4 ms·

Alright. I agree, that's certainly a very valid point. So would you have cancelled the moon landing program? In 2020 dollars that program cost over $257B (ov

Alright. I agree, that's certainly a very valid point. So would you have cancelled the moon landing program? In 2020 dollars that program cost over $257B (over $400B if you count related programs and costs)[1], and that goal--landing humans on the moon--has demonstrated very little utility. [1]: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo

LordDragonfang 4y ago
It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector. You don't need to put men on the surface of the moon to gain any of these benefits. The US government could've spent far less to achieve those same outcomes. And that's ignoring the fact that, particularly regarding those "major dividends", much of those justifications can only be made in hindsight. At the time I think it would've been difficult to justify the moonshot on that kind of utilitarian basis.
  - Invictus0 4y ago
    But why are you talking out of your ass? The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. JFK took us to the moon because "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space". https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-to-joint-session-of-congress-may-25-1961 https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches...
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      > But why are you talking out of your ass? Keep it civil, please. > The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. I think maybe you've lost the thread of the conversation? The original claim was that scientific research/projects should be funded based on evident utility. My point is that if you fund such projects purely based on immediately evident utility, then projects like Apollo (among many others) don't happen. My unspoken corollary is that that would represent a loss to humanity, and that pure utilitarianism is too narrow a frame to use when assessing the value of a given project. Honestly, I think we're in agreement, here, and I'm not sure I understand your aggressive response.
whatshisface 4y ago
A lot of people wanted to cancel the moon landing program while it was happening, and they eventually did.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  And yet many ascribe a whole range of knock-on benefits as a consequence of the Apollo missions. Had those people had their way, one wonders what technologies we wouldn't have today because, in the moment, no one could find a clear utilitarian justification for the program.
  - gralx 4y ago
    Knock-on effects can just as well be ascribed to alternative targets for those Apollo funds. Those don't take much imagination to come up with, e.g. reducing the student-teacher ratios in schools.
    - delusional 4y ago
      Often politics is not a question of "funding this good thing or funding this great thing", but rather "funding this good thing that we can agree on, or funding nothing".
      - gralx 4y ago
        Politicians sometimes do the wrong thing is a truism, no?
lupire 4y ago
Maybe if we spent a few more years improving computers and materials before so many launches, we could have done more with less money. Likewise for the disastrous Shuttle program.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> It had utility to the US government in demonstrating to the Russians our ability to accurately move payloads on the planetary scale. Actually landing on the moon was just a conveniently goal-aligned PR win. Beyond that though, being able to put things at that scale in orbit has shown major dividends at in every sector. You don't need to put men on the surface of the moon to gain any of these benefits. The US government could've spent far less to achieve those same outcomes. And that's ignoring the fact that, particularly regarding those "major dividends", much of those justifications can only be made in hindsight. At the time I think it would've been difficult to justify the moonshot on that kind of utilitarian basis.
- Invictus0 4y ago
  But why are you talking out of your ass? The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. JFK took us to the moon because "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space". https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-to-joint-session-of-congress-may-25-1961 https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches...
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    > But why are you talking out of your ass? Keep it civil, please. > The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public. I think maybe you've lost the thread of the conversation? The original claim was that scientific research/projects should be funded based on evident utility. My point is that if you fund such projects purely based on immediately evident utility, then projects like Apollo (among many others) don't happen. My unspoken corollary is that that would represent a loss to humanity, and that pure utilitarianism is too narrow a frame to use when assessing the value of a given project. Honestly, I think we're in agreement, here, and I'm not sure I understand your aggressive response.

whatshisface 4y ago

A lot of people wanted to cancel the moon landing program while it was happening, and they eventually did.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
And yet many ascribe a whole range of knock-on benefits as a consequence of the Apollo missions. Had those people had their way, one wonders what technologies we wouldn't have today because, in the moment, no one could find a clear utilitarian justification for the program.
- gralx 4y ago
  Knock-on effects can just as well be ascribed to alternative targets for those Apollo funds. Those don't take much imagination to come up with, e.g. reducing the student-teacher ratios in schools.
  - delusional 4y ago
    Often politics is not a question of "funding this good thing or funding this great thing", but rather "funding this good thing that we can agree on, or funding nothing".
    - gralx 4y ago
      Politicians sometimes do the wrong thing is a truism, no?

lupire 4y ago

Maybe if we spent a few more years improving computers and materials before so many launches, we could have done more with less money. Likewise for the disastrous Shuttle program.