I studied Medical Information Sciences in the late nineties. And if I look back and forward again then I realise: we are doing things that back then would have been seen as only possible as part of a dialogue between dr. Crusher and captain Picard.

I did my theses on using artificial intelligence for offering decision support in therapeutic choices for lung cancer. Getting a proper dataset on which your models could be trained was actually the primary challenge. And medically, the options were way more limited; back then metastatic cancer was often an automatic death-sentence. It would be seen as futile to try to treat and focus would be on palliative care.

Flash forward. For a few years I suffered chronic problems with my retina that ultimately resulted in the detachment of a part of my retina. I was immediately treated by microscopic surgery. A retina surgeon removed the vitreous matter in my eye, removed a membrane only a few cells thick. By inserting a silicon oil into the eye the retina was put back in its place and finally they used a laser to repair a hole in the retina. Following that I needed to have a lens replaced which was significantly less burdensome and about as routine as having a tooth cavity filled.

For cancers we are now able to train the immune system to attack the cancers, we’re on the cusp of using gene editing to “fix” the DNA of people that are unable to process or build various proteins. People can swallow camera pills and we use various neuro-stimulators to intervene in various abnormal neurological processes. We’re using mRNA to build a new generation of vaccine’s and since we are building “big data”-sets we are able to use AI to create new insights.

I have various family members and friends that should have been blind, dead, disabled and unable to work or a combination of the above by the standards of a few decades ago. A few of my family members have various forms of cancers that have become manageble as a chronic disease. We have actually progressed way more than I would have expected when I was studying. The advances just have been gradual and incremental so people don’t actually notice. Great to see just another example. It might not be a survival cure as some commenters have pointed out, but it will be analyzed, expanded upon and ultimately used in a much more impactful way in the not to far future, I am sure.

I have had retina surgery involving laser treatment and injection of an anesthetic behind the eye. It resulted in a minor complication whereby the nerve that controls the muscles of the pupil and lens is damaged.

This nerve then regenerates and as there are about 10x more nerve fibers normally controlling the lens then there are controlling the pupil some of then regenerated abbarently (connecting focus nerves to the pupil). That makes that I can somewhat control my pupil by simulating looking near or far.

It is a seldom complication, but nut unknown of. It can also have causes deeper in the head like a tumor etc..

Now I could fully see something similar happening to this person maybe in the early stages of formation of the nerve system. Surprised it caused this much attention.

No, they aren't opening a dollar store, but the numbers from TFA are enormous. SpaceX and Blue Origin may be standing on a mountain of previous research & tech from NASA, but NASA itself is also standing on that same mountain. Since it is their own mountain, it should be logical that they would be more effective in applying previously discovered knowledge to their new projects.

And, purely the fact that space is a hostile environment isn't a fact that can be used to explain away any level of bureaucracy and overhead. Arguably, the deep see is a more hostile environment because of the higher pressures. Combine that with using nuclear power in subs and you actually have an equally complex and risky environment, probably more. There are a lot more situations where quality control is an absolute requirement, such as nuclear power, (intensive) health care, chemical plants, etc. How big is overhead in those industries?

Probably the biggest problem in discussing overhead numbers for something that doesn't work yet is that you don't have the complete picture yet. If NASA overhead costs, say 10 billion for a total program cost of 15 billion then you could argue that the overhead would be 66%. But if we actually start transporting stuff into orbit and send a bill to whoever is sending the stuff (even if it is an internal NASA team), and you could bill them 10 billion in the course of the program for the time and materials required for the launces, then the overhead percentage would suddenly be "only" 40% (I know I'm taking a lot of shortcuts and most management would probably stick around after the SLS has been delivered).

But, no, simply ignoring these astronomical levels of overhead because of the complexity of space as an environment is in my opinion not valid.

You have to find a good mix in investing in the future and solving everyday problems *now*. And it’s very hard to make any argument about investing in the future to somebody who’s hurting today. You’re never going to win that debate, rationally or emotionally.

I read somewhere (http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/jfk-and-the-moon-180947824/) that Kennedy, before deciding on using project Apollo as a technological showcase for America, actually considered a large-scale desalination project to help Third World nations.

What if Kennedy had chosen the latter option? How would the world have evolved since then? An abundance of water and food in Africa but no internet and supercomputer in everybody’s pocket? Or would the desalination have contributed little and computers evolved just the same? Nobody's arguing about his choices back then because we're all happy his mission succeeded.

In the end, again, it’s about finding the right balance in investing in every day problem solving *and* investing in things that help us forward in the future.

You might be right. This might be a lucky find though in a larger project that does result in tangible benefits to society. And then I’m not against spending some more time to research it.

Your broader question might be about basic research: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F.... Basic research might not result in direct benefits, but a better understanding of natural phenoma can actually result in immense benefits.

In this case, for example, this might be the first object that we discovered that actually travels at speeds (in orders of magnitude) close to the speed of light. This could, for example, in the long run improve our understanding of relativity, properties of light and electromagnetism, etc.

If you realise how close some of our everyday technologies such as microprocessors, WiFi, etc. actually are operating close to the absolutes borders of physics, then you’ll understand that things we learn from basic research is the only way left to improve those technologies.

So, this finding *might* lead to some new understanding that *might* lead to new technologies that *might* lead to incredible new benefits to society. The only problem is, you don’t know in advance which research is the one with the big benefits. Spread your bets.

RIPLEY
They're right under the primary heat exchangers. ......
GORMAN
Shit! (into mike)
Apone, collect magazines from everybody. We can't have any firing in there.

Plus, if we would ever be able to muster the amount of resources needed for solar system colonies or interstellar space travel, those resources would probably be better spent on surviving any major disaster here on earth.

Even after massive nuclear war or an astroid impact, the earth would still be considerably more hospitable to human life than say mars or venus.

If a major cataclism is really your concern then invest in a space station with a few hundred people in it, including the means to repopulate the earth. If you can build a generation ship that can colonize an outside world, the you can also *stay* and rebuild earth.