• jeremy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not much to gain by going there. Wildly corrosive, too hot, too hard to terraform with present tech.

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Terraforming isn’t on the table anywhere. We can’t even stop fucking up this planet, let alone unfuck it, let alone apply much more advanced unfucking tech on planets without any of the environmental cycles we take for granted.

        Space programs do science stuff and military stuff. Revisiting Venus would be for science stuff.

        • jeremy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Space programs definitely do science and stuff. All I meant to say was that Venus might not be the lowest hanging fruit for scientific discovery. It’s really expensive to go there. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
          I see now how my post could read as an elon-fanboi type “colonize all the things” and that was not what I intended. I do think Atmospheric sensor clusters on Venus would be pretty awesome. It could give us an interesting set of insights into a wildly different environment.

      • TheCaconym [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        At 50km high it is literally the most Earth-like environment in the whole of the solar system (outside of Earth / the ISS / Tiāngōng obviously)

        You wouldn’t even need a spacesuit or a pressure suit to stand outside, just a respirator and some light protection against acid

          • TheCaconym [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            One of the only places in our system where you could feel the wind of another planet in a cool 25C against your face without protection except for eye goggles (not for very long though, again, acid).

            The idea of floating outposts there is at least 50 years old (and comes from a soviet scientist originally IIRC); balloons filled with breathable air - which is a nice reserve for the same as a bonus - would have enough buoyancy at this altitude to support relatively large outposts attached to them. Not only that, the cosmic ray protection afforded by the atmosphere at that altitude is basically similar to the one on Earth; and those balloons wouldn’t need to be pressurized either, just filled, meaning if you get a leak you have potentially hours to fix it (or even days / more if you connect several such balloons together with some buoyancy margin).

      • TerminalEncounter [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean other than scientific discovery like what’s up with the phosphine, we keep detecting it and debunking it sure would be nice to have something floating there to figure it out (or landed for however long they last)

      • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        1 year ago

        hard to terraform with present tech

        What place isn’t hard to terraform with present tech?

        Hell, even terraforming Earth with present tech can prove a challenge at times.

  • SootySootySoot [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve never seen a more accurate application of this meme, honestly. The amount of grandstanding by the US on one achievement out of a hundred is impressive.

  • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    It always comes across to me as maximum cope when Americans brag about “winning the space race”. I mean, even if it was true, the US’s economy was massively wealthier than the USSR’s. This “race” was literally between the wealthiest country on earth and a very poor country. Even at the height of the USSR, its GDP was only about half that of the US’s.

    It really does not show the US’s “strength” to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources. It’s a sign of weakness to actually even be in a “race” with a developing country to begin with, which suggests they are actually competitive and have a chance of winning.

    That’s really what the whole “space race” shows. It does not matter who “won”, the very fact a poor developing nation could compete with the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth in the first place demonstrates the extraordinary weakness of the capitalist system.

    The US only placed a man on the moon because of NASA, which they founded as a direct response to the Soviets launching Sputnik. Meaning, the US literally only implemented this space program as a response to the Soviets, they were not a natural outgrowth of the US’s system and would not have happened without the Soviets (as we have seen NASA massively defunded ever since). The fact the US even got on the moon in the first place only happened because of the USSR.

    That was back in 1969, and we’re now in 2022 yet, funnily enough, the capitalist private sector has not got a man that far yet.

    —aimixin

    • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It really does not show the US’s “strength” to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources.

      It really does show the US’s strength when no country has nearly the same amount of resources.

      “Everyone else being weaker than you does not show your strength” is a very odd take.

        • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

          Yes, the US has a large amount of wealth. That is what makes them strong.

          they ought to perform better

          So you’re saying they should be even stronger (than the strongest nation to ever exist)?

          Or are you saying that “strength” is not about the total power one has, but about the efficiency with which one can convert resources into power?

              • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                21
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So if you agree that the US obtained its wealth through plundering and imperialism then what the fuck was your original point? I don’t think you have one and you’re trying to debate just to debate.

                • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  My first comment:

                  It really does not show the US’s “strength” to brag so much about winning against someone with so much less resources.

                  It really does show the US’s strength when no country has nearly the same amount of resources.

