Live data from Hacker News

If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

wsj.com

181–190 of 246 posts

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our economies of wealth are not built "on the back" of the people in the soup kitchens. Those few people who are going to soup kitchens are typically so crippled by their own internal issues (e.g. mental illness, impulsive criminality, addiction, total inability to manage money) that their productivity is extremely low or negative. Nobody's taking anything from them because there's nothing to take. In fact it's the o…

> in a modern economy those with zero or negative human capital are nothing but a liability They're also, you know, human . I blew several hundred dollars on air travel this weekend, for fun. People in soup kitchens are not living on my back. They're maybe living on my pinky nail. Mental illness and addiction, btw, are illnesses. They're no more "crippling internal issues" than, say, diabetes.

I think he was using the term "liability" in a purely economic sense (liability v. asset) and in that sense he is absolutely correct. It is an ugly truth, but no less true for its ugliness.

>air travel for fun i too enjoy living in an economy that has certain segments that are wildly productive.

>mental illness == diabetes a comment like this must stem from a complete lack of contact with the homeless. i am not virtue shaming you at all. the homeless, as a crowd, can be very off putting. This does not negate their humanity, but it definitely dictates which segments of humanity they regularly interact with. . my time amongst the homeless was a painful and informative experience. if you move around their world, you start to realize just how many of the street fam are where they are by choice. incompatibility with family or community, perplexing and unsettling addictions, habits, and proclivities (i thought people shooting up was going to be bad, but the eating of trash, hair, and feces was far more disturbing), and deep seeded mental trauma make many of the homeless community unreachable by the vast majority of society. the point is, there is no simple solution for outliers when we believe in the primacy of all human life. our society is an inevitable hierarchy, but our values preclude us from instituting a codified caste system. The homeless i encountered, lived with, and eventually fled from see no place for themselves in society in a general sense. specifically, i had conversations with erudite winos and brilliant heroine addicts, their cognitive assets hampered by their chemical addictions. i also got assaulted and chased by 20somethings with wealthy and compassionate family members who would wire them money and beg them to return. then there is of course the individuals who cannot speak coherently, which is a surprisingly huge barrier to community interaction. mental illness and addiction are illnesses, but MRSA and poison ivy rash are both "just" integument afflictions. Calamine lotion (handing out spare change, deifying the retched at snooty parties) will not help a staph infection.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#182
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress , the Moon was a penal colony. In that book, a form of harsh natural selection took place, and everyone who wasn't smart enough to survive in the demanding technical environment (and smart enough to foresee the disasters caused by those who weren't smart enough) quickly died gruesome deaths, leaving a population which was quite intelligent and valued learning.

... in other words, a work of fiction about setting up a disaster, and then partially avoiding it. Please take that as a warning not to set up disasters.

Australia worked out pretty well.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#183
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even if you had cocaine ($100,000/kg?) it's $100k+ retail value, but wholesale value is much below that, more in line with gold.

Sure, but he was trying to pick something super expensive, even more than gold.

Saffron, platinum, human organs...

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#184

Maybe we realize now going to the moon from a financial standpoint is purely political. If there was a efficient way and industrial need for plenty of resources from the moon maybe they'd make it possible. But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now. I've heard the argument that spending on stuff like this creates jobs and eco…

> But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now

Countries spend all kinds of money showing off their genitals in much worse ways. Think North Korea's nuclear weapons, or any of the Western nations' colonization follies.

How much has been spent on Olympic games in the last couple of decades? Would that be enough to get us to the moon?

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

National debt is simply national savings. "Paying off" national debt means taking away one of the most popular, liquid, income producing asset from people and corporations. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/deficit-tax-cuts-...

But it isn't savings . It is, as you said, an income-producing asset. Its primary function is not as a store of value, but as a claim against promises of future production. The national debt is mining resources needed for current operations from the future, rather than drawing down the stockpiles of those already mined from the past. Claiming that debt is wealth is mistaken at best, and fraudulent at worst. Please re…

This is the view from MMT perspective. I highly recommend looking into it, e.g. this lecture is great: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1SMjeuyF-Y

Treatment of debt is at around minute 54.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#186
In order to efficiently place people into space we would need a robotics based economy. Robots would need to build the rockets and fly the rockets. Humans would design the rockets and tell them where to go. Mission control would be replaced with one flight director observing an AI which monitors everything.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#187

Maybe we realize now going to the moon from a financial standpoint is purely political. If there was a efficient way and industrial need for plenty of resources from the moon maybe they'd make it possible. But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now. I've heard the argument that spending on stuff like this creates jobs and eco…

> But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now Countries spend all kinds of money showing off their genitals in much worse ways. Think North Korea's nuclear weapons, or any of the Western nations' colonization follies. How much has been spent on Olympic games in the last couple of decades? Would that be enough to get us to the…

> How much has been spent on Olympic games in the last couple of decades? Would that be enough to get us to the moon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

Given the double-digit billions in operating budgets per game, we could probably get a Mars program going for the cost of two or three of those games.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now Countries spend all kinds of money showing off their genitals in much worse ways. Think North Korea's nuclear weapons, or any of the Western nations' colonization follies. How much has been spent on Olympic games in the last couple of decades? Would that be enough to get us to the…

> How much has been spent on Olympic games in the last couple of decades? Would that be enough to get us to the moon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games Given the double-digit billions in operating budgets per game, we could probably get a Mars program going for the cost of two or three of those games.

If only we could attract as many spectators, and command the ad budgets ti match.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#189
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Planets will have different g's so first making things in zero-g work seems to be a much more solid approach to developing a long term space program. I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plu…

"I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plumbing, HVAC, material constraints (the need to avoid things that can powder) are totally different." Those are mostly things that can be explored on ea…

> Those are mostly things that can be explored on earth, no need to build a moonbase to figure that out.

> The opportunity with a space station is to figure out things that can't be explored realistically in other environments.

The best way to explore the things we're going to need to live on other planemos is to live on another planemo. A space station involves solving a bunch of engineering challenges that are different from Earth, some of which are relevant to living on other planemos and many of which are not. A moonbase gives us more of the challenges we care about and less of the ones we don't.

> So it's much more useful what we learn on a space station than what we learn on a moon base. Being in space without access to any resources other than what you already have is a much more important thing to solve and solving that will allow us to reach other planets much easier, cheaper and safer.

Again long-term life on a space station has a bunch of challenges that are just irrelevant. To spread to Mars we'll need a moonbase-like environment on Mars - one that has access to rock and some chemicals, not floating in empty space - and while people will need to go to and from there that's a matter of surviving in space for months rather than years, and frankly seems like something we could already handle. Similarly spreading to the Jovian system and so on.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#190

Maybe we realize now going to the moon from a financial standpoint is purely political. If there was a efficient way and industrial need for plenty of resources from the moon maybe they'd make it possible. But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now. I've heard the argument that spending on stuff like this creates jobs and eco…

> But right now grandiose measures of showing off your countries genitals kind of creates a narrative of wasted resources to me right now Countries spend all kinds of money showing off their genitals in much worse ways. Think North Korea's nuclear weapons, or any of the Western nations' colonization follies. How much has been spent on Olympic games in the last couple of decades? Would that be enough to get us to the…

North Korea nukes is more like showing venomous teeth than genitals.

The same way, launching the first Sputnik was a demonstration of military prowess: see, that thing flying over your head could be carrying a spy telescope, or a nuke.

None of this applied to the Moon landings.

Post reply on HN