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

31–40 of 86 posts

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

#31

Post by Merad »

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.

The Apollo program is estimated to have generated a ROI of $7-8 for every dollar spent by NASA. Today NASA has a budget of around $20 billion but they generate $70 billion in economic output.

0: https://nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html

1: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3721375-how-much-does...

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

#33

Post by transcriptase »

standardUser wrote: post #12
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.

It wasn't just national prestige, it was a component of the arms race that defined all geopolitical relations in that era.

So few people seem to realize that the point of many of these technological/societal achievements wasn’t necessarily the deliverable itself, but the development and implication of capabilities required to achieve them.

In simple terms, it was sending a global message: “If our propulsion and guidance technology can put people on the moon, imagine what else would be trivial for us?”

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

#34

Post by lnxg33k1 »

Haters gonna hate is such a deep thought, I guess we have a new journalist competing for the pulitzer this year.

All in all, thinking about it, would have been better to have a world without flight, since I think it favoured globalisation and shrinking of working class rights, pollution, hypertourism and another kind of pollution, as italian i’d summon inhabitants of venice to see what they think of the americans flying in, I’d argue flying is a net negative discovery

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

#35

Post by syndicatedjelly »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #9
syndicatedjelly wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sch…

> 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.

This is like, your opinion. Who knows what would have happened, or more importantly what might not have happened if the US didn't focus on getting to the moon. The context of the times is important - at the time it was important to beat the Soviets to space. Curing cancer, while admirable, wouldn't have given the US any sort of advantage over the Soviets.

Maybe ushering the information age in sooner would have been meaningful. But what captures the attention of the 50s/60s American public more - a couple of bits of electricity pushed around abstractly, or the raw power of a rocket heading to the Moon? Which is more effective in showing the Soviets that the US has true hard power - controlling tiny amounts of electricity or demonstrating that they can send a rocket, potentially loaded with missiles, into space?

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

#36

Post by dghlsakjg »

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.

Apollo consumed 2.5% of gdp every year for a decade.

That’s a massively expensive prestige project.

Considering that the soviets concentrated on building space stations, yielding hardware that is still in use for active scientific purposes I would argue it wasn’t a good way to spend that value.

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

#37

Post by bregma »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #9
syndicatedjelly wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sch…

> Or a moonshot program for computer chips.

I can do that. I can imagine the Apollo program just like it happened, with one spinoff being computer chips and microelectronics. If it wasn't for Apollo we'd probably still be using rotary-dial phones owned by the local PTT.

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

#39

Post by micromacrofoot »

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.

you can say the same thing about most opinion sections today! the nytimes still gives a platform to total fools this way — proliferating diversity of thought I suppose
Post reply on HN