Was the Apollo Program a Bad Idea? | A SciShow Documentary

Was the Apollo Program a Bad Idea? | A SciShow Documentary


Hank: Thanks to Hack The Moon for
sponsoring this very special episode of SciShow. Go to wehackthemoon.com to learn
even more about the Apollo 11 mission. Almost 50 years ago on July 20th, 1969,
space exploration changed forever. That day the United States landed the
first astronauts on the moon as part of the Apollo 11 Mission. And with that famous one small step, they
changed the way we think about our planet and ourselves. Apollo 11 wasn’t the first time humans had
been to space or anything, that happened in 1961 with a Soviet flight
followed shortly by an American one. But space, we didn’t even really know
what that was until fairly recently. The moon, on the other hand, we’ve
been staring at since we existed. Watching it wander through the sky,
chasing or being chased by the Sun, moving through its phases. It is another world — one that has
profound effects on our world and also on our species. There’s never been a time in human history
when we did not gaze at the moon and wonder. And sending people to walk on the surface
of another world –the enormity of that giant leap– It’s something that changed
us, something that has inspired us as individuals and as a species ever since. So we wanted to do something
special to celebrate. We wanted to ask a pretty bold question
because while the whole SciShow team loves Apollo, we couldn’t help but wonder–and
we hope you won’t get too mad at us if we ask, was the Apollo program a bad idea? Many people remember it as this beautiful
thing that united the world, but if you really think about it,
it kind of seems like.. I don’t know ridiculous? Only five years passed between when the
Soviet Union flung the first satellite into orbit and when President John F. Kennedy said these words, President Kennedy: “We
choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the moon in this
decade and do the other things. Not because they are easy
but because they are hard.” Hank: A year after that Kennedy was dead
and only six years later Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were
standing on another world. In hindsight this looks like a work of
genius, but lives were lost and other disasters were only narrowly averted. And if that happened, how far back
with those tragedies have pushed space exploration. Ultimately was the risk worth the reward
and how many close calls were there, really? These are big questions and ones that you
can spend a lot of time thinking about but at the end of the day, we’re SciShow. Sitting around in wondering
isn’t really our thing. So we decided to get to the bottom of it. [ ♪INTRO ] Hank: We realized we weren’t gonna get
to the bottom of this by looking at peer-reviewed journals. It’s pretty subjective stuff. So we decided to talk to experts. And to talk to experts, we have Alexis who
has gone all over America to talk to those people. I went to London to talk to one person. Alexis. What do you have for us? Alexis: Yeah, honestly, I think a really
good place to start with this is just to know about the politics. If you want to understand why the Apollo
program happened, it’s important to understand that the political
climate of the 1950s and 60s. During this time the United States and
the Soviet Union were in the middle of the Cold War which was essentially the
showdown between two ideologies. You had the Soviet Union and communism on
one hand and the US and capitalism on the other hand. And during this conflict, space became a
battleground for these two superpowers to prove which ideology was best. Initially, the Soviet Union
was actually winning this race. They launched the first satellite. They sent the first human into space. And in the US, people were concerned that
these achievements would cause the public to believe that communism was the better
option which the US was just not okay with. So that’s when the moon became the goal. Ultimately the United States wanted to be
the first to send someone to the Moon to prove how great capitalism was. And the Soviet Union wanted to do it to
prove the same thing about communism. So even if most people today remember
Apollo as a primarily scientific program, it wasn’t. In the beginning, it was mainly
about proving a political point. Margaret Weitekamp: The Apollo program
came with a lot of risk, political risk. This was a big gamble on a large
technology program that was funded and started because they wanted to
be able to show it to the world. Brady Haran: The other thing a lot of
people would say is we only did it because of politics and the Cold War and a stick
it up the Russians and cuz there was this competition going on. And you know what? That’s true. Hank: Yeah. Brady Haran: That’s completely true. But like I see absolutely
nothing wrong with that. Like, that is just the
circumstances that it took. The technology had to be in the right
place and the political climate, the economic climate all had to align in this
very unique way and that’s what happened and I don’t see anything wrong with that. Yes, Apollo was only made possible because
of this unique set of circumstances in this competitive political climate that
was created, but you know, I don’t think that’s a negative. I just think we should kind of be a little
bit grateful that it happened because if that if that circumstance hadn’t happened,
we probably –you’re right — we probably wouldn’t have gone to the Moon. There probably wouldn’t have been the
will to spend that much money and do that. Noah Petro: Apollo scientifically started
where science had to fit into the corners as much as they could. The initial plan for Apollo 11 included
one astronaut getting out, collecting samples, and getting
back in and coming back. And several scientists including Jack
Schmitt who at the time was an astronaut and training the other astronauts on what
they would do when they got to the moon was able to convince NASA management that,
No, no, no, we really need to make the most of this one mission. If Apollo 11 is the only time we go to the
Moon, we need to deploy experiments on the Moon. Alexis: It’s really interesting to think
about because like people pointed out, it’s this thing that took all of
this time and all of these resources. And it brings up the question of like if
there had been no conflict to motivate that when we have bothered? Margaret Weitekamp: If you look at the
public opinion polls from the time, especially when you asked a question
phrased as, “Do you think it’s worth the money that’s being spent?” Almost never did you get a majority saying
that they were fully in support of the Apollo program. When the missions were actually
successful, people recognized in the moment that they were seeing history in
the making and they wanted to celebrate that and be some part of that so that I
think there’s a fundamental disconnect between what you see in public opinion
polling in terms of our willingness to revert national resources to this program
from a general American interest in the idea that we as Americans are explorers
