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

51–60 of 86 posts

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

#51

Post by w0de0 »

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.

It redirected a potentially apocalyptic cold war into the peaceful development of fundamental science and new technologies - and into a project which unified all peoples in newfound understanding of ourselves as a single species, miraculously clinging to single pale blue dot.

Of all outcomes one might imagine, this seems among the better. An alternative reality in which all this wealth is invested solely in the welfare of humans is unrealistic; one in which it is squandered on terrible weapons and endless war is all too plausible.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

outworlder wrote: post #46
unsupp0rted wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can we just throw money at the issue? 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…

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by dist-epoch »

In 2016, days before the AlphaGo - Lee Sedol match, most HN posters were predicting that it was just a publicity stunt and that AlphaGo will lose all matches and that we were at least 10 years away from a computer beating the Go world champion.

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

#54

Post by swatcoder »

And in light of that, can you believe there still remain cynics just as pessimistic about time travel, FTL travel, cold fusion, perpetual motion, agelessness, immortality, world peace, etc?

Absurd! You never know what's just around the corner!

/s

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

#56

Post by JonathonW »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #25

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.

The article says nine weeks before.

The NYT article mentioned is in their archives [1], dated October 9, 1903, which would be 9 weeks and 6 days. Close enough, although I'd probably round up to 10 weeks.

[1] https://nyti.ms/47ZyE3D (subscription probably required)

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

#59

Post by swatcoder »

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's not meant to be a rigorous analysis. It's just playful editorial snark because people read the paper over their coffee every morning and enjoy a mix of tones. A little "trouble brewing in Prussia" here, a little "lolz 'airplanes'!" there, and then a whole new batch of stuff to read and enjoy tomorrow.

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

#60

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

Accounting for inflation, that would be more like $335 billion today - still a manageable cost for a wealthy nation, but not peanuts.
Post reply on HN