40 ms·

In 1961 a Gallup poll showed only 33% of Americans in favor of moon landing

200 points by headalgorithm 3y ago

mydriasis 3y ago
> Noted fiscal hawk Barry Goldwater dismissed the lofty ambitions of lunar exploration as a "wasteful endeavor," an ironic stance given he voiced his criticism at a glitzy dinner that cost each attendee a cool $100 - close to $1000 in 2023. Some things never change, eh?
- anaganisk 3y ago
  Probably couldn't profit off it as they expected. Politicians never change.
  - bboygravity 3y ago
    * politicians in "not really a democracy" never change
- dylan604 3y ago
  for me, but not for thee will never go away
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  As always, it’ll depend on your definition of “wasteful”.
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  Yes, who could have predicted fundraising for activism would still exist in the US fifty years after $ARBITRARY_2OTH_CENTURY_DATE ? Truly remarkable.
- melling 3y ago
  A $1000 dinner is nothing in comparison to the cost of going to the moon. I’m definitely glad we did it. However, the Apollo program was expensive. It was 2.5% of GDP for 10 years. https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the-moon-landing.html#:~:text=The%20Apollo%20project%20cost%2025,over%20a%2010%2Dyear%20period https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the.... Imagine today if we said we were going to try and cure cancer(s) in 10 years by spending 2.5% of GDP over the next decade. Think people would support that? Doubt it.
  - codyb 3y ago
    That would be pretty sweet. Big fan of Biden's moonshot cancer initiative. I'd love to see another "space race" type event pursued by America in the name of advancing our scientific understanding. Trying to cure cancer seems like it would be an awesome place to start. 2.5% of GDP would be... 500bn a year? Coordinating that would be wild. What about a race to negative emissions for 2.5% GDP? With the promise of well paying jobs, cleaner air (long term saves money due to reduced asthma, etc), reduced foreign energy dependence, and increasing the number of products we can sell abroad (long term positive), reducing climate impact (long term saves money in reduced disaster relief).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
    If people believed you might actually do it, enough of us have been affected by cancer that I'm sure they'd support it. Fuck cancer.
    - melling 3y ago
      What if we failed and we could only cure half the people who would have otherwise died? Of course that’s half of people going forward…forever
  - lordnacho 3y ago
    The cure for cancer project was a waste of money! Sure it's nice they did it but that money would have been better as tax cuts where it would have spurred innovation in other fields. People die of something else anyway. Yeah we built fancy new labs and educated a new generation of scientists, but what does it matter that we made an algorithm that can cure each individual person's cancer? Those people would have studied something else, and you can just git clone the cancer algorithm nowadays. The whole cure for cancer project was nothing but a tumourdoggle for big research. Hospitals and universities across the country feasting on public money. Labcoat manufacturers and those guys who make beakers, suddenly getting wealthy off what is essentially a photo-op where where we stick it to the Chinese.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- quercusa 3y ago
  Were the attendees at that dinner forced at gunpoint to pay for their seats?
m348e912 3y ago
I have commented on HN before that I have been skeptical of the moon landing ever happening, but I've spent some time on apolloinrealtime.org listening and reading the Apollo 11, 13, and 17 moon landing transcripts and I have come around. It sounds way too real to be faked. In that light, I think it was an incredible feat of engineering for the late 60s, and early 70s. Keep in mind, Japan was unable to land a probe on the moon as recently as last year. Do I think it was worth it? That's debatable, but the engineers and scientists involved accomplished something pretty fantastic and that alone deserves some merit.
- newfonewhodis 3y ago
  > I have been skeptical of the moon landing ever happening I'm curious - what caused you to question it ever happening?
  - phnofive 3y ago
    Extraordinary claims, etc. Of course, there is extraordinary evidence for this one.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    They right way to look at any conspiracy is to assess how many people would be required to pull off the fakery. In the case of the moon landing, it would have to be thousands of people, this very unlikely. A soccer or hockey game on the other hand really only requires two people: the goalie and someone paying the goalie. I’m not suggesting that hockey or soccer are rigged however, it is merely an example.
    - jimbob45 3y ago
      Isn’t Katyn hard counterproof against that strategy?
      - earthboundkid 3y ago
        You know about Katyn.
someguydave 3y ago
The moon landings were successful and also a waste of money
- rottencupcakes 3y ago
  So were the Pyramids of Giza and Angkor Wat. Isn't anything that isn't humanitarian aid technically a waste of money?
  - OscarCunningham 3y ago
    I would pick humanitarian aid over religious monuments to glorify unelected monarchs.
    - voakbasda 3y ago
      Recently read the argument that monuments are less about glory and more about keeping the unwashed masses busy with work, so they don't have time or energy to overthrown the ruling class.
      - bamfly 3y ago
        ... or juicing the economy with a little redistribution, without simply giving handouts. Or a little of both. The CCC in the US was a similar thing: paying people to build nice things in parks and such while people were going hungry. We absolutely didn't need that stuff. Coulda just given the money away to those who needed it. Though, this way, at least, we got some wonderful benefits that endure to this day—indeed, the kind of well-built, long-lasting, and nice-to-have but unnecessary infrastructure and flourishes, for the enjoyment and appreciation of all, that make one feel like one actually does live in a very-rich country—even if the resource-allocation wasn't ideal from a greatest-good-for-the-suffering perspective. A sincere attempt at economic stimulus, or keeping the able-bodied masses busy & fed so they don't get any ideas? Probably both. As for the true motivations of the pharaohs—who knows.
    - jmoak3 3y ago
Brendinooo 3y ago
A few thoughts: 1. I love stuff like this. I think about it with elections all the time; even in the biggest landslide elections there’s always about a third of the population that wasn’t on board. A good reminder about winners writing history books. 2. I’m in my 30s. The first time I ever was given an idea that people weren’t all about the Moon landing was a Larry Norman song[0], of all things. (“They brought back a big bag of rocks / Only cost thirteen billion. Must be nice rocks”) I was definitely an adult by this point. 3. I’m curious about the wording, but it seemed like the survey question was focused on cost. Americans never like things when you ask about cost. If the question was “should we develop rockets strong enough to beat the Commies” it probably would have polled a lot better. 4. Americans also always seem to be cool with public works-y stuff once it’s actually built. No one liked the Big Dig until it was done. Part of that is the cost concern, but I think there’s also the disbelief that things are possible, and fears about what the bad side of the thing could be. [0]: https://genius.com/Larry-norman-readers-digest-lyrics https://genius.com/Larry-norman-readers-digest-lyrics
