Old tech gets superseded by new tech. Sending people to the moon is expensive as fuck and now that we have robots we can remote control entire planets away there's really no reason to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4837479&forum_id=2#42484113)

The Concorde (commercial supersonic travel) and the SR71 (fastest air breathing plane) are no longer viable due to economics and newer tech.

No one doubts these tech existed. But satellites have made the SR71 obsolete. Even though it’s awesome to send someone at Mach 3+ for surveillance, the cost is not justified.

We have robots now that do what the astronauts would’ve done. Manned missions make no economic sense. We were spending about 10% of gdp to get to the moon. Do you know anyone would be happy with that today?

We have the technology to send people to Mars (nuclear propulsion) but all the red tape would kill the project.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4837479&forum_id=2#42488151)

2) The cost argument is silly. In the 1960's, we were doing all the foundational R&D for rocketry and human life support, which was a gargantuan undertaking. Today, you can buy space-rated and radiation hardened components off the shelf. You can buy full rocket engines off the shelf. Heck, you can buy entire orbital class and man-rated rockets off the shelf. The issue is not cost, and the costs required to send people into space is a tiny, tiny, fraction of what it was in the 1960's when we were figuring this all out for the first time.

3) NASA clearly has a strong interest in understanding the impact of human spaceflight, and that's why the ISS has been continually manned for over 20 years (at a huge cost). Given there is a long-term NASA vision to go to the moon and mars, understanding manned spaceflight beyond the protection of LEO is absolutely essential, and all we know is 'well, the Apollo astronauts lived to old age, so I guess it's fine?'. Despite a strong need to further develop this knowledge, we haven't sent a single person beyond LEO since 1972 because it cannot be done safely, not because it costs too much. It is why every plan to go beyond LEO fizzles out. It's why SpaceX will not send that Jap around the moon as planned. It's why the head of NASA who presided over the entirety of the Apollo program unexpectedly resigned in 1968, 2 months before Apollo 8 (the first time we supposedly sent people beyond LEO). It's why we're never going back to the moon, and we're never going to mars.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4837479&forum_id=2#42488739)

Another thing is the Soviets. They had every incentive to discredit the moon landing, and if staged, you can bet they would have discovered such from humint alone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4837479&forum_id=2#42489396)

The Soviets? For one, they were destroying their economy by spending billions on this boondoggle. At the FIRST MOMENT they had a somewhat, kinda, sorta publicly-acceptable excuse to drop it all, they did so. They figured out the same issue the US did regarding human spaceflight beyond LEO. If they were to try to alert the world to Apollo being faked, they would have been mocked as sore losers and not listened to. They would also then either have lost their excuse to drop their moon program (US did it first) or would have to admit it was all a gigantic waste of time and resources and look like fools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4837479&forum_id=2#42489472)