Comment by doublerabbit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by doublerabbit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Personally, I dislike all this interest in space.

What has it done for the actual planet we live on? Day by Day we destroy this planet wasting resources that are finite and yet we dream to live on another planet. Why? Just so we can do the same?

How much toxic waste is in the world today? How much obsolete technological waste is there in this planet and why are we not investing the same amount of money on cleaning this planet? I'm sure I'm going to be down-voted for being pessimistic but its the truth.

Outer space is for the rich who've outgrown expensive yachts and will be that way if not forever. If we can't handle society on this planet how are we suppose to handle it on a new planet? You really think once technology is supportable they're going to let us use it?

---

Called it, first downvote. If your going to down vote, at least post and justify why rather then hiding behind a click of a button because you can't face the truth.

Second downvote. Only proving my point. To those who downvote your the problem in this world. Are you afraid to accept that we are destroying the planet we all live on?

Third downvote, Why are you living in denial? Stop being a coward and justify why. What has the rich ever done for us?

Forth downvote. Yep. Seriously, no one's going to rebuttable?

Fifth downvote, And people ask me why I am cynical. Does no one on HN actually care for this planet? I do, I spent all evening picking up litter in my own time. It's raining and cold, but I'm still out there tidying the mess that folk make of the planet.

Why the flag? -- There's nothing offensive, nor crude in this. It's my personal opinion that I can't seem to shift for the reasons in my reply. I thought HN was a less-bias platform then others. I thought HN allowed you to post your views to encourage discussion in a balanced fashion.

Nasa has a rich history of extreamly useful spin off technologies which came about as side effects for space travel:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~....

A more useful one is the extensive of the satellite network which powers our ability to share and collaborate like we are doing now, along with the GPS network allowing us to travel more easily.

I hear you about the enviormental concerns and it's terrible how we are not aware or thoughtful about how all the externalities/problems which are created by new technologies. But to say we should not invest in space tech is a real step in the wrong direction if you care deeply about the environment. Some of the best energy capture technologies will come from our ability to master space travel, as well as the need to understand Terra forming other plants which will help us tackle climate problems here on earth.

Replying to you because their post got flagged (sorry)

I didn’t downvote but felt like this was worthy of a response.

Your whole perspective is a mechanical pragmatic one but the goal of a space program goes beyond that. It’s intended to be aspirational because we are species that wants to be inspired. It’s why NASA dedicates part of its mission to outreach. It’s also why a lot of countries have a space program when they have even larger problems to solve; it’s serves as both inspiration and national pride. If we only care about pragmatism, we might as well get rid of literature, music, art... you know the things that help make life worth living. Personally, I think doing hard, pioneering things to help inspire a populace is worth 0.45% of the national budget*

And from the extreme negativity in your post, a little inspiration might be of use to you, too.

* I also say this as someone who left the space industry to focus on an industry geared towards more immediate problems

The little inspiration it brings is always overthrown by the negatives of the now outside of the whole space venture. There is no national pride to have when say one government decides to screw the country one lives causing restrictions in freedom.

Space will be a great thing, but when those in control of it, also control the damage of the current planet kind of makes moot of the whole two elements.

You could say the whole space venture is for the future, our kids, kids but how is there to be a future if we destroy the now?

I hate being stuck in the rut I am in, 31 and highly cynical. But from what I've experienced and seeing the decaying future gives less hope every day. I try hard to keep an optimistic type of view but it's bare threaded. Knowing that I've picked up four bin-bags daily of trash gives me hope that someday we can all be doing the same and that I've saved the planet a tiny bit.

I too also hope I can create awareness that turn a few heads with a few ideas but then with that you still run the extreme risk of being taken down for trying to promote a good deed.

Don't be cynical :) space exploration is a highly profitable endeavor, and manned space flight is found to have economic benefits as well.

Again, I’ll ask more directly: do you think 0.45% of the budget will solve those environmental problems enough to offset what is lost in aspirational benefit? I think where we disagree is that you seem to think both are mutually exclusive

I don't think both are mutually exclusive, I see one more important then the other. You see space, and I see environment.

> I’ll ask more directly: do you think 0.45% of the budget will solve those environmental problems enough to offset what is lost in aspirational benefit?

Yes, I do. If that 0.45% pushed towards environmental which helped develop new form of technology that returns well-being to the planet, then the aspiration wouldn't of been loss. Aspiration would return and would wager higher return including hope for humanity. It works both ways.

As like the current example on the front page at the moment about plant based recycling. That's inspirational but has much thought, time and money as of going in to space been invested in to that? Where would we be if did the same.

