Moon landing

  1. Was wondering how we managed to land on the moon back in 69 and now 35 years later we are just managing to orbit the Earth.
    Surely as we did it 35 years ago is it not a lot easier to do it again now given the advances in technology etc
    And what a great moment for our generation to witness.
    Should we not try to concentrate moon landings before we try to go to Mars which seems to me to be far more difficult for us than going to the moon back in 69.
  2. jcsd
  3. Integral

    Integral 7,349
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There must be a significant scientific or economic reason for returning to the moon. What are these reasons? Simply for the "glory" is not a reason. Space travel is a VERY expensive hobby, there needs to be a reason, currently there is no reason to go to the moon.

    I am not sure what you mean by

    Considering the fact that there have been men in orbit continuously for several years now, how does this constitute "just managing"?

    Unfortunately we must be able to justify every mission with either economics or scientific gains. So far there has been no real economic reason found for being in space, so space travel has remained up to governments which have sufficient funds to spend on pure science. Scientifically there is little of interest on the moon. Soo...

    As soon as you can come with some way to derive a profit from a mission to the moon, it will happen, until then... Don't hold your breath.
  4. What was the economic gain back in 69 was it not more of an economic drain also wasn't it a political reason psychological gain over the russians.

    When I say just managing look we are not exactly up their in numbers are we and astronauts have to wait months before they can come back down due to delays, shuttle catastrophies etc ....

    I bet if Bush announces before election a moon mission under his administration you'd see him get reelected isn't that an economical reason ( from his point of view anyway )
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2004
  5. Integral

    Integral 7,349
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There was no economic reason in the '60s, it was done, at great expense, for glory and minimal scientific gain. Once again, if you can find a way to generate a profit from a man in orbit then it will happen in numbers. Currently it is an expensive hobby for our government and little else. About the only science being done is the effect of weightlessness on the human body. We can do better science, cheaper, if humans would stay OUT of space. Send remote sensing equipment to gather data. When some reason is found, then start sending humans.

    I doubt that any real reason for Humans in space will ever be found....

    Though a low gravity resort on the moon would be a very interesting change of pace for the rich and famous.
  6. While actually going into space may not brought any economic gains, the technology developed to do this task certainly has.
  7. Integral

    Integral 7,349
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I would like to see some real solid data on just what technology that was developed by and for the space program which has had a major impact on our economy.

    Certainly NOT Solid state devices, perhaps some metal alloys... what else..Oh yes, can't forget Tang!

    Over all I believe that this is an old saw that is more legend then fact.
  8. Ok how much to replicate build the rockets and craft that sent man to the moon copy the blue prints Im sure they have all the data saved from start to finish, touched up with a little modern day technology surely the expense is not that great as all the research testing and actual practice has been done. Of course if we start from scractch its going to cost.
  9. marcus

    marcus 24,546
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    bozo I don't understand wanting to put humans on the moon or mars
    they are dry places inhospitable places where any exploring needed can better be done by robots

    so all this talk by the present political leaders about men on moon and mars strikes me as cynical grand-standing or extremely ill-advised

    so I dont understand your line of questions, you seem to believe it would be a worthy goal and you say "let's go! it can't cost all that much, what would it cost?"

    maybe you can explain why those are reasonable questions to be asking.

    I would rather be asking how much would it cost to set up and maintain a manned base on Callisto or Ganymede. Those have a dirty-ice crust
    to tunnel into
    to use for cooling power-generators
    to extract minerals from and provide water and propellant

    Stuff could live under the ice
    and they are interesting beautiful places where people havent been

    a basic point about Callisto is, if you can take a nuclear power plant there then you dont need to take water, or oxygen, or vehicle propellant

    the main bulk items of any space mission are abundantly available on the ground

    I dont see manned moon or mars missions as the slightest bit interesting. Maybe you can explain what they would accomplish that robot craft could not do cheaper
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2004
  10. Moon Landings

    The USA went to the moon in 1969 because we were in a "space race" with the Soviet Union. JFK proclaimed in the early 60s that we would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. No doubt that the moon landings were done mainly out of national pride but it also had some scientific worth to it. Like others have said, space travel is very expensive and we would gain little scientific knowledge by returning to the moon but it beats spending money on boomer submarines. Write your congressman and complain.:)
  11. marcus

    marcus 24,546
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    there are a lot of both technical and slang words I dont know
    what is a "boomer submarine"?
  12. Boomer submarines

    "Boomer" is jargon used by people in the military to describe a submarine that carries ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile).
  13. Actually marcus the moon is FULL of resources. The dust makes a great rocket fuel and if there is some ice in the polar craters we could obtain oxygen by reacting that water with iron oxide.

