this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
157 points (99.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13811 readers
762 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah you're doing the spaceflight equivalent of the great horse manure crisis. Earth-to-space technology begins with rockets.
What else would possibly produce enough energy? Some imaginary technology we haven't made yet? Something that defies the laws of matter and energy? We just assume we will find or create something before that fuel runs out, even though there isn't a solid reason for us to make these assumptions other that "Sci-fi movies told me so."
Expecting something that we have no reason to assume exists to save us isn't any different from believing in the second coming.
How is it neo-luddite to accept the reality that we need to carefully plan our resources and not just expect shit will go like the movies? If anything expecting space travel to be like a video game hampers our ability to find solutions that don't live up the the "space colonial" ideal. Sure, if we figure out how to mine asteroids in my lifetime without expending more resources than we would gain, fine, I'll eat my hat. But you're talking a round trip of insanely heavy stuff over unfathomable distances when Space X currently can barely put people in orbit.
You are the one treating spaceflight like a video game here. FTL, stagnancy, and unrealistically efficient rockets are mainstays in that genre. Dialectical materialist analysis of the development of human civilization is not.
Hmm I'll take your word for it, but I still don't think it's unreasonable to consider that the resources of a planet can dictate a civilisations technology.
Of course resources are a limitation. But instead of investigating a supposed limitation and seeing what can be overcome and what is truly fundamental, you have people either giving up and calling the issue intractable or not putting in the work while expecting it to be resolved. Example: liquid fuels. Inside of America there are two wolves—one correctly notes the high carbon cost of liquid hydrocarbons and the high money cost of synthesizing them and concludes there is no future for liquid fuels, while the other hears "synthetic fuels" and assumes the problem is already solved and so electrification need not be hurried. In reality, the high money cost can be overcome with sufficient buildup of renewables, as is beginning to be seen in China and will become obvious in the 2030s.
I see your point.
You're speaking without any investigation in the matter. In the 21st century, advanced spaceplanes, electromagnetic rail assisted launches (there was even a post about this here, and it concerned China so everyone was a big fan), and sustainable & advanced energy infrastructure that can synthesize fuels is the future of the launch industry. Eventually, costly and complex infrastructure projects such as skyhooks and launch loops can be employed. The task of humanity is to develop the productive forces that enable such projects, not throw our hands up in the air and pretend we will be stuck with the Saturn V and fossil fuels for all eternity.