…but:
So maybe Apollo went too far too soon and set an impossible target against which everything since has been measured. It wasn’t about primarily about exploration, although that did happen, and it certainly wasn’t about sustainability, but it has cast a long shadow over what has come since.
Am I committing some sort of heresy by saying these things? Well, all I can say is that the people who made Apollo happen are still my heroes. I still get a lump in my throat when I think what they did, the risks they took and the certainty they had in their belief that it was worth it. Armstrong himself has now left us, his surviving fellow moonwalkers are now old men – still active, still advocating the next big step, but a vivid reminder of the time that has passed since Apollo.
I guess my conclusion is that the further we get from those days, the more anomalous Apollo appears – an amazing adventure that will stand out as future generations look back on the twentieth century, but not something that can be repeated. We live in a different world now.
Yes. We need to stop trying to do Apollo to Mars. It isn’t going to happen, and moreover, it shouldn’t.
I’ve long thought Apollo was an expensive mistake and the country would have been better off if it hadn’t happened.
The science could have been done more cheaply with unmanned probes (including sample return); these could have accessed more of the surface, including the poles, decades earlier. Spinoffs? Research produces Useful Technology just like Control Towers produce Cargo Planes. Propaganda value? Not needed in retrospect.
Without Apollo, there wouldn’t have been a pressure to keep NASA’s workers employed on Shuttle, and expendable rockets would not have been stymied in the US.
In the words of my new project, Apollo was a magnificent disaster.
I’ve seen the claim that it could have been done cheaper with robots. I’m not sure I believe it. If, in the early 60’s, you were trying to sell a program to bring back 800+ lbs of moon rocks in ten years, Apollo was the only way it could have been done. Robotics at the time was not really up to the task, and it couldn’t have been sold politically regardless. So the Soviets would have been first to the moon. I suppose you’ll need a cross-time engine to see what the political fallout of that would have been. Maybe the US would have given up on space altogether–maybe we’d have tried to save face by pretending space was a big waste of time and that we’d leave the political stunts to the totalitarians, and quietly launch the minimum stuff the military required. I can imagine the private space program being better off with Apollo and the shuttle debacles than without it.
Most major science results of Apollo could have obtained with much less than 800 lbs. of returned material. And unmanned science at the moon would have given data on high latitude region decades earlier.
“Most major science results of Apollo could have obtained with much less than 800 lbs. of returned material.”
The technology of the day would not have returned some of the samples, or put in place all of the experiments that Apollo did – certainly not for the J missions. Having trained field observers made a huge difference. You don’t get the Genesis rock back with 1960’s era lunar rovers; you don’t even find it, in fact.
But that said, you COULD have gotten a fair bit of science out of robotic probes of the era, and it would have cost much less than Apollo.
The major results of Apollo were chemical and isotopic: that the Moon is on the same oxygen isotope line as the Earth, that it’s highly depleted in volatiles, as well as things like the europium anomaly. Unmanned missions might not have done detailed stratigraphy as well as Apollo, but they could have visited more locations. Simply getting polar data decades earlier would have been huge.
Concur. Luna & Mercury’s South Poles – Energy/Water/Shielding.
Apollo brought so many scientific, political, and cultural benefits, arguably more than paid for itself according to a number of studies, and therefore we should never do that again.
Logic fail.
Apollo may have been right for its time but it isn’t right for our time.
The strength of our government comes from the strength of its people. We have grown a lot since the Apollo days and its time the people had more autonomy so that the fruits of their labors can empower our government to do the things it thinks are important.
Don’t worry, the government isn’t going away. They have a role to play. But lets not imagine that a small handful of politicians or government bureaucrats can plan a better future than the one a multitude of free Americans will open up by following their own interests.
Just think about Bigelow, who is developing a product based on NASA research but NASA couldn’t do anything with because they are not a business nor control their own actions. Or think of Musk, who is working with NASA to provide a service but can sell those services to customers other than NASA because SpaceX retains control of their creation.
The Apollo days are over. We should look back on them with pride but look forward to the future through more experienced eyes. Our government, NASA, the American people, and the world will be much better off for it.
