The Apollo missions were awe-inspiring, particularly given the tech at the time. But the Saturn V as a launch vehicle was simply too expensive. I see inflation-adjusted numbers putting the Saturn V launch cost at just over $1 billion but I honestly think the equivalent is way more than that.<p>The ironic thing is that Congress cancelled the Apollo program and approved the Space Shuttle program and that was even more expensive (in $/kg to LEO terms).<p>Payload costs are now <10% of the Saturn V/STS costs in real terms. That's what we need. If Satrship lives up to expectations, that'll drop even further. In addition to that there are important advancements in scalability (ie how many launch vehicles you can product and that really translates to how many launches you can do per year) and reliability.<p>My point is that whatever NASA wanted to do after Apollo was never going to happen and wasn't sustainable. Lots of people like to say things like we'd already have put a man on Mars if we didn't cancel Apollo but that was never going to happen.
> The only reason it was not done is because politically it was inexpedient for the Nixon administration to continue supporting the Apollo program, which it saw a legacy of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.<p>What shortsighted thinking! Yet another reason to hate the Nixon administration.<p>The one month limitation due to CSM seems crazy. I can’t imagine spending a month in the CSM.
> The only reason it was not done is because politically it was inexpedient for the Nixon administration to continue supporting the Apollo program, which it saw a legacy of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.<p>Politicians would do well to remember the quote by Picasso<p>“Good artists copy; great artists steal!”<p>If you try to make a name for yourself by creating your own rendition of a space program while scrapping your predecessor’s then you’ll only be remembered for your limited success or spectacular failure. If you take what’s already there and make it your own by expanding upon it and pushing it further then you will look like a genius who advanced the art far beyond where it was before.
Can I recommend "Cosmonauts: How Russia Won the Space Race" by the BBC.<p>It's a fascinating deep dive into this, and the difference in long-term goals between the USA and the USSR. It explores how close the USSR were to getting to the moon first, the reaction of the USSR's team (some swearing, some shrugging), the grief over the loss of their chief rocket scientist, and why there was no need for a "pivot"—the long term goal had always been to populate and explore space.<p>The interviews are great and there is some amazing footage.<p>It is a testament to their long-term plan that, despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russians were—for a long time—the only country capable of putting anyone into space.<p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lcxms" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lcxms</a>
Related shameless plug: I've been tracking the progress of NASA's Artemis plans to return humans to the Moon on my one-of-a-kind, technical newsletter Moon Monday <a href="https://blog.jatan.space/s/moon-monday" rel="nofollow">https://blog.jatan.space/s/moon-monday</a><p>It also covers global lunar exploration, science and commercial developments to show that our return to the Moon this is truly worldwide and how valuable each vertical is. Thoughts?
If you like this subject, I highly recommend the show For All Mankind (on Apple TV).<p>I don't want to spoil the premise, but it's an amazing alternate history along the consequences of investing in science.
Somewhat related: I've been enjoying the series "For All Mankind" on Apple TV+. Really fun alt-history drama that explores these topics.
Nixon, who was president by the time the US landed on the moon, in case you've forgotten, <i>hated</i> JFK, and had ever since he lost to Kennedy in the 1960 election after Nixon's disastrous appearance at the debate vs JFK.<p>So of course, when Nixon became president, he considered Apollo to be JFK's program and killed it. Not all at once – first by cancelling missions after 17, then more so. Also, Nixon wanted the money for his expansion of the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive, as well as money for his other imperialist interventions around the world.<p>The reason why we got the Space Shuttle was, bluntly, Air Force involvement in wanting a reusable, crewed vehicle to deploy and retrieve spy satellites. That's why the shuttle bay got to be so big[1]<p>1 <a href="https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1960/1" rel="nofollow">https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1960/1</a>
Interesting that NASA is now pursuing something similar right now. I wonder if some of the then junior engineers started work on this back then and were cut off by Nixon to work on the space shuttle and have now climbed into a position of power and want to complete that initial work they started.<p>Or I could be reading way too much into this.
> President Nixon rejected the ambitious Space Task Group plan, choosing instead to develop the infamous, loved and hated space shuttle.<p>So, he really was a crook.