I'd prefer a commitment to universal healthcare.
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
162 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
62959 readers
5427 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
They're not mutually exclusive. There's enough money already spent on healthcare to pay for single payer
[deleted]
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard
[deleted]
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]
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]
Of all the hills in the world to die on you chose "space exploration is bad and doesn't produce useful technologies".
You're the one that brought it up though. Your sarcastic post was clearly an attempt to say that NASA is worth it BECAUSE of the developed technologies. Then you got called out on it. Then failed to provide actual technologies you're referencing that actual was beneficial... And now you saying the other person is dying on a hill?
You're the person in the wrong here.
The insulation tech developed by the original NASA program is used in every household in the western world. The current electrification effort wouldn't be close to possible without the original Apollo and Mercury programs and the advancements required to go to the moon and Mars in the current effort will enable not only the development of an industrial base to support the rapid roll out of green improvements but make it more economical for the market.
It's a win win for anyone regardless of left right politics in the end. Not only the above, in the current political climate, what programs are you suggesting would do the same? Are they funded? Read the room dude. This is literally our only chance. You have the absolute worst possible take and you should stop because you make it less politically viable.
Home insulation: https://www.retrofoamofmichigan.com/hs-fs/hubfs/InsulationTimelineV2.jpg?width=1000&name=InsulationTimelineV2.jpg Fiberglass insulation existed 20 years before NASA. Cellulose insulation ~5 years before NASA.
Electrification: Don't see an invention here? Just a broad claim that 2 missions pushed people to electrify?
Your "fact" is still wrong.
Read the room dude. This is literally our only chance. You have the absolute worst possible take and you should stop because you make it less politically viable.
I don't care about the room. The room wants to put MILLIIONS of tons of CO2 in the air to go to a dead space rock that has nothing of value for humanity. Hell most of this "room" believes Musk's bullshit. This room is filled with ignorant idiots who think that living on Mars will be possible.
Edit: Oh and if you're referencing spray foam. That is a military product developed in the 1940's... Has nothing to do with NASA...
I'm referencing modern insulation, not spray foam. Additionally, NASA and it's prior organization was founded to develop aerospace technologies like spray foam. It literally counts as well.
The CO2 saved through the technologies required at scale will be worth a lot more CO2.
I'm glad you mentioned the military technologies because it is still relevant as we pivot to counter China in space. NASA is a significant part of that not only in industrial scale but also technologies critical to intelligence.
Fiberglass, Cellulose, and Spray foam are the current methods of insulation in a house. My house was built in 2001, I have fiberglass batting and Cellulose. ALL THREE OF THESE ARE OLDER THAN NASA.
No technology to date has reduced CO2 emissions, especially ones that send shit to space. You're delusional.
Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied. That is a categorically and demonstratively false statement in several different ways. Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments. They are significantly more carbon efficient than internal combination engines over their lifetime accounting for production and raw materials.
https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Miller_RANGE_Kickoff_2014.pdf
That's not to mention the solar technologies developed by NASA to power the things.
The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.
The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.
And yet you were the one that was proven wrong repeatedly. And yet again, can be proven wrong because I can indeed actually look things up. You could have ended the conversation much earlier by showing evidence that NASA had anything to do with anything you claimed. You've failed to do so.
Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_lithium-ion_battery
NASA, nor any member of NASA are credited for any part of the current cells we use in electric car batteries. Go ahead and click through EVERY name in the article from the 1970's... and probably the whole damn thing frankly. NASA isn't mentioned once. Weird since you say that NASA was integral to it all. No mention of NASA on any persons profile when clicked through either. NASA wasn't a part of this. What are you not getting through your skull?
Why are you attributing literally everything to NASA?
But let's look at these cute slides you've seem to have found.
Batteries mentioned:
Mercury 1959. Ag/Zn. Oops... https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/silver-zinc-batteries Made for military applications. Not NASA. NASA coopted an existing technology.
Gemini 1962. Ag/Zn already covered. PEM fuel cell, everyone shits on this now with hydrogen fuel cars... odd how NASA figured out batteries were shit in 1962, and went hydrogen cell.
Lunar Excursion Module. Ag/Zn...
LRV... Ag/Zn....
Apollo... Ag/Zn...
ISS... finally! Ag/Zn, AgO/Zn, Ni/Cd, Ni/H2, Li-Ion. Conveniently these slides don't say what time-frames the different cells went up. First module of ISS went up in 1998. Li-Ion was already in mass production in 1991, and was in lab testing since 1976... Ni/Cd were invented in 1899 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93cadmium_battery). Ni/H2 You might have found one! This one WAS developed for space travel. It went on the ISS(1998), Mercury Messenger(2004), Mars Odyssey(2001), and Mars Global Surveyor(1996). Long post-dating li-ion cells... And doesn't work anything near the same as current battery technologies. Or even past technologies.
Such a shame... what a weak argument. Maybe you could read this first before you reply...
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g43480930/history-of-electric-cars/
The first cars... from pre 1900 were battery powered. Are you going to tell me NASA helped with that? It's not innovative to put batteries on a rover... It's obvious as a solution since you can't bring a rover to a gas/petrol station now can you? We'd had already done it for a long time prior to space.
Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied.
Ah! Where did I say per capita? I didn't... But that's irrelevant anyway. Per capita for CO2 would be a worldwide stat, considering the outsourcing to china/other countries.... Which... and take a guess now... Has indeed NEVER gone down. It's plateaued... but never decreased.
With one exception... Lockdowns during COVID. But we're only dead on track to resume exactly where we were before.
Edit: Shit, forgot to add one more point... The Ni/H2 batteries were NAVY satellites originally... so not NASA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93hydrogen_battery
So what battery has NASA done?
Why is it that in your world NASA and the military are in no way linked? I've worked in defense procurement. Literally every time you mention defense procurement the core technologies were developed through NASA contracts and proof of concepts.
The reason I'm not sending you proof is because you aren't worth the time. These things are a matter of public record. You are so far off base that there is literally nothing I can send you that will pull your head out of the sand.
Literally every time you mention defense procurement
LMFAO, what a small world! I did to... for years.
The reason I’m not sending you proof is because you aren’t worth the time.
And yet I was worth the time for the hours you read and responded before? Nah, don't buy it. You just don't have actual evidence. Like I said, you could have skipped all of this nonsense by supply anything that positively links NASA to any of this. But you didn't.
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]
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]
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.
International morale
[deleted]
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]
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.
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?
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.