[smithian]

In '69 all those huge monitors, telemetry displays, and cool panels were high tech. They built a room that screams "I am the future!". Today, all that stuff is commodity hardware that could just as easily be put to the task of playing some computer game or buying shoes as launching a spacecraft. And it inhabits a perfectly normal looking, functional room.

[twelvechairs]

Yes. Its worth noting that the '69 room looks heavily purpose-built, designed so that most people can look over their own workstations at some common fixed displays (TV, clock, binary lights, etc.) and also it has a (soundproofed?) glass box, which I guess is for the media.

Nowdays most of this really isn't necessary of course. The media can watch the same screens from a different room and the workers can share the same view on different computers and work in pretty much any room large enough to fit them all. It is still somehow important though to have everyone in the same room (mission control still isn't separate people in their own backyards connected over the internet)....

[JackC]

Having directed large groups doing much, much, much less important things, the ability to run across the room and shout at someone when something goes wrong is still pretty indispensable. Plus it's fun.

[stcredzero]

So long as there aren't fake explosions with people falling out of their chairs. (And the comms officer falling a different direction than everyone else.)

[willyt]

Yes, there is a lot more techno 'theatre' in the '69 photo. Obviously it's low tech compared to now but it looks more dramatic. People will be launching rockets from the conference room of the Cape Canaveral Holiday Inn in 10 years time ;-)

I'm veering wildy off topic but the way people perceive spaces is really interesting to me. A great example; The debating chamber of the Houses of Parliament was destroyed by a bomb in WW2. It was proposed to rebuild it larger to accommodate the higher number of MPs serving, so that everyone got a seat for busy debates. Churchill vetoed this because he felt that standing room only in the debating chamber was more dramatic and served to underline the importance of the discussion of serious issues.