The Moon Missions: Why were they aborted?

[JD Spydo]

With the passing of American icon Neil Armstrong this past week all of the fanfare about Mr. ARmstrong and the space race in general has re-kindled a question that I've been asking several of my friends and people I know from several different backgrounds and interests for many years now but have never gotten any satisfactory answer to>>

Back in the late 60s and early 1970s we supposedly sent 3 manned missions to the moon>> the last one being in 1972 ( 40 years ago :confused :) . So why haven't we been back there? It would seem to me that in 40 years they would have wanted to do many follow up missions to find out more and more information and possibly to set up a space station up there>> or an unmanned set of computers and probes for additional information :confused: ???.

But very mysteriously it seems like they completely aborted any additional missions or any information gathering satellites or probes to learn more about the moon or anything related to it :confused: .

If it was so important to go there and investigate the place to begin with then why all of a sudden did they drop every project dealing with the moon? :confused:

Call me a conspiracy wacko if you want that's fine but I do believe that is a legitimate question they should give us an answer to>> especially with all the tax dollars and millions of man hours of research that was invested in that goal but when it was all said and done it seems to me like it was all in vain :confused:

If any of you can shed any light on it I would love to hear what you all can tell me. I know there are a lot of you guys and gals here on the forum that are very educated in science and I would love to hear your inputl.

[Gunslinger]

My guess would be funding. Especially in these times.

As far as people believeing in conspiracies stateing that the moon landing was fake and recorded in a studio, Well I would think that if it was fake, they could just fake it again to keep suspisions low.

[Stuart Ackerman]

Funding, pure and simple...IMHO

With plenty of starving people on THIS planet, maybe the money is better spent here?

[Sequimite]

The Apollo program ended when the Shuttle program began so there was a big gap. There was so much material brought back from the moon that there wasn't much of a scientific reason to send additional missions to land there. There were satellites put in orbit around the moon after Apollo to study the surface. No economic benefits could be found to justify a moon base which people of my generation expected would be the next step.

[JD Spydo]

I've truly considered the possibility that the funding and the overriding costs associated might have played a part in aborting the moon missions.

I've also considered that they might have found or discovered something up there that they don't want the public to know about. I'm not suggesting that aliens live on the moon or anything like that. But I am wondering if they didn't discover something that might have proved a lot of what we currently believe to be false.

But underneath all of that you don't hear anyone even talk about it much anymore. It's almost as though it was all done for some kind of distraction :confused:

Also I would think with our exponential advances in technology they would probably have the knowledge to literally send space shuttles up there by now.

During the last days of the Bush administration there was even a lot of talk about sending a manned mission to Mars. But that sure died a quick death. I would sure love to see some of the surviving astronauts of any of the 3 Apollo programs talk to us about what they learned>> But Neil Armstrong himseld didn't even give many interviews. I think he only gave one or 2 in a 25 year period>> I did indeed find that kind of odd

[Evil D]

Funding, but also because there's nothing but rocks and dust anyway.

[Clip]

Took the words right out of my mouth. Also, we beat the Russians up there so what was left to do?

[tautisg1]

Funny how we have been more times on the moon than the bottom of our oceans. Still, hopefully, we'll be going to Mars in the next 30-40 years.

[Sequimite]

I've truly considered the possibility that the funding and the overriding costs associated might have played a part in aborting the moon missions.

I've also considered that they might have found or discovered something up there that they don't want the public to know about. I'm not suggesting that aliens live on the moon or anything like that. But I am wondering if they didn't discover something that might have proved a lot of what we currently believe to be false.

But underneath all of that you don't hear anyone even talk about it much anymore. It's almost as though it was all done for some kind of distraction :confused:

Also I would think with our exponential advances in technology they would probably have the knowledge to literally send space shuttles up there by now.

During the last days of the Bush administration there was even a lot of talk about sending a manned mission to Mars. But that sure died a quick death. I would sure love to see some of the surviving astronauts of any of the 3 Apollo programs talk to us about what they learned>> But Neil Armstrong himseld didn't even give many interviews. I think he only gave one or 2 in a 25 year period>> I did indeed find that kind of odd

I think if there was something truly interesting enough to be made a state secret secret, we would have some kind of base there.