and that space is a part of what we do now. Alexis: So growing up something I heard a
lot about Apollo is because it was crammed into this really short time period, you
had the situation where engineers were working like eight days a week and
25 hours a day to get this done. What was it actually like
working on the program? Bob Sieck: Well, it was, it was high
activity, high intensity work and the work weeks, work days were long. And in retrospect I would for those of us
that did the operations down here where the spacecraft were assembled, the rockets
were assembled, and we processed and launched, and it was about as… A marathon at lasted about seven years. That was pretty much it. Hank: So far, it’s feeling like the
experts aren’t really alleviating my concerns here. We have this sort of politically motivated
program that you kind of have to eeck some science out of. It’s tremendously costly and it’s a huge
amount of effort necessary to make it happen. We had people in space but the period of
time it took for us to go from one person in space to this giant leap into
deep space– it was so fast. Alexis: You hear people say of just like
we worked on Apollo around the clock for seven years or how many
years or whatever… You think that was like the best idea, of
just like trying to cram that in in such a short time frame like– Destin Sandlin: Deadlines are good. Alexis: Okay. Yeah Destin Sandlin: Yeah, deadlines are good. Like, this video you’re making, right? Alexis: Yeah. Destin Sandlin: You got
a deadline, don’t you? Alexis: Right. Destin Sandlin: Okay, and so it’s good to
have like we call it popping a chalk line. It’s good to have a moment in
time, like that’s the line. We got to do this by then. Alexis: Yeah. Destin Sandlin: I think it’s a good
thing to have things like that. Yeah, ultimately. You need if you’re going to have a massive
engineering program, you have to have a schedule because schedule helps
you mitigate different things. Like for example, as an engineer. I can keep working on something
forever until it’s absolutely perfect. But at some point in time, you have to
get it good enough and unless you have a schedule to motivate you to
shed all of your uncertainties. You’re never going to
think it’s good enough. Hank: We also don’t know very much
about space at this point in the ’60s. How often are there solar flares that
could be completely devastating to a crewed mission? We don’t know any of this stuff. It’s all guesses. There was so much we didn’t know. Alexis: And even as I was talking to
people on my trip, they kept bringing up things that I had no idea about. Hank: Of course Alexis: Right, so I talked to you to
environmental engineers at Kennedy Space Center and they brought up the fact that
during the Apollo program because of all of these things we didn’t know, the
environment around Kennedy got kind of wrecked. Jacqueline Quinn: You did a little history
the US Environmental Protection Agency was established December 2nd of 1970. So there was a year and a half between
when we’re putting men on the moon and leaving footprints behind and when the
regulatory agency started up within the United States, so there’s a lot of — from
an environmental perspective, there’s a timeline that needs to be understood so
that you can understand that, you know, all industries followed regulations, but
regulations didn’t happen at that point, you know, in 1940, 1950 or 1960. They didn’t even begin or come into
fruition until 1970 until we’d already put men on the moon. So a lot of our regulations that we do now
as protectors and stewards of what you see behind us is different than
what we did back in that era. Rosaly Santos: Any industry that use,
store, or dispose chemicals in the 50s, 60s, and 70s had some environmental
impact that was unforeseen. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
was enacted in the 1970s which provided some guidance of how to manage the waste
from whenever you start using it until you dispose of it. And then the Hazardous Waste
amendments was enacted in the 1980s. That provided initiated corrective action
for any impact that may have happened in the past. So from then on all the industries were
in tune with environmental regulations and they complied with all those new
requirements that needed to get done. Hank: Basically what I’m getting from this
is that you can’t be expected to follow a regulation that doesn’t exist. Alexis: Right exactly. That was kind of the point
they were trying to make. Like technically we could have sat around
for like 10 or 20 years to figure all of this stuff out, but it’s like we didn’t
know what we didn’t know and we weren’t from a political standpoint — the Soviet
Union probably would have landed on the Moon. Hank: Yeah, but that doesn’t
explain everything here. Like this was a very rushed engineering
project, people died, Apollo 1 happened. Apollo 1 was going to be the first
crewed mission of the Apollo program. Crewed by Gus Grissom, Ed
White, and Roger Chaffee. On January 27, 1967, during a crewed
launch rehearsal, the cabin was pressurized with pure oxygen,
higher than atmospheric pressure. After an electrical short nylon in the
capsule caught fire and the environment. Because the internal pressure of the
capsule was higher than the external pressure of the atmosphere, it was
impossible to quickly remove the door and all three astronauts were killed. After the accident, all flights
were stopped for 20 months. Alexis: But it’s actually possible that
Apollo one is the reason the rest of the program didn’t go
terribly, terribly wrong. Bob Sieck: And there were a number of
those close calls and then and then right before our first manned mission
on Apollo, the tragedy occured. And everything comes to a stop and you
go look at everything you’re doing. The first to figure out what happened and
and fix that before you get on with the goal. And from a big picture standpoint, and
this is not rationalizing to me, the whole purpose of Apollo 1 was to be the first
step in getting humans to the Moon. Because of what happened with Apollo 1,
we looked at all of our preparation up to that point in time and what everyone said
is well, these are the things we got to fix. This is what we really
learned from Apollo 1. Margaret Weitekamp: Without the changes
that came after Apollo 1, we would not have gotten to the Moon. We were on a path that ultimately would
not have worked and that dramatic change cost three lives and people were forever
after very aware of the high personal cost because those were people they knew. Those were people they were friends
with, they knew their families. They knew their children. So the change that in trajectory there in
some ways they did Apollo better starting from 1967. Noah Petro: At the time, it was really
important to understand what had happened in the Apollo 1 fire make sure that
something like that never happen again, but also that we, you know created
a culture of safety acceptance. But at the same time with
some risk tolerance too. You know, if we were terrified of any
problem happening, we would never have gone back into space, but we do because
