You're making excuses for NASA that NASA does not make for itself:
But when averaged over decadal or fifteen-year time scales, the nation’s civil space program has experienced no particularly noteworthy funding peaks. The highest historical funding period was actually in the decade (or 15-year interval) centered on the early 1990s, not during Apollo. Further, if we assume funding stability in constant dollars as shown in Fig. 2, the total in every subsequent decade will match that of the Apollo development decade, 1959-68. Expressed in a slightly different way, NASA could carry out a complete Apollo-scale effort every 15 years between the present day and the 100th anniversary of Sputnik. -- NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin (http://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_exp.html))
[–] Apeabel ago
No excuses and I never claimed NASAs budget was lower or they're worse off than during their glory days. What I'm saying is still true. They can't pull of a moon mission with their current budget.
From 59-68 they had a few satellites, small space stations and the moon missions. That's it. Today? There are:
and more, just so many thing we didn't know back then. There are too many constant expenses and expectations for there to be more moon landings. I think you might give NASA less credit than they deserve, they've done more than every other space agency in the world, as they should.
[–] Dfens ago
Clearly if NASA has put men on the moon in the past for that amount of money they also can now. It is irrational to believe that it would cost more to do the same thing today than it cost to do it for the first time 50 years ago.
And, frankly, I don't care if other countries are wasting their resources by failing their constituents. The "2 wrongs make a right" argument does not impress me.