US commits to landing an international astronaut on the Moon
arstechnica.com
This ticket to the Moon will probably go to a European or Japanese astronaut.

US commits to landing an international astronaut on the Moon - This decade::This ticket to the Moon will probably go to a European or Japanese astronaut.

  • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    123·
    1 year ago

    Solar panels, memory foam, LEDs. Goddamned transistors.

    Listen, if you’re just hearing about this shit here and now pour yourself a nice glass of tang and read up because whatever education you got is not serving you.

    • the_q@lemmy.worldEnglish
      314·
      1 year ago

      Solar panels weren’t invented by NASA… neither were transistors and LEDs. Memory foam and TANG? Thanks NASA… life is sooo much better cause of you.

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        143·
        1 year ago

        Of all the hills in the world to die on you chose “space exploration is bad and doesn’t produce useful technologies”.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
          314·
          1 year ago

          You’re the one that brought it up though. Your sarcastic post was clearly an attempt to say that NASA is worth it BECAUSE of the developed technologies. Then you got called out on it. Then failed to provide actual technologies you’re referencing that actual was beneficial… And now you saying the other person is dying on a hill?

          You’re the person in the wrong here.

          • galloog1@lemmy.worldEnglish
            82·
            1 year ago

            The insulation tech developed by the original NASA program is used in every household in the western world. The current electrification effort wouldn’t be close to possible without the original Apollo and Mercury programs and the advancements required to go to the moon and Mars in the current effort will enable not only the development of an industrial base to support the rapid roll out of green improvements but make it more economical for the market.

            It’s a win win for anyone regardless of left right politics in the end. Not only the above, in the current political climate, what programs are you suggesting would do the same? Are they funded? Read the room dude. This is literally our only chance. You have the absolute worst possible take and you should stop because you make it less politically viable.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              Home insulation: https://www.retrofoamofmichigan.com/hs-fs/hubfs/InsulationTimelineV2.jpg?width=1000&name=InsulationTimelineV2.jpg Fiberglass insulation existed 20 years before NASA. Cellulose insulation ~5 years before NASA.

              Electrification: Don’t see an invention here? Just a broad claim that 2 missions pushed people to electrify?

              Your “fact” is still wrong.

              Read the room dude. This is literally our only chance. You have the absolute worst possible take and you should stop because you make it less politically viable.

              I don’t care about the room. The room wants to put MILLIIONS of tons of CO2 in the air to go to a dead space rock that has nothing of value for humanity. Hell most of this “room” believes Musk’s bullshit. This room is filled with ignorant idiots who think that living on Mars will be possible.

              Edit: Oh and if you’re referencing spray foam. That is a military product developed in the 1940’s… Has nothing to do with NASA…

              • galloog1@lemmy.worldEnglish
                32·
                1 year ago

                I’m referencing modern insulation, not spray foam. Additionally, NASA and it’s prior organization was founded to develop aerospace technologies like spray foam. It literally counts as well.

                The CO2 saved through the technologies required at scale will be worth a lot more CO2.

                I’m glad you mentioned the military technologies because it is still relevant as we pivot to counter China in space. NASA is a significant part of that not only in industrial scale but also technologies critical to intelligence.

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
                  12·
                  1 year ago

                  Fiberglass, Cellulose, and Spray foam are the current methods of insulation in a house. My house was built in 2001, I have fiberglass batting and Cellulose. ALL THREE OF THESE ARE OLDER THAN NASA.

                  No technology to date has reduced CO2 emissions, especially ones that send shit to space. You’re delusional.

                  • galloog1@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    32·
                    1 year ago

                    Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied. That is a categorically and demonstratively false statement in several different ways. Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments. They are significantly more carbon efficient than internal combination engines over their lifetime accounting for production and raw materials.

                    https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Miller_RANGE_Kickoff_2014.pdf

                    That’s not to mention the solar technologies developed by NASA to power the things.

                    The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.