"E. L." wrote:

I think the truth is more logical.  The moon landings didn't fizzle
because of money.  NASA would always have any amount of money they
wanted.

Why would you say such a thing?

The previous poster gave you the correct causes for the termination of the
Apollo program.

 The reason really is that you just can't go around mining
celestial bodies that keep the universe in harmony.  How long do you
think it would be before the precious balance that we enjoy was undone
by us moving part of the moon to our planet?  How would the balance
start affecting us, by our orbit become eccentric and possibly bringing
us closer to the sun, or away from it?

Could you take our word for it that you're displaying a poor grasp of celestial
mechanics?

  We don't need
anything from the moon, we have plenty of untouched natural resources
right here."

I'd agree with you that mining the moon to bring materials back to Earth makes
little economic sense.  But mining the moon for materials to construct large
structures in space makes perfect sense, since Earth's steep gravity well makes
lifting everything up from Earth uneconomical.


-- 


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

			Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"