that’s our job and there’s things to be learned there. So you take a risk, you weigh what might
happen and the mitigations to those things and move forward. Alexis: When I went into all of these
interviews, I was like, oh yeah, there is no way we could have done this safely in
the length of time that we took to do it. But people kept telling me is like, yes,
the Apollo program was risky, but like so is space. The Apollo engineer’s built all of these
safeguards to try and mitigate as much risk as possible. Bob Sieck: Even though yes, it was fun,
but it was serious business and people would often stay over overlapping the next
shift coming on board because they wanted to see how well the stuff that they
thought they fixed on their shift if it really worked right. And but there was that kind of dedication
and passion for the for the effort and we never lost sight of the fact and, this
was drilled into us as soon as we came on board, that the crew returning safely from
whichever mission your assigned to is the most important thing about your work. Noah Petro: I think the reason that Apollo
is so successful is that in their training regimen they went through in excruciating
detail all of these potential problems that could crop up and
how they would solve them. And we learned that Apollo 13; that when
one of the most catastrophic things that could happen in space: you lose oxygen
tanks and you lose your power source, oh, well, we know how to fix that. Hank: Apollo 13 nearly ended in disaster
56 hours after takeoff when an electrical short in the cryogenic oxygen tanks
resulted in the following call from Apollo 13 to Mission Control. Jim Lovell: “Uh, Houston,
we’ve had a problem. We’ve had a main B bus undervolt.” Mission Control: “Roger, main B undervolt. Okay stand by 13, we’re looking at it.” Fred Haise: “Okay. Right now, Houston, the voltage is — is looking good. And we had a pretty large bang associated
with the caution and warning there.” Hank: The pretty large bang in question
eventually resulted in a loss of all the oxygen in the Command Module. That meant no oxygen to breathe, no water
to drink, and no power for the fuel cells. After some significant engineering
challenges were overcome, the astronauts rode out the majority of the
mission in the lunar lander. And though they were not able to land on
the moon, everyone did at least return home safely. Noah Petro: Apollo 11, they left the lunar
module operating after they left the Moon. It was in lunar orbit. They left it operating to basically
see how long past its design life. It could go and that informed
what they did on Apollo 13. So, you know, there was this entire
culture of maximizing what you had to learn what you could do in the event of
both success and in the case of something going wrong. If you listen to the the tapes of launch
of Apollo 11 or any of the missions they’re always reporting out, “okay, you
know, we’re in mode 1 Bravo were in what abort sequence..” You know, it wasn’t up the moment the
rocket launch, we’re on our way to the Moon. The moment the rocket launched is okay if
something happens wrong now, How do we get out of it? And that happens throughout the whole
breadth of Apollo even by Apollo 17, the time they’re getting ready to lift off,
they had checklists and sequences they could do if the rocket
didn’t ignite the first time. The idea that something wouldn’t work
as planned was so deeply embedded in everything that was done in Apollo, that I
don’t know that there was time to stop and think, “well actually,
what would happen if..” “Well, if the rocket doesn’t launch, we’ll do
this and then we’ll do this and we’ll do… “They all had, there was solutions
to every potential problem. Hank: So the thing that maybe we’ve all
heard that the Apollo Astronauts were just a bunch of cowboys in space
might not be quite accurate. Alexis: Yeah. I feel like that problem comes up when
you really only focus on the astronauts. There was a group of guys who were really
risk tolerant and really well acquainted with risk. But when you look at the engineers and the
people who built this program, that wasn’t really the case. The thing is, though, the people I talked
to weren’t arguing that there was no risk. Hank: Right Alexis: They pointed out that
space is just really risky. So when I ask them like if we could
have done Apollo better or safer. They had some really interesting answers. Noah Petro: There were risks involved and
you know, all of the astronauts all the people part of it realize that exploration
has inherent risks and you’re going whether you’re trying to climb the highest
mountain or swim across an ocean or do whatever. You’re taking risks and you always want to
minimize the hazards that are involved but there is hazards involved. I think exploration has
inherent risks in it. Margaret Weitekamp: Anytime you’re doing
human spaceflight, there’s a lot of risk because you’re putting a life at stake. And the human in the technological
equation is the only part that you really can’t re-engineer or perfect. So. Humans like a very narrow temperature
spectrum, we get too cold very easily, we get too hot very easily. We human beings don’t like to be shaken
very hard or it gets very hard for them to function. They need to eat. As they breathe, they foul their own are
so you need to keep replenishing that. So the human factor is a tremendous risk,
if you will, in putting this together, this is also happening in a moment when
there weren’t really computer smaller than a room. There weren’t really ways of taking
photographs without physical film which meant you had to carry it
there and carry it back. The kind of uncrewed robotic exploration
that starts in the 1970s, going to other planets, putting landers on other
planets, wasn’t possible in the mid-1960s. Destin Sandlin: These
astronauts, they know the risk. Alexis: Yeah. Destin Sandlin: I mean they know there’s
a chance of death and they sign up for it. Some people have always been willing to
accept a higher level of risk to make a better life for others that
aren’t willing to do that. Hank: Throughout the
course of this episode. We’ve said a lot about risk, but it’s
worth remembering that there’s still so many stories. We could not dive into like the story
of the Apollo guidance computer. For context computers before Apollo were
mostly made with tiny switches called transistors connected by a bunch of wires,
but that could get bulky and computers often filled large rooms. So that had to change if we
were going to fly to the moon. Listen to what these engineers had to say. John Miller, Draper Engineer: The
guidance computer was really an advance. And the only way to get the weight and
the size down was to go to integrated circuits. That’s something that
hadn’t been done before. George Schmidt, Draper Flight Simulation
Team: I’ve heard that at one time we were testing one-third of all integrated
circuits that were being manufactured in the United States. Hank: Integrated circuits combined
transistors and wires on a small piece of silicon, making them more
durable and much lighter. While it took a lot of testing to
