how come we cant go to the moon with all our newfangled tech?

[Hugo Drax]

With all our new technology, supercomputers on a wristwatch, super education where kids sit in front of a computer all day, modern materials and manufacturing tech we cant go to the moon?

Back then then the guys used slide rules and computers with less power than the cpu used to move the head of the harddrive in your desktop. They were able to go several times as well.

Now decades later all we have been able to do is orbit the earth. No moon station etc.. It seems all of the sudden Poof we took 100 steps backwards.

 

[cubby1223]

It's not so much that we can't go to the moon, it's more that the moon doesn't offer us enough value once we get there

 

[cbrunny]

I ride my smartphone to work.

My speakers flush my toilet for me.

My i7 can't quite make liftoff to get to the moon but my Fitbit is getting close to containing atmosphere.

 

[MongGrel]

No reason to ?

Seems we've had plenty of rovers on mars and many various other space vehicles/probes in operation.

Nothing has went backwards, space exploration has moved into different areas, or more towards private companies.

Do you have a practical reason a moon station should be in operation ?

 

[glenn1]

With all our new technology, supercomputers on a wristwatch, super education where kids sit in front of a computer all day, modern materials and manufacturing tech we cant go to the moon?

Back then then the guys used slide rules and computers with less power than the cpu used to move the head of the harddrive in your desktop. They were able to go several times as well.

Now decades later all we have been able to do is orbit the earth. No moon station etc.. It seems all of the sudden Poof we took 100 steps backwards.

For what purpose? Even "beating the Ruskies" wasn't really a practical application or business justification for going to the moon and we no longer have even that reason anymore to make a return trip. It's kinda like saying "how come we can't build CB radios anymore with all our newfangled technology?" Well once the 70s were over and we got tired of pretending we were Smokey and the Bandit people realized that CB radios were kinda pointless. Same thing with the moon.

 

[Nograts]

We already went there. There were rocks.

 

[Indus]

I'd much rather find our 9th planet again since they killed Pluto but it exists.

 

[rudder]

It's not so much that we can't go to the moon, it's more that the moon doesn't offer us enough value once we get there

Yes... lots of helium 3.... but way to expensive to get to. Maybe when fusion reactors are the energy producing standard.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

With all our new technology, supercomputers on a wristwatch, super education where kids sit in front of a computer all day, modern materials and manufacturing tech we cant go to the moon?

Back then then the guys used slide rules and computers with less power than the cpu used to move the head of the harddrive in your desktop. They were able to go several times as well.

Now decades later all we have been able to do is orbit the earth. No moon station etc.. It seems all of the sudden Poof we took 100 steps backwards.

Because we are trying to go to mars. That astronaut that spent a year on the space station was part of that (seeing how zero G affects the human body). It will take about 9 months to coast to Mars after the initial acceleration. If we can find a way to provide constant acceleration / deceleration, the trip would be more like a month. That's the technology we are missing. Microchips are useless for real space exploration.

 

[Vdubchaos]

With all our new technology, supercomputers on a wristwatch, super education where kids sit in front of a computer all day, modern materials and manufacturing tech we cant go to the moon?

Back then then the guys used slide rules and computers with less power than the cpu used to move the head of the harddrive in your desktop. They were able to go several times as well.

Now decades later all we have been able to do is orbit the earth. No moon station etc.. It seems all of the sudden Poof we took 100 steps backwards.

Makes you wonder how or why it was a such a huge event.......and why we spent BILLIONS of dollars to do so.

Think of it as a way for politics to wave their dicks to communist and say "we are better than you".

When in reality, communist/Russia had most of the records and won most of the races and had better results........with 1/100th of the budget or resources.

Now you are starting to realize that America is great at selling it's people ideas to suck their tax money out of them......

And they have done a better job with Iraq......just think of the money spent vs actual results.



America - world leader of BS

 

[mysticjbyrd]

With all our new technology, supercomputers on a wristwatch, super education where kids sit in front of a computer all day, modern materials and manufacturing tech we cant go to the moon?

Back then then the guys used slide rules and computers with less power than the cpu used to move the head of the harddrive in your desktop. They were able to go several times as well.

Now decades later all we have been able to do is orbit the earth. No moon station etc.. It seems all of the sudden Poof we took 100 steps backwards.

There is no reason to just go to the moon. It's completely pointless.

Now if we could set up an H3 mining base, that's another thing, but that's not feasible atm.

 

[DrunkenSano]

We can go to the moon with no problem, in fact we can go anywhere in our solar system with no problem. The question is purpose and cost. We've been to the moon, there is a project for going to Mars. But why? Just to say we've been there? That's great, but the costs are astronomical, who bears the burden of the cost? Personally, as a tax payer, I would like $0 of my taxes going to something superficial like this.

 

[woolfe9998]

Meh, we've already been to the moon. Mars should be next.

 

[ViperXX]

That brings up a good question. Why is there no space station that orbits the moon? Wouldn't that have been easier than trying to land on the moon again?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

We already went there in 1969, unless you are a Moon Landing conspiracy nut.

 

[flexy]

Why is there no space-station on/orbiting the moon?

A space-station would have a purpose, say, acting as a hub for easier and ultimately cheaper space-travel.

We SCRAPPED the shuttle. We don't have any reliable "space ships" right now, except that constantly exploding thing from SpaceX.

So, without space ships and a manned space program, why would we need a space station on the moon?

Besides: MONEY

 

[mysticjbyrd]

That brings up a good question. Why is there no space station that orbits the moon? Wouldn't that have been easier than trying to land on the moon again?

no....

