Why haven't we gone back to the moon?

[DruidArmy]

Why haven't we gone back to the moon? Seems like we could save a whole lot of money and time if we were to go back and explore the moon rather than going to mars. A lot of the questions posted here could be answered if we had gone back.

Why aren't you asking this question yourself?

 

[x BlueRobot]

Mars is a more likely candidate for the existence of life.

 

[DruidArmy]

We could build telescopes, radar, place radio reflectors, mine, set up self sustaining biospheres, etc, etc, etc. on the moon. Big waste of time and big money just to find a microbe on mars.

 

[ShayanJ]

We could build telescopes, radar, place radio reflectors, mine, set up self sustaining biospheres, etc, etc, etc. on the moon. Big waste of time and big money just to find a microbe on mars.

You don't talk like someone interested in science!
Actually even laymen understand the importance of discovering extra-terrestrial life!
In fact the applications of those things that you mentioned are only important to scientists but extra-terrestrial life, in addition to being very important to scientists, is important to humanity!

 

[Doug Huffman]

We, US, back to the Moon? Can't afford it due to descent to regression to the mean.

 

[vociferous]

The short answer is, because the Apollo project had one primary goal: that the first man to walk on the moon be an American. When we realized the Soviets had no interest in sending Cosmonauts to the moon or anywhere else beyond low Earth orbit, we stopped going.

When Kennedy committed to going to the moon, it was beyond our current level of technology. We had to commit huge resources into developing the technology to make it possible, and even then, it was still barely within our ability to accomplish. The Apollo program was successful not just because of good engineering, but because of a lot of good luck.

The huge advances in engineering and the modest advances in science that came out of the program were just bonuses for us. The impetus of the space-race was an international pissing contest to prove Capitalism superior to Communism.

 

[phinds]

The impetus of the space-race was an international pissing contest to prove Capitalism superior to Communism.

Exactly, and no one that cares much about what's happening here on Earth would like to see money pissed away on another manned moon mission. It's a pipe dream to think otherwise.

 

[vociferous]

Exactly, and no one that cares much about what's happening here on Earth would like to see money pissed away on another manned moon mission. It's a pipe dream to think otherwise.

I would support a manned moon mission or base as a stepping stone to Mars. I do not think that there is much utility in sending people in the moon just to prove that we can still do it. Any manned mission to Mars, especially one to set up a long-term station or colony might involve a practice run on the moon, or even creating a station there to manufacture fuel or some other useful enterprise.

 

[skeptic2]

... set up self sustaining biospheres, etc, etc, etc. on the moon.

This is the crux of the problem. How would you set up a self sustaining biospheres? Don't forget the moon has a two week long night. Not many plants can survive without light and heat for that long. Artificial light and heat? Powered by what, solar energy? Same problem.

How would you build such a biosphere without heavy equipment and without a vast supply of oxygen and nitrogen? I suspect a base on the moon won't be possible without portable nuclear generators.

 

[phinds]

I would support a manned moon mission or base as a stepping stone to Mars. I do not think that there is much utility in sending people in the moon just to prove that we can still do it. Any manned mission to Mars, especially one to set up a long-term station or colony might involve a practice run on the moon, or even creating a station there to manufacture fuel or some other useful enterprise.

Yes, but all of that is a pipe dream for the next many decades despite what you read in the popular press and what some entrepreneurs would have us believe.

 

[vociferous]

Yes, but all of that is a pipe dream for the next many decades despite what you read in the popular press and what some entrepreneurs would have us believe.

We have the technology. It is all a matter of funding and, at least for the Mars mission, concerns about human health on long-term space-travel and long-term exposure to a planet with no significant atmosphere and no magnetosphere.

 

[phinds]

We have the technology. It is all a matter of funding and, at least for the Mars mission, concerns about human health on long-term space-travel and long-term exposure to a planet with no significant atmosphere and no magnetosphere.

Yes, I agree (although I think you have let's off a lot of other concerns), and my statement stands.

 

[DruidArmy]

Not sure I got a good answer as to why no one has returned to the moon.

There are many scientific reasons to return. Real scientists would have hundreds, thousands of things they could do there.

Funding? Who knows, but this is not a good reason, if we can afford to go to mars, we can afford to go to the moon. Please don't argue this one after we've spent billions and billions on space travel.Simply set up a little moon base and generate your own electricity and oxygen.

