3 ms·

Re: Moon landing - It had very little to do with people losing interest. In 1972 Nixon defacto completely cancelled the human space program, which he had been

Re: Moon landing - It had very little to do with people losing interest. In 1972 Nixon defacto completely cancelled the human space program, which he had been rapidly stripping away since Apollo 13. He was paranoid that a catastrophic failure was imminent and would negatively affect his 1972 election campaign. Interestingly when he signed off on the final stripping down in 1972, he remarked that we may never set foot on the Moon again this century. That would've sounded quite absurd at the time, but was ultimately completely correct. It's kind of ironic that the stereotypical context of the space race was it supposedly having been a proxy for an ideological battle between capitalism and communism. Yet the US space program existed solely and exclusively due to a large and heavily centralized governmental effort. It's only in very modern times that private companies can take to the stars, completely independent of governments, which is why we've been able to make vastly made more progress in the past 10 years than we did in the 40 prior. A good starting point off for going down this rabbit hole would probably be here. [1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions

dotnet00 3y ago
That covers the cancellation of Apollo, but the fact that we didn't even put an uncrewed lander on the Moon within the 50 years in between is indicative of a lack of general interest, since we've had several presidents in these 50 years. Still, this did lead me to the discovery that apparently the often made claim that viewership of the landings waned after Apollo 11 doesn't seem to have any clear evidence besides the point that Apollo 11 had the highest live viewer count until apparently the most recent Superbowl. The EVA camera was damaged in Apollo 12, and 13 was just poorly covered by the media until the crew encountered trouble.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  I don't think what happens in politics is a great proxy for interest. Lots of things with high interest levels never happen - federal digital privacy laws or federal right to repair laws for instance. And, vice versa, lots that are exceptionally unpopular get passed with exceptional rapidity - spying laws and copyright lasting until the heat death of the universe laws are a couple of examples there. Most polls since the end of the Apollo program have shown strong and growing interest in space. Here's [1] the most recent I could find - a 2018 Pew poll. 72% consider it essential that the US continue to be a world leader in space exploration, 80% agree that the ISS has been a good investment for the country, 63% consider it important (45%) or top priority (18%) to send astronauts to Mars, and so on. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-believe-it-is-essential-that-the-u-s-remain-a-global-leader-in-space/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/06/06/majority-of-a...
paulryanrogers 3y ago
> It's only in very modern times that private companies can take to the stars, completely independent of governments... Are there any private companies putting humans in space without huge government grants, launch facilities, or ex-gov talent?
- dotnet00 3y ago
  The 'huge government grants' thing is doing a lot of (excuse the pun) heavy lifting, as are launch facilities and ex-gov talent. The government is a customer on Crew Dragon, it's a government 'grant' if you consider it a grant when the government pays money to a company for stationary specifically designed for the government (say, with the respective agency's logo on it). Similarly, the launch facilities are being leased and heavily customized by private companies for their requirements. You can't just prop up a launch complex anywhere, and the best spots are where the government owned ones have been built already. Ex-gov talent is similarly complicated because there is obviously a lot of exchange between NASA and industry, especially since the space industry is growing rapidly and has high barriers to entry constraining talent availability. For example, a lot of smaller new space companies are founded by people who have previously worked at SpaceX, but it'd be weird to say that those companies are not independent of SpaceX just because that's where their founders previously gained their industry credentials from. The important point in terms of independence is that during Apollo, NASA dictated the design in detail to companies, the company's job was to build what NASA told them to, then NASA would take ownership of it all and be responsible for running the show. The companies couldn't choose to do whatever they wanted with the designs. Now, with independent private space exploration, NASA just presents its requirements (safety, destination, crew, payload, availability etc). Companies present their proposals, NASA decides which ones fit its requirements best and promises them fixed payments for achieving specific milestones. The risk of cost overruns, failures etc is entirely on the company. The design is developed primarily by the company, and it belongs to them, NASA is essentially just along for the ride like any passenger.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    I'd still say that's not "completely independent". One might even say it's just outsourcing NASA's once many teams to different companies. Also I doubt these companies would be as numerous or as big without the promise of fat government contracts looming on the horizon.
thombat 3y ago
NASA had only contracted for 15 Saturn V stacks, and in 1968 declined to start the second production run. That was still under Johnson - although Nixon was doubtless happy with the decision it had already become obvious that Congress wasn't going to approve sustaining the NASA budget at that level once the moon was in the bag.
hnbad 3y ago
This reminds me of how the sad state of fiber broadband in Germany is ultimately the result of 1990s chancellor Helmut Kohl (the one who saw over the reunification, consequently selling off the East German public property to private investors for scraps) thinking that public TV was too hostile to him and wanting to empower private broadcasters by publicly funding cable television, which delayed the investment in fiber broadband by repurposing cable for broadband as a stop-gap solution. Basically a long-running chancellor in the 1990s wanted to push media that presented him more favorably and that's why thirty years later our Internet is slow.
titzer 3y ago
> it supposedly having been a proxy for an ideological battle More than anything, it was a proxy for developing ICBMs and other space capabilities (e.g. satellites) for fighting the cold war.
adwn 3y ago
> Yet the US space program existed solely and exclusively due to a large and heavily centralized governmental effort. That's not quite the right conclusion to draw from this. The US could afford to put a humongous amount of resources into its space program because of the productive output unleashed by capitalism and a market-based economy. For example, the US spent a lot of money on a brute-force approach to fixing the combustion instability problems in the huge F-1 engines through trial-and-error; the USSR could not afford to do this, and was forced to go with a much larger number of smaller engines (which due to budgetary constraints couldn't be tested together before the actual launch, with catastrophic consequences).

