish Reunification in 2024 though
We must create an image of hope for the future or otherwise there will be no future. We have a future worth fighting for :rommunism:
If those things happen at that time I will go full Star Trek is prophetic and feel a lot more hopeful, might suck now but things do actually get good? Hell yeah
Wait really public funded space explo is a thing again?
I mean ik its all run by ghouls thats why i was suprised to hear nasa doing much of anything other than losing funding.
NASA is a scheme to give cash to aerospace companies that sometimes accidentally sends out a cutting-edge scientific exploration mission, but that doesn't make the exploration that happens any less awesome.
If you hate America and love the space program check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_All_Mankind_(TV_series)
The soviets beat the US to the moon and continue to shit on them as the space race continues. The US astronauts are shown to be the chuds they are/were and there's some gay+female+racial+hippy empowerment stuff thrown in without it being super preachy.
edit: oh and they find water and launch a nuclear powered rocket.
I assumed from the ads I keep seeing that this was anti communist as hell
It's definitely not. Can't give you any good examples without spoilers. I will say they go out of their way to make John Glen look like a jackass.
Seems sort of like a forfeit enterprise while our people in developed cities freeze to death.
CMV but dumping billions into space exploration isn't very helpful
It isn't an either/or, that's just implicitly accepting the liberal "limited resources" framing. We can and should both send people into space and prevent people from freezing to death.
We live in a reality where resources are literally limited, and all of them should go to stopping people from freezing to death until none of the people are freezing to death.
Then there's a few more things to fix before considering Mars.
this framing is honestly bizarre. the people feeezing to death have absolutely nothing to do with any limitation on resources
It has to do with out allocation of limited resources, doesn't it? If we wouldn't spend so much on the military ventures (including space armament) we could be funding infrastructure and aid.
This project is in no way "space armament". And importantly, you're missing the point: we easily have the resources and technology to eliminate poverty and want, be environmentally sustainable, and explore space all at the same time. We don't because doing so would not be profitable.
Your argument doesn't make sense then, how is exploring water on Mars profitable in your vision of the world?
You've already given the rationale for went the US funds these programs elsewhere in this thread so why are you asking me?
Because you're making the argument that "This project is in no way “space armament”"
So what is it? Why do we fund it? Seems like you agree that it's for the MIC, like I've been saying.
The only rationale behind funding NASA in the government's eyes is to develop space technology for US dominance. They don't just throw money away to go to Mars for national morale. Our satellite program is space warfare.
ah doing the "sustainability isnt possible because thermodynamics" ben shapiro thing are we?
Or we could spend the money on developing technology for education directly, instead of this tech bro MIC trickle down system.
Think outside the box
yes, if we take money away from anything in order to pay for education, it should be from NASA 🙄
Obviously, that could be the only thing my comment implies when it states how the Military Industrial Complex is a waste of funds. That we should only defund NASA. Great critical reading skills.
Space propaganda exists to mold children in that way, when we could have propaganda targeted towards encouraging kids to become people who contribute to society on a real level.
technologies like solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells that might have a real chance of helping us decarbonize our society were largely developed for the space program.
Your false premise here is that those things could not have been developed without a space program.
Could also focus on reducing our consumption first of all rather than stripping all the lithium out of the planet and space to keep up.
I mean yeah, let's go for limitless growth and start mining asteroids in two decades (two decades being a fantasy estimate at our pace), I'm sure the people dying then will be thankful we put our funds into a Mars colony.
Yeah, that's how allocation of funds works. Where we put a trillion into the MIC, we don't put that money into other programs.
Jesus, what's up with the bad faith discussion, I literally fucking said that.
NASA is an extension of the MIC, it's funded so that we can extend to space dominance, any funding secured for NASA is because we've managed to sneak something not directly harming the global poor into getting part of the military budget, as long as they develop technology that can be used to harm the global poor.
It's ultimately a waste to do that along with all the other MIC shit we do. A NASA independent from the incentive of our war machine would be good, and a goal, but isn't what our NASA is.
So at the moment we have all of these pressing societal issues where people are freezing to death in their homes, as we send metal into space to find water on Mars, for some reason, as if that helps someone.
Turn it into a strawman again I guess, fuck off
You can't be extremely bad faith and then accuse everyone else of bad faith. I mean, you can, it's what you're doing, but it sucks and you should stop.
