"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"