Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnewsl!clyde!feg
From: feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: space program goals
Message-ID: <3407@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Dec 89 14:30:14 GMT
References: <1989Dec20.154407.15068@utzoo.uucp> <5766@ncar.ucar.edu>
Sender: nntp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
Reply-To: feg@clyde.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 31

In article <5766@ncar.ucar.edu>, steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:
> kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) analysed the goals of the
> Apollo program into three categories:
> 
> ........deletes
> 
> For the purpose of discussion (please note), I now hypothesize the 
> following:
> 
> 	1) In retrospect, the national prestige goal was irrelevant.
> 
This is easy to dismiss since we won that race.  But now that the
Russians have admitted they really were in that race and were
well along on a schedule projected to be a year earlier than 
our landing (until they ran into some rocket engine difficulties),
what if they HAD been first?

The Russians were the first to reach earth orbit, unmanned and then
manned.  Until we were the first to land on the moon, those 
accomplishments counted for quite a bit, as I recall.

Do you remember all those ignominious blown-up rockets on the
launching pad down at KSC in those early years when we were trying
to reach unmanned earth orbit?

That geo-political objective counted for much and was a good deal
responsible for the support for the moon landing program. All the
other results that came from the program, though looking more
important today, still owe their existence to this first objective.

Forrest Gehrke clyde!feg