4 ms·
> pulled of the completely absurd task of putting a man on the moon and then returning him safely to earth, in less than a decade At a congressional allocation
by caeril 5y ago
> pulled of the completely absurd task of putting a man on the moon and then returning him safely to earth, in less than a decade
At a congressional allocation level, this was all pork, too. The vast majority of this project went to politically-connected contractors, subcontractors, etc. Not much has changed, except for one critical factor:
We were competent in the 20th century. All of the engineers, machinists, metallurgists, and yes, even management of the Apollo project had a job to do. Their personal political opinions, sexual proclivities, or social media clout had nothing at all to do with accomplishing the mission. And so, it got done.
We're not that people anymore.
- zdragnar 5y agoPutting a man on the moon was relatively simple in comparison, actually. All the resources focused down to a single task, a single vessel, and a single mission. In comparison, there are countless jurisdictions and hundreds of millions of lives being effected, plus well established property lines that need to be redrawn all over the place. I'm not saying I approve of how much it costs to do reasonable infrastructure related projects at all, but the meme of "things were so much better back then" has never not been old.
- mikewarot 5y agoAt its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.
- zdragnar 5y agoPurchasing goods and services from companies and universities who seek to be a part of the program is, logistically, a hell of a lot easier than buying millions of property rights across thousands of different municipalities from people who don't want to be displaced for what would likely be below market value.