Hacker News Reader

Comment by dclowd9901 | Hacker News Reader

It's hard to imagine, since the moonlandings, if America kept its pace in space exploration, how far ahead of everyone else it would be, but also how far along everyone else would be. America was the catalyst for the impossible in that era, and then we decided to abandon it for... basically nothing. Enriching corporations, I guess?

People took issue with the cost of space exploration in context of "the good the money could do here on Earth", but then when we shifted resources that way, the money did absolutely no good here on Earth.

View on HN

The US is still significantly ahead of everyone else in space. It’s just that NASA has become a shadow of its past self.

Maybe it’s better this way. There is a tendency of every organization, private or public, to rot and stagnate over time. But in the private sectors they die more quickly and give way to new entrants, which would help space exploration long term.

> It's hard to imagine, since the moonlandings, if America kept its pace in space exploration ...

The collapse of the USSR was the worst thing to happen to NASA.

I would suggest a watch of "We Stopped Dreaming" https://youtu.be/CbIZU8cQWXc

A less angry version (video and transcript of Neil DeGrasse Tyson testifying before the Senate's Science Committee on 7 March 2012) https://ifsa.my/articles/we-stopped-dreaming-by-neil-degrass...

    Let’s be honest with one anther.  We went to the Moon because we were at war with the Soviet Union. To think otherwise is delusion, leading some to suppose the only reason we’re not on Mars already is the absence of visionary leaders, or of political will, or of money. No. When you perceive your security to be at risk, money flows like rivers to protect us.

    But there exists another driver of great ambitions, almost as potent as war. That’s the promise of wealth. Fully funded missions to Mars and beyond, commanded by astronauts who, today, are in middle school, would reboot America’s capacity to innovate as no other force in society can. What matters here are not spin-offs (although I could list a few: Accurate affordable Lasik surgery, Scratch resistant lenses, Cordless power tools, Tempurfoam, Cochlear implants, the drive to miniaturize of electronics…) but cultural shifts in how the electorate views the role of science and technology in our daily lives.

    As the 1970s drew to a close, we stopped advancing a space frontier. The “tomorrow” articles faded. And we spent the next several decades coasting on the innovations conceived by earlier dreamers. They knew that seemingly impossible things were possible—the older among them had enabled, and the younger among them had witnessed the Apollo voyages to the Moon—the greatest adventure there ever was. If all you do is coast, eventually you slow down, while others catch up and pass you by.

I'm skeptical that space exploration in particular was meaningfully responsible for the list of consumer-facing technologies Tyson mentioned in his speech. If anything, I think that technological development created to serve Earth-based demand also has benefits for making space exploration cheaper and easier - computers have gotten way cheaper and way more powerful since the Apollo Guidance Computer, which has obviously affected the entire world in countless ways but also means that we can computerize every aspect of space launches, generally for good.

> I'm skeptical that space exploration in particular was meaningfully responsible for the list of consumer-facing technologies Tyson mentioned in his speech.

It clearly was, at least in several examples. It looks like he's getting it right from NASA:

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1996/43.html

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff2003/hm_3.html

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/node/9275

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Telescope-Mirror-Tech-Improves-Eye-...

Apollo program was canceled during Nixon's presidency while the Cold War was very much still active (though slowing down a little from detente). A few years later Reagan won on a platform of re-accelerating the Cold War with swelling military budgets and deficit spending, but without commiserate increases to space exploration and science.

The Space Race was a unique and limited phase coming out of the atomic age when public support for scientific research was at an all time high. With the Kennedy and Johnson administrations willing to fund programs left and right to improve education and research with long term aims. The Soviets were also at the apogee of their scientific capability, and Khrushchev did great PR for all their achievements which unnerved Americans and provided the Cold War justification for new domestic programs.

Once the Brezhnev age of stagnation and lopsided USSR military spending set in, the new Cold War 2.0 became about numbers of delivery vehicles and NATO conventional deterrence, not space and science. By then the US had clear technological dominance that seemed insurmountable in the new world of microchips and computers in which the Soviets couldn't compete. Which allowed Reagan to boost military budgets and deficit spending while simultaneously beginning the Republican "starve the beast" strategy to cut taxes and non-military domestic programs.

All of this is to point out that Cold War = Space Race/Apollo is looking back with rose colored glasses. We could just as easily see federal space and science spending getting further slashed every year while churning out warheads, delivery vehicles and conventional arms ever faster (and seems more likely based on late Cold War trends).

President Nixon cancelled NASA manned deep space exploration programs due to rising costs from the Space Shuttle program and the Vietnam War. It wasn't politically sustainable to keep funding everything. With the benefit of hindsight one could argue that we should have withdrawn sooner from Vietnam and cancelled the Space Shuttle program.

> but then when we shifted resources that way, the money did absolutely no good here on Earth.

So things like curing AIDS don't count?

Can you show me how diverted nasa funding cured AIDS, directly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com