Quote:
"But why, some say, the moon?... And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, thirty-five years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?... Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it, and he said, 'Because it is there.' Well, space is there, and... the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there."
Bill, I'll let you do the search and figure out who said that. But he is a person who I know would have wanted the quantitative value of any impact the space race had. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is in the realm of possibility to accurately quantify what we have received from the space program.
Before you debate the value of the space race, you have to debate the value of every government-sponsored or underwritten technology advance. There is never a simple metric for deciding the "value" of technological advance. This is because a technological advance may not have an impact in the times in which it is developed. Gunpowder was around long before firearms made their debut, and atomic energy and the physics derived and advancing from it had long, painful, politically difficult precedent technology leaps that made their discovery possible.
The one certainty any technological advance arrives with is the fact that it will commit the human race to change inducing debate, conflict, and social mores. The atomic bomb is a good model for this. Over 2 billion dollars were spent on it. There are lots of arguments about the immediacy of its impact. There were horrible ramifications, financial fallout that remains almost to this day, global change that is still occurring. I think that the judgement of this landmark expenditure is not in. Certainly, it had an immediate impact on over 80,000,000 Japanese and 130,000,000 Americans. But its stepchildren are far and wide, from the space race to microwave ovens to the internet. Did it negatively impact our destiny? I'd submit that any total-Earth destroying technology can't have a totally positive impact. But I'll mark it down as positive the fact that it led to the internet, GPS, and the Space Race instead of world annhilation (as of now, anyway).
What I would submit to you, other than the ambiguous quotes at the beginning of what I have written, is that you need to hone the question. Did the space program improve human relations? How is that quantified? Did the space race lead to lower international security? How is that quantified? Did the space program lower total human energy requirements? How is that quantified? In human history, the "Philosopher's Stone" was the mythic substance that would convert any substance to gold. That mythical substance led to many advances. To further that concept to you I assert that the true "Philosopher's Stone" is that knowledge or foresight to tell what advances in technology really do to us as a species, to the planet as a habitat, and to the flow of the universe in general. That's bigger than what you are looking at, but as I said, you need to hone your questions. I would submit to you that if the space program leads to us not killing ourselves, not destroying our planet, and not disturbing the flow of the universe, then it is a good thing and priceless. But we have no way of knowing that for certain, do we?