this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
15690 readers
203 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And fifty years later we still mope around in low earth orbit. Progress had slowed down a lot since the billionaires took over.
Fifty years later we have reached mars with drones and created space probes to expand our knowledge of space.
We have even figured out aviation on mars so thats kinda cool :D
Incidentally, that mission was one of those surprising successes. The drone they sent was really barebones so it could tag along on another mission. Lots of people thought even doing that was a waste of launch mass. Nobody expected it to work all that well. It ended up working incredibly well and got used far beyond its planned mission until its rotor blades broke.
Now the team gets to build a real one.
Yeah its a great story. I watched the Veritasium vid about it and its so much cooler when you hear the backstory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20vUNgRdB4o
No no, it's cooler than that. We tried out aviation on Mars to make sure we figured out how to do aviation on Titan.
Goddamn that’s so fucking cool
We need some kind of automated workshop on Mars. Send a boatload of refined materials up there and a small autofactory that can craft marginally useful gear and replacement parts.
First, we need an autofactory. This is not a minor step.
We need a hardened autofactory, capable of self-repair and or serious fault tolerance.
Power, protection, temperature stability, something capable of 3d printing without a lot of finish work. How cool would it be to print a new wheel for a rover and install it? Imagine rovers being delivered batteries and solar panels by mini helis...
It's sci-fi for now, but not impossible.
We reached Mars with probes 50 years ago. I'm not in any way trying to denigrate the amazing achievements of the Mars rovers. But the fact remains that a human crew could have done all that and more (like drill a hole) in a few weeks at best.
And 59 years after landing on the moon we’ve just been watching Space X rockets explode instead of going back on rockets NASA proved it could engineer with slide rules and drafting tables.
Relying on Starship as a moon lander is one of the most hare brained decisions of NASA in recent years. OTOH, it would be perfectly feasible to get a moon mission going using Falcon 9 as the launch vehicle.
SpaceX had a brilliant track record for safety with their novel reusable rocket boosters. Even the first couple of Starship prototypes were incredibly successful, massively exceeding mission goals.
Unfortunately Musk seems to have entirely lost the sauce and is killing all of his companies, diving into conspiracy nonsense while finding an incredibly unpopular election campaign, hitting the federal government and tanking the economy by single handedly raising the national unemployment rate through expensive and unnecessary layoffs. And during that same time Starship has become incredibly unreliable with prototypes not only failing to reach orbit but even exploding on the pad before attempting liftoff.
Meanwhile competitors are popping up around the world trying to recreate SpaceX's falcon rocket boosters, and many are starting to achieve success. Musk could have owned space but instead gestures wildly at everything and nothing in particular
Musk should have stepped down from all of his companies about 5-10 years ago and let them continue on without him. Maybe he'd run a funky tiny/manufactured home startup to try to "disrupt housing" or an online healthcare startup to try to "disrupt healthcare" or maybe he'd be running a drone startup to "disrupt warfare" or maybe he'd just sale off into the sunset impregnating as many women as he can convince to carry his kids while shitposting away on twitter
The Falcon series would be very limited for a moon mission. The Saturn V could get 47 metric tons into a trans lunar injection. Falcon 9 can get about 27 metric tons into GTO--not even to TLI (which isn't even listed in public information I could find, though one random Reddit post claims 3 metric tons). The Apollo lander was 17 metric tons, and it could take two people and a rover for a little tour on the surface. We can maybe shave some of that weight off with a new design, but probably not by half or anything really significant like that.
If we want to go back to the moon, it should be for more than taking pictures and picking up some rocks. You may not even be able to do that with a Falcon rocket.
NASA doesn't exactly rely on Starship for this, though. SLS does technically exist. It's just expensive, took far too long to build, and should probably be written off. Bezos might have something coming up, but who knows. Still relying on another space billionaire either way.
It wouldn't be a one shot mission, of course. SpaceX have proven that they can launch a bunch of those in quick succession. That would still be a fraction of the cost of the idiotic SLS.
