In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#2> Many Americans and even astronomers opposed the plan for various reasons. Even former President Eisenhower (who created NASA) said: “Anybody who would spend $40 billion in a race to the moon for national prestige is nuts.”
I think he was right.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#3> Many Americans and even astronomers opposed the plan for various reasons. Even former President Eisenhower (who created NASA) said: “Anybody who would spend $40 billion in a race to the moon for national prestige is nuts.” I think he was right.
Why do you think he was right?
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#4> Many Americans and even astronomers opposed the plan for various reasons. Even former President Eisenhower (who created NASA) said: “Anybody who would spend $40 billion in a race to the moon for national prestige is nuts.” I think he was right.
Why do you think he was right?
The moon program was extremely expensive and the return (scientific or otherwise) was rather small in comparison.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#5Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#6Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think he was right?
The moon program was extremely expensive and the return (scientific or otherwise) was rather small in comparison.
I think there’s a few hundred programs that cost more and had fewer returns (and many with negative returns) before we get to man on the moon being a problem.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think he was right?
The moon program was extremely expensive and the return (scientific or otherwise) was rather small in comparison.
What's the point of having a ton of money (USA) if you're not landing on the moon and sending probes to interstellar space?
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#9> Many Americans and even astronomers opposed the plan for various reasons. Even former President Eisenhower (who created NASA) said: “Anybody who would spend $40 billion in a race to the moon for national prestige is nuts.” I think he was right.
Why do you think he was right?
Imagine a moonshot program for cancer(s) at the time. Or a moonshot program for computer chips.
It's not so much the money spent as the "we get to recruit all the smartest researchers and new grads for 2 generations to focus on a sole achievement" aspect.
Getting to the moon was inspirational, but functionally curing even one type of common cancer or ushering in the information revolution a decade or two ahead of schedule would be an order of magnitude more valuable.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moon program was extremely expensive and the return (scientific or otherwise) was rather small in comparison.
How exactly are you measuring "return" in this case? Because I feel that would be nearly impossible.
>How exactly are you measuring "return" in this case?
it would have been cheaper to send the astronauts to the moon without returning them to earth
more seriously, the work that went into developing microelectronics returned a lot to the economy.
the human genome project has only just started returning its benefits
the R&D for manned moon missions didn't have much in the way of spinoffs.