Was the Apollo Program worth the cost?

[Vespasianus]

Well, I think it was worth it, but I won't argue about it, since I'm not an US citizen, and wasn't affected by the economic stuff

[Fractal_UK]

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.

Is there any particular reason you keep bringing up particle colliders as an example of a great way to spend money? Sure particle accelerator results are very interesting from a theoretical perspective and I fully support the research but in terms of tangible economic/societal benefits in the near-medium term, the ISS is a far more likely source. Large particle accelerators fall very much into the pure research category and any benefits from them are going to be reaped over the much longer term. That's not a problem, it's simply important to maintain diversity and focus on a wide variety of research.

[Deadpangod3]

I see a flame war coming, mods be warned...

[3_bit]

What Spirit and Opportunity accomplished in 5 years could have been done in 1 week if there had been a manned landing in it's place.

Citation: Buzz Aldrin interview

I believe that says enough about that.

[SecondGuessing]

Is there any particular reason you keep bringing up particle colliders as an example of a great way to spend money? Sure particle accelerator results are very interesting from a theoretical perspective and I fully support the research but in terms of tangible economic/societal benefits in the near-medium term, the ISS is a far more likely source. Large particle accelerators fall very much into the pure research category and any benefits from them are going to be reaped over the much longer term. That's not a problem, it's simply important to maintain diversity and focus on a wide variety of research.

As I've said, I don't think that 'forefront' science should be done for economic or societal reasons. Economic constraints should be taken into account, but the benefits are unimportant.

And I only bring up colliders because they're in the zeitgheist. I think space telescopes are about the best investment we could possibly make: the Hubble space telescope has provided infinitely more scientific development, and far more inspiration for more people, than a group of astronauts in a tin can. Tell people that that speck in the sky you see just after the sun has set has people in it and they'll go 'wow' and then carry on; tell them to if they bring up their hand and make a circle with their forefinger and thumb and look through it at a blank piece of sky, and then show them the Hubble Deep Field and tell them that's what they were looking at and they won't be able to muster words.

[Nikolai]

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.

Um, no. As long as we're talking about cultural impact or impact on spaceflight capability, the US beat the Soviet Union prior to landing on the Moon in:

* First communications satellite

* First weather satellite

* First spy satellite

* First successful satellite return from orbit

* First pilot-controlled spaceflight

* First satellite navigation system

* First piloted spacecraft orbital change

* First geosynchronous and first geostationary satellites

* First orbital rendezvous

* First reusable spacecraft

* First spacecraft docking

The Soviets certainly had a head start, but by the time rendezvous and docking came about, the U.S. pretty much had taken the lead.

[SkyRender]

In matters of space, it's my impression that it doesn't matter one iota who was first, who was last, who was best, or who was worst. There are no national borders in space, and we certainly gain nothing by pretending there are. Trying to put a nationalistic spin on it cheapens the value of the effort and just reduces it to typical human bickering about irrelevancies. Space offers us the chance to put aside our juvenile territorial tendencies; why go to all of the trouble of bringing them up there with us if they're just going to get in the way, after all?

[CalculusWarrior]

Watch this:

Now try to say the ISS is a waste of money.

[SecondGuessing]

In matters of space, it's my impression that it doesn't matter one iota who was first, who was last, who was best, or who was worst. There are no national borders in space, and we certainly gain nothing by pretending there are. Trying to put a nationalistic spin on it cheapens the value of the effort and just reduces it to typical human bickering about irrelevancies. Space offers us the chance to put aside our juvenile territorial tendencies; why go to all of the trouble of bringing them up there with us if they're just going to get in the way, after all?

Why are national borders on Earth any more real than national borders in space? There's no way that space will remain a conflict-free zone, to believe such is just naive. Space is far less important to us than Earth, and we can't do anything on Earth without inciting conflict, so why would you presume that when we get to space suddenly ten-thousand years of civilisation-based aggression will suddenly dissolve?

[Rastaman]

Money is a concept, it's not real. Space is real. It's not about money, it's about what you want. Technological civilization is fantastically inefficient, therefore "Worth the money" is a sentence without meaning. Especially if you deal with things as fundamental as space.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Rastaman

[SecondGuessing]

Money is only a concept, it's not real. Space is real. It's not about money, it's about what you want. Technological civilization is fantastically inefficient. "Worth the money" is a sentence without meaning if you deal with such fundamentals.

Money is anthropologically real, so your point is a distinction without a difference.

[SkyRender]

Why are national borders on Earth any more real than national borders in space? There's no way that space will remain a conflict-free zone, to believe such is just naive. Space is far less important to us than Earth, and we can't do anything on Earth without inciting conflict, so why would you presume that when we get to space suddenly ten-thousand years of civilisation-based aggression will suddenly dissolve?

