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 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.