5 ms·

I think people forget how much US national effort was dedicated to the space race. These guy's did incredibly well, even with modern advances for the money they

I think people forget how much US national effort was dedicated to the space race. These guy's did incredibly well, even with modern advances for the money they are working with.

ghaff 3y ago
Yes. And with a little less luck/skill, the Apollo 11 lunar landing could have ended up as a disaster too.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  A bit of backstory on just how far they went, to prepare for that mission-critical bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle Note how willing they were to risk life and limb in training exercises, and Armstrong's comments on how important the skills gained there were to their actual mission success.
bell-cot 3y ago
That...but also the generation which had (so to speak) stepped up and won WWII was running the show. Their skills at, experience with, and dedication to giga-scale technological development programs and bleeding-edge aerospace missions made an enormous difference.
- gonzo41 3y ago
  You're overestimating an older generation and underestimating the impact of what you can do with unlimited money, and 400K people working on one problem.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    Perhaps. But ~unlimited money and ~unlimited people are the backstory for pretty much every massive government or corporate boondoggle, ever.
    - prottog 3y ago
      Agreed. The Apollo project was 2-3% of GDP at the time, compared to some modern projects: - Second Avenue Subway at a projected total cost across all phases of $17B vs. the GDP of NYC at $1T = 1.7% - Berlin Brandenburg Airport at a final cost of €7B vs. the GDP of the city of Berlin and the federal state of Brandenburg combined at €228B = 3% - California High Speed Rail at a current estimate of $128B for the full LA-SF system vs. the GDP of California at $3.6T = 3.5% And all of these examples understate the problem, since the GDP was lower when the projects began, the costs may continue to rise as the projects progress, and outside (national-level) funding assistance is also used. So there is at least some merit to the idea that we just can't build as well as we used to.
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        > So there is at least some merit to the idea that we just can't build as well as we used to. We could, there is nothing preventing the US or Europe to return to 1970s taxation for companies and the filthy rich. The reason why we can't build like back then is to a very large part the erosion of the tax base to pay for it.
        prottog 3y ago
        The data does not support your claim. US government expenditure as a fraction of the GDP was lower in the 70s (30-35%) than it is now (35-40%). The government revenue, about the same (around 30%). So the tax base is roughly the same relative to economic output, and spending slightly higher, with the difference made up for by deficits. The Transcontinental Railroad was built in the 1860s and the Hoover Dam in the 1930s, both when government expenditure as well as taxation at all levels were a single-digit percent of GDP. I suppose by your logic we would be a galaxy-faring species if only we were able to tax the likes of Bezos and Musk?

I think people forget how much US national effort was dedicated to the space race. These guy's did incredibly well, even with modern advances for the money they are working with.

ghaff 3y ago

Yes. And with a little less luck/skill, the Apollo 11 lunar landing could have ended up as a disaster too.

bell-cot 3y ago
A bit of backstory on just how far they went, to prepare for that mission-critical bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle Note how willing they were to risk life and limb in training exercises, and Armstrong's comments on how important the skills gained there were to their actual mission success.

bell-cot 3y ago

That...but also the generation which had (so to speak) stepped up and won WWII was running the show. Their skills at, experience with, and dedication to giga-scale technological development programs and bleeding-edge aerospace missions made an enormous difference.

gonzo41 3y ago
You're overestimating an older generation and underestimating the impact of what you can do with unlimited money, and 400K people working on one problem.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Perhaps. But ~unlimited money and ~unlimited people are the backstory for pretty much every massive government or corporate boondoggle, ever.
  - prottog 3y ago
    Agreed. The Apollo project was 2-3% of GDP at the time, compared to some modern projects: - Second Avenue Subway at a projected total cost across all phases of $17B vs. the GDP of NYC at $1T = 1.7% - Berlin Brandenburg Airport at a final cost of €7B vs. the GDP of the city of Berlin and the federal state of Brandenburg combined at €228B = 3% - California High Speed Rail at a current estimate of $128B for the full LA-SF system vs. the GDP of California at $3.6T = 3.5% And all of these examples understate the problem, since the GDP was lower when the projects began, the costs may continue to rise as the projects progress, and outside (national-level) funding assistance is also used. So there is at least some merit to the idea that we just can't build as well as we used to.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > So there is at least some merit to the idea that we just can't build as well as we used to. We could, there is nothing preventing the US or Europe to return to 1970s taxation for companies and the filthy rich. The reason why we can't build like back then is to a very large part the erosion of the tax base to pay for it.
      - prottog 3y ago
        The data does not support your claim. US government expenditure as a fraction of the GDP was lower in the 70s (30-35%) than it is now (35-40%). The government revenue, about the same (around 30%). So the tax base is roughly the same relative to economic output, and spending slightly higher, with the difference made up for by deficits. The Transcontinental Railroad was built in the 1860s and the Hoover Dam in the 1930s, both when government expenditure as well as taxation at all levels were a single-digit percent of GDP. I suppose by your logic we would be a galaxy-faring species if only we were able to tax the likes of Bezos and Musk?