- lapcat 3y ago
  > I think about it with elections all the time; even in the biggest landslide elections there’s always about a third of the population that wasn’t on board. You're actually vastly underestimating the amount of the population that wasn't on board. In 1972, Nixon was reelected with 60.7% of the vote from 56.2% voter turnout, which amounted to only 34% of eligible voters. In 1984, Reagan was reelected with 58.8% of the vote from 55.2% voter turnout, which amounted to only 32% of eligible voters. Incidentally, Biden in 2020 was also 34%: 51.3% of the vote from 66.6% voter turnout.
  - amrocha 3y ago
    You can't make the voter turnout argument because the US election system is awful, and people know when their vote doesn't matter, or when it's being suppressed, and choose not to vote
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > people know when their vote doesn't matter, or when it's being suppressed, and choose not to vote Why would you count these people as "on board"? Moreover, even among the people who do vote, there are a lot who plug their noses and vote for what they consider to be the lesser evil, against the other candidate rather than with enthusiasm for their own candidate.
bobthepanda 3y ago
There was also a lot of social commentary on it. Particularly striking is this spoken word piece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_on_the_Moon
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  Auden: https://allpoetry.com/moon-landing https://allpoetry.com/moon-landing
- germinalphrase 3y ago
  Link to performance by Gil Scott-Heron: https://youtu.be/goh2x_G0ct4 https://youtu.be/goh2x_G0ct4
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- csours 3y ago
  The first time I heard Whitey On The Moon, I had a strong feeling that we don't all live in the same world, even while we share the same planet. As a counterpoint, there's Home on Lagrange: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRns6u5bHuw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRns6u5bHuw Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus Where the three-body problem is solved, Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K, And the cold virus never evolved. (chorus) We eat algea pie, our vacuum is high, Our ball bearings are perfectly round. Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed, And a kilogram weighs half a pound. (chorus) If we run out of space for our burgeoning race No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart, If we just find a big enough wrench. (chorus) I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space, And living up here is a bore. Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye 'Cause I'm moving next week to L4! (chorus) CHORUS: Home, home on LaGrange, Where the space debris always collects, We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams: Solar power and zero-gee sex. --Home on Lagrange (The L5 Song) © 1978 by William S. Higgins and Barry D. Gehm http://www.jamesoberg.com/humor.html http://www.jamesoberg.com/humor.html
asah 3y ago
The American revolution was opposed by a majority, and man what a screwup, we could've been eating crumpets instead of building a (checks Google) $20 trillion dollar economy. /s https://www.google.com/search?q=was+the+American+revolution+popular https://www.google.com/search?q=was+the+American+revolution+...
- lapcat 3y ago
  I could definitely go for national health care right now.
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    As a European immigrant to the US, turned US citizen, I would never take the flip side of my move; but, you can rest easy knowing you have that option. If you don’t know people who have expatriated to some degree out of the US, invest in widening your social circle.
    - CobrastanJorji 3y ago
      There's a good chance you're somehow tied to technology, though, and America pays its software engineers a frankly bonkers amount compared to much of Europe. That may way outweigh a lot of other considerations for you. But I also agree, I'd prefer to stay in the US than move to Europe. But I'd even more prefer to have some universal healthcare and also live in the US.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > As a European immigrant Could you be more specific? There are many countries in Europe, of course. > I would never take the flip side of my move I wasn't talking about moving; I was talking about having UK-style health care here in the US. > you can rest easy knowing you have that option Which option? > If you don’t know people who have expatriated to some degree out of the US, invest in widening your social circle. What was the purpose of this sentence?
      - 3y ago
notahacker 3y ago
One thing the article doesn't cover is that whilst the pessimists had a point about the moon landing itself not achieving very much except some prestige and cool pictures[1] considering the proportion of US national income spent, the Apollo program ended up generating an enormous number of inventions later used in everyday life, from freeze dried food to flight computers, and other tech that could only have come out of a space program like satellites are an essential part of the functioning of the modern world. Estimates suggest the ROI wasn't just non-negative, it was hugely positive (NASA claims $7 for every $1 spent) That was more evident in 1989 than when people were wondering whether it was a massive waste of money in 1969, and certainly than in 1959 [1]the sci-fi optimists' predictions of it leading to permanent colonies and starships within a generation or two have aged worse.
- shtopointo 3y ago
  There's an argument that all those things would have been invented eventually anyway. There was no need to spend 100s of billions of dollars for basically a photo-op.
  - starkparker 3y ago
    What's the argument?
    - shtopointo 3y ago
      That those things would have been invented anyway, because science and technology progresses even without gov't intervention.
      - willis936 3y ago
        Is this a brownian motion/maxwell's demon argument or are you suggesting that progress is guaranteed by some principle?
  - jxf 3y ago
    "Eventually" is a pretty long time. If you were in 1959, would you press a button that caused satellites and freeze-dried food and flight computers to arrive 20 years earlier if it cost $10 billion to press? That saves billions of lives over the next 50 years and dramatically accelerates humanity's technology tree, so it seems like it's worth it.
freediverx 3y ago
Whitey On the Moon https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4
- msla 3y ago
  Wow. Racism on HN. What a shock.
- gumby 3y ago
  I was shocked that wasn't mentioned in the article. It's still as biting today. It definitely moved me, and has influenced my perspective on and choice of work. If you don't know it you should listen to to that link of Gil Scott-Heron reading it, but here are the words if you prefer not to youtube: A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the Moon) Her face and arms began to swell. (and Whitey's on the Moon) I can't pay no doctor bill. (but Whitey's on the Moon) Ten years from now I'll be paying still. (while Whitey's on the Moon)
