Why Land on the Moon? (1963)

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/63aug/jastrow.htm?single_page=true

by ForHackernews • 9 years ago

67 56 9 years ago

throwanem5• 9 years ago

A brilliant example of competition driving human achievement. Pity we lacked a more worthy opponent, though; otherwise we might well now be on Mars. Or they might - it'd be a win for the species, either way.

acqq5• 9 years ago

The scientists from 1963 were right even then: the robots were enough to explore the Moon, transporting human flesh and bones around and keeping them alive is not something that directly increases our knowledge of the Universe. The "man on the Moon" was a political, not a scientific project.

The worst place on Earth is still better suited for human life than either Moon or Mars or any other object in the Solar system. We depend on almost all, compared to the other objects, unique properties of the Earth. And the other stars, which could have the planets more suited for us are many light years away. The humanity must learn to respect the Earth. We won't get a way to easily survive without Earth no matter how we'd like to.

Global warming or a nuclear weapon "accident" are too probable to wipe out what the humanity achieved up to now for us to ignore the necessity of urgently solving these. Not to mention even more "inconvenient" questions of the whole approach to the use of all the Earth resources.

We still have to clean up our own backyard first. There is no known reachable second Earth waiting for us and we won't discover it by experimenting with the survival of a few persons on Mars. The human life is not self-sustainable there and it won't be even if we create some "colony."

Pigo2• 9 years ago

I've been wondering why we don't focus on getting 3D visuals of the surface of Mars that can then be distributed the same way Hubble images are. Even a low quality 3D experience would transport all of us to the surface of Mars for a moment.

JumpCrisscross• 9 years ago

Global warming or a nuclear weapon "accident" are too probable to wipe out what the humanity achieved up to now
We still have to clean up our own backyard first
We won't discover [a second Earth] by experimenting with the survival of a few persons on Mars
Human life is not self-sustainable [on Mars] and it won't be even if we create some "colony"

These are assumptions. If colonizing Mars and mastering terrestrial civilization were mutually exclusive, I'd agree with you. But there is a lot of spending between those poles. If the Apollo programs offer us any lessons, it's that space travel and better living on Earth are more complementary than competitive.

adrianN3• 9 years ago

What makes you think human life on Mars is not sustainable? Mars has everything we need to live.

rimliu2• 9 years ago

"We won't discover second Europe, let's just stay there". Human curiosity brought us where we are now, it would be kind of sad to ditch that with the excuse that it's "not practical".

throwanem5• 9 years ago

Knowledge isn't the only consideration here. This moment in history is the first in which our species has been without a frontier. Early evidence suggests rather strongly that we're not at our best that way.

TeMPOraL• 9 years ago

Pity we lacked a more worthy opponent, though; otherwise we might well now be on Mars.

It wasn't the fault of the opponent, really - or at least so I was led to believe when reading up on NERVA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA#In_the_space_program

"The Mars mission became NERVA's downfall. Members of Congress in both political parties judged that a manned mission to Mars would be a tacit commitment for the United States to decades more of the expensive Space Race. Manned Mars missions were enabled by nuclear rockets; therefore, if NERVA could be discontinued the Space Race might wind down and the budget would be saved."

acjohnson55• 9 years ago

From Wikipedia [1]:

Landing men on the Moon by the end of 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($24 billion) ever made by any nation in peacetime. At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.

I don't think that effort would have been considered sustainable. Although it's a bit of a shame that we seem able to find the cash for perpetual war instead.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

Gracana• 9 years ago

It's kind of sad that "the largest commitment of resources ever made by any nation in peacetime" is still only about a third of what we spend every year on war.

elcapitan2• 9 years ago

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." (JFK) [1]

Probably my favorite quote of all time. Those were the times.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwFvJog2dMw

problems2• 9 years ago

I always found that quote incredibly pointless. If you just want to do something because it's hard, there's lots of options, the cheapest is to turn up the difficulty on a game.

Don't waste tax payer money sending humans to the moon for no scientific purpose - leave that to the machines. Hard things can be wasteful too, just because something is hard doesn't make it valuable.

melling2• 9 years ago

Come now. We've wasted a lot more tax payer money on endeavors with much less reward.

http://thevietnamwar.info/how-much-vietnam-war-cost/ Vietnam War cost more than putting a man on the moon

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSB...

Imagine how $2 trillion of R&D would have changed the world.

elcapitan2• 9 years ago

I think you just pointed out the difference between technocratic thinking and political/social thinking. Which is interesting as well. Humans search for more purpose than just scientific purpose. Going to the moon is one of mankinds oldest dreams. It wouldn't be possible to go for an endeavor of the same magnitude for some purely theoretical reason or a game.

gerbilly• 9 years ago

The quote is taken for a speech, not a formal argument.

