I think we are getting down to history and what it shows us. I never liked LBJ, and I was quite surprised upon reading a detailed history of the Apollo program showing that he had been a spaceflight advocate during his time as a Senator. He had taken a lead in advocacy that JFK later adopted as part of his campaign and subsequent administration. What you say about the evils of LBJ are possibly true---but it doesn't erase the fact that LBJ was an Apollo program supporter. The program was not canceled when he was president.
Money "diverted" where and when? LBJ made sure NASA was fully funded through his presidency. Nixon was the one who canceled the final 3 planned Moon landings---in order to free up funds for Skylab and the development of the Space Shuttle. So, money was not "diverted" from space exploration, just reallocated among space exploration projects. (The federal budgeting process is a fight over every dollar, and the formation of a particular budget is not "diversion." The only untouchable allocations are the mandatory ones, like Social Security, etc.)
Nixon was president after LBJ, 1969 to 1974. All lunar landings were made during his presidency. The financial support for the program slumped after the first landing---which was the driving pressure behind the Space Race. We won the race, and there were other priorities for the federal budget. You don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that (1) the nation had no Constitutional duty to go to the Moon, (2) the public interest had waned, and (3) other issues had higher financial priority. There was absolutely no popular interest in leaving the planet (and there still isn't). The Apollo project itself, for all it did, cost $20.2 billion in then-year dollars, or about $176 billion in 2022 dollars. Somehow, I think a GoFundMe campaign would have a hard time scraping up that kind of money...and I don't agree that the government should be spending taxes on space exploration (other than necessary to support military operations). The "establishment" simply doesn't care; they have other fish to fry. The problem is so challenging, there is no need to "prevent" anyone from doing anything. The difficulty of the problem is a sufficient barrier. If you think you have a cheap way of doing it, there is a whole industry that is ears open, but you seem to want the government to spend unlimited $100s of billions on such an effort. I've been a space enthusiast ever since I could read, but not at any cost.
Nobody has an obligation to promote space exploration. You want a voice like that in Congress? Run for office. Absolutely no one in the government is promoting the "space flight is impossible" nonsense. I have only seen that ridiculous ignorance and denialism on these pages. Meanwhile, the government tolerates Elon Musk's ambitions, plans, and activities with only minor regulation. You seem to be oblivious to the way in which he is pushing forward on the road into space, making massive breakthroughs in cost and capability. I should think you would be encouraged. I am encouraged. (I also think he is underestimating the challenge and costs of colonizing the Moon or Mars, but that is another matter. For example, building and maintaining the International Space Station for 25 years has taken $150 billion. Hard for me to think of that as "not supporting" space exploration.)
We may agree to disagree, but in my case, I have been in the industry for 40 years. I understand what happened and how we got where we are. There is no need to dream up an adversary that really doesn't exist, when the main obstacles are money and time.
The first airplane invented flew ~300 yards in 1903. 44 short years later, in 1947 the X-1 carried a person to break the sound barrier, while being dropped from an airplane capable of crossing oceans. In 1942, V2 rockets were hitting unmanned speeds of mach 4 using technology, and knowledge from that era. Then, 30 short years later the US ended the Apollo program after landing people on the moon numerous times.
So here we are, 50 years after that. A half century! 50!
I get what you are saying about cost, and funding, and difficulties, and all that, and, no offense to you, but I flatly reject those talking points as nothing more than establishment malarky that has been indoctrinated into our modern society.
It's not "too hard," or "too expensive," or "impossible; never happened." Musk, and other citizens are hard at work proving that too.
And, by the way, this narrative about "the moon landings are fake" is a rather old narrative that has been pushed insidiously through semi-mainstream outlets (pinko-commie propaganda rags) for decades. There is an agenda behind it.
In my opinion, what we have today as a space program is a space program that has been hijacked by the worst elements in out govt. and the military industrial complex- and that hijacking started in part with LBJ. It is only a fraction of what it could, and should be today.
