Was the Apollo Program worth the cost?

[Sathurn]

I'm not talking about prestiege. I not talking about "science". I talking about real econimic growth of a nation.

So was the Apollo Program worth it?

And if it was, why did we renounce are claim to space. No competition means no mars landing. I would bet that if the "no territory in space treaty", don't know the real name, was renounced we would have over one hundred people prospecting on mars in less than a decade.

[Truga]

Yes, yes it was.

[jayschmi]

I'm not talking about prestiege. I not talking about "science". I talking about real econimic growth of a nation.

So was the Apollo Program worth it?

And if it was, why did we renounce are claim to space. No competition means no mars landing. I would bet that if the "no territory in space treaty", don't know the real name, was renounced we would have over one hundred people prospecting on mars in less than a decade.

If all the TARP money had gone to NASA, I'd be typing this message on mars right now.

[astropapi1]

Trust me, if there was another "cold war" we would have colonists living on mars in less tha a decade.

[SecondGuessing]

It was worth it in principle, and politically; from a scientific and economic viewpoint though it was a massive, inefficient waste. It was at least much more scientifically progressive than the complete waste of money that is the ISS. Manned spaceflight is only good for politics and public relations.

[Tw1]

No idea about the economics, but it continues to inspire to this day. That's got to have had an economic effect for the world, not just the USA.

Maybe the ability to claim territory would motivate some, but I'd rather we approached this as a world. We may avoid conflicts over patches of land on other planets if we cooperate, rather than compete.

Also, I disagree about the ISS being a waste of money. They do a lot of things up there that help us find out about long-term stays in zero gravity, and many experiments, and it's just a little bit inspiring to see that dot pass overhead, and think: There's people up there.

[bsalis]

You do realize that those footprints on the Moon will probably outlast our species ye?

[Rage097]

It was worth it. By putting a man on the moon we not only inspired millions, but also gained slightly more scientific data and cleared the way for future missions. In politics, it makes us awesome: "We put a man on the moon. What did you do?". The point is that there is more to life than this pitiful rock we find ourselves on. We have SO much to explore and learn out there. And Apollo paved the way.

[SecondGuessing]

No idea about the economics, but it continues to inspire to this day. That's got to have had an economic effect for the world, not just the USA.

Maybe the ability to claim territory would motivate some, but I'd rather we approached this as a world. We may avoid conflicts over patches of land on other planets if we cooperate, rather than compete.

Do you not think it's a little naive to presume that space will be peaceful? If it were so easy to just say 'right, from not on we're not going to fight' then screw space, we should be doing it here!

Also, I disagree about the ISS being a waste of money. They do a lot of things up there that help us find out about long-term stays in zero gravity, and many experiments, and it's just a little bit inspiring to see that dot pass overhead, and think: There's people up there.

But the only reason we currently need to know about long term stays in zero gravity is because of the ISS. And also, nobody has stayed aboard the ISS for very long, relatively to several Russians on MIR, so we aren't learning anything new. And very few of the experiments they have done require an astronaut. I'm not saying the ISS is a bad thing overall, I think that there are many things humans should do, or should do more, which are complete wastes of money and time and effort in the long run, simply because it's all the unimportant things that make life interesting. However, from a scientific standpoint, which is the lens through which most space-flight is viewed, the ISS has provided next to nothing and cost a ridiculous amount. Putting humans in LEO (I nearly put LKO Damn you KSP!) isn't particularly interesting any more.

It was worth it. By putting a man on the moon we not only inspired millions, but also gained slightly more scientific data and cleared the way for future missions. In politics, it makes us awesome: "We put a man on the moon. What did you do?". The point is that there is more to life than this pitiful rock we find ourselves on. We have SO much to explore and learn out there. And Apollo paved the way.

This 'pitiful rock' is infinitely less pitiful and more interesting than any other planet that we are aware of.

And the Russians rather paved the way. They beat you to absolutely everything except a human Moon landing, which was really the least scientifically productive and efficient mission.

Edited May 16, 2013 by SecondGuessing

[Sabor]

I'm pretty sure all the money that went into Apollo not only put us on the moon, but was easily re-made and spent by people and companies from all the stuff we learned and made with Apollo. Wall of Text incoming

Cool suits, which kept Apollo astronauts comfortable during moon walks, are today worn by race car drivers, nuclear reactor technicians, shipyard workers, people with multiple sclerosis and children with a congenital disorder known as hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia, which restricts the body’s ability to cool itself.

Special kidney dialysis machines were created as a result of a NASA-developed chemical process that removes toxic waste from used dialysis fluid. The process saves electricity and eliminates the need for a continuous water supply, granting the patient greater freedom.

A cardiovascular conditioner developed for astronauts in space led to the invention of a physical therapy and athletic development machine used by football teams, sports clinics, and medical rehabilitation centers.

