Politics reply:

What good did the moon landing do for the average man?

Directly, immediately? In the 1960s? Aside from the people employed working directly or indirectly on space efforts? Almost none. Is that really the answer you're looking for, though? Scientific knowledge can take decades or even centuries before it improves our lives tangibly. But I think you know that, so I won't argue with you about it.

Concerning the waste of time, money and attention - LOL there was the Vietnam war, too. I'd argue was less beneficial to humanity than Apollo. I am only raising this point because I think it's unfair to place blame for lack of social progress at the feet of scientists, or a sub-set of scientists. We're collectively responsible.

Otherwise, I generally agree with you. The Apollo program was not conceived or executed to benefit science. But Apollo did mobilize science irrevocably. "Planetary science" as a discipline, community and way of thinking didn't exist before Apollo. Very few people, even in the science community, were comparing planets and learning something from that before about 1970. Ditto for environmental science - and that community, too, barely existed before Apollo. Even though that field got a headstart due to people like Rachel Carson.

Would you have improved social conditions for anyone by cancelling Apollo/Gemini in, say, 1964? I'm not so sure about that. 1968 certainly implies otherwise. I'm here to tell you that exploring neighboring worlds is a social good because you learn the parameters of your own environment, parameters you MUST keep an eye on to keep Earth habitable. But that social good is a joke if people can't walk down the street without worrying about ICE raids. So yeah, you're right, racial hatred obviates this beautiful and essential realization that we're connected to a bigger universe. Would you have the scientists of the world hide their knowledge away because we live surrounded by ugliness? All I can say to you is that we live here too, and this fight is ours as much as yours.

Science reply:

We learned the origin of the earth and moon and NASA invented a few good gadgets ... But I don’t see how those outweigh the cons of the Apollo program.

It's a lot broader and more subtle than just the origin of the Earth and Moon. Apollo rewrote your geology textbook. Not the lunar geology text - the one for Earth. And not just the chapter about origins. This tends to get obscured because there was another revolution going on in Earth science at the very same time - a little thing called plate tectonics.

Direct results from Apollo, corroborated by old Soviet and modern Chinese automated landers:

• Planets are born hot, and their insides stay hot, for a very long time
• The threat from impacts (asteroids/comets) is real, pervasive and ongoing
• Planets don't stop evolving (their surfaces change, sometimes dramatically, and rather suddenly in geologic terms) for a very long time after they're born

Indirect result from Apollo:

• Earth is part of a larger natural system that affects it every single day - larger even than the solar system; let's call it the local Galactic environment

Of the three direct results, two sound obvious. Naturally Earth is hot inside; where does lava come from? Of course space rocks can bang into us; what would stop them? None of this, however, was evident certain to a huge number of geologists, physicists, or chemists in the 1960s (or '70s, or even '80s... some people never change their minds. They just die). And when most workers in a given field are against you, progress tends to be rather slow. Walter and Luis Alvarez had a hell of a time convincing people that an asteroid strike could have ended the Cretaceous, not to mention the dinosaurs - I mean, there isn't even a crater in the Yucatan, it's flat down there! (LOL That debate still isn't over, even today...)

As far as I can see, direct result #3 (about planetary evolution) hasn't entered the zeitgeist yet. Yes, people are (wisely) alerted to climate change, but that's just a little tweak compared to the immense environmental changes that we know took place on Venus, Mars and Earth - and I'm just talking about the ones that have occurred since complex life emerged here, not the ones from billions of years ago.

And that indirect result? I still know a number of scientists who hem and haw and won't quite agree that Earth's environment doesn't suddenly end 100 km up. The Voyager probes show us how bad the radiation is when you get far enough away from the Sun, and I don't know if you even do Voyager without Apollo. But Apollo, uniquely, shows you something else - the Sun hasn't always protected us from that bigger dose of cosmic radiation that the Voyagers see. Sometimes that heliospheric shield shrinks, and the planets get a lot more radiation than we do today. And that's just one of the synergistic results, there are more.

IMO the primary lesson we learn from geology is that environments change in time. Please note my use of the PRESENT TENSE in this reply, because none of what I am discussing is forever confined to a remote past - all of the planetary evolution processes I'm talking about can still occur today, and are certain to recur in the future. Geology left the silo to become a much more interconnected science partly because of Apollo - and the thing is, it became a science about THE FUTURE as well as the past.

Apologies for the overly long reply. Apologies to my science people for oversimplifying here.