Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can The U.S. Be First To The Moon Again?  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7448 times:

Basically what the question says. I've been wondering, as i'm sure many have, whether the United States has an agenda to return to the moon, and if they do, if it could be done before China or India. Personally, I don't see why not, since we've done it before. But with it being up left to the private sectors, it gives me serious doubts whether it can be accomplished. Going to the moon is expensive, any way you cut it, and I just don't see a practical way the private sector can get the necessary funds to design such a spacecraft. Although I could be mistaken. The government certainly is a handicap when it comes to traveling to other celestial bodies for prolonged periods of time, but I am extremely fearful of the implications of NASA deciding to end manned spaceflight. As far as Mars is concerned, I consider that to be a more likely prospect, but in any case, I was looking for opinions on how we could get back to the moon in 15 years before other countries did.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7424 times:

Sure, it could be done, but why? The Apollo project was a political show. Great achievement, but accomplished little that can't be done by robots. Let India and China give it a go. No one will be first again. First only happens once.

Manned spaceflight can certainly be done by the private sector. Remember Richard Branson? The government showed it can be done, improved the technology, and can now move on to doing other things. Unless there is a military need, no need for the government to do it.

If we hadn't spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the ISS and shuttle we could have done a lot more robotic exploration by now. Of course we could put robots on the moon. We have sent several to Mars. We have a spacecraft orbiting an asteroid today. When you find a reason to send one to the moon again then let us know and we can discuss it.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7417 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 1):
Manned spaceflight can certainly be done by the private sector. Remember Richard Branson? The government showed it can be done, improved the technology, and can now move on to doing other things. Unless there is a military need, no need for the government to do it.

I would not call a very sub orbital loop at speeds way below the levels needed to get into orbit anything to do with a space program, but then Branson has always been good at bigging things up.
And he's still some distance from a fare paying pax, with delays of the sort often (lazily?) attributed to government programs.

SpaceX are, at present, the ones to watch, so far they've achieved more than any private operator, on the path to get US crews into space again. Rather more than Ares 1 had by the time of it's cancellation, wasn't it looking like 2017 at best for a manned flight with that system at the time?

As to Apollo, with the later J missions especially, I'd question if any unmanned probes could have achieved so much, not unless you sent 100's of them perhaps.

But given the major issues gripping the US right now, is it a good time to argue, no matter how much we might like to see it, a new big NASA program?


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7261 times:

The issue will not be who will be the "first" to get back to the Moon; rather, what the intentions and capabilities are once they arrive. I don't think the U.S. is in a hurry to go back, certainly not with the current crop of political leaders running the show and who have an incredibly myopic view of the space program. But if China starts to look like it's within reach and, more importantly, has concrete plans to stay there or keep going back, then I think it will jump start U.S. efforts.


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7195 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
But if China starts to look like it's within reach and, more importantly, has concrete plans to stay there or keep going back, then I think it will jump start U.S. efforts.

You could be right, however my gut feeling is that whatever ambitions China does have for space, they will do them at their own pace and this could be a very extended process, over decades.
After all, they don't have to worry about political cycles, including real opposition!


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7142 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
As to Apollo, with the later J missions especially, I'd question if any unmanned probes could have achieved so much, not unless you sent 100's of them perhaps.

The most successfull mission was probably Apollo 17 with Harrison Schmitt, the only Apollo astronaut who was a scientist by profession (geologist). I doubt that his work could have been done by a robot.

Jan


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7026 times:

What is the difference between him motoring about the moon in a space suit, picking up rocks and bringing them home, and having him sit at an HD TV screen on earth controlling a robotic vehicle and then having the robot bring the rocks back? Two I can think of. He will have more fun on the moon for one. The other is that he had a couple of days on the moon, and he could spend weeks or months driving robots. More science would be accomplished by robots.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6879 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 6):
What is the difference between him motoring about the moon in a space suit, picking up rocks and bringing them home, and having him sit at an HD TV screen on earth controlling a robotic vehicle and then having the robot bring the rocks back?

Never discount what cannot be programmed, the intuition of trained crew.
Take perhaps the most important scientific sample (out of over 700lbs of it), the primordial 'genesis rock' found by Apollo 15.
Such a sample was a mission target, helped decide where they landed. But none were found until, almost out the corner of his eye, the Astronaut glimpsed it, investigated it.
Even a modern unmanned rover might have just trundled past. Out of the (limited) vision field by a fraction.