Athletic shoe design and manufacturing also benefited from Apollo. Space suit technology is incorporated into a shoe's external shell, and a stress-free "blow molding" process adapted from NASA space suit design is used in the shoe's fabrication.

Insulating barriers made of metalized foil laid over a core of propylene or mylar, which protected astronauts and their spacecraft's delicate instruments from radiation and heat, are now found in common home insulation. Vacuum metalizing techniques also led to an extensive line of commercial products, from insulated outer garments to packaging for foods, from wall coverings to window shades, from life rafts to candy wrappings, and from reflective safety blankets to photographic reflectors.

Water purification technology used on the Apollo spacecraft is now employed in several spinoff applications to kill bacteria, viruses and algae in community water supply systems and cooling towers. Filters mounted on faucets reduce lead in water supplies.

Freeze-dried food solved the problem of what to feed an astronaut on the long-duration Apollo missions. Freeze drying foods preserves nutritional value and taste, while also reducing weight and increasing shelf life.

A hospital food service system employs a NASA cook/chill concept for serving food. The system allows staff to prepare food well in advance, maintain heat, visual appeal, and nutritional value while reducing operating costs.

A hollow retroreflector, a mirror-like instrument that reflects light and other radiation back to the source, is used as a sensor to detect the presence of hazardous gases in oil fields, refineries, offshore platforms, chemical plants, waste storage sites, and other locations where gases could be released into the environment.

A process for bonding dry lubricant to space metals led to the development of surface enhancement, or synergistic, coatings, which are used in applications from pizza making to laser manufacturing. Each coating is designed to protect a specific metal group or group of metals to solve problems encountered under operating conditions, such as resistance to corrosion and wear.

The same fabric used in Apollo-era space suits has been spun off into a cost-effective, environmentally-friendly building material. Used on structures around the world, the Teflon-coated fiberglass strands create a permanent, tent-like roof. Less expensive than conventional roofing materials, the durable white fabric allows natural light to shine through, saving a significant amount of energy.

Metal-bonded polyurethane foam insulation developed for protecting Apollo-era spacecraft was also applied to the Alaskan pipeline, where its temperature controlling properties were in high demand. In order to maintain its fluidity, the oil needs to be kept at relatively high temperatures (180 °F), a tall order in the Arctic. The NASA-derived insulation solved this problem.

After a fire on the Apollo launch pad which resulted in the death of three astronauts, NASA worked with private industry to develop a line of fire-resistant textiles for use in space suits and vehicles. These materials are now used in numerous firefighting, military, motor sports, and other applications.

So, Was Apollo worth it? Yeah, it was. Just because we spent all this money to develop a way to get to the moon doesn't mean that's all that came of it. Same with pretty much EVERYTHING NASA has ever done. Almost everyone has multiple items in their house that spawned from the Apollo program. Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best: 'NASA is an Investment.' Almost everything we put into it we get back in the long run. Certainly a less waste of money than funding and upkeep of 11 Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, and a Fleet of B-2 Bombers that are so expensive we're almost too afraid to use them

Edited May 16, 2013 by Sabor

[Jokurr]

If it was not a “race†and NASA took their time getting to the moon, say by the mid-late 70s instead of the end of the 60s, they probably could’ve gotten there for a significantly reduced cost. But because of political pressure, money was thrown at the program to do things as fast as possible (which ended killing people along the way) in a very inefficient, albeit quick manner. So yes, I would consider it to be an economic “waste.†That said, I believe it was worth it.

[Rocketman1994]

It could had been worth it if it had been built on, and even then I think it is worth the cost just because of the prestige, science and inspiration it caused. Just think about all the technology that Apollo and the programs leading up to that discovered. Its simply mind boggling.

If NASA would had kept going, think about how much mining would make, or tourism if it was affordable. Thats why I'm so hopeful for companies like Virgin Galactica and SpaceX, because once they get going and start making money, you can bet your ass they won't turn back.

[csiler2]

I would disagree with SecondGuessing. At the time, the Apollo program pushed a lot of boundaries in regards to engineering, structural sciences, material sciences, computing technology, communication infrastructure, and related space and lunar sciences. A lot of money was dumped into the program for political reasons, i.e. beat the Russians, but it was still a great achievement of science and engineering. I'm reading "Stages to Saturn" about the design and development of the Saturn rocket family and it's pretty obvious that creating the launch vehicles alone lead to a lot of innovation that changed multiple industries.

That's not really the case these days. The pushes made in the 60s and 70s for the space program made it easier to maintain manned programs today. Russia launches with derivatives created in the 1960s and NASA's SLS design currently relies on derivatives from the same area. There's not much pressure for innovation in manned spaceflight, especially when there is little political pressure to move beyond LEO.

Sure, the ISS is working on microgravity experiments relating to biology, material and structural sciences, but we won't really be able use these discoveries on a large scale until there's serious pressure for man to push off the Earth.

