But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. - President John F. Kennedy, 1962
You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times … and safely home again. - Gordon Sinclair, 1973
I would absolutely love it if another President would give us a new sort of goal, like this one. The great thing about Kennedy’s speech, to me, is the way that he framed it as a job for everyone, not just the government. Thus, when we succeeded, everyone could feel pride in the accomplishment.
I’m trying to think of some large overarching goals that our country now has, and all I can come up with is wiping out terrorism (something I feel more like a victim in, rather than a participant) and the long continual drug war. Neither of these inspires me to give my all, do my best or strive for my fellow man. Isn’t there anything we can do as a country that will better ourselves, but not to the detriment of the rest of the world?
Left by Matt on July 21st, 2003
Definately. It makes so much more sense to employ a litany of people with advanced science degrees with our tax dollars than it does to just give the money away to welfare, bureaucratic waste, the military (Note: I love the military!), tax cuts, and all the other craziness our representatives have dreamed up in the last few years.
These scientists then churn out dozens of ideas, realizaitons, inventions, materials, processes, etc every year while spurning on the economy more and more, and to top it off it is all publically owned in a sense. At least I don’t think NASA has patented anything, have they? (my ignorance is revealed yet again)
To me, it seems like an adventure, and an ingenious form of welfare as well.
Let’s go to Mars!
Left by David on July 22nd, 2003
The logistics of Mars aside, there’s something about the fact that it appears at best as a tiny red dot somewhere low to the horizon most evenings (as opposed to the enormous white disc that is the moon) that makes most people who aren’t into SF or astrophysics of aerospace think, “eh, why bother?”
Left by Dave on July 22nd, 2003
Maybe a permanent base on the moon? Dave’s right. Mars would be more technologically impressive and maybe more important for research purposes, but I don’t know that it would fire up the general public.
The Human Genome Project will ultimately prove to be more significant than the moon landing, but it never grabbed the publics’s imagination. The next step, decoding the genome to figure out how all the proteins fold and work will be extremely important - but it doesn’t really have an end-point the way the moon landing or HGP did.
Science may have advanced to the point where most goals worthy of attainment aren’t easily explainable to the general public in the way that: “You see that? We’re going there.” is.
It may also be true that technology has advanced so rapidly over the past fifty years that people are more accepting of the notion that anything is possible.
Dave: I’m waiting for the smack-down neuroscience example.
Left by Dan on July 22nd, 2003
I never said the next big goal had to be a scientific one. In fact, most large scientific endeavors would be contradictory to my stated purpose, which is to make everyone feel like they are involved. I want something that makes the everyday worker think “if i do my job better, we’ll be able to X!” We don’t have much that unites us as a country anymore, despite the repeated bleatings of the current administration and those with similar leanings. I really don’t know what goal could give us that again.
Left by Matt on July 22nd, 2003
Screw the general public! jk.. heh heh… Seriously though, it is good that we have avenues for actualizing ideas held by only a minority of the public. That way the people who wouldn’t care about going to Mars or wherever cannot stop those that would like to try.
Also, I think Kennedy’s speech was directed at the “eh, why bother?” attitude that Dave brings up. (But why, some say, the moon?”) That attitude could also be used against playing competitive sports too, because it is almost pointless for two groups of athletes to work a great portion of their lives just to try to win some trophy. (I realize that there is also money and scholorships involved, but originally people presumably just played to have the challenge.)
You can ask, “why bother?” to just about anything, and it seems to me like the only point of doing so is to suggest that you don’t understand the value of the undertaking and to try to solicit a purpose from the proposer of the undertaking (and possibly frustrate said proposer with the task of defending the proposal.)
I am slightly frustrated by Dave’s seemingly supercilious smack-down on Mars. (sorry for the alliteration) Also, tossing the logistics issue aside took out the main challenge of any Mars mission, and challenge is what I thought this post was about. The greater the challenge the greater the person/group who overcomes, right?
Matt — A non-scientific challenge could be something along the lines of reducing the National debt and the yearly deficit. Fortunately, both Bush and Gore were all for spending large chunks of surpluses that never even came to fruition… So, that challenge will still be waiting for us all, and if we do shift our focus to overcoming that challenge then every worker will know that the money earned each day is being taxed and that those taxes are paying for the debt of the Nation. Does that fit with the stated purpose?
Left by David M on July 23rd, 2003
My point was, it’s far easier to mobilize public support for (quite literally) pie in the sky governmental projects when said pie happens to be the brightest object in the night sky, so close you can see the craters with the naked eye, as opposed to a teeny tiny speck, so far away that you can’t even see it without a pretty hefty telescope. And besides, it looks pretty obvious that the Martians want us to stay the hell away anyways.
Left by Dave on July 23rd, 2003
I don’t think we ever really got to the moon. I think it was just a big production to make “us” feel like we accomplished something so great. The whole thing is a fabrication. Shit, we can’t even take off without problems the majority of the time. What makes you think that however many years ago we were able to get to the moon?
Left by Aristotle on July 23rd, 2003
fyi, apparently Mars is the closest to earth it’s going to be for quite some time around now.
Left by Jordan on July 24th, 2003
Dave, you’ve fought rather valian…strangely, so I will defer the last laugh to you.
Besides, John doesn’t like me as much as..
Jordan hasn’t known me as long as..
and so I am under stricter scrutiny than.. you.
and I’ll acknowledge that wantingseed regulars tend to dislike my stance on things and the way that I present myself.
{white flag waves}
{sniffle}
Left by David M on July 24th, 2003