Don't know for a fact, but the reason the US government was so noisy about the space program until the Berlin Wall fell? Part of a plan to bankrupt the USSR? Actually, US manned flight to the moon was ended due to budget cuts. A huge contributing reason was that it was obvious that the Russians were not going to the moon.
shareThe Berlin Wall fell in 1991, more than 20 years after the decision was made to cancel Apollo.
The idea that the U.S. was going to spend the Soviets into bankruptcy literally never occurred to anybody among U.S. leadership before the very late 1980s. If you had told anybody in Washington in, for example, 1987, "the Soviet Union will not exist in 5 years," they would have laughed at you. (And the USSR fell for a variety of reasons, the "U.S. spending them into bankruptcy" only one.)
Anyway, U.S. manned moon flights were ended by budget cuts mandated by Nixon, who of course had no personal commitment to the moon project -- in fact, quite to the contrary, it was the legacy of his mortal enemy, John F. Kennedy.
Nixon took office in January 1969, less than a month after the triumphant lunar orbit flight of Apollo 8, which boosted public confidence that we could in fact make it to the moon, and it would have been political suicide for him to cut the program at that time.
But if there had been even a hiccup in the schedule of Apollos 7-8-9-10, which would have likely pushed the moon landing back past the end-of-decade goal set by Kennedy, there's little doubt Nixon would have been happy to pull the plug on the whole shebang.
The moon landing was all about taking the ultimate high-ground away from the Soviets. The Sovs had managed to get a sattelite in orbit before the U.S. did. A couple of them were the sizes of small cars, while the Vanguard was around 3.5 lbs ('a small orange', as Khruschev put it). They put a man in orbit first, a woman in orbit first, and did the first space walk. They were also building an impressive resume' for extended time in orbit. Kennedy was desperate to find a way to catch up with the Soviets in a 'Space Race': a technological and geo-political competition with the Soviets that the U.S. felt it HAD to win, in order to assert our principles that a free democratic society was superior to a totalitarian one.
Anouncing that the U.S. was committed to go to the moon before the end of the decade raised the stakes in an already high-stakes game with the Soviets. You can imagine the difficulties, both technological and political in making something like this possible; but their national pride stung by Soviet successes and their own earlier failures and rising to the challenge to demonstrate 'American Ingenuity' the American Space program geared up and went to work, putting the might of their technology and economy behind the effort.
From a political standpoint, it was actually relatively easy to sell the public and congress on this venture, if you knew the right buttons to push. National prestige notwithstanding, what American citizen or member of congress wanted to go to bed every night 'under the light of a communist moon'?
As always, the atmosphere of sharing ideas and free thinking eventually outpaced secrecy and compartmentalization of ideas. While a totalitarian regime could focus single mindedly on a task and acheive results, the rigidity of thought and lack of certain technologies hampered their progress. Soviet scientists and designers were very ingenious in their own way, and noone can fault their courage and dedication. But when their chief designer Sergei Korolyev died suddenly in 1966 (from a botched appendectomy), the ZOND (moon) project floundered. His successor was not as astute politically as Korolyev, and Brezhnev and his cult of cronyism sapped the energy and direction of the venture. The Soviets stumbled, and the U.S. took the lead as the clock to 1970 ticked down.
That is not to say that the U.S. did not have it's own share of disasters. The Apollo fire in 1966, set the program back over a year. The circumlunar voyage of Apollo 8 was an attempt to claim that the U.S. got to the moon first (although 'landing' a man on the moon was the ultimate goal, being the first to slingshot around in a free-return trajectory was enough to technically claim the prize, even if the Soviets managed a 'first landing' at a later date) and historically, was about the only good thing I can remember happening in 1968.
When the Soviet massive N-1 boosters blew up on the pad in 1969, it became clear to the Russian program that there would be no moon landing. The politically astute Sovs quickly destroyed the remaining flight-ready boosters and claimed that the Soviet 'moon race' was a paper project to fool the U.S. into thinking that there really was a race going on. This remained their official version until GLASNOST (openness) many years later when the moon vehicles were revealed.
Once the U.S. found that the only ones that they were racing with were themselves, this dampened ardor notably. Mission accomplished - let's cancel the moon missions after Apollo 17. No moon base. No space station. No trip to Mars. We won.
Let's be content with the spin-off technologies like Velcro, Cell Phones, microwave ovens, and cooking with non-stick teflon. There is still a war going on in Vietnam, remember...
Sound jaded and sarcastic?
Well, maybe I am.
I am disappointed that the support for the space program is miles wide, but only about 1 inch deep. I think that the best and brightest should be encouraged to reach for the stars and the knowlegedge gained and the technologies developed, life on Earth could be improved for everyone. Imagine a base on the Moon that would be a platform for the trip to Mars. Imagine terra-forming Mars and colonization of another planet.
