How come NASA has gone down hill ever since they landed a man on the moon?

Question

Now...I don't think they could go back to the moon even if they tried.

Answer 1

The moon landing was staged. Look at all the footage and explain why there are shadow's in different directions. The only source of light was the sun.

Answer 2

It's been mentioned already that there hasn't been one big project to galvanize the public and get them behind NASA, but....it hasn't been mentioned that there have been *two* fatal shuttle accidents that have got everyone, inside and outside of NASA, asking questions and second-guessing.

Not to mention:

--there's no more real competition, from the Russians or anyone. Part of what made the moon mission so high-priority was that it was a *race against time* and against the then-Soviets.

--there's no more real funding. Reagan started with the funding cuts in 1980 and people have been wanting and demanding cheaper since.

--the emphasis on small, cheap and robotic probes over manned flights may have reduced risk, but it's also reduced public interest as well. These days the only people who want to see Mars and Saturn probe footage are the ones who *already* wanted to see such. We aren't getting NASA any *new* positive attention here.

I think the main thing though is this. When NASA put a man on the moon, it did so using the *best* high technology money could buy, and we reaped the benefits of the research and development on that in terms of civilian applications for decades to come. But now....the shuttle is dangerously old and obsolete in terms of tech. We don't have a replacement, don't have the means to get to Mars, and a lot of the computational tech behind the probes is of an *evolutionary* sort, not *revolutionary*....the talk is of software patches and incremental changes. And having Hubble go up, be defective, and require half of its orbiting *lifespan* just to make *adequate and functional* didn't help matters.

Point is, most folks have *cell phones* that have more computational power than the tech that put a man on the moon. Really, the computer that controlled the moon landing was an *8-bit* machine. And now people with Photoshop can *create* fake photos that *put them, themselves* on the moon in bikinis, giving the conspiracy theorists even *more* "evidence" to work with.

Simply put. The Shock and Awe aren't there anymore. Going back to the Moon, or even going to Mars, just doesn't capture the public imagination and set it on fire the way it once did. Why?

Because by and large, our toys are too good and our attention spans are too short. We want the *quick* pictures from the robot probe on Mars, and not the risk of a six-year manned journey to put a human there.

Sorry to go on so....thanks for your time! ^_^

Answer 3

It's a good question--

NASA became a political football--and inadequately funded by Congress--after the lunar landings. That pattern has continued. Beginning in 1994 to 2004, Congress canceled every single program NASA tried to startto build an advanced spacecraft to replace the Shuttle, including a proposal to build a second-generation Shuttle using current technology after the Columbia disaster.

All the Bush administration and the GOP Congress would fund is a "replacement" that consists of modified components from the existing Shuttle program combined with an Apollo-type capsule for the crew. They have yet to actually apropriate any money for the "return to the moon" bush promised--and he never asked themtoo-as it stands its jsut empty rhetoric.

NASA has the people with the expertise to return to the moon. But they can't do it without the funding. we will see a return to the moon, though--probably in the early 2020s. But, as things stand, it won't be an American who next sets foot on the moon--because other countries are working on it (notably China) --and they ARE funding their programs.

Don't get me wrong--there is zero chance anyone can return to the moon before the United States--we have too much technological advantage--IF we choose to make the effort. Bu tif we lose ths "second space race" that is already well underway--it will be because we didn't try.

Answer 4

Creating the space station is a very major accomplishment.
NASA may not get the publicity the Apollo program got, but they have done some amazing things with the Hubble telescope, and dozens of probes and satellites. This doesn't even take into account the military missions they have done.

On the way to Mars we are first going back to the Moon. We will establish a science colony there. Possibly within your lifetime shuttle like missions to the moon will be as common as they are to the International Space Station.

Mars is far more challenging and will involve a team of astronauts in space for about five months round trip traveling about 70 million miles total. Next they plan to do 500 day missions to Mars. This is our first major step to man's destiny to colonize other worlds beyond the Earth.

These are exciting times to be alive and NASA is smarter and stronger than ever.

Answer 5

They'd be happy to return if the government wanted to give them the money. The problem, though, is that Congress has made a habit of slashing NASA's budget. Back in the Space Race, Congress had little compunction about giving NASA a blank check; after all, it was a political necessity and a matter of national pride to defeat the Soviet Union. After Apollo 11, Congress and the taxpaying public (a.k.a. the voters who keep politicians in office) lost interest in the Moon. So funding NASA was no longer as important, and several lunar landings were cancelled due to budget cuts.

