3 ms·
"Because the USSR is doing it" was an equally bad reason.
by sethrin 3y ago
"Because the USSR is doing it" was an equally bad reason.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoIt was fundamentally about proving advanced rocketry & orbital capability: if we can land on the moon, we can incinerate your cities from the sky. Once that was proved, and the technology to deliver long range nuclear weapons implemented, the motivation to push this stuff at all costs dropped. Put another way: back then it was science in the service of warfare with an effectively unlimited budget. Now it's mostly just the science.
- fuoqi 3y agoThe moon mission and ICBMs have almost nothing to do with each other, unlike the first satellite, which was a clear demonstration of the capability to deliver intercontinental payloads and was launched on the rocket literally designed to be able to deliver nuclear payloads to the continental US. The moon mission had only one goal: to save the face after the US has lost all meaningful milestones to the Soviet Union and to "win" the space race by moving the goalpost. I am quite confident, that if the Soviets has managed to land on the Moon first, the goalpost would've been landing on Mars.
- unilynx 3y agoThat's basically the plot of "For all mankind", although they managed to find some intermediate goalposts before Mars
- Grimburger 3y ago> Now it's mostly just the science. With rapidly dropping launch costs there's valid industrial applications in orbit and quite a few startups working on building things in LEO and bringing them back down. Microgravity is incredibly valuable in manufacturing, the Brits worked that out in the 1700's with shot towers. Same with ultra low temps and vacuum conditions.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoLike what?
- bmitc 3y ago> Now it's mostly just the science. No way that is true.
- bluGill 3y agoRight, so lets leave meaningless fights like that back in the 1960s and move on.