# Were the Apollo Missions a waste of money?

1. Jan 4, 2015

### dipole

Critics of human space flight (which I usually identify as) generally feel that manned missions are a huge waste of money. The case is made that the amount of science you get per dollar spent on manned missions does not make them worthwhile, and that money should be spent on better science.

However, with NASA's recent talk about manned missions to Mars, I started thinking about the Apollo missions, and even though I normally identify as a critic of manned spaceflight, I find it very difficult to make the argument that the Apollo missions were a waste of time/money. This is putting my stance on future manned spaceflight into doubt in my mind...

What say ye? If current manned spaceflight is a waste of money, were the Apollo missions a waste of money as well?

2. Jan 4, 2015

### Bystander

No. Realizable goal, not more engineering than could be chewed in one bite, manned landing was more flexible than available remote technology, and it was an open and closed program.
is marketing for the masses, "bread (not and, but) for circuses". The 2001 fans are getting pretty long in the tooth and gullible, generation X hasn't got a clue, current admin is desperate for every distraction it can generate, remote sensing and automated/roving technology can do more than any manned team ever did on the moon.

3. Jan 5, 2015

### Staff: Mentor

It's often difficult to gauge whether something of this magnitude is a waste of money or not. Many times the benefits are either intangible or are very, very difficult to put a price on. It's also effectively impossible to accurately predict what might have happened otherwise. For example, what would the world be like today had the space race not occurred? I don't think anyone can possibly know. At best we'd get vague guesses.

4. Jan 5, 2015

### Ryan_m_b

Staff Emeritus
I would consider myself a pretty big critic of the near-religious ideological stance that we must colonise space. Having said that I don't think the Apollo missions or a manned Mars mission would necessarily be a waste of money. They're bound to improve our engineering skills, our understanding of the solar system and probably a whole host of other fields. In terms of ROI....I'm inclined to say there are far better ways of investing money. X billion dollars would probably produce more advances if it was used to fund a thousand projects to the tune of X million dollars rather than one large space mission. But then again we don't just do science for purposes of the best immediate ROI, partially because we don't know what will be produced and partially because it is in human nature to get a lot of intangible value from big (and little) undertakings.

5. Jan 5, 2015

### DiracPool

I don't think it's difficult to gauge this at all. If you're referring to manned spaceflight and a Mars expedition in particular. Forget about the science per se for a moment. You can't really put a price tag on the adventure and human heroism a manned mission to Mars would yield. It might even bring some unity to the planet Earth for a few moments. Sadly, with the exception of the bottom of the ocean, there really are no "explorer" frontiers left for humans to venture to, and I think James Cameron even ruined the bottom of the ocean one .

I kind of side with Robert Zubrin in thinking a manned mission to Mars needs to be the great adventure of our time, the time of the first half of the 21st century. As far as the biological adventure of biological organisms, I think Mars may be it. I don't really see any manned missions to, say, Europa or any of the outer planets happening in the next century or maybe even ever. Extra-Mars exploration will be carried out by robotic devices with human-like intelligence. My point being is that I think we should embrace our fragile opportunity here to thrill the planet with a manned mission to Mars and redirect the budget of NASA toward such an endeavor.

6. Jan 5, 2015

### Ryan_m_b

Staff Emeritus
Well you can, not as easily sure but you can. Let's say Joe Politician proposes NASA attempts to put a man on Mars (in the name of "adventure and human herorism"), now let's say he proposes diverting 0.0001% of the budget to do this. Ignoring if that is a practical amount of funding people would probably judge that good value for money. A tiny reallocation of budget for the potential payoff of watching a stranger have an adventure on another planet. But what if it was 0.1%? 1%? 5%? 20%? Pretty soon it gets to the point where people reasonably think that such a large expenditure of money isn't worth the reward of being able to watch a video of a man putting a flag in a red desert.

7. Jan 5, 2015

### DarthMatter

While I think the Apollo missions were great in themselves, the money could have probably be spent better. Feed the hungry, build or repair some schools, improve education. Hopelessly romantic stuff like that. But this also is valid today for a huge part of the military budget.