Apollo brought so many scientific, political, and cultural benefits, arguably more than paid for itself according to a number of studies, and therefore we should never do that again.
And the Moon arguably is made of green cheese. Everything is arguable so there’s little point to the observation. But even if we were to take your assertion at face value, there’s still the matter of opportunity cost. We could have obtained those benefits for a much lower price tag.
An ode to the NASA Moon…
Looking too hard at the past, ends up making me sad.
Looking too hard at its future, only makes me mad.
Let’s (finally) put Apollo to rest.
Ultimately, a victim of its own success!
The disastrous consequence of Apollo was the conviction it put into peoples minds that it takes Government to do space, it’s taken 40 years and going to unlearn that one.
I disagree that Apollo was either a mistake, or a disaster. The role it played in ending the Cold War (and preventing a hot war) can’t be overstated. But even more, it showed what can be done by human beings dedicated to a purpose. I was 15 when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, and I toured Western Europe a month later. What struck me was how giddy everyone we met was about Apollo 11 – and how admired Americans were at that moment. But it wasn’t as if people were simply looking at Americans as rock stars. They were genuine in their congratulations, but also displayed a kinship that I haven’t seen since. They were friendly. It was a great affirmation of how people regard human achievement, and Apollo was the single greatest achievement in all of history.
My description of it as a disaster was only in regard to opening space, not as a geopolitical move.
I know, though even as opening space it should forever be remembered as something human beings are capable of doing. That is the perpetual bugaboo of space projects – whether they can be done or not. Apollo showed that human beings can travel to the surface of the moon and back. Conceptually, that should not have been in doubt. But it really was in doubt until we did it (and some people still doubt that we did it).
I think Apollo was absolutely the right thing to do when we did it, for its impact on future exploration/exploitation. Because of Apollo, there is no longer any doubt at all that human presence on other celestial bodies can happen. It was an affirmation that such presence is amenable to engineering solutions. Anything that can be engineered can be made economical, eventually. Now it is just a matter of picking how to get there.
Personally, I think Elon will make it to Mars sooner than anyone thinks, and NASA never will. He is driven. NASA is driving – on a Sunday afternoon with the mother-in-law in the back seat warning about all of the potholes, until driving is so annoying that they go home. NASA is buried under tectonic plates of mothers-in-law warning about the potholes, to the point that it cannot again do an Apollo. And certainly not one to Mars.
I hope Elon has a “Skunkworks”.
Meaning: There are ‘long pole’ items that NASA has pretty explicitly either simply punted down the road as ‘later, we have plenty of time’ or ‘that’s not needed’ that -Elon- needs addressed to meet his goals.
The NASA research is aimed at assisting 3-to-5 people on a short-as-possible “science mission”.
For Elon to personally get to Mars, it is going to take:
A) A larger mission.
B) Probably -multiple- missions.
C) Infrastructure in place to reassure our nannies that it is a serious, survivable mission plan.
The entire difference can be summed up in a single insanity:
NASA doing research on making palatable “Seven-year Salisbury steak.” Yes, I’m sure that would be nice for a long mission. But it means you’re fundamentally doing it wrong as far as sustainability is concerned.
I hope Elon has a “Skunkworks”.
An anonymous SpaceX employee is reputed to have said, “If people knew about some of the things we’re working on, they would think we’re crazy.”
Made my day rickl, thanks. 😀
Apollo was mostly PR/propaganda with intention of winning the propaganda of Soviet Union. And it worked well in this regard.
In terms efforts of Cold War it was very successful and it was cheap in terms of treasure and without any significant cost in blood.
So Apollo was not waste of money- unless you believe that US should not have attempted to win the Cold War- instead it was cheap and good investment.
Apollo was a PR stunt, but it was also exploration. And if think of it in terms of exploration only, it also was worth the costs. So would say it was not a waste of money if you regard Apollo solely in terms of what it achieve as exploration program.
One of aspect about exploration is there was a potential of discovery. For instance it was possible that there was more water [or something else] on the Moon then what was found. One could say we were disappointed in what was found, but it get away from that fact that one needs exploration to discover such disappointment. So measured the amount water on the Moon and we discovered is was extremely dry, drier than anywhere on Earth. less than 1% water per volume, and dry soil on earth is about 5%. And if we had explored the lunar poles we could found concentration of water of 5% or more.