Maybe if they could get in-orbit refueling to work on the Falcon? IIRC, Starship would require that for trips out of LEO, anyway. Nobody has done it before with a crewed rocket, and there's been some criticism that Starship's plan relies on this thing that hasn't been proven.
The Lunar Gateway is supposed to have a final assembled mass of 63 metric tons. May or may not be able to make that work at all with Falcon.
We should be shipping construction materials.
Of course,we'd need the whole world to be working together not to steal eachother's goods...
Actually the rate of major mission launches and new "firsts" was highest in the late 60s/70s, slowed significantly in the 80s/early 90s, and resumed at a moderate and consistent pace from the mid-90s until today (although today missions became far more complex and focused on detailed science rather than just achieving things).
Actually, we first landed on Mars with the Viking series of probes in 1976. Then there was a whole lot of time where we didn’t do anything before we started again with Mars in the late 90s.
The problem is time.
You're just considering human spaceflight. Keeping humans alive and equally importantly sane for years is very different to sending a probe somewhere, and we've been getting better at the latter
That's why getting to the moon permanently is so important. Once we get in situ resource utilisation going, the rest of the solar system becomes much more accessible.
KSP taught me that, shame we don't have a lower mass minty moon.
Thats because the only good progress now is up or positive on the stock markets.
Yeah you're right, there was no such thing as stock markets until 2010 I heard
Before capitalism was invented in 2010 we were just guided by happiness and the pursuit of science and art and improving our livelihoods 🥰
What are you talking about? Everyone was a capitalist back then as they are now. The space race was as much a capitalist conquest for glory as it was beneficial for technology/science.
In the USA we wasted time, money, and media resources going to the moon while black people were treated as less than citizens and millions were living in abject poverty. Not much has changed on that front for the countries entire history. What good did the moon landing do for the average man?
Same with the USSR. As people starved and lived under a dictatorship, the ruling class wasted the countries money by getting into a dick measuring contest.
The billionaires have taken over since colonialism became the status quo in the 15th century. Most of the technological progress since then is guided by capital and not something noble.
— I forgot to add that most of the technological progress in the 20th century happened because we were so hellbent on murdering one another that we had to come up with new and efficient methods. Your concept of “progress” is skewed in favor of the same systems that you want to dismantle.
Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.
I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.
Might want to work on your reading comprehension.
That's the first paragraph from a section on one of those links that's about technological advances.
Maybe not, but that wasn't the question you posed, it's where you moved the goalpost to. The US went to the moon, that happened already; but there were any number of achievements that resulted in life improvements for everyone while it happened.
What you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion.
So funnily enough the introductory paragraph to part of an article isn’t the evidence portion, it’s just the intro. Yknow you could’ve just quoted from the part where they describe said technological advances or that author’s thesis.
I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now. To be more specific
is more of a statement than an answer to the question of “how did the moon landing help the average man?.” Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing? See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?
And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis. What I’m trying to say is that we should not pretend that the moon landing and all early space exploration was a noble non-capitalist venture focused on the benefit of man (as the original commenter implied). Our current relationship with space is not stagnant because of billionaires for the same reason that our relationship with space post-war was so accelerated.
This right here is moving the goalpost:
Where in my comment that consisted of quoting your question and providing two links that answer that question did I address any of this?
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed (the links provided to address the specific quotation from you) and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded ("how the scientific achievements required going to the moon").
I assume you meant wouldn't have been made without the moon landing? Either way, this is tacitly acknowledges the technological improvements made as a result which would be "good for the average man".
I'm not arguing with you. You asked the question and I provided links with answers to counter the allusion you were attempting to make that it didn't do "the average man" any good.
As I already stated, what you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion. I have no interest in arguing that with you or anyone because it happened and that's not going to change.
Yea, and it's a poor question, which is why I addressed it specifically. The moon landing and the space race leading up to it led to numerous advances and improvements for everyone, including "the average man" (sexist language by the way).
