41–50 of 86 posts
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.
Note that the first flight was also in 1903. According to the legend I've heard - this was published the day before the Wright Brothers first flight in Dec 17 1903. I didn't see the publication date in the article.
>Only nine weeks later, the Wright Brothers achieved manned flight.
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…
Note that the first flight was also in 1903. According to the legend I've heard - this was published the day before the Wright Brothers first flight in Dec 17 1903. I didn't see the publication date in the article.
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
Who says I amn't
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…
Going to the Moon was an engineering challenge. We knew what was required, we "just" needed to do the necessary work. Some research advancements in material science were needed, but they were incremental. We also got some computer advancements out of the deal too, and sensors.
Even the reflectors placed on the Moon proved to be very useful.
For cancer – they are several diseases with the same name. We don't necessarily know what we have to do to 'cure' them (in many cases, once we figure out what actually causes an illness, treatments become relatively straightforward).
Even if we just focus on one type, would throwing the same amount of money as was spent in the Moon program (or the Manhattan project) be all that's required to 'cure' it? I don't think that's necessarily true. Funding helps, to an extent. But many things in medicine just take time and there's no way around that.
We still have no consensus on what causes Alzheimer's. A lot of research on amyloid plaques that may or may not be a red herring. Once we can know with a high degree of certainty what causes it, treating or preventing should become much more straightforward.
That said, throwing money at any kind of research seems to be beneficial. Be it the Moon, health and even military. We wouldn't be discussing this without military funding decades ago that enabled what eventually became the Internet. Although we, as in humans, have been wasting too many resources in wars.
> ushering in the information revolution a decade or two ahead of schedule would be an order of magnitude more valuable.
That's hindsight.
When coherent light (what we know as lasers) was discovered, it was regarded as a novelty but with zero practical application.
We can fund many types of research simultaneously – and we have to. You can't take a doctor and get them to engineer a rocket, and you can't take a rocket scientist and get them to work on curing diseases.
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 fly…
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…
That sounds scary, because there's a lot of encryption in use that is not quantum resistant.
> 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.
probably one of the best US government investments ever, especially compared to some of the braindead modern programs we throw away money on