Why haven't we been back to the Moon?

I've just been thinking about this and It suddenly occured to me that we haven't been back to the moon in almost 30 years. Why is that?

 

Reason 1: Not enough money.

Reason 2: No reason to go back at this time.

 

Good question and I personally would love for NASA to plan a trip to the moon again. It would be a great mission and maybe collect more materials from the moon for more up to date scientific examination.

I really hope we go back some day and add a memorial for all the Astronauts which have lost their lives doing what they loved. Put a nice memorial on the moon would be a great gesture.

 

Unfortunately, the Apollo project was a political stunt performed during the Cold War. We spent around $30,000,000,000 to send a half-dozen astronauts to the nearest place to plant a flag.

On the upside, the Moon landings arguably remain the high water mark for human civilization. The spin-off technologies have more than paid for the cost of going there.

On the downside, once we beat the Russians there, we discovered we had crossed a finish line rather than opened the door to the final frontier. The rockets were merely giant missiles, engineered to literally fall apart en route, not sturdy, safe, inexpensive, reliable, re-usable space vessels. The grainy, black and white images of men on the Moon collecting rock samples astounded at first, but soon became tedious. People quickly discovered that we had opened (and just as quickly closed) another front on the Cold War. The science fiction dream of latter-day pioneers and explorers re-enacting America's westward expansion on a solar systemic scale would be deferred to a future generation.

One wonders if that generation is now alive, or has yet to be born.

JCC Space Science Thread

 

Could you give your own thoughts on this, gonzoforce? Simply asking a question isn't enough.

 

#1 reason: The general public is just not interested in space exploration anymore, which equals insufficient funds.

 

I also submit that the mission profiles for a Moon mission would have to be more than 'stay a day and go'. As Apollo continued on after the landing of Apollo 11, NASA did everything it could through science, engineering, and sheer luck to 1.)Attempt to speed them to their appointed destination and 2.) Prolong the Mission and 3.) Do so where the gains outweigh the risks.



For one thing we shouldn't worry about getting back to the Moon too quickly, because it's not going anywhere, anytime soon. It's been up there for over a billion years; it will still be there for a billion more. We won't, of course, but we can take the time we have to develope better ways to get into space. And there are better, more efficient, more productive and beneficial in the end ways.

 

Yeah, we need some kind of big PR boost to get people interested in the Space Program again, to get some money. If they were to land a person on Mars, that might do it, but chances are they'd find a way to screw it up, or just wouldn't be able to dig up the money to undertake the operation in the first place.

 

One of the origional reasons to have a space station was as a step in getting to mars. To prove that humans could survive the deterioration of their body after being in space for the extended period of time which is required of a trip to the moon. Since it has only recently been continuously manned, it's hard to say when people (if they do) start talking about trying to reach the moon.

 

Its a case of been there done that... We need to get interested in Mars. Think of the profits...an entirely new planet, ready for terraforming.

Edit: I think for this to happen we are in need of another scientific burst of creativity.

 

A few tidbits:

The general public is indeed still interested in space travel.

We stopped going not because of money but because of politics. Nixon wanted to fight a war instead.

The cost to the Moon was 25 billion. In todays dollars that would be 100 billion.

We don't need the Moon to practice trips to Mars, the two bodies have nothing in common at all. It would not be a bad way to go though.

Still, there is alot to do on the Moon besides "Flags and Footprints". It is low in certain metals, but high in glass and plactics and ceramics. You have to get it out of the regolith however.

The Moon would make a pretty good stopping and starting place for travel about the solar system.

If fusion ever becomes a reality(Every 20 years scientists say we have another 20 years to go, but I suppose they are getting closer), then the Moon is great for the fusion process we would like which is a helium3 version that only wastes protons instead of neutrons, and the protons can be redirected with magnetic fields for re-use.

AT the moment it is too expensive for NASA 1. Because they spend money like the government does and not like a business does which causes cost overruns, 2. The more complex the rocket the more expensive it is because you have to pay armies of people to keep it running.

