30+ years later and it's harder to go to the moon?

[the_ten]

I keep reading that people believe it's more challenging to return to the moon now than it was to go there during the Apollo missions. Could somone explain why this might be true? I have yet to see any logical reasoning or factual evidence to support such a claim and I'm under the impression that everything from technology, knowledge, understanding, to experience relating to spaceflight has advanced since then.<br /><br />Please none of that conspiracy theory dung about how we never really went to the moon in the first place. <br /><br />Thanks.

 

[Aetius]

We have the technology to return to the Moon, but summoning the political will to raise the money required is difficult. The Apollo program was a Cold War stunt, during a time of justifiable paranoia about the USSR. The West needed to prove its technological superiority, and stimulate increased interest in the all-important subjects of mathematics, science, and engineering among its youth.<br /><br />The Apollo program also benefitted from President Kennedy's virtual martyrdom. His cause was seen as little less than a crusade by many, and no expense was spared to beat the 1970 deadline.<br /><br />Those rationales don't exist for us, who live in a different world.

 

[najab]

If the intention was to re-create Apollo, then the hardest part would be finding the money - NASA isn't going to get the practical blank-cheque that it got in the 1960's. But the intention isn't to do "Apollo 2.0" - remember, the sum-total goal of Apollo was to get a man to the surface of the Moon and get him back alive.<p>The most glaring shortcoming of Apollo is that it was hideously expensive, the reason being that each mission was entirely self-contained, there was no infrastruture built up (don't you love how that word makes its way into so many discussions). It would be as if (here comes the obligatory analogy) in the westward-expansion of the US each group of settlers had built their own bridges along the way - and then demolished them once they had passed!<p>The new Moon plan is to use a modified Earth orbit rendezvous technique which will require the development of a space infrastructure of some kind. Exactly what and how is the focus of current architecture studies.</p></p>

 

[halman]

The_TEN,<br /><br />The late 1950's was a time of paranoia in the West. It was known that the Soviet Union had thermonuclear weapons, and it had just become apparent that they also had rockets large enough to send the weapons all the way to the southern United States. Research into rocketry suddenly became big business, after struggling along with meager funding after World War Two. Rockets represented a threat to the established military structure, which was still absorbing a seperate Air Force. No one in the upper levels of the military seemed to want to believe that rockets could be a strategic weapon.<br /><br />When Sputnik was launched, that philosophy went out the window, and both the Army(?) and the Navy(?) began building big rockets. By the time that Kennedy chose to go to the Moon, there were several rocket engines in production which produced enough thrust to launch a good sized warhead. By bundling several of them together, a rocket big enough to carry a crew to the Moon was feasible. And so it was.<br /><br />But the era of the big rockets ended in the 1970's, when the Vietnam police action (we never declared war) bled the government white. Nixon even had to borrow money from Social Security to pay for one years fighting, because Congress did not want to go furthur in the hole fighting a war which seemed to have nothing to do with the United States. Plans for several rockets bigger than the Saturn 5 were scrapped, and the whole concept of American space exploration trembled on the brink of fantasy. The space shuttle was a last-ditch, get-everybody-to-help, pretend-it-is-cheaper, gamble on the part of NASA to maintain a pretense of space exploration.<br /><br />The space station which was to be the shuttle's orbital base never materialized, nor did another generation of big rockets to send equipment to the Moon. The budget of NASA shrunk to barely enough to keep the lights on, but, somehow, the shuttle got built. But that was the only rocket developm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[najab]

Sad, but true.

 

[paleo]

We will have a more difficult time developing the technology than 35 years ago even if we wanted to only copy Apollo bolt for bolt. There was an incredible infrastructure of practical hands-on engineering built up from WW2 and the frantic rush towards nuclear capability. It wasn't just a matter of money. All the money in the world can't buy engineering skills and 'can-do' management if they aren't out there.<br /> <br />Also would every step would be stymied by the safety factor? One fatal accident and would paralysis set in? The Apollo program did not have a fatal mission before the first landing but if it had I think they would have pushed on more or less on schedule. Today ...just look at the Shuttle.<br /><br />As has been stated we don't, however, want to copy Apollo or just go to the Moon. We can do that even if not as quickly as with Apollo. There's no rush. The real challenge will be in selling some post-lunar landing plan to the taxpayer. Leadership is needed.

 

[elguapoguano]

<font color="yellow">The Apollo program did not have a fatal mission before the first landing but if it had I think they would have pushed on more or less on schedule.</font><br /><br />Uhhh, the Apollo 1 fire killed three astronauts before an Apollo capsule ever left the ground... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[paleo]

You are right. I should have stated 'in flight' mission.<br /><br /> An interesting difference in the 'can-do' culture of NASA in the 60's compared to today.<br /><br /> The length of time between the Apollo 1 disaster and the Apollo 11 Moon landing will be about the same as the Columbia Shuttle disaster and the next launch of the shuttle (if it ever happens). It's even more astounding when one considers that in the late 60's they were still perfecting whole new technologies between Apollo 1 and the lunar landing whereas in the last 2 years NASA has been doing no more than tinkering with a known technology that is known to work. <br /><br />