Why is it so hard to go to the moon?

[firewolfsm]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12387

Apparently, NASA is spending $230B over the next 20 years just to try and land someone on the moon. 50 years ago, we did it with $25B, with inflation, that might come out to $50B but still there's no reason it should be so expensive now. I don't see why we can't take the design of one of the old Apollo rockets, upgrade it with some shuttle parts and a new computer and send it out. The original project took 8 years under Kennedy. Now it's taking 20 to repeat it with vastly improved technology.

Unless we never went...

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

There's no interest in developing the technology to get there. There's no space race.

 

[firewolfsm]

But we've developed it.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
But we've developed it.

We also scrapped it, and as far as I know, most of the people who worked on the project are dead, retired, or senile.

 

[KillerCharlie]

I've always wondered that... especially since rockets are very pretty vehicles.

I guess that's why I decided not to work for NASA and instead work for private industry.

 

[ELopes580]

This is the same government that took years and spent millions of dollars to develop ink and a writing instrument that could work in space.

The Russians solved that problem in 2 seconds and at a cost of around 10 cents.

Overspending FTL.

 

[lousydood]

First of all, $25 billion in 1969 dollars is about $150 billion in 2007 dollars; not to mention the weakness of the US Dollar atm. Second, when we go back, we want to establish a base -- that's totally new and expensive. Third, we have nothing like the Saturn V anymore; probably the most successful rocket ever created, since it was immensely powerful and never failed in production (highly unusual for a rocket, even today). Fourth, the Apollo program succeeded by the thinnest of margins -- the fact that we did not lose any astronauts in space (not counting Apollo I, which was failure of safety procedures on the ground) was very lucky, for there were plenty of close calls despite all the great skill and brilliant minds working on the project. I'd like to think we're giving our astronauts a better safety margin this time around.

 

[PottedMeat]

Originally posted by: ELopes580
This is the same government that took years and spent millions of dollars to develop ink and a writing instrument that could work in space.

The Russians solved that problem in 2 seconds and at a cost of around 10 cents.

Overspending FTL.

People need to stop spreading this.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Graphite particles floating around where they could get into critical electronic systems isn't the best idea.


There's no real motivation now to put people on the moon - why bother ( to most Americans ), the US has already been there. I guess all the real money is in sending larger and larger payloads more reliably and in robotics. Eventually we're going to have to go back but unless someone else is doing it at a worrying pace, I have a feeling they're going to delay and delay the program.

 

[BassBomb]

I am guessing because standards have severely changed in the last 20 years..

Not to mention the cost of all that fuel

 

[Riverhound777]

Well think of it like this. They had cars in the 1920s that could do 150MPH. What does it take and how much does it cost now to do the same safely and with all the red tape? Now apply it to going to the moon.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: Riverhound777
Well think of it like this. They had cars in the 1920s that could do 150MPH. What does it take and how much does it cost now to do the same safely and with all the red tape? Now apply it to going to the moon.

I've always wanted to believe this but I was never sure. Maybe the ability to analyze stuff more is costing a lot of time? Is the new vehicle any safer?

Anyone here actually working on Ares? None of my friends wanted to work on it... I should dig around and see if any old classmates are on the project.

 

[Born2bwire]

If we went with the 1960's technology we would have to redesign everything any way. Everything was designed and tested using specific parts and components, few if any of which would still be available today. Hell, on the first moon landing, the astronauts left a radar on while they were descending in the LVM. This taxed the computers too much causing the LM to be guided incorrectly. They had to switch to manual and land the module by hand. Why in the world would we want to use a computer that can potentially run out of cycles by leaving a switch on? The Saturn rocket is very complicated. The control design specifically accounted for the components and their limitations. They had to send signals and commands in the rocket early to account for delays in transmitting between systems. Start replacing any of those systems and you have to redo the whole thing. We can't build these craft exactly the way they were forty years ago (and we wouldn't want to), and because we can't we have start redesigning the whole thing just to account for the differences in electronics and even mechanical components. What's the point?

 

[Smilin]

Because we frankly got lucky to get to the moon and back.

