I wasn't just money, it was changing the rules for spending the money. PhD students were funded. Science & math teachers were well paid and respected. People wanted to work on the space program, even if on the periphery.
It would still be great to work at SpaceX, even if Elon is diet Howard Hughes.
Even adjusted for inflation, the U.S. federal budget is far, far larger than it was in the 1960s. So much so that even though NASA's budget is now less than 0.5% of the federal budget, NASA still spends roughly enough money in a decade to pay for the Apollo program. I've seen various figures for the cost of the Apollo program, ranging from $150 to $290 billion (adjusted to current dollars). In the last decade, NASA spent over $200 B.
I wonder how quickly we'd solve fusion with this level of focus. I bet it'd be less than 5 years to "energy too cheap to meter", unlimited carbon capture, etc, etc. Instead we've been bombing people in the Middle East for the last 20 years.
I wasn't just money, it was changing the rules for spending the money. PhD students were funded. Science & math teachers were well paid and respected. People wanted to work on the space program, even if on the periphery.
It would still be great to work at SpaceX, even if Elon is diet Howard Hughes.
Lol Diet Howard Hughes!
I suppose this is the "leadership support", that is, the coffers opened by the (high above) leadership.
Time is money, so if you can't put enough time, your only option is to compensate with money.
Even adjusted for inflation, the U.S. federal budget is far, far larger than it was in the 1960s. So much so that even though NASA's budget is now less than 0.5% of the federal budget, NASA still spends roughly enough money in a decade to pay for the Apollo program. I've seen various figures for the cost of the Apollo program, ranging from $150 to $290 billion (adjusted to current dollars). In the last decade, NASA spent over $200 B.
NASA does a lot more science these days.
It depends on the problem. Some problems can't be solved regardless of how much money you throw at it, and some problems get worse with more funding.
eg. the war on cancer, terror, etc etc..
I wonder how quickly we'd solve fusion with this level of focus. I bet it'd be less than 5 years to "energy too cheap to meter", unlimited carbon capture, etc, etc. Instead we've been bombing people in the Middle East for the last 20 years.