←back to thread

404 points voxleone | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
allenrb ◴[] No.45661384[source]
There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive:

1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.

2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now. They could have built a “dumb” second stage at any time, but aren’t that short-sighted.

3. Blue Origin? I’ve had high hopes for the guys for two decades now. Don’t hold your breath.

4. Anyone else? Really, really don’t hold your breath.

This whole “race to the moon, part II” is almost criminally stupid. Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.

replies(37): >>45661569 #>>45661650 #>>45661812 #>>45661864 #>>45662019 #>>45662078 #>>45662268 #>>45662530 #>>45662636 #>>45662805 #>>45662869 #>>45663083 #>>45663232 #>>45663254 #>>45664108 #>>45664333 #>>45664434 #>>45664870 #>>45665102 #>>45665180 #>>45665389 #>>45665607 #>>45665948 #>>45666137 #>>45666225 #>>45666739 #>>45667016 #>>45667353 #>>45667484 #>>45667622 #>>45668139 #>>45668273 #>>45671330 #>>45671920 #>>45674500 #>>45674624 #>>45680644 #
Waterluvian ◴[] No.45662078[source]
Re: 1. I think the America of Theseus mindset is a bit troubling. A lot of people like to identify with achievements that they played no role in. Based on zero expertise whatsoever, I have a sense that this is a bit self defeating. To be born a winner, to be taught you’re a winner… how can that be healthy?

Today’s America scores zero points for its accomplishments of the past. But I think one way it can be a good thing is the, “we’ve done it before, we can do it again” attitude. Which is somewhat opposite to “we already won!”

replies(11): >>45662345 #>>45662614 #>>45662879 #>>45663082 #>>45663420 #>>45663980 #>>45665687 #>>45666641 #>>45667851 #>>45668570 #>>45670573 #
whtrbt ◴[] No.45662879[source]
_America of Theseus_ is a great shorthand for what you're describing. Did you just come up with it then?
replies(1): >>45663113 #
fsckboy ◴[] No.45663113[source]
America of Theseus is a great phrase, quite apt for describing "the American Experiment" and the numerous ways America reinvents itself. but I don't see how this usage of it provides any discernable meaning. Ship of Theseus is more a question than an answer, so saying "America of Theseus, therefore 1969 or any connection to it is irrelevant" doesn't follow.
replies(1): >>45663191 #
Waterluvian ◴[] No.45663191{3}[source]
I think it’s apt because the Ship of Theseus as a thought experiment is unanswerable. It’s both. It’s neither.

America does keep reinventing itself. It has few of the same parts as before, but it still resembles some concept of “America” in many ways. In that way it is the same ship.

But is it the same ship? Can it win a space race today that a previous manifestation of America could? Maybe it’s not the same ship and what it could do in the 60s it can no longer do today.

I certainly don’t think it’s a question that demands an answer. Perfectly valid to choose not to show up to the starting line. But having run that race under the same banner generations ago doesn’t tell us much about the America today.

replies(2): >>45663719 #>>45664119 #
1. ordu ◴[] No.45663719{4}[source]
My comment is borderline off topic, but I just can leave it at that. Sorry.

> I think it’s apt because the Ship of Theseus as a thought experiment is unanswerable.

It is answerable, you just need to go meta a little. You can argue that the Ship of Theseus doesn't exist (and didn't existed) because it is just a lot of wood. You can use reductionism further and say that wood doesn't exist, it is a bunch of atoms or quarks or whatever. The ship is just a leaky abstraction people are forced use because of their cognitive limitations. But if it is an abstraction, not a "real" thing, then I see no issues with the ship existing (in a limited sense) even after it changed all the atoms it consists of.

The other approach is to declare that a ship is not a thing, but a process. Like you do when talking about people, who change their atoms all the time, but they still keep they identity in a "magical" way. If you see people as a process, then it doesn't matter how often it replaces its matter with another matter. Like a tornado, which exists while exchanging matter with environment all the time and still being the same tornado. Or like a wave on a water surface, it doesn't have any atoms moving like a wave, but still a wave exists.

> It has few of the same parts as before, but it still resembles some concept of “America” in many ways.

It doesn't matter if there any old parts left, what matters is a continuous history.

> But is it the same ship?

It is the same ship, but its properties are changing over time. Like when people become older, some of them become wiser for example, some become physically weaker.

> But having run that race under the same banner generations ago doesn’t tell us much about the America today.

Yeah, with this I can fully agree. BTW we don't know was the Ship of Theseus becoming better or worse after repairs, but I'd bet that its maximum speed was changing due to repairs.