It is an example of what political, and institutional rot, and corruption produces- a system that gorges itself on the wealth and knowledge of its citizens, while returning little to nothing back for the majority of those citizens.
So anyways, we both agree that this crap about the moon landings being fake is just that- crap.
If you want to believe that 50 years after the Apollo program ended that the progress with the modern space program is all perfectly fine, and normal, then that is your prerogative to believe that.
But personally, when I hear about NASA having to launch rockets from fucking Khazakhstan, while my lying, corrupt, pos govt. tries to tell me that it's all cool, and the 'new normal' i think that's a load of crap too. Something is very wrong, and this American ain't gonna accept any bullshit excuses from our govt. about space exploration being "too hard" or "too expensive." They are hiding, and withholding too much technology, and holding us [a free society] back. I'm quite certain that the longer we fall for the bullshit narratives, and excuses for why manned space exploration has stalled for the last half century, the worse it will be for us, our nation, and future generations.
Money means everything. In World War II, technology advanced tremendously (ballistic missiles, atomic weapons, radars, jet aircraft, guidance systems) because there was a huge dedication of national wealth, talent, and labor to its development. Same thing with the Apollo program. It didn't happen spontaneously and it didn't happen by accident.
I am trying to educate you to the historical reality of events. The basic point is that THE PUBLIC DIDN'T CARE, and that was reflected in subsequent budgets. The people who were in a position to influence those budgets were persuaded that further flights to the Moon were too extravagant and directed funding to the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). I would remind you that Musk is (currently) the richest billionaire in the world. That's what it takes to embark on a pet project. Notice that no one is stopping him. If you have the money, you have the key to the door.
The space program has never been "hijacked." It has always been a creature of government preference---and going to the Moon was a Kennedy initiative of an activity that was sponsored from the beginning by Johnson, all of the pre-landing Apollo program in fact. I don't like Johnson for all the right reasons, but being "against" manned space exploration is not one of them. If it hadn't been for Kennedy-Johnson, we wouldn't have gone to the Moon.
I have worked in the space business for 40 years, so I rather think my view is far more informed by facts, history, and technical understanding than your desire to find plotters under the bed. There is no "normal" in the space program. It has always been a preference---subject to fads among the legislators. If you can't see that, take a hard look. Musk is succeeding because he does not much depend on government funds (though they are a customer).
NASA doesn't launch rockets from Kazakhstan; the Russians do. This is inescapable when we have to travel to the ISS on Soyuz vehicles (thanks to NASA's failure to develop a successor to the Space Shuttle). Now we can get there on SpaceX Dragon capsules. But is is a sheer fact that space travel is hard and expensive. There are too many space enthusiasts in this country for any "too hard" message to ever have made way---and if you think that is a prevalent message, I haven't seen it in my adult life, so you are dreaming it up. Way too much "truther" mythology out there, imagining dragons that don't exist, and not enough clear vision. There is no secret technology being withheld. All of it is out for view, and reflects technology being continuously developed.
The only bullshit in this discussion is what you seem bound and determined to believe, in defiance of the facts. Do you seriously think that the Space Shuttle was an obstacle to space exploration? It was a good objective, but was compromised by budgetary constraints and wishful thinking generally. Yet it did put into orbit tremendous tools of astronomy. Do you seriously think that the probes to Mars were an obstacle to space exploration? They have surveyed where we would go and what we would find there. Do you seriously think that the ISS was an obstacle to space exploration? How else were we to understand the long-term effects of space flight? I am not otherwise impressed by the "science" that it purportedly accomplished, but it did at least give us a medical database, and space medicine is crucial to space exploration. I have no idea what you think "space exploration" would be, since you seem to have no conception of what goes into all this, how much it will cost, and no regard for the risks involved.
I'm not the one with a mistaken view. I've been watching all this since Sputnik first flew in 1957. I've been working in the field from the early 70s to the mid 10s. I've worked with former astronauts. I defer to no one in my criticism of NASA, but you are not close to the truth at all. Learn more and emote less.
