Thread 17997660

Why did all of humanity scale back on space travel after the moon landing?
>Money
That didn't stop them before and never stopped the development of other technologies.

>>17997660 (OP)
We got the trophy and the bragging rights against the Soviets. The moon landing was a political race, not a sustainable exploration program. Once we won, the insane costs and lack of immediate earthly benefits made politicians and the public lose interest. It stopped being a priority. We chose cheaper satellites and military tech instead.

>>17997660 (OP)
Space race happened because Soviets and Americans had dick measuring contest funded by their peoples' taxed money
With no free tax money you need either rich schizos like Musk or schizo entrepreneurs like Musk

The Nazi and jew scientists of the mid-20th century died off. Now all of Western society is basically filled with these undisciplined, ungrateful queers. God forbid you are a serious person with low tolerance.

>>17997660 (OP)
The Moon landing was motivated by fears that the Soviets would establish a military presence on the Moon. When it became clear that the Soviets couldn't replicate the Moon landing, America stopped giving a shit about space travel

>>17997660 (OP)
Whats the point?
>go to the Moon
>wow its fucking nothing
>go back
>10 gorillion well spent
Until corpos like SpaceX or Blue Origin find ways to privatize other planets there's no real reason to care about space
>inb4 wh*toid yap about lacking adventurous spirit or some shit

>>17997660 (OP)
People were less skeptical in the 1960s. If they tried to stage this today everyone would know it was fake

>>17997660 (OP)
>>Money
That's one of the biggest reasons along with lack of public interest. NASA's budget adjusted for inflation peaked in the late 60s.
NASA was hitchhiking with the Russians post space shuttle retirement until SpaceX came along.

>>17997690
America obviously never went to the moon

>>17997660 (OP)
The only practical reason for now to do space travel would probably be getting rare minerals for cheaper, but we are honestly decades away from that. How many people are willing to invest into that?
>"Give us gorillion dollars and maybe in 2050 we can mine asteroids, hope you're alive then!"

The other reason would be for scientific reasons, but that won't move any meaningful amounts of money by itself.

Unlike infrastructure, there wasn’t a way to justify human space exploration in terms of security. Satellites were already booming and could be justified. They made money, improved communications, and had military utility. A Moon base didn’t.

>>17997683
>Now all of Western society is basically filled with these undisciplined, ungrateful queers
Go make up grievances somewhere else brat

>>17997660 (OP)
>>17997660 (OP)
>Why did all of humanity scale back on space travel after the moon landing?

>>17997660 (OP)
Theres just no money to be made out of space travel yet, so no reason to pursue it anymore.The mordern business model is focused on maximizing short term profits above all else, and space travel is still a long term investment for a questionable gain. Even Elon is not 100% on board.

>>17998198
It'll benefit your children or their children. That thinking is why we are getting fucked vis-a-vis the Chinese.

>We wirr never arrow another hundred years of humiriation
versus
>I won't be alive to benefit it? WAAAH I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR IT

>>17998216
They were already cutting the budget to both NASA and social welfare. Both parties did chain cuts to both.

>>17998271
>It'll benefit your children or their children
Getting space induced osteoporosis and muscle wasting as man at age 34 to work a job that
-requires 2+ degrees at the minimum
-a specialized skilled trade at a high enough level that might as be a bachelor+masters in terms of time and training investment
-a salary that overall doesn't not remotely match the sheer skill and training needed to be space worthy.

>>17998283
Like why would anyone want to mine rocks in space or be trapped in a space colony with no way back home and is effectively a prison?

>>17998283
some of the most vocal proponents of getting rid of nasa were socialist jews that wanted the money for welfare

>>17998341
The budget was going to get gutted regardless. There was no point in trying to show off once one the PR race was over.

>>17998381
I mean completely gutting the space shuttle program immediately. It was still going until 2011

>>17998450
>It was still going until 2011
Pretty much a skeleton.

>>17998462
The entire ISS wouldn't have been built

Imagine the year is 1972
You are NASA
You've just completed the 6th successful manned Lunar Landing and the 8th successful manned Lunar mission overall
You are then tasked with appealing to Congress for continued funding for the fiscal year
You have 2 proposals:
1.) We can perform a 7th manned lunar mission
Or
2.) We can suspend the Apollo Program in order to focus on developing a manned Space Station, continue the Apollo Applications Program, and get started on developing what would eventually become the Space Shuttle

Doing both isn't an option, Congress doesn't want to rampantly print money yet
What would you do?
Retards who ask this question for some reason think NASA just stopped Apollo with nothing to show for it. It's fucking retarded.

>>17998520
7th Lunar mission should be prioritized because it's lucky. Unless space luck differs from Earth luck and 7 is an unlucky number.

>>17998523
It just would've been the 7th landing mission, but the 9th overall manned mission

>>17997660 (OP)
we essentially realized getting a guy to other places outside of earth orbit was going to be much harder, so the focus shifted to finding other ways to map out space

>>17998525
So just do another manned mission so the 7th Lunar one is both the 7th landing and the 10th overall manned one. 10s a nice number.

>>17998529
>10s a nice number.
No it's not, you've been brainwashed by filthy decimalists. Duodecimal is the superior, more elegant numbering system. And thus by your logic we should've stopped at 12 overall missions

>>17998532
I submit to you.

>>17998212
It's literally true if you're active in any western research environment

>>17997660 (OP)
They spent billions on developing ICBMs and other military uses for rockets like satellites, once they reached a point of diminishing returns with reguards to increased capabilities the funding dried up. Space travel and moon landings was the blue pill plebs needed to be ok with spending large amounts of their collective wealth on expanding military hardware in an age where the idea of nuclear armageddon was novel and terrifying. The only reason rocketry is seeing a renewed effort now is because they figure theres money to be made in the endeavour now that humans have become so reliant on satalites and the future promises ever increasing demand for resource that are scarce on earth but abundant on other places of the solar system.

>Money
The ability to make it and the ability to protect it. Alway has been the case.

>>17998547
lmao stop bullshitting.

>>17997683
this. The competency crisis starts in the most complicated sectors of society and one of those is rocket science

>>17997660 (OP)
Basically no incentive to do so

>>17998288
Tons of people would gladly live in a bumfuck space colony just to get away from this faggot Earth

>>17998520
>for decades schools, books, and the media refers to "the" moon landing
>hey, why do you believe in something whose only proof was "lost" according to nasa
>ermm well actually there were a billion moon landings chud!
it's all so tiresome

>>17997660 (OP)
Not much of a point unless your focused on long term gains

>>17998568
You clearly aren't in research lol

>>17997660 (OP)
The same reason you never get replies when you ask a question but get all the replies when you post the answer wrong on purpose. People want to compete and correct you.

>>17997660 (OP)
Because once you have demonstrated that you have ICBMs, sorry, Saturn V rockets of peace, that can go to the moon, the message has been sent.

>>17998695
When did Nasa say the proof of the moon landing was lost?

Space travel is a meme, the distances are simply too big and space is too dangerous, it's pretty much the seame reason why we didn't explore oceans yet, maybe in the next 200 years the robots will do that

>>17997660 (OP)
Probably CIA fuckery

>>17997808
90% of Moon hoaxfags are brown people.

>>17997660 (OP)
>>17997667
>>17997679
Joe Biden was elected to the senate in 1972, in november. in december they did the final apollo mission. biden then cut NASAs budget so he could use it on personally enriching himself and giving money to blacks. dems are really anti space travel because they want to spend dat money on dem programs for useless retards

>>17997683
nazis invented trannies, Americans went to the moon, yuro cuck
>>17997694
>>17998067
>t. ranny yuro

>>17998523
apollo 17 was the 7th lunar landing mission, it's just apollo 13 was a failure
>>17998520
to add to this most of the apollo missions had major failures or other issues, like apollo 13's issue was the most famous, but 14 had a major docking malfunction, and 12 had an electrical issue. the suits in washington were worried someone was going to die which would have been a major pr issue

>>17997660 (OP)
Its money.
>That didn't stop them before and never stopped the development of other technologies
Every other technology is incentivized by feasible and immediate return on investment. Excluding sattelites, there is no feasible ROI for space technology. The driving incentive behind space exploration is always ideological and its very easy for that ideology to lose steam. You need either a space race propaganda competition or singularly driven autist like Elon who is willing to put billions into a Mars colony for purely ideological reasons.

>>17997660 (OP)
The moon landed was faked.

>>17999394
GMS!
>>17999380
they do develop new tech via deep space probes. Like the DoD/Airforce secured funding for the 3 deep space shuttle probes, but those were unmanned. the Airforce was concerned with like radiation hardening.
one of the other big things with the deep space probes, other than not risking human lives, is that these probes go on all kinds of weird and retarded orbits that use less fuel and therefore require less weight and therefore less money but take way, way longer. Apollo 8 took just over 6 days and Apollo 13 took just under 6 days. the nips recently launched probes that took like 3 months to get to the moon

>>17999446
If you're talking about X-37 (its unmanned but it isn't deep space) then yeah it has value/roi but thats why I specifically excluded sattelite technology from what I'm saying here.

>>17999640
>If you're talking about X-37 (its unmanned but it isn't deep space)
the space shuttle launched 2 probes to jupiter and one probe towards the sun. nasa had to build one of the jupiter probes out of spare parts from voyager, but the air force told congress to approve the second one because they wanted the radiation shielding tech nasa was going to have to make

>>17999650
Yeah I see what you're saying. Space exploration does end up generating new technologies and materials that other fields can use but the contribution is too modest compared to the costs to really justify it. In the grand scheme of things, it would have been cheaper for the US gov to just develop the radiation shielding the DoD needed and not bother sending anything to the other side or the solar system.

>>17997683 I miss the NAZI's, they where so cool.