Comment Re:Why stop at a space race... (Score 2) 275
"It did long term damage and did much to keep man in low orbit for following 50 years or longer." -- I have not yet seen a convincing argument which backs this fairly common assertion up. I have seen arguments that the missile based spacecraft crowded out the "space planes" which were under development in the 50's, but those aren't even technically achievable now. Maybe, just maybe, the argument can be made that a stretched out program of going to the moon would have kept the public interested for longer than ten years but that just means we would have been on the moon in 1980 with no immediate goals after that. By 1975 Apollo had put in place two human-rated launchers, a heavy lift launcher, a deep space capability, an orbital space station, international interfaces, and the ground infrastructure to support it all. Then it was mostly abandoned because the Space Shuttle promised (but didn't deliver) cheap access to space. As the Shuttle and ISS have proven, the dreams of space planes and orbital way stations to deep space which Apollo supposedly killed, were not practically realizable in the first place, certainly not in 1969. Now our plans to deep space (either SLS/Orion or Space X's systems) are practically rebuilds of Apollo. It was the Space Shuttle which kept us in low earth orbit for 50 years.