[mrtksn]

TBF there’s very little change on what we can do more than what was achieved in the 60s. The current space boom is a re-do with better tooling. We can put better computers in space and that’s what gives us anything more than what we had before. The moon and Mars are PR stuff and would be cool and maybe inspire engineers or scientists but its still slight incremental upgrade to what we had so far since 60s.

Even the photos are not that much better so far, people compare the OG and many like the old stuff better. Obviously its impressive engineering but we have seen it before.

I will be impressed when we have a large city sized space station with a large transparent dome.

[matt_kantor]

> TBF there’s very little change on what we can do more than what was achieved in the 60s.

People could do backflips and write moving poetry and memorize thousands of digits of pi in the 60s too. Such things were impressive then and they're impressive now.

I could understand someone thinking that the Apollo program was more impressive than the Artemis program, but to think that the Artemis missions are not impressive is completely foreign to me.

[mrtksn]

Doing it the second time is so less impressive that soviets cancelled their whole human moon landing and Americans stopped paying attention on Apollo 13 and cancelled the program after 17.

Obviously it is huge engineering achievement each time, just not as impressive as it was done before.

[wookmaster]

"Even the photos are not that much better so far"

We have an incredible eclipse photos with multiple planets in the background. If you don't find photos like that incredible to see I'd guess you need to do some soul searching.

[mrtksn]

They are impressive photos, the earthrise is my background on my phone and the eclipse is my background on my laptop but they are derivatives of what we had before.

[themadturk]

Is one picture of a mountain derivative of another? Are two pictures of a specific human being derivative? No, they are individual creations, even if made using the same camera by the same photographer. Each is an individual work of art, the vision of a particular person capturing a unique, unrepeatable moment.

They are not derivatives, because the photographers are different people and the time and place were decades separated from one another. To call them derivative is to belittle the humans experiencing the events.

[prewett]

In the same way that Cassini was a derivative of Galileo, but around Saturn and with a working antenna. Or Perseverence is a derivative of Curiosity, which is a derivative of Opportunity. Or philosophy is just footnotes on Plato. Or classical music is everyone trying to escape from the shadow of Bach. Or fantasy is just a poorer version of Tolkien.

I suppose there's truth to that, but it unfairly and unhelpful minimizes the accomplishment, and it collapses the awe that the article talks about. If you are viewing the photos as essentially the same, you are shortchanging yourself, because Artemis was not a means for producing photos, those are more like artifacts of production. Again, that would collapse the awe of Artemis.

(Also, technically, I don't think that Artemis is a derivative of Apollo, more like a re-implementation from scratch.)

[mrtksn]

They are not essentially the same, just not as big deal as the first ones.

Armstrong is the only cooler astronaut than Gagarin even though other astronauts technically achieved much more than Gagarin. Even Gene Cernan isn’t as cool as Gagarin despite spending more than 3 days on the surface of the moon and probably doing much more things outside of the earth than anyone. He’s cool in other ways of course.

[wookmaster]

Must be tough to enjoy any photo if you see it that way. Even if they launched to Mars, are new photos derivatives of the robot and probe cameras?

[_DeadFred_]

Those not impressive/'I don't see progress' images were sent across a brand new optical downlink. Far from boring or 1960s stuff and very much expanding our capabilities type stuff. https://www.nasa.gov/goddard/esc/o2o/

'I want the I can feel it exponential curve part of progress without the slow, long, hard work part at the start of the curve like new boring optical space communication capabilities'

Most things we do are slight incremental upgrades until we put in enough to get to the more exponential/experiential progress that people 'think' is what progress has too look like. Look at cars. They were pretty basic shit boxes with sheet metal/slight tire changes forever (basically my whole life) and suddenly they got way way way better to the point a grocery runner station wagon Rav4 can have insane performance specs and good mpg from a fairly affordable 250,000 mile capable boring vehicle. It took boring incremental work/infrastructure to make workable, slightly larger tires/brake rotors/pads/engine tolerances, then now with toxic components, then slightly larger again, then a little less toxic, repeat.

Are you expecting one day 'Bob's Refractory' decides you know what, let's start making city/county sized impact resistant high stress transparent domes light enough to ship to the moon for dirt cheap, that would be cool, why haven't we been doing that yet?

[egeozcan]

Why not up the ante a bit; I'll be impressed when they bio-engineer special humans who don't need a dome to live there. Come on, it's been 60 years!!

[DonHopkins]

We could drop Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman and Marc Andreessen out there to see if they're smart enough to evolve.

My money's on M2c A8n: he claims to be from France, but I suspect he's actually from Remulak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DUr929pbZ0

[Rekindle8090]

"TBF there’s very little change on what we can do more than what was achieved in the 60s."

Dunning-Krueger in effect here. Because you aren't educated, you think it's simple and hasn't changed.

[mrtksn]

ok