What If the Apollo Program Had Continued? 389
proslack writes "The die had been cast years before Apollo 11 had even reached the moon. In the late 1960s, the Vietnam war was straining US finances. A fatal fire on the Apollo launch pad in January 1967 had blotted NASA's copybook. The Soviet moon effort seemed to be going nowhere. In the budget debates during the summer of 1967, Congress refused NASA's request to fund an extended moon programme.
What if things had been different that summer? Suppose Congress had granted NASA's wish, then fast-forward 40-odd years..." A nice little what-if sort of story that makes sorta nostalgic for a non-existent present.
Bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apollo program had continued (Score:5, Insightful)
Highly likely that:
1) We would have full time orbital manned space station at all times.
2) Visits between Moon and Orbital station would be LESS frequent.
3) Visits between Moon and Earth would be MORE frequent. (because Apollo lifts off from Earth. Public-Private partnership would see to it that NASA doesn't use the most economical way of transport)
4) No Space Shuttle. Rockets all the way. (Why mess with something that works)
5) Ion Spacecraft launched to Asteroids.
6) Still no man on Mars. But a permanent computerized research station on Mars that operates from fixed locations.
7) No Mars Rover. The Rover was a roaming answer. Fixed stations would necessitate no rover.
8) SALT II would have long been abandoned and Earth would be surrounded by nuke armed stations.
9) No Cruise missiles. Why build a Mosquito when an Elephant would be cheaper.
We would have gone bankrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:5, Insightful)
And similarly, the cold war would have already ended itself. Soviet Russia while an interesting "experiment" ended up failing due to the fact that human nature plus the Soviet version of communism ended up with a government who could not financially sustain itself.
I'm sceptical. (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA presents a fairly rosy picture, where lifting stuff, including vationers, out of Earth's gravity is routine and (relatively) cheap. Presumably, more Apollo would have driven some cost reduction; but that much?
TFA's predictions of bustling free markets on the moon seem even less plausible. With the possible exception of helium-3, the moon contains basically nothing worth shipping back to earth. Exploiting lunar resources really only makes sense to support lunar research activities(like big huge telescopes on the dark side) which might be "private" in the sense of "conducted by people not directly employed by the feds"; but would be largely publicly supported basic research stuff.
I'm not seeing it.
we need a definitive goal (Score:4, Insightful)
what i mean is, just going out there just to have a look-see isn't a valid reason to spend quadrillions. we need to
1. discover an alien race, or
2. be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or
3. discover some fantastic energy source or resource out there (or drug... spice?)
4. more tribal chest thumping and grandstanding a la the cold war
etc.
these are reasons that are easy to grasp and easily capture the attention and the imagination of all. this provides the political and cultural and popular compunction to spend large sums of cash on the endeavour
sure, there are lots of reasons to go out there right now. except they are all amorphous and ill-defined and longwinded. something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivated
there really is no motivation to go out there right now. again, i mean solid, clear, urgent, and earnest motivation
What does the moon have, that Earth does not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the Earth has a whole lot of undeveloped acreage in the ocean.
Nothing too good (Score:3, Insightful)
We would have some buildings on the Moon, a much less unmanned space exploration history, a few more advances in the relevant technology, and even bigger a debt.
As interesting as going to the Moon can be, going there ourselves for 40 years continuously would serve little scientific purpose (cue the responses that we are meant to live in space like in all the cool scifi novels and that it should be our #1 priority regardless of reality), waste a lot of money (more than it'd be worth, scientifically) and divert resources from higher ROI science, like huge space telescopes and such.
So yeah, it was cool while it lasted, but I won't cry over what could have been, because it's not like there could possibly have been any drive to do more after over a decade of space racing.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:5, Insightful)
And now the US looks like it will be emulating the USSR in decline.
???
I presume you are talking about the economy? Capitalism has cycles. You can't take a 6-month period and extrapolate it indefinitely into the future.
