Why did they cancel the Apollo missions?

[Gil Bavel]

I just saw on TV* that after spending $24 billion, "NASA abandoned the Apollo program, with three planned missions yet to go".

"There was no satisfactory explanation ever given."

I'd like to open this thread up to speculation as to what reasons might be for this unexplained abandonment.

Any and all kinds of speculation are invited. No idea too big or too small. Make it funny, serious, whatever. I'm honestly interested in gathering data on what could have made NASA give up the most expensive space program EVER and cancel missions that were already planned, had people in the sims, technology being tested and built--you get the drift.

We're talking about the lives and careers of thousands of people here--and millions and millions of tax dollars. What happened? Where did it go? Secret space program? Too expensive? Warned off the moon? Did we see something that scared us? Tin foil hat sales skyrocketed?

What do YOU think?
____________________
*The program is called "Moon for Sale".

 

[fitzbew88]

I just saw on TV* that after spending $24 billion, "NASA abandoned the Apollo program, with three planned missions yet to go".

"There was no satisfactory explanation ever given."

I'd like to open this thread up to speculation as to what reasons might be for this unexplained abandonment.

This is from Wikipedia:
"Originally three additional lunar landing missions had been planned, as Apollo 18 through Apollo 20. In light of the drastically shrinking NASA budget and the decision not to produce a second batch of Saturn Vs, these missions were canceled to make funds available for the development of the Space Shuttle, and to make their Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V launch vehicles available to the Skylab program. Only one of the remaining Saturn Vs was actually used to launch the Skylab orbital laboratory in 1973; the others became museum exhibits..."

If they had not started Skylab or the Orbiter program I might be willing to theorize something weird happened, but I don't see any sign of it.

 

[David Biedny]

The American people, with their 2 second attention span, lost interest in the program, and NASA could no longer sell the missions to the fed bean counters, so they moved on.

dB

 

[Gene Steinberg]

They also needed a person to sell the vision and the mission to the people, and that era ended with the death of JFK. We would have landed men on Mars by now.

 

[fitzbew88]

The American people, with their 2 second attention span, lost interest in the program, and NASA could no longer sell the missions to the fed bean counters, so they moved on.

The third page of this PDF shows the historical NASA budget in 2004 dollars:
Historical NASA Budget - PDF FILE

Assuming it's accurate (appears to have been prepared by some guy in OMB --- still, apply salt liberally ), it does show a budget strain in the latter years of Apollo and a increased emphasis on DOD space spending.

 

[fitzbew88]

They also needed a person to sell the vision and the mission to the people, and that era ended with the death of JFK. We would have landed men on Mars by now.

What a fascinating theory.

If Nixon (cough, cough) had stood up and said "We're going to Mars!" in 1973 and the nation made it a national priority (like Apollo), how long would it have taken?

If our current hopes for a manned Mars mission are floating around 2030, then that would be 57 years following 1973. If we had proceeded at twice the pace, we would cut it down to 2001-2. So, just based on this SWAG I think you are right --- we might just have been there by now!

Still, it would've been dicey. Budgets and national will notwithstanding, we still needed to develop a "space truck" type technology, and then something like an ISS and still maybe run some short trips to the moon. This would've probably burned a couple decades at least. Plus, some unmanned missions to scout out landing sites would've consumed quite a bit of time.

Personally, I'm still uneasy about a 2030 trip. The current trip design seems enormously risky to me. The lucky astronauts that get chosen will be gone for 2-3 years ---- they might spend sixteen months on the Martian surface. They'll have to land with almost everything that they'll need for that period. Then launch themselves back into space on a ship that's been exposed to a very unforgiving martian environment during that period.

I'm afraid there won't be much room for error or accidents.

 

[Gareth]

^^ I agree - If it were me going up there Id be VERY nervous about the whole thing.

 

[Ron Collins]

Unfortunately, its only gonna get worse. I think the odds on favorite is Barack Obama for the next President of the US. He plans on "delaying" the Constellation program for at least 5 years. Instead he plans on

"putting the saved money into a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence, nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond."

When asked why he would single out NASA's budget to cut, he says...
"NASA is no longer associated with inspiration"

Click Here for the Full Article

So, the space shuttle program is scheduled to end in 2010 and the Constellation program was supposed to start manned flight in 2015. My question is, are we about to see the end of manned space flight from America for 10 years or more? Either way, you can kiss Mars goodbye boys and girls. At least for the next 20 years. It also doesn't bode well for the disclosure event happening in the next presidency. The government can not announce that UFO's are real and then start cutting the NASA budget. I dont think that would fly.

Although... If he suddenly changes direction and starts to throw more money into developing space flight technologies, that in itself might be telling.

 

[fitzbew88]

...I think the odds on favorite is Barack Obama for the next President of the US.

Heh, heh, well it's a long time until November.

He plans on "delaying" the Constellation program for at least 5 years. Instead he plans on

"putting the saved money into a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence, nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond."

In all fairness, Barack didn't say this last part that is in quotes. This is an interpretation by a political pundit.

Also, Constellation is already ongoing so really he would have to cancel it or cancel parts of it.

The link refers to a document released in Nov 2007. Politically speaking, that was eons ago. He's looking to attract a different crowd now...don't be surprised if his tone doesn't change. (His official web site does not even mention the space program --- not that I can find.) Judging from this, I would say it's fairly accurate to say that he is not "enthusiastic" about the space program.

