3 ms·
What they mean is all the spinoffs of getting there do not count. Microelectronics, computers, leaps in materials science, massive advances in medical and healt
by bregma 1y ago
What they mean is all the spinoffs of getting there do not count. Microelectronics, computers, leaps in materials science, massive advances in medical and health sciences, and techniques and processes for very-large-scale project planning and implementation hardly count as benefits, especially if you don't count them as benefits.
After all, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Not one dollar was spent in space during the first space race.
- trenchpilgrim 1y agoIf you want massive returns on medical and health sciences, you get far better returns investing in medical research and public health programs. Same with technology - if you want better materials and electronics, invest in physics research.
- wredcoll 1y agoIsn't that basically what they did? The moon landing was just a big test of the research.
- trenchpilgrim 1y agoThe US spent 6% of its GDP to land on the moon, much of that money going into military and aerospace companies . It is far more efficient to spend that money on medical, health and physics research directly; the moon landing accomplished political and cultural objectives.
- wredcoll 1y ago> money on medical, health and physics research directly What precisely is the difference? Where was space-race money spent that shouls be reallocated? My point is you eventually need to put the research into practice.