  - throwaway6734 3y ago
    It's not biting today, but instead looks incredibly silly in hindsight. The investment in the moon landing was a massive success and had that money been spent on social programs it would've accomplished almost nothing due to structural and cultural issues
danielodievich 3y ago
I am a huge fan of space exploration and all the various content that comes with it. I also like fine books. Folio Society's A Man on the Moon The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts by Andrew Chaikin (https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/a-man-on-the-moon.html https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/a-man-on-the-moon.html) is an exceptionally fine way to learn more about the technical, budgetary, personal and play bizarre things that went down. The book covers some of the skepticism and the "this is really expensive" objections. If you want to treat yourself, this substantial 2 volume folio is a feast for all your senses.
sdfghswe 3y ago
Oh, so THAT's the real reason for why we have so much fake moonlanding nonsense still to this day. If there's some thing I've learned in the past 6 or so years is that when morons attach their personality to a certain claim and then they're proven wrong, they just double down. So I can totally imagine that a very large fraction of those 66% who opposed it couldn't just be proven wrong and instead attack it. It can't be that I was wrong and landing on the moon was actually awesome, instead it must be fake! Didn't happen!
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > landing on the moon was actually awesome, Consider that people who opposed going to the moon still may not think that it was "awesome." It's patriotic bullshit that political scoundrels turn to, but is at least not as horrific as war. Although if the money spent on the moon landing had been spent on starving children, many of them wouldn't have starved, so maybe it's a sort of an inverse war to burn cash like that? Nationalists are childish. Trump declares a Space Force, and turns half the people who thought he was the antichrist into his defenders.
damnesian 3y ago
The two newspaper blurbs that the author didn't highlight, but imho have implications that continue to resonate today: --eisenhower didn't think it was fiscally sound to lower taxes. Here was a Republican who understood the strategic importance of the Moon landings, and was not afraid to say to the rest of his party- and the wealthy class- that they need to stop whining about tax cuts. Well we know who won that argument, ultimately. The tax base in the early 60s was VERY robust compared to today, despite the explosive growth of the multinationals and megacorps. Robert Weiner warns about expecting computers to make moral decisions. Seemed paranoid in context, but really it was eerily prescient. Especially considering developments in the last year.
- hollerith 3y ago
  It's Norbert Wiener.
ghaff 3y ago
Comedy of course but also an indication that it wasn't a hugely unpopular opinion in the intro to Tom Lehrer's Wernher von Braun. And what is it that put America in the forefront of The nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it possible to spend twenty billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old American know-how, that's what, as provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun!
- dekhn 3y ago
  See also the book "Operation Paperclip" for just how morally questionable (yet ultimately necessary) the US was when importing German scientists for their missle expertise.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Also Operation Epsilon at Farm Hall in the UK for nuclear scientists--at a much smaller scale. Decent play about this if you get a chance to see it.
  - mcguire 3y ago
    Leading to the entertaining fact of a major facility on a US military arsenal named after an SS-Sturmbannführer. (https://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Media/Images/igphoto/2000930381/ https://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Media/Images/igphoto/20009303...)
adventured 3y ago
The Revolutionary War was also opposed by the majority of the people in the colonies. The majority of a large population is always and without exception a dumb herd. It's the rare context where you should listen to what that type of majority says or claims to want. The wisdom of crowds is one of the more idiotic concepts popularized in the past 30 years. Even more than intelligence is a very scarce attribute, being competent at utilizing reason and generally being rational (by intent, wilfully; being focused on purpose in the direction of being rational and working to maintain that orientation, which requires persistent effort, while the median person is exceptionally lazy). It's why you shouldn't bother asking people what they want when it comes to building the future. The masses have absolutely no idea what they're doing with their own lives most of the time, much less have any grasp of what's possible when it comes to assembling the future (as referenced Henry Ford & faster horses). People will say: well then you're invalidating Democracy by ignoring the majority! No. Concepts of rights as in the Bill of Rights are specifically created to protect the minority from the irrational, dangerous majority; it's overwhelmingly meant as a restraint on the ill behavior of the majority. It helps (emphasis) to prevent the majority from voting your rights as a minority individual out of existence just because they have that majority vote. We need things like the Bill of Rights precisely because the majority are so often dumb, dangerous and irrational (and they're not irrational + dangerous 24/7, the tendency is for them to go on rampages historically, so they must be caged by something like the Bill of Rights to try to prevent that behavior).
- mrangle 3y ago
  However, you miss the point of the American Revolution and the government that followed. Which specifically is to suppress tyrants. Stated otherwise, it is to limit those who are willing to act on their own behalf in a manner that oppresses the "dumb herd" while cloaking themselves in righteousness, superiority, and public good. The view to which I am responding renders the American Revolution baseless: a waste of time and effort that was only to shift under which aristocrat(s) the colonists were to be governed. To them, it would have been of little consequence. Excepting for the important issue of War deaths. Last, you begin from an argument of government and justify it with a conclusion that appeals to individual rights. It doesn't follow. There's zero conflict between democracy and the Bill of Rights that anti-populist rulership solves. The term "populism" being from the brand of propaganda that likes to have the word "democracy" constantly oozing out of its mouth while excusing itself to serve mostly special and politician dynasty interests. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that we've ever had a democracy. At the same time only a fool would allow self-styled aristocrats to claim historical just-governance. It's just not the case. Again, all this argument does is nullify most of the proposition for the American Revolution.
