Comment by palata
4 days ago
It's not science, it's engineering. I don't think it's advancing science in a way that wouldn't be possible with a fraction of the cost without sending humans there.
4 days ago
It's not science, it's engineering. I don't think it's advancing science in a way that wouldn't be possible with a fraction of the cost without sending humans there.
The distinction is kind of meaningless, advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science.
And as I said, agreed on the concerns about cost and sending humans.
> The distinction is kind of meaningless
Only if it helps you to call this "science", I would say.
> advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science
In this case, we are advancing our engineering capabilities to make humans survive in space, which is arguably completely useless.
Not only that, but we keep focusing on the easier and fun part for engineers. A real problem for surviving in space is life support, see e.g. this: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-long-duration-....
But it is a lot less fun than sending humans around the moon in a ship that doesn't need them at all, isn't it?
[dead]