Re: Moon landing Hoax (spinoffs)

[Larry Smith <Larry.Smith@SNOW.EDU>]

At 10:37 PM -0800 2/21/01, Bernard G. Cleyet & Nancy Ann Seese wrote:
> Well, I tend to agree w/ Jim, but in a different way.  I think it was a
> horrible
> waste -- "We" spend jillions of $s  while americans starve or remain
> uneducated,
> etc. just to satisfy a war criminal's ego.
>
> bc
>
> P.s Did it succeed in learning anything a robot mission couldn't have
> discovered, at a much lower price.

At 12:29 AM -0700 2/22/01, Jim Green wrote:
> Oh I quite agree -- I wish they would let us vote on these boondoggles
> before they spend  our money so freely and lavishly.  At least they had the
> sense to close down the SSC.

And they spent $600 million to fill in the partially dug hole!  _That's_
the waste!

Yes, robotic space missions are cheaper and value-rich scientifically and
they should be a big part of what we do.  But that misses the point of the
exploration, the spirit if human adventure, the national will and unity
that the Apollo mission brought about.  I don't believe that everything we
do has to produce a predetermined amount of monetary dividend.

Fundamental scientific research doesn't need to have practical spinoffs to
make it worthwhile.

OTOH, the spinoffs were (and are) pretty impressive.

Here's a link to spinoffs from Apollo:
<http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm> and here's another one for
spinoffs from the Shuttle: <http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/shuttle.htm>.

I suspect the same would have happened with the SSC.  There would have been
unexpected practical spinoffs.  But mankind's curiosity about how the
universe works should be enough to make us want to do particle physics.

Now, if you want to argue that we could have learned the same science more
cheaply by spending the money differently, then that might be a good
argument against the SSC.  Or if you say that funding dollars are finite
and you'd rather they went to "small science" because you believe the
scientific payoff in lots of small experiments is greater than for one huge
one, then that is another decent (at least viable) argument against the
SSC.  Or to say that government has no business funding science at all--at
least not _forcing_ taxpayers to fund it--is another argument (it might be
an interesting experiment to let taxpayers decide how much they'll pay
individually and what projects and services they'd fund--pacifists might
support NASA but not the military, etc.).

But whether it is a moon shot (or a Mars shot) or the SSC, to claim that
big science is a waste of money is incorrect in my opinion.  Sagan used to
quote a figure of $7 recycled into the national economy for every dollar
spent on the space program.  An ex-senator who was favorable toward NASA
(and even flew on a mission) spoke here at our college and said the figure
was even higher--$8 or $9.  That contribution to a robust economy probably
does more for feeding poor folks in the LONG HAUL than buying food with the
money would have.

Don't get me wrong: I think we should feed and educate the poor and
uneducated (I regularly donate time and goods to the local foodbank), but I
think it is incorrect to conclude that the poor would have been fed and the
ignorant educated had we not gone to the moon.

I don't think we went to the moon to satisfy any one person's ego
(whichever war criminal you are referring to), and even if you make that
case the benefits still remain.

Larry