Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/19/2014 6:28:23 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
Coming July 20th, 2014: ‘Whitey on the Moon’: Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972
Paul Kersey
“When you look back at 1969 and see what has developed in space since then, a better question might have been: “What was the point?” There’s often a fine line between useful endeavors and constructing massive pyramids just for the sake of building monuments to our egos.”
I think people in Spain were saying that in 1493 after Columbus came back.
There’s a huge difference between terrestrial exploration in places where human beings can live in their natural environment and landing on a moon or planet where there’s no chance in hell of surviving outside a highly controlled (and expensive) environment.
First there were years of dithering over whether the bridge should be built in downtown Louisville, where there are already three bridges, or to the east of the city to finish the I265 ring around Louisville and Southern Indiana. The east route won that dithering.
Then there was more dithering as there are historic buildings in the way of the best path for the continuation of the Interstate to the river where the bridge will be built. Finally! The obvious solution! Build a tunnel under the historical structures! True brilliance!
I was in Louisville in early July. It looks like they have finally started construction.
I can't remember the estimated cost but I'd bet $100 that, like Boston's "Big Dig," the eventual bridge will cost several times the initial investment.
Of course, millions have already been spent on engineering studies and consultants.
For some local historical perspective, the Second Street Bridge in Louisville (another bridge over the Ohio River) was built between 1928 and 1928 for a mere $4.7 million. The John F Kennedy bridge (yet another downtown bridge) that carries I-65 traffic over the Ohio River was built between 1961 and 1963 for $10 million.
For a pretty thorough discussion of this on-going fiscal fiasco, click here. If you follow that link, think about how much additional cost Political Correctness has added to this project.
With all due respect to Louisville, glad I don't live there anymore.
I worked on implementing GPS. If you look at the technology people are interested in on a daily basis, it is all about satisfying themselves right now. You look at satellites and think it is the pinnacle of space technology because it affects your world today. You reject anything in space because it doesn't relate to your job today.
If you were making decisions in 1960 you would have rejected satellites because you wouldn't be able to see what possible connection it would have with your daily life.
The difference between you and the decision makers in 1960 is that they could envision some of the benefits. You can see only costs.
You snort at the moon landing because that is all you can see, one isolated event in history. People who made it happen could see a lot farther until Richard Nixon came along and sought to please the navel-gazers.
I am not saying we should give NASA a blank check -- they have the same malady as the rest of society. Healthy, growing societies want to know what is over the horizon. Stagnant, dying societies only concern themselves with the same problems humanity has always had.
And the irony is that what really makes it most difficult to "picture tomorrow" is that on a personal level, we have already solved almost every problem that faced the human race up until the last 50-100 years.
What problems are those? Our society is currently trying to solve the problems of greed, selfishness, and powerlust and offering political solutions (Marxism) that only make those problems worse.
We have greatly reduced the size of some problems (for example, infectious diseases) but not too many have been absolutely solved. What kind of gibberish is this? It sounds like something you'd find in a political speech by a candidate with an IQ of around 90. I don't know about you, but I "picture tomorrow" all the time.
Nice personal attack. What I mean is that people can't see any benefit to something like nuclear power. They can only see the costs. They flee in fear at the word "radiation" with no understanding of what it is. Nuclear is a transformational technology, but has never been allowed to reach its full potential. The technology has nearly been abandoned, and has been stagnant for the last forty years because society won't accept it. No serious basic research is being done because it is moot at this point.
Nothing looms larger over our “lesser” America than that ridiculous replacement for our Twin Towers. It’s a stunning reminder of a reduced country. I despise it.
Yes. Yeager was pressured to find qualified black astronauts. The problem was there weren’t any. And even when brought up to be nearly forced to promote black astronauts he stood his ground.
Nasa also supplied funding for many other aerospace projects too besides space. Reagan turned many of us loose on the National Aerospace Plane ( mach 25) and at least three of the six enabling technologies had been accomplished.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3106539/posts?page=1
I think I was more impressed with Neil Armstrong flying an X-15 rocket plane than the first moon walk.
The only national goal it seems we have now is letting an invasion take place in our country.
This kind of rationale is what ultimately led to the demise of the lunar programs for NASA. After the first mission, the "investment" immediately faced a future of diminishing returns unless a realistic case could be made that the moon held some potential that couldn't be realized elsewhere -- like something related to its position relative to the earth, a new mineral or other material that had tangible human benefits, etc.
You're confusing a prudent, objective analysis of a situation with a complete dismissal of it. The question isn't whether we should do something or do nothing ... it's whether we should do A or do B. I'd be curious to know what you think the U.S. -- and the world at large -- would have looked like today if the lunar program had continued indefinitely after the early 1970s. I contend that nothing of any substance would have happened if the U.S. continued the space program (course "A"), and in fact we might be worse off today because the space program would have come at the expense of other pursuits (course "B") that had more substantive, tangible benefits in the long run.
Your example of nuclear power is a good one, because nuclear power is clearly a case where one technology is on the table that provides almost the same benefit as another. The question today isn't whether we should use nuclear power or live in caves ... it's whether nuclear power is better, cheaper, or more effective than other sources of power (natural gas, hydroelectric, etc.). It's no accident that for the one application where nuclear power has a clear, tangible and measurable value over "conventional" fuel -- I'm referring to the use of nuclear power for naval vessels to enable them to operate at sea for months or years without refueling -- there's really no debate about the issue at all. The case has been made, the technology has been developed and improved over time, and nobody with half a brain is clamoring to go back to the "good old days" when the U.S Navy operated all of its ships using diesel power, steam or sails.
If we can send Americans to the Moon, we can send Mexicans back to Mexico.
You stated the plain truth elegantly.
