I feel I need to say something about Artemis as a former NASA employee, Space scientist and engineer.

[urwumpe@hessen.social]

@SamanthaJaneSmith which technology are we rediscovering? Did the Orion spacecraft fly in 1969? Did most people at NASA, that work on Artemis, already work on Apollo ? Or even one? Yes, the mission does superficially that Apollo 13 already did. But it does that with a new spacecraft on a new launcher with lots of new technologies, intentionally and planned, more safely than ever.

I am more angry for killing Gateway. That was a bad decision to please guys that badly need phallic spacecraft...

[naturemc@mastodon.online]

@woozle For me, the ISS is also a symbol that humankind could much better cooperate on earth. When astronauts of "enemy' states can live and work together in such a small room, we could also live in peace on earth.
My dream is still that spaceflights become a global cooperation (yes, I watched the very first Star Trek and the first moon landing live.)
@SamanthaJaneSmith @paranoiapen

[danana_dread@tech.lgbt]

@SamanthaJaneSmith I'm usually more cynical, but I was getting the sense this was to rekindle a love of space, esp. in young people (hence all the historic firsts, the excitement of setting up trans lunar infrastructure for future lunar presence, and the tech being used to give a sense of humanity and realness to the vehicle and it's occupants throughout the mission).

I also got the sense this was more positioned in *spite* of the current administration in the US that's been gutting NASA. Not a single mention of the Trump administration, or even the federal government.

I read it more as NASA trying to rise above the current moment, to show that the US isn't it's government. Its people can still be international partners to the world, and still do good and inspiring things together with them.

I'm happy it's happening, and suppose that even my usually cynical heart sees this all pretty differently.

[jwcph@helvede.net]

@SamanthaJaneSmith Let's be clear, the Apollo program was political theater, too - cold war & all that. Personally I applaud exploiting that sort of thing for scientific progress. As for going to the Moon, don't think scientific projects of that magnitude is the kind of thing you do once & go "Welp, nothing more to learn!", pretty sure Artemis is still going to produce a valuable science & engineering yield.

As for Trump, he's too stupid to take credit without getting laughed at.

[isaackuo@spacey.space]

@SamanthaJaneSmith "The only way humans can possibly go [much further than Mars] is through a scientific breakthrough."

I think it's best done without scientific breakthroughs, but it does require serious investment in straightforward science and technology progress.

We need long term physiological data on low gee exposure - a spin gravity station in LEO could provide this.

We also need ISRU of propellant, at which point chemical rocket propulsion is both optimal and sustainable.

[isaackuo@spacey.space]

@SamanthaJaneSmith Neither of these requires a scientific breakthrough, but rather a serious long term investment in straightforward scientific research and technological development.

Not "throw money at the billionaires that bribe their way into the trough," of course.

[samanthajanesmith@lgbtqia.space]

@10tothe22 True but we entering an era of non-truth and while Trump will be dead many of the tech bros won't.

[brotherpsyche@mastodon.social]

@SamanthaJaneSmith definitely in line with the sentiment, also hoping the astronauts get back to their families

[jodmentum@apobangpo.space]

@SamanthaJaneSmith “I can't pay no doctor bills
But Whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now I'll be paying still
While Whitey's on the moon.”

Gil Scott-Heron approved

[deviledeggpress@mastodon.social]

@SamanthaJaneSmith I recently wrote an article for my blog that happened to focus on NASA in 1989 when agency officials talked about establishing a permanent moon base no later than 2020 and putting humans on Mars by 2030. Even then, it was clear this was based on unrealistic expectations of long-term government funding. And that was with a White House and Congress not openly hostile to science.

[woozle@toot.cat]

@NatureMC

More space exploration, more science, more caring and empathy.

Less bombs and stupidity.

(I was too young for Trek's first run, but I do remember the moon landing. One of the good things my dad did...)

@SamanthaJaneSmith @paranoiapen

[hyc@mastodon.social]

@urwumpe @SamanthaJaneSmith Indeed, it's not the same technology we had before, and most of that technology (like Saturn V) is lost and not reproducible anyway. This is still progress, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such.

It will only be wasted effort if we stop here (again) instead of building on it further.

[olson@sfba.social]

@SamanthaJaneSmith

Thank you for saying that. The money could have been used for grants like curing cancer or Alzheimer’s. Feeding the poor. Housing people. I could go on…

[menakd@gardenstate.social]

@SamanthaJaneSmith I had a hard time justifying this in my mind, but talking to my Gen Z son, he pointed out that the cost for this is minuscule compared to the DoD budget, and he sees this as a way to get young scientists and engineers excited about the future that generally looks pretty bleak. I’d love to see the defense budget slashed (but still pay all the military families a good wage) and fund NASA which has the ability through research to truly make the world better.