Over 700lbs of samples, core tubes etc, the USSR managed to bring back a few grams of surface scooped material.
With two probes, imagine how many would have been needed to get a decent fraction of Apollo's haul - from 6 separate sites.

Last year in a documentary on the unmanned missions to Mars, current and planned, when asked about the prospects for finding any evidence of past life, maybe even very primitive current organic activity, the scientists and engineers interviewed - whose careers are dedicated to developing, building and operating these probes - reckoned only a manned mission stood a real chance of this.
I was surprised, they are the experts though.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6854 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 6):
What is the difference between him motoring about the moon in a space suit, picking up rocks and bringing them home, and having him sit at an HD TV screen on earth controlling a robotic vehicle and then having the robot bring the rocks back? Two I can think of. He will have more fun on the moon for one. The other is that he had a couple of days on the moon, and he could spend weeks or months driving robots. More science would be accomplished by robots.

Not correct. Knowing how geologists work (as a boy I often accompanied my father, who was a geologist and palaeontologist on field trips), seeing the area in question with his own eyes in three dimensions will have given him a much better overview than a computer screen and he will have noticed more details.
I used to collect minerals and fossils myself. When e.g.walking through a quarry, an exposed rock formation on a hillside or through a mine you´ll unconciously will scan the whole surroundings and notice interesting specimens often "from the edge of vision" (how often did I pick up some interesting piece of rock or fossil because I noticed a gleam in my peripheral vision).
If you are there in person you will notice at the same time both the whole and the detail.

Jan


User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3939 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6842 times:

Wouldn't it be more interesting and a bigger achivement to be first on Mars ? I mean you have already been to the Moon ....

User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6797 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):

Quoting aklrno (Reply 6):
What is the difference between him motoring about the moon in a space suit, picking up rocks and bringing them home, and having him sit at an HD TV screen on earth controlling a robotic vehicle and then having the robot bring the rocks back? Two I can think of. He will have more fun on the moon for one. The other is that he had a couple of days on the moon, and he could spend weeks or months driving robots. More science would be accomplished by robots.

Not correct. Knowing how geologists work (as a boy I often accompanied my father, who was a geologist and palaeontologist on field trips), seeing the area in question with his own eyes in three dimensions will have given him a much better overview than a computer screen and he will have noticed more details.
I used to collect minerals and fossils myself. When e.g.walking through a quarry, an exposed rock formation on a hillside or through a mine you´ll unconciously will scan the whole surroundings and notice interesting specimens often "from the edge of vision" (how often did I pick up some interesting piece of rock or fossil because I noticed a gleam in my peripheral vision).
If you are there in person you will notice at the same time both the whole and the detail.

Jan

Given sufficiently high definition, 3D, and a 360 degree field of view it could be done from my living room. All of those things are perfectly feasible today.

take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_Automatic_Virtual_Environment

My living room is not quite tall enough to support this (you need TV screen above and below you) but plenty of these facilities exist today. I have been in them and they are amazing. Getting HD displays that can produce "retina displays" (look it up) is feasible, but I don't think they have any big enough today. For the cost of one moon launch (a few billion dollars) you could build all you need. It would be nice to ask some lunar scientists if they would rather have astronauts or a whole bunch of robots going everywhere.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6721 times:

Still doesn´t beat getting a personal impression. Why do you think volcanologists don protective suits to climb into craters of volcanoes to take magma samples in person, at high danger to themselves?
Or why do epidemiologists crawl into caves in the Kongo basin jungles to sample bat faeces, while wearing uncomfortable NBC suits in tropical heat to search for the origins of e.g. the virus causing Ebola disease?

Often a direct hands-on approach is required to understand things.

Just ask fellow A.netter Baroque (who is professor of geology) what he thinks about doing field work from his office via a computer screen.

Jan


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7210 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6669 times:

What's on the moon, would it have been better to build a station on the moon versus in orbit, would you be able to use materials that would last longer?
Getting it there would be no picnic but I'm thinking buildings could last much longer on the moon and provide a much more longer term lab for low gravity experiments versus a space station.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6669 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 9):
Wouldn't it be more interesting and a bigger achivement to be first on Mars ? I mean you have already been to the Moon ....

For sure it would, as long as you're willing to invest probably 10 times what Apollo cost (about $100B in current dollars).

