|
Author
|
Topic: Apollo program was "peculiarly un-American"
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-20-2011 08:04 AM
   
The Economist's Lexington columnist looks at the meaning of the race to the moon, half a century after the starting gun. [Kennedy] set out to make America's achievements in space an emblem of national greatness, and the project succeeded. Yet it did not escape the notice of critics even at the time that this entailed an irony. The Apollo programme, which was summoned into being in order to demonstrate the superiority of the free-market system, succeeded by mobilising vast public resources within a centralised bureaucracy under government direction. In other words, it mimicked aspects of the very command economy it was designed to repudiate. Putting a man on the moon was a brilliant achievement. But in some ways it was peculiarly un-American — almost, you might say, an aberration born out of the unique circumstances of the cold war. It is a reason to look back with pride, but not a pointer to the future. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 05-20-2011 09:16 AM
This is nit-picking to a ridiculous degree. Apollo's success was the result of a triad of participants - government, industry and academia - who worked together to achieve a common goal. Look at the guidance program developed by Draper Labs - they were given a problem, a budget and a deadline. They delivered magnificently. This was far from a state-run endeavour overseen by the government. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 05-20-2011 09:36 AM
Upon re-reading the article I do agree with the author's thought that Apollo is not a pointer to the future. We’re getting very near private enterprise providing access to low earth orbit for relatively small sums of money. That business is probably the future of spaceflight. But I believe only governments can afford planetary and long term exploration missions which offer no immediate financial returns. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 05-20-2011 10:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
We’re getting very near private enterprise providing access to low earth orbit for relatively small sums of money. That business is probably the future of spaceflight.
Where is the evidence for any of your statements? We do not have private enterprise placing anyone on orbit for any sum of money... and the projected potential prices I have seen are not cheap. Can you afford $50 to $75 million just for the ride up and down? Just how many on the earth can? SpaceX's flight cost, if they come in at $50 million a seat, using their sardine can capsule holding seven, is $350 million a trip... again, not priced for the individual. While the government may have managed the Apollo program, the building of the vehicles (Grumman, North American), guidance system (MIT), etc., was for the most part what is today being called "private enterprise." Only the government could pay the bills then, only governments can pay the bills now and in the near future. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-20-2011 10:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Can you afford $50 to $75 million just for the ride up and down? Just how many on the earth can?
There are over 1,000 billionaires and 10 million millionaires in the world (and that's just counting those with the cash in the bank; if you expand that count to include assets worth over a million, then the number grows to more than the entire population of Australia). Space Adventures (disclosure: my former employer) has far more orbital clients lined up than currently available rides (which is why companies such as Boeing have partnered with them). And they have a client ready to lay down $150 million for a circumlunar flight in an expanded Soyuz... |
alcyone
Member Posts: 140
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 05-20-2011 11:57 AM
The building of the Panama Canal, the Manhattan Project, the Marshall Plan, Apollo: I would not describe these endeavours as un-American. But these projects have lead to the establishment within the modern American state of a mixed economy as well as the cementing together of foreign policy goals with private enterprise capabilities. And as pertains to Apollo, NASA contracted private sector corporations to provide goods and services for the moon-shot and these companies could make profits. Just because the military-industrial complex exists, for better or worse, well, that doesn't necessarily make it un-American. What IS un-American is the massive debt the US is piling up: historically, one of the planks of a strong U.S. foreign policy is fiscal solvency. It looks like the partisan politicians in Washington are going to argue endlessly about what to do until a debt/Sputnik moment blows a gaping hole in the already faltering US economy and the American people demand action. In light of this failure of political leadership, one can hope that the COTS program will bear fruit before that day of reckoning. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 05-20-2011 12:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Only the government could pay the bills then, only governments can pay the bills now and in the near future.
A month ago I would have completely agreed with you. But that was before I read the book Realizing Tomorrow - The Path to Private Spaceflight. Now I understand that several companies are building vehicles and launch facilities and are truly gearing up for selling suborbital hops to private folks. I believe orbital access will follow. I believe the initial price for these will be in the 200K range but even if I'm off by 100%, it's still much less than 50 million for a Soyuz ride. This book is discussed in another thread here. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 05-20-2011 02:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There are over 1,000 billionaires and 10 million millionaires in the world (and that's just counting those with the cash in the bank; if you expand that count to include assets worth over a million, then the number grows to more than the entire population of Australia).
Okay, with your logic, the US highways would be bumper to bumper Rolls-Royce automobiles. After all, most people have the assets, if they liquidated everything they have, to buy one.(By the way, if everyone bought the Rolls, at least they would have someplace to go... a reason for buying a car in the first place.) Just like automobiles or any other product or service, the market does not work as you imply. But then again, there may be others who think like you, which would explain the waste of capital in the "spacecraft" now being built and flown on paper. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1251
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-20-2011 03:03 PM
To expand on that thought... high net-worth people are not all Branson-like adrenaline junkies, and even with an intense interest in spaceflight, a large percentage would likely opt out of a risky orbital spaceflight even if they could afford it. Paul Allen comes to mind. He has recently stated that he has no desire to fly, even after providing funding for the SpaceshipOne project. Boeing, which has signed an agreement with Bigelow for CST-100 flights to his inflatable space hotel, has also indicated that the ISS crew transportation is it's main focus. Government funding (our tax dollars) are critical to the development of the system, and if they were to lose out on continued contract awards, the commercial transport for tourists would not be enough to sustain the project, and CST-100 will likely die. So while I disagree with taxpayer funding of commercial spacecraft for space tourism, the complex orbital systems may only see reality with the continued influx of big money from Uncle Sam. For what it's worth, my take is that in the near-term, the suborbital market will see rapid growth and some success. The reusable nature of the craft, competition, and rapid turnaround may allow lower fares and access to many more people. And the leaders in this new market have done it all with private money. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-20-2011 04:00 PM
In other words, it mimicked aspects of the very command economy it was designed to repudiate. I dare him to call any of the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo astronauts Commies to their faces. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6222
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-21-2011 01:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There are over 1,000 billionaires and 10 million millionaires in the world (and that's just counting those with the cash in the bank; if you expand that count to include assets worth over a million, then the number grows to more than the entire population of Australia).