Who is modding this "interesting"?
what if the Apollo program never happened (Score:3, Insightful)
The US actually put its own space plane on the back burner for the duration of the Apollo program. What would have happened if the Apollo program never happened, they might have continued development of the X-15 and we would have had a safe reliable Space Shuttle decades sooner.
'The
Re:If Apollo program had continued (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the connection between rocket development, moon exploration, and SALT II. Reagan would still have been a nuclear abolitionist, his meetings with Gorbachev would still have discussed the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, maybe even more so if there had ever been nuclear bases in space.
To me it's sad that what seems like a very plausible counterfactual of what would have happend had congress not hamstrung NASA in the late 1960s is now a work of science fiction. Then again, all is not necessarily lost. Maybe something can be salvaged, even if I will not live to see it come to fruition.
Re:Retirement communities on the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Less gravity is good for the arthritis, too.
That's a brilliant plan. Moon = new Florida.
Small moon base (Score:3, Insightful)
The ISS and Hubble would probably be replaced with a small moon based research lab and observatory. While the value of the lab wouldn't be greater than the current ISS, moon-based telescopes (optical and radio) would probably far outperform anything we've got today.
The other changes would be the trickle-down effects of the technology developed to support such a base. Specifically, higher performance and cheaper solar power arrays would probably be commonplace.
I don't think a lunar base would be a stepping off point for a manned Mars mission. Robotics would be more or less where they are today, since the state of the art is not driven by NASA or military requirements. Unless the moon base revealed some necessity for having people on the ground, it might be an argument against further manned missions.
Re:we need a definitive goal (Score:5, Insightful)
Item 2 is a dead certainty. Take a look around with Google maps. See if you can find spots on the planet where there are marks of impact craters. Look at the small one in Arizona - it is 3 miles across and a mile deep still after 50,000 years of erosion. Now think about what the day was like 50,000 year ago when it hit. Likely to have been a very, very bad day in the Southwest US. I suspect stuff was falling in what is now San Francisco. Lots of stuff. Big stuff. If that rock hit us today it would likely wipe out all life in most of the Southwest US and possibly take out everyone in Mexico as well. Remember, 50,000 years ago there were people on the planet, people that you would recognize as human.
Take a look at Wolfe Creek in Australia - it is 35 million years old and you can still easily see it from space. Think about the day that hit.
There are plenty more examples. Look around for nice round lakes in Canada. A good portion of them are impact craters.
OK, these things are spread out over a long period of time. But the key here is that we haven't been hit in a long time. We haven't been hit by anything big in a very long time. Over a long enough period, it is an absolute certainty we will be hit again. Even a small rock is going to cause a massive loss of life, whereas a big one could wipe out all life on a continent. A water strike - actually the most likely - would probably scoure everything off the grouund for hundreds of miles on all nearby coasts. An Atlantic hit would utterly destroy Europe to nearly Switzerland and Indiana on the US side. South America would be almost devoid of life.
There are three choices: hope that God will protect us and it will never happen to his Chosen people (whoever they are), be able to go out and prevent an impact, or be somewhere else when it comes. Right now, we are operating under the first alternative which I suspect most people will agree sucks. The second is not utterly beyond our capabilities, but it would be tough and require plenty of warning. I'm certainly in favor of a combination of the second and third alternatives. The third implies a self-sustaining outpost that could survive if Earth was wiped out. We are a long way from that being a realistic possibility. But it is something to strive for.
The way things are now, all we can do is hope for a benevolent God that will protect us. And maybe hope for Santa Clause to come and give us all what we need if it did happen. Sorry, I gave up on these options when I was about eight.
We'd have another antarctica (Score:5, Insightful)
What benefits would we have got? Hard to say, probably nothing tangible - just a group of half-a-dozen scientists and technicians spending a few months at a time far out of the public gaze. There might be the occasional documentary, but there's only so much footage of rocks and dust - and one patch of dirt looks a lot like any other. So I doubt there'd be much about it in the news (again, just like antarctica). Just about the only time it would make the headlines is when there's a debate about cutting funding (again), or when something goes wrong - or when there's an expose about the billions being spent on it, for not-much in the way of returns.