                  That was my sole point. Noone having nearly as much resources as the US does show the US’s strength.

                  It does not matter how they aquired those resources or how strong they could theoretically be.

                  My point was simple and clear from the beginning on: USA = strong.

          • iie [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There are different kinds of strength. One kind of strength is to be really good at colonizing and plundering the rest of the world. Another kind of strength is to be really good at dreaming of new horizons and using limited resources to reach them. America has more of the first kind of strength, the USSR had more of the second kind.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

            Do you not understand what plundering is?

            Wealth extraction from the global south into the global north via american companies involved in resource extraction - minerals, gases, etc etc. Rights to said resources gained at the barrel of the gun of the US military itself or a coup instigated by the CIA.

            For the love of god read a book about modern imperialism and how it works and save us from your international political illiteracy. https://resistir.info/livros/imperialism_john_smith.pdf

            • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You completely deviated from the original point.

              Never did I claim that the USA gained their strength rightfully, so why are you arguing against that?

              I only ever claimed that the USA having significantly more resources does show their strength.

              You can discuss the bad things the USA does and has done, but I don’t know why you’re discussing them with me.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You said you did not understand what the other person was saying. This can only come from not really understanding what imperialism is and how it functions.

                I explained what they were saying.

                You are now trying to divert away from that. Because it is not a topic you wish to engage in while you do this nationalist thing of engaging in apologetics and sly weasel-word half-hearted US support.

                • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Is guess I could’ve said “I’m not sure why you’re arguing” instead of “I’m not sure what you’re arguing”.

                  you do this nationalist thing

                  I’m not American, how would speaking well of a nation I’ve never even visited be nationalist? (I can already imagine you calling me a traitor to my own country)

                  half-hearted US support

                  As opposed to full-hearted US support? You don’t have to be extremely against something or extremely for something (though I’m aware extreme leftists would like to see it that way).

                  I do recognize the negative things the US does and has done. But that does not mean that I’ll unreasonably make up negatives (like the USA not being strong while being the strongest nation).

                  There are enough factual things to dislike the USA about, no need to make stuff up on top of that.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Politically illiterate dumbass posts a self-own.

            This image depicts liberals and fascists being close to each other, while the far-left (hexbear) is far away from them.

            • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes. And that’s what “hexbears be like”.

              Because you call anyone not far left a liberal, therefore not differentiating between people who are not far left.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Do you think fascism is something unique? Different from capitalism in some way?

                Fascism is not unique or different from capitalism. It is capitalism converted into a format that allows the highest level of extreme violence to be carried out against its enemies. It occurs when capitalists feel threatened by socialists, gaining monetary support, media and backing from the bourgeoisie who recognise the need to use ultra-violence to exterminate the revolutionary threat to their existence. It is not a separate or unique thing to capitalism. It is still capitalism.

                We only need to look at the places where fascism was not defeated to see proof of this. The fascists won in Spain and in Chile, they were not defeated like they were in Italy or Germany. What happened there? Did fascism ever become anything unique? No it did not. The fascists maintained and even increased capitalism, the term “privatisation” comes from Hitler himself. Over time in the countries where fascism won, once they defeated the left, exterminated them and their leadership, rendered them inert and no longer a threat to their bourgeoisie, these countries simply morphed back into liberalism which is a more efficient form of exploitation and extraction. Once the ultra violence was no longer required they morph back into “friendly” versions.

                It is this that you are seeing when we discuss fascists and liberals in the same breath. They are allies in their support for capitalism and opposition to socialism.

                And who exactly becomes the fascists? They don’t simply spawn out of a spawning pool. They were liberals until the media, money and influence of the bourgeoisie backing the conversion of society to fascism successfully radicalises them to the cause.

          • iie [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I just see *removed externally hosted image*

            here’s a link to the picture this person posted https://lemdro.id/pictrs/image/d6c8a45d-d579-48de-903b-6d7f5f885fe0.jpeg

            maybe I’m daft but this picture makes no sense to me. So leftists are on the left, liberals are in the middle, and… I guess the point is that instead of continuing rightward it loops back around to liberal again? Are you mocking leftists for lumping liberals and conservatives together?

