3 ms·

> The United States spent 6% of its GDP putting human beings on the moon. Sorry, wrong. The Apollo program cost about $25B in 1960's dollars. That's over the e

> The United States spent 6% of its GDP putting human beings on the moon. Sorry, wrong. The Apollo program cost about $25B in 1960's dollars. That's over the entire period, not just one year. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190712-apollo-in-50-numbers-the-cost https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190712-apollo-in-50-num... "In 1965, Nasa funding peaked at some 5% of government spending," But government spending != GDP. According to this, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-gross-domestic-product https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-... GDP in 1965 was $743B

shadowgovt 3y ago
My mistake. Amortizing the numbers, it comes out to more like 2.5% annually. https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the-moon-landing.html https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the... ... so the question stands. How much are we willing to spend, and do we think it will actually damage either the economy or people's quality-of-life (when having a major industrial project in fact creates job and business opportunities, historically speaking)?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Clever of you to acknowledge but then glide over the wild exaggeration there. Still wrong, though: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-budget-1959-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-bud... 1965 NASA budget in billions: $5.25 (the peak year) 1965 GDP: $743 billion giving us a NASA budget of 0.007 of GDP, or 0.7%
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Apollo project is generally considered to have cost $25 billion, not $5 billion. Still, if we consider 0.007 of GDP in modern numbers, that's 2.65 trillion (2023) * 0.007 --> $18 billion. The fossil fuel industry receives $760 billion in subsidy. We're already spending more on energy; we're just spending it on the wrong energy.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      You need to just admit error, not pivot. 5B is for 1965 alone, the peak year. As I said. 25B is the total over all years.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        Error admitted. Now about the point, which is "How much should we be willing to spend on something that may be life-or-death for much of humanity?" Because, again, $760 billion in fossil fuel subsidy. A tenth of that for renewables.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        OK, thanks. It was pretty easy to look up NASA budgets and GDP's. I haven't studied energy subsidies, though, so maybe someone else wants to jump in.

shadowgovt 3y ago

My mistake. Amortizing the numbers, it comes out to more like 2.5% annually. https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the-moon-landing.html https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the... ... so the question stands. How much are we willing to spend, and do we think it will actually damage either the economy or people's quality-of-life (when having a major industrial project in fact creates job and business opportunities, historically speaking)?

AlbertCory 3y ago
Clever of you to acknowledge but then glide over the wild exaggeration there. Still wrong, though: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-budget-1959-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-bud... 1965 NASA budget in billions: $5.25 (the peak year) 1965 GDP: $743 billion giving us a NASA budget of 0.007 of GDP, or 0.7%
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Apollo project is generally considered to have cost $25 billion, not $5 billion. Still, if we consider 0.007 of GDP in modern numbers, that's 2.65 trillion (2023) * 0.007 --> $18 billion. The fossil fuel industry receives $760 billion in subsidy. We're already spending more on energy; we're just spending it on the wrong energy.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    You need to just admit error, not pivot. 5B is for 1965 alone, the peak year. As I said. 25B is the total over all years.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      Error admitted. Now about the point, which is "How much should we be willing to spend on something that may be life-or-death for much of humanity?" Because, again, $760 billion in fossil fuel subsidy. A tenth of that for renewables.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        OK, thanks. It was pretty easy to look up NASA budgets and GDP's. I haven't studied energy subsidies, though, so maybe someone else wants to jump in.