get them ready, it all worked out. These interviews came from Engineers who
worked at the MIT instrumentation lab and now called Draper during
the Apollo program. Draper played a major role in the program
and was among other things responsible for developing the navigation and guidance
system including the first digital flight computer that navigated the
astronauts to the moon and back. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of
the Apollo 11 Landing, they’ve created a website called Hack the Moon which
explores the technology behind the missions and features imagery and
interviews of many of the people who made it possible. In the rest of this video we’re going to
talk more about whether or not the risks we took with Apollo we’re worth it. But if you want to learn more about the
people behind the missions when we’re done, you can head over to hack the
moon’s website at we hackthemoon.com. Now, more about those risks. So you take all these
risks you do the thing. What do we get from it? Alexis: A lot. Which, thank goodness. That’s my non-risk tolerance speaking. Thank goodness it was worth it. Hank: Yeah. Alexis: Yeah, you get a lot from it. We’ve talked about this a lot on various
SciShow Space episodes, but we learned more about what space is like, what the
human body does in space, we learned about the moon. Noah Petro: Subsequent Apollo missions
had something called the ALSEP the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package. That wasn’t going to be ready for Apollo
11, but Jack Schmitt was able to convince NASA basically that, “No, let’s just
deploy a very simple experiment that only one astronaut needs to deploy. Take about 20 minutes, set it up and make
very basic measurements at the time that the the idea was the only measurements
that we would want to make our the fundamentals of what the lunar seismicity
like and deploy a retroreflector, a mirror on the surface that we could laze to from
the earth, that we still used to this day, 50 years later now. First samples that came
back from Apollo 11. And it’s actually important to remember
that Apollo 11 launched on July 16th. Those samples were in a lab in Houston
less than two weeks later, you know, that’s fast sample return. And so within two weeks of launch, they
had those samples and their preliminary examination went on and very soon
realize that the moon is very old. Those basalts that they landed on were,
you know, well over three and a half billion years old. Also, very dry. There’s no water in them. That was the surprise and that they were
volcanic and had a lot of titanium and an elements and minerals
that we see here on Earth. They also found minerals that had not
yet been identified on the earth as well. And so it was this this real discovery of
what the moon is made of and how old it is. That was the great unanswered question. I think much of what we do today is
informed from Apollo samples, and we’re still learning things
from the Apollo samples. They were analyzed initially 50 years ago
and are still being analyzed today and we’re still learning new things from
those samples, you know, we didn’t learn everything from them 50 years ago when
we put them in the safe and walk away. With new instruments and new techniques
we learn new things and that informs our understanding of the Moon and by
association the rest of the solar system. Margaret Weitekamp: There is a very
legitimate argument to be made that all of the money that was spent on the Apollo
program was spent on the ground. It created engineering jobs. It created whole communities
in Florida, in Alabama. And in fact the federal government as a
funder of this big science project was able then to push communities in say the
deep south to say you can’t be segregated and take Federal funding. You need to find housing for the African
American engineers that we want you to be hiring. And so you need to be thinking
differently about say race relations. And so in that way the space program is
part of that larger push in the 1960s where Federal money is being used not only
to fund a technology program, but also to push some social issues. Hank: We did this gigantic thing not to
like, you know, get stronger and kill people but to like do a big amazing thing. And it’s big, right, like we’ve been
looking at the moon since humans existed and then we walked on it. Alexis: That’s weird. Hank: Yeah. Alexis: That’s so good. A couple people also said some just
like really beautiful poetic things. Hank: Yeah. Margaret Weitekamp: So we just had Jim
Lovell here at the museum in December for the anniversary of Apollo 8, which was
that famous mission at Christmas time of 1968 where they circled the moon. They went all the way around. In fact, because they were not on a
trajectory that was intended to be a practice for a landing, they went farther
than any human beings have ever been away from the earth and Lovell talked very
persuasively about the earthrise image– that color picture that they took as they
came back around the moon and looked back and saw the Earth hanging in shadow,
but hanging in space in front of them. And said really, you know, we went to the
moon but what we discovered was the Earth, was looking back at ourselves. And it was not a picture that had never
been taken before; there had been robotic missions that had taken a
picture very much like that. So it was not completely unexpected. But the power of knowing that that image
had been taken by a person, by someone like you or me who was behind a camera
pushing the shutter and seeing that with his own eyes really was electric. That image ended up on the cover of
newspapers across the world and really it begins a kind of much more complex
cultural process of us thinking of ourselves as a planet, or starting to
imagine and understand who we are all on this little globe together. Brady Haran: What’s the
point of living longer? And what’s the point of having a slightly
more comfortable life and just having more heart beats and more days here on Earth,
if you don’t do things like go to the Moon, if you don’t create art, if you
don’t do amazing things, I don’t see why we would want to spend all this money
living longer if you don’t do great things. I don’t think the point of our existence
is just to try and prolong our existence. I think the point of our
existence is to do great things. And to do amazing things and I think
Apollo is one of the real amazing things that humans did. Hank: So count of three was it worth it? 1 2 3. Hank & Alexis: Yes. Hank: So a question I asked Brady was if
this was all worth it then can we do it again? Brady Haran: I do find it hard to imagine
us doing something as high risk as that now in this kind of era of like health
and safety, but I don’t think it’s just because we live in an
era of health and safety. I think it’s because we haven’t got that
same hyper-competitiveness that forces people to take bold risks that, you know,
some of these really amazing things that happen: getting to the South Pole, getting
to the top of Mount Everest, getting to the Moon come about because humans
