3 ms·

It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. It’s an artificial challenge that focuses attention, with the goal of exercising government, industries, academi

It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. It’s an artificial challenge that focuses attention, with the goal of exercising government, industries, academics, etc. and maybe learn and invent a few things along the way. Yes, yes, Cold War and all those theories. But it had and can again have this greater effect. It’s kind of like a FIRST Robotics Challenge for nations. The specific goal really doesn’t matter and can just as well be different than the moon. That’s not the interesting part.

harimau777 1y ago
Excellent point! I'd add that it also serves to inspire regular people and get them interested in science. Unfortunately, I think that's the problem with some of the rhetoric like "the green revolution will be the next space race!" For better or worse, solar panels aren't as inspiring to most people as space is.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  A lot of money and time were behind the space race propaganda arm that got people excited about advancements in space technology. If the same resources were put into popularizing advancements in energy, you'd see more excitement. As it is, there are kids growing up excited about environmentalism like there were kids growing up excited about space.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    No. Kids are not stupid. You can appreciate environmental innovation while also recognizing that it is fundamentally, qualitatively different from doing difficult things in space. Do you look at the Mars Rover and say to yourself 'big deal, we have cars right here on Earth'?
    - heavyset_go 1y ago
      I never claimed kids were stupid, my point is that a ton of resources were dumped into things like fan clubs, movies, TV and radio programs, toys, collectibles, children's books, keeping it in the news, etc. We even sent a grade school teacher into space even if that ended in tragedy. Look at the cult of personality the Soviet Union built around Yuri Gagarin, yes people were always going to find space exploration interesting, but manufacturing a folk hero means even more people will, too, and it becomes something aspirational and seemingly attainable. The Soviets were not unique in doing this, the US did similar things.
      - harimau777 1y ago
        I agree that all played a role. I'm just not sure that a similar PR campaign would be able to produce comparable inspiration from, for example, public infrastructure. There's no afro-futurist movie called "The Interstate Highway is the Place".
        heavyset_go 1y ago
        I think we were able to strike a chord with nationalist tendencies, which can be strong motivators, for public infrastructure during the New Deal era with the PWA and WPA and their associated propaganda. There was both a personal pride in bettering oneself with hard work, and larger shared pride of building huge, sometimes incredible feats of engineering, infrastructure that your neighbors and nation depend on, and quite literally rebuilding the nation for a new modern era. There are already some related things in popular culture that seem to inspire younger generations, like new urbanism. The hope for a new way of living can be a huge motivating force.
fluoridation 1y ago
>It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. Nah. You can argue that the goal "land on the moon" is artificial, but it being artificial doesn't make it fake or abstract. If you're the first to achieve it then you're the first, and that's it. What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new. Now, if you're not able to repeat it at all, that does say something. But if it takes you a few years longer, well, so what? It's not a race anymore, because it's already been won, by the US of fifty years ago. The winner of the race to Mars is still undecided, though.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  It feels arbitrary to decide we can’t have a Space Race 2 (Space Harder) but we have Olympics every two years and Super Bowls and World Series and all that every year. I’ve got to assume I’m misunderstanding the objection because it feels ridiculous to overstir the oxygen over semantics. Do we just need to call it Space Race 2?
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    A space race isn't a sport, it's a technological and scientific challenge. You can't invent the same technology twice, unless the idea is completely forgotten. Also unlike sports, space races are massively expensive and it's untenable to forever go from one to the next.
    - eru 1y ago
      Well, you could try to raise the challenge. Eg do it on a limited budget, or establish a permanent base, etc. However I agree that manned space flight is a giant money pit with not much to show for. It should come out of our entertainment budget, not eat into our science budget. If you want to do science in space, go unmanned.
    - jlawson 1y ago
      The space race was not just about inventing, though. It was about doing. You can do the same thing twice, and you can also lose the ability to do something. The ability to do the thing is what is really being maintained and demonstrated. Every country has the technology to go to the moon - it's well established now. But who can actually make it happen? That's a huge organizational, human, financial, industrial challenge. And people do notice when only one country can do it.
mjamesaustin 1y ago
It succeeded in the 60s because we didn't just focus attention, we focused a LOT OF MONEY on it. In comparison, today's NASA has a meager budget which has only been further slashed by the current administration. I would love to see the kind of investment in NASA we had during the 60s. The scientific advancements were staggering. Today, the only thing we have money for is weapons and warfare.
- JackFr 1y ago
  > we focused a LOT OF MONEY on it Apollo at its height commanded 0.8% of the entire US economy.
  - intrasight 1y ago
    AI is today's equivalent race. I wouldn't be surprised if it's now over 1% of the US economy.
    - allenrb 1y ago
      And IMHO this AI race will do something Apollo never did, at least not with people aboard… crash and burn.
      - amrocha 1y ago
        I can’t tell if this is a joke. The Apollo mission did crash and burn and kill people.
      - Azrael3000 1y ago
        Apollo 1 burned quite well unfortunately. But IMHO it makes no sense to compare those things anyways.
    - jcgrillo 1y ago
      Apollo was much better value for money. It inspired generations to study and enter STEM fields, it gave us multitudes of technological advances, and it gave the entire world something to marvel at. It gave us the earthrise image, which fueled the environmental movement. What has "AI" inspired? What marvels will the enshittificatement of googling, or the latest deepfake garbage bestow upon us? If "AI" is our moonshot we're all well and truly fucked.