And in terms what was discovered other a very dry surface, we found out lots of stuff about mineral composition of the Moon, discovered it was ancient [and found 4.5 billion year old rock], not much volcanic activity, and the Moon craters were mostly caused by impactors. And we found out that one land on the moon without sinking in a large amount of dust. And the result of Apollo program is that the Moon is still remains the most explored body in this solar system, other than Earth. And it increased your understanding of how Earth and all other bodies in the system were formed- and it allowed us to understand that impactor are a recent event and not something which only occurred billions of years ago.
So despite not trying to explore the Moon with any specific idea of what to one hoped to discover, this lunar exploration was one greatest exploration ever done by humans.
Then if consider separately the technological development related to Apollo program, that was also quite impressive, and by itself might have worth the cost of the program.
In terms of any program that any government has ever been involved with, Apollo was quite successful. Nothing NASA did after Apollo ever had as much value per dollar spent.
The worse thing about Apollo is what followed Apollo and it tended to cause many misconception about what a government could/should do.
Nice
The worst thing about Apollo is that it removed much of the incentive to go to the Moon with a transport system that makes economic sense.
Instead of companies and groups competing to be first on the Moon, now it’s ‘but we already went there, why bother going back?’
It was a great technological achievement for its time, but disastrous in the long run.
–Edward M. Grant
January 26, 2016 at 6:15 AM
The worst thing about Apollo is that it removed much of the incentive to go to the Moon with a transport system that makes economic sense.–
Yeah, but the way Apollo went to the Moon, is a way of going to the Moon which makes economic sense.
There are ways of going to the Moon which makes economic sense, and it was one way. So the “Moon Direct” was the most economical way of doing Apollo. And if all you were interested was the Moon, it’s still an economical way to go the Moon.
One could say it’s not a good way to start markets in space- and if you are a socialist, you don’t want markets in space. Your ideology tells you that markets [capitalism] is evil- or are the sole source of evil- if there is really such a thing as evil- they are bad and so it’s a bad way.
Socialism does not work- it never has, and it’s unlikely to ever work.
Socialism is not social or inhuman and markets are how human operate as a social creature. And it’s my guess that socialism can not open the space frontier- can’t create human settlements in space.
But nor can socialism create settlements on Earth, unless one includes prisons as a settlements.
Rather than discuss socialism we can replace it with what it fundamentally is, which is a monopoly. Regardless of whether such monopoly. is run by one person or a committee [or whatever variant you like].
So for a monopoly the Moon Direct is an economical way to go to the Moon, and particularly if you want to insure you maintain your monopoly and it’s “almost” the only way to go to the Moon,
And going to the Moon is pathway to a monopoly in regard to the rest of the solar system.
But like socialism, monopolies don’t really work- they are not social and inhuman. And/or fundamentally they are uneconomical- or they are a parasite. Or one could also say that socialism is a stupid idea of a way to fight monopolies.
If one is opening up the solar system, then going to the Moon will be a part of that. But that doesn’t mean that any program that goes to the Moon is a step on such a path. This illogical inversion is another example of cargo cult thinking: that because landing cargo planes involved control towers, then building control towers would cause cargo planes to land.
I have an Apollo Cargo Cult chart in a presentation I’m working on right now.
“Paul D.
January 26, 2016 at 10:59 AM
If one is opening up the solar system, then going to the Moon will be a part of that. But that doesn’t mean that any program that goes to the Moon is a step on such a path. ”
Right. Just as having space station in LEO is not necessarily a part of opening up solar system.
ISS is a step to opening up solar system in sense if it could determines if and how people can live for months in micro-gravity. Because to explore the solar system it would be useful not always need to make artificial gravity, the using a station to determine how to operate a living space in artificial gravity- details, such as how much gravity is needed, how best to design and operate a artificial gravity.
Of course it also matters how much time and money anything like this, takes vs other paths involved with exploring the solar system [or exploring a single body of solar system].
For example despite some benefits of ISS and/or the space shuttle, these program have generally prevented space exploration. And SLS also has and will hinder space exploration.