Why is there no space-station on/orbiting the moon?

A space-station would have a purpose, say, acting as a hub for easier and ultimately cheaper space-travel.

We SCRAPPED the shuttle. We don't have any reliable "space ships" right now, except that constantly exploding thing from SpaceX.

So, without space ships and a manned space program, why would we need a space station on the moon?

Besides: MONEY

Because it's pointless. Manned space exploration is a waste of money, as we can get far mar out of unmanned exploration.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, for the time being, I think we're looking for other life in the universe, and beyond that, we're looking for a new home, seeing as if in a "few" million years from now our own sun is going the way of so many others that transformed themselves into those nasty vacuum cleaners that have the propensity of sucking in anything around them.

So yeah, if going to the moon was that first baby step on our way to "infinity and beyond!!", then spending billions more to extend the existence of the human race into a few more millions of years is a good thing.

After all, I want my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great *takes breath* great-great-great-great grandchildren to know that I had them in mind when I involuntarily spent some of my sorely missed tax $$$$ on their behalf.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Well, for the time being, I think we're looking for other life in the universe, and beyond that, we're looking for a new home, seeing as if in a "few" million years from now our own sun is going the way of so many others that transformed themselves into those nasty vacuum cleaners that have the propensity of sucking in anything around them.

So yeah, if going to the moon was that first baby step on our way to "infinity and beyond!!", then spending billions more to extend the existence of the human race into a few more millions of years is a good thing.

After all, I want my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great *takes breath* great-great-great-great grandchildren to know that I had them in mind when I involuntarily spent some of my sorely missed tax $$$$ on their behalf.

Our sun won't become a black hole.

In about 5 billion years from now, the sun will begin to die. As the Sun grows old, it will expand. As the core runs out of hydrogen and then helium, the core will contract and the outer layers will expand, cool, and become less bright. It will become a red giant star.

 

[trenchfoot]

Our sun won't become a black hole.

In about 5 billion years from now, the sun will begin to die. As the Sun grows old, it will expand. As the core runs out of hydrogen and then helium, the core will contract and the outer layers will expand, cool, and become less bright. It will become a red giant star.

And then a white dwarf? (I looked it up after you corrected me) Good to know. :thumbsup:

But will my descendants still have to move their refrigerator and pet boa constrictor a few light years away to make a living?*

*jus' kidding wit ya's.

 

[alcoholbob]

We currently rely on the Russians just to reach low earth orbit.

In theory it should be much cheaper. At one point in 1968 NASA had 400,000 engineers. At todays wages youd be looking at 60-80 billion dollars a year just to cover their salaries and benefits. Back in the late 60s NASAs budget was 5% of the national budget and this was during the height of the Vietnam War. Today its half of 1 percent, like a 10 fold difference in funding.

Back then everything had to be hand made and blueprints drawn on slide rule. Now with advancements in technology and automation a lot of those things are easier. NASA could get to the moon with a small fraction of the employees it took to launch Apollo.

But the issue at this point isnt funding, but construction. With the heavy deindustrislization of the US we're now more reliant on ever on reusing old parts from the Space Shuttle and even Apollo days for future programs since getting new parts constructed can take a lot longer than it did in the 60s due to lack of manufacturing facilities that can build all the parts needed for a moon or mars mission--its a time/volume issue now. Getting to the moon in 5 years even with unlimited funding today is probably an impossibility. Back in the 60s we manufactured the vast majority of the worlds durable goods. NASA relied on hundreds of private constructon companies to build the Saturn V. Those companies just dont exist anymore. I believe an ex-NASA director came in out recently and mentioned China will likely beat us to the punch in building a next generation heavy lift rocket.

 

[Darwin333]

Bah, we can't even currently put people into low earth orbit right now. It will take us longer to get back into LEO then it took us to go from knowing dickall about space and space travel to landing on the moon. You would think we would be embarrassed as a nation to have to hitch rides to the ISS with the Ruskies but evidently not.

The answer is because we don't want to. NASA currently gets roughly half a penny of every tax dollar and that is what pays for EVERYTHING they do. Mars rovers, ISS, research satellites, Hubble telescope, the new James Webb, etc... Just imagine what they could do if we gave them a single penny of every tax dollar.

We just aren't that big on science anymore. We planned and spent billions of dollars on a super collider that was more than 3 times as powerful as the Hadron and then we said fuck that shit and cancelled the program. There is a massive underground structure in Texas that was supposed to house it and it is completely unused now. Maybe we can get a group buy going, always wanted a batcave.

 

[Hugo Drax]

No reason to ?

Seems we've had plenty of rovers on mars and many various other space vehicles/probes in operation.

Nothing has went backwards, space exploration has moved into different areas, or more towards private companies.

Do you have a practical reason a moon station should be in operation ?

Why not have a moon station. It was expected in the year 1999. and we are in 2016 and no moon station. I bet the billions we spend on defense for wars could have gone to build a moon station that we can then launch from there to mars etc..

 

[sontakke]

Back in the late 60s NASAs budget was 5% of the national budget and this was during the height of the Vietnam War. Today its half of 1 percent, like a 100 fold difference in funding.

The real problem is nobody knows how to do math It is NOT 100 fold difference but rather 10 fold difference. But who cares about single order of magnitude error among friends?

 

[glenn1]

Why not have a moon station. It was expected in the year 1999. and we are in 2016 and no moon station. I bet the billions we spend on defense for wars could have gone to build a moon station that we can then launch from there to mars etc..

Yeah, and where's my flying car since I was promised that years ago. And sex robots.