    At some point I could see a mining corperation set up a manned mining operation on the moon. Using a solar power "catapult", material could be placed in reentry containers and placed on an earth reentry trajectory. After the initial costs, it would start to pay for itself. Electricity is free, the building material is free, water MIGHT be free (i want to see ice evidence from polar craters first) and if that is true than oxygen is free as well. I do think human are destined for space...its only a matter of time thats all. I doubt much of this will start happening until a couple decades laters.
  14. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Unfortunately, even with our modern technology, it still costs $10,000 per pound to send an object into orbit. That is a physical limitation of chemical rockets and the only way to get around it is by finding another source of propulsion.

    Unfortunately, Integral is right: there will never be a real, viable, commercial reason for people to go into space or to explore beyond possibly Mars.
  15. marcus

    marcus 24,546
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    that might be true but what if you remove the word "commercial"

    [edit: this is Russ quote with "commercial" removed---so it is not what he said. I just want to focus on that statement. I think i disagree with it even though all the science can probably be done better by robotic probes]

    I would like to take an orbit around the earth. So I have a reason to go into space---if somebody offered me the ride I would go.

    But I wouldnt want to go to the moon. I would rather take a ride across Texas on a Greyhound bus than go to the moon.

    I would rather go to one of the moons of jupiter than go to Mars.
    (Mars has some very beautiful scenery but it doesnt look half as thrilling as the planet Jupiter, which you get to watch from one of its moons)

    also I like the idea of a >50 km shell of ice. I picture ice-skating everywhere----thru tunnels.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2004
  16. Well we could replanish some of the cost regarding a moon landing by bringing back a fair weight of rocks crushing them down and selling them. Bring back the old US flag from the 69 landing and auction it off also one could deismantle the ship and sell the parts and also having landed on the moon doesn't the USA have the right to sell land on the moon I mean couldn't they sell like acres on the internet for a few bucks !
  17. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    If you mean consumer, I would include that in commercial. I see two categories of reasons to go into space: commercial and scientific.
    It also costs $10,000 per pound to bring something back. So they'd better be some really nice looking rocks. And that was just from orbit, btw - to get something to the moon and back is a good 3x that cost.
  18. marcus

    marcus 24,546
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    porn movies made in zero gravity?

    there must be a lot of ways a good promoter could make a buck off of manned space ventures

    personally I wouldnt be interested in owning a moon rock but I would
    pay five dollars for a half-pound rock to give as a present to someone
    except that I dont happen to know anyone who'd like it as a present

    the ice on the surface of Callisto is some of the oldest material in the solar system

    I would be more interested in what a scientific lab could learn from one pound of that ice
    than in what could be learned from a ton of the moon.
  19. One could sell 1oz rocks for the $10,000.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2004
  20. marcus

    marcus 24,546
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2014 Award

    bozo you must be kidding

    if one were to glut the market with moon rock it would
    have little or no value

    people would be selling it on eBay

    Ten grand an ounce is way more than market value

    you could probably obtain an ounce of moon rock for less than that
    right now, if you asked around, assuming you wanted it badly enough

    but the other thing is that if moon rock were a commercial item it would be cheaper to send a robotic rock-scoop to the moon to get it

    it would be real inefficient to send people to the moon to get rocks
    because machines can do it safer, quicker, cheaper

    the thing about humans is they are sentient
    they experience what they are doing, significantly more than machines do

    ultimately the "real, viable" purpose of including humans in it is
    that the experience is worthwhile-----and ultimately because
    humans may be able to make a home and raise families on some of these places in the sky

    so in the last analysis it is neither commercial nor scientific

    and it sure is not about bringing rocks back for the astronauts to peddle at ten thousand bucks an ounce.
  21. This site has a good list of technologies,
    although it doesn't provide much reference into how and when NASA developed these. (So I guess it doesn't count as 'solid data')

    Independently, many of these innovations may not have brought huge economic gains, but collectively I'm sure they have.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?