Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

#21

Post by greiskul »

cubefox wrote: post #4
syndicatedjelly wrote: post #3

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.

What is the return for all the kids that saw it and because of that decided to become scientists or engineers, and all the technology that they developed? I have no idea how to quantify that, but I can guarantee you that there was an effect. And just because you don't know how to quantify something doesn't mean you get to ignore it. Unknown doesn't mean 0.

Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

#22

Post by bregma »

nightski wrote: post #6
cubefox wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

Well, you know, things like microelectronics, medical imaging, telecommunications, weather forecasting, stuff like that. Nothing important. Certainly we would have been better off if that money was spent here on Earth rather than sending it all into space.

Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

#24

Post by renegade-otter »

Pat_Murph wrote: post #17
cubefox wrote: post #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.

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.

SBF couldn't even keep track of a $40B because it seemed like too much of a hassle. It's interesting that people like that are business visionaries and yet the government is deemed ineffectual unless it's operating with 100% efficiency.

But again, the stuff we got from the space program makes it all an extreme bargain.

Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

#26

Post by lumost »

addicted wrote: post #7
cubefox wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a fan of big science projects, I find this line of thinking unconvincing.

The manhattan project cost roughly 56 billion in todays dollars vs. 149 billion for the Apollo program. The manhattan project effectively ended global great power conflict, likely saving hundreds of millions of lives from the inevitable catastrophe of a Warsaw pact vs. NATO conflict in Europe and Asia.

The F-35 program cost 1.5 trillion dollars, but this program was also effectively an omni-spending program for the military - sustaining fighter development and arguably deferring several major global conflicts.

We should judge projects by their individual merits rather than the justification that we're wasting less money than the alternative.

Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

#28

Post by jondiggsit »

Pat_Murph wrote: post #17
cubefox wrote: post #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.

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.

The amount of learned knowledge and skills from an endeavor like the space program extends out to so many industries. We can thank the space program for vital inventions like the Super Soaker

Re: In 1903, NY Times predicted airplanes would take 10M years to develop

#29

Post by AlecSchueler »

Almondsetat wrote: post #23

What is the point of publishing such an opinion on a newspaper? People often point out how ridiculous these projections turned out to be, but seemingly nobody challenges their reason for existing.

It means people will still be talking about your article a century later, which is better than most journalists can hope for in terms of longevity.
Post reply on HN