I didn't say it was intended. I'm saying that people who think it's a
useful model for space programs, and want to try to repeat it, are
deluded. I wrote a long essay about that a year and a half ago:
http://transterrestrial.com/papers/EndingApolloism.pdf
On 2018-02-14 08:18, Uwe Klein wrote:
Am 14.02.2018 um 16:21 schrieb Rand Simberg:> I'm not "deriding" it.
No intent to step on your toes.
I'm pointing out that it is not a model for how
to reduce the cost of access to space.
That was not really intended.
Others hoped though...
A regular issue when something is a second tier tool
of some other objective.
Moonlanding wasn't done for landing on the Moon.
It was done for pi*ing on the Soviets Muesli :-)
Afaics Apollo got lots of buoyancy and purpose from the MonoManiac von Braun.
Now the shuttle was launched on "Space Access Now Easy".
But nobody with Vision in the lead.
In a way a political ball kicked down the road.
I have a theory that any organization without strongly defended purpose
gets infested by parasites from a wide spectrum.
Uwe
On 2018-02-13 23:39, Uwe Klein wrote:
Am 13.02.2018 um 23:03 schrieb Rand Simberg:
It was successful at beating the Soviets to the moon. It was an utter
failure in terms of making space affordable and accessible, as was the
Shuttle, as would be any government program.
Two objectives.
A: get a grip on the uniformed mad men that think nuclear war is
winnable.
B: sidetrack mil expenditure with "Science" expenditure.
C: select a "sporty competition" project for A and B --> D
D: Reach the moon with a maned spacecraft and return before 1970.
NOT:
make space accessible and affordable.
nobody thought that far.
You cannot deride somehting for not achieving
something that was not targeted.
A and B where achieved for a while.
completely rolled back today.
Uwe