When asked why he would single out NASA's budget to cut, he says...
"NASA is no longer associated with inspiration"

Click Here for the Full Article

There is some disagreement about this. I have also seen the quote in the context of a complaint. That is to say, that he intends to change this --- to make NASA inspirational again.

So, the space shuttle program is scheduled to end in 2010 and the Constellation program was supposed to start manned flight in 2015. My question is, are we about to see the end of manned space flight from America for 10 years or more?

No this is unlikely. Even Barack has asserted he will make sure the Orion program is funded. (Which is just the "manned" part of the much larger Moon and Mars program.) We (the U.S.) simply have to be able to get back and forth to the ISS and there is no good way around it. But beyond Orion, I agree with you I am not at all confident that he would support the much more involved Moon/Mars components of Constellation.

Here is a PDF document hosted on the Popular Mechanics web site which claims to be Barack's "Plan for American Leadership in Space. PDF DOCUMENT"

Either way, you can kiss Mars goodbye boys and girls. At least for the next 20 years.

Oh yeah it's going to be 2030 at the earliest. Even if the funding shows up.

It also doesn't bode well for the disclosure event happening in the next presidency. The government can not announce that UFO's are real and then start cutting the NASA budget. I dont think that would fly.

Although... If he suddenly changes direction and starts to throw more money into developing space flight technologies, that in itself might be telling.

I wonder. I think several countries have their eyes on lunar mineral resources and have decided that they need a presence there. I think any competent future leaders are going to *need* to make sure the U.S. is in a good strategic position should such issues come to the forefront. Whoever is already there is going to have the upper hand when the legal aspects of all this are worked out.

 

[pixelsmith]

maybe they figured out that it is too dangerous to try a moon landing.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I was thinking the earlier disaster played a part. I'm not sure though.

 

[Paspro]

The Constellation program for landing on the Moon uses a more modern version of the Apollo vehicles. You have the Orion module which is similar to the Apollo module, only bigger and with modern equipment and then you have the lander which is similar to the Apollo lander, again with modern equipment.

One would have thought that after 40 years space technology would be very much different than it used to be. Do we miss something?

 

[Tony2013]

The Constellation program for landing on the Moon uses a more modern version of the Apollo vehicles. You have the Orion module which is similar to the Apollo module, only bigger and with modern equipment and then you have the lander which is similar to the Apollo lander, again with modern equipment.

One would have thought that after 40 years space technology would be very much different than it used to be. Do we miss something?

Yes, we're missing much I would say. Inspiration for one, imagination, a sense of purpose, clear direction, and the will to forge new boundaries. Second, we're missing Maxime Faget, who contributed to the design of every NASA Space Program since the Mercury missions, and held the patent on the original space shuttle orbiter design.

My guess is that if he were around, he would have done something quite different. With the political climate of the past eight years under the backward Republican party being what it is, how could we possibly expect our space program to be innovative and new? Not to say that Bush, et al had a direct influence on NASA, but what about the military-industrial complex that seems to have a tentacle in every facet of the government? What are their interests when it comes to space? Is there some kind of unspoken competition between NASA and the Air Force Space Program that they're trying to push to the military's advantage?

This is pure conjecture of course, but I don't think anyone can blame me for suspecting underhanded business, especially since our future space program is basically picking up where we left off in 1975. I had always wondered as a kid if I'd get to live on Mars as an adult, but I think now I'll have to settle for looking at pictures of an Air Force Base being constructed on the Martian surface. Scratch that... they'd never publish those pictures. I think I'd be more comfortable living under a despotic America if the despots had more inspiring aspirations for society.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I watched part of a show on Apollo 8 last night. Said one of the astronauts puked on the way up. It was messy they said. I'd be pissed.

 

[Tommy Allison]

We were too busy buying weapons of mass destruction and fighting wars with countries that we should have simply ignored. Our country's priorities have been f-ed since Korea.

Our lack of real leadership has been laughable, and when it comes to the space program, the real engineers, and can do people are working in the private sector. Space should be for EVERYONE who can get there. Not just governments. It's retarded and backward to believe that only your government is truly worthy to engage the great unknown.

Especially when all they'll do is pretend that extra-terrestrials don't exist in order to maintain their power over the rest of humanity.

 

[Artyom]

Whatever reason was for closing the program back in 1975 I wonder what's the reason for re-opening the program now? I can't see JFK anywhere around...Well, I can understand why in a light of the whole situation with 6.5 billion people live on Earth it's quit reasonable to make a first step in a long journey to other planets but if the reason for closing the program was the fact that the place had been taken what makes difference now? Or other civilizations took the Moon in rent for 30 years and time is up now?

 

[Don Keyhoe-Ti]

USA will be long bankrupt before they even get halfway towards a manned Mars mission.

 

[Artyom]

Well, I think everything in nowadays world is extremely strong connected and the whole Moon/Mars program depends on...oil prices, the situation in the Middle East, our ability to switch to different energy source, which of course won't happen within next 15-20 years for sure.

My guess about the timing of getting back to the Moon exploration can be explained by the fact that on a long run we do not have any other choice. Period. No matter if the situation with extraterrestrial/intro-demential/crypto-terrestrials argue about Moon might took place in the past or not, if we had to leave as fast as we could or not.