Why no man moon missions for almost 40 years?

DrRocket · Jul 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sir, I don't care if you built the space shuttle singlehandedly out of rubber bands and paper clips.  Your resume is irrelevant to this discussion.  In fact, any focus on specific rockets, nuts, bolts, or any hardware is irrelevant.  This is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else...Perhaps this is where you and I have been miss-communicating all along.  I don't propose that we spend the entire federal budget launching an all out effort to get to the moon by next week.  In my mind we are talking about a long term, big picture philosophy of where humanity needs to go in the next few hundred years. I realize that we can not colonize other planets with the meager technological resources we have at our disposal right now.  It will take decades, perhaps centuries to achieve this. That is why your hammering me to provide specific details seemed so silly.We are at a point now, analogously, of perhaps where Lewis and Clark were 200 years ago in the development of the western portion of North America.  If an average person from the early 1800s had been shown a picture of modern day Los Angeles, their reaction may have been; "that's impossible, it will never happen, it's too difficult and expensive to transport all of that material over such long distances, who's going to pay for all of that?"  The development of the west did happen, but only after technology caught up to allow economical transportation of sufficient goods, materials, and personnel to allow such development; namely the railroad.  So perhaps Apollo was just the Lewis and Clark era of lunar exploration. A better transportation system will definitely be needed for any serious colonization effort. But rest assured it will happen eventually, I just hope any future global catastrophes will permit us such a leisurely time-table. BTW, I have been working as an engineer for nearly 30 years, thanks to you I now know I will never make it in this field and should start looking for another profession.    Posted by onesmallstep</DIV>I have never contested the desirability of pursuing a space program, but only the notion that people who think we have higher priorities at this point in time deserve to have their views evaluated objectively.  I fully expect that space will be explored, although I don't know precisely when, particularly given the stated intentions of some presidential candidates.The hammering for details was directed towards your contention that no viewpoint other than yours was worthy of consideration.  To dismiss all other viewpoints without further evaluation, you do need that level of detail.  And to recognize when a conclusion is warranted and when there exists enough uncertainty to explore various viewpoints is a necessary ingredient of technical decision making -- whether one is in the cheap seats or whether one has a broader view of the playing field.Good luck in your search for a suitable job. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

onesmallstep · Jul 8, 2008

Good luck in your search for a suitable job. Posted by DrRocket[/QUOTE] Thank-you, I'm sure you will give me a glowing recommendation on my next job application. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

warpfactor999 · Jul 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay, how about this...Ultimately the survival of the human race will depend on it. If we (humans) don't eventually become a multi-planet species we will become extinct. Some asteroid, or super volcano, or some catastrophic concoction of our own making will wipe us out. It is as simple as that, and it is not conjecture, or speculation, or conspiracy stuff, it is a certainty.  Humanity will eventually become extinct if it chooses to remain solely attached to the earth throughout its entire existence.  Spreading the population around to other independent locales will greatly enhance the probability of survival. And yes, a supernova going off in the celestial neighborhood may still do the job. But the chances of getting wiped out by some rogue asteroid, volcano, or nuclear "accident" would be greatly diminished.The continued existence of humanity is worth the investment of a few tax dollars...don't you think?  Posted by onesmallstep</DIV> Im sorry...just have to chime in here...I hate getting into the middle of these things...but I seem to remember reading a story that with the type of makeup of our star...the sun...that in its dying millenia the sun is predicted to expand into a red giant consuming even the planet Mars. (by the way for all you religious nuts...yes the Earth will be consumed by fire!). Is this still the theory? If so...mankind should by all means find a way to vacate this planet. If the Sun's expansion does occur..I would think that the gas giants would begin to warm up and evolve as well...but that could be another thread!!! Am I "on base" with these statements??????!!!

Mee_n_Mac · Jul 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Im sorry...just have to chime in here...I hate getting into the middle of these things...but I seem to remember reading a story that with the type of makeup of our star...the sun...that in its dying millenia the sun is predicted to expand into a red giant consuming even the planet Mars. (by the way for all you religious nuts...yes the Earth will be consumed by fire!). Is this still the theory? If so...mankind should by all means find a way to vacate this planet. If the Sun's expansion does occur..I would think that the gas giants would begin to warm up and evolve as well...but that could be another thread!!! Am I "on base" with these statements??????!!! Posted by warpfactor999</DIV> In about 5 billion years your prediction seems likely to become true. I predict sometime before that some other natural disaster will happen that'll make "us" wish we had left.  And before that we'll have had to find a way to control our population, expand offworld or face dire consequences.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