              • iie [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I never finished writing my response. ADHD and too many tabs :/


                We lump them together because liberal and conservative politicians are unanimous on a lot of topics we care about.

                off the top of my head, US politicians from both parties:

                • do nothing about climate change
                • want owners rather than workers to control production – this is sort of a big deal to communists!
                • serve (and often are themselves) business owners, bankers, and landlords rather than working people
                  • Clinton deregulated finance and contributed to the 2008 crisis, allowed huge corporate media mergers, and tried to privatize social security
                  • Obama let Citigroup pick his 2008 cabinet, did fuckall to help foreclosed Americans, and presided over the largest upward transfer of wealth in US history
                  • Biden has done next to nothing to protect American workers from COVID, and rail workers are still on-call 24/7 with only eight sick days a year
                  • 70% of Americans want single-payer healthcare but it remains politically impossible
                • support wars and coups
                  • Clinton bombed and sanctioned Iraq back to the stone age, causing around 1.5 million deaths
                  • liberal media helped sell the Iraq war, which caused over a million further deaths in Iraq
                  • Obama obliterated the once-prosperous country of Libya, and there are now open-air slave markets
                  • Biden continues to support the siege in Yemen, which has killed hundreds of thousands
                • support massive wealth extraction from the global south
                  • IMF and World Bank loans that enforce austerity and depress wages

                shrug-outta-hecks

                and on social issues, democrats are one half of a one-way ratchet: republicans make it worse, democrats do not make it better

                some more thoughts

                I think there are two reasons democrats are ineffective on social issues, and maybe you’ll find them too cynical: 1) as long as our basic rights are in jeopardy, we have no leverage to ask for progress, on things like universal healthcare, that the rich donors oppose, and 2) offering effective resistance would set the precedent that the government has the power to help people, and then people might ask for more improvements to our lives, which, again, the rich donors oppose. And for that matter, a lot of the politicians themselves have backgrounds as rich businessmen, bankers, executives, and landlords, so their own class interests oppose ours.

                So, anyway, liberal and conservative politicians look similar to us.

                But sometimes the voters also look similar, especially the well-off ones! I have heard so many disgusting takes about the homeless from well-off liberals. And no one seems to really oppose the massive wealth extraction from the global south. And too many support wars and coups at the time and then oppose them later when the lies come out, only to support the next one and believe the next lies. Too many liberals seem to support awful things, tolerate them, or have no knowledge of them.

                Now this is me going on a petty tangent, but I also think there are some annoying cultural differences between certain liberals and socialists. Many liberals buy into meritocratic myths. They see liberal politicians as the adults in the room making the hard decisions, while ignoring the class interests of those politicians. They fawn over British royals. They watch shows about aristocrats and DC politicians. They watch game shows where working class people try to appease a panel of rich judges. And way too often, liberals seem to care more about civility and norms than about what actually happens in the world. As soon as Trump came to power, W. Bush was fucking rehabilitated in an instant. Never mind the wars, never mind 2008. At least he was civil.

                Maybe I’m being too harsh, but this is the impression I get.


                …But anyway, the bottom line here is that we’re socialists. We want workers to control production. Liberals, and conservatives, don’t.

                you might disagree with the points I raised, and that’s fine — just realize that we communists do have our reasons to lump liberals and conservatives together. It’s not just vibes. We have an actual coherent perspective lol.

    • Blue and Orange@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      The images from Venus are absolutely fascinating. If I recall, the craft that took the first images burned up after a very short amount of time (like 50 or so minutes) because of the extreme heat.

    • SlowNoPoPo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like the tortoise and the hare, us caught the soviets sleeping

      No one gives a shit who’s first at the check points just who crosses the line first

      • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        1 year ago

        When it comes to contributions to the body of international science, putting space stations in the air and putting rovers on planets are a lot more important than the propaganda victory of a spacewalk. A person doing a spacewalk on the moon isn’t even as efficient at collecting mineral and soil samples as a rover would be. It’s also kinda irresponsible since it puts lives at higher risk than just doing standard space missions.

