PDA

View Full Version : New Moon Mission Questions...



oceantracks
2010-Feb-01, 04:17 AM
Hello to all, first post here. Nice forum!

OK, this is probably a dumb question, but I am really curious.

Outside of the practical things like budgets, technically speaking..why is it going to take so long for us to return to the moon?

It's something we already have done, so is it just that we are building new vehicles to get there this time and that's what is taking so long?

Because in the end, it seems like it will take as longer or longer to get back to the moon than it did the first time we decided to make it a goal to go.

Thanks
Tom

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-01, 04:37 AM
Hello to all, first post here. Nice forum!

OK, this is probably a dumb question, but I am really curious.

Outside of the practical things like budgets, technically speaking..why is it going to take so long for us to return to the moon?


The budget (the cost of it all) is the key reason. It's technically possible, but very expensive.



It's something we already have done, so is it just that we are building new vehicles to get there this time and that's what is taking so long?


That, and the fact that it isn't just about sending people to the moon, but having people live on the moon for an extended time. That we haven't done yet, has additional risks, and is more difficult and expensive than sending people for a short visit.

ngc3314
2010-Feb-01, 01:54 PM
A major factor is that this time around it isn't a national priority, which is what Cold War politics made it in the 1960s (hence the often-quoted sign in contractors' shops "Waste anything but time"). That means, among other things, that spending nearly many times today's NASA slice of the national budget to get "flags and footprints" was completely fine then - as was a level of risk to the astronauts that seems incredible to recall today.

astromark
2010-Feb-01, 06:29 PM
This question has just taken on greater significance as the US president has driven the axe deep into spending $ on getting back to the Moon. Those ' Flags and footprints' did cost an awful lot of money. I would still argue that a maned moon base should be pushed for...but understand that dept is dept... we can just wait. Could I now argue that the longer we wait the safer it gets and the less it might cost ? No, thats not right is it... Safer, yes. Cheaper than now. Never.

JohnD
2010-Feb-01, 06:59 PM
"No Moon Missions"

JustAFriend
2010-Feb-01, 07:02 PM
The line from "The Right Stuff" says it all: "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers."

The party in power has had no love for the space program since the '70s.
They have always run on a platform of taking away the bucks and putting them into social programs.

Go read up on the late Senator Proxmire. Here is a quote from his wikipedia:

Proxmire earned the unending enmity of space advocates and science fiction fandom for his opposition to space colonization, ultimately eliminating spending on said research from NASA's budget.[8] In response to a segment about space colonies run by the CBS program 60 Minutes, Proxmire stated that; "it's the best argument yet for chopping NASA's funding to the bone .... I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy".[9] Arthur C. Clarke and Larry Niven retaliated by respectively writing the award winning stories Death and the Senator and The Return of William Proxmire. In a number of circles his name has become a verb, meaning to unfairly obstruct scientific research for political gain.

Argos
2010-Feb-01, 07:03 PM
We´re living the age of mediocrity. No room for grandiose adventures, like going to the Moon.

With the recent news, my hopes of seeing a triumphal return to the Moon in my life time has faded. This is a sad day.

ToSeek
2010-Feb-01, 11:03 PM
The line from "The Right Stuff" says it all: "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers."

The party in power has had no love for the space program since the '70s.
They have always run on a platform of taking away the bucks and putting them into social programs.

Go read up on the late Senator Proxmire. Here is a quote from his wikipedia:

Proxmire earned the unending enmity of space advocates and science fiction fandom for his opposition to space colonization, ultimately eliminating spending on said research from NASA's budget.[8] In response to a segment about space colonies run by the CBS program 60 Minutes, Proxmire stated that; "it's the best argument yet for chopping NASA's funding to the bone .... I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy".[9] Arthur C. Clarke and Larry Niven retaliated by respectively writing the award winning stories Death and the Senator and The Return of William Proxmire. In a number of circles his name has become a verb, meaning to unfairly obstruct scientific research for political gain.

We allow a certain amount of political discussion on here when it's closely tied in to science and/or the space program, but just decrying one party's attitude (or that of a dead Senator) toward the space program is pushing it. Specific criticism of the current or a past administration's decisions are allowed, but sweeping statements (particularly ones that are highly arguable) are not.

EDG
2010-Feb-01, 11:56 PM
We need a reason to go back. Currently, there's no good reason to do so, at least none that justifies the cost.

We can't go back just to plant flags and make footprints in the regolith. I see no reason to believe that the public would support long term colonisation there for purely scientific purposes either (even though that would be great) - we all know what happened after Apollo 11, interest in the moon landings plummeted (and A13 only caught peoples' attention because it nearly was a fatal disaster).

Noclevername
2010-Feb-03, 08:49 PM
Hello to all, first post here. Nice forum!

OK, this is probably a dumb question, but I am really curious.

Outside of the practical things like budgets, technically speaking..why is it going to take so long for us to return to the moon?

Politics, politics and politics. Budgets are determined by priorities. The Budget problems are because no one with the money is willing to spend the money-- we've certainly spent more on less useful things over the years. To say anything further on the topic would be to violate BAUT's no-political-discussion rule. So :silenced:.