As for going back to the Moon, not sure what it does for humankind. We got a very good idea about the Moon from the Apollo missions, it's morphology, geohistory, etc. Robotic missions as follow-ups can fine-tune this understanding I believe w/o any risk to human life and at a much lower cost.

Given the existing economic climate and prospects over the next several years, we need to remain in the realm of realism.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6620 times:

The real point of manned spaceflight is manned spaceflight! I don't want robots out there - the science is less important than providing Man with the ability to journey into space. I'm OK with robots helping with that mission. As a taxpayer and a member of the human race, I will support the exploration of new frontiers by Man, and hasten the day we can set out on these cosmic voyages. Ever since we came to be in Africa, we have been going 'where no man has gone before'. Christopher Columbus would be happy if we kept up the good work.

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6579 times:

Depends on how deeper in debt the US wants to go.

User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6512 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 15):
Depends on how deeper in debt the US wants to go.

NASA's total budget is less then 1% of U.S Government spending, as it was during the Apollo missions. From that investment, technologies were literally changed overnight... Solid state electronics and microprocessors were developed, the software and countless other things that we take for granted, are directly traceable to the U.S manned space program in general and the Apollo program in particular.
Discretionary spending, of which NASA's budget is derived, is a small part of U.S. government spending. It's Entitlements that are by far the biggest issue facing America, as it is in those countries in Europe who are facing even greater immediate peril.
A manned mission to the moon is something I personally believe is what NASA should be focused on. Unfortunately, that belief is not shared by the current Administration, and is one of their major mistakes IMHO.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6481 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 16):
A manned mission to the moon is something I personally believe is what NASA should be focused on. Unfortunately, that belief is not shared by the current Administration, and is one of their major mistakes IMHO.

  100% agree, and it needs to be sold to the American people. People are confused today between expenses, expenditures and investment. Every dollar spent on aerospace by the taxpayer has been a multiplier for the US economy, creating jobs and technological leadership. Those who go on and on about private enterprise don't realize that the structure of private industry today does not lend itself to this type of investment. The only way to grow ourselves out of the 14 trillion dollar debt hole is through new tech, with attendant massive changes in productivity and new ways to fuel ourselves.


User currently onlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1551 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 17):
100% agree, and it needs to be sold to the American people.

Exactly. The number one issue with NASA today is their public relations people (or lack thereof). If they made a big effort to sell the public on doing things with spaceflight, I think many more people would be willing to fund going places with it. But, it appears that basically NASA doesn't care about what people think anymore.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7210 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6475 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 17):
Every dollar spent on aerospace by the taxpayer has been a multiplier for the US economy, creating jobs and technological leadership.

Maybe years ago, but not since the bean counters took over. Let's just look at the Shuttle program, the thousands of persons who were involved in that program, the best replacement they could come up with after decades of flying that fleet is nothing.
No one in 20+ years could not think of a cheaper way to get the ship into orbit, they proved that an unpowered descent was viable, so what's the true story? Everyone else is still using rockets to get folk into orbit, no cheaper rockets for a shuttle, whether bigger or smaller?
There was some versatility to the craft, hard to figure out why they just sat on their funding and never tried to make the program more modern or affordable, definately no progress in technology on that front.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6466 times:

It's not a if there are a huge amount of places in the Solar System where crews could go.
The Moon, Mars, Asteroids.
(Since there is no propulsion system in the works that could get a ship to the outer planets in a reasonable timeframe, let's stick to the inner zone of the Solar System. Enticing as some of Jupiter's

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 16):
Discretionary spending, of which NASA's budget is derived, is a small part of U.S. government spending. It's Entitlements that are by far the biggest issue facing America, as it is in those countries in Europe who are facing even greater immediate peril.
A manned mission to the moon is something I personally believe is what NASA should be focused on. Unfortunately, that belief is not shared by the current Administration, and is one of their major mistakes IMHO.

I share your sentiments, though I'd caution on 'troubled European countries', there are financial / economic problems there, but that in most cases the political system, from where sorting this out has to come, are rather less dysfunctional than the US has. Even, incredibly, Italy.

However, it should be admitted that the Ares/Constellation program was in deep trouble.
No US manned launch before 2017, (which others like SpaceX and now Boeing should beat), the reality of a '2019/2020' lunar mission looking more like the latter half of the 2020's, in other words never.
Why NASA did not adapt say a Delta-4 (Heavy?) for putting Constellation in LEO is beyond me.
It was always going to be faster and cheaper, though man rating it would not be for free, it would have allowed more resources to go to the most important element, the Ares 5.
(Though that will be likely resurrected under a different name, like the Constellation).

When the financial meltdown in 2007/2008 happened, (NOT predicted by a certain rating agency), the thought did cross my find that this would likely subdue NASA's ambitions.
With the decision to end the Shuttle taken in 2004, with it's costs spiralling and with no great support for carrying on with it after ISS completion, the Augustine report which has shaped NASA in this administration, was bound to recommend another way of keeping US crewed spaceflights going.

NASA always being in the manned spaceflight game has never been inevitable. The vote to approve funding the Space Shuttle was a close run thing, prior to DoD interest, had it gone the other way, manned NASA flight would have ended, for a long time, maybe forever, with Apollo-Soyuz in 1975.
Beating the Russians to the Moon quenched the thirst for manned spaceflight with a significant proportion of the US electorate, notice how they soon got bored then angry at the costs, of the whole enterprise after Apollo 11.

I suspect the Shuttle got a lot of popularity with the ideas of 'routine/airliner style', access to space. When that dimmed, they had the ruse (well the President did) of putting non astronauts on board, starting with a teacher....

Many will just say about the Moon, 'been there, done that'.
(Though starting with a landing on the far side might have helped a bit, after a couple of basic, robust Comsats were put in Lunar orbit. Then to the poles).
As it is, having asteroids as a manned target to get back into beyond LEO might be a shrewder move PR wise.
Horrible to say 'PR wise' with such great adventures, however the US is a democracy, if there were a lot of votes in it (not just a few states with a lot of NASA facilities) no doubt your lawmakers would be more keen.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 19):
Maybe years ago, but not since the bean counters took over. Let's just look at the Shuttle program, the thousands of persons who were involved in that program, the best replacement they could come up with after decades of flying that fleet is nothing.
No one in 20+ years could not think of a cheaper way to get the ship into orbit, they proved that an unpowered descent was viable, so what's the true story? Everyone else is still using rockets to get folk into orbit, no cheaper rockets for a shuttle, whether bigger or smaller?
There was some versatility to the craft, hard to figure out why they just sat on their funding and never tried to make the program more modern or affordable, definately no progress in technology on that front.

Very good point; perhaps NASA had become a follower instead of a leader. They need a new vision that captures the public imagination.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
suspect the Shuttle got a lot of popularity with the ideas of 'routine/airliner style', access to space

Dang! Kubrick promised us the PanAm Shuttle to the Orbiter Hilton.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Many will just say about the Moon, 'been there, done that'.

Do you think a Moon Base Alpha would capture the public imagination? Mankind has a deep seated need to find new habitats...


User currently onlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2352 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6384 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 16):
NASA's total budget is less then 1% of U.S Government spending, as it was during the Apollo missions.

While the current NASA budget is around .5% of the total federal budget, at the height of Apollo it was over 4.4%.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 16):
From that investment, technologies were literally changed overnight... Solid state electronics and microprocessors were developed, the software and countless other things that we take for granted, are directly traceable to the U.S manned space program in general and the Apollo program in particular.

Except, of course, that those technologies are *not* traceable to the manned space program. They are, however, traceable to the USAF's ICBM missile programs.

While the considerable funding of the manned programs undoubtedly helped those along, the manned programs were pretty conservative in a lot of technological areas, not least in electronics.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
I share your sentiments, though I'd caution on 'troubled European countries', there are financial / economic problems there, but that in most cases the political system, from where sorting this out has to come, are rather less dysfunctional than the US has. Even, incredibly, Italy.

Italy? Really?? ... but that's for another thread...

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Why NASA did not adapt say a Delta-4 (Heavy?) for putting Constellation in LEO is beyond me.

Seems to me you have a good handle on why NASA did not go with Delta IV. See your next paragraph:

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
however the US is a democracy, if there were a lot of votes in it (not just a few states with a lot of NASA facilities) no doubt your lawmakers would be more keen.

Exactly! Lawmakers wanted to keep shuttle facilities employed so the replacement had to be shuttle derived, i.e. AREs.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 22):
Except, of course, that those technologies are *not* traceable to the manned space program. They are, however, traceable to the USAF's ICBM missile programs.

  

Proof that NASA PR is fairly effective when it wants to be.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6202 times:

My personal belief is that before we ever even think of going to Mars or an asteroid, we have to practice on celestial bodies we have already explored. It's been almost 39 years since Apollo 17, and we are rusty in terms of manned space flight beyond lunar earth orbit. I kind of view it as like a musician that hasn't played his instrument in a long time. If he or she wants to play better than before, the first thing they do is refine and practice what they've already learned/done. We need to have fresh technology that is proven to be capable of putting humans on the moon before we can even think of venturing out into space on missions that could take at least a year minimum. Now, obviously, if we had the technology to go to the moon in the late '60s and early '70s, we certainly have it now. But the technology was vastly different from what we have now, so different that IMO it warrants a return to the moon. I see the moon as practice for Mars.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
25 gigneil : Our administration is focused on beyond the Moon. A sentiment I think most Americans, myself included, share. The moon is been there, done that. Beyo
26 Oroka : Would I love to see a moon base? Heck yeah! Problem is, what is its value? With the way NASA does things, a whole NEW launcher system would have to be
27 Burkhard : It can be done, yes, but for what purpose? China as example has a vast desert, making up half of its country, completely unpopulated, which is far eas
28 hotplane : But nobody has been to the moon yet.
29 Thrust : I don't agree with that. Robots are for data-gathering strictly. It is important to use manned spacecraft not only for data-gathering, but also for t
30 Thrust : What we honestly need right now, IMO, for a mission to Mars or to the moon to reliably take place, is for NASA to be given an unlimited budget like i
31 wvsuperhornet : Are you sure about that, just seems strange we could do it supposible in the 60's and 70's and havent been back since whatever!!!
32 Oroka : That is unrealistic and would be irresponsible. It really is time to let the commercial sector take over. NASA mission statement is "pioneer the futu
33 Thrust : We've sent a few unmanned vehicles to the moon. We've never gone back to the moon because it lost public support and the cost was staggering. It wasn
34 Oroka : Well, they need to find a way to make it profitable, just like any other contract. NASA wants to pay Boeing to send some Astronauts to the moon... it
35 Max Q : No point in going back to the moon. Mercury / Gemini and Apollo were truly NASA's finest hour, the incredible advances made in such a short time were
36 wvsuperhornet : While I am not into conspiricey theories I am going to debate this one. If we got up there the first time why is it being so dificult to develop an a
37 Thrust : NASA hasn't been given the necessary funding to develop a manned spacecraft capable of going to the moon since, that's why. It also hasn't had its ob
38 Post contains images connies4ever : Best evidence there is re actually going to the Moon is the corner reflectors left there by Apollo astronauts, which can still be used to bounce lase
39 Post contains images HaveBlue : The best proof that we actually went to the Moon is... that our mortal enemy, our sworn object of hate and derision, did not dispute it. It was the h
40 GDB : Are you going to reckon in years to come that civil airline pax never could cross the Atlantic at Mach 2, taking three and a half hours? We don't now
41 Post contains images HaveBlue : Too ironic, I had actually typed out a sentence "Of course some people don't believe in the Holocaust either... ", at the end of my previous post but
42 Thrust : Right. I just didn't feel like listing every single detail. I mentioned the spacesuits because obviously they are all covered in moon dust, the amoun
43 wvsuperhornet : Nope !! Never said we didnt have something on the moon everything described could have been done with an un-manned craft, sorry but there are more im
44 Thrust : Somebody obviously refuses to admit defeat. They would have had to keep far more than 100 people quiet...they would have had to keep not only all of
45 Thrust : Again, believe what you want to, but you've got a lot of other experts contesting you...100 people could never have sold an idea like this and sustai
46 GDB : You are right, because allowing for staff turnover way more than 400,000 would have had to have been 'in on it'. Even without the foreign dimensions
47 wvsuperhornet : Nope never have denied the holocaust or that 9-11 was a terrorist attack , or do I think big foot exists or green aliens run the planet (although I d
48 JoeCanuck : I don't really understand the, 'been there, done that' sentiment regarding the moon. The same argument could be used for earth oceans, mountains, rain
49 USAF336TFS : I agree with you Joe. The United States should return to the moon first. Establish some kind of presence there. I'd like to see Canadian participation
50 rwessel : Which is all fine, until you consider cost. While it's extremely difficult to compare costs for the 1490s to now, Columbus' first voyage* had a total