Using that question for emphasis is disingenuous and attempts to minimize all of the advancement that occurred as a byproduct.
Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔 I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.
Tbh we operating on two different wavelengths. Let’s end it with this
My original question was poorly worded, not fully thought out, and in the most literal sense was wrong. And yeah it does minimize all advancement made as a byproduct, that was the point of such a question.
The argument that I am trying to tell you is not related to just the moon landing. It is a response to the original commenter who, in my opinion, implied that there was something greater about space exploration post-war. I think that it was a result of the USA’s imperialist and capitalist goals. Those goals (as they always do) lined up with the goals of the wealthiest and most powerful (non-politician) people of the time. Space exploration today isnt less exciting because billionaires have too much power. They still had a shit ton of power post-war and still ran the country.
I believe that the space exploration boom was because it was an opportunity to gain capital and win an ideological battle. In 2025 space does not fill that role.
I'm sorry I have a vocabulary? You should let people know you struggle with big words.
You clearly do since you didn't recognize when you did it.
Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.
And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else (you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)
Do you need the definition provided again? I'm responding to the insult you started your last reply with. I addressed the parts that I had something to say about. I don't really care what your opinion on the moon landing is. Certainly not enough to argue with you about it; just your garbage question.
My first post which was a quote and two links? I'm sorry you struggle to use longer words but not everybody does.
I did. Do you get mad when people provide a definition from a Dictionary too?
Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.
The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes). You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.
Also we both sound like idiots in case you haven’t realized. It’s sounds so stupid to be like “yeah I actually won the comment chain cause I was only responding to the one hyperbolic and purposefully angering statement and not the other parts. So you’re the idiot actually”
And I sound stupid cause I keep responding to you. So how about we both agree we sufficiently wasted our time and leave it at that. 😣
I'm not your buddy. As I said, I don't care about your opinion, which the rest of your original comment I responded to was. I addressed the question you asked which has basis in fact. What good did the moon landing do for the average man? Lots of good.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the head of the MLA (that's the Modern Language Association, I'll let you click the link to work out why I referenced it). Let me cite something else for you:
Or maybe I start with casual language because this is a message board and then get real specific with my language when dealing with people like you. Either way, that's your opinion and, as established, I don't care about your opinion.
I’m not your buddy either 😡
want to quote smtn from mla guide on citing sources
use broad and ambiguous blog post for making a glossary (a collection of textual glosses, click the link to learn what those words mean)
don’t use a glossary
profit?
want to defend my half assed attempt at using thesaurus.com
tacitly acknowledge that I did change my language as the comment chain went on
Calm down please
I'm sincerely wondering if you'd like an answer to your question. I can provide you the science perspective, if you like, not to mention a political one. Not interested in an emotional debate here, you're entitled to your point of view and your polemic, if that's all you prefer.
I would. The literature the other commenter provided really did not help me understand the benefits of it. Both articles they listed focused on how much of a cultural and political achievement it was. However, as I pointed out, that perspective leaves out a large portion of our population.
The science achievements sound good. We learned the origin of the earth and moon and NASA invented a few good gadgets like wireless headsets- obviously good contributions. But I don’t see how those outweigh the cons of the Apollo program.
It cost so much money and distracted the populace from the very real issues going on at the time. It was a great propaganda victory.
Science reply:
It's a lot broader and more subtle than just the origin of the Earth and Moon. Apollo rewrote your geology textbook. Not the lunar geology text - the one for Earth. And not just the chapter about origins. This tends to get obscured because there was another revolution going on in Earth science at the very same time - a little thing called plate tectonics.
Direct results from Apollo, corroborated by old Soviet and modern Chinese automated landers:
Indirect result from Apollo:
Of the three direct results, two sound obvious. Naturally Earth is hot inside; where does lava come from? Of course space rocks can bang into us; what would stop them? None of this, however, was evident certain to a huge number of geologists, physicists, or chemists in the 1960s (or '70s, or even '80s... some people never change their minds. They just die). And when most workers in a given field are against you, progress tends to be rather slow. Walter and Luis Alvarez had a hell of a time convincing people that an asteroid strike could have ended the Cretaceous, not to mention the dinosaurs - I mean, there isn't even a crater in the Yucatan, it's flat down there! (LOL That debate still isn't over, even today...)
