3 ms·

I kind of disagree. Yes the person on the moon wasn't that important but all the technology outside of the moonlander itself had nice utility. Its just that th

I kind of disagree. Yes the person on the moon wasn't that important but all the technology outside of the moonlander itself had nice utility. Its just that the US kind of messed up its space investment strategy. Instead of leveraging all the parts of Apollo it was systematically killed. Had the doubled down on Apollo and simply continued investing in the technology they could have done impressive things. The could have built a Saturn 1C as a workhorse rocket for the military and commercial. And then have the Saturn V as your super heavy for the occasional deep space probe, huge telescope or space station. The Apollo capsule could incrementally be made reusable and could continue to be used for LEO or occasional moon missions. During Apollo they were already deep in development on second generation version of the different components. This was not actually finically unsustainable, it was just financially unsustainable while also investing in Shuttle. And because a Saturn 1C wasn't considered, the military built itself up with Titan rockets instead.

pfdietz 3y ago
The Saturn 1B looks vaguely like Falcon 9 if you squint appropriately. The H-1 engine is in the same thrust class as the Merlin 1D (it just weighs twice as much). So, one can imagine the S1B evolving over the years into something like a F9, with the first stage being recovered. The idea of designing boosters to minimize cost rather than maximize performance also goes back to the late 60s. The biggest problem is government contractors have different incentive structures than SpaceX does.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  It would really be the government driving to a unified architecture, making the apart commodity and create enough demand. It would need actual long term strategy.
eru 3y ago
> I kind of disagree. Yes the person on the moon wasn't that important but all the technology outside of the moonlander itself had nice utility. Counterfactually, all the tax payer money wasted on manned space flight would have been used for something else, and would have driven some other technology, and at that other spending would have had direct utility. (Especially if the money had been left in the tax payers pockets.) See 'What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen' https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.html?chapter_num=4#book-reader https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.html?chapter_... > Had the doubled down on Apollo and simply continued investing in the technology they could have done impressive things. You really need to learn to start thinking in terms of opportunity costs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost > [...] it was just financially unsustainable while also investing in Shuttle. I agree that the Space Shuttle was an even greater waste than the Apollo program. They overshot their projected cost per kg to orbit by 100,000% (one thousand times). But I hold that approximately all manned space flight is a waste of tax payer money.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  If you are just against government spending there is no argument you can make that can challenge that. > specially if the money had been left in the tax payers pockets. This was peak suberbia and peak people buying cars. I think there is a good argument being made that more money invested in suberbia and cars wouldn't be good investment. In fact, there is a good argument that this is a negative investment for society. On the other hand, Apollo lead to a massive investment in engineering and scientific talent and to a huge amount of technology development that was then utilized by lots of other industries. If I could have picked, I would have preferred some of that investment into nuclear technology. But that wasn't really in the cards. People have always been critical of Apollo as specially on the left they would have preferred social programs, and libertarians would have preferred nothing. I am libertarian leaning myself but as far as government spending goes, this is some of the better things they can do. They did arguably spend to much to fast, rather then taking a measured approach.
  - eru 3y ago
    > If you are just against government spending there is no argument you can make that can challenge that. Government spending that clears a reasonable bar of utility is fine by me. Eg overall I think I am getting good value for my tax dollars here in my adopted home of Singapore. (Of course, I don't agree with every last item on the budget.) > This was peak suberbia and peak people buying cars. I think there is a good argument being made that more money invested in suberbia and cars wouldn't be good investment. In fact, there is a good argument that this is a negative investment for society. I am glad that we have you to tell people that what they want is bad, and that they should want something else instead. (Btw, it's spelled suburbia. It's not a problem for me, just thought you might want to know.) See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39598737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39598737 for more of a fleshed out argument.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      > I am glad that we have you to tell people that what they want is bad, and that they should want something else instead. Suburbia and cars were massively subsidized by the government and have a very high cost for society. I don't want to tell people what to do, but if a damaging thing is subsidized, suggesting that subsidizing something else might be better isn't much of a stretch.

pfdietz 3y ago

The Saturn 1B looks vaguely like Falcon 9 if you squint appropriately. The H-1 engine is in the same thrust class as the Merlin 1D (it just weighs twice as much). So, one can imagine the S1B evolving over the years into something like a F9, with the first stage being recovered. The idea of designing boosters to minimize cost rather than maximize performance also goes back to the late 60s. The biggest problem is government contractors have different incentive structures than SpaceX does.

panick21_ 3y ago
It would really be the government driving to a unified architecture, making the apart commodity and create enough demand. It would need actual long term strategy.

eru 3y ago

> I kind of disagree. Yes the person on the moon wasn't that important but all the technology outside of the moonlander itself had nice utility. Counterfactually, all the tax payer money wasted on manned space flight would have been used for something else, and would have driven some other technology, and at that other spending would have had direct utility. (Especially if the money had been left in the tax payers pockets.) See 'What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen' https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.html?chapter_num=4#book-reader https://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss.html?chapter_... > Had the doubled down on Apollo and simply continued investing in the technology they could have done impressive things. You really need to learn to start thinking in terms of opportunity costs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost > [...] it was just financially unsustainable while also investing in Shuttle. I agree that the Space Shuttle was an even greater waste than the Apollo program. They overshot their projected cost per kg to orbit by 100,000% (one thousand times). But I hold that approximately all manned space flight is a waste of tax payer money.

panick21_ 3y ago
If you are just against government spending there is no argument you can make that can challenge that. > specially if the money had been left in the tax payers pockets. This was peak suberbia and peak people buying cars. I think there is a good argument being made that more money invested in suberbia and cars wouldn't be good investment. In fact, there is a good argument that this is a negative investment for society. On the other hand, Apollo lead to a massive investment in engineering and scientific talent and to a huge amount of technology development that was then utilized by lots of other industries. If I could have picked, I would have preferred some of that investment into nuclear technology. But that wasn't really in the cards. People have always been critical of Apollo as specially on the left they would have preferred social programs, and libertarians would have preferred nothing. I am libertarian leaning myself but as far as government spending goes, this is some of the better things they can do. They did arguably spend to much to fast, rather then taking a measured approach.
- eru 3y ago
  > If you are just against government spending there is no argument you can make that can challenge that. Government spending that clears a reasonable bar of utility is fine by me. Eg overall I think I am getting good value for my tax dollars here in my adopted home of Singapore. (Of course, I don't agree with every last item on the budget.) > This was peak suberbia and peak people buying cars. I think there is a good argument being made that more money invested in suberbia and cars wouldn't be good investment. In fact, there is a good argument that this is a negative investment for society. I am glad that we have you to tell people that what they want is bad, and that they should want something else instead. (Btw, it's spelled suburbia. It's not a problem for me, just thought you might want to know.) See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39598737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39598737 for more of a fleshed out argument.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > I am glad that we have you to tell people that what they want is bad, and that they should want something else instead. Suburbia and cars were massively subsidized by the government and have a very high cost for society. I don't want to tell people what to do, but if a damaging thing is subsidized, suggesting that subsidizing something else might be better isn't much of a stretch.