Is that what we thought we'd get?
but too vague and high minded (Score:3, Insightful)
you have to put the question in concrete direct and compelling terms, like: holy fucking shit, that planet we just found near regulus is showing clear signs of photosynthesis
then we have a deep and strong desire to get our asses to regulus. not some sort of vague idea to go "out there"
we need concrete goals, not nebulous ones (pun intended)
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:2, Insightful)
You've almost got it. There was also the Soviet war in Afghanistan, though some historians call this the Second Cold War [wikipedia.org]. (I disagree.) . In a way, our current involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to some extent with Iran and Syria is basically a "cleanup" of loose strings leftover from the Cold War. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about any other events surrounding these conflicts.
Re:If Apollo program had continued (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not ironic at all. NASA made an economic misstep by developing the Shuttle. The economics of launch vehicles favor the inline stack with smaller boosters for man-rated vehicles and larger boosters for cargo. Ne'er the two shall meet.
In absence of a clear need for a space station as a rendezvous point, taking a step backwards to more sophisticated capsules is how you get back on track for economic success.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:5, Insightful)
No, dumbshit, not just like "Soviet Russia". (It's just Russia now, FYI)
There's a whole spectrum between unbridled capitalism and total socialism. When a 12 trillion dollar economy cannot provide basic health care to all (no, ER visits don't count) there's a goddamned problem.
As we've recently seen, unchecked capitalism is not a good thing since the markets aren't rational after all. And as we've seen with USSR in the past, that doesn't work either. I see no problem emulating nations like Canada, New Zealand, or Sweden. Hell, I've got friends in South America with better basic health care for the poor than we have here in the states.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continues...
Re:we need a definitive goal (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what the space program lacks now is that grand, unifying sense of adventure. Getting there and seeing what's out there are the kind of thing EVERYBODY can get behind -- there's no specific religious, political or racial bias to outer space exploration.
One thing we've stopped figuring out and stopped doing due our own personal greed are the grand, public gestures of government that provide some kind of bigger purpose. People stopped what they were doing to watch the NASA launches and the Apollo missions; literally -- cars pulled over to listen to the radio, people gathered round and took in its majesty. Kids wanted to be astronauts. It looked like we were *going somewhere* as a civilization.
Now we've sharpened our pencil and realized the "better" science is robots, shuttle missions and other non-inspiring projects designed by bean counters, not visionaries. And what do we have? An underfunded, bureaucratic NASA seen as a cash soak and a civilization bent on narcissism, egocentric enrichment and sectarian bias.
I say, send guys to the moon and beyond. Yes, it's expensive (think of the good engineering jobs!), yes the science isn't as "good" as your robots and deep space cameras, but my god, we could USE the civilization-enhancing awe and purpose. North Korea and Iran lambasting our cultural decline? OK fine, but we're reaching for the stars, not getting lost fighting the unwinnable.
Re:Bad news (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't noticed, there are still thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides, and perhaps dozens in the hands of smaller states. Personally, I'd worry a lot less about nuclear war if we did have cities on the moon. At least then nuclear war wouldn't wipe out all of us.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:5, Insightful)
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Mantoya
Sorry, but remarks like this also reminds me Major Frank Burns - "When are you two going to learn about Chinese treachery? Did Pearl Harbor teach you nothing?"
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent bust might not have anything to do with his assessment.
The Soviet Union was done in by rampant corruption. Some see the previous
administration as a repeat of what was going on in the Soviet Union prior
to it's collapse. At a certain point, you need to reign in your own greed.
This isn't just altruism, it's also enlightened self interest.
If you steal too much ultimately the system won't be able to sustain itself
anymore and it will collapse. "Greed with no rules" ultimately destroys itself.
