Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn’t we do those things directly, without going there?

It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.

I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that’s why we poors support it, but that doesn’t “pay the bills.” What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?

  • 🇨🇦GreenBeard🇨🇦@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 minutes ago

    The best way I can say it is it’s kind of like exercise. Going to the Moon makes about as much sense as " pick up heavy object, put down heavy object." The Moon itself doesn’t really accomplish a lot in the moment, but the practice of engineering all the little things that it takes to get to the Moon, and learning about the universe along the way, is kind of like exercise for society coming together to solve hard problems.

    Now you’re correct that there’s a lot of hard problems right here on earth for us to try and solve, and that’s valid. But I also need you to think about just how little funding actually goes to NASA. Or Space X for that matter. It’s actually a lot less difficult (and expensive) to get to the Moon than say, teach all our children to read properly.

    The skills we build and the things we learn along the way however can be turned around and repurposed for lots of other hard problems down the road that are a lot closer to home. It sure as hell beats the other kind of “exercise” we’ve historically done to advance our skills which mainly consists of killing each other by the millions.

    Does that make sense?

  • Manjushri@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    “The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.” - Robert A. Heinlein

    • mirshafie@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      58 minutes ago

      We must terraform Mars and live like kings!

      How about you start by terraforming the Sahara desert or shut the fuck up, Elon.

  • Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 hours ago

    NASA spending has historically created more in return than is spent. It’s somewhat expensive (essentially a rounding error next to military spending though), but the science done gives a good return on investment. This isn’t just like on moon rocks or whatever, but developing technology that the missions need. Things like thermally reflective lightweight fabric, or a ton of other things. The science done on the Moon is worth a lot on its own, but it’s also not the only thing we’re getting out of it.

    However, what are billionaires getting out of it? Hopefully it’s just the opportunity to profit from the contracts and not something more nefarious. We all know it is though eventually.

    • mirshafie@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      That’s just funding research with extra steps.

      Science on the aggregate gives excellent return on investment. Unfortunately politicians want an extravagant excuse for funding it, but it would be much more efficient not to do the gimmicks, just do the science and not allow public sentiment to dictate what’s viable.

  • kieron115@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s a lot cheaper to launch with just the fuel needed to get to the moon, then refuel there and launch again in the much lighter gravity. It’ll make it easier/cheaper/less resource intensive to explore space.

  • TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 hours ago

    -1. The moon has HUGE reserves of Helium 3. Earth has almost none and is quickly running out. This is due to the fact that much of those reserves come from the solar wind and Earth’s magnetic field deflects that.

    -2. It’s fairly easy to launch rockets from the lunar surface, and comparatively easy to launch things to the Moon vs. Directly from Earth to Deep space.

    -3a. The moon blocks much of the radio chatter from Earth (on it’s far side) meaning radio telemetry and astronomy have a MUCH easier time doing research

    -b. By using such methods in concert with Terrestrial installations/telescopes, it makes for a FINE “natural” interferometer for literal logarithmic fractions of the price over Conventional Lagrange point based systems.

    -4. The moon is ideal for biological “life boating” (google the “Svalbard Seed Bank” to get what I’m talking about)

    -5. Earth’s gravity can sometimes skew the results of VERY sensitive nuclear particle experiments. A particle collider on the moon might lead to exciting discoveries in quantum physics. Also such colliders require lots of liquid helium for cooling. (see point 1) The moon gets INCREDIBLY cold on it’s night side, which saves on energy costs to boot, and night on the moon lasts for 2 weeks.

    -6. The Lunar crusts’ composition is almost identical to Earth’s which means it probably has huge reserves of lithium, gold, platinum, titanium, and palladium. The fact that it gets seeded by meteorites frequently also increases these odds.

    • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      To your point 5, one of the biggest problem in space is cooling heat producing systems. There are 3 ways of heat transfer:

      1. Conduction - through contact of heat conducting systems like metals.
      2. Convection - through movement of heat transfer fluids like water or air.
      3. Radiation - through infrared radiation.

      In space there is only radiative method available which is very inefficient. The moon getting cold on the dark side is due to it lacking atmosphere to hold the heat. One of the reason convection method of heat transfer not available.

      Particle collider uses liquid helium to keep superconducting magnets on. Also to cool the collider.

      Cooling would absolutely not work on moon. Low gravity may give different results of particle experiment and might be helpful.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Build a large space at least a thousand feet high. Pump in over pressured atmosphere and build a wing suit so I can fly under my own power.

  • rabber@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Datacenters is why China is so interested. Low radiation in moon caves. Free cooling. Low risk of espionage.

  • Pirate2377@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It’s for the elite to escape the earth when they render it unlivable via climate change