Was the Apollo Program worth the cost?

[SecondGuessing]

In reading this thread, I have been trying to figure out what version of propaganda SecondGuessing grew up with. But maybe there isn't a right answer to that question (i.e. trolling).

However, this has started an interesting discussion. I would of course vote "definitely worth it" to the original question.

I don't understand what you're saying is propaganda. NASA and the early space missions were all based around a need to prove to the Soviets that America could meet them in a conflict.

'Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace.'

Seems like a battle-cry to me.

[Czman007]

Nonsense. The two nuclear bombs used by America in WWII were cowardly weapons, launched because it was obvious Japan had absolutely no hope of retaliation. This clearly wasn't true in the Cold War. In fact, Sputnik clarified this even more, as it showed the Russia's missile and ballistic technology surpassed that of America. Sputnik was launched in a modified ICBM, it was a purely military gesture but it was an ingenious military gesture in that it was public, and as such it was impossible for America to refute, or to attack it as a military move. Thus, NASA was formed so that America could, just the same, show off its ability in intercontinental warfare whilst boosting morale and patriotism, just as Sputnik had done for the Soviets. However, it was peaceful, not in the slightest. The space-race was a military expletive-measuring contest that masqueraded as an innocent contest to explore space.

Stating that the space race was a mostly military contest is completely false. Had it been a military contest, both sides would have launched nuclear weapons into orbit. While some of the rocketry science was applied to ICBMs, much was also applied to manned and science missions, which would have little potential military application. The space race was more of a contest to show off the industrial prowess of communism and capitalism, in order to influence other nations. It was more akin to the Olympics than to an arms race.

[Leonov]

Lets keep this on topic and not a "How the Space Race was a facade for the Cold War" thread.

Back to the OPs question, Yes Apollo was worth it.

What is this it?, well "It" in this situation would have to be all the combined efforts that made the feats acomplished by these programs possble.

All of the funding, the man hours, all the blood sweat and tears put fourth by the scientist and also the brave men and women who have the honor of being called astronauts.

Think of this in a big picture. Every technological advancement that the assorted space programs have lead us to certinly make the programs worth it.

In all reality the apollo program and its associated programs have payed for themselves alone in the technological advancements they provided to societies.

[SecondGuessing]

Stating that the space race was a mostly military contest is completely false. Had it been a military contest, both sides would have launched nuclear weapons into orbit. While some of the rocketry science was applied to ICBMs, much was also applied to manned and science missions, which would have little potential military application. The space race was more of a contest to show off the industrial prowess of communism and capitalism, in order to influence other nations. It was more akin to the Olympics than to an arms race.

What purpose would wasting a nuclear weapon by putting in orbit serve? The only distinction between a nuclear weapon and a probe is a few circuitry heating details and a mass difference, but if you can put a probe into orbit already then you've gotten over the big hurdle. Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear weapon into orbit is only effective if you're going to to use it immediately. If you launch it and use it as blackmail then the other guy can simply use the MAD principle and you go back to a stalemate. Not to mention once a weapon's in orbit it's easy to pick up using radar technology that was easily available to both sides and thus you lose any sense of a surprise attack.

And 50s and 60s rocketry science wasn't applied to ICBMs, it was derived whole-cloth from it. Sputnik was launched in an ICBM for goodness sake. And as for NASA, clause of the original NAS act clearly lays out the fact that the military is to be tacitly involved in NASA actions (oddly contradicting clause a)). Link.

You don't need to directly put a weapon through your enemy's mailbox to be a threat, you just need to show off the fancy new red bike that you will deliver that weapon with. That's what the space race was, that and a brilliant way to galvanise a public and rile them into some good ol' patriotism.

[almondj]

What purpose would wasting a nuclear weapon by putting in orbit serve? The only distinction between a nuclear weapon and a probe is a few circuitry heating details and a mass difference, but if you can put a probe into orbit already then you've gotten over the big hurdle. Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear weapon into orbit is only effective if you're going to to use it immediately. If you launch it and use it as blackmail then the other guy can simply use the MAD principle and you go back to a stalemate. Not to mention once a weapon's in orbit it's easy to pick up using radar technology that was easily available to both sides and thus you lose any sense of a surprise attack.

And 50s and 60s rocketry science wasn't applied to ICBMs, it was derived whole-cloth from it. Sputnik was launched in an ICBM for goodness sake. And as for NASA, clause of the original NAS act clearly lays out the fact that the military is to be tacitly involved in NASA actions (oddly contradicting clause a)). Link.

You don't need to directly put a weapon through your enemy's mailbox to be a threat, you just need to show off the fancy new red bike that you will deliver that weapon with. That's what the space race was, that and a brilliant way to galvanise a public and rile them into some good ol' patriotism.

Absolutely, the Redstone WAS an ICBM with a slightly longer fuel tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Redstone_Launch_Vehicle

[johnnyhandsome]

Apollo was worth it, for a number of reasons.

