Does Lunar program like Apollo is cheaper now than it was in 60''s

[xcorps]

Well, Kerbaloid. ..you should really look harder at the history. The space race was not a military race, it was a political race.

The goal was prestige for either capitalism or communism.

Your entire argument can be taken apart point by point very easily.

I suggest you read "Chariots for Apollo, A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", "The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age" and "Apollo" by Catherine Bly Cox and Charles Murray.

You will find that your present thinking is a bit...uninformed.

The use of a single wiki article that lacks both context and perspective is telling.

Edited December 26, 2014 by xcorps

[kerbiloid]

Well, Kerbaloid. ..you should really look harder at the history... You will find that your present thinking is a bit...uninformed.

Maybe.

But you would take into account that you see the situation through the eyes of person from 1990..2010s, and in 1950..60s there was rather different reality.

Polar on-ice bomber airdromes guarded by tanks look strange now, but were real in 1950s.

Also military maneuvers with real nuke blasts look monstrous now but indeed took place in Russian, USA, UK and Chinese armies.

That was just another time with other priorities. Don't forget that WWII is a far history for now, but had finished just 15 years ago for those people, they had much more strong nerves than we have.

The space race was not a military race, it was a political race.

The goal was prestige for either capitalism or communism.

Yes, and the best prestige demonstration was an ability to demonstrate your military superiority - for both sides, either USSR or USA.

Btw, nice pictures if googling: moon horizon project

The use of a single wiki article that lacks both context and perspective is telling.

That's not a "single wiki article". You can google easily "moon horizon pproject", go to "lunex" link above - and you can get multiple descriptive links for this theme.

It was just a reality of 1950-60s.

Edited December 26, 2014 by kerbiloid

[xcorps]

There were no military goals. In fact, part of the reasons that NASA came into existence was to remove the influence of the military on the development of launch vehicles and mission planning. Part of the reason von Braun was not appointed to head the space program by Eisenhower was because of his ties to the Army. Ike specifically chose NACA because it was a civilian agency.

[kerbiloid]

OK:

$25 billion were expended just to plant a flag.

The heaviest launch vehicle ever was closed because a flag was already planted.

Moon program was stopped by the same reason.

40 years later humanity is still not able to repeat an achievement of 1960-70s.

[xcorps]

We are able. Perfectly able.

We are not willing.

There were a lot of trips to the moon after the first..

[Bill Phil]

Kerbiloid, what's your point? Please enlighten me.

[kerbiloid]

I have no specific point.

I just can see: while any expensive program was military significant, it had funds.

When it lost its military significance, it lost funds. That's all.

Of course, scientisist and engineers could keep in mind Mars and Venus exploration.

But funds are devoted by dull people for dull purposes.

So, that's not a problem to create a Saturn/Apollo equivalent now and was not a problem to create it fourty years before.

But as Moon program had lost its military significance, it had lost funds. That's all.

[xcorps]

Ah, correlation does not equal causation. The moon never had a military significance. Ever. Other than actually landing someone on it because we could, the only reason we went was to collect rocks.

Dull purposes are no less important than exciting ones. Unless you don't like things like roads and schools.

The problem with space exploration funding is very simple. What do we get out of it? If you eliminate all the neato romanticism, the answer for the average taxpayer is... not a whole hell of a lot. I'm a taxpayer, and it irritates me to no end that NASA is wasting money on concepts for putting a manned blimp in venusian atmosphere or supporting kidney stone experiments on the ISS.

Edited December 26, 2014 by xcorps

[Bill Phil]

There was very little military purpose for Apollo. It was a race to show which country is more capable than the other.

[kerbiloid]

There was very little military purpose for Apollo.

For Apollo - of course. For Saturn - there was a great purpose. You can just try the links above to ensure that Saturn launches were dozens and hundreds to be.

So, when idea of Lunar warfare was abandoned (1970s), both sides lost any interest to drop money to the Moon.

[xcorps]

My friend, the idea wasn't abandoned. It never existed. There was no desire for lunar warfare. By anyone. It's a science fiction concept. A fantasy dreamed up by a few hawks tied behind a desk with nothing to do but come up with zany ideas.

The budget for NASA exists outside the budget for the military.

There are missions that the military has for NASA. But NASA does not exist for those missions.

Edited December 26, 2014 by xcorps

[kerbiloid]

Idea was abandoned for foreseeable future as absolutely impractical for that technical level. And stiil is. Due to this - the current Lunar attempts slowly progress for the last 15 years and going to spend 10-15 years more until first manned lunar flight.

For example: when in 1961 they wanted to go to Moon, they were on Moon in 1971. Even without present day technologies.

Of course, you know about Apollo-Venus project. It included already existing Saturn, Apollo and Skylab-style module. It was cancelled too. Was it because a leak of curiosity?

Edited December 26, 2014 by kerbiloid

[xcorps]

There is no need to go to the moon. It doesn't accomplish anything unless you are interested in moon stuff. It won't make anyone richer, healthier, smarter, better looking, or able to pull mad hoochies.

Why do you think noone cares? It's a bunch of rocks and dust. There's no point. If there was, we'd still be going.

[kerbiloid]

NASA is not military. Apollo (I presume) wasn't too.

Saturn manufacturing industry requires a lot of money. No military or commercial purpose for Saturn - no funds for Saturn production.

No funds for Saturn production - no Saturn industry.

No Saturn industry - no Saturn.

No Saturn - no Apollo-Venus, Apollo-18,19,... etc.

Looks rather simple.

[Nibb31]

For Apollo - of course. For Saturn - there was a great purpose. You can just try the links above to ensure that Saturn launches were dozens and hundreds to be.

