Ronald D Moore talks about bringing 'For All Mankind' to Apple TV+

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 43
    "It's an aspirational show," says Moore. "It says, 'Wouldn't this have made us a better country and a better world if we had done all these things?' Not just more Apollo missions, but the way we treated one another as human beings." I think the criticism in the comments is a bit defensive, as if Moore is insulting the Apollo generation, but I think Moore means to honor the accomplishments of NASA and Apollo, and ask why we didn’t keep going. He’s not saying Apollo wasn’t exciting enough, he just wants more! Unfortunately, after the U.S. won the moon race, a clear purpose of the next steps weren’t sold well, and wasn’t as engaging without a clear competition, so public support of the budget, and politics stopped Apollo, not our ability. I hope the show sparks imagination of humanity's potential, and encourages more support for a logical, long-term, incremental space program. People tend the think we spend a lot on NASA, but it’s only 0.5% of the federal budget. During Apollo, it was about 4%.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 42 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    13485 said:
    The words spoken by Armstrong were flubbed. He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, the Moon Mission was most definitely a US mission and it’s purpose was wholly political. It was a pissing contest between the US and the Soviet Union that was a huge waste of taxpayer money and it had no real goal afterward. Just like the arms race between the US and the USSR that would come later, it was meant as a demonstration of power. What a waste. 
    Maybe you just had to be there. Commercially, strategically, scientifically, and even with its palpable boost to human optimism worn thin by 25 years of Cold War, the entire effort was on point and worth every cent. Twenty or thirty years from now, people will just wonder why it took so long in between benchmarks.

    As far as Armstrong "flubbing" his line, big deal. It stood all by itself and everyone on the planet knew what he meant. 

    Of course the Soviets had a moon landing plan, they just had no money and no hope of doing it. LEO flights were their best shots, and historically quite important to our knowledge. 

    It was "political" when there are photo ops and speeches and parades; it's strategic when you're both pointing ICBMs at each other, and there are hot and proxy wars going on from Indochina to Nicaragua to Czechoslovakia. There's a big difference.


    I was alive when it happened. It was a phony competition between the countries and a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Fact. The “side benefits” of the expenditures were irrelevant because (as the saying goes) “necessity is the mother of invention”. Market forces are more powerful than the waste and inefficiency of Federal programs with no real purpose other than to intimidate through spending the political opposition.
    Oh, I see.   You already re-wrote the story based on modern day Libertarian cynicism.   Of the two re-writes, I prefer Apple's.   But the best is no re-write.  I'll stick to reality.
    I guess you’re just trolling because you’re a fan of big government?
    Trolling?   Because I think modern day Libertarian cynicism is dumb?   No, I just think it's dumb.

    Am I a fan of big government?   No, that's an example of the black and white, either/or mentality of extremists.  I am in favor of good, effective government that works to improve the long term well being of its people.   Size, whether big or small, is incidental to that.   Thinking that limited, capitalistic based government is the ultimate good is ideology, not reality:  It produces some good but also some (or maybe a lot of) bad -- but its proponents only ever see the good.  That was illustrated by Greenspan lamenting after the U.S. economy crashed from lack of banking oversight:  "I don't understand how free markets could have failed!"
    minicoffee
  • Reply 43 of 43
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    "It's an aspirational show," says Moore. "It says, 'Wouldn't this have made us a better country and a better world if we had done all these things?' Not just more Apollo missions, but the way we treated one another as human beings."
    I think the criticism in the comments is a bit defensive, as if Moore is insulting the Apollo generation, but I think Moore means to honor the accomplishments of NASA and Apollo, and ask why we didn’t keep going. He’s not saying Apollo wasn’t exciting enough, he just wants more! Unfortunately, after the U.S. won the moon race, a clear purpose of the next steps weren’t sold well, and wasn’t as engaging without a clear competition, so public support of the budget, and politics stopped Apollo, not our ability.
    I hope the show sparks imagination of humanity's potential, and encourages more support for a logical, long-term, incremental space program. People tend the think we spend a lot on NASA, but it’s only 0.5% of the federal budget. During Apollo, it was about 4%.
    Essentially, the same could be said for all basic research.   The NIH is a (theoretical) example where its government funding enables it to create research that is valuable to mankind but of limited commercial value.  Unfortunately, industry has recognized how they can control and direct that research to their own benefit so it may be a bad example. But then, industry has done the same for NASA:  commercialize it - while Russia continued its basic space program we tried to commercialize ours and ended up having to use Russian equipment to stay in space.
    minicoffee
Sign In or Register to comment.