I've been trying to get this article some attention on HN, but it's fallen flat the three or so times I've submitted it. "The case for nuclear propulsion for spacecraft (2003)": http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03h.html
The article's points are (a) there were some realistic strides towards long-term sustainable space exploration before the Apollo project, (b) the Apollo project was directly responsible for canceling funding towards these long-term projects, and (c) the Apollo project was nothing more than a machine to convert a huge quantity of cash into a one-time use spacecar to stick a pole in the moon.
It was particularly surprising to realize that there are, in fact, feasible ideas for real space exploration. Humanity just has to remember and decide to pursue it.
With respect, the comment that "the Apollo project was nothing more than a machine to convert a huge quantity of cash into a one-time use space-car to stick a pole in the moon" seems to drop an incredible amount of context.
I think the Apollo project (and Mercury, and Gemini, the programs which preceded Apollo) resulted in a massive amount of learning, technology development, progress in manufacturing know-how, etc.
How do you feel about the idea that microcontrollers would have been invented anyway, even if Silicon Valley hadn't established the industry? It's that kind of situation. The learning, technology development, and manufacturing know-how may still have came. We'll never know for certain, and I'm not trying to imply that the Apollo project did nothing for any of those things, but it was largely a political decision to cancel these long-term space exploration projects in favor of the US being able to thumb their nose at the Russians for a bit. (As opposed to those projects being canceled for scientific reasons like feasibility.)
Any form of adventure first need perform the "stick a pole somewhere" process (if returning home is expected). At the time, just getting there is an extraordinary act, requiring a supreme effort leveraging advanced technology and taking great risks. Several of the allegedly first discoveries of America (Lief Erikson, Christopher Columbus, others) were content to arrive, take a brief look 'round, and return home. Topping Mt. Everest involved little more than planting a flag and heading back down. Apollo, indeed, planted a pole - and even took time to drive around a little before heading back with a few rocks.
Early on, just getting there and coming back intact is hard enough. Get that process down first, then see what else can be done.
Methinks the real hindrance to further manned space exploration was: after great effort, we stood someone on a dead rock. Yeah, sorta interesting, but not really compelling; no really dramatic scenery, no minerals worth the cost of mining, too exhausting to think (after that huge effort) of the place of a jumping-off point for an orders-of-magnitude harder effort to go somewhere else not much more interesting when you actually get there. Fascinating, yes, but few people want to contribute vast sums, if not their very lives, to a long boring trip in a can (even with a Morale Officer) to a giant rock quarry. We're not talking the planet Pandora or some such here.
And per another poster's detailed list: it's very, very expensive to send a meatbag somewhere.
The article's points are (a) there were some realistic strides towards long-term sustainable space exploration before the Apollo project, (b) the Apollo project was directly responsible for canceling funding towards these long-term projects, and (c) the Apollo project was nothing more than a machine to convert a huge quantity of cash into a one-time use spacecar to stick a pole in the moon.
It was particularly surprising to realize that there are, in fact, feasible ideas for real space exploration. Humanity just has to remember and decide to pursue it.