Beating the Soviets was part of it but it was originally conceived as an inspirational quest to revive national moral and show the world that the US could do the impossible. The competition from the Soviets did help move things along more quickly by focusing minds.
If it can be done it's not impossible and it would be much more inspirational to show what humanity could do and draw a bit more contemporary attention to the multi national nature of the design process and the science rather than merely in retrospect. Ever been to the Kennedy Space Centre? I have, it's wonderful, but it also tells you a lot about the mentality of the space race and what the justification for the eye watering sums involved really was. When going into the launch control centre (still in pristine condition) there' a video about how Russia had put a cosmonaut in space and how it was a blow to American pride, along with diagrams of communist takeovers around the world. This is all presented in dark shades with ominous and eerie music, until we see JFK making his "We do this not because it is easy..." speech and the tone changes, the lights become brighter, the music more optimistic and the narrative becomes about how it became a beacon of hope of hope in the contest with the communist threat. It was a Cold War propaganda mission, with both side competing to place the flag up there. It was also a conveniently fruitful testing ground for a lot of the technologies used in developing long range nuclear weapons and eventually the Star Wars program. I'd genuinely be curious to see how things would have played out if the Russians had got there first and how it would have affected the dynamic between the two powers over the following decades.
I don't like to take this thread so far off topic, but I strongly disagree. Maybe it's the influence of having recently visited Kennedy Space Center and seen the Apollo exhibits, but there is plenty of nobility to be found there if you want to see it, despite the looming presence of Cold War oneupmanship.
Of course, but it came about because a Cold War administration wanted a showpiece. Do you really believe that funding was selfless? Would the US have celebrated a Soviet landing as a great leap forward?
Of course not, why should it be? Blasting off on a rocket to the moon and planting a flag is hardly an act of self-effacing humility. I don't know, but I hope and expect that the men and women who worked to achieve the Soviet moon landing would have done so with the same aspiration that led to the inclusion of the phrase, "We came in peace for all mankind," as the permanent monument left there.
Exactly my point. It was about proving superiority. You know and I know that's an evasion. The soviets did not, by and large, celebrate (although there were some exceptions) and nor would the US if the roles were reversed. The space race resulted in much that could be called progress, but it was neither funded nor authorised for that reason anymore than Cold War proxies were humanitarian in intent.
Acknowledging the reality of a situation does not constitute binary thinking. Inability to see beyond preconceptions, on the other hand, very much does. If you care to re read my posts you will note I acknowledged there were other goals for those involved (Von Braun included - redemption being high on his list), but the funding came from politicians whose interests and goals were very much short term and limited.
Mueller is scheduled to make a statement an hour from now, speaking publicly for the first time about the Russia investigation: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/05/29...-statement-wednesday-on-the-russia-probe.html
It doesn't matter what Mueller says. It is only what was in his report that counts. As a Democrat anything negative he says about the President can be disregarded.
TLDR: Insufficient evidence to charge conspiracy, can't charge obstruction but plenty of evidence for it and really, really wanted to. I think the biggest news out of it is that DoJ policy does in fact prevent indictment under seal. So Trump is likely going to get away with his campaign finance violations. Anyone know what the statute of limitations is for obstruction?
This is just great watching you clowns clinging to hope of something that will never come to pass. It really is.
There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. We all know that "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal conviction. But it is not and cannot be how investigators go about doing their jobs. Think about it: "Here's a murder victim and a list of possible suspects. Should we start bringing them in for questioning?" "Can't, innocent until proven guilty." "There's a guy who fits the description of that robbery suspect. Should we go question him?" "Can't, innocent until proven guilty." If that was the way it worked, no crimes would ever get investigated. And while it was indeed not Mueller's job to determine innocence, if the evidence he gathered did prove Trump innocent, he would have said so.
Patently wrong. Mueller's charge was to find guilt, of which he found none with regard to our president. People are presumed innocent to begin with and it's not his place, or any prosecutor's place, to comment on that.