Bostonian 3y ago
You could well ask what provision of the Constitution authorized the Federal Government to spend hundreds of billions of today's dollars to put a man on the moon. If the Federal government can spend money on that, what is off limits? Tax money is ultimately taken at gun point, which means it should only be spent on necessary public goods.
- mikequinlan 3y ago
  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    Quoted like someone who has only read the first few words. The actual rules come after that part.
    - zerocrates 3y ago
      Fair enough, how do you feel about "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" then?
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  The 16th Amendment. It gave the federal government money while explicitly freeing it of any responsibility on how it spends it.
  - zerocrates 3y ago
    What in the 16th Amendment do you think explicitly made any change to how the government can spend money?
supernova87a 3y ago
I guess sometimes, the stupid, unpredictable, irrational, doesn't make economic sense choice is the thing that history remembers.
mypgovroom 3y ago
perfect example of why pure democracy is a horrible idea
aynyc 3y ago
“Cecil Graham: What is a cynic? Lord Darlington: A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Cecil Graham: And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything and doesn’t know the market price of any single thing.” The cost of Apollo program is $178 billion in today's money. I personally don't think NASA would've survived to today if Apollo program wasn't successful.
- glaucon 3y ago
  > The cost of Apollo program is $178 billion in today's money And the cost of Afghanistan/Iraq (in money) was $3,000 billion and yet, somehow, that project survived for twenty years. I don't want to make light of the human tragedy that was Afghanistan/Iraq but I think it's interesting to put the Apollo spend into perspective.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
Let's not forget this phase of the space program was in the context of the Vietnam War, and well as other social issues (e.g., poverty). Even MLK was shifting focus to the injustice of income inequality. Going to the moon was, in that context, seen as another foolish government effort. Few, and for good reason (at the time), were willing to get behind another bloated government idea. If there was no war, the perception and support shifts. If there was also less other social unrest, the perception and support shift again.
nickdothutton 3y ago
Democracy is not a god. Asking the general population about such things and then actually enacting their wishes is like taking your direction from Pooh Bear. He likes the sweet taste of honey, but is a bear of little brain and is happy so long as his supply of it keeps flowing.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > is like taking your direction Who is the "you" in this sentence? Are you speaking as the King? Of course the King doesn't have to justify his expenditures to the peasants.
  - nickdothutton 3y ago
    Whoever is supposedly the leader. Could be an elected president or, to borrow from your example, a King or Chieftain.
bell-cot 3y ago
An important point, for the "we could have spent less money doing direct R&D on the actually-useful technologies which Apollo created, and skipped the pictures and prestige..." crowd to note: The moon race created an extremely public success/fail benchmark, where everyone from the greediest corporate CEO to the lowliest painter on the launch towers understood that losing would for-sure carry a very high social cost. Millions of people, who were already motivated to win the race, were concentrated in certain areas, industries, and labs - providing positive feedback and intense motivation. Yes, it was very expensive, and there was some profiteering, goldbricking, excess bureaucracy, and waste. But compared to most huge government-funded projects, that crap was pretty scarce. To paraphrase Napoleon's supposed maxim on war: "The moral is to the budget as three to one."
sproketboy 3y ago
[dead]
daltont 3y ago
We can use some "Congratulations to the crew of Apollo 8. You saved 1968." moments nowadays. https://amazingstories.com/2016/12/thank-you-for-saving-1968/ https://amazingstories.com/2016/12/thank-you-for-saving-1968...
dynamorando 3y ago
I realize that there's a million obvious answers; but as I type this in the part of the country currently roasting by the heatwave in the United States: will something like this ever happen for climate efforts?
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  Stop and think about this for a bit. Putting someone on the Moon takes a certain number of people, and it's a thing, and you can do it and be done with it. Less than a hundred thousand people, probably. A fixed budget. Addressing climate change means suddenly stopping everyone from doing certain things. It's much broader in scope and involves forbiddance, long-term. It's a near-endless stream of don't: don't burn that coal, don't leave that light on, don't drive so much, don't use that plastic bag, don't have that many kids, and so on. This goes across billions of people and it won't ever end. They're not even comparable.
  - KerrAvon 3y ago
    Sorry, but that's both false and defeatist. You personally not leaving a light on for a few hours is going to make fuck-all difference. You know what _would_ put a dent in it? Restricting private jet travel. Instituting some kind of time or fuel constraints on that would be worth a zillion peons turning off their lights more often. Addressing climate change largely doesn't require personal sacrifice, and personal sacrifice may in fact be counterproductive. We have to identify the actual major sources contributing to it and fix those. There aren't really that many! They're just rich and powerful and they want you to feel like changing a lightbulb in your house is actually doing something. And it is, but it's not doing as much as grounding Musk's private plane forever would.
    - fomine3 3y ago
      Private jets are quite inefficient but it's just a minor one of many emission sources. It should be blamed but just banning private jet doesn't end global warming.
- 3y ago
headline 3y ago
This shows poll results, namely the bit in the news paper they used for the headline, but not the actual question American's were asked that ended with "..amount spent for this purpose or not?" which is just as important as the data.
spamizbad 3y ago
I love stuff like this. It really illustrates the folly of "popularism" (not to be confused with populism) - where you allow your political agenda to be guided heavily based on issues that align with positive polling outcomes, an deemphasize and abandon policy planks that lack popular support.
spoonjim 3y ago
This is why “democracy” is a flawed idea and why the educated elite should be making decisions (but in a way that offers some accountability to the common man).
chinchilla2020 3y ago
I'm more pessimistic about the fact that I have to login/signup to read this article. Smashed the back button and chose to read the comments instead.
black_13 3y ago
[dead]
xchip 3y ago
And 66% against, TBH we rather pursue things that benefit people