So, when idea of Lunar warfare was abandoned (1970s), both sides lost any interest to drop money to the Moon.

Saturn was NASA's rocket. It was fully funded, developed, and built by NASA contractors in NASA factories (including NASA Michoud in Louisiana) and launched from NASA launch pads. The USAF had Titan, with its own supply chain and launch facilities. If Saturn had any military purpose, it would have been joint-funded by the USAF like the Shuttle was.

The idea of lunar warfare was abandoned way before the 1970's. The Lunex or Horizon projects that you quoted was a USAF project that really didn't get far and was cancelled well before Apollo got rolling or the Saturn 1B even flew. By that time, the USAF was concentrating on LEO projects, including Blue Gemini, Gemini B and MOL.

The USAF had no interest in the Moon. Apollo was a civilian project that had nothing to do with the USAF. Its specific purpose was to demonstrate American supremacy *peacefully* in the context of the Cold War. Attaching military goals to it would have been counter-productive, which is why NASA was created in the first place.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Nibb31

[kerbiloid]

The idea of lunar warfare was abandoned in late 1960s, when Saturn industry was alreadey built.

But it looked enough actual when Saturn industry was being built.

Of course, Lunex was not ever even started to be implemented. But as you can see in the first link about it, it was an official blueprint document (17 pdf files).

So its authors were enough sure in this idea to officially create this project and were not afraid to be sent to psychiatrist right from HQ.

Many things looking strange now were absolutely in order in 1950-60s.

Apollo is an additional bonus. Buy Saturn - and get Apollo for it. Of course, USAF is not in theme.

[xcorps]

You are desperately grasping at straws that just are not there.

Your arguments are not based on reality, but perception.

[Nibb31]

The idea of lunar warfare was abandoned in late 1960s, when Saturn industry was alreadey built.

But it looked enough actual when Saturn industry was being built.

Of course, Lunex was not ever even started to be implemented. But as you can see in the first link about it, it was an official blueprint document (17 pdf files).

So its authors were enough sure in this idea to officially create this project and were not afraid to be sent to psychiatrist right from HQ.

Many things looking strange now were absolutely in order in 1950-60s.

Apollo is an additional bonus. Buy Saturn - and get Apollo for it. Of course, USAF is not in theme.

NASA had the civilian space program, with peaceful goals. USAF had the military program. It was essential for Cold War propaganda that the two were kept separate.

NASA paid for Saturn as part of the Apollo program. The USAF had no part in it and paid for Titan and Gemini B and MOL.

The Lunex and Horizon project were *paper studies* that were never funded. Just because the reports exist doesn't mean that there was any interest from high-ranking officials. These projects were dead and buried by 1963.

[kerbiloid]

I just believe that US government was enough pragmatic to buy Saturn not just to plant a flag.

[Nibb31]

I just believe that US government was enough pragmatic to buy Saturn not just to plant a flag.

That's not how the Government works. The US Government didn't buy Saturn. It funded NASA to go to the Moon for Cold War propaganda and NASA built the Saturn 1B and Saturn V for that purpose. Military space goals were assigned to the USAF on separate funds.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sandworm]

You guys are all comparing saturn-apollo's theoretical military applications to later realworld military needs. Large space programs, even the pure military ones, take years and years to develop. They seek to meet anticipated military needs, most of which might not ever arise.

Probably the greatest military outcome of Apollo was the ability to intercept and dock with target spacecraft. That was key to going to the moon with Saturn. It also met the anticipated military need to service military space stations (ie Alamaz/mol). The fact that the need never really developed does not detract from the fact that Apollo addressed it.

There was also, at the time, serious consideration given to performing nuclear tests behind the moon, perhaps the one place where they could not be monitored by the other side. The ability to navigate to that location with a large craft was also a definite military outcome of apollo that never developed in reality.

[KerikBalm]

It was about "power"

Not all power is military. Propaganda and prestige can be worth more than tanks in the right circumstances.

The US was lagging the Soviet Union in terms of visible technological acheivements. In a conflict of ideologies, you can't let the other ideology be seen as superior. If one wants to stop the spread of communism (for the economic interests of those .1% that control the government) you want to make the "champion" for capitalism look better.

The capitalist US had to accomplish something that the communist USSR had/could not.

The Saturn V was far beyond what was needed to deliver warheads, or service an orbital outpost.

It was for prestige, and all the resulting alliances and such which had value.

[Kryten]

Probably the greatest military outcome of Apollo was the ability to intercept and dock with target spacecraft. That was key to going to the moon with Saturn. It also met the anticipated military need to service military space stations (ie Alamaz/mol). The fact that the need never really developed does not detract from the fact that Apollo addressed it.

That capability was demonstrated by Gemini.

There was also, at the time, serious consideration given to performing nuclear tests behind the moon, perhaps the one place where they could not be monitored by the other side. The ability to navigate to that location with a large craft was also a definite military outcome of apollo that never developed in reality.

That would be both a violation of the outer space treaty and pointless. Putting enough hardware on the far side of the moon to have a useful nuclear test would be impossible to hide.

[kujuman]

That capability was demonstrated by Gemini.

That would be both a violation of the outer space treaty and pointless. Putting enough hardware on the far side of the moon to have a useful nuclear test would be impossible to hide.

Gemini was created for Apollo. There'd probably have eventually been a similar program though.

The OST was signed in 1967, so this sort of thing may have been on the table before that. Besides, testing behind the moon could be secret, allowing a nation to violate such a treaty at a whim.

[xcorps]

Gemini was created for Apollo. There'd probably have eventually been a similar program though..

What do you mean Gemini was created for Apollo?? That makes no sense...