3 ms·

> 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 m

> 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.

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.