It's any version of Communism (Score:2, Insightful)
I know people say that the Soviet Union wasn't real communism. You can't get to the ideal version of communism without killing and hurting a whole bunch of people who don't want to be a part of it.
Just because they got stuck on the intermediary step doesn't mean they aren't sufficient to show the failure of communism. You have to get stuck on the government-coercion intermediary step because you have to force people into the communistic system.
It was (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember when it happened and it was one of those big collective "oh shit!!" moments. Everyone grokked what this meant, the rooskies now had the high ground and could do stuff we weren't even close to doing yet. Ya, there was also a lot of grudging admiration..but it was tempered with some sober reality. The US people were used to being topdogs in about any tech out there, I mean this was just a default assumption "we're the bestus in anything!!", it was taken for granted, so this really got to people. Of course we caught up quickly, but it really was a good kick to the pants.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:1, Insightful)
there isn't a government alive that doesnt have some sort of socialism.
got a better argument lined up?
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:3, Insightful)
You're forgetting that saying something like that makes the speaker feel good about themselves, therefore evidence and logic are irrelevant. Making the US to be the bad guy/in decline is still very trendy with the kids despite Obama's election. Might take them a while to unlearn that reflexive cynicism and paranoia. /voted for Obama
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry but if you think what we have now is capitalism, you are clearly mistaken.
consider the difference (Score:3, Insightful)
between the following situations:
1. there are lions out there who want to eat you
fills you with a vague unsettling feeling. you know this to be 100% true, but what to do about it? nothing more is done
2. look, on the other end of the valley, that's a lion staring at us
your mind instantly begins to scheme, your hands are instantly filled with intent: build a trap, build a defense, run away, go and kill it, etc
its psychological. you have to see the threat/ treasure in front of you before you actually do anything about it. i'm not saying it is good, i'm not saying it is bad, i'm just saying it is 100% true of human nature, this psychology
of course, something like a planet-killing asteroid, looming at us with 3 days warning before armageddeon is not a scenario such a psychology is properly equipped to deal with. so it is my hope that mankind bridges, on serendipity, the time between now, and some hypothetical future state where dispatching planet-killing asteroids is an afterthought, or their long term detection is accurate and foolproof
until such a hypothetical time, we are riding on luck, because indeed, the threat is real, but too vague to actually compel mankind to do anything about it. no one is going to spend trillions on asteroid defense. just not going to happen right now
now another way we might be compelled to spend trillions: a hit by a major asteroid, but not a planet killer, that does debilitating damage to the biosphere, but nothing mortal to civilization. then you have nothing to worry about: we WILL prepare, we WILL spend quadrillions, we WILL focus a hell of a lot more on outer space at such a time
in fact, its almost in the best interest of mankind for the earth to be hit by a major, non-planet killing asteroid right now. that would burn into us the need to spend a lot on outer space, fix our attention and focus, and definitely kick space exploration into high gear. in fact, amongst the reasons to kick space exploration into high gear (aliens discovered, resources needed, etc.), it is the only nonhypothetical reason to get our asses focused and motivated: a valid real threat to mankind and the planet
in fact, in the name of furthering mankind's technological progress, maybe some evil mastermind billionaire today should redirect some perfectly sized asteroid our way. he will of course be consciously responsible for the death of thousands or even millions of people, as well as untold trillions in damage, but his motivation can also be excused: "hey, get off your ass now, before its too late"
mr. bill gates, are you listening? its time to blue screen a comet, or windows tunguska edition
Re:Rosy bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Iterations (Score:5, Insightful)
While we are daydreaming about what might have been, I'd like to imagine an alternate history where NASA didn't stop iterating.
NASA got the Saturn V through an iterative development cycle. Get Werner von Braun, have him build rockets very similar to ones he had built before; fly them, collect data, improve the design. Fly the new ones, collect data, improve the design. Over and over.
