Why is it so hard to go to the moon?

[RossGr]

The fact remains that there is NO real reason for a man to return to the moon. It is just for the glory of it all, there is no science a man can do that could not be done with robots and remote sensing, cheaper and better.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: 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.

We had an 85% success rate. Not something you want to tell the wife about as you board a rocket.

On the first one, 11, they landed with just seconds of fuel remaining.
On 12 the Saturn V got a lightning hit during launch and group control lost telemetry.
On 13...yeah.
On 14 they had a computer failure that almost jacked their descent engine.
On 15 they goofed up the retro rockets separating the stages causing them to exhaust into each other. They also nearly killed an astronaut that got dehydrated and had a heart attack just after the mission.
16 had to delay (and almost abandonded) their landing attempt due to a hardware failure.

Apollo weren't the only moon missions either. The other ones fared very poorly overall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings

Hey, we pulled it off but yes there was a LOT luck involved.

 

[JTsyo]

Because the moon is further away now?

Really though, as mentioned, these missions are more than just about getting to the moon. The want a new heavy lifter for getting material into space and prove out components and procedures for a Mars mission.
As for space funding, I think you have to have NASA do something, it's not like you can mothball people and pull them out when you need them. If you don't give them interesting work to do, they'll migrating to other areas. And if a new generation doesn't have inspiration, there might be less interest int he future. While funding may vary year to year, I beleive it's in the best interest to keep up a certain minimum. No amount of money is going to fix all the problems in society.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: 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 anonymouse $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."

I didn't say all scientists.

A human expedition and subsequent base could bring along equipment that simply won't fit on a rover. We could drill far deeper and perform far more detailed analysis. That, and we honestly don't know what we'll find on Mars or the moon. We've literally barely scratched the surface of both. For all you know the cure for AIDS could be some random compound below the surface of the moon, or we could discover dilithium and build the Enterprise.

I admit that there's not much useful data that we're certain of, but you never know. Can't fix all of the problems before moving on. What would've happened if European explorers had just said: "Fuck it. We can do so much more here in Europe for all it's problems than go on horrendously expensive expeditions around the globe in search of the holy grail." (holy grail = gold, trade goods, riches, land, etc)

I admit that more funding should be shunted to other fields/research, but if you try to make everything perfect before moving on, you never go anywhere.

 

[Stiganator]

Dilithium actually already exists and in fact it can be used to create energy

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Dilithium actually already exists and in fact it can be used to create energy

I... knew.. that... <.< >.>
That's why I'm CPEG as opposed to CHEG

But I'm also talking about the unrelated Star Trek version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek)

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: 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.

We had an 85% success rate. Not something you want to tell the wife about as you board a rocket.

On the first one, 11, they landed with just seconds of fuel remaining.
On 12 the Saturn V got a lightning hit during launch and group control lost telemetry.
On 13...yeah.
On 14 they had a computer failure that almost jacked their descent engine.
On 15 they goofed up the retro rockets separating the stages causing them to exhaust into each other. They also nearly killed an astronaut that got dehydrated and had a heart attack just after the mission.
16 had to delay (and almost abandonded) their landing attempt due to a hardware failure.

Apollo weren't the only moon missions either. The other ones fared very poorly overall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings

Hey, we pulled it off but yes there was a LOT luck involved.

Yet all of the manned moon landings had living astronauts return and with exception of Apollo 13 land and return and that was over 30 years ago.

The problem is not safety or money but the mentality today, people (voters/taxpayers)who are less educated about science in the classroom and believe science fiction shows that make planetary landings look like driving to the neighborhood convenience store,

and believe it should somehow just drop in price like their favorite electronic/computer gadget.

The consumerism what's in it for me short term thinking that is ever present today doesn't help matters either.

 

[lousydood]

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.

Or use that money to help develop commercial fusion power based on Helium-3, which can supply the world's energy efficiently with no radioactive by-product. A fuel which is found in large quantities on the Moon.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/c.../26/content_649325.htm

 

[x2 3600 rules sazakky]

APparently last time I looked up, e=mc squared. also, w= mg squared
therefore the collisoin of magnesium particles affects the potential force of gravity therefore consequenting in the physical quantum quark change.
The average centre-to-centre distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,403 km, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth. The Moon's diameter is 3,474 km,[6] a little more than a quarter that of the Earth. This means that the Moon's volume is about 2 percent that of Earth and the pull of gravity at its surface about 17 percent that of the Earth. The Moon makes a complete orbit around the Earth every 27.3 days (the orbital period), and the periodic variations in the geometry of the Earth?Moon?Sun system are responsible for the lunar phases that repeat every 29.5 days (the synodic period).