I thought velcro was invented by a swiss, and Teflon was invented at Du Pont by accident and Microwaves were used just after WW2 by observing the effect of radar on meat or chocolate.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
As a retired journalist who covered projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, I can say you are correct in your history, but you give NASA entirely too much credit in your list of spinoffs.
It is true that the space program created the need for miniaturized electronic circuitry, which led to a technological revolution which produced cell phones, personal computers and a universe of other stuff.
On the other hand, NASA didn't invent velcro. Velcro was invented in France in the 50s for use in the apparel industry. NASA needed a non-metallic material for use inside a spacecraft to secure handheld devices for easy retrieval and velcro was just what the doctor ordered.
Microwave technology was developed in the 1930s but it took until the mid 40s for an engineer to notice by accident what high frequency radar waves did to food left nearby. It melted a candy bar in his pocket. The rest is history.
NASA didn't invent Teflon either. Dupont developed Teflon in 1938, but it didn't get much publicity till NASA used it to make heat shields, space suits and cargo hold liners.
As a long time "true believer" in the space program, I share your disappointment with the state of things today.
Most of my friends who have inferiority complexes are absolutely right.
Nixon would have been happy to pull the plug on the whole shebang.
He sure didnt mind taking the credit and basking in the limelight when we finally pulled it off, did he?
e.g. His long distance call from the oval office to the Sea of Tranquility,
Or being there on the carrier when Apollo 11 landed.
OK Wiseasses,
How about these nifty developments?
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
[deleted]
A/O,
I'm aware of where all these advancements came from.
My point is that the Space Program was just about the purest form of endeavor of science, politics and military agenda (that was admittedly motivated by paranoia), but did have SOME altruistic goals and SOME positive spin-offs that DIDN'T TOTALLY involve blowing people to kingdom come. The funding came if not from the war-teat, then the cold-war-teat.
Incidentally, the NASA-teat never was very prodigious, particularly now.
If you want to read something interesting about alternative views on technology and what it takes to get things done, read Werner von Braun's recollections of his chats with Charles Lindbergh and his review of Robert Goddard's work (too bad THEY didn't get to have a private chat!). Von Braun was very impressed with what Goddard had accomplished and speculated where the U.S. homegrown rocket program might have been like had they taken him seriously. Lindbergh commented that he had talked with Goddard about going to the moon. Goddard felt that it was technically feasible but was appalled at what he figured the cost may be. He speculated that it might cost 'a million dollars'! Linbergh actually told the astronauts that story and they all had a good laugh over that one.
I am personally disappointed that the the desire to build on what was accomplished did not continue. One of the Astronauts visited Egypt once and saw a quary where the ancient Egyptians carved stone for the Pyramids and other monuments. There was an obelisk there,all carved and ornate, hewn directly out of the native rock. They were getting ready to raise it, but it cracked due to some flaw either in the rock or in their attempt to lift it. They abandoned it there. In place. Just left it. The Astronaut said it reminded him of the Space Program. We built this great thing with time and effort and then just left it there, like a ruined monument. He was angry about it. I imagine he is still angry today if he is still alive.
And the heroes themselves? The Astronauts? Because heroes they were, in the homeric sense of the word. Intelligent motivated professional men that posessed the critical willingness to face danger for the accomplishment of something higher than themselves. They wonder when we will get back to the moon. Will it happen in their lifetimes?
Try not to get too disappointed by human nature.
In case you haven't noticed, we are not getting more civilized, we are getting less civilized.
'Ars gratia artis' is a nice sentiment, but it is money driven. And so is science if you wish to stetch the metaphor.
Artists and Scientists may indeed be altruists, but their funding comes from somewhere, and it is indeed amazing what you can accomplish if you find the motivation...driven by need, driven by fear, driven by the desire for self-preservation.
It ain't pretty, but it happens.
If you find that American invention is too dirty for you accept, try living in a totalitarian regime like Russia or China and see how THEY motivate people.
If you believe that all advances can and will be made under the purity of the desire to push back the frontiers of the known universe for knowledges sake, then you are dreaming.
I'm just sorry that it never went further than it did and we have to CONTENT ourselves with cell phones and microwave ovens. (METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING)
[deleted]
So we stop and wait til next time; whenever THAT is.
By the time 'We' decide that 'We need it again' the technology will have to be re-developed, or re-invented, or re-discovered, and that is wasteful and counter-productive. Key people die, infrastructures decay, skills are forgotten, and the textbooks mildew on the shelf, if someone hasn't already throw the shelf out; figuring they'll build a new shelf next time.
Take for example Sniper skills during the world wars (and no, I don't relish the idea of shooting people in the head through a telescope, but it's a skill that is needed from time to time). It was developed in the mid-late 19th century, forgotten, resurrected in WWI, then dropped after that war because it wasn't 'Cricket'. It had to be RE-discovered and RE-invented for WW2, then dropped again because it wasn't 'Needed'. Then Re-developed in Korea and Vietnam. Now, many countries have permanent Sniper schools, and they are used to train SWAT teams and Anti-terrorist reaction teams, because they really ARE NEEDED; quite a bit more recently that was the 'norm' about 15 years ago. So overall, we only had to learn and forget and re-learn 3 times before we figured we better keep somebody on-tap in case we 'need it again'.