The moon landing was a product of the cold war more than merely being a desire to climb that mountain "because it was there". Americans were truly frightened by Sputnik, with good reason as it was the father of inter-continental nuclear missiles. Kennedy made this a public demonstration of the superiority of a democratic capitalist society over totalitarian communism. The USSR had a rich history in rocketry and was well ahead of the US. By picking a challenge in an area where the USSR had a big lead it accentuated the eventual victory and gave the US the know how for it's own missile program.

[JD Spydo]

Funny how we have been more times on the moon than the bottom of our oceans. Still, hopefully, we'll be going to Mars in the next 30-40 years.

That is not true>> We have had submersible technology for a long time now. My Nephew has a doctorate degree in Astro-Physics and he has told me about many projects they are working on in that area and he personally knows one guy who has gone to the ocean floor 3 miles deep or better on at least 6 occasions he was telling me about that not too long ago.

My nephew also told me that the USA has several projects currently underway that is studying the Abyssal plane ( ocean floor) in 3 to 4 different regions of the ocean. Even "Animal Planet" has actually televised one or 2 of those studies where they have even brought up sea creatures from the deep. Now I don't know if they have been as deep as the "Marianna Trench" (about 7 miles deep, deepest part of the oceans on the planet) but they have submersible vehicles that can go very far down now.

Don't mean to be argumentative Brother but you are behind on that one.

[JD Spydo]

I think if there was something truly interesting enough to be made a state secret secret, we would have some kind of base there.

The moon landing was a product of the cold war more than merely being a desire to climb that mountain "because it was there". Americans were truly frightened by Sputnik, with good reason as it was the father of inter-continental nuclear missiles. Kennedy made this a public demonstration of the superiority of a democratic capitalist society over totalitarian communism. The USSR had a rich history in rocketry and was well ahead of the US. By picking a challenge in an area where the USSR had a big lead it accentuated the eventual victory and gave the US the know how for it's own missile program.

SEQ I agree in large part of what you are saying and there is a lot of truth about the Cold War aspects of the missions>> but if they are realistically going to pursue other types of manned space travel you would think that they would have developed ways of getting to the moon and back on a routine basis by now if that truly was their goal.

But for some reason I still think there is something about the moon that they discovered which is the main reason that they don't go back. Because in 40 years with all our new technologies and advances in the space shuttles and many other scientific advances you would think that they would want to go back again just to test out some of our newer technologies if nothing else. I personally think that there is something about the moon or traveling to the moon that they are not telling us. I'm wondering if the effects of the "Van Allen Radiation Belt" isn't worse than what they originally thought. That's just one possibility or maybe the Sun itself is far more damaging when you are on the moon. Whatever the reason they sure don't want to share it with us.

But on the other hand maybe if they did fill us in on what is truly going on it would be a risk of national security of some sort. I appreciate all of your feedbacks and opinions but I still maintain that there is something they aren't telling us about and it is just strange to me that they haven't gone back in 40 years>> there just has to be an underlying reason for it. Also I find it extremely strange that Neil Armstrong only did like 2 interviews in a 25 year span>> you would think he would have become a rock star like icon rather than a recluse like he was.

[Clip]

Neil Armstrong was modest. I've never met the guy but I think he was pretty down-to-earth. Polar opposite of Buzz Aldrin, who has enjoyed a great deal of publicity. Not saying its wrong, just two different types of people.

[Sequimite]

As an example, there is a private venture that seeks to mine asteroids for a profit. Apparently there is reason to believe that Platinum can be brought back with mining robots. If there was any similar value to going to the moon someone would be doing it. The moon has no atmosphere so the surface is exposed in detail for anyone that cares to look from a satellite.

Going to the moon is within the technological capability of at least a dozen countries. Even if there was a conspiracy of silence in the US, it wouldn't effect others. I also disbelieve that a 45 year old conspiracy of this size could be kept secret in the US much less in the greater numbers of people needed for a worldwide conspiracy.

