US commits to landing an international astronaut on the Moon
arstechnica.com
This ticket to the Moon will probably go to a European or Japanese astronaut.

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.

    • @[email protected]English
      6•1 year ago

      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.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•1 year ago

          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.

            • @[email protected]English
              1•1 year ago

              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.

                • @[email protected]English
                  0•1 year ago

                  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.