This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
IMHO this is evidence of increased competence, not decreased. We spent hundreds of billions of (inflation-adjusted) dollars to develop the Apollo program, with a marginal cost of billions of dollars per mission, and because we prized speed over sustainability we had very little to show for it in the end besides expendable rockets we couldn't afford to keep using. Even SLS (at mere tens of billions of dollars to develop!) isn't that bad, and Starship HLS (a few billion NASA dollars, on top of a few more billions of private investment with an actual expected return and commercial use cases, with sub-billion-dollar marginal costs at worst) is an absolute bargain by comparison. The major flaw of Starship HLS is that high capabilities come with a high level of technical risk (though not quite as high as I thought it was before I watched the giant robot arms catch the decelerating megarocket on their first try...), and we're even mitigating that now with Blue Moon as backup. There's definitely some structural problems inherent to the way everyone always pretends to believe that this time the brand-new aerospace development programs won't be delayed, but we're at least getting something out of the delays.
I agree that going to the Moon then was a waste of time, a fundamentally ill-conceived PR stunt. But it was executed very well! They had to invent just about everything they needed, including computers. They faced far more constraints than the Artemis program in terms of materials, technology, doing things for the first time. However progress on Artemis has been very slow and not that cheap either.
$93 Billion has already been spent (in contrast to $200-250 billion on Apollo) and nobody is on the Moon, it doesn't seem that NASA has gotten any more efficient, despite enormous advancements in the last 60 years. SpaceX of course is a different story.
I think it's a little like consumer computer software. The hardware gets enormously more powerful but the software runs just as slowly due to shoddy practices and bloat piling up. There is no excuse for Microsoft Word to lag for several seconds as I load a 2800 KB document on a very fast PC but it does anyway!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link