My word, think how much more a telescope would reveal if based on the moon.

I can give many reasons to go there and so could you.

Perhaps its political reasons, ie. who would have the rights to anything mined or placed there.

Wouldn't it be nice to explore the dark side of the moon, the side we never see?

Just rocks from the moon, would probably pay for the trip if sold. Ha ha.

Anyway, I want us to return to the moon!

I agree, colonization of the moon or mars, is way off. But it sure would be cheaper and easier to do it on the moon rather than mars. I think the idea of a small moon base is doable with our current technology.

 

[phinds]

Not sure I got a good answer as to why no one has returned to the moon.

The answer is funding. Period.

Simply set up a little moon base and generate your own electricity and oxygen.

SIMPLY ! Are you serious? I have to conclude that you REALLY haven't looked into this. Who do you think will pay for it and why?

Anyway, I want us to return to the moon!

Good for you. Become a multi-billionaire and try to pay for it.

I agree, colonization of the moon or mars, is way off. But it sure would be cheaper and easier to do it on the moon rather than mars. I think the idea of a small moon base is doable with our current technology.

Sure, but it STILL isn't going to happen. FUNDING !

 

[Chronos]

The moon underscores just how expensive manned space travel is - even to our nearest neighbor. The prestige of being first on the moon simply did not and could not justify the enormous expense. In the past couple decades, the potential of helium 3 as a fuel source has prompted renewed interest in returning to the moon. Assuming the technological issues in unleashing He3 energy are resolved, lunar colonization will become economically viable. The US is not the only nation that recognizes this, or has the ability to act upon it. China is rapidly becoming a serious player in this arena.

 

[SteamKing]

Why haven't we gone back to the moon?

Who's we, Kemosabe?

As part of their muscular presence in the world, the Chinese have apparently established a national goal to put a Chinese astronaut on the moon.

Last year, the Chinese successfully landed a robotic probe on the lunar surface:

http://www.space.com/23968-china-moon-rover-historic-lunar-landing.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

Now, the planned date for a manned landing of Chinese astronauts on the lunar surface is at least a decade away, but the goal is there if the Chinese government wishes to attain it. Right now, they don't seem to have any problems funding their space program.

 

[DruidArmy]

We - means Earthlings.

 

[DruidArmy]

How much does it cost? How much does any country have to spend? I doubt , anyone of us can answer these questions?

 

[Drakkith]

We have the technology. It is all a matter of funding and, at least for the Mars mission, concerns about human health on long-term space-travel and long-term exposure to a planet with no significant atmosphere and no magnetosphere.

We do not have the technology or the know-how to create a long-term, self-sustained colony on the Moon or any other body in the solar system. We haven't even been able to build a long-term self-sustaining enclosed environment here on Earth that doesn't rely on the outside world to supply at least some of its resources.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Challenges

Funding? Who knows, but this is not a good reason, if we can afford to go to mars, we can afford to go to the moon. Please don't argue this one after we've spent billions and billions on space travel.

Not only is funding a good reason, it is THE primary reason we haven't been back. The efficiency of a manned program is simply too low in terms of benefits compared to costs when you compare manned and unmanned missions. One of the main things that NASA has done in the last few decades is switch to low-cost missions focused on one single thing instead of much more expensive broad-scope missions such as manned ones.

My word, think how much more a telescope would reveal if based on the moon.

With the advancements in adaptive optics, not much more than telescopes here on Earth reveal. An exception would be those wavelengths which are blocked by the atmosphere. The primary reason we haven't already set up telescopes on the Moon is that it's very difficult and expensive to do so. Telescopes are massive, heavy, and delicate objects that require extraordinary care in transporting, especially ones that use mirrors. Launching one to the Moon is not a trivial matter.

I can give many reasons to go there and so could you.

Anyone can give reasons to go. The problem is that you are hand-waving away the reasons not to go.

I agree, colonization of the moon or mars, is way off. But it sure would be cheaper and easier to do it on the moon rather than mars. I think the idea of a small moon base is doable with our current technology.

It is not doable without some sort of resupply from Earth. In addition, the cost to lift as much material as you would need to build a small colony is staggering.

How much does it cost? How much does any country have to spend? I doubt , anyone of us can answer these questions?

