• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

RIP Frank Borman

I'm 100% pro space program. The technological advances we get from it are huge.
I don't know about using the resources to worry about going back to the moon or Mars. It's not like we are going go terraform them and have people live there.
I'd rather spend the effort and money on not destroying this planet
 
If Nixon scuttles the Apollo program in 1969, he loses 1972 by a landslide.

The Democrats (and probably most Republicans) would have crucified him, and rightly so. An overwhelming majority of the American people were solidly behind the idea of getting Americans to the Moon first. No matter what you think of his politics, he was first and foremost concerned about his image, especially if the Russkies beat us.

I have to believe he knew a decision of that magnitude -- no matter how he played it off as "tax savings" -- would have been a huge blow to the nation's psyche, as well as a massive hit to the military-industral complex that was involved in producing GNP and paying tens of thousands of people to do it. Those corporations which lobby really hard in Congress to keep our military No. 1 in the world.

It's impossible to explain how Moon-crazy this nation was in the mid-60s. Tang. Space Food Sticks. Walter Cronkite live from the Cape or Mission Control in Houston.

Almost everyone knew someone connected to the space program or had a friend of a friend at Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas or Rocketdyne or one of the hundreds of contractors working on everything from hardware to software to sewing patches on spacesuits. It wasn't just in Titusville or Houston or Huntsville. People were employed all over the country as part of the push to the Moon.

The hippy-dippies didn't vote, as McGovern found out. But Ma and Pa America did, and they were solidly pro-American, anti-Soviet. If that meant winning the Cold War by sticking a flag on a cold, dark, airless satellite orbiting the Earth, so be it.

Nixon would have had more success getting out of Viet Nam at that point than shutting down NASA.
Stipulating (ridiculously, I'll add) that Nixon had there wherewithal to "scuttle" NASA/Apollo (there's this thing called Congress), the budgetary effects would have only been for the 1970 fiscal year (which would have begun in October of 1969). By then, the vast, vast majority of Apollo funds would have already been spent. At the end of FY 1969, around $272B had been spent cumulatively, and annual outlays were dropping precipitously (i.e., from $31.6B in 1968 to $23.7B in 1969).
 
I'm 100% pro space program. The technological advances we get from it are huge.
I don't know about using the resources to worry about going back to the moon or Mars. It's not like we are going go terraform them and have people live there.
I'd rather spend the effort and money on not destroying this planet

The moon colony is not about terraforming. It's about building a long term base in space that isn't at the bottom of an expensive gravity well. It's about growing the technology and expertise to mine the moon and the asteroids. It's about learning to live in space over a longer term. Keeping an orbital base running is an early baby step. An ongoing colony on the moon is another.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top