I never stop learning. And,'maybe you need to do the same.
You repeatedly cite a "lack of public interest" as a root cause behind the limited funding for space exploration. That is simply not correct. Instead, what we see is the govt. ignoring the public interest in space exploration- and then demonizing members of the public who have legitimate interest, and questions regarding space exploration.
Yet, within the last few years, we have the pentagon showing the public UAP's. (UFO's) flying on our planet. What technology are those UAP using? We have recently been witness to numerous reputable individuals coming forward with testimony delivered to congress with first hand accounts, and knowledge of UAP. You're the rocket scientist here, explain that technology.
Ah, yes, how quickly we forget about that segment of the population who have been the perpetual targets of establishment propaganda for the last 50 (coincidence) some-odd years. Those deplorable "UFO quacks."
But, here we stand in 2023, with our govt. playing "grab-ass" when trying to answer questions surrounding documented UAP/UFO phenomenon.
From my perspective, it seems that there has been a great deal of public interest in space exploration- all of it routinely discounted, ignored, and marginalized by our govt. and the MSM establishment.
Where do those facts leave us? It leaves us [basically] with 3 possible explanations, that's where it leaves us.
1). The UAP video, and testimony is real, and it is earth based technology that our govt is in possession of, and simply lying about not knowing what it is.
2). The UAP's are earth based foreign technology, and our govt. really doesn't know what the hell it is.
3). It's alien technology, being flown by an alien intelligence, and our govt. may, or may not know much of anything about the UAP; or, they may know quite a lot.
Without rambling on too much in this post, stop and consider what all the UAP revelations really mean to our nation it terms of space exploration. It's a lot to chew on.
I stand by my position that the USA is decades behind where we as a nation need to be regarding space exploration, and this is an unacceptable situation. And, also, I firmly believe that there is a dark agenda within the halls of power to keep the USA (and our people) in the unacceptable position we find ourselves in today regarding the lack of space exploration.
As a side note, I also believe that Trump is aware of our situation, and the creation of Space Force was a move in the direction needed to fix our broken space program.
The lack of public interest is conclusive. I was there. I watched it. The Congress decided to go in a different direction (Space Shuttle), NOT give up space exploration. Budgets were continued for planetary probes and space telescopes. Enthusiast interest has always been present---but it was in the very small minority of public concern. Try to prove your point by budget data and you will lose every time.
What UAP technology? (Another bogus government category. It includes mirages. The old UFO term was more direct.) We don't know if they are psychic phenomena or machines (or either, or both). Lots of testimony, but nothing on the table. I have lots of interest, but was initially taken in by George Adamski, who had cross-sectional diagrams and photos. All fake. Lesson learned. When all we have are stories...all we have are plotlines. As much as I am eager and full of anticipation, I draw a sharp distinction between evidence and mere words. I completely believe that Ken Arnold saw what he saw---but I have no idea what he saw (nor does he). I can't explain technology that no one can bring to light (and I don't lose any sleep over it).
In the 50s and 60s, UFO research was regarded as odd, but respectable. There was Project Blue Book, which introduced J. Alan Hynek to the field; he became a UFO proponent after studying enough cases. It brought Maj. Donald Keyhoe to some prominence as a writer of books, who pursued his investigations with scientific standards. I don't understand the slang of "playing grab-ass," but to me it shows only that the Air Force is engaged in a publicity posture and knows nothing, while hinting that it knows something.
Where do you get your perspective? From other enthusiasts, or from the nightly news? You don't have any basis for your beliefs. I have been keeping in touch with the enthusiast groups over the years, and they are a very small subset of the population at large. And it is by no means clear that the enthusiast desires represent prudent policy in light of everything else. Just because something is not happening to the extent and to the schedule you desire, is not evidence of anything being "held back." Do you realize how many start-up space launch companies collapse into dust over a short life? Even big ones, like Virgin Orbit. Lots of ferment and New Kids on the block, but lots of gravestones.
We do not even know if UAPs represent technology or phenomena (or both).