200 points by headalgorithm 3y ago

> Noted fiscal hawk Barry Goldwater dismissed the lofty ambitions of lunar exploration as a "wasteful endeavor," an ironic stance given he voiced his criticism at a glitzy dinner that cost each attendee a cool $100 - close to $1000 in 2023. Some things never change, eh?

anaganisk 3y ago
Probably couldn't profit off it as they expected. Politicians never change.
- bboygravity 3y ago
  * politicians in "not really a democracy" never change
dylan604 3y ago
for me, but not for thee will never go away
Brendinooo 3y ago
As always, it’ll depend on your definition of “wasteful”.
Phiwise_ 3y ago
Yes, who could have predicted fundraising for activism would still exist in the US fifty years after $ARBITRARY_2OTH_CENTURY_DATE ? Truly remarkable.
melling 3y ago
A $1000 dinner is nothing in comparison to the cost of going to the moon. I’m definitely glad we did it. However, the Apollo program was expensive. It was 2.5% of GDP for 10 years. https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the-moon-landing.html#:~:text=The%20Apollo%20project%20cost%2025,over%20a%2010%2Dyear%20period https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the.... Imagine today if we said we were going to try and cure cancer(s) in 10 years by spending 2.5% of GDP over the next decade. Think people would support that? Doubt it.
- codyb 3y ago
  That would be pretty sweet. Big fan of Biden's moonshot cancer initiative. I'd love to see another "space race" type event pursued by America in the name of advancing our scientific understanding. Trying to cure cancer seems like it would be an awesome place to start. 2.5% of GDP would be... 500bn a year? Coordinating that would be wild. What about a race to negative emissions for 2.5% GDP? With the promise of well paying jobs, cleaner air (long term saves money due to reduced asthma, etc), reduced foreign energy dependence, and increasing the number of products we can sell abroad (long term positive), reducing climate impact (long term saves money in reduced disaster relief).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  If people believed you might actually do it, enough of us have been affected by cancer that I'm sure they'd support it. Fuck cancer.
  - melling 3y ago
    What if we failed and we could only cure half the people who would have otherwise died? Of course that’s half of people going forward…forever
- lordnacho 3y ago
  The cure for cancer project was a waste of money! Sure it's nice they did it but that money would have been better as tax cuts where it would have spurred innovation in other fields. People die of something else anyway. Yeah we built fancy new labs and educated a new generation of scientists, but what does it matter that we made an algorithm that can cure each individual person's cancer? Those people would have studied something else, and you can just git clone the cancer algorithm nowadays. The whole cure for cancer project was nothing but a tumourdoggle for big research. Hospitals and universities across the country feasting on public money. Labcoat manufacturers and those guys who make beakers, suddenly getting wealthy off what is essentially a photo-op where where we stick it to the Chinese.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
quercusa 3y ago
Were the attendees at that dinner forced at gunpoint to pay for their seats?

m348e912 3y ago

I have commented on HN before that I have been skeptical of the moon landing ever happening, but I've spent some time on apolloinrealtime.org listening and reading the Apollo 11, 13, and 17 moon landing transcripts and I have come around. It sounds way too real to be faked. In that light, I think it was an incredible feat of engineering for the late 60s, and early 70s. Keep in mind, Japan was unable to land a probe on the moon as recently as last year. Do I think it was worth it? That's debatable, but the engineers and scientists involved accomplished something pretty fantastic and that alone deserves some merit.

newfonewhodis 3y ago
> I have been skeptical of the moon landing ever happening I'm curious - what caused you to question it ever happening?
- phnofive 3y ago
  Extraordinary claims, etc. Of course, there is extraordinary evidence for this one.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  They right way to look at any conspiracy is to assess how many people would be required to pull off the fakery. In the case of the moon landing, it would have to be thousands of people, this very unlikely. A soccer or hockey game on the other hand really only requires two people: the goalie and someone paying the goalie. I’m not suggesting that hockey or soccer are rigged however, it is merely an example.
  - jimbob45 3y ago
    Isn’t Katyn hard counterproof against that strategy?
    - earthboundkid 3y ago
      You know about Katyn.

someguydave 3y ago

The moon landings were successful and also a waste of money

rottencupcakes 3y ago
So were the Pyramids of Giza and Angkor Wat. Isn't anything that isn't humanitarian aid technically a waste of money?
- OscarCunningham 3y ago
  I would pick humanitarian aid over religious monuments to glorify unelected monarchs.
  - voakbasda 3y ago
    Recently read the argument that monuments are less about glory and more about keeping the unwashed masses busy with work, so they don't have time or energy to overthrown the ruling class.
    - bamfly 3y ago
      ... or juicing the economy with a little redistribution, without simply giving handouts. Or a little of both. The CCC in the US was a similar thing: paying people to build nice things in parks and such while people were going hungry. We absolutely didn't need that stuff. Coulda just given the money away to those who needed it. Though, this way, at least, we got some wonderful benefits that endure to this day—indeed, the kind of well-built, long-lasting, and nice-to-have but unnecessary infrastructure and flourishes, for the enjoyment and appreciation of all, that make one feel like one actually does live in a very-rich country—even if the resource-allocation wasn't ideal from a greatest-good-for-the-suffering perspective. A sincere attempt at economic stimulus, or keeping the able-bodied masses busy & fed so they don't get any ideas? Probably both. As for the true motivations of the pharaohs—who knows.
  - jmoak3 3y ago

