Very awesome creator who is in-depth and does great videos on anything space related.

Thought this video on him talking about Mars was interesting. Haven't heard of the "iron rod" tactic of creating a magnetic field.

  • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.ml
    hexagon
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago
    1. Agreed. Is it not good to hypothesize and think about these things though? We are perfectly capable of doing both. The application of these technologies could also assist in preventing climate change on our own planet.

    2. Yes and no; Underwater I could agree with as there might be things out there that could be of massive scientific benefit. However, if your concern is with saving the planet...wouldn't you want the capitalists to turn their attention to the sky before they start digging in our most precious, untouched reserves of nature? Nodule mining is already causing oxygen-death events in the deeper parts of our oceans.

    3. NASA and ESA aren't "billionaire pet projects". Nor was the СССР. JMG was citing ESA and NASA in the video and he isn't a politician....did you watch it? That is just outright insulting to generations of people who have furthered scientific discoveries beyond just "space" in the pursuit of reaching the skies.

    Camera phones. Baby formula. Cordless tools. Three pretty major things we all have used to this day have come from "space"-funded research dedicated to furthering space travel. I'd say baby formula actually was pretty beneficial in preventing starvation and pandemics of preventable illnesses. There's more too, should I list more? I get that you don't give a fuck but that is just outright ignorant.

    1. I can still agree with this and believe we should be hypothesizing, thinking of these things and trialing technologies that could also help material conditions on Earth. This isn't ignoring any of those issues.
    • GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]
      ·
      26 days ago
      1. Fair. We can have unlimited care for both, but money, resources, time, and labor are finite. So I would say: allocate those to projects on our own planet.

      2. My point was this: if we can't even build anything underwater or in Antarctica that is fit for human civilization, why should we even consider extra planetary settlements? It's like saying, "I can't run a mile in under 10 minutes, but I think I'll run a full marathon and finish first!" Talk about settlements on Mars and the moon after you build them in the most inhospitable parts of the Earth.

      3. 🟦 Nothing you mentioned was actually made by NASA for the purpose of "space" it was made for the purpose of defense. It just so happens that you can market and sell the stuff for defense and war to regular people sometimes. Like GPS, internet, cell phones, etc. 🟨 I'm not trying to insult the scientists, but let's be frank: how many of these people (not politicians or billionaires) talk about this stuff for the purpose of securing funding for research? Even scientists need to eat, and I don't blame them. At the same time, I value their research and work. Truly I do, but I care more about the climate scientist's research than the astrophysicist's because in <100 years the climate will seriously complicate human life on the earth and will lead to more wars and instability. Space research gets so much more attention than it reasonably should.

      4. Also fair. I guess I'm going too hard on space research, but can you blame me? After seeing all those billionaires' vanity projects, knowing the money that paid for those rockets was stolen from workers, knowing that those billionaires who will continue to fund these projects are also the ones destroying our planet for profit, I have a right to be skeptical and just not interested in space. After all, it's not like regular people are going up there; it's going to be plutocrats and their trust fund, fail children who will be up there thinking that they deserve to be up there and reap untold profits bc they're the innovators that took the risk, without them we would have nothing.