If it is technology, it fails to conform to any Earth-based technology.
If it is alien technology, it is so far advanced we can be only spectators.
In practical terms, UAPs mean nothing to us. We have no knowledge from their observation that would change what we are doing.
We are decades behind what? We can't do all things at once. Some paths turn out to be less than hoped for (e.g., the Space Shuttle). Were they a waste of time? Who could have known? You can't judge where we are by looking in the rear-view mirror and bitching. You have to figure out where to go next, and why, and how. Breakthroughs come from new people who have the ability to make them stick (e.g., Elon Musk). He has revolutionized space launch, to everyone's benefit. The government is, in that regard, happy with him. NASA sees him as a refutation of the bureaucratic approach and begrudge him his success, but they have to acknowledge his ability and depend on it. So, they are happy to ride Dragon capsules to the ISS. The favored government contractor (Boeing) is fumbling and stumbling, and I have some doubts that they will EVER get Starliner flying. SpaceX was picked to make the Lunar Lander as a version of Starship (NASA's preferred option when stuck with making only one contract award). I have strong doubts about the viability of the entire Artemis mission concept and would not be surprised at program failure---but Musk is (as we used to say) "learning on someone else's money."
You are indulging in groundless paranoia about a "dark agenda" over the "lack of space exploration" from the only entity that is budgeting and planning a return to the Moon. There is a lack of polar exploration also, but can you really believe there is a dark agenda to prevent people from going where there is nothing but frozen wasteland? It is paradise compared to the Moon, yet you seem to think teeming masses want to go to the Moon. They would be happier in the Sahara or Namib deserts. Or the lava fields of Iceland. You are not taking this matter seriously enough to learn what the environment is like, or what the logistic constraints are. In short, if there is any reason to go there aside from curiosity...in the face of a lethal environment.
I continue to be disturbed at your implicit acceptance of the idea of forcing all Americans to pay for your preferred sideshow. What else is taxation? Where else does the money come from?
I think we are getting down to history and what it shows us. I never liked LBJ, and I was quite surprised upon reading a detailed history of the Apollo program showing that he had been a spaceflight advocate during his time as a Senator. He had taken a lead in advocacy that JFK later adopted as part of his campaign and subsequent administration. What you say about the evils of LBJ are possibly true---but it doesn't erase the fact that LBJ was an Apollo program supporter. The program was not canceled when he was president.
Money "diverted" where and when? LBJ made sure NASA was fully funded through his presidency. Nixon was the one who canceled the final 3 planned Moon landings---in order to free up funds for Skylab and the development of the Space Shuttle. So, money was not "diverted" from space exploration, just reallocated among space exploration projects. (The federal budgeting process is a fight over every dollar, and the formation of a particular budget is not "diversion." The only untouchable allocations are the mandatory ones, like Social Security, etc.)
Nixon was president after LBJ, 1969 to 1974. All lunar landings were made during his presidency. The financial support for the program slumped after the first landing---which was the driving pressure behind the Space Race. We won the race, and there were other priorities for the federal budget. You don't seem to understand, or want to understand, that (1) the nation had no Constitutional duty to go to the Moon, (2) the public interest had waned, and (3) other issues had higher financial priority. There was absolutely no popular interest in leaving the planet (and there still isn't). The Apollo project itself, for all it did, cost $20.2 billion in then-year dollars, or about $176 billion in 2022 dollars. Somehow, I think a GoFundMe campaign would have a hard time scraping up that kind of money...and I don't agree that the government should be spending taxes on space exploration (other than necessary to support military operations). The "establishment" simply doesn't care; they have other fish to fry. The problem is so challenging, there is no need to "prevent" anyone from doing anything. The difficulty of the problem is a sufficient barrier. If you think you have a cheap way of doing it, there is a whole industry that is ears open, but you seem to want the government to spend unlimited $100s of billions on such an effort. I've been a space enthusiast ever since I could read, but not at any cost.