are scared of being beaten to it. They want it they want to be first and
they and they’re willing to take risks for that prize. And those top prizes those those prizes
that are most sought after, are risky to get to. Because if they weren’t someone
would have already done it. So I do feel a bit like, you
know, at those frontiers, if there’s enough competition, people
are willing to be a little bit risky. I don’t know what will happen with Mars. If it’s companies that end up getting
their first, if it’s the Elon Musks and it’s not NASA that gets there first and
two or three companies are vying for it. Are they going to take a risk? I don’t know, you know, are
they going to risk their brand? America kinda risked its brand, didn’t it? If they killed a bunch
of astronauts, you know? Are companies as willing to take a risk
with their brand as a nation that maybe can absorb failure more easily? I don’t know. I don’t know. It was risky. We don’t take those risks now. Will we take those risks, will
we take those risks again? I don’t know. Alexis: When I talk to other people about
it, they actually had a slightly different answer. Noah Petro: You know,
Apollo is nothing else. I mean, it was a great accomplishment. It was an incredible achievement, but also
showed, you know, what you can do when you have a goal. Apollo: land on the moon,
back to Earth in a decade. With a goal of landing humans anywhere in
the solar system with a destination and the right data, that can be accomplished. You know, we know more about almost all
of the planets in the solar system than we knew certainly 50 years ago. But any object you want to go to today
whether it’s moon, Mars, an asteroid, we have ample data to accommodate human
exploration of any of those destinations. And so it’s just a matter of having the
prerogative in the the interest in going. Destin Sandlin: I think what’s necessary
in order to do something huge like this is technical capability. You know, economic ability, you know,
money and then a a political will to do it. Right? And so I think we had a unique mixture of
all three of those things back in the 60s and we were able to do it. Sputnik just freaked people out. Right? And so at that point it was
like, yeah we can do this. So now you get into this risk
versus reward discussion, right? And I think we’re finally getting to the
place now where people realize that space is awesome and we should do
things because we should explore. But it’s a lot harder because
there’s no, there’s no timeline. Bob Sieck: Today, not only industry but
people in general will dwell too much on the, well, yeah, but what
if we don’t succeed in this. We can’t accept you know stuff not working
or having a tragedy or an accident. We don’t want to, you know, we don’t
want to have to deal with that. So as a result, let’s not do it. Alexis: Mmm. Bob Sieck: Take the easy way out. Financial standpoint: why should we invest
a lot of money in this and the project may have to come to, you know, have to be cut
off because we didn’t make the progress we wanted in the amount of time. We don’t want to take that risk. So since we don’t want to
take the risk, don’t even try. Alexis: Yeah. Bob Sieck: And I think
that’s bad for our society. There’s a difference between analyzing and
accepting a risk as opposed to gambling. I’m not a gambler. I would never propose we gamble on making
the decision to spend this much money for this program or whatever
but look at the risk. Look at the benefit, assess it and you
know, if the goal is worth the risk, don’t worry about it. Just go do it. Hank: From the beginning I wasn’t coming
at this question as like was it worth it to go to the moon. It’s was it the right way to do it. Was it too risky? If things had gone wrong, how much would
that have set us back and after these conversations that, mostly you had, I’m
starting to feel like this might have been the only time we could have done it. Alexis: Yeah, like if you fast
forward even 10, 20, 30 years… Did that perfect storm
of conditions exist? Kind of not. And Interesting to think about too is when
I talk to people they had said, you know, you need that timeline and that motivation
but at least in the US, if we were going to do something like Apollo again through
NASA, that’s under the control of the executive branch. So it’s like, if a president comes in,
wants one thing and the next person in office wants something else… Hank: Doesn’t want to be just sort of
enacting the previous president’s vision. Alexis: Right. Hank: Which makes you think like, John F. Kennedy having that mission unfulfilled
not just because he was voted out of office but because he was assassinated,
like we have to sort of like come together to try and have that vision be completed. Alexis: Yeah. Hank: So Apollo was a good idea. It was just a hard one. Which doesn’t mean it’s bad. Alexis: Yes. In talking about Apollo, it really makes
you think about kind of space exploration in general. Like, if it’s risky and
it’s hard, why do we do it? And there are a lot of reasons for it. Hank: Yeah, and one of those
reasons, is because it’s hard. Alexis: Yeah, we like to explore things. Hank: Yeah, we like to test our limits. So, there you have it. The Apollo program was one of the most
difficult scientific projects of the 20th century, possibly one of the most
difficult scientific projects ever, but just because something is hard
doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. When you remember the full story of
Apollo, you start to realize that history is more complicated than you might think
and that this achievement would not have been possible without the hundreds
or thousands of people supporting it. Thanks to the engineers who work to put
these missions together, we were able to go to a place that we had
been staring at for Millenia. Not just because we got lucky but because
we had a goal and because people worked really hard to achieve it. And honestly, that’s pretty encouraging
because like some of our experts said, it means that maybe with the right teams and
enough perseverance, we could do something like this again. We couldn’t have made this episode of
scishow without our experts, so thank you to everyone who took the time to talk to
us and share your wisdom about the Apollo program. And thank you to Alexis for traveling
around and talking to all those very cool people. We also of course could not have tried
a big new thing without support from our viewers and from our patrons on Patreon. So thank you so much for watching, your
support allows us to take risks, like making a new kind of episode. It was really fun. And we hope you enjoyed it. If you did we have some cool news for you
to celebrate Apollo 11 and our new project here, we made mission patches just like
the kind that actual astronauts wear. They’re very good and you can put them on
backpacks or jean jackets or space suits to show your support
for Sideshow and Apollo. They’ll only be available through the end
of July, though, so if you want one, you can click the link in the description. I, for one, am gonna go put
it on the backpack right now. [ ♪MUSIC ]

