What was the point of going to the moon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beat the Russians politically and in tech.

According to JFK: "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Imagine the United States, but every guy has way higher testosterone. That was literally the case.

You know what’s hard is feeding everybody healthy food let’s do that.

PP. It's available. People won't eat it. My depression-era grandparents were poor as fck and ate healthy food. Same for my impoverished great-grandparents in rural Italy. The food thing is not a money problem; hasn't been for over 100 years.

The so-called food deserts claim about blighted America is unhelpful posturing.

One day we might have a bulk of our crops planted on moon or mars.

So that Elon Musk can control our food supply?

Insanity. We have a perfectly adapted greenhouse right here called planet Earth and it is already designed to supply food efficiently.

What's agriculture land with aqueducts today, might be a barren desert tomorrow. Forward thinking helps human survive.

Yes, so let's go find a barren desert in space instead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

What’s the point of anything, really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

None, because you wouldn’t have gotten any public support or funding if we had just tried to launch some weather satellites or develop launch vehicles capable of reaching geosynchronous orbit absent a lofty goal.

It's cute that you think weather satellites were a thing. The first satellites were used for communication and spying on foreign countries. The science missions were secondary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Radiation_and_Background

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

What’s the point of anything, really?

There is some natural curiosity about the moon. It's not clear it was necessary to send men to the moon to get the answers. Robotic explorers would have have been far less risky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

What’s the point of anything, really?

There is some natural curiosity about the moon. It's not clear it was necessary to send men to the moon to get the answers. Robotic explorers would have have been far less risky.

What would be the point of sending robotic explorers? By your own “logic” that would also be completely unnecessary. I’d actually like to read some of you naysayers articulate precisely which human activities have some inherent “point” and why you think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

What’s the point of anything, really?

There is some natural curiosity about the moon. It's not clear it was necessary to send men to the moon to get the answers. Robotic explorers would have have been far less risky.

What would be the point of sending robotic explorers? By your own “logic” that would also be completely unnecessary. I’d actually like to read some of you naysayers articulate precisely which human activities have some inherent “point” and why you think so.

By your logic, we can't explore Mars unless we send a manned craft. Otherwise, you couldn't pique public interest. I believe that would be a counterfactual belief given the interest in the Mars rovers a few years ago.

My opinion is that it's not necessary to send men to the Moon. That was mostly a political game we were playing with the Russians in the 1960s. Why we are going again, I have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

What’s the point of anything, really?

There is some natural curiosity about the moon. It's not clear it was necessary to send men to the moon to get the answers. Robotic explorers would have have been far less risky.

What would be the point of sending robotic explorers? By your own “logic” that would also be completely unnecessary. I’d actually like to read some of you naysayers articulate precisely which human activities have some inherent “point” and why you think so.

By your logic, we can't explore Mars unless we send a manned craft. Otherwise, you couldn't pique public interest. I believe that would be a counterfactual belief given the interest in the Mars rovers a few years ago.

My opinion is that it's not necessary to send men to the Moon. That was mostly a political game we were playing with the Russians in the 1960s. Why we are going again, I have no idea.

I am not presenting MY logic - I am refuting yours. And you didn’t answer the basic question. What human activity IS necessary and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

What’s the point of anything, really?

There is some natural curiosity about the moon. It's not clear it was necessary to send men to the moon to get the answers. Robotic explorers would have have been far less risky.

What would be the point of sending robotic explorers? By your own “logic” that would also be completely unnecessary. I’d actually like to read some of you naysayers articulate precisely which human activities have some inherent “point” and why you think so.

By your logic, we can't explore Mars unless we send a manned craft. Otherwise, you couldn't pique public interest. I believe that would be a counterfactual belief given the interest in the Mars rovers a few years ago.

My opinion is that it's not necessary to send men to the Moon. That was mostly a political game we were playing with the Russians in the 1960s. Why we are going again, I have no idea.

I am not presenting MY logic - I am refuting yours. And you didn’t answer the basic question. What human activity IS necessary and why?

The basic question is, why send men to the moon? My answer is that we didn't need to send men. Sending robotic explorers would have been sufficient. The "technology" that was developed in sending men to the moon was going to be developed one way or another. I repeatedly hear that NASA was responsible for integrated circuits. NASA was the biggest consumer of ICs at one point, but the technology was invented and in use before the moon missions. https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-integrated-circuit-aka-microchip-1992006 Did we need to send men to the moon to get ICs? No. Did the space race develop anything that uniquely required a manned moon mission? Doubtful.

We aren't discussing whether any arbitrary human activity has purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

Mostly. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) is a geologist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

…

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

It’s this last point. It isn’t that we couldn’t do these things without a human space flight program, it’s that we wouldn’t. If you give people a suitable grand project and motivation and funding with a clear goal and end date (all of which Kennedy did), the outcome is a whole lot of innovation and people with skills and knowledge that didn’t exist beforehand. The ROI on this kind of scientific/technological endeavor is generally regarded to be better than just about any other investment because it causes collateral growth.

Often people make a counter-argument that things like web companies and SpaceX prove that innovation happens in the private sector without the need for government intervention. But the Web and SpaceX absolutely would not exist without government funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

Mostly. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) is a geologist.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/Phinney_NASA-SP-2015-626.pdf describes the specific scientific training these guys underwent for the missions, but IIRC they all had advanced degrees in what we now call STEM fields.
I doubt 1960s robots would have had the capabilities of the ones we send to Mars.
But it was all political as well. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beating the Russians.

