Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

billfitz24 t1_ixd7w11 wrote

Bring it on. A space race ultimately makes everyone a winner, as long as some moron doesn’t put weapons up there in the process.

133

SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_ixdf3am wrote

Narrator: They all put weapons up there

157

ChoopAdoop t1_ixep3su wrote

".. but the weapons were already in space, and had been for quite some time."

8

seanflyon t1_ixg24nl wrote

Any spacecraft with propulsion is a weapon if you want it to be.

5

SakiraInSky t1_ixi084g wrote

As long as we don't allow incels or nuevonazies up there, it should be ok.

2

SlickMouthedFool t1_ixef3sy wrote

Yup, and I think Europe is seeing the danger of being economically dependent on the US, China, or Russia.

Good for then to be striving for independence as humanity forays into space.

Also, the more independence we have, the more stable what we build will be.

Centralization and monopolies are just inherently unstable.

I want to see European, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian space agencies collaborating and competing with NASA

31

toodroot t1_ixefqhp wrote

ESA/JAXA/ISRO/NASA do collaborate on a regular basis.

16

Arcosim t1_ixen9ce wrote

ESA also collaborates with China. From the Dragon programme, the Smile mission, components in the ChangE probes and a possible European visit to Tiangong in the works (regarding the station, Tiangong will host several European experiments).

It seems to me that of all space agencies ESA is taking the most diplomatic approach.

13

RanDumbGuy80 t1_ixfkkzt wrote

What......what do you think a space race is?

What supremacy would Europe seek in space, with respect to China & the U.S.?

Our nations don't "race" each other because they just want us all to have better lives.

I agree that a true space race will usher in new tech, but only after wildly increasing the EU's debt burden (increased taxation) & making the world a little more dangerous to live in.

5

billfitz24 t1_ixfnsqq wrote

How about establishing a colony on the moon?

3

RanDumbGuy80 t1_ixft2q2 wrote

To what end?

In a perfect world, a "moon ISS" would conduct science experiments and potentially mine He3 for use in fusion reactors. International cooperation would foster technological developments that will better life for all humankind.

But in reality, over the long term, the moneyed interests of our world will engage their respective governments to carve up the moons' resources via military control.

The same exact scenario is playing out in the Arctic ocean, right now.

China and the US want moon bases because, militarily speaking, virtually NO nation has the ability to project force on the moon. Moon based weapon systems would need virtually zero defensive protection, and would become the ultimate threat deterrent here on Earth.

Which would better enable the powerful interests within those countries to walk all over everyone else.

Our governments do not exist to serve you and I. They exist to further the agendas and wealth of the ruling class.

We do not go to the moon for the betterment of humanity.

We go to the moon for the betterment of the powerful here on Earth.

Some of us may be lifted up, economically speaking, as part of that process, but that's not the goal - that's a byproduct of the goal.

And let me be clear - I'm all for going to the moon and beyond. But sugarcoating the why of the thing, and the who will benefit the most - that doesn't help you make rational decisions in your own best interests.

9

radioli t1_ixgeros wrote

One major by-product would be a stretching industry chain that brings millions of high-paid professional jobs to a continent of billion. This is at least much better than the currently unproductive financial games.

The ultimate cure for modern feudalism is another industrial revolution with exponential growth.

3

RanDumbGuy80 t1_ixhdr13 wrote

I could agree with your statement, but I'd stress that the flip side of that coin is the debt burden created by the state.

There is no free lunch here.

You and I won't be alive when that debt must be paid back. Our children and grandchildren will have subsidized our high-paying jobs with their higher taxes.

We will have stolen that choice from them, made it for them, and they will have to live with the consequences of our actions.

Maybe we'll have made the right call. Maybe we'll have made their lives better.

Maybe we'll have just made their lives more complicated. More dangerous.

Either way, we'll have taken away their choice of how much of their paycheck is devoted to the state's debt.

That's how government "races" work. We spend money we don't have, and ask future generations to pay for it.

I'd ask you, how do you like the choices your grandparents made for you? How do you like how much of your paycheck feeds your country's debts, or your country's military industrial complex?

I think I'd rather have had a say in those decisions my grandparents and parents made on my behalf.

But you are right - it has the potential to create a huge value chain with high-paying jobs. If they remain in the West....

3

Faustinwest024 t1_ixfkwky wrote

They have had tungsten rod projectiles concepts for a while since the cold wars

2

KaminasSquirtleSquad t1_ixeo7dm wrote

Does it though? What about space debris? What about crowding the orbits? If the practice favour soeed over safety and looking forward to prevent future issues, it certainly would not benefit everyone.

1

DeadFyre t1_ixe4pf9 wrote

The winners are the aerospace contractors who collect all the money wasted on what is an expensive, polluting publicity stunt.