Thank you
“And the irony is that what really makes it most difficult to “picture tomorrow” is that on a personal level, we have already solved almost every problem that faced the human race up until the last 50-100 years. That’s a nice problem to have, isn’t it?”
If you say so, then it must be.
Obviously, tomorrow will bring no new problems that will impact the human race and life on Earth. So why work on such things now, when we can safely and comfortably wait until the problem is apparent? It would take just a moment to figure out what to do about an 50 mile-wide asteroid coming from behind the sun on a collision course the Earth! Child’s play! Or Earth getting blasted by multiple humongous solar flares which will fry every electronic gadget on Earth or in orbit - too easy. We could go on here, but what’s the point, since we’ve got it covered?
Sheesh - let tomorrow take care of itself. We can do better staring at our personal and collective navels while using our tax dollars to feed the homeless, house and care for every person who decides to cross the Mexican border, since we have solved every problem facing the human race already.
Moreover, when you look closely at all the stuff that came out of the Apollo program, they were just so obvious anyway, and people would have come up with the same solutions without spending all those precious tax dollars to bring back worthless hunks of Lunar rock.
So yes, you are right - as usual - there is absolutely no need to explore the solar system using humans - we are too fragile and require too many resources. We can better use people with vision to look into the important things we may encounter while doing important social work or working in other important mundane fields.
Inspiration, hope - who needs them? We are a mature society now and no longer need to explore or pioneer anything - especially not using humans in space - some of them might die! The terrible headlines, the endless talking heads, the embarrassment, the humiliation, the distraction from the really important events of the day - can you image?
Let’s agree to keep our personal and collective heads down and above all: Never Look Up!
When the Americas were colonized, there was a complete lack of infrastructure and no real discernible benefit. All the same resources were available in Europe. It was expensive and difficult to access.
Along the way, benefits were gleaned that were simply not foreseeable, from dietary staples like corn, potatoes and tomatoes to the political and economic benefits the US has provided to Europe across the last two centuries.
Most of the technological advances that have made the biggest difference in our world have been unanticipated just as many of the benefits of the new world were unanticipated. And the bigger the benefit, less obvious it is that it will provide any personal benefit. Which makes it nearly impossible to justify on your terms.
When the Americas were colonized, there was a complete lack of infrastructure and no real discernible benefit. All the same resources were available in Europe. It was expensive and difficult to access.
I completely disagree with most of what you've said here. For one thing, "infrastructure" was not nearly as important a consideration back then because transportation in ocean-going vessels eliminated the need for roads, and because things like power grids and sanitary sewers weren't in use yet anyway. And ironically, it was the lack of infrastructure elsewhere that drove the European exploration in the 15th through the 17th centuries. Those early explorers were seeking trade routes to the Far East, which were deemed necessary because of the difficulty of transporting things through inhospitable terrain with no roads, through areas with unfriendly foreign governments, etc.
And I don't know where you get this idea that "all of the same resources were available in Europe." If that were the case, then there would have been no need for these nations to trade at all. Lumber, for example, was a prized commodity in Europe back then. By the time Christopher Columbus landed in North America I'm sure most of western Europe had been stripped clean of any trees that might have grown there at one time (there's a reason why stone houses are common in old European cities). In the case of North America, there was such an abundance of trees that a country like England didn't ship lumber back to Europe -- they established an entire shipbuilding industry here in North America. Tall hardwoods in the area that is now New Hampshire and southern Maine were especially valuable for that industry, since they were ideally suited for masts on sailing ships.
In fact, I'd make the case that England ended up surpassing Spain, France and the Dutch as a global empire because trade was so important to England. Just look at the British Isles -- both their tiny size and their location in an area where harsh weather made conditions so difficult for agriculture -- to see why it was almost inevitable for them to become the dominant empire-builders of the last few hundred years.
Most of the technological advances that have made the biggest difference in our world have been unanticipated just as many of the benefits of the new world were unanticipated. And the bigger the benefit, less obvious it is that it will provide any personal benefit. Which makes it nearly impossible to justify on your terms.
I can't disagree with you about the "unanticipated" nature of technological advances and the benefits they provide, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to just go out and explore new horizons on the odd chance that something of great benefit might come out of it. To make my case I'd simply point out the difference between exploring North America and exploring Antarctica. At some point, after the euphoria of reaching the South Pole for the first time wore off, even the most ambitious explorer would look at Antarctica and recognize that his efforts would be put to better use elsewhere. That's why we've come to 2014 and things like dogsledding to the South Pole or climbing Mount Everest have become nothing more than expensive, dangerous hobbies. And guess what ... space travel is slowly moving in that direction, too!
People get the kind of government they deserve--and vice versa.
In particular, it was one black astronaut. I learned something new today.
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-wrong-stuff-ed-dwight-story-john-f.html
Infrastructure means more than roads. The earliest settlers had no way to feed themselves despite the abundance of resources. Go out and plant a garden on a random bit of land for your only sustenance and you will starve.
And I don't know where you get this idea that "all of the same resources were available in Europe."
When they climbed off the ship they could not point to anything that did not exist back home. Even lumber. It was more accessible and in greater abundance, but the same can be said for a lot of resources on earth vs asteroids.
England could have decided not to care about anything past their shoreline. Building a navy and trading empire was expensive and most of the people who started to do it would never see a benefit in their lifetimes.
Of course, they don't anymore. Their society is shrinking by any measure, more concerned with shorter timespans and smaller horizons. We are doing the same.
Why go to the moon or mars when you can subsidize street people and welfare bums for votes? Why care what is happening next door to our oil supply when we can worry about getting free abortions?
The rest of the world has had the luxury of turning in on itself because we were there to solve the problems they didn't care about. We won't be there anymore. And those problems will be our problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.