BoJangles · Jul 10, 2008

Sure if we could colonize planets further and further out as the sun gets bigger and heats up, would seem like a great idea. Though personally I don’t think humans have enough time to evolve to really do life any big favours before runway warming (as caused by the expansion of the sun) approaches. Our best bet in my eyes would be to seed extra solar space with the hardiest of bacteria’s we could find, in as many forms as we can find.Imagine this for a project, building an army of space craft to carry billions of varieties of bacteria in special pods in different trajectories outside our solar system. Once each space craft gets to say 1 or 2 light years away, they explode into 1000’s of tennis ball sized objects in all directions. The idea would be to push each bacteria capsule/pods with enough force to keep them from clumping back together over large periods of time I suppose. These bacteria pods could have a simple release mechanism, so when they hit the right environment its breaks open (sturdy enough to survive a planet re entry of course). Who knows maybe there are dust clouds in space that are warm enough to support bacterial life, though I'm not sure if that’s possible.I think bacteria will be life’s flag ship, humans and most mammalian type creatures are just too resource consuming and fragile to really penetrate space, bacteria can do a fine job. At least this way, if done right, it would give life (as seen on earth today), a little more chance to survive the coming doom of our solar system.If everything works out, you never know, intellegent life may just evolve again ( thanks to humans ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

DrRocket · Jul 11, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Im sorry...just have to chime in here...I hate getting into the middle of these things...but I seem to remember reading a story that with the type of makeup of our star...the sun...that in its dying millenia the sun is predicted to expand into a red giant consuming even the planet Mars. (by the way for all you religious nuts...yes the Earth will be consumed by fire!). Is this still the theory? If so...mankind should by all means find a way to vacate this planet. If the Sun's expansion does occur..I would think that the gas giants would begin to warm up and evolve as well...but that could be another thread!!! Am I "on base" with these statements??????!!! Posted by warpfactor999</DIV>You are on base, but a  bit early.  The expansion of the sun will not occur for a few billion years.  Hopefully, by then our technology will have advanced a bit.  At the moment we have no technology that would be of any use. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

ZenGalacticore · Jul 14, 2008

We've spent more on the Iraq war in five years than all of the money ever appropriated for NASA. The moon program totaled about 30 billion dollars, including Mercury, Gemini, and the Apollo phases of the program. And, for every dollar spent on space exploration, seven dollars were returned to the U.S economy.And by the nature of economics, wealth was returned to the world. (Although I don't know how much that 30 billion would be in today's dollars.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ZenGalacticore </div>

crazyeddie · Jul 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are on base, but a  bit early.  The expansion of the sun will not occur for a few billion years.  Hopefully, by then our technology will have advanced a bit.  At the moment we have no technology that would be of any use. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>I have read estimates that the sun will have grown hot enough in only 500 million to 1 billion years that the natural mechanisms life uses to keep the Earth's temperature clement will be overwhelmed, and a runaway greenhouse effect will occur (unless humanity can intervene).  This is well before the sun expands into a red giant.I disagree that we have "no technology that would be of any use".  We have several ways we could combat this process.  Unfortunately, all are very expensive, and would require a significant proportion of our entire planet's productive and economic resources to pull off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

NGC_5195 · Jul 22, 2008

I have to say that it is from my point of view, that we haven't been back to the Moon, mostly because the public doesn't care. It's sad, but it's a fact of life. The public just doesn't care, not one bit. I also think that once NASA did it, they receeded back into their cautious ways. After all, it is dangerous to take such a long trip, especially if the launch vehicles are made elsewhere out of the watchful eyes of good Engineers. That aside, why would we go back? As a Scientist, I'd say for the knowledge and the adventure. For the average person, such a trip has to return something more tangible, the cash. How is going to the Moon, or even Mars going to be profitable? How can we exploit it in our favor? So sad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Every major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals. -E. O. Wilson Please visit my blog, and sign up for my forums! Thank you!THIS IS BLOG! </div>

carlo783 · Oct 18, 2008

Hello this is my first post on Space.com and first i would like to introduce my self my names Carlo and i am 15 years old. Im still in high school and i would be aiming to study A level Astronomy and physics. I have been reading this topic about why no mans been to the moon in so long (40 years). I have just recently watched a video on a company with google sending a mechanical object/probe to land on the moon. However they also stated that they are doing this because its cheaper. On the other hand i belive that when you send a human to the moon then they will collect more infomation than the probe in sevral years because the humans get a first person look at the moon and they get to study the moon and test if wind ect. The probe will beable to look for things like climate change, Water, Snow and diffrent particles however a person could collect rock as they did in apollo misson and they brought back  aproximetly 313kg of rock which could be observed and such. With a probe mechanical object they cant get rock back to the earth so wouldnt it be more benifical that they send people. Ps: If you have any infomation on how i become a astronauts and what i need to study i am currently working at A in science and i was wondering if i would be capable to understand physics and astronomy. yours carlo (sorry if i didnt get things like the probes right i dont realy understand them but i look forward to ) thanks <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Its better to belive than to disbelive, in doing so doing everything to the realm of possibility-Albert Einstein </div>