−15

lagavulinski t1_ixei56b wrote

You can say that about a lot of things, like, "The winners are the internet providers who collect all the money wasted on what is an expensive, polluting publicity stunt." but you're using the internet right now, so clearly the internet is not a publicity stunt. You already use GPS everywhere you go. Who the hell do you think set up those satellites in orbit? Clearly GPS is not a publicity stunt.

The irrational, illogical reasoning you've got is that there can only be winners or losers. That's not how the world works.

7

HolyGig t1_ixem6ev wrote

>The irrational, illogical reasoning you've got is that there can only be winners or losers.

That is actually what you are doing. China and the US are "winning" in space while Europe is losing, according to this statement which you are defending.

Europe already has Galileo. They already have independent access to space. Your examples makes no sense. This is a French politician whining that Europe should spend more on space because most of that money would go to French companies lol, not because they actually give a fuck about space.

−6

lagavulinski t1_ixevi61 wrote

What statement am I defending? I think you're lost. I'm responding to the person who says that aerospace contractors are the only winners here. That's just factually completely wrong.

With regards to the statement about the need to compete in space: Historically, in the context of developing the next generation/era of technologies (agriculture, horse riding, archery, sailing, the whole industrial revolution, technological revolution, information age, and now, the space age), countries that don't invest in gaining the knowledge and innovation in that technological age tend to get left behind. By pushing to be competitive with the leaders in the field, it forces advancements on a quicker timeline, and benefits everyone.

Edit: You're just going to downvote me without any counter-argument?

2

HolyGig t1_ixeyruo wrote

Somebody is certainly lost, yes.

We are not talking about individual countries, we are taking about Europe. The French want Europe to pay them to be the space power on behalf of the whole EU. If you don't see any issue with that then I don't know what to tell you.

>aerospace contractors are the only winners here.

A singular French aerospace contractor specifically, but yes that would be correct.

−1

DeadFyre t1_ixem18q wrote

No, you can't. Whiners on the internet pay for the privilege of going onto the internet with their own money. They pay their ISP, and the platforms that cater to their whining earn money from sponsors, all without anyone being coerced into paying someone else.

If you want to DONATE to a space exploration plan, or volunteer time, I salute you. Enjoy it! Live your best life. But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.

−16

bookers555 t1_ixeqeo6 wrote

I have no idea why people so ignorant on the technologies that space travel research has brought us even come to the space subreddit. Seems like this sub has way too many people for whom science is just knowing "fun facts".

14

GameTourist t1_ixeuieo wrote

exactly that, and it also completely ignores the economic stimulus it generates

7

DeadFyre t1_ixftkrq wrote

I'm perfectly aware of what technologies were pioneered in the Space Race. That was 60 years ago, and there's no reason to believe any of those technologies required a lunar mission to achieve. But that's not my principal objection. You want to fund scientific research, I am with you. You want to fund research into the physics necessary to unlock energy sources that can get us to an adjacent solar system, I am on board.

What we're doing is none of those things. We're re-using 1960's technology to go back to a place we've already been, and thence re-using 1960's technology to visit another planet in the solar system, and plant a flag and a plaque. That's IT. There's no payoff, no other objective, no practical payoff for the billions in taxpayer dollars and millions of tons of CO2 we'll be producing to carry of what can only be a P.R. stunt.

We don't have the technology to terraform Mars, or to even build a permanent settlement there. You want to colonize the solar system? Start by creating a self-sufficient settlement in Antarctica. Because that's about a hundred times more feasible than Mars. Prove you can do that, and then we'll talk.

0

lagavulinski t1_ixeu1eh wrote

>But I would just assume not fund a manned mission to the Moon or Mars when there is no practical benefit to any human, save the small slice of contractors and government employees who will be paid money out of my taxes to do the damned thing.

Amazing. You're in the Space subreddit, and you think that all of our exploration has no practical benefit? I'm sure Krog the caveman said the exact same thing 10,000 years ago when his buddy Glab started building the first raft/boat for fishing in the river and getting to the other side.

6

DeadFyre t1_ixfsxn2 wrote

At present level of technology, it's certain to have no practical benefit. There is no habitable planet within the reach of our current propulation technology, nor within the THEORETICAL limits of any technology we have postulated. It's just not feasible. So, all that is left is an expensive P.R. stunt. If you'd take a second to research the matter yourself and use a little objectivity, you'd agree with me.

0

lagavulinski t1_ixfy2wd wrote

Again, I'm amazed that you're on the space subreddit. Habitable planets? Is that the only purpose for innovating in any form of space age technology? It is most definitely an epic failure of imagination to assume (as you said, "all that is left") that space has no other practical purpose or benefit. I'm not even going to start listing them. If you don't have an idea what they could be, it won't even make sense to you.

I run a design and engineering firm, I am an investor, and sit on an incubator board to provide funding to new medtech startups. I've bet on many, many companies over the years, and only a few make it, but I've learned two things in the last 35 years. One: Failure and improvement can lead to riches, and Two: I've always failed to predict where tech goes, but it has always been better than what I anticipated.

3