• Question: Why did we go to the Moon, when the money spent could have been used for something more useful and vital? Such as feeding the starved, housing the homeless and sheltering the animals? Not digging at your work, I’m sure you’re all extremely accomplished in your fields, but I was just curious :)

    Asked by Bucky to Craig, Flavia, Giuditta, Jack, Sheona on 9 Nov 2015.
    • Photo: Jack Carlyle

      Jack Carlyle answered on 9 Nov 2015:

      Going to the moon was important for lots of reasons. It made us think a lot about some very difficult concepts in science, which have helped technology leap forward in many other ways. For example, did you know that digital cameras, laser eye surgery, biro pens, and all kinds of other things were invented by NASA for space missions? Without going to the moon, we might not even have smart phones and laptops!

      However, I can see your point, sometimes it might seem like money could be better spent in other places… But the sad fact is that space science and indeed science in general doesn’t actually have much money spent on it compared to other things, especially millitary things like weapons development. I think it is very sad that politicians spend so little money on science and education, but pour billions upon billions into waging wars and causing suffering for humans in other countries.

      This is a very difficult topic, but it is important to retain perspective. Science is sadly very underfunded in the modern world in my opinion and I hope that someday we as a species can figure out a better way to distribute resources, whilst also progressing technology and providing a safe environment for all creatures to live in.

    • Photo: Giuditta Perversi

      Giuditta Perversi answered on 9 Nov 2015:

      I am afraid I don’t have a short answer for this question, so brace yourself for the long one.
      The topic is really complicated, and really interconnected with recent space missions that gave us results (like Rosetta or New Horizons), but since your questions goes for the “humans on the Moon”, I think that a bit of historical perspective is useful.

      I seriously don’t think there would have been any “rush to the Moon” if it weren’t for the fact that the USA and Russia were competing against each others during the Cold War.
      The space exploration development actually started as a military tool. Then they went back and forth with an escalating “and what if I can do this?” “Do you? Then I can do that” that lead the issue to “Guess what, I’m going to get to the Moon!”.
      The Apollo program had incredible fundings, something unparalleled, and it was quickly cut and cut and cut after they achieved the “getting there first” they were aiming for.

      What I think it’s key from the point of view of your argument is that we are STILL benefit from discoveries that came from the Apollo program.
      I add a few things from what Jack already said, because not only Velcro was created for space as well, but your computer can prioritize a task over another because of routines that were created for the spacecrafts.

      It’s true that space exploration is a pricy business, but it’s also the type of business the most genius ideas come from! There is nothing like the concept of “you need to do it right, and you need to do it at the first shot and it needs to work for years and you need to plan ahead for everything” to squeeze out the best in every scientist.
      One thing I always think of about the Apollo program is that they achieved in a few years something that was deemed as impossible before just because they where like “here’s your money, I want ALL the best minds on this, make it happen NOW”. Imagine what would be possible to achieve with the same attitude now, instead of having to fit everything in a severely underestimated budget!

      Overall, the most frustrating thing is that you don’t need to cut money to science to solve world starvation, homelessness and the like. You just need a better redistributions of the resources, because we have food, we have water, we have shelters, we just need to act like ethic human being about it, and it’s more difficult that it seems, apparently.
      Cutting money from science research will not solve this problems, it will more likely create new one…because the issues won’t stop coming, but keeping the research flowing and the solutions coming require much more time and constance.

      And just to be clear, I really don’t work in space research, so this is a scientist answer, not “it’s my orchard and I care about it” answer 😀
      It’s good to be curious, and please feel free to ask more, we’re here for you at the end of the day!

Comments