Why We Need To Explore Space For Earth's Future | Fight For Space | Spark

The budget request for manned spaceflight is being reduced by $42.1 million to $916.5 million. This will be achieved by canceling the Apollo 15 and 19 lunar missions and redesignating the remaining Apollo flights as 14 through 17.

This section describes the launch of an artificial 23-inch metal sphere into orbit by a three-stage Russian rocket. It was boosted to a speed counterbalancing gravity and released as the first man-made satellite orbiting the earth.

President Kennedy set the goal to land a man on the moon and return him safely within the decade. He said it would be chosen not because it is easy but because it is hard, serving to organize and measure our energies and skills.

This section explains that after achieving the moon landing with Apollo 11, there was no plan or technology designed to sustain missions or establish permanence. Later Apollo flights also did not include scientists and the program ended after Apollo 17.

The space shuttle program promised aircraft-like operations with shuttles launching every two weeks. But it failed on those metrics due to complexity, accidents, and much higher costs, missing projections by over 1000 times.

The space station was NASA's objective after Apollo but its development stretched across decades and sucked funding from other exploration. It was criticized as purposeless with minimal science return for the money spent.

Various later initiatives to return astronauts to the moon and go onto Mars (SEI, Constellation) failed to receive sustained political interest or budget funding from changing administrations.

The Saturn V rocket was designed specifically for exploration and had unique capabilities, but production was ended early on. Unlike the Russians, rocket designs were not sustained and improved upon.

After Apollo, proposals for ambitious follow-on programs were rejected. Public and political interest in footing large budgets declined, with funds also drained by the Vietnam war.

Later programs like the space shuttle, space station, and Constellation failed to receive budget funding that matched their technical ambitions, dooming them over time.

With continued Saturn V production, achievements like large space stations in orbit and moon bases could have been realized much sooner than when they actually happened decades later.

Ending production of the extremely capable Saturn V, with no replacements planned, is seen by many as an inexplicable failure of vision and lack of leadership.

NASA's budget declined in the late 1960s, forcing cutbacks like reduced Saturn V production and cancellation of later Apollo moon landing missions.

The Apollo program inspired a generation of scientists and engineers who drove tremendous technological innovation later as adults, fueling economic booms.

Unlike Apollo and shuttle, space should involve partnerships between government and companies for transportation, infrastructure, and settlement like the opening of past frontiers.

Many Apollo veterans are deeply disappointed by lack of sustained vision, budgets, or leadership for human space exploration in the decades since their monumental achievements.

Space leader emphasizes that the cultural effects of inspiration for science enabled the later economic impacts, stressing that vision matters more than technical rocket details.