posted 05-20-2012 08:14 PM            

Most of the hardware was already built or partially constructed. Presumably all that would have mattered was spending money on the actual flight.

posted 05-21-2012 09:26 AM               

I, too, would rather see mockups lying on their side for people to look at and have actual flight hardware flown on those missions. Awfully expensive displays.

posted 05-21-2012 11:08 AM               

There were some NASA managers who wanted to cancel the program after Apollo 11's success. After all, we had beat the Russians and met Kennedy's deadline. There were more who wanted to cancel after Apollo 13's close call.

posted 05-21-2012 12:41 PM            

I realize canceling the last missions wasn't just about money, but for this question, I am interested how much NASA supposedly saved.

The number $450 million sounds familiar for open, I assume that's 21st century dollars. And it wasn't so much that the money wasn't spent but rather it was directed to other programs, i.e. the shuttle? So where does the 42 million figure come in?

posted 05-22-2012 02:15 AM               

Something like 95% of the money stayed firmly on the ground in paying for services and wages amongst other things.

posted 05-22-2012 08:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by APG85:
I always felt bad for Dick Gordon and Joe Engle to have gotten so close to a landing mission. Stu Roosa seemed particularly bitter in a documentary I saw one time ("We just quit")...

---

posted 05-22-2012 10:20 AM               

When the decision was made to cut Apollo 18 and 19, Skylab was also in the budget crosshairs and Deputy administrator George Low (who served interim as Administrator I believe until Fletcher was appointed) wanted to see it continue as he felt it was a better focus for NASA's future at the time. Even after Apollo's 18 and 19 (if they had flown) there were no more lunar missions on the table and the Saturn V production line was being shut down. Members of Congress who were pro-NASA were concerned that NASA didn't really have a mission for after Apollo and Apollo Applications was started up to try and give NASA that post-lunar mission (George Mueller's idea). But when James Webb was the Administrator, he didn't let AAP advance to far as in his mind, Apollo's lunar mission WAS the goal and he treated AAP like something of a hedge fund if problems were encountered with Apollo's lunar program. When Webb retired and Thomas Paine took office, Paine was more receptive to AAP (hence the transfer of a Saturn V to Skylab so they could loft it as a dry workshop).

Even though there were two more Saturns which could have been used for a couple more lunar missions, it still takes manpower to finish and prepare them, not to mention other costs associated with finishing the hardware. All that work takes a lot of money. So, do you use manpower and funds on two expensive launches, or use it to loft a workshop into orbit and fly three crews (simple math, two launches versus four means the KSC and engineering work forces are able to stay employed longer and perhaps would be available for shuttle)? Being in charge of NASA isn't necessarily about just charting the course of the agency for what it should do, but it is also about preserving what you have if you can. ASTP hadn't been approved yet and when ASTP was approved, NASA's ulterior motive was to help keep the engineering teams intact for a little longer to hopefully make that transition between Apollo's hardware and shuttle's a little less traumatic.

Now, going for Skylab doesn't mean that NASA was necessarily turning its back on the moon. There was hope that Apollo Applications could springboard NASA to greater things and perhaps having those two extra Saturn Vs at his disposal could be used to launch perhaps a second and even a third Skylab Orbital Workshop. There was even talk of maybe sending a Skylab on a lunar orbit mapping mission. But ultimately, NASA only launched one Skylab since Paine and Low's enthusiasm wasn't shared by the Nixon White House or Congress. So the focus went towards shuttle after that as a "building block" approach to future NASA programs.

posted 05-29-2012 01:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattJL:
I wonder if solar maximum was pre-destined to cut off the Apollo program, then.

---

I know it was sort of a factor in determining when to do the missions back in the early 1960s based on the relatively little amount of solar observation data NASA had to work with in the early 1960s. But I don't believe it was a factor in stopping the missions as by the time the lunar flights were going, NASA had a bit more data on the sun. Funding was more of the driving factor here.