You make a good point. I'll think of a better analogy, as the heart surgeon one you provided is also not good.
1. It implies he's doing something "truly useful to humankind" (healing someone) - vs. a stunt that doesn't help anyone directly.
2. It doesn't include this doctor spending $Billions in tax payer money to do this "stunt" that serves no one, while needs here on earth are neglected.
3. It needs to be Televised from a location with only 3 live witnesses, all of which are ex-military men.
4. It needs to be tied to a "Cold War / Fear" where success helps to address/alleviate this fear/competition.
5. After they are done, they destroy the most hard to fake evidence, such as the most of the medical research papers that would be essential for someone to repeat the task.
6. The guys who did this stunt initially all resign, and one won't even celebrate it at established events.
7. The guy who headed up this whole program, resigns just a few months before they finally succeed.
8. The guy who blows the whistle on "what is really happening" gets killed 6 days later, late at night, by a one-car train... and his 500-page report goes missing.
9. After the stunt is completed, Nixon sells it off like a New World Religion -- the focal point for "World Peace and Unity"... so anyone who opposes it is also pooping on World Peace and Unity, capped off by a friendly Russian alliance by May 1972. Lots of optimism flowing around - all hinged on Apollo's claim.
Something like this would be a better analogy.
1 - 'Boots' on the moon was most definitely a massive middle finer to the then Soviet USSR. Basic exploration could be achieved via unmanned craft, HOWEVER, boots on the moon allow for a much larger range of activities, since humans already come with built in tools that can be adapted to handle multiple tasks, as well as the ability to make decisions in the moment. A lander can only perform the specific tasks that are built into it.
2 - I've never understood this argument. Are you not aware that governments are capable of supporting multiple programs at the same time? Exploration is what man has always excelled at. What purpose was there in climbing Everest? What purpose is there in going to the bottom of the ocean? We explore, we learn, and expand our knowledge base.
3 - The live television decision was last minute, regarding the Apollo 11 landing. As far as tasks for the lunar surface, live video served no real purpose beyond publicity. Extended missions could later take advantage of live video by having ground based experts involved in decisions, but for Apollo 11s 2.5 hour EVA, the TV was public relations.
4 - It didn't "need" to be, but it did provide a good driver. Most of mas quickest achievements quite often happen when there is an 'enemy' to beat. This does sometimes also come with the costs of inadequate testing to meet timelines that have been determined by politicians and not qualified people.
5 - *sigh* All the important data is around, in various reports and research items, as well as some hard copies. BUT, today, telemetry data is nothing more than a curiosity, given the changes in spacecraft designs since. Armstrong's and Aldrin's heartrate at the time of the first EVA is useless to us today, but I have a scanned copy. Oh, and there's lots of medical data in the Apollo BioMedical reports, almost as if that was their whole purpose.
6 - They didn't all resign, some remained with NASA, some transferred back to military roles, and some retired altogether.... so what? And I take it you are referring to Armstrong? Armstrong made a lot of public appearances post Apollo, however he was, and was always known as, a quite and reserved person. Find the photo of the Apollo astronauts, you will find Armstrong, arguably the most famous of them all, standing at the back, with Buzz out front, as was his personality.
7 - Webb stood down prior to Apollo 8 as Johnson had announced he wasn't running for re-election. Webb had close ties with Johnson, and would have seen this as a clean transition for the next administration. If the next president wanted Webb, who knows what might have been. In the end, though, Webb was far to above Apollo to be considered the 'head' of the program, I'd drop that title on George Mueller, who had far greater control over the program than Webb did.
8 - Baron's not the great whistleblower you seem to think he is. Even the one person he named in the Apollo 1 committee contradicted and denied his claims. His original report was given, looked over, and there were several areas in which they agreed with his report. The 500 page report, based on all available evidence, was taken up by the committee as evidence but was not published as part of the public record due to its size, not an uncommon occurrence. But maybe if he'd been paying attention, or wasn't trying to beat the engine, he, his wife, and one of his step-daughters (one survived, did you know that?) may still be alive (or at least have died a natural death).
9 - Apollo was effectively cancelled in 1969, with funding being decreased before then. From Nixon's point of view, it wasn't his achievement, he was just the person there when it happened; he didn't start the program, he didn't fight for it, rather the opposite, he pushed to cancel it (hence the lack of Apollo's 18 through 20). That he saw the political capital in Apollo is plain to see, and he milked it for all he could. Perhaps if it was Nixon's program, we may have received more of the Apollo Applications program, rather than being left with the cut-down Skylab program being the only survivor (and still hard fought for, I have copies of some of the correspondence in relation to NASA's survival after Apollo).
Whelp, turns out your analogies are weak again.
