3 ms·

>It was not enormously expensive. The entire Apollo Program cost about 1/6th as much as the Vietnam War, and that's direct costs only. you're comparing somethi

by serf 3y ago

>It was not enormously expensive. The entire Apollo Program cost about 1/6th as much as the Vietnam War, and that's direct costs only. you're comparing something to one of the most grossly mismanaged loss-of-value wars the United States was ever involved in such a way as to demonstrate thrift. the Vietnam war represents one of the largest financial and strategic blunders of US history. Without considering long-term post-war expenses we spent an adjusted trillion dollars on that war and got nearly nothing to show for it except for a lot of abused and tired veterans.

somenameforme 3y ago
It was not particularly unique. We spent more, inflation adjusted, in both of Iraq and Afghanistan than we did in Vietnam [1] - meaning we're now up to dozens of Apollo Program scale projects. We endlessly blow money on geopolitics that just makes the world a much worse, and less safe, place. Yet the anti-war movement in the US is pretty much dead, while there does seem to be an increasingly growing anti-space movement that often cites cost as a motivation. It's quite nonsensical. [1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-...
- aebtebeten 3y ago
  Did The Onion ever mark the number in their 2004 article title to market? "U.S. To Give Every Iraqi $3,544.91, Let Free-Market Capitalism Do The Rest" https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-free-market-cap-1819567206 https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-le...
_trampeltier 3y ago
Sum of all NASA budgets 1958 to 2011 are smaller than us military budget from 2011. http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-u-s-budget-priorities/ http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-...
- pfdietz 3y ago
  This is the "bigger rat" defense. The rat, having been caught by the rat catcher, complains this isn't fair because there are other, larger rats. But it's still a rat. A program that isn't worth doing remains not worth doing even if there are larger programs that also weren't worth doing.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    But your attack is limp. You're complaining about a project on the basis of cost when it is basically a financial rounding error. The US government is 34 trillion in debt [0], led mainly by the largest welfare state (by absolute size, not by generosity) in the history of the globe. The annual interest on that debt alone is about the size of the total 50 year history of spend on NASA [1]. If, in that context, if you're going to attack a productive project as a waste of money: 1) You aren't seriously looking at the political situation. There are actual budget problems without going to find imaginary ones. 2) You're representing a perspective that clearly has no political power, and you're representing it by attacking one of the easiest programs to justify. If you've got no political power, it makes more sense to attack weak opposing positions. Finding wasteful US government spending is like shooting fish in a barrel; the forever wars alone are enough to harp on for decades. But you're going to try and launch an attack on the space program, which did at least advance the state of humanity? You're setting yourself up to look silly. [0] It is already closer to 35 trillion, I wish my salary grew that quickly. [1] _trampeltier's link

by serf 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

It was not particularly unique. We spent more, inflation adjusted, in both of Iraq and Afghanistan than we did in Vietnam [1] - meaning we're now up to dozens of Apollo Program scale projects. We endlessly blow money on geopolitics that just makes the world a much worse, and less safe, place. Yet the anti-war movement in the US is pretty much dead, while there does seem to be an increasingly growing anti-space movement that often cites cost as a motivation. It's quite nonsensical. [1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-...

aebtebeten 3y ago
Did The Onion ever mark the number in their 2004 article title to market? "U.S. To Give Every Iraqi $3,544.91, Let Free-Market Capitalism Do The Rest" https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-free-market-cap-1819567206 https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-le...

_trampeltier 3y ago

Sum of all NASA budgets 1958 to 2011 are smaller than us military budget from 2011. http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-u-s-budget-priorities/ http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-...

pfdietz 3y ago
This is the "bigger rat" defense. The rat, having been caught by the rat catcher, complains this isn't fair because there are other, larger rats. But it's still a rat. A program that isn't worth doing remains not worth doing even if there are larger programs that also weren't worth doing.
- roenxi 3y ago
  But your attack is limp. You're complaining about a project on the basis of cost when it is basically a financial rounding error. The US government is 34 trillion in debt [0], led mainly by the largest welfare state (by absolute size, not by generosity) in the history of the globe. The annual interest on that debt alone is about the size of the total 50 year history of spend on NASA [1]. If, in that context, if you're going to attack a productive project as a waste of money: 1) You aren't seriously looking at the political situation. There are actual budget problems without going to find imaginary ones. 2) You're representing a perspective that clearly has no political power, and you're representing it by attacking one of the easiest programs to justify. If you've got no political power, it makes more sense to attack weak opposing positions. Finding wasteful US government spending is like shooting fish in a barrel; the forever wars alone are enough to harp on for decades. But you're going to try and launch an attack on the space program, which did at least advance the state of humanity? You're setting yourself up to look silly. [0] It is already closer to 35 trillion, I wish my salary grew that quickly. [1] _trampeltier's link