And then, for the Space Shuttle, NASA essentially said "We don't need to do that test and improve cycle anymore; we are just going to design the Space Shuttle on paper, build it, and be done." NASA's unsung heroes of rocket surgery managed to make it work, but that's a triumph of hard work and overtime against management stupidity.
It would have been cheaper to keep the test/improve cycle going than to spend ten years building the shuttle and flying nothing. According to Wikipedia, the Shuttle program will have cost $174 billion by its conclusion in 2010; the Saturn V program cost $32 to $45 billion in today's dollars ($6.5 billion in 1960's dollars; the inflation is depressing, isn't it?). But at the time the Shuttle project was started, the Saturn V had already been paid for; just keeping it flying would have cost even less than those numbers suggest. And besides, you wouldn't need a Saturn V for every flight; just for ones where you need that kind of crazy lift capacity.
It would actually have been far cheaper to keep flying expendables, but keep developing them, and hopefully iterate into something reusable. Take the rockets from the 1960's, and spend 20 years flying and improving them, and what would you have in the 1980's? A lot more stuff flying, more safely, and a lot cheaper.
The Shuttle was a mistake, of management more than anything else.
steveha
Re:Bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to imagine Cold War tensions getting much higher than they actually did. If we'd continued the "space race" (treated the race as a marathon rather than a sprint, so to speak) we'd simply have substituted one form of competition with the Soviets for another -- and you know, seeing who could build the most space stations and Lunar colonies would have been a much better form of competition than seeing who could blow each other up the most times over.
We could have built half the military-industrial complex we did, still had more than enough for MAD, and put the money into NASA. The USSR would almost surely still have collapsed, and today we'd have an American solar system instead of a bunch of missiles and silos that we're not sure what to do with.
Re:What does the moon have, that Earth does not? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you wiped out all life on the earth with an asteroid, no matter what, it would be more habitable than the moon.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Some see the previous
administration as a repeat of what was going on in the Soviet Union prior
to it's collapse.
I see the previous administration more akin to the gradual stagnation the Soviet Union experience in the late 60s-early 70s.
I see the *current* administration as to a source of rampant corruption, and very similar to what the Soviet Union was "done in by".
Gigantic budget deficits as far as the eye can see, centralization of economic, industrial, social, and financial policy, huge expenditures upon shady projects with little oversight, and bipartisan efforts to snatch as many crumbs as possible from the budget with little or no thought as to what that will to do the nation.
We are currently watching the socialization of all of our societies "little ills", including the failure of our major industrial sectors (Auto Industry and Large cutbacks in our military industrial complex), socialization of trillions of dollars of losses in the financial sector, and socialization of our escalating health care costs.
There are only so many economic guarantees that can be placed upon the Federal Government before it begins to loose credibility, and before the dollar collapses. While we aren't at that point yet (we are years away, even with trillion+ dollar deficits), there is nothing to suggest that our deficits won't continue to grow through at least 2020, and probably through 2050 (if we last that long). Worse, its not like this money is being spent on pressing concerns; an immediate war, an epidemic crises, or a massive natural disaster. This money isn't even being "invested" in future growth (ie industrial or financial policy). This is money being blown on "societal welfare", or "public goodies", also know as ways to game for votes.
$1 spent on road construction does not get you an additional $1 in economic growth; the same is true for medicare, social security, carbon credits, or bank bailouts.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
What is the base purpose? For a few to accumulate much, live high, while others endure hardship, or for most to live OK ( with enough security so they don't just die from lack of basic necessities ( food, basic healthcare ) ) but with enough insecurity to incentive hard work and production, and still a few ( and probably more, since the "feeding ground" would be larger ) wealthy living high?
If the economy only has the purpose of remaking the aristocracy and serf conditions of long ago, then I am at a lose as to why the many should participate. CEO's get away with "what is in it for me". What is in it for those "less than" the CEO's?