And NASA building lunar base as near term goal also will hinder exploration.
And NASA lunar water mining will prevent exploration to a greater degree as compared to merely building a lunar base, ISS, Shuttle and SLS.
Exploration of the moon to determine if and where there is commercially minable lunar water, is exploration and will increase amount exploration NASA can do after exploring the Moon. Though the degree it is exploration and the degree of it’s usefulness in regard to further exploration would depend upon how well this exploration is conducted.
Keeping simple but also through, is the general direction one would want- which btw, is not something which is easy or obvious for any kind of governmental program.
But were NASA to manage to do this, it probably will be allowed to explore Mars – it will be a springboard to explore Mars.
The worst thing about Apollo is that it removed much of the incentive to go to the Moon with a transport system that makes economic sense.
Worse, it convinced many observers that it was *impossible* to go to the Moon with a transport system that makes economic sense. They assumed that because NASA did it a certain way, it was impossible to do it any other way. After all, the people who worked at NASA were really smart — if there was a better way, why didn’t NASA use it?
Many people still hold that fixed idea.
Apollo “proved” it was impossible to go to the Moon affordable the way the Space Shuttle “proved” it was impossible to develop a low-cost launch system, X-33 “proved” that SSTO was impossible, and ISS “proved” it was impossible to build a space station for less than $100B. The government has a long history of funding negative demonstrations that discourage investment.
Exactly! In response to “didn’t NASA conclusively prove SSTO couldn’t be done?” the answer is:
“No, but NASA conclusively proved that NASA couldn’t do it.”
Apollo was mostly PR/propaganda with intention of winning the propaganda of Soviet Union.
More accurately, it was propaganda intended to help restore Kennedy’s reputation, which was in Jimmy Carter territory following the Bay of Pigs disaster. It was successful in doing that. Today, most Americans, even most Republicans, believe Kennedy was a strong leader, and Apollo is one of the things frequently cited as evidence.
Kennedy never “attempted to win the Cold War.” The goal, in those days, was to maintain a permanent stalemate — a “balance of power” — to “contain” Communism rather than defeat it. Ronald Reagan was the first US President to challenge that paradigm.
If Kennedy wanted to defeat Communism, the US space program would have looked much different. Apollo did not affect the balance of power — by design. The military knew that the future lay in reusable systems like DynaSoar and the X-15, which were downgraded and then cancelled. Kennedy did not want to invest in technologies that might lead to a military advantage for the US, which would upset the “balance of power.”
Even at the height of the Apollo program the country still spent more on women’s hair than on space. If we reflect on those hairstyles, the real mistake becomes obvious. Big giant beehives should never be repeated.
But more seriously, given the Cold War and space race, by the very late 1950’s Apollo was probably inevitable, and the two government juggernauts were going to put someone on the moon with a big giant rocket.
What I find more interesting is wondering how things would have turned out differently if someone like Musk had been seriously working toward launching private communications and weather satellites in the decade after 1945, so that when the Sputnik scare hit there was already a private option that was far far ahead of military missiles in payload and reliability. You could make a reasonable case that for at least part of that time the military wasn’t taking long range ballistic missiles very seriously, and so might not have hijacked any such development effort. But alas, that’s not what happened.
“What I find more interesting is wondering how things would have turned out differently if someone like Musk had been seriously working toward launching private communications and weather satellites in the decade after 1945, so that when the Sputnik scare hit there was already a private option that was far far ahead of military missiles in payload and reliability.”
Someone like Musk, couldn’t do this. Basically because it would have been illegal. But on topic of improbable, what would have happened if Hitler had used rockets for space exploration rather than weapons of terror?
When you consider that propaganda was about the only thing Hitler did which was successful, continuing with his strong suit, would be something that would supported the idea that he was genius- instead of being the moron he was.
One could say the difference between US and USSR was that USSR was focused on expansion of empire and US focus was on stopping the war and the recovery from it.
So US at end of WWII was focused maintaining military technological secrets, and even today the technology regarding ballistic missiles is national security priority in terms limiting access to it.
The Soviets on the other hand was interested in doing anything which was disruptive, and it required Sputnik to get US government to form agency to explore space.