Posts created 14168

100 thoughts on “Was the Apollo Program a Bad Idea? | A SciShow Documentary

  1. I was surprised that there was not a discussion of "spinoffs" and ROI (Return On Investment), as both the Apollo program in its entirety, and current projects today, all have insanely high spinoff and ROI rates.

    Quotes from nss.org (https://space.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/newspace3.html):

    "Spinoffs from NASA's development of space technology not only provide products and services to the society but also are a significant boon to the American economy. […] Estimates of the return on investment in the space program range from $7 for every $1 spent on the Apollo Program to $40 for every $1 spent on space development today."

    "In words President George Bush quoted from a news magazine, the Apollo Program was "the best return on investment since Leonardo da Vinci bought himself a sketchpad" (Chandler 1989)."

    For more information worth noting, follow the link below:

    The ROI Of Space Exploration (https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0812/the-roi-of-space-exploration.aspx)"

  2. Experts = YouTube science channel celebrities. They do communicate to us dumber masses way more effectively than the egotistical talking heads in the panels though.

  3. You ignored the fact that the US space program was far ahead of the USSR program. The only reason the USSR went to the moon first is because the US was worried about the legal impact of flying around the earth. They let the USSR go first in case they started a war.

  4. I love Apollo, and I am very glad we had scientific pissing contest with the USSR rather than a nuclear war.

  5. I was just wondering why you did not bring up the hatch?
    That Apollo 1 hatch was only able to be opened from the outside.
    I ask this because the little details are being skipped in this video.
    The investigation done shows they were going to replace the hatch but didn't. Any ideas as to why?

  6. "A rat done bit my sister Nell, but whitey's on the moon." Good video, but glossed over some criticisms of the moon program.

  7. Comparison between doing Apollo and not doing it are the wrong comparison. The risk benefit analysis should be between doing Apollo and doing it maeby 3 years slower to reduce risks.

  8. I question the wisdom of the word “crewed” because it sounds just like “crude,” when in some cases it seems that either word would work. There’s nothing wrong with the word “manned” if all the people in the crew are actually male.

  9. Well done, and a very important question! It's completely overwhelming that the cellphone I watched this presentation on has more computing power than the computer that was used to land us on the moon. Mind blown!

  10. Pretty strange way to prove that capitalism is better: doing publicly-funded R&D on a large scale. How is it different from the USSR approach?

  11. It would be good to make some comparisons like the Apollo program vs some comparable programs (the Manhattan Project, ICBM program, B2, F35, etc.)

  12. Your headline sounds a lot like Sen. Hubert Humphry D. Mn, he hated the Apollo program back then, said repeatedly that it was a total waste of the taxpayers money, that the money could be used to build hospitals, blah blah blah, everything he could throw against it he tried. Kind of like Schumer, who said in 1991 that it was a waste of the taxpayers money to put the DARPA net into the public domain. (That became the backbone for the Internet of course you know).