As a comparison, look at the cost of the ISS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Cost

The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[264] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. Assuming 20,000 person-days of use from 2000 to 2015 by two to six-person crews, each person-day would cost $7.5 million, less than half the inflation adjusted $19.6 million ($5.5 million before inflation) per person-day of Skylab.

Approximately 150 billion dollars spread out of 20 years. And that's for a space station in orbit of Earth. The cost to lift an equal amount of material to build a lunar base would be MUCH higher.

 

[vociferous]

We do not have the technology or the know-how to create a long-term, self-sustained colony on the Moon or any other body in the solar system. We haven't even been able to build a long-term self-sustaining enclosed environment here on Earth that doesn't rely on the outside world to supply at least some of its resources.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Challenges

That is a false premise. McMurdo Station has 1258 residents. There are oil rigs and research platforms out at sea. There is the ISS orbiting the Earth They are not self-sustaining (neither are modern cities).

Establishing a research station or even a colony on Mars and establishing a "self-sustained colony" are not logically equivalent. We most certainly do have the technology to establish a research station or small colony on the Moon and probably on Mars as well.

It is a question of priorities. We live in a society that does not even have the foresight to plan for 50 years down the road (as evidenced by our continued massive dumping of carbon into the atmosphere). Obviously, planning for the need to develop self-sustaining colonies is pretty far from everyone's mind.

We certainly have the resources and technology to create a permanent presence on Luna or Mars. It is simply a question of priorities and myopia. It's why we're still spending trillions of dollars on machines to kill each other with but not on space exploration or colonization. What's important to the average human and what is important to humans of high intelligence, knowledge, and vision are vastly divergent.

 

[Drakkith]

That is a false premise. McMurdo Station has 1258 residents. There are oil rigs and research platforms out at sea. There is the ISS orbiting the Earth They are not self-sustaining (neither are modern cities).

Establishing a research station or even a colony on Mars and establishing a "self-sustained colony" are not logically equivalent. We most certainly do have the technology to establish a research station or small colony on the Moon and probably on Mars as well.

We can establish a small base on the Moon, but not on Mars. We currently don't have any way to land heavy craft on the surface of Mars. The atmosphere is too thin to use parachutes to slow down, and too thick for conventional engines to work. (Or so I've read in a paper. I'm not sure where it's at, but I'll try to find a link if I can)

 

[vociferous]

We can establish a small base on the Moon, but not on Mars. We currently don't have any way to land heavy craft on the surface of Mars. The atmosphere is too thin to use to slow down, and too thick for conventional engines to work. (Or so I've read in a paper. I'm not sure where it's at, but I'll try to find a link if I can)

That really comes down to a money problem rather than a physics or technology problem. Braking a landing craft with a parachute is economical. Having to also use thrust greatly increases the cost because you need fuel, which means you need to add fuel to lift the braking fuel out of Earth's orbit, which means you need to add fuel to lift the fuel you added to lift the braking fuel. . .

Getting people onto Mars and then back to Earth is a daunting logistical challenge, which is why some have suggested it be a one-way trip.

However, it is not significantly technologically different than getting someone to the moon and back other than the scale of the endeavor and the length of time they will be exposed to space-travel.

 

[Drakkith]

That is not correct. From here: http://www.universetoday.com/7024/t...ge-payloads-to-the-surface-of-the-red-planet/

The real problem is the combination of Mars’ atmosphere and the size of spacecraft needed for human missions. So far, our robotic spacecraft have been small enough to enable at least some success in reaching the surface safely. But while the Apollo lunar lander weighed approximately 10 metric tons, a human mission to Mars will require three to six times that mass, given the restraints of staying on the planet for a year. Landing a payload that heavy on Mars is currently impossible, using our existing capabilities. “There’s too much atmosphere on Mars to land heavy vehicles like we do on the moon, using propulsive technology completely,” said Manning, “and there’s too little atmosphere to land like we do on Earth. So, it’s in this ugly, grey zone.”

You can find more details in the article.

 

[davenn]

That is a false premise. McMurdo Station has 1258 residents. There are oil rigs and research platforms out at sea. There is the ISS orbiting the Earth They are not self-sustaining (neither are modern cities).