That was by the skin of our teeth. This time through we intend to do it safely and reliably so it can be repeated. We're also trying to develop technology that will be used to reach Mars at the same time.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Because we frankly got lucky to get to the moon and back.

That was by the skin of our teeth. This time through we intend to do it safely and reliably< so it can be repeated. We're also trying to develop technology that will be used to reach Mars at the same time.

It was done 6 times successfully, that requires a bit more than luck.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12387

Apparently, NASA is spending $230B over the next 20 years just to try and land someone on the moon. 50 years ago, we did it with $25B, with inflation, that might come out to $50B but still there's no reason it should be so expensive now. I don't see why we can't take the design of one of the old Apollo rockets, upgrade it with some shuttle parts and a new computer and send it out. The original project took 8 years under Kennedy. Now it's taking 20 to repeat it with vastly improved technology.

Unless we never went...

Going to the moon isn't a technological problem. It's bureaucratic and economic.

Like you've said, we've done it before...

 

[yoda291]

because gravity, being a snarky vindictive punk, refuses to shut up and sit down when told to.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm

Apparently, NASA is spending $230B over the next 20 years just to try and land someone on the moon. 50 years ago, we did it with $25B, with inflation, that might come out to $50B but still there's no reason it should be so expensive now.

$25bn in 1969 dollars is more like $149bn in 2008 dollars.

 

[nineball9]

Originally posted by: PottedMeat

Originally posted by: ELopes580
This is the same government that took years and spent millions of dollars to develop ink and a writing instrument that could work in space.

The Russians solved that problem in 2 seconds and at a cost of around 10 cents.

Overspending FTL.

People need to stop spreading this.

AGREED! It's amazing how many people actually believe this hoax. Yet it continues to circulate.

The first time I received this email legend, the author claimed "NASA spent 10 billion dollars ..." which is an absurd amount of money. Million - billion - trillion: who cares? They are all big numbers! I sent a nasty reply to the person who had forwarded the email legend to me.

In addition to Snopes, Scientific American magazine also debunked this legend in their Fact or Fiction column. Online copy.

A number of years ago, one of the magazines I read published a photo essay of the remnants of the Apollo program's facilities. Not much left but concrete blocks; the rest was scrapped or recycled. (I think it was Smithsonian but I can't find the article online.)

 

[ELopes580]

Originally posted by: nineball9

Originally posted by: PottedMeat

Originally posted by: ELopes580
This is the same government that took years and spent millions of dollars to develop ink and a writing instrument that could work in space.

The Russians solved that problem in 2 seconds and at a cost of around 10 cents.

Overspending FTL.

People need to stop spreading this.

AGREED! It's amazing how many people actually believe this hoax. Yet it continues to circulate.

The first time I received this email legend, the author claimed "NASA spent 10 billion dollars ..." which is an absurd amount of money. Million - billion - trillion: who cares? They are all big numbers! I sent a nasty reply to the person who had forwarded the email legend to me.

In addition to Snopes, Scientific American magazine also debunked this legend in their Fact or Fiction column. Online copy.

A number of years ago, one of the magazines I read published a photo essay of the remnants of the Apollo program's facilities. Not much left but concrete blocks; the rest was scrapped or recycled. (I think it was Smithsonian but I can't find the article online.)

ok ok ok ok. I'm sorry to offend you all!! Yeash... Sorry..... I'll go crawl back in my hole now...

 

[irishScott]

1. We have to reinvent the system from the ground up. Think Windows 3.1 vs Windows XP
2. We want to establish a permanent base.
3. The only people really interested in the moon are scientists. Scientists are a minority.
4. We are talking about the US Government here. The only reason the Apollo Program was developed so quickly was because of the Cold War/Space Race. Now we have time, which is good because we can perfect the system, and bad because the gov has little motivation to increase funding.

 

[BrownTown]

Personally I think its a waste of many, we shouldn't be spending a single cent to get to the moon, we have enough problems here on earth, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to go to the moon is no better then just throwing it down the crapper.

