Except it does.

But if you want to pitch that a project of scale on a Cold War battle front, utilizing personnel and hardware directly and/or indirectly derived from the military, in a program led from top(a UsAF general named Phillips) to bottom (a project depending on USN assets for recovery) had ‘no military utility’ as an instrument of battle in Cold War, go for it.

Directly, no. Indirectly, of course– which was the nature of many Cold War era projects of scale. The F-1 used in the Saturn V was originally developed by Rocketdyne to meet a 1955 US Air Force requirement for “a very large rocket engine.” The USAF has been known to ‘kill folks and break their stuff’ Rand. USAF General Sam Phillips, who was managing the Minuteman and ‘other AF projects’ was hired by George Mueller to serve as Director of NASA’s Apollo Manned Lunar Landing Program from 1964 to 1969. A USAF general, Rand, ran the Apollo manned lunar landing program. Per Bill Moyers, in a 1969 ABC News forum during the Apollo 11 flight, Phillips announced he was leavinghis Apollo spot and returning to the military. Phillips later served as a NSA director and w/t AF Systems Command. And, of course, the Soviet Sputnik launch was as much a demo of the Russian ICBM capability as it was about orbiting a satellite– the success of which lwegitimized overflight rights in Ike’s POV for Corona.

Certainty the ‘soft power projection’- the geo-political and military aspects of same from Apollo was not lost on those who made it a reality– as the late Rocco Petrone reinterated in 1994 during several broadcast interviews.

The ‘military’ aspects of ‘civil’ space ops– has shadowed spaceflight since the moment Sputnik left the pad. Bill Moyers, WH operative during the LBJ days- reiterated this perspective from the U.S. POV- a ‘reactive’ one- in a 1969 forum during the Apollo 11 flight when discussing the formulation of national space policy wihin the White House in that era.

“To imply that a) I don’t know NASA’s history and b) that I am “inferring otherwise” is simply wrong. Your comment about NASA’s history is both true and irrelevant to anything I have written.” pleads Rand.

Except it’s not.

Nobody is “inferring” you don’t know NASA history nor posted that except you. That you don’t know it very well and/or often cherry pick or spin it to fit your NewSpace agenda is inferred. Nothiong new there. Bur nice try, Rand.

To imply that a) I don’t know NASA’s history and b) that I am “inferring otherwise” is simply wrong. Your comment about NASA’s history is both true and irrelevant to anything I have written.

A demonstration of technological capability is not “an instrument of military power.” Nothing in Apollo had any military (i.e., killing folks and breaking their stuff) utility. And it wasn’t a “space race for the higher ground.” If it had been, we would have taken it, and stayed.

You’re prjecting again. The history of NASA is deeply rooted in the military and to try to infer otherwise is simply wrong.

Even you should know the baseline history of the agency, particularly w/respect to HSF ops: from the USAF orgins of Project Mercury (MISS), the X-series, including the X-15 and its military test pilots; the military ICBM Atlas LV; Gemini’s Titan, a military ICBM LV; the Redstone, (even cousin Jupiter C) from the Army’s Von Braun, a military misile man most of his professional life– right through the roster of astroanuts – nearly all military test pilots- into shuttle development wher DoD funds forced orbiter redesign to accomodate DoD payloads- a planned big customer for the STS as it was pitched; as well as the military shuttle launch complex at Vandenberg- (mothballed post Challenger) right up to the current NASA administrator- a military down to the ‘corps’. Any attempt to spin “NASA” as ‘military free’ in sources and ops is just wrong– or desperate NewSpacer spin. For obvious reasons

Except it has. Perhaps not directly, but much of its operational resources at birth- both in personnel *from the Army’s Von Braun to the on-lone military test pilots) the hardware– even its initial HSF programs. (For instance, Mercury’s orgins can be sourced to the USAF; X-15 as well.) The LVs for HSF ops and civil space satellite ops were essentially modified and adapted from military missiles- save Saturn. And, of course, the shuttle budget during development was fattened w/Dod finding and the orbiter itself was modified in desin to carry DoD payploads as it was planned to be a key ‘customer’ for shuttle ops.

Any attempt to deny NASA wasn’t an ‘instrumnt’ representing American military prowess is simply wrong.

No, it didn’t. It has never been such.