The Real Reason the Moon Program was Cancelled

reply to post by weedwhacker


Don't forget inflation... That $24B back then, the yearlu inflation of the dollar varies, but for an average we will say 4%.. with compounded interest-every 18 years the initial amount would double. It's been 50 years rounded off. So quick figure questimate, the investment today would be in the neighborhood of $90B.

reply to post by Maslo


Agree totally. VASMIR propulsion is what will give us the solar system.

We need three things that this Obama plan will have a better chance of delivering.

1. Heavy Lift chemical rocket.
2. Space fission reactor
3. VASMIR propulsion.

When we have these things there will be no stopping us. Until then we are just marking time.

Let us not lose our eyes from the ball........The word that should be considered with any opinion made which concerns government decisions is NWO.

Obama is part of that organisation and does what their agenda says. If nothing significant will happen the next president of the USA will be also a NWO member...and the next.....and the next....and so on.

I do not know what the NWO agenda says about the NASA space program but if I really would like to know, I probably can ask grandpa Bush....or his son........or Obama.

Obama will use his presidential powers to bend any decision made which concerns the rise of the NWO in the country and globally towards the NWO agenda.




[edit on 4-7-2010 by zatara]

The real reason America does not care about going to the moon anymore is due to the fact it is allocating trillions of dollars, its technological and industrial might into conquering the rest of the planet. The war on "terror" isnt exactly cheap, so TPAB will think, the moon???, # the moon we have a planet to take over.

Kinda igonorant to think that the opportunites presented by research of our astral bodies will be wasted on the people at the top though, perhaps the way they see it is maybe in a hundred years or so once they have brought the world to heel under a world government it would make sense to divert our attention to Mars and the moon, but untill then its a pretty pointless endevour.

Like if this were a computer game, would you have your nation spend all its resources on going to the moon when theres still a few nuclear capable super states and a handful of highly motivated rogue nations pack with fanatical, capable soldiers who specialise soley in fighting guerilla wars against your colonies, continualy trying to undermine you? NO you wouldnt go to the Moon, you would take care of what you perceive to be a problem here on the planet first THEN focus on what tasty tasty space treats you could harvest at a later date.

Also dont blame the government for not bothering about space research, the top 50 corporations and rich peoples list could easily over take any government budget with regards to a space programme, it just isnt economicaly viable for them yet.

Thats why they sit back, let the government foot the bill pioneering all the technology, but what with government budgets being tied up in war, its stagnated untill a private company takes the lead, buy shares in richard bransons Virgin if you really care that much.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Johnze]

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Johnze]

Originally posted by Old_RSA
Please excuse my ignorance of the United States (which in my opinion does not appear very United).

Why on earth to they need a budget of billions to go to moon?

Irony of ironies, you actually provide the answer in your next paragraph. Allow me to pull it out for you?

Back in the sixties they had some good weed, not a huge amount of electronics, not even an XT-PC, nevermind the computing power we have today.

And here is part of the problem. The engineers in the 1960s didn't have the electronics we have today. Have you ever worked on an *old* computer system? You know, one from, say, the early 1990s? If you have, you're familiar with the concept of 'legacy hardware', and you know what an absolute (ahem) she-dog it can be to find parts for them. If you've never had that particular pleasure, there's no real way to explain it. You can sample it by doing a search for Intel 386 processors. Trying to duplicate the Apollo program is the same problem, but orders of magnitude worse. It's 40-50 year old technology, and we simply don't build things that way any more. It's like trying to find parts for a steam locomotive. It's not that we don't understand what they did, we've simply lost the knowledge base to recreate it. So, we have to spend money to go back to the proverbial drawing board and design a system based on the tech that we actually build today.

They did not have the propulsion systems we have today,

And, conversely, *we* don't have the propulsion systems that they had. There aren't any working F-1 engines, nor is there tooling to make them. To put the gap between then and now into perspective, the Delta IV Heavy is one of the biggest currently operational boosters. It generates 775,000lbs of thrust. That's just over half the thrust of a single F-1, and a Saturn V used five of those. Needless to say, we're a bit lacking in launch power compared to the 1960s. It's not a conspiracy that caused it, it's a simple lack of need. Nobody needed to launch anything big enough to require a Saturn V, so they stopped making them. Sad, but inevitable.

they did not have the ability to map and trace space junk, asteroids, etc. etc....

Not relevant to a lunar flight, actually.

still they climbed in their tin-foil suits and claim to have flown to the moon, played a bit of golf, and returned safely. They didn't have billions of dollars, technology from all the nations and scientists combined (remember that Russia was not talking to them back then).

Actually, they *did* have billions of dollars. Take a few minutes to search out the budgets for the Apollo program, and then adjust for inflation. The numbers are scary.

So, if we made any headway in science and technology, why are they struggling so much to get back to the moon? Good lord, with all the money, technology today, they should be visiting the moon at least on a yearly basis!!

In my head, I can hear some Victorian time-traveler muttering about how the technology of the 21st century obviously has stagnated, and even regressed. After all, not a single marine architect builds triple-expansion steam engines, and the railroads are totally empty of steam power!

We've made lots of progress, but as I noted above, in some ways, the progress is costing us money now, because we no longer build things as they did then.

Or might it be that the denialists are correct... maybe they never had the skills to make it to the moon the first time around ?

Applying this 'logic', I suppose Columbus never made it across the ocean? After all, we can't build ocean-going wooden hulled sailing ships with bronze cannons (at least not without billions of dollars in investment)....therefore, since we can't do it now, it couldn't be done then, and by extension, it never happened?