5 ms·

For each individual person, county, or state it wasn't even that expensive. And it allowed the entire country to come together and do something cool as a societ

For each individual person, county, or state it wasn't even that expensive. And it allowed the entire country to come together and do something cool as a society. This has value that you should never underestimate: it improves morale, and spurs innovation and industriousness, with effects far beyond the national effort. Unfortunately it didn't also herald in a new (and rather more ethical) era of colonization at the time. In fact we've been in a bit of a space exploration winter for a while. But new developments look really promising. This time we might end up a 'multiplanetary' species.

pfdietz 3y ago
At its peak, Apollo was several percent of federal government spending. That is expensive, and the putative benefits you suggest are certainly (IMO) not worth that cost. Your argument sounds like the kind of rationalization a special interest puts out when their hand is found in the cookie jar.
- lstamour 3y ago
  I won't say these are the best sources, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... suggest that at its peak during the space race, NASA spending reached 4% of the government budget while if I'm reading the charts correctly, the government routinely spends up to 4% on the millitary every year since. I'd personally classify the Apollo program then as a rounding error as I pay more than that in sales tax and often don't notice... and that was at its peak.
  - Retric 3y ago
    NASA peaked at 4.4% of national spending, though not all of that was Apollo. Not every member of HN in America and they definitely don’t make the same salary but it’s like 600+$ in just one year taken out of your pocket and set on fire, except it’s worse. NASA’s budget for manned missions needs to be considered across time and as part of the US’s debt over 60+ years not just spending in individual years. Countries need some military spending but most countries have looked at manned missions as frivolous because they are. This is an annual trip to Cabo on your credit card not rent. As to the ongoing cost from Apollo/shuttle/etc population isn’t static, but people wouldn’t have gotten 30 year bonds at 15.21% in 1981 if the total debt was significantly less. So it’s not an easy calculation, but it’s a bigger debt burden than you might think. Which IMO puts these missions in a different light.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  So presumably, form your attitude, you would be against the government spending 8% of it's budget to build a base on the moon? Let’s do this another way - let us say tomorrow China started building a large industrial facility on the moon capable of 3D printing rocket parts and refuelling rockets. Logically that would allow militarisation of the moon too. Let's imagine they are really going for it, and the first launches have already happened. Let’s say it cost them 8% of gov. budget, and it cost us the same. Would you support or oppose matching China's effort? If you support it, is fear of falling behind the main motivation for you? Why is desire to get ahead not equally valid?
  - avar 3y ago
    Watching China set 8% of its budget on fire to militarize the moon sounds like a US war planner's wet dream. What are they going to do? Stage nuclear-tipped rockets there that you could wait until the next business day to respond to?
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      They could setup the infrastructure to defend a claim to the valuable areas of the Moon, eg the permanently shadowed craters with easily accessible water ice.
      - avar 3y ago
        The US could always tunnel into those areas later, unless the Chinese are also allowed to develop a mineshaft-gap.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    There is no earthly purpose to weapons on the moon. There may be a lunar purpose however - to gain economic hegemony over lunar resources. That is an entirely different issue.
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    Why should it matter to Americans if China is inexplicably wasting money building stuff on the moon that they could have built in China for a tiny fraction of the cost?

pfdietz 3y ago

At its peak, Apollo was several percent of federal government spending. That is expensive, and the putative benefits you suggest are certainly (IMO) not worth that cost. Your argument sounds like the kind of rationalization a special interest puts out when their hand is found in the cookie jar.

lstamour 3y ago
I won't say these are the best sources, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... suggest that at its peak during the space race, NASA spending reached 4% of the government budget while if I'm reading the charts correctly, the government routinely spends up to 4% on the millitary every year since. I'd personally classify the Apollo program then as a rounding error as I pay more than that in sales tax and often don't notice... and that was at its peak.
- Retric 3y ago
  NASA peaked at 4.4% of national spending, though not all of that was Apollo. Not every member of HN in America and they definitely don’t make the same salary but it’s like 600+$ in just one year taken out of your pocket and set on fire, except it’s worse. NASA’s budget for manned missions needs to be considered across time and as part of the US’s debt over 60+ years not just spending in individual years. Countries need some military spending but most countries have looked at manned missions as frivolous because they are. This is an annual trip to Cabo on your credit card not rent. As to the ongoing cost from Apollo/shuttle/etc population isn’t static, but people wouldn’t have gotten 30 year bonds at 15.21% in 1981 if the total debt was significantly less. So it’s not an easy calculation, but it’s a bigger debt burden than you might think. Which IMO puts these missions in a different light.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
So presumably, form your attitude, you would be against the government spending 8% of it's budget to build a base on the moon? Let’s do this another way - let us say tomorrow China started building a large industrial facility on the moon capable of 3D printing rocket parts and refuelling rockets. Logically that would allow militarisation of the moon too. Let's imagine they are really going for it, and the first launches have already happened. Let’s say it cost them 8% of gov. budget, and it cost us the same. Would you support or oppose matching China's effort? If you support it, is fear of falling behind the main motivation for you? Why is desire to get ahead not equally valid?
- avar 3y ago
  Watching China set 8% of its budget on fire to militarize the moon sounds like a US war planner's wet dream. What are they going to do? Stage nuclear-tipped rockets there that you could wait until the next business day to respond to?
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    They could setup the infrastructure to defend a claim to the valuable areas of the Moon, eg the permanently shadowed craters with easily accessible water ice.
    - avar 3y ago
      The US could always tunnel into those areas later, unless the Chinese are also allowed to develop a mineshaft-gap.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  There is no earthly purpose to weapons on the moon. There may be a lunar purpose however - to gain economic hegemony over lunar resources. That is an entirely different issue.
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  Why should it matter to Americans if China is inexplicably wasting money building stuff on the moon that they could have built in China for a tiny fraction of the cost?