I think you're partly right but I also think there's something a bit deeper at work here.
These days science is viewed as a means to various ends. These ends are all wonderful...eliminate poverty, curtail climate change, cheaper energy, etc. But what's missing is the idea of doing something for the sake of doing it. It's not totally clear what landing on the moon or maintaining a space station really accomplished in terms of material goals. They're glorious accomplishments because of their difficulty.
I think that attitude is what's missing. Listening to JFK's "we will go to the moon" speech is almost unbelievable today. Politicians of either party absolutely cannot talk like that today.
Human spaceflight programs have struggled to justify their existence pretty much their entire lives. Non-human spaceflight has had clearer rationales: the development of rocket technology is intertwined with long-range missile technology, and satellite technology has long clear military ramifications from the launch of Sputnik. The Space Race grew past its missile origins largely because it was a competition between the US and the USSR for prestige points. Once Apollo 11 successfully landed a man on the moon, both of them quickly lost interest in manned space travel to the moon.
Post-moon, human spaceflight programs seem to be have been largely directionless. The early space stations were probably originally meant as a stepping stone to developing orbital habitation, but the fact that we haven't really expanded much further makes it look more like faffing about. The US developed the space shuttle with the intention of building a low-cost, human-driven satellite launch and servicing service, but the only real success it had there was the Hubble. Instead, a lot of the real purpose probably lies more in geopolitical goals: the US-USSR cooperation helped drive some amount of detente. The ISS in particularly was driven in large part by a desire to keep ex-Soviet rocket engineers gainfully employed and not seek employment with rogue states looking to rapidly develop a missile program.
Your post shows how significant events are stripped of their meaning by the dictum that there must be some material end behind every act. But it's a decision to look at history and explain everything in terms of geopolitics. Can't people get together and do something for the glory of doing it?
When a government chooses to (or not to!) spend a significant portion of its budget advancing a particular scientific research program, that is pretty much by definition a political motivation. And if the motivation is driven by international relations, well again, that is the definition of geopolitics.
There's a reason we talk about the Space Race and not the International Geophysical Year. Popular and political support for the Apollo and predecessor programs were ultimately driven by the geopolitical goals, and once the Space Race had been "won," that support dwindled to the normal, pitiful scientific research levels. Spaceflight and space research reverted to just being yet another scientific field trying to catch a few drips of the governmental funding pipeline. It's the sad truth here.
This isn't to say that all science is driven by geopolitics. A lot of high-energy physics research isn't, for example (although supporters of the SCC did try to frame cancelling it thusly to try to preserve its funding, though they ultimately failed).
In theory? Yes. In practice? Rarely, if ever at scale.
Retroactively misattributing human action to fulfill a moral narrative produces a distorted view of the world, conducive to making dangerously naive mistakes.
That the space program was a friendly front for a highly visible ICBM program doesn't negate the glorious achievement of reaching the moon.
Not everyone working on the space program particularly cared about missiles. I'm certain most of them probably just wanted to reach the moon in the spirit of patriotism and scientific advancement. Their victory was pure. We just shouldn't pretend that their project was only facilitated due to a confluence of circumstances that made it a political necessity.
Predicting, advising, and describing political behaviors within the bounds of their constraints are geopolitic's raison d'être. 100% accurate all the time? No. But then again, neither is any other predictive field.
Friedman, and Zeihan have both proven very prescient over the last decade or so.
Besides, I hardly think there's a lot of latitude for interpretation. As far back as 1958 the USAF was mulling over nuking the moon as a show of force with incidental scientific ramifications. Sagan was involved in it. [0]
I think willfully ignoring those parts of the story stretch credulity within the context where the events of the space race happened borders on historical revisionism for the sake of creating a moral parable about the virtues of human endeavor.
> The ISS in particularly was driven in large part by a desire to keep ex-Soviet rocket engineers gainfully employed and not seek employment with rogue states looking to rapidly develop a missile program.
Energy independence (from Middle East) was once unthinkable, but we did it, and also included a speech. Sure, not the same level.
Climate change is also a similarly difficult problem, but neither of this gives a Hollywood movie style ending in a capsule format the “we are the greatest” crowd really wants - not just America though . Humility, empathy, and non-military-gained peace doesn’t give a movie style ending.
This is also why the mass public doesn’t give credit to leaders for solving issues though diplomatic means
Shale oil isn't going to last long, and then what? (And probably shouldn't have been extracted in the first place considering the low energy return and climate change...)
Energy independence is a huge obvious prize in itself. It was very easy to get people to agree that it would be something good to have.
The point about JFK’s moon speech is that it was justifying an endeavor that was a hard challenge without any particularly useful outcome. Nobody thought it was going to solve world hunger or prevent an energy crisis.
It would be like Trump giving a speech to justify sending astronauts on a trip around Venus. It’s super difficult and mostly useless scientifically.
These days science is viewed as a means to various ends. These ends are all wonderful...eliminate poverty, curtail climate change, cheaper energy, etc. But what's missing is the idea of doing something for the sake of doing it. It's not totally clear what landing on the moon or maintaining a space station really accomplished in terms of material goals. They're glorious accomplishments because of their difficulty.
I think that attitude is what's missing. Listening to JFK's "we will go to the moon" speech is almost unbelievable today. Politicians of either party absolutely cannot talk like that today.