posted on Feb, 19 2018 @ 01:01 AM
a reply to: toysforadults
The plan was to get there first. Once they did, they were going to continue to go, and even work on new tech to stay there. But the public lost
interest and wanted to know why we were spending all that money on going to the moon and not fixing our problems on earth. We beat the Evil Russian
Empire there, and that was all anyone cared about. Once we did that, the average person didn't see the point anymore. Unlike the military, NASA was
a much more public program, that relied on public interest. It dried up.
Staying on the moon is going to be extremely hard. It would have cost 7-10 times the cost of the entire Apollo program to get a base to the moon and
set it up. They spent over $100B on Apollo in ten years. To put that in comparison, the shuttle program spent $200B over 40 years. The public
didn't want to keep spending the money. In 1968, NASA testified to Congress on the possibility of putting a permanent base on the moon. They would
start in the early 1970s, and possibly have it established by 1980. They briefed three options to get the base to the moon. Option A would have
added $725M to Apollo, Option B $745M, and Option C $1.090B. Those were only rough estimates on cost.