  13. So how big of a leftist liberal you think that chick is? My guess is she is the type to write about it in her tinder profile

  14. Compared to the cost Vietnam war (Apollo 26 billion ) to( 700 billion plus with a sad ending ) the moon missions were best waste of money . Dam shame it was stopped after 17 . That time Nixon cancelled the program . And Kissinger planed a exit strategy to get out of Vietnam Fast. A lot of great advancements came from the space programs. Space shuttle concept was supposed to be a cheaper reusable rocket motors and much lower cost system that ending up being way more costly and limited to low earth orbit. With all the focus on satellites and space station . Unfortunately with the moon they been there done that nothing hear to see . That's why they never tried to go back.

  15. I just wished people would put in the same enthusiasm when dealing with other risky, hard, and immensly important issues, like social, economical and political ones. The environmental problems all stem from these issues. It seems when the road to get there isn't just adding 2 and 2, human beings that shove their heads in the sand…

  16. 1970: "Houston, we've had a problem." Translated to 2019 English: "Houston, we're experiencing an issue."

  17. "Was the Apollo programm a bad idea?" – "Yes, but at least there was a crowd"
    No seriously, what kind of argumentation is "people became interested in it". So? Did it help any of the people, did it advance science or technology proportionally to the investment?

  18. I love this topic and this long format show. I really hope that you will make more videos in this way!

  19. My grandfather was part of the space program he helped build the heart moniter for Neil Armstrong and that other guy

  20. The guy with the beard is talking about how we have "all this data about all the places we might like to go" around 29:37, and all I can think of is how ridiculous the movie "The Martian" was rendered when we discovered that there is plenty of water on the moon a short time ago.

  21. USSR wasn't interested in landing Man on the Moon until 1966. Before that they were working on a manned Mars Mission. It's very inaccurate to say it was a "Race to the Moon". Only USA was really interested.

  22. USA… keeping the lie that USSR was in a "race to the moon" alive….They weren't. They had their own goals and a Manned Moon mission was never their first priority.

  23. Soviet nearly finished N1 rocket which unarguably will be stronger rocket than Saturn and will put Russia man into moon.

    But here also proof why Communism fails because Sergei Korolev, a genious architect of N1 died from injury of gulag. N1 unfinished and blown into peeces on test because USSR engineers can't figure it out rocket flaws which only Sergei have knowledge of it .

  24. People die every time you build a decent size bridge. You want to avoid it, but at a certain point zero deaths on a very large project is an indication that you're being too careful.

  25. This puts the moon landing in a very clear perspective.
    I understood that it was a race, but I don't suppose I weighed how much America felt it had to prove.

    Wonderful video. Loved seeing Destin make it in there!

  26. According to Smithsonian Air and Space, the moon project was a cover for a proposed nuclear base. It obviously never happened, but iy may have helped the US win the Cold War.

  27. This was awesome! I love that you talked to Brady and to Destin, but the real treasure was Bob Sieck IMHO, what this man says is gold! Thanks a lot!!!

  28. I remember the huge emotional impact Apollo had on the U.S. and the world. "The first man on the moon." In telling my 6-year old grandson about it, he asked me, "Who was the first woman on the moon?" #Micdrop

  29. +SciShow

    A few things: 1. It was not just about compitition it was also done because it (for quite a lot of people at least) was the fulfillment of a dream: 2. We do not explore simply for the sake of exploring we ultimately at least explore for the sake of knowledge; just look up what N.A.S.A. themselves have to say about that: 3. Part of existing is to further that existence by trying not to die but rather by trying to survive and live and exist for longer (and hopefully improve the quality of that existence;) if only by definition: and 4. We do not do thing(s) like the Apollo program or innovation in general just because they are easy or hard etc. we do things like that because we know that it will ultimately improve and make things "better" at the very least overall.

    P.S. Well ultimately at least all I can really think to say to something like "why would you want to continue to exist" is that in short life is something death is nothing therefore life is preferable to death…idiot.

  30. The background music isn't staying in the background. But this is a fantastic video otherwise! You guys really dove deep into both sides and weighed everything accordingly, great documentary!

  31. I'm surprised I didn't see Amy Shira Teitel of Vintage Space here to offer her expertise. I believe she gave a presentation eerily similar to this on 7/20/19

  32. Here’s the elephant: in 1969 the USA won the space race. 20 years later in 1989 the loser imploded and is no more. Yes Apollo was a good idea and the reasons are obvious.

  33. The tragedy of Apollo 1 as a turning point made possible the ultimate success of Apollo.

    But what would have happened elsewhere:

    – Apollo 8 would have got stuck in the lunar orbit?

    – Apollo 10 would have landed and stranded unplanned?

    – Apollo 11 could not have started from the moon, would Apollo 12 ever be launched?

    – would there have been any more missions for Apollo 13 after a tragic end?

  34. I think if the goal was to prove the supremacy of capitalism, NASA shouldn't have gone to the moon themselves.

    They should have offered a cash prize to the first private entity that went to the moon.