8. Jan 5, 2015

### DiracPool

Well, obviously the budget reallocation is going to have be reasonable. But it's not just the "potential payoff of watching a stranger have an adventure on another planet," that makes it worthwhile, it's also as you mentioned the inevitable consequence of such a mission to "improve our engineering skills, our understanding of the solar system and probably a whole host of other fields" that is highly relevant here. Again, I think Zubrin outlines all of these benefits rather well. An additional benefit he outlines is, again, the prospect that such a mission is going to re-energize a generation of kids to become interested in science, astrophysics/astrobiology and STEM-related education.

Last edited: Jan 5, 2015
9. Jan 5, 2015

### Ryan_m_b

Staff Emeritus
The thing is if your aim is to push science forward and get kids interested in science then what has the better ROI: X billion spent on a manned space mission or X billion spent on terrestrial projects and science education?

10. Jan 5, 2015

Apollo: first engineering skill improvement was "housekeeping" for three lives, one capsule, and $XX; second skill was that duct tape, chewing gum, baling wire, still work, for price of one moon shot. Followed by applications of those improved skills in shuttle program for further lessons: engineering cannot overcome bad management at cost of one crew; duct tape, chewing gum, and baling wire may not be enough when things go south, at cost of second crew. There's definitely room for improvement, and plenty of Buzz Lightyear types willing to try, but it's lots cheaper to fly soft landing packages through a planet's surface than it is to fly manned missions while learning. 11. Jan 5, 2015 ### DiracPool That's a great question. It would be interesting to poll that here. I would argue that it would be a manned space mission. My first argument is what do you mean by terrestrial projects and science education? Don't we have a lot of that right now? How exciting would it be for a 15 year old high school student to see X billion dollars spent on a second space station or a LISA type interferometer? Post-graduates might get excited over that, but not a 15 year old. I don't think the issue is the availability of terrestrial based science courses or science "tracks" available to kids, I think it's the lack of interest/excitement in these fields that is the limiting factor. A sure fire way to get everyone excited is to send humans to Mars and have an ongoing discussion in the popular media about the challenges and the science that goes into such a project for the entire 3 years it goes on. 12. Jan 5, 2015 ### DiracPool That's exactly my point, people from the 60's (those 60's people) don't remember anything about bad management within NASA or engineering issues related to the Apollo missions. What do they remember? They remember Buzz Aldrin sticking his pen into the control panel to release the ascent rocket because the toggle snapped off. See, to the general public, it's all about human interest. 13. Jan 5, 2015 ### Ryan_m_b Staff Emeritus Sure we do but the scenario under discussion is that more money is allocated to science; should that extra funding go to one space project or multiple Earth-bound projects? I'm very skeptical of the notion that manned space travel can massively increase STEM uptake. Is there any data to suggest this beyond anecdotes? I've had plenty of discussions with colleagues about why they got into science and I can't recall anyone ever saying it was because they saw the Moon landings or were captivated by space, even amongst those working in space science. Of course that's in no means definitive because it's difficult to impossible to track the influences that events have on one persons life. I also wonder if there is some generational bias here, those alive during the space race might have been caught up by it but would a modern generation of children (who grow up in a completely different world) have the same response? I don't know but I'm somehow doubtful it would be exactly the same. As for interest in science in my experience getting kids interested in science is all about how they are taught it. Schools with big budgets for science lessons, school trips, equipment etc are bound to generate more interest than others. Which gets us back to the question of what could be done with X billion dollars for better science education. 14. Jan 5, 2015 ### DiracPool Well, I can recall at least one kid that was captivated by the moon landings...Lol Is that true? I don't know. Do you really think that if they doubled the size of the science buildings at the local university and doubled the science budget, it would attract more students? Interest wise I mean, forget about, say, scholarships per se. I think what you need to get kids interested in science is the equivalent of a "killer app," so to speak, and that killer app is going to be a manned mission to another world, IMO. Or, really, any manned kind of mission. Even the space station guys are talking to grammer schools and high schools across the country, if you watch the NASA channel. But the low Earth orbit stuff is becoming real tired and uninspired. 15. Jan 5, 2015 ### Ryan_m_b Staff Emeritus Seems like Danny Lloyd is more interested in other things on his clothes now :p http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1351030267710364.jpg [Broken] With regards to funding yes I do think that better schooling and other programs will lead to more science interest than one big life event. Indeed I'm skeptical of the notion that individual events of this sort can have such a big impact (as opposed to there being a multitude of factors but only the big one is remembered). A big, big reason why I'm a biologist is down to a specific teacher I had in upper school. She made the subject fascinating and was always striving to have practicals wherever possible and get out of the classroom. Several times she mentioned that she asked the school for more materials, equipment and permission to go on trips but they didn't have the funds for it. If they had I have no doubt her lessons would have been even more interesting. Another point on this issue: suppose we do have a group of kids who watch an astronaut walk on Mars, and let's assume that this does inspire them someway. How many of them will make it into STEM fields with regular schooling and programs? Is that one incident going to maintain a lifelong passion? Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017 16. Jan 5, 2015 ### phinds It has always seemed to me that you can make a very strong case that unmanned space exploration would have provided a MUCH bigger bang for the buck, and the rest of the money could have been spent on other technological projects and thus we would have produced the same level of technological spinoff as the manned program did. The only flaw in this argument is that it is ridiculous because it would never have happened. Without the space race there is pretty much no possibility that politicians could have / would have diverted so much money to technology. A manned mission to Mars is even worse in terms of bang for the buck. Whether or not it captures the public's interest enough to allow politicians to fund it remains to be seen. Personally, I think it's a pipe dream to think it will happen any time soon. 17. Jan 5, 2015 ### Bystander Franklin Expedition, 1845. Robert Falcon Scott. Is it an impossible lesson? It is very well established that engineering and human ingenuity cannot defeat poor judgment and/or mismanagement. Is a multi-$T demonstration really necessary?