I personally don't think we'll see many manned missions beyond Earth orbit until mankind is forced to begin colonizing space due to resource scarcity on Earth. Manned missions beyond Earth orbit will really only revolutionize life-support, food preservation, radiation shielding, and other technologies necessary for long-term viability in space. While there is some need for these technologies planet-side, their biggest impact would be to space programs.

[Fractal_UK]

It's very difficult say but it's highly unlikely to have been a waste of money. Whenever the government spends money that it otherwise wouldn't have spent, some of that money goes into increasing the size of the economy - the fraction of money that the wider economy increases by as a result of this spending is called the fiscal multiplier.

Often, spending money on infrastructure, energy, science and technology have fairly high fiscal multipliers (i.e. > 1). In the case of the Apollo program, spending lots of money on high tech equipment creates both demand and skills in the private sector to manufacture the required equipment, provided that uses for this technology can be found in other applications after the government spending has ended, you've potentially permanently added a huge amount of value to the economy. Certainly Apollo pioneered many new manufacturing techniques as well as having provided funding to early generations of integrated circuits and computers so I highly doubt that we haven't reaped large economic dividends both worldwide, for the Americans, more locally as well.

[zombiphylax]

However, from a scientific standpoint, which is the lens through which most space-flight is viewed, the ISS has provided next to nothing and cost a ridiculous amount.

...except for all of its incredible contributions to medical research and technology, and mobile air/water purification technology. Besides all of that, you're right, huge waste of money...

[Sathurn]

If it was not a “race†and NASA took their time getting to the moon, say by the mid-late 70s instead of the end of the 60s, they probably could’ve gotten there for a significantly reduced cost. But because of political pressure, money was thrown at the program to do things as fast as possible (which ended killing people along the way) in a very inefficient, albeit quick manner. So yes, I would consider it to be an economic “waste.†That said, I believe it was worth it.

Wthout the "race" we never would of gotten their at all. Which why we should forget the unproductive idea of peaceful exploration, and start going first come first serve.

[The Jedi Master]

It was worth it.

Now, tell me: do YOU have the billions to colonize Mars?

[Deadpangod3]

Guys, in 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon with less technology then your phone...

Obviously it was worth it,

[SecondGuessing]

...except for all of its incredible contributions to medical research and technology, and mobile air/water purification technology. Besides all of that, you're right, huge waste of money...

You can hardly honestly claim offshoots as a reason to do something; they're completely unpredictable. Of course they're wonderful, but they aren't a reason to do something. General and Special Relativity led to GPS, but to claim that it was important to develop the theories of General and Special Relativity in order to develop GPS is just dishonest.

And much of those developments have been co-developed for completely terrestrial reasons. One of my housemates is doing a PhD in biomechanics and is working on the effects of simulating low-gravity exercise without the drag that water exercises cause for the pure medical reason of rehabilitating athletes, a field which has led to the development of systems almost exactly the same as the ones NASA had to develop for astronauts, except far more applicable to terrestrial exercise and ridiculously cheaper.

When we have linear colliders that will benefit science infinitely more than the ISS for less than a tenth of the cost being cancelled so we can keep some astronauts in LEO there's a problem with our politicians' scientific interests.

Edited May 16, 2013 by SecondGuessing

[jayschmi]

It was worth it.

Now, tell me: do YOU have the billions to colonize Mars?

Absolutely. The US government spent over a trillion bailing out banks. Too bad they didn't redirect 10% of it to create far more jobs.

[csiler2]

If it was not a “race†and NASA took their time getting to the moon, say by the mid-late 70s instead of the end of the 60s, they probably could’ve gotten there for a significantly reduced cost. But because of political pressure, money was thrown at the program to do things as fast as possible (which ended killing people along the way) in a very inefficient, albeit quick manner. So yes, I would consider it to be an economic “waste.†That said, I believe it was worth it.

I assume you're referring to the Apollo 1 fire?

Many of the contributing factors to that accident have little to do with NASA doing "things as fast as possible." Probably the biggest contributing factor to the fire was NASA's classification of the test as a low-risk test instead of a high-risk test. NASA was aware of pressurized oxygen-rich fires in the past, but they only thought about them as a space-only risk. Their contingencies dealt with fires in space, not on the ground during tests that had a 100% success rate relating to fires at that point. It was a failure of imagination that lead to the test being rated low-risk instead of high-risk. Had the test been properly rated as a high-risk test, NASA may have taken a closer look at the plugs-out test design as well as their capsule environment design. They would have at least made sure there was a much larger safety crew on site with proper equipment and emergency routes to save the astronauts. Of course, the fire might not have happend had the contractor properly QCed the capsule.