harimau777 1y ago

Excellent point! I'd add that it also serves to inspire regular people and get them interested in science. Unfortunately, I think that's the problem with some of the rhetoric like "the green revolution will be the next space race!" For better or worse, solar panels aren't as inspiring to most people as space is.

heavyset_go 1y ago
A lot of money and time were behind the space race propaganda arm that got people excited about advancements in space technology. If the same resources were put into popularizing advancements in energy, you'd see more excitement. As it is, there are kids growing up excited about environmentalism like there were kids growing up excited about space.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  No. Kids are not stupid. You can appreciate environmental innovation while also recognizing that it is fundamentally, qualitatively different from doing difficult things in space. Do you look at the Mars Rover and say to yourself 'big deal, we have cars right here on Earth'?
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    I never claimed kids were stupid, my point is that a ton of resources were dumped into things like fan clubs, movies, TV and radio programs, toys, collectibles, children's books, keeping it in the news, etc. We even sent a grade school teacher into space even if that ended in tragedy. Look at the cult of personality the Soviet Union built around Yuri Gagarin, yes people were always going to find space exploration interesting, but manufacturing a folk hero means even more people will, too, and it becomes something aspirational and seemingly attainable. The Soviets were not unique in doing this, the US did similar things.
    - harimau777 1y ago
      I agree that all played a role. I'm just not sure that a similar PR campaign would be able to produce comparable inspiration from, for example, public infrastructure. There's no afro-futurist movie called "The Interstate Highway is the Place".
      - heavyset_go 1y ago
        I think we were able to strike a chord with nationalist tendencies, which can be strong motivators, for public infrastructure during the New Deal era with the PWA and WPA and their associated propaganda. There was both a personal pride in bettering oneself with hard work, and larger shared pride of building huge, sometimes incredible feats of engineering, infrastructure that your neighbors and nation depend on, and quite literally rebuilding the nation for a new modern era. There are already some related things in popular culture that seem to inspire younger generations, like new urbanism. The hope for a new way of living can be a huge motivating force.

fluoridation 1y ago

>It’s just as absurd today as it was in the 60s. Nah. You can argue that the goal "land on the moon" is artificial, but it being artificial doesn't make it fake or abstract. If you're the first to achieve it then you're the first, and that's it. What does it prove if you're able to repeat it fifty years later? You didn't have to invent anything new (obviously), and you're certainly not learning anything new. Now, if you're not able to repeat it at all, that does say something. But if it takes you a few years longer, well, so what? It's not a race anymore, because it's already been won, by the US of fifty years ago. The winner of the race to Mars is still undecided, though.

Waterluvian 1y ago
It feels arbitrary to decide we can’t have a Space Race 2 (Space Harder) but we have Olympics every two years and Super Bowls and World Series and all that every year. I’ve got to assume I’m misunderstanding the objection because it feels ridiculous to overstir the oxygen over semantics. Do we just need to call it Space Race 2?
- fluoridation 1y ago
  A space race isn't a sport, it's a technological and scientific challenge. You can't invent the same technology twice, unless the idea is completely forgotten. Also unlike sports, space races are massively expensive and it's untenable to forever go from one to the next.
  - eru 1y ago
    Well, you could try to raise the challenge. Eg do it on a limited budget, or establish a permanent base, etc. However I agree that manned space flight is a giant money pit with not much to show for. It should come out of our entertainment budget, not eat into our science budget. If you want to do science in space, go unmanned.
  - jlawson 1y ago
    The space race was not just about inventing, though. It was about doing. You can do the same thing twice, and you can also lose the ability to do something. The ability to do the thing is what is really being maintained and demonstrated. Every country has the technology to go to the moon - it's well established now. But who can actually make it happen? That's a huge organizational, human, financial, industrial challenge. And people do notice when only one country can do it.

mjamesaustin 1y ago

It succeeded in the 60s because we didn't just focus attention, we focused a LOT OF MONEY on it. In comparison, today's NASA has a meager budget which has only been further slashed by the current administration. I would love to see the kind of investment in NASA we had during the 60s. The scientific advancements were staggering. Today, the only thing we have money for is weapons and warfare.

JackFr 1y ago
> we focused a LOT OF MONEY on it Apollo at its height commanded 0.8% of the entire US economy.
- intrasight 1y ago
  AI is today's equivalent race. I wouldn't be surprised if it's now over 1% of the US economy.
  - allenrb 1y ago
    And IMHO this AI race will do something Apollo never did, at least not with people aboard… crash and burn.
    - amrocha 1y ago
      I can’t tell if this is a joke. The Apollo mission did crash and burn and kill people.
    - Azrael3000 1y ago
      Apollo 1 burned quite well unfortunately. But IMHO it makes no sense to compare those things anyways.
  - jcgrillo 1y ago
    Apollo was much better value for money. It inspired generations to study and enter STEM fields, it gave us multitudes of technological advances, and it gave the entire world something to marvel at. It gave us the earthrise image, which fueled the environmental movement. What has "AI" inspired? What marvels will the enshittificatement of googling, or the latest deepfake garbage bestow upon us? If "AI" is our moonshot we're all well and truly fucked.