Submarines are the same way (since you brought it up). Building hulls, VERY SPECIAL welding techniques (which from what 'I' read, are as perishable as the skill of landing a jet on a carrier deck) and the Boat building infrastructure needs to be kept alive. Cold war over? Don't need subs anymore? Is North Korea a threat? Is the Russian Republic selling Akulas to the Chi-coms? Are the Trafalgars and Swiftsure subs getting long-in-tooth? Has control of the sea-lanes of communication suddenly become less important? Tell that to the British and see what they are spending on new subs these days.
If you STOP DOING THINGS, you eventually forget HOW TO DO THINGS.
And when you NEED IT AGAIN, you will find that you NEED IT NOW and not later.
And, NO, I doubt seriously we will need to blow the hell out of a meteor about to hit earth one day, but it IS possible that something equally important MIGHT happen one day and having NO SPACE PROGRAM would be a bad way to prepare for that.
[deleted]
Do you even READ my posts, or are you pre-programmed to 'auto-refute'?
"If you had told anybody in Washington in, for example, 1987, "the Soviet Union will not exist in 5 years", they would have laughed at you".
It´s true that they had little idea just how bad the situation in USSR was even at that time, but that doesn´t mean that driving them into economic collapse wasn´t a very conscious policy. And going bankrupt was indeed THE overarching reason the red empire collapsed; what other reasons there were, they were all set to motion by the disastrously unravelling economy.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
The USA should have a moonbase by now. Workers could dig out the ores on the surface and build Solar Power satellites .
Build the mars ship in moons orbit and save on boosters getting
off Earths Surface . And as big as possible .
Fix the error reports on this site
While intentionally, directly spending the Soviets into bankruptcy was perhaps not on the public U.S. radar until much later, the government definitely knew the Soviets were over-extended (financially, militarily, politically, geographically...) and could not continue indefinitely, at least as early as 1972.
One of my professors at UCLA also worked for the Rand Corporation (an early think tank that advised the government and politicians on technical and political issues of domestic and international importance), and served as an adviser to Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson on foreign policy--he was. He taught classes at UCLA on Soviet Government---those classes that kept you riveted to your seat and speechless, wanting more and more. He was brilliant and an expert on everything from the early KGB during WWII (esp in Poland, where the KGB was quartered in his family's home while he was growing up) to then-current Russian popular opinion.
One of the professor's favorite subjects was to talk extemporaneously on the Soviet inability to last long-term because they were sucking such huge amounts of money out of the economy for military ventures and military hardware so that the people were becoming sick of it. He used to say that all the people wanted were Beatle records, worn U.S. Levi jeans and it would be the downfall of the Soviet Union. This was in 1972 and 73. "Just wait," he'd say.
My professor once had to take visiting Soviets out to see some of Southern California. He loved to tell us how he took them to Pacific Palisades and through the neighborhood of huge homes that overlooked Santa Monica Bay and the Pacific Ocean, telling visitors this was how American workers lived...swimming pools, big homes, servants.... He never showed them real working class neighborhoods in Reseda, Burbank, or even Torrance. And there was no internet then to check for the truth about Southern Calif. demographics...
Anyway, he and colleagues advising the Foreign Relations Committees and others in the government knew very well that the USSR was extended too far trying to remain so militarized (and needing to design and develop all the aircraft, spacecraft, ships, weapons systems, and supporting technology such as communications, avionics, and power systems, etc) and first in space, and simultaneously to rule so many countries with an iron fist. Russia was supporting North Korea but unlike U.S. support for South Korea, the North was not growing its own economy, developing markets for Soviet countries to sell goods to North Koreans, recoup aid....it was pure charity, buying only loyalty.
The Soviet Union modernized and industrialized very rapidly from an agrarian economy at the turn of the 20th century, but it did so at the people's expense. The cost was great, esp added to the suffering of Soviet people in WWI and WWII and after, rebuilding. So repression became necessary to keep order, prevent people from demanding the personal goods and the social freedoms other possessed around the world. All of this was no secret from the West. Experts on Russian affairs, on Soviet foreign policy, and on Soviet govt and economics wrote and spoke on these subjects. And they advised our State Department, Congress and administration on the potential consequences.
However, as a matter of degree, it was not considered to be nearly as imminent as it became later when the burden of the war in Afghanistan that sucked not just money from the Soviet economy but the lives of Soviet people. Afghanistan sped-up the inevitable. But it had been coming since the Revolution, and had picked-up speed in each pogrom, every genocidal cleansing of agricultural workers, peasants, in every war, invasion, and clamp-down on emerging democratic movements in countries behind the iron curtain...every time the tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia or Hungary, or Poland, or military assistance was sent to North Korea, or Cuba... the fall of the USSR became closer, more iminent...