The president was trying to exhort his people to join in a difficult endeavour for it's own sake.

takingflac• 9 years ago

https://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/124/kennedy.png

I think going to the moon was a good choice.

js2• 9 years ago

It's too bad Shackelton's advertisement has turned out to be apocryphal: "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success."

throwanem5• 9 years ago

While we're about it, let's not overlook: "We came in peace for all mankind."

kristianp• 9 years ago

Translates as 'not because they are easy, but because we need to show the Russians we can match them in space'.

mkmk• 9 years ago

I recommend the book 'Flight' by Christopher Kraft. It's a quick read, and a really enjoyable history lesson about the development of the US space program.

losteverything2• 9 years ago

I use the moon challenge as a time, before cable, when the media was the glue that kept the country together.

One single view repeated over time.

Then, imo, cable and now the internet has changed glue to acid that breaks us apart.

I have not changed but how we get information and news has.

Can we have another moon moment? Probably not but to me the better introspective question is am I adapting to how information is sought, ignored and processed by me???

awacs• 9 years ago

It's hard to have a "moon moment" in times where there is a large population that think we never landed on the moon, and half the country believes in alternative facts.

losteverything2• 9 years ago

And the third half have trouble with statistics.

chrismealy• 9 years ago

That was completely unconvincing. Sending people to the moon was a mistake. Totally a job for robots.

Arizhel3• 9 years ago

They didn't have robots in 1969, at least nothing that could do almost anything useful. They did send a bunch of automated probes to orbit and the Moon back in those days, and most of them failed because the tech was so poor, and the few that didn't fail didn't do much useful science anyway.

strombourg2• 9 years ago

To be clear, Venera 7 landed on Venus and transmitted data in 1970. We did have robots (probes, landers) that while crude by today's standards, did serve a scientific purpose.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera

elsonrodriguez2• 9 years ago

First of all, we don't have a general purpose robot that can reliably fill even an entry-level fast food position in 2017, never mind 1969. But send a fry-cook to the moon and they'll get more science done in a day than a rover could do in a week.

Second of all, WHEN would you like the humans to go? How many robots should we send before we get the privilege to go there? Should we have stayed in Africa forever while only sending robots to the rest of Earth?

libeclipse• 9 years ago

Damn it guys. We've been on the moon! We actually launched rockets carrying people off the planet to the moon.

What the fuck. If that doesn't give you butterflies and plaster a massive childish smile on your face, I'd conjecture that there's something wrong with you.

throwanem5• 9 years ago

It helps not to know in detail the difference between the space program we had, and the one we could have had. If you've seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, its entire first act, and a fair fraction of the second, were predicated on the assumption that the Apollo missions would serve as the preliminary to real human space colonization which their architects intended that they be.

For those excited about the concept of space colonization who wish to stay that way, I don't suppose I can unreservedly recommend detailed study of the US manned space program's history, especially not that post-1969. To say that such study can be disillusioning beggars language. It does, though, answer a whole slew of questions which all more or less boil down to: "What the hell happened?" But it's up to each interested individual to evaluate for herself whether the acquisition of such knowledge is worth more or less than the fatigue its possession is likely to inflict on her idealism.

lispenlightment• 9 years ago

After USA got schooled by a bunch of "commies" who were able to make history by putting the first human and satellite in space (among other things), America had to prove to the world that a nation as filthy rich as theirs was not a total waste of space and was still capable of rivaling the dirt poor USSR which only a few decades ago consisted primarily of illiterate, toothless peasants.

US claimed that they did it for mankind, yet they never shared any knowledge, technology, or offered any assistance to other countries to allow them to make the similar advances in an effort to progress our world towards bigger goals. Who knows, maybe mankind could've been on Mars by now if everyone had the know-how. The whole thing was an impressive, yet selfish and ultimately useless, feat.

Well, at least all the American kids can now claim that "they've" been to the moon.

burkaman• 9 years ago

What are you talking about? Have you heard of the ISS? Hubble? NISAR? The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project? In what world does NASA not share its knowledge and technology?

hyperpallium• 9 years ago

Can be read as a question about real estate.

The moon was not claimed for the USA (though a USA flag was planted). What if the moon was less like Antartica, amd more like California?

jonathansizz• 9 years ago

It makes me sad when I think of the sacrifices made by previous generations for the greater good, to consider that in our time we're happy to gamble with the future just to make things more comfortable for us in the present.

In the 1940s, millions of people made the ultimate sacrifice to defeat tyranny, then in the 60s huge amounts were invested into technology, transforming society, but we can't even agree on a carbon tax to start to pay for the mess we're making, never mind trying to come up with ways to reverse the damage.

A green economy should be our generation's Moon landing. Massive investment in basic research and into renewables, energy storage and transport, and improved materials could again transform the world, and benefit all of us, but I guess if you can't physically see your enemy then there's just not enough urgency.

Why Land on the Moon? (1963)

Related Stories