Peregrine lander: Propulsion failure threatens US Moon mission
www.bbc.com
A US spacecraft launched from Florida to land on the lunar surface encounters propulsion problems.

Due to a power issue, it looks like the lander may now no longer have sufficient fuel to make a controlled landing on the moon. This was the lander that was set to carry human remains to the moon despite objections from the Navajo nation. Hopefully, this discourages any future attempts at such a stunt, since instead of a permanent mausoleum your ashes may instead be stranded in orbit or scattered amongst the moon dust if the thing crashes.

  • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    33·
    6 months ago

    making use

    weasel language. Of course we should allow scientific exploration of the moon. We should not allow private commodification of the moon. You conflate the two like a weasel. There is no utility in allowing rich creeps to dump their corpses on the moon, in fact it just interferes with scientific endeavors.

      • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        20·
        6 months ago

        the difference is also irelevant when the argument is that “the moon belongs to everyone”

        Only if your starting assumption is that commons must be privatized and looted, which is a capitalist assumption but one that doesn’t necessarily make any sense. It’s just something you are asserting. Commodification by private entities should not be allowed on public land, think of it like a protected national park. You don’t just get to mine and make theme parks on it because it’s “public”. Likewise, rich fucks don’t just get to treat it as their playground. If they have enough money to waste on polluting and wasting resources then their money should be taxed away from them and put to better uses

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            7·
            6 months ago

            no argument here

            Then why are you defending this absurd project? You aren’t even doing liberal ideology coherently if you (correctly) say that their money should probably just be taken from them if this is what they are spending it on. So what, you acknowledge that this is a socially worthless endeavor such that it would be more pro-social to seize a portion of their assets, and in fact that them trying to do this should be considered a good pretext for such a seizure, and yet simultaneously that the endeavor should but considered sacrosanct?

            I am begging you to read any [leftist] critiques of liberal political theory. Literally any. This contains an offhand example that is nonetheless very solid.

              • WithoutFurtherBelay [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
                4·
                6 months ago

                ‘the moon belongs to everyone (but not rich people)’ is shitty reasoning

                it’s called compensating for inequality of opportunity dumbass

                edit:

                and i think that ‘[group] think its bad to put bodies on the moon’ […] is shitty reasoning

                it’s called compensating for inequality of political power dumbass. We haven’t been listening to “[group]” for literally centuries. We have to at least make an attempt to catch up before treating them the same as all the people we already listened to. If it was some random christian denomination you might have a point, but these are people we’ve been killing en masse for fucking ages. The least we can do is not LITERALLY throw shit at the things important to them.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        9·
        6 months ago

        dehumanising language is cringe

        It’s called an idiom, concern troll. Sorry, is “troll” too dehumanizing?

        i dont care, it does not infringe on anyone elses rights to moon

        Actually, giving rich pricks free rein while the rest of us can only watch does indeed infringe on our “rights” to the moon. These things can only be understood collectively, your atomized account is basically just a sophistical way of saying “first come, first served”