← Back to context

Comment by JumpCrisscross

4 days ago

> That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest

I don't think so. Some people are good at small tasks and stewardship. Some people want to ambitiouslyl build. If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA cannot be assumed to have gone into semiconductors or material science. They probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers.

> If there isn't a space program, the engineers who were inspired to join NASA [...] probably wound up, in the alternate timeline, bureaucrats or financiers.

I guess this is why in this timeline, all engineers in the world are at NASA working on sending humans to space, and everybody else in the world is a bureaucrat.

Do you actually know any kind of engineering that is not happening at NASA? Because it may explain your bias here.

  • They did say "or financiers". There's an old quote:

       Finance literally bids rocket scientists away from the satellite industry. The result is that erstwhile scientists, people who in another age dreamt of curing cancer or flying to Mars, today dream of becoming hedge fund managers.
    

    - https://www.ft.com/content/0f788814-3ee0-339d-9680-71d6c7596...

    Personally, I'd also add "Big Tech" to the list, as per a more recent quote:

      The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks.
    

    - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/747678-the-best-minds-of-my...

  • > guess this is why in this timeline, all engineers in the world are at NASA

    How does this follow? Are you arguing the Moon programs didn’t increase American engagement in STEM?

    The point is the people who worked on a partial solution to a terrestrial problem because they were working on space may not be inspired—or incentivized—to work on that problem directly. We’re willing, as a society, to spend big on the Moon. Spending big on creek maintenance and desal, comparatively, is boring. Yet both benefit from the first.

    > you actually know any kind of engineering that is not happening at NASA?

    Yes. Have you done any heavy engineering?

    > it may explain your bias here

    Do tell me, someone who has never worked at or particularly close to NASA, what my bias is here.

    • > Are you arguing the Moon programs didn’t increase American engagement in STEM?

      Nope. You are arguing that without a space program, people don't go into STEM and instead become "bureaucrats or financiers". I am saying that this is preposterous.

      > We’re willing, as a society, to spend big on the Moon.

      No. Society doesn't have a say in how that money is being spent, that's my original point.

      4 replies →