First I’ll admit I don’t understand “government math,” but anyway:
NASA says they could put a man on the moon by 2018. That’s 13 years from now.
JFK said we could do it “in this decade” in 1961. Seven and a half years later, we were at the moon. Less than a year later, we had people on the moon (so it is said:D). Why would it take 13 years now, when it took only 8 previously—and we had never done it before.
My WAG is that NASA doesn’t have a large budget anymore.
The Apollo Program was basically an all-out, no holds barred attack on the moon. Money was not an object, and the normal cyclde of reseatch-design-test-implement was greatly reduced (and in the case of Apollo 1, tragically so).
I don’t think Bush (or NASA) wants to throw that much money at the project, and I’m damn sure NASA doesn’t want as high a risk factor this time around.
Echoing (and hopefully expanding on kunilou’s post which I 100% agree with) Partially the answer is because in 1960 NASA’s Mission was to get to the Moon - virtually the entire program, and budget, were built to support this mission.
In 2005 NASA’s misiion is to get to the Moon, to finish the International Space Station, phase out the shuttle, continue some form of unmanned space probe program (soon this will be folded into the moon-mars initiative), lay off about 16% of its workforce while hiring up in other areas and still not bust the budget - a portion of which is “sunk” into the ISS and Shuttle through the early 2000-teens.
A little bit of googling suggests that the time difference is due to:
a) Saving money: you can save some money by doing a longer project (fewer employees, etc). The budget is reported to be about 55% the cost of the Apollo program in adjusted dollars. link
b) Redesigning Vehicles: Plans seem to be focusing redesigning the existing apollo equipment, upgrading the electronics and re-designing with a focus for adaptability to a potential Mars mission. link
There may be other reasons that I can’t find info for.
My WAG is that this time we wouldn’t just go for a couple of days, set up a few experiments, and then leave with a few rocks. We would do a lot more “real stuff” once we were there, which would require lots more planning and engineering.
You know the old saying: “Cheap, fast, good. Choose two.” NASA has done fast and good, which resulted in Apollo. They tried cheap and fast, which resulted in two probes slamming onto the surface of Mars. This time around, they’re going for cheap and good.
The revenue from Tang[sup]TM[/sup] sales is down precipitously since the 1960s.
Then why didn’t they BLOW THAT SUCKER UP?! That would have been waaaay cool. Plus, future generations would never have had to worry about not being able to put a man on the moon.