Earlier 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.
The intangible returns from the moon program are immense.
In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
11–20 of 86 posts
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#12> 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.
It wasn't just national prestige, it was a component of the arms race that defined all geopolitical relations in that era.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#13> These are important reminders that pathological cynics always will find a way to complain
Even Hacker News is cited in the piece!
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moon program was extremely expensive and the return (scientific or otherwise) was rather small in comparison.
The intangible returns from the moon program are immense.
Any time we can get countries competing with each other on technology that doesn't directly involve blowing each other up, it is a good thing for the human race.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#15Ten million years? I hope in that time we evolve to have wings.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moon program was extremely expensive and the return (scientific or otherwise) was rather small in comparison.
Man on the moon is such a fantastic (in the original sense) thing - I think it’s an end in itself!
It's only impressive if you're not from Remulak.
Astronauts! To the Moon! Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya!
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#17> 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.
40 billion is an insignifiant amount for a rich country like thr US and the scientific knowledge that was gained from it and is still going on today is immesurable.
Personnaly I think it was way worth it and we should keep going to further science and knowledge.
Totally worth it imo.
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#18Earlier 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.
Right! Even taking "return" very literally, the lunar rock samples brought back are incredibly valuable to science. And the spinoff/technological stimulus value of the program is even harder to quantify--consider that during one year, Project Apollo purchased >60% of U.S. semiconductor production. This was a critical early market for Fairchild Semiconductor, e.g. [1]
[1]:https://books.google.com/books?id=gXYItzQARVoC&pg=PA127&lpg=...
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#19> These are important reminders that pathological cynics always will find a way to complain Even Hacker News is cited in the piece!
[deleted]
Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop
#20Okay but "moondoggle" is actually a fantastic pun to put down the space race (even if it did turn out to be wrong).