Brendinooo 3y ago

A few thoughts: 1. I love stuff like this. I think about it with elections all the time; even in the biggest landslide elections there’s always about a third of the population that wasn’t on board. A good reminder about winners writing history books. 2. I’m in my 30s. The first time I ever was given an idea that people weren’t all about the Moon landing was a Larry Norman song[0], of all things. (“They brought back a big bag of rocks / Only cost thirteen billion. Must be nice rocks”) I was definitely an adult by this point. 3. I’m curious about the wording, but it seemed like the survey question was focused on cost. Americans never like things when you ask about cost. If the question was “should we develop rockets strong enough to beat the Commies” it probably would have polled a lot better. 4. Americans also always seem to be cool with public works-y stuff once it’s actually built. No one liked the Big Dig until it was done. Part of that is the cost concern, but I think there’s also the disbelief that things are possible, and fears about what the bad side of the thing could be. [0]: https://genius.com/Larry-norman-readers-digest-lyrics https://genius.com/Larry-norman-readers-digest-lyrics

lapcat 3y ago
> I think about it with elections all the time; even in the biggest landslide elections there’s always about a third of the population that wasn’t on board. You're actually vastly underestimating the amount of the population that wasn't on board. In 1972, Nixon was reelected with 60.7% of the vote from 56.2% voter turnout, which amounted to only 34% of eligible voters. In 1984, Reagan was reelected with 58.8% of the vote from 55.2% voter turnout, which amounted to only 32% of eligible voters. Incidentally, Biden in 2020 was also 34%: 51.3% of the vote from 66.6% voter turnout.
- amrocha 3y ago
  You can't make the voter turnout argument because the US election system is awful, and people know when their vote doesn't matter, or when it's being suppressed, and choose not to vote
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > people know when their vote doesn't matter, or when it's being suppressed, and choose not to vote Why would you count these people as "on board"? Moreover, even among the people who do vote, there are a lot who plug their noses and vote for what they consider to be the lesser evil, against the other candidate rather than with enthusiasm for their own candidate.

bobthepanda 3y ago

There was also a lot of social commentary on it. Particularly striking is this spoken word piece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_on_the_Moon

earthboundkid 3y ago
Auden: https://allpoetry.com/moon-landing https://allpoetry.com/moon-landing
germinalphrase 3y ago
Link to performance by Gil Scott-Heron: https://youtu.be/goh2x_G0ct4 https://youtu.be/goh2x_G0ct4
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
csours 3y ago
The first time I heard Whitey On The Moon, I had a strong feeling that we don't all live in the same world, even while we share the same planet. As a counterpoint, there's Home on Lagrange: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRns6u5bHuw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRns6u5bHuw Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus Where the three-body problem is solved, Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K, And the cold virus never evolved. (chorus) We eat algea pie, our vacuum is high, Our ball bearings are perfectly round. Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed, And a kilogram weighs half a pound. (chorus) If we run out of space for our burgeoning race No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart, If we just find a big enough wrench. (chorus) I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space, And living up here is a bore. Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye 'Cause I'm moving next week to L4! (chorus) CHORUS: Home, home on LaGrange, Where the space debris always collects, We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams: Solar power and zero-gee sex. --Home on Lagrange (The L5 Song) © 1978 by William S. Higgins and Barry D. Gehm http://www.jamesoberg.com/humor.html http://www.jamesoberg.com/humor.html

asah 3y ago

The American revolution was opposed by a majority, and man what a screwup, we could've been eating crumpets instead of building a (checks Google) $20 trillion dollar economy. /s https://www.google.com/search?q=was+the+American+revolution+popular https://www.google.com/search?q=was+the+American+revolution+...

lapcat 3y ago
I could definitely go for national health care right now.
- ilikehurdles 3y ago
  As a European immigrant to the US, turned US citizen, I would never take the flip side of my move; but, you can rest easy knowing you have that option. If you don’t know people who have expatriated to some degree out of the US, invest in widening your social circle.
  - CobrastanJorji 3y ago
    There's a good chance you're somehow tied to technology, though, and America pays its software engineers a frankly bonkers amount compared to much of Europe. That may way outweigh a lot of other considerations for you. But I also agree, I'd prefer to stay in the US than move to Europe. But I'd even more prefer to have some universal healthcare and also live in the US.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > As a European immigrant Could you be more specific? There are many countries in Europe, of course. > I would never take the flip side of my move I wasn't talking about moving; I was talking about having UK-style health care here in the US. > you can rest easy knowing you have that option Which option? > If you don’t know people who have expatriated to some degree out of the US, invest in widening your social circle. What was the purpose of this sentence?
    - 3y ago

notahacker 3y ago

One thing the article doesn't cover is that whilst the pessimists had a point about the moon landing itself not achieving very much except some prestige and cool pictures[1] considering the proportion of US national income spent, the Apollo program ended up generating an enormous number of inventions later used in everyday life, from freeze dried food to flight computers, and other tech that could only have come out of a space program like satellites are an essential part of the functioning of the modern world. Estimates suggest the ROI wasn't just non-negative, it was hugely positive (NASA claims $7 for every $1 spent) That was more evident in 1989 than when people were wondering whether it was a massive waste of money in 1969, and certainly than in 1959 [1]the sci-fi optimists' predictions of it leading to permanent colonies and starships within a generation or two have aged worse.

shtopointo 3y ago
There's an argument that all those things would have been invented eventually anyway. There was no need to spend 100s of billions of dollars for basically a photo-op.
- starkparker 3y ago
  What's the argument?
  - shtopointo 3y ago
    That those things would have been invented anyway, because science and technology progresses even without gov't intervention.
    - willis936 3y ago
      Is this a brownian motion/maxwell's demon argument or are you suggesting that progress is guaranteed by some principle?
- jxf 3y ago
  "Eventually" is a pretty long time. If you were in 1959, would you press a button that caused satellites and freeze-dried food and flight computers to arrive 20 years earlier if it cost $10 billion to press? That saves billions of lives over the next 50 years and dramatically accelerates humanity's technology tree, so it seems like it's worth it.

