Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Moon Monkey

why havent we been back?

34 posts in this topic

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Economics.

EDIT: This might be in the wrong section.

Edited by zandore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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,

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were going back soon.. something about it having to do with Helium 3 I think?

anyway...

@ MID & Waspie Dwarf, thank you for your valuable posts.. I learn quite a bit from them. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were going back soon.. something about it having to do with Helium 3 I think?

anyway...

@ MID & Waspie Dwarf, thank you for your valuable posts.. I learn quite a bit from them. :tu:

You're very welcome, Cinders.

And yes, the return to the moon is in the works (I think they're projecting 2018 as an operation time frame). It has to do with lots of thing, but resources are definitely on the list. Helium 3 research will assuredly be on the docket eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pleasure Cinders.

The Russians have given Helium 3 mining as a reason for their interest in going to the Moon.

I believe Helium 3 is usefully (possibly necessary) in nuclear fusion reactors. As no one has yet produced a viable fusion reactor I suspect that commercial He3 mining is still someway off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

$50,000 is nothing compared to the $104 billion that the mission to the moon will cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$50,000 is nothing compared to the $104 billion that the mission to the moon will cost.

ok, great post .Thats cleared that up. So 50000 is less than 104000000000? Thanks. RELATIVELY.

Many thanks to the guys above for their explainations.I have another if you dont mind. The flag that was stuck in the moon..is it still there and if so can it be seen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple answer to the thread's question would be:

because we can't and we never could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$50,000 is nothing compared to the $104 billion that the mission to the moon will cost.

Im not sure if we can still see the flag i would think it has probably fallen over by now. Also there was rumours that the mission to the moon was followed by other beings and that when they landed there they encountered different ufo's across a canyon i think someone said they looked menacing and that they did not seem to want the apollo team to be there. But i dont know if that is true or not but heres a link anyway.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A simple answer to the thread's question would be:

because we can't and we never could.

It would be both simple and wrong.

The flag that was stuck in the moon..is it still there and if so can it be seen?

There were actually 6 flags stuch in the moon. They are all still there and will remain there for countless millions of years. They are not visible to us on Earth because it would require a truely vast telescope to have the resolution to see them. In a few years, however, a spacecraft call Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is scheduled for launch. This should be able to image the landing sites.

Im not sure if we can still see the flag i would think it has probably fallen over by now.

Why would the flags have fallen over? There is no atmosphere on the moon, so no wind. It is not very geologically active. All of the flags except Apollo 11s are probably still standing. As they took off from the moon Buzz Aldrin saw Apollo 11s flag fall over. The blast from the Lunar Modules engine knocked it over.

Also there was rumours that the mission to the moon was followed by other beings and that when they landed there they encountered different ufo's across a canyon i think someone said they looked menacing and that they did not seem to want the apollo team to be there. But i dont know if that is true or not but heres a link anyway.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html

Just what this site needs, another link to Cosmic Dave's moronic moon site. No the rumours are not true. The site that is linked to is full of half truths and outright lies. His rubbish has all been thoroughly debunked in other threads.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be both simple and wrong.

There were actually 6 flags stuch in the moon. They are all still there and will remain there for countless millions of years. They are not visible to us on Earth because it would require a truely vast telescope to have the resolution to see them. In a few years, however, a spacecraft call Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is scheduled for launch. This should be able to image the landing sites.

Why would the flags have fallen over? There is no atmosphere on the moon, so no wind. It is not very geologically active. All of the flags except Apollo 11s are probably still standing. As they took off from the moon Buzz Aldrin saw Apollo 11s flag fall over. The blast from the Lunar Modules engine knocked it over.

Just what this site needs, another link to Cosmic Dave's moronic moon site. No the rumours are not true. The site that is linked to is full of half truths and outright lies. His rubbish has all been thoroughly debunked in other threads.

My appologies about the link i read the thing about the ufo's on the moon when they got there in a book about ufo's i just tried to search for something about it on the net. So again i am sorry. As for the flag i just thought it might have fallen over by now but since you explained it then there probably still standing up except for the one that was blown over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to appologise chaoszerg, I have no issue you with you. It is the lies spread by Dave Cosnette on his site, and others like him that I have a problem with

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.