  35. You're right. It was a bad idea. Thinking about it, the creation of airplanes is even worse. Wait, what about the wheel ? Really bad!

  36. NASA is the most important thing mankind has ever created. And all of her missions are the most important things mankind has ever done. Everything that has gone into it has been a slam dunk deal of a bargain. Its future is the most essential thing necessary to ensure the survival of our species and, possibly, all known life. It is severely underfunded and every cent spent anywhere else is a waste. Every moment NASA goes underfunded is a waste of time in the truest sense. Capitalism must not expand into space, let alone be allowed to continue to destroy our only home. My only life wish is to live long enough to see NASA evolve into Star Fleet and Earth in The United Federation of Planets.

  37. In a weird way, I think this video is a sort of example of the question it asks. This video will not get the exposure it deserves. The amount of talent, money, genius, and interesting information contained within this video way outstrips any potential monetary benefit. This video really should be on a channel with Pewdiepie levels of exposure. Was it really worth doing something this monumental, if it doesn't get 15,000,000 views and teach 15,000,000 people, as opposed to 150,000?
    Yes. Absolutely!

  38. Research is being wrong a lot, and right at the end. Exploration is trying and risking, and getting where you want to go in the end. We could go back to the moon right now. Take 1/6 of the US military budget for ONE year, and we could pay for an entire new Apollo program. We should do it… because it is hard.

  39. Kennedy managed the audience when he gave his speech when he refers to "the other thing" he's talking about their provincial American football team. It makes it seem like there's popular support from the sweaty minions for the space programme when really they were just a bunch of Al Bundys.

  40. It wasn't capitalism vs communism it was the US empire desperately trying to play a game they are still losing.

  41. This is such a unique approach to learning about the Apollo program! I'd like to approach more moments in science history this way! Thanks guys!

  42. This is probably my favorite Sci show episode. Great material, well presented, full of unique perspectives. My only complaint is about Alexis as interviewer: For many of the interviews, I was distracted from what was being said because I was paying too much attention to her excessive head nods and "yes" responses. As an interviewer, let the subject be the subject. They have interesting things to say, just sit quietly and let them say it. Then you can become the focus as you ask further questions. It may seem petty, but it is one of the major reasons this didn't feel like as much of a professional production. Everything said, though, I hope to see more like this.

  43. While we might be slightly less risk adverse, I think a big factor is that there are less achievable frontiers in a lifetime. The next frontier is a planet such as Mars, then to what? Maybe another star system/exo planet, which is problematic because of distance, but then what?

    The real risk of the Apollo missions were a lack of knowledge and technology, but we were close. It's not exactly like we made the commitment in the 1800s.

  44. Oh, wow. 5:30 I had no idea that Bert Kreischer was also a scientist. And he works for NASA! Smarter Every Day indeed… oh, wait, this is SciShow, sorry.

  45. That is a dumb question and you asked it wrong.
    We live on Spaceship Earth! We are Activia poisoning our water and our air… We are not productively getting along with each other much.
    The point every Apollo astronaut makes is to get along with people and take care of the Earth!

  46. That is a beautifully good point that if the EPA had existed, we never would have gone to the moon and probably would not have a space station today.

  47. Surely most of the benefits were gained as a result of the research required to get to the moon rather than from actually getting to the moon. Obviously the US needed an incentive to spend that money, but I'm sure some of same breakthroughs would have come from the defence industry eventually. Did we learn very much from the experiments done on the moon?

    A manned mission to Mars would be a colossal waste of money, we have better robotics technology now than in 1969. If America and the world want to throw money at anyrhing, how about fusion energy?

    I've also read that the public got bored with moon landings very quickly.

  48. The United States knew that if the USSR could place a satellite into Earth orbit, then they could also launch an H-bomb to America. This is what spurred the US space program to action. The US felt that If we got to the Moon before the 60's were over, then that would show the Russians we could catch-up and surpass their ability to use space as a battleground. The Moon landing was publicly a morale booster, but militarily it was a safeguard against World War III.

  49. I think the one of the biggest issues, is profit is now the pervading motivation to most people in the U.S., including politicians.

  50. Okay, but why is the music so creepy? Just wondering. Not really a criticism. It's a great video and I am glad y'all did it.

  51. Your space shuttle pin turning upside down and right side up at different points in the video is the best. 🙂

  52. Did no one notice that she’s literally interviewing her future self??? They could totally be mother and daughter!!🦶

  53. …….. I love Apollo, but… you are kidding me saying that a rocket launch is what started a global environment movement when we were dropping nukes and billions of tons of explosives since 1914

  54. A few things that many people here already echoed.

    1. Its awesome that SciShow made a full documentary, more please
    2. Discussing things we love critically is a sign of intelligence and civility, I applaud it.
    3. Cut back on the background music

  55. My great-uncle Wade worked as a security guard at NASA during the space race. He used to tell stories about meeting the astronauts and stuff. They also background checked his entire family before he was hired, including his siblings, cousins, etc. Great-Uncle Wade learned some enlightening things about his family he didn’t know before due to this.

  56. While it is true that America doesn't do anything for any reason other than politics, it was development of the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) that stimulated the greatest amount of technological progress since the invention of the Guttenberg printing press. http://neilrieck.net/docs/technological_change.html#epiphany20

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top