Stimulation of STEM or MINT interest in public schools?
Great --- the kids will have degrees in Chem. Eng. and know what's happening to the plastic and cans they collect for recycling to pay for the fries they buy at McDonald's, and they'll even understand the automation that's replaced the minimum wage jobs they might have been able to compete for there.

Might be worth hanging on to a few economic resources for a rainy day rather than squandering them all on more pyramids.

18. Jan 5, 2015

### DiracPool

Lol. Well, there goes my theory, looks like Danny is up to other Shenanigans now other than extraterrestrial interests.

I think the short answer to this is yes, for some people. How you split hairs and quantify this measure is not so clear. Again, if you read Zubrin or watch any of the Mars society conference presentations, you will see a community there. The moon landings certainly inspired me.

Again, disagree with this, I think humanity and the planet is desperate for a real challenge for humanity to undertake. Something on the scale of the moon landings or the first expeditions to the poles or the summit of Everest. All we have now are youtube stunts, wingsuit flyers, and the Jackass movies, that doesn't cut it.

19. Jan 5, 2015

### DiracPool

That's just the point, how much of the building of the pyramids was actually useful to serve the traversal of the king into the afterworld versus giving a mass of egyptians something to do with their time, that seemed important at least, rather than surf the web and raise their status on social media? I've got a great idea, why don't we take the, say, X billion dollars spent on a manned mission to Mars and use it to "solve" domestic issues like feeding the hungry and curing illnesses? What are we going to get then? A rapid increase in the population to 14 billion rather that 7 billion people depleting Earths resources at an even greater rate with a myopic focus centered on geocentrism? What a manned mission Mars is going to do for the general public, I think, is give people the peace of mind that we as a society are least trying to do something to reach out beyond this planet, even in a token manner, to provide security for the species in case things go badly at home. This has always been the motivation for exploration, it's built into our psyche and it inspires.

20. Jan 5, 2015

### phinds

I admire your optimism but I think you vastly overestimate the public's interest in spending huge sums of money on space. The Cold War made the moon landings an easy sell for Kennedy but there is nothing comparable today.