That's a totally pointless response to Drakkith

you just agreed with him ... NONE of them are self-sustaining
and all because of technological problemscheers
Dave

 

[vociferous]

That is not correct. From here: http://www.universetoday.com/7024/t...ge-payloads-to-the-surface-of-the-red-planet/
You can find more details in the article.

I don't really read that as him saying that it exceeds our current technology, just that we don't currently have technological platforms capable of achieving that.

Like I wrote before, you pack enough fuel into the lander and the reverse thrust will slow you down enough to land. It is simple physics that is certainly not beyond our capabilities (when combined with other technological solutions). It is also simple physics that fuel weighs a lot and is very expensive to accelerate to escape velocity. He mentions this in the article. Basically, it is primarily a problem of having a launch vehicle and having the budget.

When we landed on the moon, we were doing something that was, at the time it was first conceived, technologically impossible, or pretty close to it. Landing on Mars, by contrast, is only technologically very difficult, but certainly possible.

The biggest challenge is the political will. NASA had an effectively unlimited budget for the Apollo program. If congress were to commit NASA to send astronauts to Mars, I don't see any reason why it would be technologically unfeasible, but until someone is ready to actually front the money, NASA has to use its limited resources on projects that are actually likely to come to fruition. Right now, Mars is just a pipe dream.

 

[Drakkith]

Did you read the article? It's pretty clear. From the article (bolding mine):

But using current thruster technology in Mars’ real, existing atmosphere poses aerodynamic problems. “Rocket plumes are notoriously unstable, dynamic, chaotic systems,” said Manning. “Basically flying into the plume at supersonics speeds, the rocket plume is acting like a nose cone; a nose cone that’s moving around in front of you against very high dynamic pressure. Even though the atmospheric density is very low, because the velocity is so high, the forces are really huge.”

Manning likened theses forces to a Category Five hurricane. This would cause extreme stress, with shaking and twisting that would likely destroy the vehicle. Therefore using propulsive technology alone is not an option.

We quite literally don't know how to land a heavy vehicle on Mars. It is not technologically possible at this time.

 

[DruidArmy]

These are great responses. But as far as going back to moon, how about sending unmanned craft such as lunar rovers and other electronic equipment to keep costs to a minimum.

 

[Drakkith]

These are great responses. But as far as going back to moon, how about sending unmanned craft such as lunar rovers and other electronic equipment to keep costs to a minimum.

We have been. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_the_Moon#Timeline_of_Moon_exploration

 

[vociferous]

Did you read the article? It's pretty clear. From the article (bolding mine):



We quite literally don't know how to land a heavy vehicle on Mars. It is not technologically possible at this time.

The article mentions using a combination of heat shields, parachutes, and retro-rockets to land safely, obviously a weighty and expensive option.

It also makes the presumption that a landing would involve a single heavy vehicle rather than multiple missions involving lighter, modular components, similar to how the ISS was assembled.

I have no doubt that engineers are more than capable of accomplishing the task given the resources. Again, I feel that it is simply an question of priorities and funding. Any manned Mars mission would be a tremendous undertaking, and without a clear mandate and budget from congress to get it done, it is never going to get much past the philosophical stage into the actual engineering phase.

 

[Drakkith]

The article mentions using a combination of heat shields, parachutes, and retro-rockets to land safely, obviously a weighty and expensive option.

The article mentions that none of those options will work, by themselves or combined.

It also makes the presumption that a landing would involve a single heavy vehicle rather than multiple missions involving lighter, modular components, similar to how the ISS was assembled.

I don't think you understand. The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), the rover that landed a year or two ago, weighed approximately 2,000 lbs and required an entirely new way of landing be designed. In comparison, the Apollo Lunar Module, a lightweight craft solely designed to land two people on the moon with minimal equipment, weighed over 32,000 pounds (empty weight). Any manned craft designed to land on Mars, especially carrying materials to build a base, will weigh FAR more.

I have no doubt that engineers are more than capable of accomplishing the task given the resources. Again, I feel that it is simply an question of priorities and funding. Any manned Mars mission would be a tremendous undertaking, and without a clear mandate and budget from congress to get it done, it is never going to get much past the philosophical stage into the actual engineering phase.

I don't see how you're coming to that conclusion. Have you actually done any research into this topic? It appears you're simply arguing in an attempt to avoid being wrong.