So, why? Because people are more important than money.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides which, the US abandoned it's capitalistic manufacturing base about 35 years ago
We may not make as much consumer crap as we used to, but our industrial output (until the recent recession) has been climbing, not falling. It's just that our productivity has been climbing even faster, leading to a net loss in jobs.
Don't worry about the Chinese. They've been artificially pumping up the US dollar for years. Inevitably, the dollar will eventually be worth less against their currency and they'll be sitting on a whole pile of our debt that isn't worth nearly what they paid for it.
In other words, a dollar isn't worth anything if you don't eventually trade it back for something American. Right now, we give them paper and they give us stuff... what a deal, right? Eventually they'll want stuff in exchange for this paper... expect to see some manufacturing jobs return this way.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Procreation. Not sure what that has to do with anything ...
Once again, this has nothing to do with socialized healthcare. If you're going to respond to someone's comment it's generally considered good form to actually respond to it, instead of going off on a tangent.
Money isn't important at all - money is just a physical object which we use to represent human effort/action. And no, people are not more important than their actions. Human life has no intrinsic value except to the individual to whom it belongs - to society as a whole you provide value only when you actually do something.
Re:We would have gone bankrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say the increases in spending have continued, pretty much unabated. It's just that the government has found other, arguably less productive, stuff to spend that money on.
Re:we need a definitive goal (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's more than a lack of adventure. There's this undercurrent in society, particularly American society, of extreme cynicism. There's this excessive, irrational desire to be iconoclastic. Not everyone, but the attitudes are prevalent enough that I think it hurts the nation as a whole. And of course, it's a vicious cycle. Why should anyone care when nobody else seems to?
I think chances are good we're going to see progress in space exploration come from nations like China where there still is strong nationalistic pride. However, I think they're far enough behind that it wont be for a while. And certainly, in the meantime attitudes here could change, although I'm not optimistic.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:1, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that the causes of the current economic and financial problem are not being addressed. What the governments of the world are doing is artificially creating a boom by spending borrowed money on stuff.
I'm not saying that this spending is wrong, but if things don't change otherwise, then the next time the system crashes there won't be any funds to rescue it. And this WILL happen - it is an inevitable aspect of capitalism.
The Reagan model of economics that has informed the policy of almost every western government for the last 30 years is utterly discredited - light touch regulation and the whole Laissez-faire thing just don't work, and will grind us and the planet into the ground. The problem is that the few that benefit from things as they are, happen to be in control.
Pure Hell (Score:1, Insightful)
"Even if, like 90 per cent of the population, you were born on Earth, you can't easily go back. "
I can't imagine what hell it would be to live on a gray, airless rock, stuck inside a hollowed out lava tube while a lush blue and green planet is just 250,000 miles away.
The moon would be a nice place to visit, but I sure as he#% wouldn't want to live there permanently.
Re:If Apollo program had continued (Score:3, Insightful)
I addressed this above. The Shuttle Transport System has better power output, but it has to waste it on carrying a giant airplane into space. The Saturn V was less powerful, but far more flexible. Put whatever you want on top and it gets to space. That often meant the Apollo capsule/command module/lander/moon equipment combo with sufficient velocity to make lunar orbit, but also occasionally meant a huge hulk of steel and solar panels like SkyLab.
I'm not talking about detuning. I'm talking about reducing engine output once maximum dynamic pressure is reached. If the SRBs maintained maximum thrust, they'd push the shuttle beyond its structural limits.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
What you're referring to is the resonance problems inherent in the engine vibration of the F-1 engines. i.e. The "pogo" effect. As I recall, this issue is currently the biggest challenge facing the Ares I stack. The Space Shuttle was vulnerable to some pogo effect, but adding dampeners to the LOx fuel lines was sufficient to prevent the effect.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:1, Insightful)
Because people are more important than money.
Actually, no they aren't. Some people have no value, some people have negative value.
