tomcy6 --
I think that we could send people to the moon more safely and comfortably and be able to gather much more useful data now than we could in the 60s.
Whether we could is not the issue. The point is we still haven't, and that they got to the moon with the technology available at the time. They simply decided to do so.
The Apollo missions were more about national pride and developing technology that would help us in the cold war.
That is irrelevant to the discussion with the specific example. My focus is the sense of awe the moon landings instilled, and the experience the astronauts must've had; the perspective (in more than one sense) it created. Preparing for the missions, going there, being on the moon - decidedly apolitical in nature, but wholly scientific. In the end the journey transcends it all (imagine yourself as the astronaut(/audiophile) in this process).
Priorities have moved on and there’s not much reason to keep going back to the moon.
Certainly priorities, yes.
I’m sure that speakers from the 30s have their appeal, as do Duesenbergs, but today’s speakers are the right solution for the vast majority of people.
I'd aim a little higher than that.
