Why Has Moon Exploration Declined Despite Advances in Space Travel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dgtech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moon
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The decline in moon exploration, despite advancements in space travel, is attributed to several factors including the high energy requirements for lunar missions and shifting priorities within NASA. Current propulsion technologies, such as chemical rockets, remain largely unchanged since the Apollo era, limiting the feasibility of manned lunar missions. Additionally, the focus has shifted towards asteroid missions as directed by government funding, reducing the urgency for lunar exploration. The risks associated with solar radiation exposure during deep space travel further complicate the case for returning to the moon.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of orbital mechanics and energy requirements for space travel
  • Familiarity with chemical rocket propulsion systems
  • Knowledge of NASA's mission priorities and funding structures
  • Awareness of solar radiation effects on human health in space
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the energy requirements for lunar missions compared to low Earth orbit (LEO) missions
  • Explore advancements in propulsion technologies, such as ion thrusters and their applications
  • Investigate NASA's current mission objectives and funding allocations for space exploration
  • Study the implications of solar radiation on human spaceflight and potential shielding technologies
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, space policy analysts, and anyone interested in the future of human space exploration and the challenges of returning to the moon.

  • #31
So you suggest orbital stations make no sense, and it would be more efficient to continue launching chemical rockets and trying to defy the huge gravity well our planet is each and every time, with all the costs and risks of failure associated?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
dgtech said:
So you suggest orbital stations make no sense, and it would be more efficient to continue launching chemical rockets and trying to defy the huge gravity well our planet is each and every time, with all the costs and risks of failure associated?
That is a straw man argument.

You have claimed that it is cheaper/better/faster to use an orbital space station, and in particular, the ISS, as a base. I, and others, have shown that this is not the case. You are vastly oversimplifying what is a very hard problem.
 
  • #33
dgtech said:
So you suggest orbital stations make no sense, and it would be more efficient to continue launching chemical rockets and trying to defy the huge gravity well our planet is each and every time, with all the costs and risks of failure associated?

The point is, it is only more cost-effective if we also transport most of JFK Space Centre and its satellite manufacturing companies up there as well. And even that doesn't do anything about the fuel problem (there is no water up there to even convert to fuel).
 

Similar threads

Rocket possible collision with Moon
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo-2: Launch success
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
Undergrad Changing the ISS's orbital inclination to match the Moon
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Why are we still limited in our Moon exploration ambitions?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Kerbal Space Program - Duna Flight Math
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
SpaceX SpaceX: Interplanetary Transport System
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
SpaceX SpaceX Makes History As First Company to Dock a Spacecraft At ISS
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Sticky
Kerbal Space Program Tutorial Series - Open Access to 1.7
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
67K
The First Spaceship: A Cost-Effective & Modular Multi-Purpose Craft
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Kerbal Space Program - Rocket Design Basics
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K