Did the vapid materialism of the 2000s and 2010s kill interest in space and the future?

[JakeWIlls92]

It seems like back in the late 2000s and early 2010s interest in space and the future declined while materialism increased.

After “Battlestar Galactica” ended in 2009 TV show producers seemed to have no interest in making anything set in space but were more than happy to make a billion reality shows.

It is sad that shows based on Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Mars Trilogy” and Iain M. Banks “Culture” universe have had a hard time getting into Orbit to metaphorically speak.



Amazon’s Culture TV Series No Longer in the Works

Did materialism kill the wonder of space and the future?

Perhaps all the exciting stuff happening in the world of spaceflight and space exploration will revive interest.

 

[fncceo]

" After “Battlestar Galactica” ended in 2009 TV show producers seemed to have no interest in making anything set in space but were more than happy to make a billion reality shows. "

People didn't watch Larson & Moore's reboot of "Battlestar Galactica" because they liked watching people float around in space using fantasy technology and cut-rate CGI.

They watched the show to see Tricia Helfer in that skin-tight red dress...

 

[themirrorthief]

" After “Battlestar Galactica” ended in 2009 TV show producers seemed to have no interest in making anything set in space but were more than happy to make a billion reality shows. "

People didn't watch Larson & Moore's reboot of "Battlestar Galactica" because they liked watching people float around in space using fantasy technology and cut-rate CGI.

They watched the show to see Tricia Helfer in that skin-tight red dress...

View attachment 486094

finally some truth in here

 

[occupied]

Turns out space is way more boring than the movies suggest. The only worlds we have to explore are as exciting as an empty parking lot. Meanwhile here on earth all our sci fi fantasies never really happened and the future holds more fears than optimism. It's why we had the explosion of post apocalyptic dystopias taking the place of the insanely optimistic Star Trek.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It seems like back in the late 2000s and early 2010s interest in space and the future declined while materialism increased.

After “Battlestar Galactica” ended in 2009 TV show producers seemed to have no interest in making anything set in space but were more than happy to make a billion reality shows.

It is sad that shows based on Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Mars Trilogy” and Iain M. Banks “Culture” universe have had a hard time getting into Orbit to metaphorically speak.



Amazon’s Culture TV Series No Longer in the Works

Did materialism kill the wonder of space and the future?

Perhaps all the exciting stuff happening in the world of spaceflight and space exploration will revive interest.

Sheep rarely look up.

 

[Votto]

It seems like back in the late 2000s and early 2010s interest in space and the future declined while materialism increased.

After “Battlestar Galactica” ended in 2009 TV show producers seemed to have no interest in making anything set in space but were more than happy to make a billion reality shows.

It is sad that shows based on Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Mars Trilogy” and Iain M. Banks “Culture” universe have had a hard time getting into Orbit to metaphorically speak.



Amazon’s Culture TV Series No Longer in the Works

Did materialism kill the wonder of space and the future?

Perhaps all the exciting stuff happening in the world of spaceflight and space exploration will revive interest.

Leftism is the religion of today

It is a religion focusing ONLY on the planet earth, dividing up it's finite natural resources in the minds of collectivists to be apportioned by the masterminds as they see fit.

They will be the ones to ration those finite resources, while existing in a limitless universe of wonder.

That is the only focus now.

 

[22lcidw]

Turns out space is way more boring than the movies suggest. The only worlds we have to explore are as exciting as an empty parking lot. Meanwhile here on earth all our sci fi fantasies never really happened and the future holds more fears than optimism. It's why we had the explosion of post apocalyptic dystopias taking the place of the insanely optimistic Star Trek.

Once we decide to go to the moon again the government will have to keep appropriating the resources for it. They have actually contracted out for private firms to build the spacecraft for them with their demands of what the craft has to have. An article stated they will save 30 to 35 billion dollars over a period of years this way. Unfortunately the SLS Rocket which is totally a government project has cost 17 billion dollars to develop already. And the cost to launch it will be 1.5 billion to 2 billion dollars minimum as it won't be launched many times a year which would bring the cost down a bit. It was supposed to be cheaper then the Shuttle launch which was 500 million dollars just to roll it out to the pad without any hardware.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Perhaps it died with the Shuttles retirement and NASA's total lack of vision and direction.

 

[SavannahMann]

In the era of instant gratification Space just takes too long. The attention of the average person is not able to sustain interest for the years necessary to achieve a goal. And it doesn’t go to the 2000’s. It goes to 1968.

NASA had long range plans. Plans that set out decades of goals. Big space station similar to Kubrick’s vision in 2001. Moon base. Mars mission. And a host of planetary exploration and missions.

Nixon started the trend. If it can’t happen during my administration don’t bother. He was not going to spend money and prestige to push for funding so someone else could take the credit.

We had the hardware built. We canceled Apollo missions. Missions that already were ready to go. We couldn’t afford them anymore. We turned to the Space Shuttle. And even then we kept cutting it back. From a modular design to a high earth orbit design and finally reduced to low earth orbit only. Advances cost money you know.

We blew up the teacher on Challenger. We had hundreds of problems with missions that we duct taped over and ignored.

Advancements take time which nobody wanted to spend, and money nobody wanted to spend. Hollywood could crank out a space adventure for less. And the reality seemed boring by comparison to the ill informed and educated.

Even now. We are going through the motions of developing hardware for a Mars Mission. The idea is that people will stay in a capsule similar to Apollo for months during the journey. It can’t work. For weeks the astronauts will be unable to move because of atrophy. How can we sell a mission where we tell the public that when they get there the astronauts will need to lay around for a couple weeks before they can start to explore?

We could design a ship using centripetal gravity to prevent this, but that would be even more expensive and take even longer. In other words. It ain’t gonna happen.

To develop the technology Biden would have to get Congress on board a twenty year plan. Two or three Presidents would come and go and funding would have to be maintained. And then when we had the hardware and plans figured out we would have to send the people. A few hundred million dollars for every minute of the mission.

Ground personnel would have to be recruited and trained. And you have to keep them when the mission is over because you’ll need them for the next one.

Now we get to Money. The public won’t tolerate a tax increase to go to Mars, or even establish a moon base. Or a big space station like 2001. Republicans won’t consider cuts to defense and prisons and law enforcement. Democrats won’t consider cuts to their programs. So no money.

No interest. No willingness to commit to the decades long program. No money. No space.

 

[xyz]

The U.S. is planning to go back to the moon, and China wants a manned mission to the moon as well. It'll take a couple of years for this to happen at least, and it's much more likely than Mars first. Especially as an exercise for the latter.