People who are in prison their entire lives and have long criminal record are good examples of people with negative value: they're costing society a lot of money, and proving nothing in return except destruction (of their victims' lives and happiness). If you gave me a choice between $100k, or preserving the life of a serial killer, which would I choose? The former, of course. Why would I want to preserve the life of someone who doesn't value life himself, and doesn't contribute to society?
What is in it for those "less than" the CEO's?
Simple: money to live on. If they don't want to work, then they don't get any money, and they starve to death. What are they going to do, take all the CEOs into slavery and make them work the fields? There's not enough CEOs to produce that much food.
And what's with all the complaining about CEOs? The big problem in recent days with CEOs is excessive compensation for CEOs whose companies have received government bailout funds, but that's something that's completely the fault of the Democrats. For all other CEOs, yes, a lot of them are overpaid, but these are privately-owned companies (though they have publicly available stock). If you're not a stockholder, your opinion on their pay is irrelevant. And if you are a stockholder, look in the mirror for someone to blame. Their pay isn't coming out of your pocket, unless you're dumb enough to be a customer of theirs. Overpaid CEOs usually mean companies that don't perform as well as the competition. When I found out about Ralph Nardelli getting a $200 million golden parachute for driving Home Depot into the ground, I stopped shopping at HD altogether (though I hadn't been shopping there much anyway, because they suck compared to the competition). If everyone did this, companies wouldn't waste so much on CEO paychecks.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:4, Insightful)
So, why? Because people are more important than money.
That's a nice platitude, but what about people that fuck up their own bodies? Smokers, the obese, heroin addicts... socialized healthcare for the lot of them! And of course once you accept that, then people will start to look at the books and say, "Wow, smokers are expensive!" and then the government will tell you that you can't smoke. Oh, and you can't be fat because fat people are the next line item. Oh, and now you can't ride a motorcycle because motorcycle injuries are our largest ER expense...
Socialized healthcare isn't going to be a panacea, and it's not possible to provide it in unlimited amounts to everyone. Right now cost is the main mediator - with a government pay system it will be government bean counters making rules. Maybe you see one or the other as morally superior, but I can't agree with you. Denying a kidney to a person because they are too old is not morally superior to denying a kidney to someone because they are too poor - either way someone isn't getting a kidney.
All that said, we actually have socialized health care right now, but it's expensive and based around the ER. I'm all for changing the way we pay for basic services to reduce costs... I just don't have any grand expectations.
Re:Bad news (Score:3, Insightful)
If all you do is rely on "god" and your animal instinct, then hell, this is exactly what is driving suicide bombers to blow themselves up.
What amazes me is how quickly people tell my "my" religion is suggesting I kill people for God. MY spiritual beliefs ask me not to kill 'less I'm directly physically threatened, and even then, I've gotta be pretty darn careful I don't miss and hit a neighbor with a round. Animal instincts are nice for gut-level reactions to situations, but you've takin' it pretty far to believe that's all a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/etc would rely on. Heck, were they running on instinct, they'd be AVOIDING death, wouldn't they?
I hear that argument often, and Dawkins harped on it a lot in The God Delusion... which makes about as much sense as painting all atheists as acting like O'Hair was reputed to {by her son}. I won't argue with an agnostic/atheist finding inspiration in Darwin or elsewhere if they stop griping where I find it from.
One thing I can assure you: "My" God doesn't ask me to kill people, and if he ever did, I'd be checking myself into the nearest funny farm.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:3, Insightful)
"Actually, no they aren't. Some people have no value, some people have negative value."
People, in general are. Your couple of examples really dont change the fundamentals.
"Simple: money to live on. If they don't want to work, then they don't get any money, and they starve to death. What are they going to do, take all the CEOs into slavery and make them work the fields? There's not enough CEOs to produce that much food."
I never said people should not work. In fact, I did say that "there should be enough insecurity to prompt productivity" ( or words to that effect ). But why cant that work ( and hard work ) produce an ability to have a couple small conveniences and food and healthcare? Perhaps you will come back with "what about (some small number ) of people who choose cigarettes and hookers and a million other bad choice items" rather than these other things. Your argument I would hold true, for them, but not everyone, nor even most do that.
