3 ms·
Apollo wasn't really fiscally sustainable, particularly given the expansion that you visualize. In 1965 it was 0.75% of GDP per year and NASA was 1% of GDP per
by lamontcg 3y ago
Apollo wasn't really fiscally sustainable, particularly given the expansion that you visualize. In 1965 it was 0.75% of GDP per year and NASA was 1% of GDP per year. By comparison the "pork program" SLS is running at 0.018% of GDP so is 40x more affordable. Expanding the Apollo spending in the 1970s probably wouldn't have helped us any when climate change became a concern.