Nobody has an obligation to promote space exploration. You want a voice like that in Congress? Run for office. Absolutely no one in the government is promoting the "space flight is impossible" nonsense. I have only seen that ridiculous ignorance and denialism on these pages. Meanwhile, the government tolerates Elon Musk's ambitions, plans, and activities with only minor regulation. You seem to be oblivious to the way in which he is pushing forward on the road into space, making massive breakthroughs in cost and capability. I should think you would be encouraged. I am encouraged. (I also think he is underestimating the challenge and costs of colonizing the Moon or Mars, but that is another matter. For example, building and maintaining the International Space Station for 25 years has taken $150 billion. Hard for me to think of that as "not supporting" space exploration.)
We may agree to disagree, but in my case, I have been in the industry for 40 years. I understand what happened and how we got where we are. There is no need to dream up an adversary that really doesn't exist, when the main obstacles are money and time.
The first airplane invented flew ~300 yards in 1903. 44 short years later, in 1947 the X-1 carried a person to break the sound barrier, while being dropped from an airplane capable of crossing oceans. In 1942, V2 rockets were hitting unmanned speeds of mach 4 using technology, and knowledge from that era. Then, 30 short years later the US ended the Apollo program after landing people on the moon numerous times.
So here we are, 50 years after that. A half century! 50!
I get what you are saying about cost, and funding, and difficulties, and all that, and, no offense to you, but I flatly reject those talking points as nothing more than establishment malarky that has been indoctrinated into our modern society.
It's not "too hard," or "too expensive," or "impossible; never happened." Musk, and other citizens are hard at work proving that too.
And, by the way, this narrative about "the moon landings are fake" is a rather old narrative that has been pushed insidiously through semi-mainstream outlets (pinko-commie propaganda rags) for decades. There is an agenda behind it.
In my opinion, what we have today as a space program is a space program that has been hijacked by the worst elements in out govt. and the military industrial complex- and that hijacking started in part with LBJ. It is only a fraction of what it could, and should be today.
It is an example of what political, and institutional rot, and corruption produces- a system that gorges itself on the wealth and knowledge of its citizens, while returning little to nothing back for the majority of those citizens.
So anyways, we both agree that this crap about the moon landings being fake is just that- crap.
If you want to believe that 50 years after the Apollo program ended that the progress with the modern space program is all perfectly fine, and normal, then that is your prerogative to believe that.
But personally, when I hear about NASA having to launch rockets from fucking Khazakhstan, while my lying, corrupt, pos govt. tries to tell me that it's all cool, and the 'new normal' i think that's a load of crap too. Something is very wrong, and this American ain't gonna accept any bullshit excuses from our govt. about space exploration being "too hard" or "too expensive." They are hiding, and withholding too much technology, and holding us [a free society] back. I'm quite certain that the longer we fall for the bullshit narratives, and excuses for why manned space exploration has stalled for the last half century, the worse it will be for us, our nation, and future generations.
Good day.
Money means everything. In World War II, technology advanced tremendously (ballistic missiles, atomic weapons, radars, jet aircraft, guidance systems) because there was a huge dedication of national wealth, talent, and labor to its development. Same thing with the Apollo program. It didn't happen spontaneously and it didn't happen by accident.
I am trying to educate you to the historical reality of events. The basic point is that THE PUBLIC DIDN'T CARE, and that was reflected in subsequent budgets. The people who were in a position to influence those budgets were persuaded that further flights to the Moon were too extravagant and directed funding to the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). I would remind you that Musk is (currently) the richest billionaire in the world. That's what it takes to embark on a pet project. Notice that no one is stopping him. If you have the money, you have the key to the door.
The space program has never been "hijacked." It has always been a creature of government preference---and going to the Moon was a Kennedy initiative of an activity that was sponsored from the beginning by Johnson, all of the pre-landing Apollo program in fact. I don't like Johnson for all the right reasons, but being "against" manned space exploration is not one of them. If it hadn't been for Kennedy-Johnson, we wouldn't have gone to the Moon.
