4 ms·

I think you're partly right but I also think there's something a bit deeper at work here. These days science is viewed as a means to various ends. These ends

I think you're partly right but I also think there's something a bit deeper at work here. These days science is viewed as a means to various ends. These ends are all wonderful...eliminate poverty, curtail climate change, cheaper energy, etc. But what's missing is the idea of doing something for the sake of doing it. It's not totally clear what landing on the moon or maintaining a space station really accomplished in terms of material goals. They're glorious accomplishments because of their difficulty. I think that attitude is what's missing. Listening to JFK's "we will go to the moon" speech is almost unbelievable today. Politicians of either party absolutely cannot talk like that today.

harikb 6y ago
Energy independence (from Middle East) was once unthinkable, but we did it, and also included a speech. Sure, not the same level. Climate change is also a similarly difficult problem, but neither of this gives a Hollywood movie style ending in a capsule format the “we are the greatest” crowd really wants - not just America though . Humility, empathy, and non-military-gained peace doesn’t give a movie style ending. This is also why the mass public doesn’t give credit to leaders for solving issues though diplomatic means
- kortilla 6y ago
  Energy independence is a huge obvious prize in itself. It was very easy to get people to agree that it would be something good to have. The point about JFK’s moon speech is that it was justifying an endeavor that was a hard challenge without any particularly useful outcome. Nobody thought it was going to solve world hunger or prevent an energy crisis. It would be like Trump giving a speech to justify sending astronauts on a trip around Venus. It’s super difficult and mostly useless scientifically.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Shale oil isn't going to last long, and then what? (And probably shouldn't have been extracted in the first place considering the low energy return and climate change...)
jcranmer 6y ago
Human spaceflight programs have struggled to justify their existence pretty much their entire lives. Non-human spaceflight has had clearer rationales: the development of rocket technology is intertwined with long-range missile technology, and satellite technology has long clear military ramifications from the launch of Sputnik. The Space Race grew past its missile origins largely because it was a competition between the US and the USSR for prestige points. Once Apollo 11 successfully landed a man on the moon, both of them quickly lost interest in manned space travel to the moon. Post-moon, human spaceflight programs seem to be have been largely directionless. The early space stations were probably originally meant as a stepping stone to developing orbital habitation, but the fact that we haven't really expanded much further makes it look more like faffing about. The US developed the space shuttle with the intention of building a low-cost, human-driven satellite launch and servicing service, but the only real success it had there was the Hubble. Instead, a lot of the real purpose probably lies more in geopolitical goals: the US-USSR cooperation helped drive some amount of detente. The ISS in particularly was driven in large part by a desire to keep ex-Soviet rocket engineers gainfully employed and not seek employment with rogue states looking to rapidly develop a missile program.
- laretluval 6y ago
  > The ISS in particularly was driven in large part by a desire to keep ex-Soviet rocket engineers gainfully employed and not seek employment with rogue states looking to rapidly develop a missile program. Is there any documentation of this?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Well, that didn't stop North Korea from getting their hands on Ukrainian ICBMs...
- leftyted 6y ago
  Your post shows how significant events are stripped of their meaning by the dictum that there must be some material end behind every act. But it's a decision to look at history and explain everything in terms of geopolitics. Can't people get together and do something for the glory of doing it?

harikb 6y ago

Energy independence (from Middle East) was once unthinkable, but we did it, and also included a speech. Sure, not the same level. Climate change is also a similarly difficult problem, but neither of this gives a Hollywood movie style ending in a capsule format the “we are the greatest” crowd really wants - not just America though . Humility, empathy, and non-military-gained peace doesn’t give a movie style ending. This is also why the mass public doesn’t give credit to leaders for solving issues though diplomatic means

kortilla 6y ago
Energy independence is a huge obvious prize in itself. It was very easy to get people to agree that it would be something good to have. The point about JFK’s moon speech is that it was justifying an endeavor that was a hard challenge without any particularly useful outcome. Nobody thought it was going to solve world hunger or prevent an energy crisis. It would be like Trump giving a speech to justify sending astronauts on a trip around Venus. It’s super difficult and mostly useless scientifically.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Shale oil isn't going to last long, and then what? (And probably shouldn't have been extracted in the first place considering the low energy return and climate change...)

jcranmer 6y ago

Human spaceflight programs have struggled to justify their existence pretty much their entire lives. Non-human spaceflight has had clearer rationales: the development of rocket technology is intertwined with long-range missile technology, and satellite technology has long clear military ramifications from the launch of Sputnik. The Space Race grew past its missile origins largely because it was a competition between the US and the USSR for prestige points. Once Apollo 11 successfully landed a man on the moon, both of them quickly lost interest in manned space travel to the moon. Post-moon, human spaceflight programs seem to be have been largely directionless. The early space stations were probably originally meant as a stepping stone to developing orbital habitation, but the fact that we haven't really expanded much further makes it look more like faffing about. The US developed the space shuttle with the intention of building a low-cost, human-driven satellite launch and servicing service, but the only real success it had there was the Hubble. Instead, a lot of the real purpose probably lies more in geopolitical goals: the US-USSR cooperation helped drive some amount of detente. The ISS in particularly was driven in large part by a desire to keep ex-Soviet rocket engineers gainfully employed and not seek employment with rogue states looking to rapidly develop a missile program.

laretluval 6y ago
> The ISS in particularly was driven in large part by a desire to keep ex-Soviet rocket engineers gainfully employed and not seek employment with rogue states looking to rapidly develop a missile program. Is there any documentation of this?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Well, that didn't stop North Korea from getting their hands on Ukrainian ICBMs...
leftyted 6y ago
Your post shows how significant events are stripped of their meaning by the dictum that there must be some material end behind every act. But it's a decision to look at history and explain everything in terms of geopolitics. Can't people get together and do something for the glory of doing it?