Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Technology Vs. Moon Landing


LucidElement

Recommended Posts

1969 .. we supposedly landed on the moon, its now 2016 and we still havent had ANYONE land back on the moon?

We have cell phones that can unlock our car doors, change the tempature in the house... We have STEALTH fighter jets that can go from the middle east and back at Mach 5.. Direct TV that sends signals from satellites to our T.V's..... Underwater Hotel in Dubai...

BUT.... we cant land on the moon AGAIN?

explain that to me?

not to mention it only took 4 days and 6 hours to get there. and that was in 1969!!

I understand Obama cut the NASA program, but still.. do you guys believe we have people cultivating on mars? but why havent we been back?

if we have space stations floating in outer space why cant they build one on the moon

Edited by LucidElement
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1969 .. we supposedly landed on the moon, its now 2016 and we still havent had ANYONE land back on the moon?

We have cell phones that can unlock our car doors, change the tempature in the house... We have STEALTH fighter jets that can go from the middle east and back at Mach 5.. Direct TV that sends signals from satellites to our T.V's..... Underwater Hotel in Dubai...

BUT.... we cant land on the moon AGAIN?

explain that to me?...

I'd be glad to explain. The answer is...money. It's very costly to send manned missions to the moon. The Apollo missions basically made going to the moon a 'been there done that' type of thing. Right now I think going to Mars will be the next big thing.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to put the Moon landing in context of the times.

It wasn't a scientific mission, and there was no intention at the time to make it sustainable.

It was a competition against the Soviet Union over who got there first.

Once we made it the first time, a lot of theomen tum of the missions died off.

Five moremore missions landed on the moon, but to diminished public interest each time.

Obama isn't the only one to have cut NASA funding, each president has reduced the budget, while at the same time encouraging moon missions.

But without a drive like we had back in the Cold War there just isn't the same sort public and political will to drive us back to the moon.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT.... we cant land on the moon AGAIN?

Do you want to give us an example of when we've actually tried?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1969 supposedly, the men landed on the moon... i just find it hard to believe we havent been back, or have people cultivating mars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1969 .. we supposedly landed on the moon, its now 2016 and we still havent had ANYONE land back on the moon?

We have cell phones that can unlock our car doors, change the tempature in the house... We have STEALTH fighter jets that can go from the middle east and back at Mach 5.. Direct TV that sends signals from satellites to our T.V's..... Underwater Hotel in Dubai...

BUT.... we cant land on the moon AGAIN?

explain that to me?

not to mention it only took 4 days and 6 hours to get there. and that was in 1969!!

I understand Obama cut the NASA program, but still.. do you guys believe we have people cultivating on mars? but why havent we been back?

if we have space stations floating in outer space why cant they build one on the moon

1969 supposedly, the men landed on the moon... i just find it hard to believe we havent been back, or have people cultivating mars?

There were four more manned missions after 1969: Apollo 14, 15 in 1971 and Apollo 16, 17 in 1972. Not to mention, there was a second mission in 1969 - November 1969 Apollo 12 landed on the moon. Therefore, since July of 1969 (the first landing) NASA was back five more times.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a war between us and the Soviet Union, or some equivalent, there is no push to go out and reach the moon or Mars.

It is simply to expensive to do it just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1969 supposedly, the men landed on the moon... i just find it hard to believe we havent been back, or have people cultivating mars?

Nevermind, Aftermath got this inaccuracy addressed.

Please do some simple research in the future.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1969 supposedly, the men landed on the moon... i just find it hard to believe we havent been back, or have people cultivating mars?

Really? The US currently can't even get as far as the ISS thanks to budget cuts. Why do you find it odd that NASA has no manned lunar missions when they can't even put a man in LEO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? The US currently can't even get as far as the ISS thanks to budget cuts. Why do you find it odd that NASA has no manned lunar missions when they can't even put a man in LEO?

SpaceX goes to the ISS all the time...an American based company from California.

http://www.spacex.com/dragon

Edited by Lilly
syntax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SpaceX goes to the ISS all the time...an American based company from California.

http://www.spacex.com/dragon

A private company. NASA cannot do it. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose NASA has to rent seats from private companies? Edited by Abaddonire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A private company. NASA cannot do it.

NASA could do it alone. NASA dont do it alone because of the financial benefits of outsourcing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have STEALTH fighter jets that can go from the middle east and back at Mach 5.

No, we dont have such A/C yet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technology is there and has been since 1969. The problem ( as stated? Is money as well as public desire.

There was a public desire to beat the Russians to the moon in the 60s but once that happened and interest stopped the moon landings stopped.

A private company. NASA cannot do it. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose NASA has to rent seats from private companies?

Because the NASA budget is deplorable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it was mentioned before, we send probes now to do what it used to take manpower to do. In that sense we have far surpassed our technological abilities for space exploration since that late 60's/early 70's. There is not much that a 'boots on the ground' mission could accomplish that a probe mission couldn't with far less cost and risk. Therefore it makes perfect sense that we haven't put men on the moon since the Apollo missions. It's not that we can't but there is not much of a need to.

Edit: ....and also money.

Edited by S2F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1969 supposedly, the men landed on the moon... i just find it hard to believe we havent been back, or have people cultivating mars?

I don't, a probe is much more efficient. They don't need air, food, or water, and there is no risk to human life.

Why send people on a risky expensive mission just because?

Edited by Rlyeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be glad to explain. The answer is...money. It's very costly to send manned missions to the moon. The Apollo missions basically made going to the moon a 'been there done that' type of thing. Right now I think going to Mars will be the next big thing.

yes, vast amounts of money, and 400,000 people working on it, and the whole world paid for it (and the terribly expensive Vietnam war) with inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money - yes NASA budget is deplorable, National Science Foundation budget is deplorable. Those are not priorities of our elected officials. Blame Obama if you want, as others have said, the budget has been reduced since the first mission got home. Blame Congress, they appropriate funds.

Competition with the Russians -top priority for Kennedy and others. Maybe the next competition will be with China.

Public Opinion. It seems the general populace isn't that interested. If the next moon landing was televised and Keeping up with the Kardashians or American Idol was on at the same time, what would have the most viewers?

Now Lucid, not to be too critical, but the fact that you say you don't get it is a symptom of the problem. As a population we are getting lazier and more complacent. If you are interested in the answer, I bet you could research this a bit and post a really good analysis of why we are not yet on Mars or why we don't have a much more impressive orbital habitat. I would hazard a guess that it is not for lack of technology.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that all the cash blown on Apollo was worth it because of the technical "spin-offs"....believe that you will believe anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technology is there and has been since 1969. The problem ( as stated? Is money as well as public desire.

There was a public desire to beat the Russians to the moon in the 60s but once that happened and interest stopped the moon landings stopped.

Because the NASA budget is deplorable.

Exactly my point. NASA could do it except for the fact that their budget has been so thoroughly eviscerated that they couldn't pay for it even if they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.