"And what's with all the complaining about CEOs?"
There is lots there to complain about.
"something that's completely the fault of the Democrats"
Which is? The complaining, or the events leading to the complaining. I have a hard time believeing Every Democrat is 100% to blame, and all Republican is 100% pure as the driven snow in this. I am going to suggest you examine your bias.
"If you're not a stockholder, your opinion on their pay is irrelevant."
They affect society, I am part of society, so I have to say I dont agree with the above.
"And if you are a stockholder, look in the mirror for someone to blame"
I'm not, and you have a point, but it only goes so far. My only option as a stockholder is to withhold my funding. ( Something I would do were I in a position to invest. ) Stockholder control of the company is too diffuse to allow stockholders, in general, to do anything. Unfortunately, as we see, ethical or moral based investing does not keep unethical companies from getting investors.
"Overpaid CEOs usually mean companies that don't perform as well as the competition."
I agree, over the long term. Wall street is focused on the short term.
"If everyone did this, companies wouldn't waste so much on CEO paychecks."
Absolutely, but this has as much chance as working in the real world as Marx's Utopia.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Very interesting post. I have also heard horror stories from relatives abroad, though none of them have worried about running out of money due to medical bills.
Recently I went to the Dr. because I had a cold that I was afraid was infectious. My doc touched my belly and sent me down to the ER to check for appendicitis.
A few weeks later I got a bill for over $1000. I have decent (by American standards) insurance. I really can't afford to go back to the hospital, though I was reffered to a specialist.. I hope whatever they found on that expensive CT scan wasn't too important...
By the way, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US (when we aren't in a depression) is medical bills. If that isn't a sign of a totally broken system I don't know what is.
Overall I have to say that I like my insurance, but if my company didn't offer a group plan I would be stuck in the individual market that specifically excludes the prior conditions that I actually need medical care for.
I'm willing to roll the dice with a goverment plan because one day I would like to start a business, but I simply can't live without company group rate insurance.
Also, for all the great care I get, have spent tens of thousands of dollars if you count my premiums and what my company pays which basically comes out of my pay. I have a feeling that the kind of money I already drop on health care would go a long way in a public / private insurance model.
this is historical myopia (Score:3, Insightful)
what you describe depends upon the existence of some mythical past where these elements of human nature were not present. on the contrary, the behavior you describe is part of every historical epoch, in every society. rather, what you describe is new to your personal experience, not new to humanity. you're projecting
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, he was able to pay for costly medical procedures himself. Many -- perhaps most -- people are not.
Back in 2004 I was in a low-paying job where I had no health insurance. I broke my wrist, which required about twelve grand in surgery to repair properly. Where was someone making barely above minimum wage going to come up with that kind of money? Maybe work out a payment plan, but who is going to want to deal with someone with as horrible credit as I had back then, and who was barely making enough to pay the bills as it was? Or perhaps I should have just splinted it myself and hoped it healed without leaving that hand crippled for life?
I was fortunate enough to have parents with money, and they were able to take care of this for me. Not all are so lucky.
Every time I hear someone whinge about waiting lists, I have to sigh. Waiting a few months for treatment might not be great but it beats the stuffing out of not getting treatment at all, which is what many people are facing today, right here in the US.
And, finally, I don't really see what's so great about our current system. Insurance companies exist to make profit, not to provide healthcare. A system where there is a profit motive in denying claims seems pretty dumb to me.
Re:If the Apollo Program would have continued . . (Score:0, Insightful)
Obama might seem like a "socialist" by comparison with the neocons there before, but in no other country in the world would the US Democratic Party be described as "socialist".
Let's see.... Nationalized banks, brokerages, automobile manufacturers... moving to nationalize healthcare; subsidized with confiscatory taxes targeting less than 1% of the population...
Nope, doesn't sound socialist at all. Sounds Fascist.