Why LBJ Canceled The Apollo Moon Base - NASA's requested funding was spent on the Great Society, including building rapid transit system in several cities

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

With today’s inauguration, President Donald Trump is back in charge of the Artemis program. NASA’s 21st-century moon program began during Trump’s first term but has been plagued with developmental delays. Elon Musk, Trump’s most prominent backer, believes Artemis is an inefficient distraction despite being the CEO of a program contractor.

Similar criticisms were levied at the Apollo program during the 1960s. Such sentiment likely led to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision not to fund NASA’s more ambitious efforts, including a temporary base on the lunar surface. However, the funding allocated elsewhere would transform American society in other ways.

NASA was well aware that the Space Race’s fervor would fade once an American stepped foot on the Moon. There were plenty of post-Apollo ideas circulating the agency that were eventually centralized under the moniker of the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) in 1966. Nazi-turned-NASA-celebrity Wernher von Braun headed the internal think tank.

On the surface, the AAP was intended to conceive exciting missions that could be fulfilled with existing Apollo hardware. Between the lines, NASA desperately needed to maintain its massive workforce and coalition of contractors. The space program amassed an army of 400,000 employees for Apollo. If it were forced to downsize, it would (and did) hamper the progress of space exploration for decades to come.

The lunar base was the most audacious concept from the AAP. The congressional hearings for NASA’s authorization in 1966 outlined the plans for the base. The mission involved two separate Saturn V launches: one typical Apollo launch with three astronauts and one uncrewed launch carrying the base. Two astronauts would descend to the Moon’s surface in a Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), and another LEM would be already there. The plan refers to each as the LEM Taxi and LEM Shelter, respectively.

The Taxi is a standard LEM used to shuttle astronauts to and from the Command Module in orbit. The Shelter is a converted LEM to store the necessary provisions for an extended stay and a lab. NASA intended for astronauts to live in this shelter for two weeks. For comparison, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin spent 2 hours and 31 minutes on the Moon during Apollo 11. The final Moon landing during Apollo 17 lasted 22 hours. Two weeks on the Moon with this equipment sounds like a nightmare.

The Apollo missions were far from comfortable for the astronauts. They had to live on dehydrated food, take sponge baths and shit in plastic bags taped to their asses. I could never ask anyone to endure that on the Moon, but Von Braun wanted more. NASA also floated the idea of a purpose-built shelter allowing a crew of six to live on the Moon for six months. The German rocket scientist has been fixated on a permanent moon base since at least his 1953 book “Conquest of the Moon.”

Working conditions aside, costs ultimately derailed the lunar base. The AAP requested $450 million in 1967, but it received $80 million. Like Apollo’s budget, this would have likely ballooned into the billions by the 1970s if fully funded. The Johnson administration had other spending concerns.

During his 1964 State of the Union speech, LBJ gave Congress the task of declaring an “all-out war on human poverty and unemployment” and reforming “our tangled transportation and transit policies.” The Great Society was the most ambitious slate of domestic policy since the New Deal and hasn’t been surpassed by any president after.

In 1967, Congress didn’t want to fund a federal budget exceeding $100 billion, or $945 billion in today’s dollars. Thus, the AAP was axed so the Great Society could happen. It was a level of fiscal responsibility considered harsh today when 2024’s federal budget was $6.75 trillion.

The US Department of Transportation was formed in 1967 as part of the Great Society. The agency immediately oversaw federal subsidies that helped build modern rapid systems in several major cities, including the DC Metro, MARTA in Atlanta, and BART in the San Franciso Bay Area. The federal government also funded the introduction of a high-speed rail service to the Northeast Corridor with the Metroliner, an Acela precursor.

While NASA didn’t get to build a moon base during the 1970s, the trade-off was worth the sustained benefits of the Great Society. I can’t say the same thing today if the Artemis program gets canceled today.
 
How the fuck does one make a moon base... in 1969?
Anything is possible if you have people who are inspired to achieve something great for mankind.

President Donald Trump is back in charge of the Artemis program. NASA’s 21st-century moon program began during Trump’s first term but has been plagued with developmental delays.
The following Administration didn't help either, as they switched NASA's focus back to muh Climate nonsense, then you also have SLS that is still not ready (it was supposed to be built 2 years ago) because they signed a deal with a constructor that scammed them again for several billions.
 
and some shit we literally have no idea about like "will living in Moon gravity cause your heart to literaly atrophy away or not" (like it does in microgravity). And nobody's ever seen the Earth eclipse the Sun from the Moon. It would make a nice picture.
In other timeline we solved the mystery with a rotating station:
 
As much as I think Vietnam was a waste of money this would an even bigger waste of money. How the fuck does one make a moon base... in 1969?
The military wanted to build a base on the moon in the mid 1960’s. It would’ve been protected by low Davy-Crockett’s. It got serious enough to be proposed and rejected by the president.

Yes, really.
 
So we traded a moon base and future space exploration for a war in SE Asia, mass transit grift, and niggers voting Democrat for 200 years.

Worst deal since someone did business with Ea-nasir.
 
The sheer scope of the grift was amazing. Big grants to rebuild infrastructure in the NEC, grants to make the newfangled trains (which indirectly turned out to have a good return), and what's now the Transportation Technology Center, where tons of rail testing is done started out as part of the same program. Of course it's no longer a government facility now...