        At the end of the day though, this is just a communist shitpost. Science has always been international collaboration and not a national chauvinist thing. Communists are the first to acknowledge that since communism is an internationalist ideology that upholds the working class.

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That really depends on where you consider the “finish line” to be? Is it the Moon, Mars, Venus?

        The Soviets have done things in space that the US has not, like sending a probe to Venus. That’s why I bring up my first point. The Soviets were also the first to land a probe on Mars. The US has also done things the Soviets have not, like sending a man to the moon. So where do we define the end point for the “space race”?

        • SlowNoPoPo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol

          '" we didn’t want to anyway"

          Also completely false anyway, they wanted to and failed

  • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s two different approaches to the moon.

    The Americans’ F-1 rocket engine that powered the Apollo flights was truly impressive, and remains one of the most powerful single combustion rocket engine ever made. However, they were gas generator engines that are highly inefficient, which is why today you won’t see the Americans trying to go to the moon using the same design.

    The Soviet N1 moon rocket was instead powered by 30 small but far more efficient NK-15 engines. The problem for them was that the computer system used at the time (KORD) was not responsive enough to react to multiple rapidly occurring processes and which led to faulty controls during launch.

    To put it another way, the Americans strapped on the bigger but less efficient rocket engines and got lucky. The Soviets tried a novel and innovative design that was way ahead of their time and failed.

    However, the Soviets shall get the last laugh, because 50 years later the American SpaceX company would copy the same concept for their super heavy lift vehicle design (Super Heavy used for Starship), which in many ways conceded that the Soviet design was a more viable one.

    On the left: N-1 (1969-72), on the right: SpaceX Super Heavy (April 2022, which exploded during the test launch)

    Reminder that even 50 years later, SpaceX Starship also experienced failure during its first orbital test flight despite advances in technology and especially leaps in computing power.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      However, the Soviets shall get the last laugh, because 50 years later the American SpaceX company would copy the same concept for their super heavy lift vehicle design (Super Heavy used for Starship), which in many ways conceded that the Soviet design was a more viable one

      This happens often in American industry, especially aeronautics . More promising designs are considered “ahead of their time” and often lose out to more conventional designs, only for the more promising designs to return later and be adopted. With regards to fighter jets, one just needs to look at the YF-23 vs the YF-22. The battle for the fifth gen fighter jet program. The YF-23 was faster, stealthier, more maneuverable in most common scenarios. The YF-22 ended up winning, and becoming the F-22, because it had thrust vectoring and was more appealing to conventional tactics. But now that the US wants to build a sixth gen fighter plane, and other countries want to build 5.5 gen planes, all the proposed designs look extremely similar to the YF-23. Almost as if it was the better overall design. Similar is happening with the Airforce’s proposed replacement for the F-35, the replacement looks like a clone of an F-16XL. An experimental design that also lost out on a contract to the F15E if I remember correctly, but is now coming back.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You probably mean sapience and not sentience, because dogs and monkeys definitely can feel things.

            I’m going to give an opinion that some may not agree with. The most ethical form of eating meat is from an animal that can consent. Since we can’t ask a dog, monkey, cow, pig, etc. if they want to be consumed, the most ethical meat is humans who consent to it. If you disagree please explain how.

            The same goes for sending things into space to die for us.

            • Catradora_Stalinism [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What if I just don’t care. I’m against needless cruelty, but for the near future we will need some amount of meant (until correct substitutes are found). The things bred for centuries to be meat will continue to do so for the near future, until we have the time and effort to spare in order to change it.

              As someone above pointed out to me, the testing nor space deployment of animals was not truly necessary for any data, its all needless cruelty that gives no results. That practice should be ended.

              edit: and thank you for the correction

        • TheCaconym [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’ll probably get flak for this but I agree.

          if humans can only progress into space by first kidnapping animals, then they don’t deserve to see the stars.

          Indeed; I’d have happily volunteered instead of a monkey or a cat for such an endeavour for the benefit of our species; and I’m sure I’m not the only one. There’s something far more moral about testing such things with people fully aware of what they’re doing and the risks compared to sentient beings not comprehending what’s happening to them and likely being in a panic all along the way. There should be a word for it, really.

          Oh wait, I think there is: consent

          im-vegan btw