> "The USA military got what it needed under the cover of a civilian space race." This sort of cynicism is very popular but largely unfounded. In terms of roc

> "The USA military got what it needed under the cover of a civilian space race." This sort of cynicism is very popular but largely unfounded. In terms of rocket technology, the moon missions were following in the wake of ICBM tech, not the other way around. The Mercury/Redstone, Mercury/Atlas and Gemini programs were all using rockets that were designed initially as ICBMs (well, the Redstone was an SRBM.) Those rockets were already developed and paid for by the time a civilian applications were found for them. Consider this timeline of launches: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICBM_and_NASA_Launch_Vehicle_Flight_Test_Successes_and_Failures_%28highlighted%29.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/USAF_ICB... 'Atlas D' and 'GLV' are the Mercury and Gemini programs, respectively. They both came after the majority of ICBM tests for their military siblings. The military wasn't using rockets built for NASA; NASA was using rockets built for the military. Then there is the Saturn V itself. A massive purpose built cryogenic liquid propellant rocket first flying in the late 60s. ICBM technology had moved on, cryogenic liquid propellant ICBMs were already discontinued by that time. In 1962 you had the introduction of solid fuel Minutemen and in 1963 the storable fuel Titan II's were brought into service. Both of these rendered cryogenic propellant ICBMs like the Atlas family and the Titan I obsolete, and both were finally fully retired in 1965 (and subsequently recycled as satellite launchers, roles that they served for many years following. The last Titan II launched a weather satellite in 2003.) This is years before the Saturn V ever flew. The Saturn V simply was not an ICBM program. Now, the Space Shuttle is another matter entirely...