InvalidPerson · Oct 18, 2008

We need to state exact goals before we start to spend the money. That was the big mistake with the Apollo program also. OK, we put men on the moon. And? We played golf on the moon and brought back some dust. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody has a clear idea what to do. The next moon program should concentrate on the permanent human interests. We need a small but reasonable moon base, but not for only to dig some holes with a shovel,  but to make it more efficient. We need to start some sort of mining on the moon, start to explore the possibilities of the space tourism. I think the whole moon landig task is not so difficult as some thinks. We mad it with the technologies of 60's, today it should be much more easier and even cheaper, if finally some politicans will be brave enough to start the program with a real money.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Oct 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you ask  many a body who was the real brain behind the man on the moon mission that person's name will be unknown,and that includes me as well. Posted by royalcolin</DIV>Ther was no one person.  Many great minds contributed to Apollo, directly and indirectly.  if we confine ourselves just to the program there was Seimens, Webb, Dolan, Houbolt, von Baun, Kelly.This is of course one of the reasons why Armstrong refuses to take the limelight for being first.  Why should he take the credit that belongs largely to others?But Armstrong was always an intensely private person of few words, long before Apollo.   But he is not and never as been a recluse.  he has been a director of several companies, and a university professor.  Neil was also on the Challenger investigation panel.There have been a number of biographies of Neil.  First Man by Hansen is quite good.  Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

connor240287 · Oct 18, 2008

It Costs Billions, And Lives Are Stake. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________________________________________________ <img id="29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/5/29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="101" height="105" /> <img id="c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/12/c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="110" height="105" /> <img id="5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180" style="width:116px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/1/5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="115" height="103" /> <img id="b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8" style="width:119px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/15/b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="119" height="103" /> </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It Costs Billions, And Lives Are Stake. Posted by connor240287</DIV> It was worth it then.Lives are ALWAYS at stake in spaceflight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

JonClarke · Oct 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It Costs Billions, And Lives Are Stake. Posted by connor240287</DIV>That's no reason not do it.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

R1 · Oct 19, 2008

Is it possible to build some type of radar stations on the moon to search for approaching comets, asteroids, and other objects in general? If so, this would eliminate the need to maintatin satellites for this purpose in orbit.  Also, ground based observers would not have to rely on the time of day, weather conditions, scheduling problems, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it possible to build some type of radar stations on the moon to search for approaching comets, asteroids, and other objects in general? If so, this would eliminate the need to maintatin satellites for this purpose in orbit.  Also, ground based observers would not have to rely on the time of day, weather conditions, scheduling problems, etc. Posted by john1r</DIV> It might be possible, but of course it would be very expensive. In any case, with a single installation, only half of the sky would be visible at any one time. Ground based observations are MUCH cheaper, and there are a number of observatories doing that. Recall the astroid ony 3 meters in diamter that was detected just a few weeks ago. Of course, both lunar and earth searches have part of the sky that can not be searched due to the sun.I suspect there are better things to do with lunar installations than dedicate one to the NEO search.Satellites actually discover very few such objects, since in general that is not their purpose. Probably 95% of all comets that satellites discover are the sun grazing comets where observations from earth are not possible.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

R1 · Oct 19, 2008

what kind of radar would it be? radio wave? would it be laser scanning? visual (optical)?It is not so much that it would need to be a highly expensive base solely for this purpose, but instead simply an additional instrument to help make these findings more reliable.  This technology would in effect be developed to the point where a ship to the asteroids and/or Mars could even benefit from.  In the worst case scenario, it could conceivably even save human civilization someday.We need to work on all of these new instruments that have potential use for more distant travels, especially if we can partly benefit from it before going further.  Anyway, would it be radio wave scanning? or laser ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Oct 19, 2008