But that doesn't mean they're physically fit to go into space, that they're actually willing to go into space or willing to risk their lives doing so? I would like to see the real number of potential space tourists. Limiting oneself at the amount of net wealth sounds a lot like wishful thinking: if there's a million millionaires, hopefully at least one will be interested to pay to go into space. It's probably statistically correct but it doesn't guarantee a list of clients. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-21-2011 02:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
...hopefully at least one will be interested to pay to go into space. It's probably statistically correct but it doesn't guarantee a list of clients.
Well, there have been eight so far (one who liked it so much, he went twice) and a ninth who was medically disqualified but had the interest and means to go. There are also an unreleased number of people who want to go, have the means to do so, are medically qualified, but for which seats are not yet available. A recent study found the market supports 140 privately-funded individuals flying in space through 2020 at a cost per seat between $20 and $50 million. That number was limited too by the availability of seats. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 05-21-2011 11:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
A recent study found the market supports 140 privately-funded individuals flying in space through 2020 at a cost per seat between $20 and $50 million. That number was limited too by the availability of seats.
If this market is real, then why are the Russians not currently taking advantage of it? They have been able to fly at the high end of this interval every day for years now. Again, where then are all the flights taking these people up and the space hotels to support them if we are already at the right price point? The flights are not being made for a number of reasons. First, even by this super optimistic study, 140 people over ten years are not much of a market to support the billions of dollars needed in upfront costs, not to mention recurring costs. Secondly, I would guess that most who responded favorably, and who really would put up the money, would only do so at the $20 million price point, which will not be available in my lifetime. Also, any craft that will fly people up at $50 million per seat will only be able to do so with a large amount of government support. That will never "fly" in the current economic environment. There are obviously many other reasons. Hopefully, one day soon reality will once again return to the space business, and we will return to a realistic path that will eventually take us to the point where tourists flights to orbit and the moon will be routine. With the currently environment marred by unrealistic hyperbole and absolutely no leadership of any type, this day is only being pushed forward. A little off topic, but a response to your post, which I hope is acceptable. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-21-2011 11:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
If this market is real, then why are the Russians not currently taking advantage of it?
Russia's commitment to the ISS ruled out carrying spaceflight participants until they could ramp up their Soyuz production lines. Beginning next year, they will be producing a fifth Soyuz to start providing two available seats per year through Space Adventures. Once they can ramp up production again, they plan is to offer four seats per year, but by then they may have competition in the form of U.S. commercial providers (such as Boeing). |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 05-21-2011 11:53 AM
I briefly read the article. I think he makes a point. On the other hand I think he may have already had a point made up in his mind and he simply used the Apollo program as a vehicle to make it.I think I like Duke of URLs point better though.  |
mikepf
Member Posts: 444
From: San Jose, California, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 05-21-2011 02:06 PM
I don't see Apollo as un-American at all, in the slightest. Kennedy saw that the nation was faced with a serious image problem that threatened it's position in world leadership. As the American government has always done before when confronted with a threat or challenge, or great need, it called together its best and brightest, all its resources of industry, intelligence and inventiveness, both public and private, to work a solution. From my point of view, it was classic America at its best. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-24-2011 09:25 AM
I read the Economist regularly and while most of the time, it is a solid magazine, it does not hold a favorable opinion of the U.S. So I am not at all suprised by this view. It would have been a different take if Apollo was an international effort. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 05-24-2011 11:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Okay, with your logic, the US highways would be bumper to bumper Rolls-Royce automobiles.
There are nearly 300 million cars in the USA. If the 10 million millionaires each bought a Rolls that's less than 4% of the total. Where does that give you bumper to bumper Rolls Royces? |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 05-24-2011 03:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
Where does that give you bumper to bumper Rolls Royces?
It also begins with a faulty premise, which is that millionaires will buy Rolls Royces (or other conspicuously expensive vehicles) just because they can afford to. That is demonstrably not the case. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 05-24-2011 07:40 PM
I wouldn't say Apollo seemed more "un-American" but it did feel more like America on something closer to a wartime production than peacetime. Marching orders were given and industry responded in a similar fashion to what they did in WW2 by ramping up production. Although in this case, it was more to produce higher quality items for use on a small number of vehicles as opposed to mass production of high quantities.It was also incredible the amount of cooperation and coordination that was done as you had companies flying some items on their own private fleets of aircraft (such as guidance systems and computers) if the normal shipping channels took too long. That sort of thing just doesn't really happen today, at least not on those levels. Maybe the article should have said Apollo was "un-capitalist" as opposed to "un-American". |
advertisement