freediverx 3y ago

Whitey On the Moon https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

msla 3y ago
Wow. Racism on HN. What a shock.
gumby 3y ago
I was shocked that wasn't mentioned in the article. It's still as biting today. It definitely moved me, and has influenced my perspective on and choice of work. If you don't know it you should listen to to that link of Gil Scott-Heron reading it, but here are the words if you prefer not to youtube: A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the Moon) Her face and arms began to swell. (and Whitey's on the Moon) I can't pay no doctor bill. (but Whitey's on the Moon) Ten years from now I'll be paying still. (while Whitey's on the Moon)
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  It's not biting today, but instead looks incredibly silly in hindsight. The investment in the moon landing was a massive success and had that money been spent on social programs it would've accomplished almost nothing due to structural and cultural issues

danielodievich 3y ago

I am a huge fan of space exploration and all the various content that comes with it. I also like fine books. Folio Society's A Man on the Moon The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts by Andrew Chaikin (https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/a-man-on-the-moon.html https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/a-man-on-the-moon.html) is an exceptionally fine way to learn more about the technical, budgetary, personal and play bizarre things that went down. The book covers some of the skepticism and the "this is really expensive" objections. If you want to treat yourself, this substantial 2 volume folio is a feast for all your senses.

sdfghswe 3y ago

Oh, so THAT's the real reason for why we have so much fake moonlanding nonsense still to this day. If there's some thing I've learned in the past 6 or so years is that when morons attach their personality to a certain claim and then they're proven wrong, they just double down. So I can totally imagine that a very large fraction of those 66% who opposed it couldn't just be proven wrong and instead attack it. It can't be that I was wrong and landing on the moon was actually awesome, instead it must be fake! Didn't happen!

pessimizer 3y ago
> landing on the moon was actually awesome, Consider that people who opposed going to the moon still may not think that it was "awesome." It's patriotic bullshit that political scoundrels turn to, but is at least not as horrific as war. Although if the money spent on the moon landing had been spent on starving children, many of them wouldn't have starved, so maybe it's a sort of an inverse war to burn cash like that? Nationalists are childish. Trump declares a Space Force, and turns half the people who thought he was the antichrist into his defenders.

damnesian 3y ago

The two newspaper blurbs that the author didn't highlight, but imho have implications that continue to resonate today: --eisenhower didn't think it was fiscally sound to lower taxes. Here was a Republican who understood the strategic importance of the Moon landings, and was not afraid to say to the rest of his party- and the wealthy class- that they need to stop whining about tax cuts. Well we know who won that argument, ultimately. The tax base in the early 60s was VERY robust compared to today, despite the explosive growth of the multinationals and megacorps. Robert Weiner warns about expecting computers to make moral decisions. Seemed paranoid in context, but really it was eerily prescient. Especially considering developments in the last year.

hollerith 3y ago
It's Norbert Wiener.

ghaff 3y ago

Comedy of course but also an indication that it wasn't a hugely unpopular opinion in the intro to Tom Lehrer's Wernher von Braun. And what is it that put America in the forefront of The nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it possible to spend twenty billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old American know-how, that's what, as provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun!

dekhn 3y ago
See also the book "Operation Paperclip" for just how morally questionable (yet ultimately necessary) the US was when importing German scientists for their missle expertise.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Also Operation Epsilon at Farm Hall in the UK for nuclear scientists--at a much smaller scale. Decent play about this if you get a chance to see it.
- mcguire 3y ago
  Leading to the entertaining fact of a major facility on a US military arsenal named after an SS-Sturmbannführer. (https://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Media/Images/igphoto/2000930381/ https://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Media/Images/igphoto/20009303...)

adventured 3y ago

The Revolutionary War was also opposed by the majority of the people in the colonies. The majority of a large population is always and without exception a dumb herd. It's the rare context where you should listen to what that type of majority says or claims to want. The wisdom of crowds is one of the more idiotic concepts popularized in the past 30 years. Even more than intelligence is a very scarce attribute, being competent at utilizing reason and generally being rational (by intent, wilfully; being focused on purpose in the direction of being rational and working to maintain that orientation, which requires persistent effort, while the median person is exceptionally lazy). It's why you shouldn't bother asking people what they want when it comes to building the future. The masses have absolutely no idea what they're doing with their own lives most of the time, much less have any grasp of what's possible when it comes to assembling the future (as referenced Henry Ford & faster horses). People will say: well then you're invalidating Democracy by ignoring the majority! No. Concepts of rights as in the Bill of Rights are specifically created to protect the minority from the irrational, dangerous majority; it's overwhelmingly meant as a restraint on the ill behavior of the majority. It helps (emphasis) to prevent the majority from voting your rights as a minority individual out of existence just because they have that majority vote. We need things like the Bill of Rights precisely because the majority are so often dumb, dangerous and irrational (and they're not irrational + dangerous 24/7, the tendency is for them to go on rampages historically, so they must be caged by something like the Bill of Rights to try to prevent that behavior).

mrangle 3y ago
However, you miss the point of the American Revolution and the government that followed. Which specifically is to suppress tyrants. Stated otherwise, it is to limit those who are willing to act on their own behalf in a manner that oppresses the "dumb herd" while cloaking themselves in righteousness, superiority, and public good. The view to which I am responding renders the American Revolution baseless: a waste of time and effort that was only to shift under which aristocrat(s) the colonists were to be governed. To them, it would have been of little consequence. Excepting for the important issue of War deaths. Last, you begin from an argument of government and justify it with a conclusion that appeals to individual rights. It doesn't follow. There's zero conflict between democracy and the Bill of Rights that anti-populist rulership solves. The term "populism" being from the brand of propaganda that likes to have the word "democracy" constantly oozing out of its mouth while excusing itself to serve mostly special and politician dynasty interests. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that we've ever had a democracy. At the same time only a fool would allow self-styled aristocrats to claim historical just-governance. It's just not the case. Again, all this argument does is nullify most of the proposition for the American Revolution.

