Going back in time ... MAG "The Atlantic" - May 1962 and Aug

We are looking back on 1969 as being a part of the past, but take a look at this May 1962 article from the mag "The Atlantic", when a moon landing was still just a beautiful dream:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/62may/wash.htm

A quote from the article:

"The cost of the moon-landing project, the major expenditure, originally estimated at $20 to $30 billion, now is put as high as $50 billion by some experts. This would be the cost of putting a man on the moon and returning him to earth before the end of the decade, the official goal. But because this is likely to be a race with the Soviets, it is probable that a couple of years can be shaved off the time estimate if we are willing to spend the extra money. There is talk now of a lunar landing in 1967, or even, according to the optimists, in 1966. Some of these hurry-up proponents argue that the Soviets probably are aiming at a lunar landing in 1967, the fiftieth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution."

PS: Also read Robert Jastrow and Homer E. Newell´s article "Why Land on The Moon?" from the August 1963 issue of "The Atlantic":

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/63aug/jastrow.htm

[Peter B]

From the May 62 "Atlantic" article: "A year ago, when President Kennedy put the question to Congress whether the United States should spend the billions necessary to put a man on the moon, there was considerable grumbling from many Americans struggling to find the money for such problems as public education."

I dare say that answers questions about why there aren't any hotels on the Moon at the moment. And answers any suggestions that money isn't an issue in these sorts of situations.

[JayUtah]

The issue of Apollo funding exposes a very interesting misconception about public funding. Most people think about it as they would their own budgets: there is a fixed amount of money that must be allocated to various expenditures, prioritized according to things like mortgages, debt service, necessities versus luxuries.

Public funding is not a matter of allocating a fixed amount of money across a rigidly prioritized set of needs. If there is the need for more money, it is a simple matter of raising taxes. Further, the priorities of expenditure are dictated by the public's will, not by any external factors. If the people decide today that education is very important, then it will be funded to the extent people think it's important.

Apollo seemed like a neat-o idea. It was what the public wanted at the time, and they were quite willing to fund it. After it ceased being neat-o, the funding went away. Right now the public thinks the war on terror is neat-o, and that's what's being funded to the tune of a billion dollars a day. Do you think that would have been a priority a year ago? Where do you think this money is coming from?

There is no reason why the U.S. couldn't have funded Apollo and public education and relief for poverty. The cost of Apollo is placed at about $30 billion over about ten years. During this time, Michael Collins reports that entitlement programs were being funded at $75 billion per year during this time.

The notion that Apollo was undertaken "at the expense" of social programs is unsupportable.

Why haven't we gone back? There is no will to go back.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-05-16 20:39, JayUtah wrote:
Where do you think this money is coming from?

Do you think it is coming from raised taxes?

On 2002-05-17 05:34, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-05-16 20:39, JayUtah wrote:
Where do you think this money is coming from?

Do you think it is coming from raised taxes?

In april or May IBM anounced "expectations"
My figure for their revision was 25billion 240million but recheckit