So to answer your question, the budget cuts have taken a toll on NASA. NASA's been forced to realign its priorities, and it now places most of its emphasis on unmanned exploration, which is far less expensive (but a lot safer) than manned space flight.

Answer 6

Dude - I love a good conspiracy more than anyone, still those points you mentioned don`t hold. I saw different arguments to yours, and sure- it sounds very strange, yet there is gravity on the moon- one eights or something of that of the earth so the **** still drops. It can`t be that cold on the moon to need so much lead- lead is like the worst for keeping warm there is. This crap will freeze you. So you mean the radiation- I heard that earth is surrounded by extremely deadly radiation belt. Still- why would all the scientists would bull **** at once that it doesn`t exist? To get some cash? First missions usually fail and yes- there were a whole bunch of successful moon missions. And yes- there are plenty of the interviews with the astronauts and some of them speak of seeing UFOs. You can`t see the stars because the ssurfaceis still very lit up by the sun- it`s like seeing the stars in the daylight. Flag is just reacting on the commotion- it probably takes 8 times the time on the moon. So far I prefer the argument about showing the finger to the Soviets. And yes- the area 51 is probably a **** secret military base , where they fly different things. To sum it all upp- yes some weird **** is going on! Watch zeitgeist movie and fight the power.

Answer 7

Because no other goal has caught the public interest as much, so they can't get the funding they need. When JFK promised to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (the 60s), that motivate the whole nation to support the space race. But after that, the public failed to support subsequent projects. (A shuttle that can orbit? Who cares? We've been to the moon!)

And, of course, the moon race was fueled by the cold war -- we HAD to beat the Russians to the moon!

A Mars mission MIGHT generate the same level of public interest, but only if there's a bonus (like beating the Russians, or solving global warming).

Unless space exploration can help us NOW, the public won't get interested enough to allow it to be funded.

Answer 8

They haven't really gone "down hill" --> they've actually had several successes, like Hubble and Sojourner. Unfortunately, they've also had several tragedies.

Don't forget: the moon landing was such a success, it's hard to top it! Mars is too cold, Venus is too hot and the other planets are too far away ;-)

Now, they spend most of their time conducting scientific experiments (in orbit) as well as delivering commercial payloads (like communciation satellites) which help pay for the NASA program. Imagine life without all those satellites in orbit! No cell phones!

Meanwhile, they're working very hard on keeping the dream of space exploration alive, rest assured.

Answer 9

That's what's wrong with a misinformed public. We have every reason to want to go back to the moon because of the mining potential of 3He in the lunar regolith. Both China and Russia have already announced their intentions to go to the moon for that purpose, and they've agreed to join forces, after each of them had been spurned by the USA. NASA has recently announced interest in going back to the moon for the same purpose, and plans are underway for establishing a colony on the moon, even as millions of clueless Americans who don't keep up with space news believe either 1) we've never landed on the moon, 2) we have no plans in going back to the moon, or 3) we have no reason to go back to the moon.

What's 3He, you might ask? it's the ultimate fusion power fuel, and it's impossible to get it in sufficient quantities on Earth. But it's easily obtainable from the moon. The lunar availability and value of 3He has been known since the 1950s, and a number of moon astronauts have been trying to get the word out the importance of this isotope of Helium that can be found on the moon, but apparently far too few Americans have been listening. Wake up, America! Pay attention, and GET GOING.

Answer 10

The moon was a big goal and it was reached. I guess they spent the time between then and now developing the new technologies to reach farther into space. Now Mars in the new goal and I feel sure it will be reached eventually.

They could go back to the moon if they wanted to. The technology is obviously there and there have been ideas as to how to use to moon's limited resources. But for the most part NASA wants to move to bigger things.

And I wouldn't really say they've gone downhill. Their technologies has grown in leaps and bounds. What has gone downhill, as mentioned, is public interest.

Answer 11

The United States Congress has done two things that have hurt NASA. They reduced their funding relative to inflation and they have mandated projects that produce more public relations for congressmen than good science. When the salaries went down, the best people left. I think there are good people there. If congress gave them the money, we would be back in a hurry. That is not going to happen unless China puts a permanent colony there with missiles or something like that.