In the last '50s and early '60s the Soviets were kicking American butt in space. First ICBM, first satellite, first man in space. The supposedly smarter western world was getting beaten by a supposedly backwater communist state. The Soviet leader at the time throughly enjoyed pointing how badly the Americans were losing and a bit of hysteria was in the air about the battle of good and evil (silly as it may sound).

By focusing on what was going on now and setting a longer term goal, America was able to put the contest on peaceful terms, while establishing American space superiority. Not a bad deal there.

The photo of the Earth known as Earthrise, is widely credited as a major inspiration to the environmental movement.

There were numerous civilian and military spinoffs. WE learned a bit more science about how the age of the universe and its early development, along with that of our solar system.

It demonstrated American technological might in peaceful way that was beneficial to all mankind and inspired thousands, if not millions of scientists.

It's almost a crime that was we quit and haven't left LEO since. US military contracts are widely seen as a form of corporate welfare, while providing many high tech, high paying jobs. Imagine if we had developed the space program in a similar vein.

[Javster]

Hmm. Maybe US vs China space race?

[John FX]

From what I can find on the internet. accounting for inflation it cost about 100 billion dollars. This is a lot of money. They did get 7 flights from it though. That doesn`t sound many. One of those didn`t even land. Lets call it 6.

It`s about the same amount as it cost the USA for 4 months of the Iraq war (including medical and rehabilitation etc) to put it into perspective and that lasted a LOT longer than 4 months (25 billion dollars a month at its peak).

If the numbers are right then we could have gone to the moon 6 times in four months instead of having that war and that includes doing the research and development again every four months as well...

How many flights to the moon would that have been? (call it a 7 year war, 84 months, 120+ flights)

Think about what you could do with 120 flights to the moon...

I reckon we could have had a permanent moon base by now extracting resources from the surface and self supporting. A LEO transit station and more. It could have paid for itself many many many times over by now.

For me the question is not `was the apollo program worth it` but more `Can we afford not to do it again, better`

Edited October 14, 2013 by John FX
bit of a rant, sorry.

[chrisrcooper]

From what I can find on the internet. accounting for inflation it cost about 100 billion dollars. This is a lot of money. They did get 7 flights from it though. That doesn`t sound many. One of those didn`t even land. Lets call it 6.

It`s about the same amount as it cost the USA for 4 months of the Iraq war (including medical and rehabilitation etc) to put it into perspective and that lasted a LOT longer than 4 months (25 billion dollars a month at its peak).

If the numbers are right then we could have gone to the moon 6 times in four months instead of having that war and that includes doing the research and development again every four months as well...

How many flights to the moon would that have been? (call it a 7 year war, 84 months, 120+ flights)

Think about what you could do with 120 flights to the moon...

I reckon we could have had a permanent moon base by now extracting resources from the surface and self supporting. A LEO transit station and more. It could have paid for itself many many many times over by now.

For me the question is not `was the apollo program worth it` but more `Can we afford not to do it again, better`

All excellent points. I stumbled across this thread after lurking on this forum for a while and love the topic. I would suggest that Apollo furthered the economy of the US significantly as so much was developed in terms of industry and technology. I actually wrote a lot about this recently in a post. Here's a relevant snippet:

Aside from all of the historic achievements that made it into the history books through the Apollo program, America had real, tangible gains from the investments made in the project. For one, the Apollo program was a major stepping stone into future beyond Earth projects. Much of the hardware developed during the Apollo era was used in our first space station, Skylab. Skylab produced many valuable results based on its solar observatory and various experiments performed onboard, none of which would have been possible without the Apollo program. Skylab is just one of many spacecraft that would not have been possible without the knowledge gained with the Apollo program. The 1975 space docking with the Soviet Soyuz spacecraft was one of the major steps forward in rebuilding relations between the US and the USSR, eventually resulting in the end of the Cold War. As far as more particular, physical products that would not have been possible, a variety of breakthroughs from early breast cancer detection to the accelerated development of integrated circuits were birthed by the Apollo program.

I'd love to keep the discussion going as SpaceX and private corporations are pushing us further into the frontier. More if you're interested: Was The Apollo Program a Prudent Investment Worth Retrying?

[FishInferno]

The space race is really what forced us to make smaller computers. You can't haul a room-sized computer to the Moon and back. You can thank the Soviets for the iphone.

[KerbMav]

You can blame the Soviets for the iphone.

Fixed that for you.

[Ziff]

16 month old necro. Really guys?

[goldenpeach]

I did a quick calculation: in 2005, the US spend more money on national defence(413 000 billions$) than the cost of the Apollo program AND the ISS(320 000 billions$).

I think going to the moon six times, gaining several benefices and constructing a permanent space station in space giving even more benefices is better than spending even more money on weapons in a year only