The other major contributing factor to the accident was management and quality control at North American Aviation. At the time, NAA's management hierarchy was a mess and there was no clear line of communication when problems arose or when NASA submitted notes for changes to module design. This lead to some design flaws and miscommunication between NAA and NASA over proper module operation. This problem was completely outside of NASA's control and would not have changed even if NASA had taken their time. In fact, NAA went through a forced restructuring as a result of the Apollo 1 fire, guaranteeing better QC and program management for the rest of the program until NAA merged with Rockwell-Standard in 1967.

[lazarus1024]

If it was not a “race†and NASA took their time getting to the moon, say by the mid-late 70s instead of the end of the 60s, they probably could’ve gotten there for a significantly reduced cost. But because of political pressure, money was thrown at the program to do things as fast as possible (which ended killing people along the way) in a very inefficient, albeit quick manner. So yes, I would consider it to be an economic “waste.†That said, I believe it was worth it.

Unlikely. Most of the time the longer the program of project the higher the costs. A lot of the engineers, contracts, etc are going to have to be maintained throughout the entire time period, otherwise you can lose talent and/or need retraining/rehiring. So if you stretch a project too long you are inefficiently utilizing resources, some of which will have increased idle time.

So stretching it out by another 5 years very well could have increased the costs significantly. Compressing things generally can increases costs too as you have to overhire, waste through over capitolization and contract missmanagement, etc. However, generally "too short" of a project/program schedule is less inefficient than "too long" of a project/program schedule.

On the whole adding 5 extra years probably would have increased costs significantly. An extra year or two...dunno? It might have increased the efficiency of the program somewhat. I doubt it would have done so in a particularly remarkable way.

[lazarus1024]

You can hardly honestly claim offshoots as a reason to do something; they're completely unpredictable. Of course they're wonderful, but they aren't a reason to do something. General and Special Relativity led to GPS, but to claim that it was important to develop the theories of General and Special Relativity in order to develop GPS is just dishonest.

And much of those developments have been co-developed for completely terrestrial reasons. One of my housemates is doing a PhD in biomechanics and is working on the effects of simulating low-gravity exercise without the drag that water exercises cause for the pure medical reason of rehabilitating athletes, a field which has led to the development of systems almost exactly the same as the ones NASA had to develop for astronauts, except far more applicable to terrestrial exercise and ridiculously cheaper.

When we have linear colliders that will benefit science infinitely more than the ISS for less than a tenth of the cost being cancelled so we can keep some astronauts in LEO there's a problem with our politicians' scientific interests.

It is called basic research. You have no idea what something might result in with basic research. However, you keep doing it in as many fields as you can and as much as you can...because there are ALWAYS unintended benefits to doing it. Sure, you do not know you'll get a specific or ANY benefit out of doing research or undertaking an engineering/scientific mission/program. However, history has proved, the greater the engineering or scientific endevour, generally the greater the resultant societal and economic benefits are reaped.

So you can say with a straight face that probably some people realized there would be long term economic benefit in the space race.

No, the reason for the ISS and lots of other programs don't often have a lot to do with real tangible societal benefits, but not every single politician and not most of the people involved in the projects are looking at it from a purely political perspective and most of these projects DO have benefits.

[SecondGuessing]

It is called basic research. You have no idea what something might result in with basic research. However, you keep doing it in as many fields as you can and as much as you can...because there are ALWAYS unintended benefits to doing it. Sure, you do not know you'll get a specific or ANY benefit out of doing research or undertaking an engineering/scientific mission/program. However, history has proved, the greater the engineering or scientific endevour, generally the greater the resultant societal and economic benefits are reaped.

So you can say with a straight face that probably some people realized there would be long term economic benefit in the space race.

There are plenty of fields that would undoubtedly produce more offshoots and more actual science that the ISS that cost a pittance of the amount, however, and so if you want to explore as many fields as possible then ditching astronauts in LEO in favour of particle colliders and probes and particle detectors and space telescopes is clearly the better option. I honestly think we should ditch the ISS and spend the money on developing something like the James Webb space telescope.

No, the reason for the ISS and lots of other programs don't often have a lot to do with real tangible societal benefits, but not every single politician and not most of the people involved in the projects are looking at it from a purely political perspective and most of these projects DO have benefits.

I don't really care about social benefits: if you get a better toaster from the ISS then great, but that's not the reason to do science. Knowledge is good for its own sake, and we could certainly learn a lot more by redirecting funds from the ISS to other pursuits.

[SkyRender]

Was the Apollo Program worth it? One may as well ask if the Renaissance was worth it. As close as we are to the conception and execution of a series of manned flights to our nearest celestial neighbor, we cannot meaningfully judge its ultimate value to our culture at large. And much like the aforementioned Italian tour de force of talent, it was a politically charged decision that at the time was more about keeping up appearances than anything else. It's not for us to decide if Apollo was worth it, because at this point we don't know for sure if it genuinely was or not.