Basically I am saying I would like to see us develop what StarTrek calls long and short range sensors.  Not as a sole function of a lunar base, but merely an additional experiment.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Basically I am saying I would like to see us develop what StarTrek calls long and short range sensors.  Not as a sole function of a lunar base, but merely an additional experiment.  Posted by john1r</DIV> I'd like to point out that the lunar surface is not an entirely benign environment. Here's a good discussion of the moon dust issue:http://www.space.com/searchforlife/081016-seti-moon-dust.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Meric · Oct 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> BTW, I have been working as an engineer for nearly 30 years, thanks to you I now know I will never make it in this field and should start looking for another profession.    Posted by onesmallstep</DIV> Better late then never, I guess.And I would like to point out that the question asked toward you by Dr. Rocket, was not a "Justification of going to the moon" but rather why Dragons viewpoint is shallow thinking.  It is quite apparent in every post you make you step up to the plate, but strikeout w/o even a swing of the bat.  You only seem to think YOUR reasoning for exploration at this point in time is the correct arguement while all others are not.  IMO Dr. Rocket is merely trying to show your shallow thinking by saying, "My arguement is correct, because life is limited on this planet".  How limited is our life on this planet?  A billion years?  If it's 1billion years then I would say perhaps manned space exploration can be put on hold while the economy worldwide levels out.  We have national and international banks that require bailouts of billions to keep from going under.  Do you really think that the average american is going to support space travel so future generations can survive a earth ending catastrophie?  Your reasoning sounds good and will need to be addressed eventually, but is this time in our economic down turn, the correct time.  If you think it is then Dr. Rocket is saying you need to have solid figures to show why it is.  You can not discredit someones viewpoint as shallow and yours as deep and not be able to back up why.  You can not provide a time frame of when the world could end.  If it ends in 10 years then all efforts are futile anyways.  Hell in 100 years we may not be ready.  The fact of the matter is, it's going to take a global effort to colonize life off this planet, this is due to the fact of the amount of money and man power it would take.  Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of ppl are loosing their jobs, due to "cut backs".  I seriously doubt you can justify the increased taxes that would have to be paid to build spacecrafts to take us to mars and beyond when people can't even afford the mortgage on their house.  Down the road yes this can be done, but by no means is it shallow of anyone to dispise the thought of sending more astronauts to the moon at this point in time.So I say to you sir, "I am the newbie, but YOU are the shallow thinker" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do. </div>

oldfellow · Oct 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All kudos to Aldrin,but its Neil Armstrong which history will record was the first man on the moon.The present youth would like to see Neil Armstrong so that they can tell their grandchildren that they were able to witness "the first man on the moon" while Aldrin will be second best.Has he ever given any reason why he stays out of focus,was this question ever raised to him at the interview or by any of the press? Posted by royalcolin</DIV>       Both Buss and Neil landed together in the Capsule . Neil was just the first one to climb out of it.      Your obsesion with Neil being "more" important than Buss is stupid.       The successful Appolo 11 mission was a team effort, and Neil could not have done it alone.  Like Ed and Tensing up Everest,, Ed never claimed to be "first".      It seems an American faiiling to think "first" means  better than others of a team.   Bruce Sinton

MeteorWayne · Oct 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>       Both Buss and Neil landed together in the Capsule . Posted by oldfellow</DIV> That's Buzz

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

yevaud · Oct 19, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems an American faiiling to think "first" means  better than others of a team.   Bruce Sinton   Posted by oldfellow</DIV>That's a misconception.  America's entire industrial base has been such a success because we believe in teamwork.  However, we also believe in vigorous competition. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

MarkStanaway · Oct 20, 2008

All kudos to Aldrin,but its Neil Armstrong which history will record was the first man on the moon.Posted by royalcolinThere was a very practical reason why Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. The LM exit hatch was hinged to open towards Buzz Aldrin the LM pilot so it made sense for Neil to exit first rather than trying to swap positions while fully suited up in the cramped confines of the LM. During Gemini the pilot (the guy in the right hand seat) always made the EVA as Buzz Aldrin had done on Gemini XII so during the early planning stages of Apollo he expected that this would be the procedure followed for the lunar landing. Training soon revealed the impracticality of this procedure so Neil and Buzz agreed on the exit sequence which is now part of history.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Why no man moon missions for almost 40 years?

DrRocket

Guest

onesmallstep

Guest

warpfactor999

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

ZenGalacticore

Guest

crazyeddie

Guest

NGC_5195

Guest

carlo783

Guest

InvalidPerson

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

connor240287

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

R1

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

R1

Guest

R1

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Meric

Guest

oldfellow

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

yevaud

Guest

MarkStanaway

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page