Why haven't we been to the moon in recent years?
I think that that is the main reason, although I don't think either of the Gulf Wars has had all that much affect. Ironically, I think the downfall of the American space program is directly tied to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Without the their competition, we have lost our enthusiasm and drive.Originally posted by Bubonic Plague
I think it's because the "Golden Age" is gone, and we're once again caught up with the realities of life, eg. Gulf War II.
Besides NASA is having funding problems now.
Uh huh... BS. Find me a single report from NASA which said that.Originally posted by RichardGood
However, in reality NASA had estimated in the mid-to-late '60s that the chance of successfully landing humans on the moon and returning them to Earth safely was around 0.05%.
No, I don't think so. The Soviets didn't have a working rocket which could take their crews to the moon and back. They were close, but then had two catastrophic failures on their test rockets. Since Soviet space doctrine forbid them from launching humans unless they had two successful flights, they lost the race.NASA had fallen behind the Soviet Union in terms of progress in the space race, who had beaten the Americans in feats such as the first manned space flight.
The reason we were behind was because we were focusing on different projects. That being the X-15NASA was also sufferring from massive levels of management problems and inefficiencies at this time. But then suddenly we are meant to believe that in the space of a few years they managed to "pull a moon landing out of their hat". Unlikely.
All of which have been debunked. Many times. Damn that Fox TV for dumbing down the intelligence of the world.The is a lots of evidence to support that fact that the film footage of the astronoughts on the moon surface was a studio fake.
Go out during a night with a full moon with a friend. Can you see the friend's face?For example, in one of the most well known photos you see one of the astronoughts standing on the surface with the sun rising behind him, yet YOU CAN SEE THE DETAIL ON THE FRONT OF HIS SPACE SUIT. Even with lots of very good "fill-in lights" (which they obviously did not take to the moon) the figure should have been just a sillouette with such as strong light source behind him, regardless of what exposure-speed gilms was in the cameras....
BS. Find me the specs of those cameras to prove your crap assertion, please.....Cameras which incedentally did not have any kind of radio or magnetic shielding, so when exposed the the huge amounts of solar radiation on the moon (without the protection of Earths atmosphere) the camera films should have been rendered useless within seconds.
Yet more BS. Find me the specs of those space-suits to prove your crap assertion, please.It's also worth noting that the space-suit designs used in 1969 also did not have any kind of shielding, so walking on the surface of the moon should have quickly proved fatal for the astronoughts.
I disagree. High Earth Orbit is a much better and cheaper launch platform than the moon. Why fly and land parts on the moon, then assemble and launch a craft from the moon where you have to break out of lunar gravity as well as the earth when you can just break out of earth gravity? It sounds to me like a waste of time and fuel. Pretty low gravity in high earth orbit, relatively speaking.Originally posted by LURCH
However, if we're going to go to Mars, or any further into space, we will be retuening to the Moon soon. It's a much better and cheaper launch platform.
To go back to the moon, we would need some purpose other than that which drove the Apollo missions. Remember, As others have mentioned Apollo was basically a race, and in a race you want the quickest way to get to the moon, not the best.
They are!Originally posted by LURCH
A song by Larry Norman:
"We're lookin' for some answers,
We need to find salvation'
So we sent some people to the moon,
To gather information!
They brought back a big bag o' rocks...
Only cost about nine billion...
Must be nice rocks"
Oh, it's still a huge challange. But like you say, there needs to be a new motivation for doing it. Maybe China's and India's new space race (which may include an eventual moon-shot) will re-inspire us. Maybe after we finish our war-time efforts.and today we need a reason to go to the Moon other than just "because it's there"; it just doesn't provide enough of a challenge anymore!
I think it would only be cheaper if (1) we were able to utilize the moon's resources for something (fuel, etc.) and (2) we had a LONG term program set up. Like J-man said, a shot from Earth or Earth orbit would probably be cheaper for a quick trip to Mars. Sustained colonization of Mars might make the Moon look more appealing though.However, if we're going to go to Mars, or any further into space, we will be retuening to the Moon soon. It's a much better and cheaper launch platform.
There's not much of a market for green cheese. Blue cheese has lost popularity as well... cest la vest .
See?Originally posted by Phobos
Great ! Now all I have to do is figure outOriginally posted by Phobos
excerpt from the link...
"moon rock, about the size of a grape...stolen and...was being offered for sale for $5 million"