How about instead of doing that we build 50 new nuclear plants with that money, enough to supply 10% of our nations electric power without any pollution, or to supply a fleet of electric cars that could help reduce out foreign oil imports significantly.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Personally I think its a waste of many, we shouldn't be spending a single cent to get to the moon, we have enough problems here on earth, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to go to the moon is no better then just throwing it down the crapper.

How about instead of doing that we build 50 new nuclear plants with that money, enough to supply 10% of our nations electric power without any pollution, or to supply a fleet of electric cars that could help reduce out foreign oil imports significantly.

Oddly enough, I kind of agree. Let's get the economy stable for one, and finish up in Iraq. After those two drains are gone, then we can focus on the moon.

Also, we need something similar to the Kennedy/Apollo program for alternative fuels and energy. However, most politicians are convinced that Hydrogen Cars alone will save the world. :roll: Nah, government's all but useless here for the time being. IMO private industry'll come through. Being "green" is starting to make money.

Personally I think a seat from each state in the Senate and House should be reserved for a scientist. At the very least it would take out the scientific ignorance that is apparently rampant in the US Government.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: irishScott
we need something similar to the Kennedy/Apollo program for alternative fuels and energy.

:thumbsup:

I'd like to see a 'war effort' on fusion power.


I guess the new moon program is eventually going to be good for the US economy though.

 

[PolymerTim]

As much as I like all the space technology, I have to admit that I also think the money could be more wisely invested. I do think that it will eventually be a necessity for us to colonize space, but I see that need on at least a several centuries time scale, if not a couple millenia. I think we have much more pressing needs on the decades time scale right now that are not receiving the attention they need.

We have no magic bullet to the energy crisis right now, but I think there are some very promising options available. Nuclear fission seems to primarily be held back by waste disposal at the moment, but I noticed an interesting option on wikipedia involving geological subduction zones that seems very promising if it can truly handle the quantities claimed. Fusion also seems very promising, but I think we need an intermediate solution given the expected timeframes for commercial deployment, which are still quite speculative at 30-50 years.

As for the cost of getting to the moon, I think everyone else pretty much covered it.
-Here's a helpful inflation calculator for determining todays dollars based on past inflation using actual historic inflation data. According to it,$25B in 1969 would be about $140B today. Of course that is looking only at inflation and not other increased costs (that would have to be separated from inflation).
-Also, safety regulations are much stricter than before. Our nation is not willing to tolerate the loss of even a handful of astronauts in a spectacular explosion, even though not nearly as much criticism is focused on US soldiers on foreign soil simply, in my opinion, because it is expected and less spectacular.
-We want to do more this time around than just land on the moon and bring back a few rocks. Developing a moon base will take a good bit more effort.


Of course, back to my original point, can you imagine what we could do on earth with $250B in funding?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: irishScott
3. The only people really interested in the moon are scientists. Scientists are a minority.

I question that statement. In fact, I doubt that a majority of scientists are really interested in establishing a base on the moon. There's not much science to be learned in such an endeavor. As weakly as our government supports science, 250 Billion would go a long way toward much more meaningful science.

Example: Fermilab is our nation's top accelerator laboratory. Does anyone realize that it had been running for a couple months from an anonymous $5 million gift? Congress/President cut the science budget. That's million with an "m" - meanwhile, our idiot in chief announces that he wants us to send men to the moon and to Mars and that majority (non-scientists) you refer to stand up and cheer... at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Why can't we fund real scientific research that can quite possibly lead to better lives for us, rather than blow it all on some extravagant adventure.

Voyager 2 recently entered interstellar space. Messenger has gone back to Mercury. Phoenex found water on Mars. The Rovers have given us a ton of information about Mars. There's not one thing that humans can do better in space than robots; robots can do those things for a very small fraction of the cost, and all these incredible layers of safety don't have to be built in for robots (as you guys are referring to acceptable levels of risk for humans.)

Name one goal of a mission to put a base on the moon, other than to inflate our egos as a species and say "hey, we got off our rock."


(edit: missed a slash in front of a Q)