Why Did Apollo/Saturn Really Disappear So Fast?

Ok, now that we're done congratulating ourselves on Apollo 11 at 50, I'd like to risk being the Skunk at the Picnic and ask the question: Why did we scrap Saturn/Apollo as quickly as we did? Instead of using it (like Russia and Soyuz or US and the Shuttle) for the long-term?

Received wisdom typically says Saturn/Apollo and manned lunar exploration were just too expensive, but the '70s were hardly a decade of Federal spending shrinking---Just the opposite, it greatly expanded (see: EPA, ERDA--now Dept of Energy, spinoff of Dept of Education into a Cabinet-level agency, plus welfare spending for starters).

So what was it about Saturn/Apollo that it died such an early death, when it still had so much to offer---post Skylab Space Stations and advanced two week lunar surface stays for starters?

Just curious...

Shuttles are a better cut of pork.

Guess like everything else. Start off with Redstone, then on to Titan and then Saturn. Technology keeps pushing on.
I wish we would have kept the shuttle going. We figured out why it blew up on takeoff and why it burned up on reentry Expensive lessons learned.
But fixable.
Problems solved and the shuttle was a magnificent and versatile craft.
But nothing yet compares to the majestic take off of a Saturn V.
I wish I could have experienced it in person.
Let’s petition NASA to build one more for launch to get this new generation to experience it and support NASA with more funds

There's clear evidence that NASA was getting nervous about the reliability of Apollo as the program progressed. Obviously Apollo 13 was a very close call (if the tank had exploded a little later in the mission the crew would likely have been lost) and there were a number of issues that could have been serious in the later flights. Between that, the falling budgets, general lack of interest in follow-on Apollo Applications missions, and the view that Shuttle was a more sustainable way to explore space (and/or support the large NASA workforce, depending on how cynical you are), the writing was on the wall for the Apollo hardware.

Public interest had waned considerably and accomplishing getting there first was the main priority which had also been accomplished.

Money, Pork, and the Air Force.

The Apollo/Saturn V was WAY too expensive for earth orbit needs. It was designed for a Lunar mission.

Gemini would work, but....

With the MOL canceled (along with Blue Gemini) The Air Force needed access to earth orbit. The Shuttle was built to the Air Force needs, not NASA's.

mach7 said:

Money, Pork, and the Air Force.

The Apollo/Saturn V was WAY too expensive for earth orbit needs. It was designed for a Lunar mission.

Gemini would work, but....

With the MOL canceled (along with Blue Gemini) The Air Force needed access to earth orbit. The Shuttle was built to the Air Force needs, not NASA's.

Click to expand...

So you could call the Shuttle Dyna-Soar’s revenge?

Two observations: 1) by landing on the moon, we won the Space Race. 2) the American people have a very short attention span. One man’s opinion...

MarcoPolo said:

Two observations: 1) by landing on the moon, we won the Space Race. 2) the American people have a very short attention span. One man’s opinion...

Click to expand...

This plus, the tech was on the edge. If you do research on the engine Von Braun, et.al., developed for Saturn V, they had no real idea how it worked. They just knew by trial and error that the jet system geometry didn't blow up, i.e., good to go in 1969!

The overall reduction and shift in funds to Shuttle and ISS, and the culture of LEO vs deep space, according to one person’s historical perspective:

https://www.planetary.org/blogs/gue.../20141003-how-richard-nixon-changed-nasa.html

The astronauts found a Transformer spaceship on the moon and the Decepticons stopped human travel to there. Buzz admitted it in "Dark of the Moon."

mikec said:

There's clear evidence that NASA was getting nervous about the reliability of Apollo as the program progressed.

Click to expand...

Interestingly the chance of failure of the earlier shuttle missions was calculated at 9% per mission, which I think was worked out with 20:20 hindsight after Challenger. That is a scary high chance of LOC (loss of crew).

Not sure what the same figures for Apollo are.

Over it's operational lifetime, Atlas never reached a 50% success rate. When Glenn and the others climbed on board, there was greater than a 50% chance it would explode.
They did it anyway, because it was what needed to be done. They were lucky. They were Navy pilots already, the most dangerous job in the world. They were used to being
lucky. Titan was a great improvement. Both, of course were ICBMs. Apollo was the first purpose built spacecraft, and was too expensive to operate.

-Mike

Apollo was JFK's crowning legacy.

Nixon hated JFK.

Nixon was looking for any excuse to cancel Apollo as fast as he could.

Sounds a bit like the Korolev/Glushko rivalry in Russia. The death of Korolev, and then Glushko taking over, really enervated their space aspirations. Korolev was a fan of cryogenic fuels, Glushko hypergolics. Clash of dogmas.

I think it boils down to politics and money like everything else. War changed focus and public interest dramatically and the shuttle program sold itself effectively and turned into a money pit. Luckily the private industry is finally picking up the slack, but man, as reliable as the Saturn V was (Thank goodness for the reliability of the Soyuz), it just seems silly to have abandoned it so quickly.

Everyone lit up a smoke and went home.