You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death. The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless, instead of zero gravity they’re just in low gravity, which we can achieve without even going to the ISS, low orbit would do the trick with even lower risk. This is a publicity stunt to compensate for the US looking like a fucking joke, extra risk for no extra benefit beyond showing off.
All of what you said is reasonable at a glance, still it’s not relevant to my argument.
Reasons exist.
Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.
If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.
What i will do is put down my uneducated answers to your response.
You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.
Increasing output of existing members is unlikely to be equivalent to data from entirely new test subjects.
40% more data on existing subjects isn’t the same as 40% additional data from new subjects.
For a more equal comparison you’d need to ship new people to the ISS and then your argument would only be true if there was zero risk of death in getting new people to the ISS.
The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless, instead of zero gravity they’re just in low gravity, which we can achieve without even going to the ISS, low orbit would do the trick with even lower risk.
That’s subjective but you could be right, i’d possibly argue that the combination of factors in space in addition to the low gravity would be different than a terrestrial equivalent, so a low gravity experiment in the ISS might be a better comparison.
I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.
This is a publicity stunt to compensate for the US looking like a fucking joke, extra risk for no extra benefit beyond showing off.
Possibly, i’d guess likely, but again i don’t know enough to have a reasonable opinion on this.
You can put new people on the ISS, fucking duh, and it’s still much lower risk than a moon mission. Not zero risk, just significantly lower risk for the same results, as I already said.
The difference between zero and low gravity is not subjective.
“Justifications exist for this course of action even if they’re stupid” is a bad argument to make and you should stop making it, if you know you’re not qualified to evaluate the validity of those justifications then quit trying
You can put new people on the ISS, fucking duh, and it’s still much lower risk than a moon mission. Not zero risk, just significantly lower risk for the same results, as I already said.
If you’ll go back and read what i said i was responding directly to the quote :
You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.
The difference between zero and low gravity is not subjective.
Agreed, It’s a good job that isn’t what i was claiming then, “The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless” is subjective.
“Justifications exist for this course of action even if they’re stupid” is a bad argument to make and you should stop making it,
Not what i said originally , it’s in the chat history, please try harder.
I’ll put down the sentence you wrote, and my response to it.
There is literally zero reason for us to put people in space when we can send drones to do it.
response
There are several reasons to put actual people in to space.
They might be reasons you think worth it, but they do exist.
The follow up :
Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.
Doesn’t imply the reasons are bad, just that they are irrelevant.
if you know you’re not qualified to evaluate the validity of those justifications then quit trying
If you think qualifications are required for statements clearly stated as opinions then feel free to provide yours.
Also, not what i said, you should really read the comments properly before responding to them, if you incorrectly paraphrase text that is easily accessible if makes you look incompetent.
Not directly referencing the text you are paraphrasing because it wouldn’t help your pseudo argument if you did, is also a weak move.
If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.
a bit further down is :
I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.
and that has a specific context attached to it, arguing against a point while pretending the clearly established context doesn’t exist is also not a good look.
This is somewhat disappointing, at least come up with something that will hold up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny.
You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death. The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless, instead of zero gravity they’re just in low gravity, which we can achieve without even going to the ISS, low orbit would do the trick with even lower risk. This is a publicity stunt to compensate for the US looking like a fucking joke, extra risk for no extra benefit beyond showing off.
All of what you said is reasonable at a glance, still it’s not relevant to my argument.
Reasons exist.
Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.
If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.
What i will do is put down my uneducated answers to your response.
Increasing output of existing members is unlikely to be equivalent to data from entirely new test subjects.
40% more data on existing subjects isn’t the same as 40% additional data from new subjects.
For a more equal comparison you’d need to ship new people to the ISS and then your argument would only be true if there was zero risk of death in getting new people to the ISS.
That’s subjective but you could be right, i’d possibly argue that the combination of factors in space in addition to the low gravity would be different than a terrestrial equivalent, so a low gravity experiment in the ISS might be a better comparison.
I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.
Possibly, i’d guess likely, but again i don’t know enough to have a reasonable opinion on this.
You can put new people on the ISS, fucking duh, and it’s still much lower risk than a moon mission. Not zero risk, just significantly lower risk for the same results, as I already said.
The difference between zero and low gravity is not subjective.
“Justifications exist for this course of action even if they’re stupid” is a bad argument to make and you should stop making it, if you know you’re not qualified to evaluate the validity of those justifications then quit trying
If you’ll go back and read what i said i was responding directly to the quote :
Agreed, It’s a good job that isn’t what i was claiming then, “The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless” is subjective.
Not what i said originally , it’s in the chat history, please try harder.
I’ll put down the sentence you wrote, and my response to it.
response
The follow up :
Doesn’t imply the reasons are bad, just that they are irrelevant.
If you think qualifications are required for statements clearly stated as opinions then feel free to provide yours.
Also, not what i said, you should really read the comments properly before responding to them, if you incorrectly paraphrase text that is easily accessible if makes you look incompetent.
Not directly referencing the text you are paraphrasing because it wouldn’t help your pseudo argument if you did, is also a weak move.
a bit further down is :
and that has a specific context attached to it, arguing against a point while pretending the clearly established context doesn’t exist is also not a good look.
This is somewhat disappointing, at least come up with something that will hold up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny.