DC Tom Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Typing fast. Considering Kennedy was killed (partially) for wanting to team up with the Soviets to go to the moon, I'm guessing that probably didn't happen. But a better question to ponder is why have we never returned to the moon? Or why didn't the Soviets follow up with their own manned missions? Is it possible that once NASA landed on the moon they were warned not to return? Golly, Rhino...warned by whom????
unbillievable Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Golly, Rhino...warned by whom???? Megatron
PromoTheRobot Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Golly, Rhino...warned by whom???? Xenu.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 4. We've been there. There's nothing there worth doing. Why go back? There's actually a lot on the moon, enough Helium 3 to power Earth for centuries without much in the way of pollution. There's also plenty we still don't know about the moon (how it was formed, why is it different than every other moon in our solar system, the list is endless). https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/moon-draws-growing-interest-as-a-potential-source-of-rare-minerals/2012/01/30/gIQAqHvUuQ_story.html Why haven't we gone back? Simple. $$$ and there's nothing of value on the moon. The Gemini and Apollo program cost untold billions of dollars. It required tens of thousands of people. It took nearly 15 years to do it. Since 1972, the USSR went defunct, the US got a little "broker", and the Europeans and Japanese were spending hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a satellite up into orbit around Earth. Even if the world got together and said "Hey, let's go to moon again!", it'd take billions of new dollars and thousands of new people to pull it off. And another decade. Everything that's been designed since then like the shuttle and the space station are like grocery getters of space travel. The money argument is the most logical though the least compelling for me as a US citizen. There's no question that war is the ultimate driver of our society and the Cold War was the primary motivational force to get Congress to fund the Apollo missions. However, the cost of the missions itself are minuscule (Apollo was less than 4% of the budget -- LESS THAN FOUR PERCENT! Today NASA gets less than 1% of the federal budget). It cost (in today's dollars) under 150 billion to do (the defense budget alone is over 500 billion, so we're talking about a tiny amount in a budgetary sense -- and that included building much of the infrastructure that still exists today. Of course for the 150 billion (in today's dollars) we are still reaping the rewards of the Apollo and Gemini missions. Breakthrough technologies from those missions are running our world today. Imagine what sort of technologies we'll get from a manned mission to Mars -- or even a return manned mission to the Moon. But let me put it another way -- even if manned missions to the moon have become cost prohibitive (even though that's not true in any sense of the words), why haven't we gone back with probes? We have rovers on Mars, deep space probes in the Kuiper belt but nothing on the moon outside of three or four satellites -- most of those from the 70s and 80s. Golly, Rhino...warned by whom????
Observer Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 There's actually a lot on the moon, enough Helium 3 to power Earth for centuries without much in the way of pollution. There's also plenty we still don't know about the moon (how it was formed, why is it different than every other moon in our solar system, the list is endless). https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/moon-draws-growing-interest-as-a-potential-source-of-rare-minerals/2012/01/30/gIQAqHvUuQ_story.html Helium 3 is not even close to a practical reason to go to the moon. Getting it out of lunar soil and back to earth would be massive undertakings that would not be worth it. Clean fuel? Yes. Practical fuel? Not really. NASA has a limited budget. It's skipping the moon to explore elsewhere.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 NASA has a limited budget. It's skipping the moon to explore elsewhere. And what would make exploring the rest of our solar system easier than a permanent lunar base of operations? We have technology and the ability to do that now, today, if we wanted and it would reduce the cost of all future missions. It's easier and more fuel efficient to use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and beyond.
4merper4mer Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Considering Kennedy was killed (partially) for wanting to team up with the Soviets to go to the moon, I'm guessing that probably didn't happen. I don't like conspiracy theories so conspiracy theories on top of conspiracy theories are really a hoot. I'm wondering which part of Kennedy was killed sue to the Soviet moon team up. Also why were the other parts of him killed?
Observer Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 And what would make exploring the rest of our solar system easier than a permanent lunar base of operations? We have technology and the ability to do that now, today, if we wanted and it would reduce the cost of all future missions. It's easier and more fuel efficient to use the moon as a stepping stone to Mars and beyond. You think that building a base of operations on the moon to launch ships (and make said ships) to the rest of the solar system is in the realm of budget-able possibility?
Deranged Rhino Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) I don't like conspiracy theories so conspiracy theories on top of conspiracy theories are really a hoot. I'm wondering which part of Kennedy was killed sue to the Soviet moon team up. Also why were the other parts of him killed? Kennedy, in a speech at the United Nations, proposed that the Soviet Union and United States cooperate in mounting a mission to the moon. “Why,” he asked the audience, “therefore, should man’s first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition?” Kennedy noted, “the clouds have lifted a little” in terms of U.S.-Soviet relations, and declared “The Soviet Union and the United States, together with their allies, can achieve further agreements–agreements which spring from our mutual interest in avoiding mutual destruction.” --Two months before he was assassinated. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kennedy-proposes-joint-mission-to-the-moon You think that building a base of operations on the moon to launch ships (and make said ships) to the rest of the solar system is in the realm of budget-able possibility? Depends on which budget we're talking about. The black budget or the one we're allowed to see? Setting up a lunar base (not a full blown colony) would not be cost prohibitive, we already know how to do it and NASA has budgeted out plans for under 10 billion. The privatization of space with the rise of the SpaceX's of the world is only going to make it cheaper to do so by outsourcing the delivery vehicles and driving technological innovation through market competition. (forgot a link: http://www.space.com/30008-moon-colony-cost-commercial-space-report.html ) Edited December 11, 2015 by Deranged Rhino
Acantha Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Typing fast. Considering Kennedy was killed (partially) for wanting to team up with the Soviets to go to the moon, I'm guessing that probably didn't happen. But a better question to ponder is why have we never returned to the moon? Because Nixon wasn't president?
Deranged Rhino Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Because Nixon wasn't president? Could be.
Recommended Posts