As far as I can see, direct result #3 (about planetary evolution) hasn't entered the zeitgeist yet. Yes, people are (wisely) alerted to climate change, but that's just a little tweak compared to the immense environmental changes that we know took place on Venus, Mars and Earth - and I'm just talking about the ones that have occurred since complex life emerged here, not the ones from billions of years ago.
And that indirect result? I still know a number of scientists who hem and haw and won't quite agree that Earth's environment doesn't suddenly end 100 km up. The Voyager probes show us how bad the radiation is when you get far enough away from the Sun, and I don't know if you even do Voyager without Apollo. But Apollo, uniquely, shows you something else - the Sun hasn't always protected us from that bigger dose of cosmic radiation that the Voyagers see. Sometimes that heliospheric shield shrinks, and the planets get a lot more radiation than we do today. And that's just one of the synergistic results, there are more.
IMO the primary lesson we learn from geology is that environments change in time. Please note my use of the PRESENT TENSE in this reply, because none of what I am discussing is forever confined to a remote past - all of the planetary evolution processes I'm talking about can still occur today, and are certain to recur in the future. Geology left the silo to become a much more interconnected science partly because of Apollo - and the thing is, it became a science about THE FUTURE as well as the past.
Apologies for the overly long reply. Apologies to my science people for oversimplifying here.
Nah I get what you’re saying. Those are all good things and I agree with pretty much everything in your other comment. I just think that the Apollo missions and other space missions, despite bringing about good, did not occur because of good intentions.
But yeah you’re right that by learning about other planets we learn a lot about our own and how to move forward. A part of my brain just refuses to recognize most of the good in space exploration because the common attitude towards space exploration is similar to our attitude toward colonization.
Why when people describe living on the Moon or Mars do they use the word colonize? To me it implies that these spaces are only useful if we can extract profit. And now there’s talk of exploring other space rocks (sorry for broad term) because they contain precious metals we’re running out of on earth. It’s just gross to think that the only way space can be explored or properly funded is if it makes more money and ends up exploiting someone.
Politics reply:
Directly, immediately? In the 1960s? Aside from the people employed working directly or indirectly on space efforts? Almost none. Is that really the answer you're looking for, though? Scientific knowledge can take decades or even centuries before it improves our lives tangibly. But I think you know that, so I won't argue with you about it.
Concerning the waste of time, money and attention - LOL there was the Vietnam war, too. I'd argue was less beneficial to humanity than Apollo. I am only raising this point because I think it's unfair to place blame for lack of social progress at the feet of scientists, or a sub-set of scientists. We're collectively responsible.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. The Apollo program was not conceived or executed to benefit science. But Apollo did mobilize science irrevocably. "Planetary science" as a discipline, community and way of thinking didn't exist before Apollo. Very few people, even in the science community, were comparing planets and learning something from that before about 1970. Ditto for environmental science - and that community, too, barely existed before Apollo. Even though that field got a headstart due to people like Rachel Carson.
Would you have improved social conditions for anyone by cancelling Apollo/Gemini in, say, 1964? I'm not so sure about that. 1968 certainly implies otherwise. I'm here to tell you that exploring neighboring worlds is a social good because you learn the parameters of your own environment, parameters you MUST keep an eye on to keep Earth habitable. But that social good is a joke if people can't walk down the street without worrying about ICE raids. So yeah, you're right, racial hatred obviates this beautiful and essential realization that we're connected to a bigger universe. Would you have the scientists of the world hide their knowledge away because we live surrounded by ugliness? All I can say to you is that we live here too, and this fight is ours as much as yours.
Since the USSR fell