- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’d prefer a commitment to universal healthcare.
They’re not mutually exclusive. There’s enough money already spent on healthcare to pay for single payer
deleted by creator
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard
deleted by creator
Space programs are notorious for not developing whole slews of useful technologies that provide benefits in other sectors. Nope, nothing developed by or for NASA will find unexpected uses anywhere other than space exploration. No sirree.
deleted by creator
Here’s a good list… a decent portion of those are every day items that we’ve gotten used to or just take for granted: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-wouldnt-have-without-space-travel
Weather satallites GPS A bunch of different medical treatments/tech were developed on top of groundwork layed out by NASA: https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/nasa-inventions/nasa-breakthroughs-in-medicine.htm MRIs, artificial heart pumps, and more.
A bunch of different alloys that have since been used in a large number of industries for various purposes: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20100021913 Titanium alloys were lighter and more durable and made them ideal for use as bicycle frames or even in some medical applications.
Here’s a link to a tech brief from NASA in 1969 where they discuss the potential for some of their invented alloys to be used in medical applications for implants and prosthetics: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690000087/downloads/19690000087.pdf
And here’s a link showing what kind of materials are used in biomedical applications today: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8546395/
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.
deleted by creator
Of all the hills in the world to die on you chose “space exploration is bad and doesn’t produce useful technologies”.
Or both because we can do both
Because landing on the moon is an excellent test bed for future scientific and commercial endeavors. But why an international person? Space travel requires support from the international community and an easy way to drum up support without being billed for it is to offer a spot on the mission and all of the prestige that comes with it.
deleted by creator
If the planet was on fire, leaving it would be a good choice.
this is bullshit. terraforming Mars or any other place in the solar system is going to cost orders of magnitudes more than solving earth problems. and no, we’re not even close to interstellar travel
deleted by creator
If you think humanity has the power to reverse climate change, then you’re going to be very disappointed.
deleted by creator
We chose to land an International Astronaut on the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
My favorite part of the speech is the reference to Rice playing Texas.
Since the beginning of the Apollo program, more people have traveled to the moon than Rice football players who started a winning game against Texas.
deleted by creator
International morale
deleted by creator
Unironically yes, I do believe that. Space exploration is a worthy endeavor in and of itself and takes up a fraction of the budget.
deleted by creator
Do you disagree concerning what would motivate you or the average person in the world? I’m answering based on the latter.
Simple. Because the other country will be footing some of the bill.
I might be cynical, but if the Apollo missions are anything to go by, sacrificing many “international astronauts” in testing to finally get one successfully up there, is better than losing american’s?
But hey, I’m only watching from “The Dish” over here in Oz.
🎶SEE YOU ON THE DARK SIIIIIIDE OF THE MOOOOOOOON 🎶
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Earlier this year, NASA named a Canadian astronaut, Jeremy Hansen, to the Artemis II crew training to fly around the far side of the Moon, a mission that will likely launch sometime in 2025.
On Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris announced an international astronaut will land on the Moon during one of NASA’s Artemis missions.
The inclusion of foreign astronauts on US missions also repays partner nations who make financial commitments to US-led space projects with a high-profile flight opportunity for one of their citizens.
NASA managers dole out crew assignments on the International Space Station based on each partner’s financial contribution to the operating costs of the US-led segment of the complex.
ESA funded the development of the service modules used on NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which will ferry astronauts from Earth to the Moon and back.
Canada is building a robotic arm for Gateway, but a Canadian astronaut already has a seat on NASA’s first crewed Artemis mission, albeit without a trip to the lunar surface.
The original article contains 653 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Is this still an achievement? When did the first person land on the moon? Like 30 years ago? 40?
More than half a century ago
Why?
Hah, it definitely wont be via SpaceX, if they manage to pull it off at all.
Yeah, it won’t. It’ll be during one of the Artemis missions, which is a NASA run mission.
Some one is going to inform Tim Dodd at some point that no, he is not going to the moon.
Pretty sure they’re using the Falcon Super Heavy for at least one of the Artemis missions.