dotnet00 3y ago

That covers the cancellation of Apollo, but the fact that we didn't even put an uncrewed lander on the Moon within the 50 years in between is indicative of a lack of general interest, since we've had several presidents in these 50 years. Still, this did lead me to the discovery that apparently the often made claim that viewership of the landings waned after Apollo 11 doesn't seem to have any clear evidence besides the point that Apollo 11 had the highest live viewer count until apparently the most recent Superbowl. The EVA camera was damaged in Apollo 12, and 13 was just poorly covered by the media until the crew encountered trouble.

somenameforme 3y ago
I don't think what happens in politics is a great proxy for interest. Lots of things with high interest levels never happen - federal digital privacy laws or federal right to repair laws for instance. And, vice versa, lots that are exceptionally unpopular get passed with exceptional rapidity - spying laws and copyright lasting until the heat death of the universe laws are a couple of examples there. Most polls since the end of the Apollo program have shown strong and growing interest in space. Here's [1] the most recent I could find - a 2018 Pew poll. 72% consider it essential that the US continue to be a world leader in space exploration, 80% agree that the ISS has been a good investment for the country, 63% consider it important (45%) or top priority (18%) to send astronauts to Mars, and so on. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/06/06/majority-of-americans-believe-it-is-essential-that-the-u-s-remain-a-global-leader-in-space/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/06/06/majority-of-a...

paulryanrogers 3y ago

> It's only in very modern times that private companies can take to the stars, completely independent of governments... Are there any private companies putting humans in space without huge government grants, launch facilities, or ex-gov talent?

dotnet00 3y ago
The 'huge government grants' thing is doing a lot of (excuse the pun) heavy lifting, as are launch facilities and ex-gov talent. The government is a customer on Crew Dragon, it's a government 'grant' if you consider it a grant when the government pays money to a company for stationary specifically designed for the government (say, with the respective agency's logo on it). Similarly, the launch facilities are being leased and heavily customized by private companies for their requirements. You can't just prop up a launch complex anywhere, and the best spots are where the government owned ones have been built already. Ex-gov talent is similarly complicated because there is obviously a lot of exchange between NASA and industry, especially since the space industry is growing rapidly and has high barriers to entry constraining talent availability. For example, a lot of smaller new space companies are founded by people who have previously worked at SpaceX, but it'd be weird to say that those companies are not independent of SpaceX just because that's where their founders previously gained their industry credentials from. The important point in terms of independence is that during Apollo, NASA dictated the design in detail to companies, the company's job was to build what NASA told them to, then NASA would take ownership of it all and be responsible for running the show. The companies couldn't choose to do whatever they wanted with the designs. Now, with independent private space exploration, NASA just presents its requirements (safety, destination, crew, payload, availability etc). Companies present their proposals, NASA decides which ones fit its requirements best and promises them fixed payments for achieving specific milestones. The risk of cost overruns, failures etc is entirely on the company. The design is developed primarily by the company, and it belongs to them, NASA is essentially just along for the ride like any passenger.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  I'd still say that's not "completely independent". One might even say it's just outsourcing NASA's once many teams to different companies. Also I doubt these companies would be as numerous or as big without the promise of fat government contracts looming on the horizon.

thombat 3y ago

NASA had only contracted for 15 Saturn V stacks, and in 1968 declined to start the second production run. That was still under Johnson - although Nixon was doubtless happy with the decision it had already become obvious that Congress wasn't going to approve sustaining the NASA budget at that level once the moon was in the bag.

hnbad 3y ago

This reminds me of how the sad state of fiber broadband in Germany is ultimately the result of 1990s chancellor Helmut Kohl (the one who saw over the reunification, consequently selling off the East German public property to private investors for scraps) thinking that public TV was too hostile to him and wanting to empower private broadcasters by publicly funding cable television, which delayed the investment in fiber broadband by repurposing cable for broadband as a stop-gap solution. Basically a long-running chancellor in the 1990s wanted to push media that presented him more favorably and that's why thirty years later our Internet is slow.

titzer 3y ago

> it supposedly having been a proxy for an ideological battle More than anything, it was a proxy for developing ICBMs and other space capabilities (e.g. satellites) for fighting the cold war.

adwn 3y ago

> Yet the US space program existed solely and exclusively due to a large and heavily centralized governmental effort. That's not quite the right conclusion to draw from this. The US could afford to put a humongous amount of resources into its space program because of the productive output unleashed by capitalism and a market-based economy. For example, the US spent a lot of money on a brute-force approach to fixing the combustion instability problems in the huge F-1 engines through trial-and-error; the USSR could not afford to do this, and was forced to go with a much larger number of smaller engines (which due to budgetary constraints couldn't be tested together before the actual launch, with catastrophic consequences).