The majority of U.S. citizens were opposed to the Moon landings, let alone a Mars program. Mars was dead on arrival. Nixon could not afford to give it a second thought. Why do you think you can go see all of those unflown Saturn V rockets and Apollo spacecraft today?
Well Apollo had just spent close from $26 billion for the worst possible reasons (in that order) 1- Beating the Soviets to the Moon for soft power (basically telling them: mine is bigger, it can reach as far as the Moon)
You can ask what would have happened if the United States had not successfully pursued Apollo. The United States' reputation by the end of the 1960s would have been much more defined by the Vietnam War.
I have wondered how much a series of guest-astronaut flights in an extended Skylab program, similar to what the Soviets offered their allies on Salyut space stations, might have enhanced the US's post-Vietnam reputation.
And this leads to the question of the value of space cooperation in shaping international cooperation. It doesn't seem to have much effect. At times it seems to exist by its own set of rules. Despite very bad relations between the US and Russia right now, ISS is unaffected.
Quote from: Airlocks on 11/26/2022 06:58 pmWell Apollo had just spent close from $26 billion for the worst possible reasons (in that order) 1- Beating the Soviets to the Moon for soft power (basically telling them: mine is bigger, it can reach as far as the Moon) As much as I like to be logical and rational in how I look at politics and international relations (kinda a requirement for me since I spent so many years in grad school studying them), I'm not sure I would agree that this was a bad thing to do. I do think that Apollo helped the United States accrue important power and a positive reputation that had some benefits in the following years. You can ask what would have happened if the United States had not successfully pursued Apollo. The United States' reputation by the end of the 1960s would have been much more defined by the Vietnam War.
There are also the domestic economic benefits of driving money into raw technological R&D (the results of which were arguably greater than the money spent on Mercury + Gemini + Apollo)
There are also the domestic economic benefits of driving money into raw technological R&D (the results of which were arguably greater than the money spent on Mercury + Gemini + Apollo), and the global economic impact of goading the CCCP into funding parallel development at the expense of more practical - i.e. ICBM and IRBM - rocket development programmes and other uses for those resources (though that may have been more a happy side-effect than an actual enumerated goal).
Was also interested in the point made by Willis Shapley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Shapley in an interview [*] done for Young, Silcock and Dunn's book in 1969ish-he noted that all the main ICBM/SLBM programmes were starting to peak and Apollo kept the people employed (and, importantly, ready to be redeployed) without fuelling the arms race.
People realized that space was the answer. It was a way of keeping up the aerospace economy and responding to the demand for more missiles without escalating the arms race. The moon programme would produce the booster in the fastest possible time. By keeping the missile-makers busy on space boosters you were also keeping up their ability to return to military missiles if necessary. You were maintaining preparedness without overarming the country.
What struck me reading the Simon Ramo oral history that leovinus has found is that Apollo was the third in a sequence of massive technical responses to perceived urgent threats, following the Manhattan project of the 40s and the ICBM projects of the 50s. Mars would have thus had to have been a 4th, in a way. Not an original thought I'm sure but I wonder where it has been framed that way, and what the comparisons tell us, if anything.
QuoteWhat struck me reading the Simon Ramo oral history that leovinus has found is that Apollo was the third in a sequence of massive technical responses to perceived urgent threats, following the Manhattan project of the 40s and the ICBM projects of the 50s. Mars would have thus had to have been a 4th, in a way. Not an original thought I'm sure but I wonder where it has been framed that way, and what the comparisons tell us, if anything. Reminds me of Stephen Baxter's Voyage novel. He hints that exact point, along the way. When in the 1980's Mars compete for money with Reagan SDI.
By the way, can't help thinking that SDI was an atempt at that "4th massive technical response" you mention.
Quote from: edzieba on 11/28/2022 08:17 amThere are also the domestic economic benefits of driving money into raw technological R&D (the results of which were arguably greater than the money spent on Mercury + Gemini + Apollo), and the global economic impact of goading the CCCP into funding parallel development at the expense of more practical - i.e. ICBM and IRBM - rocket development programmes and other uses for those resources (though that may have been more a happy side-effect than an actual enumerated goal). I actually accept those arguments. And in fact, I've made similar arguments in essays for why Chinese human spaceflight spending (and even a Moon program) is something the West should not only accept, but encourage. Better to spend that money on stuff that isn't weapons.That said, the whole economic/technology stimulus argument is a murky and contentious one. I don't think there's any consensus on it at all. The argument is usually (exclusively?) made by people who think space is inherently good. It's not an argument made by people approaching the subject from a neutral or objective perspective. I don't know if any economists have sought to tackle the subject at all. They have addressed things like Great Society spending and Vietnam War spending, and what those did. But I think almost all of them have ignored Apollo, just as most Cold War historians have ignored it.
I would not include Etzioni, because he was not doing analysis after the fact. He wrote a criticism beforehand.<random ad hominem remark about living academic deleted>
That said, the whole economic/technology stimulus argument is a murky and contentious one. I don't think there's any consensus on it at all. The argument is usually (exclusively?) made by people who think space is inherently good. It's not an argument made by people approaching the subject from a neutral or objective perspective. I don't know if any economists have sought to tackle the subject at all. They have addressed things like Great Society spending and Vietnam War spending, and what those did. But I think almost all of them have ignored Apollo, just as most Cold War historians have ignored it.
Does this exist in pdf form on the internet?I have a thick binder of this report. Before I toss it out, I want to make sure that it exists as a pdf on the internet somewhere. Does it?
Quote from: leovinus on 06/09/2023 06:18 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 06/09/2023 05:02 pmDoes this exist in pdf form on the internet?I have a thick binder of this report. Before I toss it out, I want to make sure that it exists as a pdf on the internet somewhere. Does it?On the quick, I do not see this as a pdf anywhere. Not on NTRS, or unlisted NTRS, or archive.org, etc. There is a physical copy at JSC here in Box 14 and Google has a PDF that it does not want to show us here. Also, David Portree wrote about this document in 2012 on Wired as "THE LAST MANNED MARS PLAN (1971)".In other words, before you throw it out, if you could scan it and retain maybe ? Yeah, I can scan it and post it. Is there a thread on the Integrated Mars Plan on NSF? I could not find it using the search engine.
Quote from: Blackstar on 06/09/2023 05:02 pmDoes this exist in pdf form on the internet?I have a thick binder of this report. Before I toss it out, I want to make sure that it exists as a pdf on the internet somewhere. Does it?On the quick, I do not see this as a pdf anywhere. Not on NTRS, or unlisted NTRS, or archive.org, etc. There is a physical copy at JSC here in Box 14 and Google has a PDF that it does not want to show us here. Also, David Portree wrote about this document in 2012 on Wired as "THE LAST MANNED MARS PLAN (1971)".In other words, before you throw it out, if you could scan it and retain maybe ?