51 ZANL188 : It's interesting that folks are still claiming that a man has not been to the moon... Interesting because the vast majority of technologies involved i
52 JoeCanuck : If you look at cost as a percentage of GDP, it's insignificant. Stop getting into ill conceived wars is a much better place to save money than space
53 rwessel : Which is a point I've made repeatedly, including in this forum. The problem is there seems to be a finite appetite for science funding in the U.S. An
54 GDB : Since the major advantage the US (and the West in general) still has over China, economically, is the long established science base, it's pretty short
55 Oroka : Well, it comes down to what benefit going back to the moon has. If the US was awash in cash... sure, why not, science and stuff. That is not the case
56 ZANL188 : I'm not necessarily an advocate of going back to the moon. But if we go I'd prefer we do something unfrivilous. Let's start with these: - Resource re
57 Post contains links connies4ever : It was also the USA's way of telling the USSR, in effect, "mine's bigger than yours". Former Shuttle astronaut Donald Peterson recently penned a lett
58 rwessel : I never said that NASA, et al, weren't a significant an valuable part of the scientific community. I say the manned program specifically isn't. I'm a
59 GDB : I was struck by documentary last year, where scientists, unmanned mission designers, considered the exploration of Mars, the chances of finding evide
60 Thrust : I've never figured out why solid rocket boosters became favored over liquid-fueled rockets. I would like to know the answer to that. The only two thi
61 rwessel : National pride and world leadership are pretty both manifestations of national glory, tuned for two different audiences. Liquids are a huge PITA if y
62 rwessel : The whole resource recovery thing will require very substantial infrastructure. Getting from here to there will be a huge undertaking in itself. And
63 GDB : At the time it was seen rather more as the survival of the US/West to what was thought to be a relentless advance of Soviet power. Not the same as fe
64 jollo : Couldn't agree more. Manned space "exploration", including ISS, yielded so far ridiculously low amounts of "real" science (the one measured by peer-r
65 Thrust : I agree. And besides, the shuttle was put into service less than a decade after the Saturn V's were retired. It was basically the same technology apa
66 Oroka : And through these programs and experience solid fuels were prefered for missiles, and liquid for applications that had time to be launched. Then ther
67 wvsuperhornet : You should if thats what you were taught I never ask you to believe, I just don't and havent really seen anything that would change my mind and if yo
68 HaveBlue : Why don't you address my point to you then... skip cameras and shadows and wind and such... if it was all an elaborate hoax why didn't the worlds oth
69 Post contains links GDB : Not so fast HaveBlue, he's right! Look: http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm Even footage; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTyj
70 Thrust : I hope you are just making a joke here. I just watched both of those links. The youtube one is a Gumby-like cartoon. i'm going to assume you are sinc
71 Thrust : I never criticized, or at least intended to criticize, you for thinking we may not go back in the next decade. While I think technologically it is ve
72 GDB : As a child growing up in the UK in the 1970's, those puppets were well known to me and all my peers. 'The Clangers'. (And when logic does not affect
73 Post contains images HaveBlue : Ah with such clear and concise evidence, I too have to stop believing in the myth of our going to the moon! Thrust that post by GDB was obviously don
74 Thrust : hahaha, yes indeed!
75 JBirdAV8r : Even if you did that, you wouldn't have enough bandwidth to beam all the data required for that back to the ground. It's not so much that it's techno
76 kalvado : Depends on amount of power you have on the other side. Or weight which can be dedicated to transmission (antenna size, solar cell area etc). In fact
77 wvsuperhornet : That I can believe having to deal with todays youth in america I believe we are in trouble alot if not most teenagers now dont have the sense to get
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Can The U.S. Be First To The Moon Again?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Orion 13 Might Be First Manned Return To Moon posted Fri Oct 27 2006 08:32:51 by AerospaceFan
Can The President Negate The Value Of Stealth? posted Sun Aug 1 2010 15:23:58 by CMB56
The Vigilante Rises Again posted Fri Jun 12 2009 21:23:18 by DEVILFISH
Will The J-10 Fighter Be Sold To Iran? posted Thu Nov 22 2007 12:34:53 by Alberchico
First To Fly The PC-21 - Singapore Air Force posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:05:15 by Airimages
Can The U.S. Export Sell The CEV? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 16:44:25 by DfwRevolution
When Will The PC-12s Be Delivered To U.S.A.F.? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 17:55:10 by CX747
RAF To Be Cut To WWI Levels. posted Sun Aug 8 2010 10:15:49 by Oroka
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format