4 ms·
Civilian space programs were glorified cover stories for ICBM programs. The Apollo program was announced at a time when a lot of things had gone wrong, e.g. Ba
by Theodores 6y ago
Civilian space programs were glorified cover stories for ICBM programs.
The Apollo program was announced at a time when a lot of things had gone wrong, e.g. Bay of Pigs, so it was a political easy win.
Satellites were needed because those pesky Russians could shoot down the spy planes.
All the good peace loving stuff was facilitated by the Cold War imperative. The war was the main meal, peaceful things were garnish.
In some parallel peace loving alternative universe there are no countries or wars and the surplus capital is spent on space exploration. Sadly that is not our world. However, had we not spent all our silver on wars then we would have had the resources to get to Mars. The tech aspect of navigation and landing was achieved on the moon.
You also have to remember people got bored of space after a while. This audience wasn't regained until a generation later with early Shuttle launches. SpaceX launches are equally lucky to have a fresh audience in a new generation to be wowed. Interest wanes, politics is politics, resources get spent on war first, however, I don't question our collective ability to have got to Mars in the 1960's had we wished to.
- valuearb 6y agoThe US had already transitioned to solid rocket ICBMs with the Minuteman and Polaris programs before the Apollo program even started. The military certainly benefited from advances and electronics from the program, but that R&D was a tiny fraction of the expenditures. No need to spend 4% of the National budget to justify that. And there was no shot of getting to Mars in the 60s. The massive expenditure that Apollo required barely got us to the moon by the end of 1969.
- imglorp 6y agoEven the shuttle program was heavily influenced by military requirements. NASA would have had a vastly more capable program if it didn't have dual requirements