I have worked in the space business for 40 years, so I rather think my view is far more informed by facts, history, and technical understanding than your desire to find plotters under the bed. There is no "normal" in the space program. It has always been a preference---subject to fads among the legislators. If you can't see that, take a hard look. Musk is succeeding because he does not much depend on government funds (though they are a customer).
NASA doesn't launch rockets from Kazakhstan; the Russians do. This is inescapable when we have to travel to the ISS on Soyuz vehicles (thanks to NASA's failure to develop a successor to the Space Shuttle). Now we can get there on SpaceX Dragon capsules. But is is a sheer fact that space travel is hard and expensive. There are too many space enthusiasts in this country for any "too hard" message to ever have made way---and if you think that is a prevalent message, I haven't seen it in my adult life, so you are dreaming it up. Way too much "truther" mythology out there, imagining dragons that don't exist, and not enough clear vision. There is no secret technology being withheld. All of it is out for view, and reflects technology being continuously developed.
The only bullshit in this discussion is what you seem bound and determined to believe, in defiance of the facts. Do you seriously think that the Space Shuttle was an obstacle to space exploration? It was a good objective, but was compromised by budgetary constraints and wishful thinking generally. Yet it did put into orbit tremendous tools of astronomy. Do you seriously think that the probes to Mars were an obstacle to space exploration? They have surveyed where we would go and what we would find there. Do you seriously think that the ISS was an obstacle to space exploration? How else were we to understand the long-term effects of space flight? I am not otherwise impressed by the "science" that it purportedly accomplished, but it did at least give us a medical database, and space medicine is crucial to space exploration. I have no idea what you think "space exploration" would be, since you seem to have no conception of what goes into all this, how much it will cost, and no regard for the risks involved.
I'm not the one with a mistaken view. I've been watching all this since Sputnik first flew in 1957. I've been working in the field from the early 70s to the mid 10s. I've worked with former astronauts. I defer to no one in my criticism of NASA, but you are not close to the truth at all. Learn more and emote less.
I never stop learning. And,'maybe you need to do the same.
You repeatedly cite a "lack of public interest" as a root cause behind the limited funding for space exploration. That is simply not correct. Instead, what we see is the govt. ignoring the public interest in space exploration- and then demonizing members of the public who have legitimate interest, and questions regarding space exploration.
Yet, within the last few years, we have the pentagon showing the public UAP's. (UFO's) flying on our planet. What technology are those UAP using? We have recently been witness to numerous reputable individuals coming forward with testimony delivered to congress with first hand accounts, and knowledge of UAP. You're the rocket scientist here, explain that technology.
Ah, yes, how quickly we forget about that segment of the population who have been the perpetual targets of establishment propaganda for the last 50 (coincidence) some-odd years. Those deplorable "UFO quacks."
But, here we stand in 2023, with our govt. playing "grab-ass" when trying to answer questions surrounding documented UAP/UFO phenomenon.
From my perspective, it seems that there has been a great deal of public interest in space exploration- all of it routinely discounted, ignored, and marginalized by our govt. and the MSM establishment.
Where do those facts leave us? It leaves us [basically] with 3 possible explanations, that's where it leaves us.
1). The UAP video, and testimony is real, and it is earth based technology that our govt is in possession of, and simply lying about not knowing what it is.
2). The UAP's are earth based foreign technology, and our govt. really doesn't know what the hell it is.
3). It's alien technology, being flown by an alien intelligence, and our govt. may, or may not know much of anything about the UAP; or, they may know quite a lot.
Without rambling on too much in this post, stop and consider what all the UAP revelations really mean to our nation it terms of space exploration. It's a lot to chew on.
I stand by my position that the USA is decades behind where we as a nation need to be regarding space exploration, and this is an unacceptable situation. And, also, I firmly believe that there is a dark agenda within the halls of power to keep the USA (and our people) in the unacceptable position we find ourselves in today regarding the lack of space exploration.