I think where we diverge is that you seem to assume everyone does/should have the same aspirations as you. As another commenter alluded to, we live in a pluralistic society. That in itself is valuable enough to me to warrant that relatively negligible budget, let alone the fact that more people probably are inspired by space than by environmental science. I don’t think there’s any reason there can’t be room for both, but you seem to think there can only be a focus on one

I'm not sure where your getting that assumption from. Like others have said thinking I want to defund all space programs. No, I am not saying that. I don't see money in such a linear view, all or nothing. There could be multiple projects on hand however as it currently stands there is only focus on one with the vision of "Get people on Mars"

I'm just weighing down to what is more important now:

A lunar gateway, a space elevator. Or trying to harness the sun, clearing plastics from within the ocean? Fixing the planet we are on now, or living in space? It does currently show that people are more inspired by space than environmental science. Anything environmental is declared boring, it is boring. It doesn't yield the same practical results. As I mean you don't see the same result in the same sense as a new rocket, footage of a new planet. But regardless or not it is, which is more important?

Sorry if it was a bad assumption. I just can’t square the two points you’re making. You say we can still have a space program but funding should be less? As in less than one half of one percent is too much? You may not realize it but the there are multiple directorates within NASA and only one is primarily focused on gateway (the human exploration directorate). So it’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent that goes to that. The rest of the money goes to other directorates that have priorities that may align more with your priorities. For example, the aeronautics research directorate performs fundamental research in areas that can decrease greenhouse gas emissions from air travel. The Earth science directorate is heavily focused on climate change. If you look at what is actually left over for exploration, to an extent it’s in agreement with your stance that it’s not really a priority compared with the percentage of GDP spent during the space race when it was a national priority. By only giving a pittance of GDP to exploration when it used to be orders of magnitude higher, we’re saying exploration is no longer a priority.

I think the people who claim otherwise might benefit from looking at the actual relative funding.

Space is important, and NASA is important. Human space exploration (which the Lunar Gateway is part of), however, doesn't seem to have much use and eats up a large part of NASA's budget. It's likely that we'd get much more bang for our buck having NASA focus those resources on other projects.

It's strange that many people will happily discuss wasteful NASA programs like the Space Shuttle or the SLS years after the decision is made, but there's so much resistance to even considering that the currently proposed programs might end in a similar fashion.

Thank you for the reply and pointing me the knowledge of such. I'm not American, so if a space agency ever makes the news its is only ever thrown around as "NASA X" "SpaceX Y".

Space really doesn't interest me, maybe it should. So it would be fair to say I am dumb on the subject and I would agree. Maybe it shows in my post. But my interests are on that we tackle those climate issues in the present now rather then waiting for an spinoff for a cure all. I don't disagree that the spin-offs are not great achievements. I want Lasek someday.

Geothermal, Renewable tech and the so is where my interests aim and I just don't see what the current space missions are achieving. Why do we need a lunar gateway? It feels like there is a whole private class wanting space to be their thing.

It would be fair to say there could be a rock on Mars or other distance planet that I dunno, could resolve environmental issue X. But when I see immature posts from entrepreneurs such as Elon, other rich classes such as Jeff, Richard Branson toying with new rocket can achieve turbo flames using precious resources turns me the other way. Especially when they're the ones contributing to the environmental problems we currently live with. That's what leaves me unconvinced. And yes you could say Elon's venture of Tesla is start of the electric car revolution but that should of happened many years ago. But is better then nothing.

It's hard to take a positive stance that space exploration is for the good when we have governments of evil, greed wanting to watch, control and who currently rule the planet that way and sure would love to rule the universe in the same nasty way. Same with technology used as a snooping device, data mining and monitoring for other big companies. How can you convince me that Starlink isn't being used to spy on others? The internet is a waste-land as it is.

I am not saying stop all space exploration nor that we shouldn't fund such programs but there is so much time & investment in to space lately that could be funneled in to beneficial fixes to the environmental problems of the now allowing produce of real technology rather waiting for the next spin-off. Anytime I come across something space, it looks and feels gritty for selfish greed rather then to help cause X of this planet. If there was a vibe of "Mars travel and we are going to work on solving environmental problems too" then I would view it differently.

Lets face it, there has never been true money pushed forward to resolving on-land problems and we let those who destroy off the hook.

If you are interested in climate issues and renewable tech, then some aspects of the "Great Filter" concept [0] are probably in mind, especially those having to do with "Global Catastrophic Risk," [1] of which climate change is one. Others include events sourced outside the Earth such as a large asteroid strike or a large solar flare. These are events of unknown likelihood and vast impact. A space program is insurance against that in that humans might have warning or be able to do something about it one day. No space program means we are on borrowed time.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk

And I don't double that space programs do not create insurance against such. But from the articles I see, the target is Mars, not stopping an asteroid hitting the planet.

However, thank you the further resources on such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com