We spent 2.2% of the all federal outlays during the peak period. Could you imagine the political outrage if that happen today. That would be spending 88 billion dollars on putting a man on the moon.
We might even be further along today if we had not gone for the moon shot. Getting to the moon was great for bragging, but it left us with very little in the way of stepping stones for further progress. Maybe we should have focused on building the technology from the ground up for an ongoing program instead of purpose-building it for a single goal.
Things like the moonshot, and the ISS, and getting to Mars, despite everyone's continual criticism of them, are essential because with projects that stretch large timeframes, and rapidly changing Congresses, you need something politically unkillable - otherwise it will be killed, to pay for someone else's pet spending increase.
Which of these do you think would generate outrage? Axing the moonshot, or defunding an experimental thruster research program?
Doing cool stuff might not be the most efficient way to do research, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing, and it inspires generations.
Maybe space travel's biggest contribution so far is that it somehow helped to keep the cold war from going hot - as a substitute contest for the real war. RIP Gene Cernan.
