The only way that I can think of to respond to a derailing comment in an effective and meaningful manner would be to engage its substance while synthesizing it with the underlying topic of the thread. Otherwise one is just perpetuating the obfuscation of the original topic of conversation. Whether the Apollo project was "successful" depends on how one views its nature and objectives; germane at least insofar as whether this is a plausible model for research as a strategic state investment, whether such action would be possible or effective, as contrasted with the alternative course of reframing the context in which undirected economic activity was occurring so as to induce a similar degree of investment and subsequent change in the commonly used technologies.

So what nickff is actually saying is that when considering the Apollo program as a model for the response to the CO2 crisis, it would be important to understand the ways in which it failed the putative goal of human expansion into space. I think that he would view the Apollo program as analogous to the discovery by Americans that the Chinese had succeeded in generating a net gain of power for a few minutes from a research fusion reactor. Responding to this by declaring that the US would build the first commercially functioning fusion reactor "not because it was easy, but because it was hard" might go a long way towards quelling the moral panic brought about by the appearance of Chinese ascendency and American decline, but it might be problematic insofar as sustainable and optimal investment in energy (source) research was considered.

The proper way for you to indicate this sentiment is to downvote my post, and avoid commenting, as per the Hacker News guidelines.

From the number of up and down votes this post is getting, it appears that many people agree with you, but even more disagree.

My point was that governments are unlikely to support 'moonshots', because the 'moonshots' are unpopular, as well as being bad investments.