Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

why havent we been back?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1    Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester or Israel

  • All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 10 June 2006 - 08:30 PM

I have read many posts about the moonlanding and possible hoaxes so can someone please explain why almost 40 years later with the greater than exponential growth over them 40 years in both computing and engineering why we havent just popped back...should be very easy by now...just consider the difference between now and then in everything else technical....btw just cos we have been there is not a reason or eg why would people keep going back up everest ?


#2    zandore

zandore

    EX-Christian

  • Member
  • 9,640 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.
    Genghis Khan

Posted 10 June 2006 - 08:37 PM

Economics.


EDIT: This might be in the wrong section.

Edited by zandore, 10 June 2006 - 08:38 PM.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.
Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Albert Einstein


Survey Says....


#3    Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester or Israel

  • All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 10 June 2006 - 09:01 PM

the kit used in 1969 has been improved and is at the point where i wear better gear walking the dog and processing power is almost free compared with then, economics? the expensive part is lift off and that has been done countless times since, the hop to the moon should be common by now. Maybe you are correct however one word answers are easy to post......you could have said 'interest' or 'pointlessness' but that doesnt really give me the reasons i was looking for


#4    McKenna

McKenna

    I'm a miracle baby. I'm a gift of life from God.

  • Member
  • 2,448 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Minnesota, USA

  • The Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but
    the Lord looks on the heart."(1 Samuel 16:7)

Posted 10 June 2006 - 09:13 PM

Quote


the kit used in 1969 has been improved and is at the point where i wear better gear walking the dog and processing power is almost free compared with then, economics? the expensive part is lift off and that has been done countless times since, the hop to the moon should be common by now. Maybe you are correct however one word answers are easy to post......you could have said 'interest' or 'pointlessness' but that doesnt really give me the reasons i was looking for


Because there's alien bases up there. And the government doesn't want us to find out that there is.

McKenna Elise Adams MySpace Page
McKenna Elise Adams Website Page

I have found a way. And I am not ashamed.

#5    FireMoon

FireMoon

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 944 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2006
  • Location:Coventry

  • Nobody goes there anymore.... It's too crowded ...Yogi Bera.

Posted 10 June 2006 - 09:29 PM

Because there is no financial gain right now in revisiting the moon. The truth is the first visit was  largely down to propaganda in the cold war. it was more important to be *seen* to be getting there before the USSR.  
  
I think with Kennedy stating *we choose to go to the moon before the end of the decade* no president after him dare fail to achieve this part of his legacy. partly as stated, because of the propaganda value, and partly because it was largely a *non political* piece of adventuring. The USA was wealthy and space exploration was the glamour way of waving a large fiscal dick at the rest of the world.  
  
Truth is technology ala actual rockets has only moved on since the USA  stole the USSR idea's on engines and, even then,  the change is really very little overall..  
  
You can bet once they have a way of *exploiting* any mineral wealth of the moon they will be allover it like a rash and you can bet that certain Texan political families will have their porcine like noses in the trough at the first opportunity...  
  
Sad, but that's just the way it is...

Edited by FireMoon, 10 June 2006 - 09:30 PM.


#6    Raptor

Raptor

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,085 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 June 2006 - 09:40 PM

We are going back, the mission has already been announced.


#7    Zeus

Zeus

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,081 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2004
  • Location:London

  • The mind is Now.

Posted 10 June 2006 - 10:11 PM

Obviously the sdealth tax program isn't yet generating enough black op cash. Maybe this will do. A cool 100 gazillion dollars

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9355479

Thankfully we today have cg technology. who knows how easy it will be to fake a moon landing in 18 years time.


#8    Bearly

Bearly

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington, Virginia

  • And He who made kittens, put snakes in the grass, He's a lover of Life, but a player of pawns...

Posted 10 June 2006 - 11:30 PM

Quote


I have read many posts about the moonlanding and possible hoaxes so can someone please explain why almost 40 years later with the greater than exponential growth over them 40 years in both computing and engineering why we havent just popped back...should be very easy by now...just consider the difference between now and then in everything else technical....btw just cos we have been there is not a reason or eg why would people keep going back up everest ?


