Sputnik and AC

[kniper]

Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Synopsis of future responses in white:

<font color="white">If it was beneficial, then the market would have accomplished the same thing cheaper. Genuflect genuflect genuflect </font>

[kniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Synopsis of future responses in white:

<font color="white">If it was beneficial, then the market would have accomplished the same thing cheaper. Genuflect genuflect genuflect </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I will agree however with those responses that the market would have achieved them much cheaper (though much later). I can't imagine how much $$$ was wasted in the midst of that brute force push to get on the moon.

[BCPVP]

Opportunity costs

[bobman0330]

People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians. Furthermore, there's good reason to believe that the focus on getting to the moon in 8 year time frame pushed us away from more rational development of space. Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Today or yesterday is supposed to be the 50th anniversary of the launching of Sputnik, that dastardly Russian probe that beat the US into the space race.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a socialist/communist republic was able to beat the US into space, had the world been under an AC system space flight would not have been realized until much later. It has only been in the last few years that spaceflight has been privatized (not taking into account satellites) -- and travel to the moon has not been undergone since the 70s. (I understand that this does not necessarily mean an AC system would have taken until now to achieve space flight, but it almost certainly would have been much later than when the US and Russia achieved it).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost certainly true. Consider that the driving motivation behind the space race, both on the US and USSR sides, was to develop delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads.


[ QUOTE ]
The US and Russian focused efforts to make space travel a reality was extremely beneficial for all sorts of sciences. This would seem to me to be one example where a coercive government system (this means the US too, I'm just using ACish language) would outdo its AC counterpart in the advancement of pure science. Those endeavors that take an unimaginable amount of resources with comparatively little to be made in returns (e.g., the moon) just does not make sense to be done under the free market alone. Discuss plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're only looking at one factor, the benefits. You haven't mentioned anything about the costs, or the alternative uses of that money. We got Tang, it must have been worth the $1,000,000,000,000 (adjusted for inflation)!

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Opportunity costs

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

One mafia gang dick waving at another mafia gang isn't a good use of my resources.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
People talk about the Apollo Project like it was great, but I don't understand why. It was enormously expensive, killed three astronauts and almost killed another 3 (out of fewer than two dozen missions!), and accomplished what? Primarily, beating the Russians.

[/ QUOTE ]

WAY WRONG. Primarily, radically improved ICBM design. Yay space program benefits!

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, there's good reason to believe that the focus on getting to the moon in 8 year time frame pushed us away from more rational development of space. Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because that's what was needed to get popular support behind the project. If you just came out and said "we want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to design better systems for killing billions of people in a matter of minutes" there probably wouldn't have been as much "fan support".

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
If you just came out and said "we want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to design better systems for killing billions of people in a matter of minutes" there probably wouldn't have been as much "fan support"

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't that a key part of Kennedy's platform, phrased in basically that way?

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of working on space stations in 1961, we were working on gigantic, useless rockets fit only for sending a couple people directly to the moon and bringing back a handful of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollo produced excellent technology for space stations; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab