PDA

View Full Version : Budget of NASA 1960 - 1973



Berengar
2010-Oct-14, 01:06 AM
Actually there is a new theory of the hoaxbelievers. It says, that NASA had a budget of ca. 57 billion Dollar but spent only 20 billions for the Apollo program. The rest of 37 billion Dollars was used for making the hoax. I know, this theory sounds strange, especially when some other hoaxbelievers include a private fund (the source for this fund is as usual missing :lol:)

I am not an expert in financial circumstances of NASA in these times. For me it would be helpful to get some informations about the budgets of the other programs in this time (Mercury, Gemini etc.). Of course with sources :razz:

Thank you for your help.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-14, 01:20 AM
...it would be helpful to get some informations about the budgets of the other programs in this time (Mercury, Gemini etc.).

Not to seem "unhelpful", but Is there some reason you cannot google "cost of Mercury program"? (as I did...wikipedia lists 384 million for Mercury.)

Solfe
2010-Oct-14, 01:40 AM
$384 million. The Great Wiki told me.
Try to replace "program" with "mission".

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-14, 02:07 AM
$384 million. The Great Wiki told me.

I simply listed the first google entry


Try to replace "program" with "mission".

I don't know what this means other than you think that the missions on an individual basis were a lot more costly than they actually were.

Selenite
2010-Oct-14, 02:16 AM
Here's a chart showing the Nasa budget from 1960 to 1973 illustrating the totals and the percentage taken by Apollo.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm

Good luck. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that the HBs will accept any figures from NASA, financial or otherwise.

Berengar
2010-Oct-14, 04:13 AM
Not to seem "unhelpful", but Is there some reason you cannot google "cost of Mercury program"? (as I did...wikipedia lists 384 million for Mercury.)

I did this. I asked for receiving more detailed sources about the complete budget. There were several missions and I don't know all the missions beside Apollo. This is the help I need.

Berengar
2010-Oct-14, 04:14 AM
Thank you Selenite for this link. This HB-guy refers to this link so he believes it. But now he has got a problem with the 66 % rest budget. And for this I want to get some details.

gwiz
2010-Oct-14, 09:19 AM
Thank you Selenite for this link. This HB-guy refers to this link so he believes it. But now he has got a problem with the 66 % rest budget. And for this I want to get some details.
Here you are, all the detail anyone could want:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012v1.pdf
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol4/sp4012v4.htm

Solfe
2010-Oct-14, 11:29 AM
I simply listed the first google entry...

I used the word "mission" instead of "program" because I considered "mission" to be less awkward to build tags and sentences with. Of course, in my typical caffeinated fashion I completely missed that someone had already posted the exact same dollar amount.

kevin1981
2010-Oct-14, 12:43 PM
Can we see through a telescope the flag the Americans put on the moon? If so, then thats the end of any conspiracy's surely?

BertL
2010-Oct-14, 01:00 PM
Can we see through a telescope the flag the Americans put on the moon? If so, then thats the end of any conspiracy's surely?
Nope. You might want to look for "Apollo flag telescope" on this website or just on Google to read why not. Basically, a telescope would have to be incredibly (impossibly) big in order to see something so small that far away.

Swift
2010-Oct-14, 01:03 PM
Not to mention that the plastic flags have almost certainly disintegrated in 40 years.

As has been discussed here frequently, the Apollo landing sites have been imaged by spacecraft in lunar orbit (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html), in sufficient detail that the tracks left by the astronauts can be seen. But even that will not convince the hardcore believers.

kevin1981
2010-Oct-14, 01:11 PM
wow thats surprised me, thanks.

Halcyon Dayz
2010-Oct-14, 02:05 PM
Good luck. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that the HBs will accept any figures from NASA, financial or otherwise.
Duh. All the accountants were in on it...

You can add money to the long list of things HBs don't quite understand.

JayUtah
2010-Oct-14, 02:48 PM
If the two-thirds of NASA's budget that was not spent on Apollo was spent on the hoax, then what happened to the one-third of the budget that NASA says it spent on Apollo? It clearly didn't go to a working Apollo program according to this hoax theory. In attempting to earmark one "hole" in NASA's budget, he's created another one.

Garrison
2010-Oct-14, 06:10 PM
I simply listed the first google entry



I don't know what this means other than you think that the missions on an individual basis were a lot more costly than they actually were.

I think he meant switch the words as part of the search you type into Google.

R.A.F.
2010-Oct-14, 06:15 PM
Of course that makes sense...just getting suspicious and slow in my old age.

Berengar
2010-Oct-14, 10:05 PM
Thank you very much for these links.

Berengar
2010-Oct-14, 10:07 PM
That I've asked. But there was no answer. Maybe I've overcharged him :lol:

But it's good to know more details to debate.

Skyfire
2010-Oct-14, 11:05 PM
If the two-thirds of NASA's budget that was not spent on Apollo was spent on the hoax, then what happened to the one-third of the budget that NASA says it spent on Apollo? It clearly didn't go to a working Apollo program according to this hoax theory. In attempting to earmark one "hole" in NASA's budget, he's created another one.

Yep


You can add money to the long list of things HBs don't quite understand.

And that just about sums it up!

Solfe
2010-Oct-15, 12:14 AM
Of course that makes sense...just getting suspicious and slow in my old age.

Er yes. That is what I meant to say about the google search terms.

Everything comes out so different when I drop words and forget about sentence structure. I am so caffinated right now I can barely type legibly. Every thing is all shakey. :)

I started college a few weeks ago and thought that an extra cup or two coffee would help me get through my days. It does not, in fact it seems to be heavily impacting my communication skills. I am really-really shakey and I don't exactly blink any more, it is sort of like a whole body flinch.

Off to have some more coffee and some homework. :)

Sorry about the confusion. I wish this twitchy-ness would stop.

Selenite
2010-Oct-15, 12:52 AM
That I've asked. But there was no answer. Maybe I've overcharged him :lol:

But it's good to know more details to debate.

If you get a chance, you may wish to ask your HB friend how the skimpier NASA budgets since 1973 have somehow managed to keep an army of Apollo technicians, contractors, managers, etc. who pulled this stunt off decades ago, quiet and happy in piles of cash, corvettes and caviar over the years. Not to mention all the widows and next of kin, who with the passage of time may have figured out the source of this government largess and may wish to blow the whistle. ;) Buying people's silence over the course of forty years can't be cheap.

Peter B
2010-Oct-15, 11:45 AM
If the two-thirds of NASA's budget that was not spent on Apollo was spent on the hoax, then what happened to the one-third of the budget that NASA says it spent on Apollo? It clearly didn't go to a working Apollo program according to this hoax theory. In attempting to earmark one "hole" in NASA's budget, he's created another one.

Presumably it went on all those other missions that HBs seem not to have heard of - the Rangers, Surveyors, Mariners, Explorers and their mates...

kamaz
2010-Oct-30, 08:28 PM
Actually there is a new theory of the hoaxbelievers. It says, that NASA had a budget of ca. 57 billion Dollar but spent only 20 billions for the Apollo program. The rest of 37 billion Dollars was used for making the hoax. I know, this theory sounds strange, especially when some other hoaxbelievers include a private fund (the source for this fund is as usual missing :lol:)


That's completely ridiculous. How do you spent illicit $37B without it being detected by the IRS?

Besides, 37 billion dollars? Stanley Kubrick shot 2001 for a mere 10.5 million, and he produced clear, high-quality footage. How much do you think producing a few minutes of grainy and shaking images would REALLY cost?

chrlzs
2010-Oct-30, 09:31 PM
A 'few minutes'?? Do you know how much film and video footage exists?

'grainy and shaking images'? Some of the video is a bit below par, but given the technology available and the fact that this was not a key mission objective, I think it is quite amazing. Have you seen the updated versions of the film footage? Do you think the hi resolution scans of the hasselblad images are 'grainy and shaking'? I'm impressed, what do you shoot with and where are some examples?

And in 1969, how would Kubrick or anyone have gone about filming oh, say, parabolic dust arcs, as just one tiny example of many? It can be done nowadays with CGI, but it's still detectable as just that..

In a way you are right - the $37B *is* ridiculous, when you look at the entire picture, from footage to launches to splashdown to documentation to ham radio to Parkes to retiurned moon rocks to laser reflectors to telemetry to ...

It couldn't be faked at any price.

And folks, please remember this is a forum about conspiracy stuff, so some of your audience may need smilies...

:D

J Riff
2010-Dec-06, 05:00 AM
Sounds right. NASA appropriating huge funds. I'll talk! Yea, they did, yup, really did.
Did SO!.. and got away with it.

CANCEL th' space program! Get a real job.