All to buy votes in New York.
And don't forget monorails..... the hyperloop of the day.... millions were wasted on trying to build those too.
 
As much as I think Vietnam was a waste of money this would an even bigger waste of money. How the fuck does one make a moon base... in 1969?
Why not? Space technology pretty much stagnated until the Billionaire Space Race.


People forget that the Space Race was backed by military conservatives and opposed by Blacks, Black worshippers and welfare socialists. The only reason anybody wanted to sail the stars was to get a better angle to chuck rocks at the strange cavemen next door.
 
And don't forget monorails..... the hyperloop of the day.... millions were wasted on trying to build those too.
Though it looks like all one thing - and kind of is - the monorail mania was the Urban Mass Transit Administration and the high speed trains were the Office of High-Speed Ground Transport which were technically separate boondoogles under DOT.
 
which was quite possible given the Saturn V could send over 90,000 pounds of whatever you wanted to the Moon.
The stars would have had to perfectly align if we were to make a moon base compact and light enough to actually be workable even within 15 years of Apollo, if you were just going to keep using Saturn 5. The plan wasn't ever to just use the platform forever, it was going to be to slap more F1s on a bigger rocket, first 8, and keep developing from there. You can see by Apollo that we really weren't capable of sending that much mass to the moon in one throw, what actually got there, the LEM and LEV were a fraction of the rockets scale. You'd have had to launch several cargo S5s and attach all the moon base pieces, then land them, or land the pieces and then attach. It would have been ridiculously more complex and costly than just building bigger rockets. Rocket size was already increasing massively and the launch pad for the moon missions was overbuilt for the 5s.
 
He started the welfare foodstamp bullshit. Anything positive he has done is therefore nullified
 
The stars would have had to perfectly align if we were to make a moon base compact and light enough to actually be workable even within 15 years of Apollo, if you were just going to keep using Saturn 5. The plan wasn't ever to just use the platform forever, it was going to be to slap more F1s on a bigger rocket, first 8, and keep developing from there. You can see by Apollo that we really weren't capable of sending that much mass to the moon in one throw, what actually got there, the LEM and LEV were a fraction of the rockets scale. You'd have had to launch several cargo S5s and attach all the moon base pieces, then land them, or land the pieces and then attach. It would have been ridiculously more complex and costly than just building bigger rockets. Rocket size was already increasing massively and the launch pad for the moon missions was overbuilt for the 5s.
Part of the rationale for going to the STS over classic rockets was that you could ferry that stuff bit-by-bit into orbit, and then launch one big ship for the Moon from there that would have a meaningfully large payload since you wouldn't have to spend 90% of your ship's weight and space on fuel.

But, due to technical limitations that meant the shuttle never was able to launch once a week like it was proposed? We kind of went backwards for 30 years without knowing it.

Not that the shuttle was useless, no other vehicle out there could've repaired the Hubble, for example. But, we've gotten more mileage out of unmanned expendable boosters than a costly ship that risks six lives every time it lifts off since it's retirement.
 
One of the more telling stories about Lyndon Johnson is how he "won" his Silver Star. Its currently the third-highest medal for combat in the US military. During the second world war, Johnson - a full-time politician - was made a lieutenant commander. In 1942, he was sent on a "fact finding" mission to the pacific. He rode as a passenger on a B-26 bomber on a mission where the aircraft turned around in flight and never encountered any enemy at all. For the incredible bravery of riding one time in an airplane, Lyndon Johnson was given a sliver star. Nobody else on the air crew was given anything for that mission. His military service ended in spring of 1942 because he was just too important for it.

He used to wear that Silver Star when he gave out medals to soldiers for Vietnam. Just an utterly despicable and evil man.
 
Part of the rationale for going to the STS over classic rockets was that you could ferry that stuff bit-by-bit into orbit, and then launch one big ship for the Moon from there that would have a meaningfully large payload since you wouldn't have to spend 90% of your ship's weight and space on fuel.

But, due to technical limitations that meant the shuttle never was able to launch once a week like it was proposed? We kind of went backwards for 30 years without knowing it.

Not that the shuttle was useless, no other vehicle out there could've repaired the Hubble, for example. But, we've gotten more mileage out of unmanned expendable boosters than a costly ship that risks six lives every time it lifts off since it's retirement.
Shuttle was a consequence of the draining NASA budget dressed up as our first step into the star trek future, despite the fact it wasn't ever designed to go beyond low earth orbit or really be anything more than a glorified crew carrier, truck, and be used to repair satellites and do some experiments. It was very useful, don't get me wrong, but it put interplanetary exploration by humans on hold for decades. We're really only just now getting back on our feet. I wish their budget wasn't only not cut, but expanded, and we'd have gotten Star Raker alongside the increased R&D of expendables, we might have even had semi reusable 'traditional' rockets by 2000. The military industrial complex did not deserve the cash and we wasted so many people lives.
 
Shuttle was a consequence of the draining NASA budget dressed up as our first step into the star trek future,
The 2nd crucial part of the system? The Reagan-backed permanent US space station? Never materialized. As it was an even easier victim of budget cuts and political squabbling over who would get to dole out "space" jobs.

It was blind luck that NASA were able to lean on the leftovers of the Soviet MIR program post-collapse and actually use the shuttle for what it was intended for in the first place at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom