steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (12/22/89)
kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) analysed the goals of the Apollo program into three categories: 1) "Geopolitical muscle-flexing" (or national prestige); 2) Infrastructure development for further exploration/exploitation; 3) Pure, basic, scientific research. An interesting analysis. One with which I can agree (at least for now). For the purpose of discussion (please note), I now hypothesize the following: 1) In retrospect, the national prestige goal was irrelevant. 2) The infrastructure goal, though laudable, was too ambitious (i.e. costly). For evidence, I note that the program was cancelled (we may debate the reasons, but had the program been cheap, I believe it would have survived). 3) Only the scientific goal has the potential for long-term achievability and support. It may also allow us to eventually achieve the infrastructure goal (at reasonable cost) and, consequently, the national prestige goal. Comments and discussion are encouraged. --Steve Emmerson steve@groucho.ucar.edu
feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL) (12/22/89)
In article <5766@ncar.ucar.edu>, steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes: > kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) analysed the goals of the > Apollo program into three categories: > > ........deletes > > For the purpose of discussion (please note), I now hypothesize the > following: > > 1) In retrospect, the national prestige goal was irrelevant. > This is easy to dismiss since we won that race. But now that the Russians have admitted they really were in that race and were well along on a schedule projected to be a year earlier than our landing (until they ran into some rocket engine difficulties), what if they HAD been first? The Russians were the first to reach earth orbit, unmanned and then manned. Until we were the first to land on the moon, those accomplishments counted for quite a bit, as I recall. Do you remember all those ignominious blown-up rockets on the launching pad down at KSC in those early years when we were trying to reach unmanned earth orbit? That geo-political objective counted for much and was a good deal responsible for the support for the moon landing program. All the other results that came from the program, though looking more important today, still owe their existence to this first objective. Forrest Gehrke clyde!feg
steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (12/23/89)
In the referenced article, Forrest Gehrke indicates his disagreement with my submitted hypothesis that, in retrospect, the national prestige goal of the Apollo program was irrelevant. He cites as evidence the ferver of the times vis a vis the space race with the Soviet Union. I, too, remember those times. I cannot believe without very strong evidence, however, that the outcome of the Moon race would have affected, for example, the Vietnam War, the oil-embargo of '73, the development of the PC, Watergate, the fall of the Shah, Glasnost, democratic reforms in Eastern Europe, or our Invasion of Panama. I also note that, although the United States "won" the Moon race, it also developed the massive and somewhat self-serving bureaucracy that resulted in 1) the Space Shuttle (which I view as something of a white elephant) and 2) the Challenger tragedy/fiasco. In retrospect, and in my opinion, these "downs" cancel, to a large extent, the "up" of reaching the Moon first. These are my reasons for citing the "national prestige" goal (as implemented) as irrelevant. --Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu