|
Whilst not about to defend Nixon himself, the decision to stop going to the Moon was politically probably the right one. Those who like Astronomy, science etc may bemoan that but we personnally did not pay for all of it, the (USA American) public tax payer did. The (USA) public tax payer is also is a voter, a politician is elected and therefore mostly listens to the tax payer, voila.
Note the considerable money that was needed to sustain manned missions to a remote desolate rock was instead partially put into programs such as Pioneer and the other inter-planetary probes. Look at the wealth of information and wonder that they brought for a fraction of the cost. Robots are cheaper for that sort of thing. Manned = expensive. Relatively speaking the moon rock is probably one of the most expensive per kg of anything on the planet.
There is also the risks to be considered. Apollo 13 was scary especially for the astronauts themselves. The Moon is remote. The Sun can have a potentially dangerous flare whilst the folk are in transit or on the surface itself. All these things need to be factored and taken care of. Not easy, especially now in these modern days of instant press and different pressures/standards than previously. If Apollo had continued and astronauts were lost, the tragedy and its resulting implications, well...
Sending a manned mission to the Moon was and is an incredible feat and well done to all involved from the engineers and manufacterers through to the astronauts themselves.
I'd personnally have loved to see it continue (the "romantic appeal") but can certainly understand the rationale behind why it did not and why perhaps it did not make sense for it too either.
|