This is the sort of viewpoint that tends to obstruct social progress, of course. "We have always been this way and will always be this way so we will not try to change." It's a rather disappointing mentality, as well as a rather self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there were one. I do not expect that we will overcome our social and genetic programming instantly. But I do expect that we at least can put in the effort to do so. It is better to try and fail than to have never tried at all, and better still to keep trying and failing than to try once and give up forevermore when it doesn't work right the first time around.

[Millitron]

Great video by Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[SecondGuessing]

This is the sort of viewpoint that tends to obstruct social progress, of course. "We have always been this way and will always be this way so we will not try to change." It's a rather disappointing mentality, as well as a rather self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there were one. I do not expect that we will overcome our social and genetic programming instantly. But I do expect that we at least can put in the effort to do so. It is better to try and fail than to have never tried at all, and better still to keep trying and failing than to try once and give up forevermore when it doesn't work right the first time around.

I'm not saying 'there's not my trying to change because we've always been like that', I'm saying that we are currently clearly not in a position to prevent conflict in space. Until we have minimalised international conflict on Earth we have no chance of being utterly peaceful and acquiescent in space. There may come a time when we can be a far more peaceful civilisation, in fact that will be quite necessary for us to overcome the problems we will face in the next century, but currently it's not really feasible, and not really worth spending much time stressing about. If we want to be peaceful in space then we have to be peaceful on Earth first.

Although, without conflict we would be far less technologically sophisticated as a species. Conflict drives innovation fantastically well; the Apollo missions would never have happened if America didn't want to conceptually bloody Russia's nose. Apollo wasn't a scientific pursuit, it was an attempt to prove the superiority of capitalism.

[DerekL1963]

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.

Actually, it's more correct to say that "Almost everyone has multiple items in their house that are widely believed to have spawned from the Apollo program, but actually didn't". NASA's propaganda machine has long been an expert at spinning NASA's use of a technology into NASA being responsible for that technology, and decades of repetition by NASA and space enthusiasts have converted that spin into accepted truth.

To take just one example - freeze dried food. NASA didn't invent it, freeze drying was invented in 1938 by Nestle. They didn't develop it into a viable process, that was done in WWII in order to ship blood products overseas. The first commercial products came along in the 50's.... NASA was a latecomer to the party.

Etc... etc... On investigation, very few of NASA's spin-off claims withstand scrutiny.

nobody has stayed aboard the ISS for very long, relatively to several Russians on MIR, so we aren't learning anything new.

Actually, we are, because the Soviets were notoriously bad at documenting the results of their life sciences experiments. Not to mention it's good practice to replicate experiments and experience across as wide a variety of individuals as possible - there's a lot of variation in the human race, starting with the male/female divide.

[Fractal_UK]

Apollo wasn't a scientific pursuit, it was an attempt to prove the superiority of capitalism.

Ironic that, isn't it? The US proved the superiority of capitalism over those communists by one of the largest programs of government spending in human history. Of course, what the US and almost all other countries truly are, are mixed economies, and that is what they proved the superiority of.

[karolus10]

OP seems to forget that Apollo program wasn't about science or exploration, but another way to kick Communists butt - everything else was optional .

Main Motivation of space treaty where inhibition of claiming territory and putting nuclear weapons or military installations in space, that was undesirable for all sides.

[SecondGuessing]

Ironic that, isn't it? The US proved the superiority of capitalism over those communists by one of the largest programs of government spending in human history. Of course, what the US and almost all other countries truly are, are mixed economies, and that is what they proved the superiority of.

Certainly, it was rather a failure at proving the efficacy of private industry.

OP seems to forget that Apollo program wasn't about science or exploration, but another way to kick Communists butt - everything else was optional .

Main Motivation of space treaty where inhibition of claiming territory and putting nuclear weapons or military installations in space, that was undesirable for all sides.

I find it funny that at the same time of the signing of the Outer Space Treaty America and Russia were both developing sub-orbital nuclear weapons and develops ASATs.

What most people don't know about the OST is also that it doesn't at all prohibit conventional weapons use in space, so it isn't the fluffy, green, peace treaty it's made out to be.

Great video by Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Sometimes I love Tyson, but sometimes he's a little too 'hand-wave-y' and fakely enthusiastic. He's perfectly right about the reasons for the creation and early workings of NASA, but his assumption that no space-flight = no enthusiasm about the future is so parochial and silly it's annoying. Lawrence Krauss and Steven Weinberg both articulate better and more reasonably about the realities of space travel, but then Tyson is great for public interest, so we do need him.