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
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 anonymouse $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."

Hear hear!

Humans can do two thing better than robots: Die and decay.
And if a rocket with a robot blows up or is otherwise rendered inoperable, most people don't mourn (except maybe those who designed and built it). The general reaction is, "Damn that was expensive. What happened?"

A note - we already knew there was water on Mars. Phoenix didn't discover it. It was a big deal for Phoenix because it was sent specifically to land on ice, and since it's immobile, they were very glad that they found what they were looking for within reach of the lander's arm.
And yes, both rovers are still going, though Spirit is dirty as hell.

Helium-3 - is there any reason it's preferred over deuterium? Lower reaction temperature? Less neutron bombardment on the inside of the reactor?

 

[BFG10K]

Why is it so hard to go to the moon?

According to the conspiracy theories it was never done in the first place, so that?s one possible answer (i.e. they?re trying to do it now for the first time).

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Helium-3 - is there any reason it's preferred over deuterium? Lower reaction temperature? Less neutron bombardment on the inside of the reactor?

I think neutrons are the main reason.

He3 + He3 -> He4 + 2p
He3 + D -> He4 + p

Both products and reactants are non radioactive, and the protons can be controlled/contained with magnetic fields, unlike neutrons.

Otoh, I think both are a bit harder to do than D + T or D + D.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 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 anonymouse $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."

I didn't say all scientists.

A human expedition and subsequent base could bring along equipment that simply won't fit on a rover. We could drill far deeper and perform far more detailed analysis. That, and we honestly don't know what we'll find on Mars or the moon. We've literally barely scratched the surface of both. For all you know the cure for AIDS could be some random compound below the surface of the moon, or we could discover dilithium and build the Enterprise.

I admit that there's not much useful data that we're certain of, but you never know. Can't fix all of the problems before moving on. What would've happened if European explorers had just said: "Fuck it. We can do so much more here in Europe for all it's problems than go on horrendously expensive expeditions around the globe in search of the holy grail." (holy grail = gold, trade goods, riches, land, etc)

I admit that more funding should be shunted to other fields/research, but if you try to make everything perfect before moving on, you never go anywhere.

What I meant to imply was that the majority of people favoring a trip back to the moon are not scientists. And, there's a huge difference between settling North America & "settling" the moon. It would be more like asking the people of 3000 B.C. to settle the center of the ocean by building an island - and all they can use are hollowed out tree trunks as canoes. There would be no point in 3000 B.C. to attempt such a feat, and, there's no point in attempting such a feat today. Give it some serious thought though - we *do* have the technology for building floating islands & even growing things on those islands. I recently saw a demonstration where empty 2-liter bottles (or something like that) were used as the base of the island - they even had a palm tree. (wish I could remember where I saw this)
But, there's no compelling reason to build more room on earth for us to occupy, and there's no compelling reason to set up a base on the moon. The only nonsense I've heard which at face value seems to make sense is "to perpetuate our species if something happens to earth." And, at face value, that may seem true. But when you really start to think about it, it's not like Europe settling North America (ignoring completely that N.A. was already settled by Native Americans who were quite successful; merely lacked gunpowder based weapons and resistance to diseases from Europe) it's more like Europe settling some small uninhabited rocky island just off the shore of England.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: x2 3600 rules sazakky
Way to go rip more info straight off wiki

That is all.

 

[No_Really]

If we'd overcome all the issues with '60s technology it would be a walk in the park with the benefit of 50 years invention and industrialization.

There's a race to overcome the issues now, whilst trying to pretend we fixed them already but "...just er can't remember how er we did it..".

If we had been to the moon in the '60s there'd be a base by now. Kennedy had the vision and the rhetoric but not the means, which must have been really embarrassing....perhaps that's why he didn't last so long?

Just ask, is there a single thing we were clever enough to do in the '60's but can't today, but better/cheaper/faster?

 

[Matt1970]

If we'd overcome all the issues with '60s technology it would be a walk in the park with the benefit of 50 years invention and industrialization.

There's a race to overcome the issues now, whilst trying to pretend we fixed them already but "...just er can't remember how er we did it..".

If we had been to the moon in the '60s there'd be a base by now. Kennedy had the vision and the rhetoric but not the means, which must have been really embarrassing....perhaps that's why he didn't last so long?

Just ask, is there a single thing we were clever enough to do in the '60's but can't today, but better/cheaper/faster?

A 5 year old thread revived by a fake moon lading conspirator. Sigh…..There is an open invitation for you folks to go view the laser they bounce off the mirrors they placed on the moon during those “fake” landings. Why have none of you accepted?