IMO part of the answer to your questions is that a moon trip is expensive and NASA had to fund other projects.  Those projects are the space shuttles, space station, the trips to Mars and Saturn, the Hubble telescope and other scopes.  We gained much more new information from those projects then making another trip to the moon.  Been there, done that.  So much of the universe was left unexplored, that to only focus on the moon would be a waste of money for the amount of knowledge gained.  

Still, I have wondered the same thing myself.  Another hundred billion dollar project from Bush.  For a Republican, that guy can go through some money.  Ah well, let the next generation pay it off  rolleyes.gif


#9    Raptor

Raptor

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,085 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 June 2006 - 11:40 PM

Quote


Obviously the sdealth tax program isn't yet generating enough black op cash. Maybe this will do. A cool 100 gazillion dollars

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9355479

Thankfully we today have cg technology. who knows how easy it will be to fake a moon landing in 18 years time.


There are many threads in the conspiracy section to speak about if it was faked or not, so try not to let this thread turn in to another one, too.  thumbsup.gif


#10    Raptor

Raptor

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,085 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 June 2006 - 11:41 PM

Quote

btw just cos we have been there is not a reason or eg why would people keep going back up everest ?


Going up Everest doesn't require such a huge amount of money or such a large work force.


#11    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,956 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 11 June 2006 - 12:23 AM

We haven't been back because there hasn't been the political will to do so.

Nixon cancelled Apollo because it no longer had public backing (i.e wasn't a vote winner). It had done what it set out to do, beaten the Soviet Union to the Moon (exploration was, in reality, a secondary aim). NASA was directed to build a reusable spacecraft which would greatly reduce the cost of placing astronauts in space - the space shuttle. The plan was that this cheap shuttle would then allow America to build a space station. This space station would be the construction and launch point for large spacecraft capable of taking man back to the Moon and then on to Mars.

In fact what happened is the shuttle proved to be hugely expensive, eating into NASA,s budget. This budget had fallen in real terms from it's zenith during the Apollo era. NASA just could not afford to go back to the moon.


Quote

the kit used in 1969 has been improved and is at the point where i wear better gear walking the dog and processing power is almost free compared with then, economics? the expensive part is lift off and that has been done countless times since, the hop to the moon should be common by now.


Launch is probably not the most expensive part. Design, building of prototypes, flight testing and certifying as safe for flight, that's the expensive bit.

"The kit" as you call it may have improved in many areas of spaceflight but not in terms of returning to the moon. There has been no manned spacecraft capable of landing on the moon flown since 1972. There is also no heavy lift vehicle in the Saturn V class available today. The "kit" for landing on the moon has not improved simply because there has been no continuous development. This means that NASA needs to build new craft and new rockets. It is the very fact that things have moved on that means Apollo and the Saturn V can not simply be resurrected. They may have been the best way to do things in the sixties, they are not the best way to do things now,

Quote


We are going back, the mission has already been announced.


Indeed we are. America has plans to return to the moon as do Russia and China. The European Space Agency also has plans to be involved in manned Lunar exploration but this will probably be in a collaborative effort with either America, Russia or both.

More details of Americas plans to return to the moon can be found in this thread: The Vision For Space Exploration

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 11 June 2006 - 12:24 AM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#12    The_Weatherman

The_Weatherman

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • Come in and check our best storm chasing reports in my website link!

Posted 11 June 2006 - 04:34 AM

Well that gotten me thinking of George W Bush is an alien.



#13    Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester or Israel

  • All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 11 June 2006 - 06:24 AM

Quote


Going up Everest doesn't require such a huge amount of money or such a large work force.

Relatively it does as the going rate to join an expedition is over $50000 which would rise when time off work/equipment/training/sherpas etc were factored in i.e. the equivalent of an Average Joes yearly income. The American government could get back to the moon for less than its yearly taxation income I am sure
Secondly, while on here, could anyone tell me why the shuttle could not have been adapted for a lunar orbit or what is the furthest a manned mission has been into space since the cessation of the moon project?