[rosconey]

we may go back after all- they have discovered a " thing" that can be used as energy-cant remember the name of it,but the moon has a huge supply -but we cant harness it properly yet

they say thats why the chinese are so serious about going to the moon- they want to get it first-

and you would think a mars mission would get a better start with a moon launch than a earth one

[Fancier]

There weren't (and still aren't) any economic, political, or scientific benefits to sending people to the Moon or other planets that exceeded the staggering expense. We have quite capable computer systems (whose development were funded by NASA and the military) that make it possible for automated probes to accomplish all of our practical goals without the expense of sending fragile and non-expendable people past a low earth orbit. The US maintains parity with other nations capable of manned space flight, but does not see the need to expend resources to advance beyond that level of parity. If another nation were seen to attempt long range manned missions I suspect that our priorities would change rapidly.

[The Deacon]

I'm confused JD. Not all that unusual for me, but given your use of the phrase "supposedly sent 3 manned missions to the moon" I have to wonder if you're saying you're not sure we ever went to the moon at all, or that you think the US only landed men there 3 times instead of six? If the second, why would we claim six and do only three? If the first, then the question of whether something was found that was so unsettling it's been kept a secret for over 40 years simply doesn't seem logical.

[JD Spydo]

I'm confused JD. Not all that unusual for me, but given your use of the phrase "supposedly sent 3 manned missions to the moon" I have to wonder if you're saying you're not sure we ever went to the moon at all, or that you think the US only landed men there 3 times instead of six? If the second, why would we claim six and do only three? If the first, then the question of whether something was found that was so unsettling it's been kept a secret for over 40 years simply doesn't seem logical.

Yeah I did say "supposedly" because I don't know for sure that we went there or not. There are so many unanswered questions regarding the dangers of the Van Allen radiation Belt. I don't know if they ever landed there the first time much less 3, 6 , 2 or whatever number they throw at me. All the lies about Nixon, The Viet Nam war, Kent State, Wounded Knee and Watergate just doesn't give them a lot of credibility in my book.

It just doesn't make sense to set out to accomplish a goal of that magnitude and then abort the moon missions and later regard them as un-important.

Look I don't know whether or not we actually did that or not. I was hoping that someone would shed light on the moon missions and be able to explain in detail why we aborted the project all together. Why would we dump so many billions of dollars into a space shuttle project that did little more than what John Glenn did back in the early 60s.

The fact that Buzz Aldrin was approached by a man asking him to swear on the Holy Bible that he had been to the moon and he very hatefully declined. There's just a lot of things about the moon missions that just don't add up. Show me where I'm wrong and prove to me that we did indeed do the things they claim to have done and I'll listen to what you or others have to say about.

That's why we have an open forum here is to share knowledge isn't it.

[Blerv]

Frankly I'm surprised we ever did it to begin with. What a epic disaster of a country's resources.

Still, the past is the past and NASA and the space program have helped us develop tech that we NEVER would have dreamed possible, at least in the time-frame we developed it. Satellites alone have pushed this world into the 21st century.

There was an entire episode of Mythbusters trying to prove the validity of the moon landing. While people are not perfect and anything is possible they showed the chance of NASA being able to pull it off would have been abysmally low. Back then we still thought asbestos and lead were awesome for car parts so the advanced grasp of various sciences doesn't make sense.

That of course and keeping the secret this long...Neil died of old age instead of mysterious "moon poisoning" or a bullet.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mefEKqzq8cg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Sequimite]

It just doesn't make sense to set out to accomplish a goal of that magnitude and then abort the moon missions and later regard them as un-important.

The goal was primarily political. The goal was met. They never came up with another goal as compelling as the political one. Makes sense to me.

As an aside one ironclad proof of the moon mission is that physicists from all over the world still bounce lasers off the reflector left on the moon to measure the distance.

[phillipsted]

I think the reason the Apollo program was ended was simple:

1. JFK gave NASA and the Nation a goal of "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth." We accomplished that goal in July 1969. (IMHO, JD!)

2. Subsequent Apollo missions were planned and executed without the benefit of a clear strategic objective. They obviously generated lots of useful science and contributed to our knowledge of space travel - but they were not done in service of a "grander mission."

3. ...And NASA needed the money to fund the Space Shuttle and other important scientific missions (e.g., Pioneer, Mariner, Viking)

That's my $0.02...

TedP