Bostonian 3y ago

You could well ask what provision of the Constitution authorized the Federal Government to spend hundreds of billions of today's dollars to put a man on the moon. If the Federal government can spend money on that, what is off limits? Tax money is ultimately taken at gun point, which means it should only be spent on necessary public goods.

mikequinlan 3y ago
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Quoted like someone who has only read the first few words. The actual rules come after that part.
  - zerocrates 3y ago
    Fair enough, how do you feel about "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" then?
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
The 16th Amendment. It gave the federal government money while explicitly freeing it of any responsibility on how it spends it.
- zerocrates 3y ago
  What in the 16th Amendment do you think explicitly made any change to how the government can spend money?

supernova87a 3y ago

I guess sometimes, the stupid, unpredictable, irrational, doesn't make economic sense choice is the thing that history remembers.

mypgovroom 3y ago

perfect example of why pure democracy is a horrible idea

aynyc 3y ago

“Cecil Graham: What is a cynic? Lord Darlington: A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Cecil Graham: And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything and doesn’t know the market price of any single thing.” The cost of Apollo program is $178 billion in today's money. I personally don't think NASA would've survived to today if Apollo program wasn't successful.

glaucon 3y ago
> The cost of Apollo program is $178 billion in today's money And the cost of Afghanistan/Iraq (in money) was $3,000 billion and yet, somehow, that project survived for twenty years. I don't want to make light of the human tragedy that was Afghanistan/Iraq but I think it's interesting to put the Apollo spend into perspective.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Let's not forget this phase of the space program was in the context of the Vietnam War, and well as other social issues (e.g., poverty). Even MLK was shifting focus to the injustice of income inequality. Going to the moon was, in that context, seen as another foolish government effort. Few, and for good reason (at the time), were willing to get behind another bloated government idea. If there was no war, the perception and support shifts. If there was also less other social unrest, the perception and support shift again.

nickdothutton 3y ago

Democracy is not a god. Asking the general population about such things and then actually enacting their wishes is like taking your direction from Pooh Bear. He likes the sweet taste of honey, but is a bear of little brain and is happy so long as his supply of it keeps flowing.

pessimizer 3y ago
> is like taking your direction Who is the "you" in this sentence? Are you speaking as the King? Of course the King doesn't have to justify his expenditures to the peasants.
- nickdothutton 3y ago
  Whoever is supposedly the leader. Could be an elected president or, to borrow from your example, a King or Chieftain.

bell-cot 3y ago

An important point, for the "we could have spent less money doing direct R&D on the actually-useful technologies which Apollo created, and skipped the pictures and prestige..." crowd to note: The moon race created an extremely public success/fail benchmark, where everyone from the greediest corporate CEO to the lowliest painter on the launch towers understood that losing would for-sure carry a very high social cost. Millions of people, who were already motivated to win the race, were concentrated in certain areas, industries, and labs - providing positive feedback and intense motivation. Yes, it was very expensive, and there was some profiteering, goldbricking, excess bureaucracy, and waste. But compared to most huge government-funded projects, that crap was pretty scarce. To paraphrase Napoleon's supposed maxim on war: "The moral is to the budget as three to one."

sproketboy 3y ago

[dead]

daltont 3y ago

We can use some "Congratulations to the crew of Apollo 8. You saved 1968." moments nowadays. https://amazingstories.com/2016/12/thank-you-for-saving-1968/ https://amazingstories.com/2016/12/thank-you-for-saving-1968...

dynamorando 3y ago

I realize that there's a million obvious answers; but as I type this in the part of the country currently roasting by the heatwave in the United States: will something like this ever happen for climate efforts?

at_a_remove 3y ago
Stop and think about this for a bit. Putting someone on the Moon takes a certain number of people, and it's a thing, and you can do it and be done with it. Less than a hundred thousand people, probably. A fixed budget. Addressing climate change means suddenly stopping everyone from doing certain things. It's much broader in scope and involves forbiddance, long-term. It's a near-endless stream of don't: don't burn that coal, don't leave that light on, don't drive so much, don't use that plastic bag, don't have that many kids, and so on. This goes across billions of people and it won't ever end. They're not even comparable.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  Sorry, but that's both false and defeatist. You personally not leaving a light on for a few hours is going to make fuck-all difference. You know what _would_ put a dent in it? Restricting private jet travel. Instituting some kind of time or fuel constraints on that would be worth a zillion peons turning off their lights more often. Addressing climate change largely doesn't require personal sacrifice, and personal sacrifice may in fact be counterproductive. We have to identify the actual major sources contributing to it and fix those. There aren't really that many! They're just rich and powerful and they want you to feel like changing a lightbulb in your house is actually doing something. And it is, but it's not doing as much as grounding Musk's private plane forever would.
  - fomine3 3y ago
    Private jets are quite inefficient but it's just a minor one of many emission sources. It should be blamed but just banning private jet doesn't end global warming.
3y ago

headline 3y ago

This shows poll results, namely the bit in the news paper they used for the headline, but not the actual question American's were asked that ended with "..amount spent for this purpose or not?" which is just as important as the data.

spamizbad 3y ago

I love stuff like this. It really illustrates the folly of "popularism" (not to be confused with populism) - where you allow your political agenda to be guided heavily based on issues that align with positive polling outcomes, an deemphasize and abandon policy planks that lack popular support.

spoonjim 3y ago

This is why “democracy” is a flawed idea and why the educated elite should be making decisions (but in a way that offers some accountability to the common man).

chinchilla2020 3y ago

I'm more pessimistic about the fact that I have to login/signup to read this article. Smashed the back button and chose to read the comments instead.

black_13 3y ago

[dead]

xchip 3y ago

And 66% against, TBH we rather pursue things that benefit people