Edited by Moon Monkey, 11 June 2006 - 06:35 AM.


#14    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,956 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 11 June 2006 - 10:23 AM

Quote


what is the furthest a manned mission has been into space since the cessation of the moon project?


No manned mission has bee further than a few hundred miles above the Earth since Apollo.

Quote


while on here, could anyone tell me why the shuttle could not have been adapted for a lunar orbit


If you want to win the Indy 500 you don't do it by modifying a truck.

The space shuttle is ssentially a space truck. It is designed for Earth orbit only. To try and make it capable of Lunar orbit would need so much modification that it would be worse than trying to win the indy 500 with a truck.

Firstly it lacks the power to break Earth orbit. It has the Orbital Manouvering System engines (OMS) which enable it to raise or lower it's orbit (and are fired to drop it out of orbit). These are not powerful enough to accelerate the shuttle from orbital velocity to escape velocity. They would also be needed to escape from lunar orbit.

Secondly the shuttle is designed to re-enter the atmosphere at a far slower speed than if it were returning from the moon. At the speed need  for a lunar return it's wings would over heat and burn off. It would burn up on re-entry.


"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#15    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 11 June 2006 - 06:01 PM

Quote


the kit used in 1969 has been improved and is at the point where i wear better gear walking the dog and processing power is almost free compared with then, economics? the expensive part is lift off and that has been done countless times since, the hop to the moon should be common by now. Maybe you are correct however one word answers are easy to post......you could have said 'interest' or 'pointlessness' but that doesnt really give me the reasons i was looking for


I understand that.

Setting aside somewhat silly ideas like our technology didn't really advance until we stole Soviet rocket technology (we invented the successful rocket technology that was used to go to the moon while the Soviets had problems getting their large boosters off of the ground), and ludicrous comments regarding a cover up of alien bases on the moon, I will say that economics, as a one word answer isn't really saying much either.  In fact, economics plays a minimal role in the situation.  Politics and societal attitudes have played much more of a significant role in the space program than economics.  I think economics is a cover, quite frankly, as America can easily afford to go back to the moon.  

On "Black Friday" 2005, that crazed beginning of the "holiday shopping season" in America, Americans spent 8 BILLION DOLLARS...on that one day alone!   And this, for Christmas!  That amount of money, spent in a frenetic rush to satisfy what are largely social obligations, could fund about 4 Apollo 11 type missions to the moon today!

3 dollars a month for every American, over the next 10 years, will fund the return to the moon program on the books right now.  

Economics is not a reason not to return to the moon.  
America can, and always has been able to afford such an effort.

Waspie provided some very good information regarding the reasons we haven't returned since 1972.


I'd like to add that Americans quickly become jaded with the extraordinary.  They are almost numb to it today, and they rapidly became that way even back in the Apollo days.  

President Nixon killed Apollo in 1969.  The American people could've cared less, by and large.  Nixon had Viet Nam to fund, and he wanted his own space legacy.   There really wasn't any way he wanted Kennedy's legacy hanging around for too long on his watch.  The Shuttle was his pet project.   Of course, he actually got Watergate as his legacy, as the Shuttle was some time from being ready to fly by the time he left office.    

In 1972, in his message to the returning Apollo 17 crew crew, Nixon set the course for the future of manned space exploration when he said, "This may be the last time in this century that men walk on the Moon."

It was Apollo's obituary, and would in fact be the end of manned space exploration for alot longer than the end of the century.   It was a sad day when we heard those words, and it has been sadder yet to see just how much time has passed without a real manned space initiative.

But it is politics and the nature of American society that are really behind that.  It never really had anything to do with economics.   That's just a plausible sounding cover.  

Americans in 1969 spent far more than the cost of  Apollo 11 and 12 combined on cosmetics.   And even then, there was fighting about the costs of going to the moon.

I think that says a whole lot.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users