As a side note, I also believe that Trump is aware of our situation, and the creation of Space Force was a move in the direction needed to fix our broken space program.
The lack of public interest is conclusive. I was there. I watched it. The Congress decided to go in a different direction (Space Shuttle), NOT give up space exploration. Budgets were continued for planetary probes and space telescopes. Enthusiast interest has always been present---but it was in the very small minority of public concern. Try to prove your point by budget data and you will lose every time.
What UAP technology? (Another bogus government category. It includes mirages. The old UFO term was more direct.) We don't know if they are psychic phenomena or machines (or either, or both). Lots of testimony, but nothing on the table. I have lots of interest, but was initially taken in by George Adamski, who had cross-sectional diagrams and photos. All fake. Lesson learned. When all we have are stories...all we have are plotlines. As much as I am eager and full of anticipation, I draw a sharp distinction between evidence and mere words. I completely believe that Ken Arnold saw what he saw---but I have no idea what he saw (nor does he). I can't explain technology that no one can bring to light (and I don't lose any sleep over it).
In the 50s and 60s, UFO research was regarded as odd, but respectable. There was Project Blue Book, which introduced J. Alan Hynek to the field; he became a UFO proponent after studying enough cases. It brought Maj. Donald Keyhoe to some prominence as a writer of books, who pursued his investigations with scientific standards. I don't understand the slang of "playing grab-ass," but to me it shows only that the Air Force is engaged in a publicity posture and knows nothing, while hinting that it knows something.
Where do you get your perspective? From other enthusiasts, or from the nightly news? You don't have any basis for your beliefs. I have been keeping in touch with the enthusiast groups over the years, and they are a very small subset of the population at large. And it is by no means clear that the enthusiast desires represent prudent policy in light of everything else. Just because something is not happening to the extent and to the schedule you desire, is not evidence of anything being "held back." Do you realize how many start-up space launch companies collapse into dust over a short life? Even big ones, like Virgin Orbit. Lots of ferment and New Kids on the block, but lots of gravestones.
We do not even know if UAPs represent technology or phenomena (or both).
If it is technology, it fails to conform to any Earth-based technology.
If it is alien technology, it is so far advanced we can be only spectators.
In practical terms, UAPs mean nothing to us. We have no knowledge from their observation that would change what we are doing.
We are decades behind what? We can't do all things at once. Some paths turn out to be less than hoped for (e.g., the Space Shuttle). Were they a waste of time? Who could have known? You can't judge where we are by looking in the rear-view mirror and bitching. You have to figure out where to go next, and why, and how. Breakthroughs come from new people who have the ability to make them stick (e.g., Elon Musk). He has revolutionized space launch, to everyone's benefit. The government is, in that regard, happy with him. NASA sees him as a refutation of the bureaucratic approach and begrudge him his success, but they have to acknowledge his ability and depend on it. So, they are happy to ride Dragon capsules to the ISS. The favored government contractor (Boeing) is fumbling and stumbling, and I have some doubts that they will EVER get Starliner flying. SpaceX was picked to make the Lunar Lander as a version of Starship (NASA's preferred option when stuck with making only one contract award). I have strong doubts about the viability of the entire Artemis mission concept and would not be surprised at program failure---but Musk is (as we used to say) "learning on someone else's money."
You are indulging in groundless paranoia about a "dark agenda" over the "lack of space exploration" from the only entity that is budgeting and planning a return to the Moon. There is a lack of polar exploration also, but can you really believe there is a dark agenda to prevent people from going where there is nothing but frozen wasteland? It is paradise compared to the Moon, yet you seem to think teeming masses want to go to the Moon. They would be happier in the Sahara or Namib deserts. Or the lava fields of Iceland. You are not taking this matter seriously enough to learn what the environment is like, or what the logistic constraints are. In short, if there is any reason to go there aside from curiosity...in the face of a lethal environment.
I continue to be disturbed at your implicit acceptance of the idea of forcing all Americans to pay for your preferred sideshow. What else is taxation? Where else does the money come from?