Edited May 16, 2013 by SecondGuessing

[Bluekommeh]

Is there any particular reason you keep bringing up particle colliders as an example of a great way to spend money? Sure particle accelerator results are very interesting from a theoretical perspective and I fully support the research but in terms of tangible economic/societal benefits in the near-medium term, the ISS is a far more likely source. Large particle accelerators fall very much into the pure research category and any benefits from them are going to be reaped over the much longer term. That's not a problem, it's simply important to maintain diversity and focus on a wide variety of research.

It's called science. That's how it works. It's not like a vidya tech tree where you know what the outcome will be. Experiments are expensive. And we dont know what will come out of them, but that's how science works. That's progress and you cant progress without making mistakes and wasting massive amounts of money. Because then you have some new technology that makes everything better. Are some benefits "worth it"? Absolutely not. But many things in life aren't worth it, but we still use them and we still benefit from them.

[Phawks]

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

Well, given the current state of U.S. - Chinese relations and the Chinese attempt to modernize both their military and space program, I'm sure it's awfully close. I want to say I've heard a few analysts already call the current era the Second Cold War. There will be an arms race as soon as China gets to the level of 1980s American technology. The thing is, just like Russia, they'll have to rely on espionage (as they currently are) to develop any technologies. By 2040, I guarantee you we'll either be on Mars or in a third global war, if not both.

On topic, the space program in general (especially the Apollo program) is worth nearly every penny. Apollo set the basis for miniaturization in computational technology and advanced the groundwork for modern materials science. Space is, as cliche as it is, the current frontier. The frontiers throughout history have always provided the basis for advancing technology in multiple fields. Why? Because technology needs to advance for the frontier to survive, grow, and prosper. The California gold rush spurred advanced mining, transportation, and industrial technologies. The Louisiana Purchase territory spurred advanced transportation and industrial technologies. The Space Race spurred advanced rocketry, chemistry, materials, electronics, et cetera. As long as exploration, regardless of its location, continues, there will be a need for the latest and greatest in technology.

In short, the cutting edge always puts fresh blood on the rest of the blade as long as you don't stop cutting.

[Sathurn]

OP seems to forget that Apollo program wasn't about science or exploration, but another way to kick Communists butt - everything else was optional .

Oh, I full realize that was why we did it.

But in hindsight was it worth it to the economy, with all those fringe benefits to pay the cost we did. And if in hind sight throwing huge amounts of money to put a man on the moon was worth it, why not go for broke and put a few men (or in this age of political correctness a few women, after all 3 years without women would be bad) on Mars.

[Phawks]

...(or in this age of political correctness a few women, after all 3 years without women would be bad) on Mars.

...and that's exactly why we'll beat the Chinese to Mars.

*runs away*

[Drunkrobot]

In 2009, NASA estimated the total cost of the Apollo program, from research and development to actually buying Apollo 17s flag, cost the US $170 billion, in 2005 dollars. The total cost to the US of all wars since 2001, all two of them? $1,440 billion. Is Apollo a waste of money? Possibly. Is it a massive waste of money? I don't think so.

How much would you pay for the universe?- Neil degrasse Tyson

[SecondGuessing]

On topic, the space program in general (especially the Apollo program) is worth nearly every penny. Apollo set the basis for miniaturization in computational technology and advanced the groundwork for modern materials science. Space is, as cliche as it is, the current frontier. The frontiers throughout history have always provided the basis for advancing technology in multiple fields. Why? Because technology needs to advance for the frontier to survive, grow, and prosper. The California gold rush spurred advanced mining, transportation, and industrial technologies. The Louisiana Purchase territory spurred advanced transportation and industrial technologies. The Space Race spurred advanced rocketry, chemistry, materials, electronics, et cetera. As long as exploration, regardless of its location, continues, there will be a need for the latest and greatest in technology.

You can explore much further and more intimately if you don't have to waste space and weight on taking a squidgy tube of fallibility up there with you.

[Fractal_UK]

It's called science. That's how it works. It's not like a vidya tech tree where you know what the outcome will be. Experiments are expensive. And we dont know what will come out of them, but that's how science works. That's progress and you cant progress without making mistakes and wasting massive amounts of money. Because then you have some new technology that makes everything better. Are some benefits "worth it"? Absolutely not. But many things in life aren't worth it, but we still use them and we still benefit from them.

I know, I'm a scientist and I work in an area which definitely qualifies as pure research. My point was that, as an example of a pure research experiment, particle colliders are a particularly expensive and very visible area of research to the public. They are certainly an area of important scientific research but identifying them as specific area where we should be spending more money is, in my opinion, probably a mistake. Assuming that ILC goes ahead, combined with LHC and others, the area should be fairly well covered for the immediate future. Diversity of research is critical.