Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zetice | Hacker News Reader

He says using tech that wouldn’t exist otherwise…

I don't think he's using any tech that could not have been produced without a moon landing. Even if some part traces to the Apollo program, there's no reason to think it wouldn't have been developed via another route.

I'm all for science spending, and a moon shot is probably about as good as any other way to funnel money to scientists and engineers. But let's not be disingenuous that this program was the only possible way to spend money on science.

It would probably exist either way.

A good amount of that tech was also designed for ICBM usage. Some of it would may or may not have existed. It would be hard to prove either way as we only have what happened not what could have.

True, it's be hard to prove either way.

If not the Apollo project what would have been driving force that lead to the development of the personal computer industry at nearly the same rate?

There wasn't a market demand for computers that would justify the R&D budget that Apollo was given to develop computers to the level that was required to get us where we are today.

Of course there was – IBM got started 50 years before the moon landings. Mostly had to do with data processing (bank transactions, census etc.)

This is totally wrong,

Where we are today is a result if the work that IBM did not related to the space program, the work that was done for the space program, and the work that was done because of the space program.

The scenario you're describing only has the first one, but not the other two.

Would you say the same thing if WWII human experimentation had useful results? Would that make the cost worth it? How many people died for lack of $180B? Did they get that value back from "tech?"

Public schools for black kids must have been really amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzoPopQ7V0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com