When Apollo was cancelled there were still plans to continue on with the Moon, then go off to Mars in the 1980's.

rsterling gave a link to the space science thread, in the header you will find a web page called PRMANENT.com. Good stuff on the Moon and near Earth asteroids there.

 

^ ^ You so silly.

 

I can't see terraforming for Mars getting any public support. If it's even possible, it would take centuries for completion. I'm not sure a project of that scale is needed at all because it's safe to say that if humanity manages to survive several hundred years more, it will have to have straightened out most of the problems it now has that would make terraforming necessary, such as the destruction of earth's environment and constant wars over lack of land and resources.

There are also the ethical issues involved. If a lot of people have a problem with the country of Israel being founded by humans or a single cloned life being brought into being by humans, since both of those actions are supposed to be taken only by G-d, how many people would support completely reinventing an entire planet?

 

We've never been to the moon. The moon landing was entirely shot on a soundstage. Just kidding. Maybe.

Why go to the moon? I can see both sides of the issue, one may seem short sighted but the other seems too idealistic. There's no reason for humans to go into space anymore. Everything we have to do up there can be done with automated robots.

And terraform Mars? Come on. NASA has a celebration if they reach '6' on the countdown. Plus, we haven't even expored our own oceans yet. It'd be a heck of a lot easier to build cities under or above the sea than on a barren planet with an unhospitable atmosphere millions of miles away.

Exploring space in the name of science is a noble cause but it's costing a crapload of money, money that could be better spent on earth. Then again, that sounds reactionary and probably sounds like the people who thought sailors shouldn't explore the world because they thought the earth was flat. Nothing's stopped human progress so far but it's a somewhat more realistic approach at this time in history.

 

Becuase there is no reason to go back. The moon holds nothing of benefit or value to us on earth.

 

So certain are you?

Seriously, the moon is just felsic rock that upsplashed from the surface of a molten earth, but who's to say we can't mine asteroids, for example? There are still many practical reasons for space exploration.

 

The ISS was a big waste of money. Moon colony would have been a bigger acomplishment. anyway, we need to go to Mars, but there's a lot of BS involved with the Mars Mission.

 

Little steps. Always little steps.

Yes we can terraform worlds. But when? When will we really have the technology to do so? Not for awhile.

Get there first. Explore it, every lil inch of it. When terraforming becomes practical then do it.

I can see why many would want Mars to remain as it is. It may be that it will stay that way if we decided to create large orbitals to live in instead of the gravity well of a planetary body.

 

Apparently they're aliens on the moon, and they've told us not to come back...

 

The ISS was a big waste of money. Moon colony would have been a bigger acomplishment.

Much like the AIDS vaccine will be a big accomplishment when we finally get it, but the money that's been thrown into trials of various faulty drugs is a big waste now?

We have to move in small steps because we're not capable of big ones.

 

Ditto the start of DLM's original post.

I don't believe yous actually went to the moon.

If you had, I'm sure yous would have gone back.

 

We went back several times, ending with Apollo 17.

 

Yes, you may have gone there, I don't dispute that. Just the jumping around on it, part.

Also, I don't dispute that the US have gone back there. Again, did any of the Apollos 12-17 land?

I dunno...maybe we in the UK are too cynical about it.


EDIT: Just been to the NASA website where they have pictures of the Apollo 11, 12, 16, 17 landings.

But this still begs the question: why, in the last 30 years, have US/Russia/China/wherever not gone back? Why so quick to switch to another Planet, ie, Mars?

 

Also, I don't dispute that the US have gone back there. Again, did any of the Apollos 12-17 land?

I believe only Apollo 13 did not land, due to an in-flight malfunction that forced their premature turn. The rest landed on the moon and did surveys of the area.

 

But this still begs the question: why, in the last 30 years, have US/Russia/China/wherever not gone back? Why so quick to switch to another Planet, ie, Mars?

High Cost, Low Benefit.

It costs a ton to send astronauts (or cosmonauts) to the moon. And for what purpose? Anything they do there can be just as easily and more cheaply done by robots. We've seen the moon. Guess there was nothing there. That's why they've turned to Mars. Mars has more mysteries and more potential for mysteries that are waiting to be discovered and solved.