I think many were against it for a variety of reasons. The space program was enormously expensive, and began when the US was legally a racially segregated country, with all that that implied. Many resented tax dollars and effort being used by white men to score points with no clear benefits— while inequalities that were built into this country’s founding and development persisted.

Some of us look longingly at countries with universal healthcare and low cost college tuition— often countries that benefitted from US dollars and expertise post-WWll. Imagine if, instead, the money and minds focused on showing up the Russians had been focused on domestic issues. That said, there have been many technological benefits from the program, but the point seems to have been a dick waving contest between white men — which was better than another war.

Who told you that black people resented the space program?

Why do you ask? Do you want actual names? I’m happy to answer — if there are what I view as good reasons for your curiosity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

What’s the point of anything, really?

There is some natural curiosity about the moon. It's not clear it was necessary to send men to the moon to get the answers. Robotic explorers would have have been far less risky.

What would be the point of sending robotic explorers? By your own “logic” that would also be completely unnecessary. I’d actually like to read some of you naysayers articulate precisely which human activities have some inherent “point” and why you think so.

By your logic, we can't explore Mars unless we send a manned craft. Otherwise, you couldn't pique public interest. I believe that would be a counterfactual belief given the interest in the Mars rovers a few years ago.

My opinion is that it's not necessary to send men to the Moon. That was mostly a political game we were playing with the Russians in the 1960s. Why we are going again, I have no idea.

I am not presenting MY logic - I am refuting yours. And you didn’t answer the basic question. What human activity IS necessary and why?

The basic question is, why send men to the moon? My answer is that we didn't need to send men. Sending robotic explorers would have been sufficient. The "technology" that was developed in sending men to the moon was going to be developed one way or another. I repeatedly hear that NASA was responsible for integrated circuits. NASA was the biggest consumer of ICs at one point, but the technology was invented and in use before the moon missions. https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-integrated-circuit-aka-microchip-1992006 Did we need to send men to the moon to get ICs? No. Did the space race develop anything that uniquely required a manned moon mission? Doubtful.

We aren't discussing whether any arbitrary human activity has purpose.

We should be, because otherwise “pointless” has no meaning. If you can’t anchor what has a “point” and why, then you also can’t say why something else has no point. Duh.

(So again, we didn’t NEED to send men OR robotics! So why is sending men pointless in your brain but sending robots isn’t?)

Ironically, I think engaging with you on this matter is actually “pointless” as you clearly have a small mind and no sense of wonder or excitement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beating the Russians.

I think many were against it for a variety of reasons. The space program was enormously expensive, and began when the US was legally a racially segregated country, with all that that implied. Many resented tax dollars and effort being used by white men to score points with no clear benefits— while inequalities that were built into this country’s founding and development persisted.

Some of us look longingly at countries with universal healthcare and low cost college tuition— often countries that benefitted from US dollars and expertise post-WWll. Imagine if, instead, the money and minds focused on showing up the Russians had been focused on domestic issues. That said, there have been many technological benefits from the program, but the point seems to have been a dick waving contest between white men — which was better than another war.

Who told you that black people resented the space program?

Why do you ask? Do you want actual names? I’m happy to answer — if there are what I view as good reasons for your curiosity.

Everyone, know that African American people have been part of the space program since its beginning:

https://www.nasa.gov/from-hidden-to-modern-figures/#:~:text=Hidden%20Figures%20is%20a%20movie,our%20work%20is%20not%20done.

We have had African American astronauts

Plenty of African American people have worked for and work for NASA.

African American people are happy to see the U.S. do what it takes become the dominate superpower on the world stage, and for nuanced reasons, at times, that involves experimenting in fantastic ways, such as the space program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. Americans really have lost any sense of exploration and curiosity.

OP, do you like using your cell phone? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is going to hit? Do you like mamograms? How about camera phones? GPS? Tang?

Thank the space program.

Landing on the moon gave us a target through which all sorts or rocket science and space operations developed.

Which of those technologies could have been developed without landing on the moon? (Hint: All of them)

Why do you think there's only one way to show curiosity?

And to the loon who is comparing the space program with European exploration: You look back at that and think "Wow, really worked out great for most of the planet!"?

Landing on the moon was somewhat pointless. We already had satellites which would have driven the technologies mentioned. Robotic landers would have been a better choice as far as safety, but less interesting to the general public. It is generally claimed that humans as expert systems were necessary to find the interesting material on the moon. But we sent test pilots, not geologists.

Mostly. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) is a geologist.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/Phinney_NASA-SP-2015-626.pdf describes the specific scientific training these guys underwent for the missions, but IIRC they all had advanced degrees in what we now call STEM fields.
I doubt 1960s robots would have had the capabilities of the ones we send to Mars.
But it was all political as well. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

You are correct: Texas Instruments' did develop integrated circuits before the Apollo Program used them. The TI chips were used for the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Designed to send multiple nukes to the USSR. A better question would be, "Why do Russia, China, North Korea, the US, and a few other nations spend so much of their GNP on thermonuclear weapons and the ICBMs needed to deliver them?"