Why is it taking NASA so long to go back too the Moon?

www.nasa.gov...

In the link above is an article of one of Nasa's evsioned moon habitats. They mention possibly a moon mission as soon as 2020. I dont know about you folks but thats a very very long time if you consider we worked out a ton of kinks and logistics the first few successfull times in the 60's and 70's. And we did it all in a shorter time with much less knowledge and tech as is current today. Im very dissapointed that Nasa seems so novice at putting people and things on the moon. What gives? Btw Im all for this new Nasa Moon mission and feel its 20-30 years overdue.
I just find it appalling that after the hundreds of Billions spent allready on supposedly proven designs and technics they decide to start from scratch and slowly at that. Cmon they did more with less in those first Apollo missions and these new Nasa Ares vehicle offerings are but stripped down Apollo platforms. So much for all that 30 year Nasa advanced technology. Welcome back to the 60''s and 70's again.


Another pretty informative link at Nasa with an idea of moon resoursce mining. How ironic. As well as the whole moon launch scheme as they envision it.
www.nasa.gov...

I dont know folks it just seems they have no idea how too make things happen anymore.

Thoughts are welcomed.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by VType]

[edit on 7-3-2007 by VType]

Currently they are developing a few launch vehicles and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle. With the past space disasters still looming in the minds of NASA, this is their step forward to more reliable and efficient space colonization. They are giving each vehicle it's own specialization: from cargo to manned modules. These vehicles will also be able to aid in the colonization of Mars in the future. Yes they've taken extremely long to make this step; but, they are preparing for it from every angle.

Wikipedia Orion Spacecraft Entry

I've often wondered the same. Why the seeming lack of further interests? As well as why not follow through with plans to "set up shop" per se.

I realize there are many "theories" as to Why for both situations, some more rational than others, but still don't understand the reasoning for no going forward and realizing the end goal [at the time].

A client's father was one of the rocket scientists for the Apollo missions, which came as quite the surprise when she told me. He and his wife live with them, just enjoying life and living out their golden years. I made it a point to spend the better part of an afternoon with him after a scheduled service call, quite the interesting man to say the least. At one point his wife brought out a framed picture, an artist's rendition that based on one of their "colonization" plans. It consisted of various-sized dome-like structures which I assumed to be living quarters, storage, etc. When asked he said, "No", these would be used for storage and stockpiling of inventories, supplies, fuels and such. He went on to say that the living quarters and actual "facilities" were to be built underground as that would provide a more protective environment. Needless to say it was one of the most interesting and intriguing afternoons I've ever spent.

They're only a few miles from the house, perhaps I'll see if I can get a photo of the artist's rendition and more details from his experiences.

Originally posted by VType
I just find it appalling that after the hundreds of Billions spent allready on supposedly proven designs and technics they decide to start from scratch and slowly at that. Cmon they did more with less in those first Apollo missions and these new Nasa Ares vehicle offerings are but stripped down Apollo platforms. So much for all that 30 year Nasa advanced technology. Welcome back to the 60''s and 70's again.

How are they starting from scratch exactly? They are using what they've learnt from the Apollo program on the Constellation program. Of course they have to build new rockets from scratch as NASA currently has nothing else that carry crew and cargo to the Moon at present.

I also don't see how the Orion/Ares is a striped down Apollo. In what way? If anything it's much more improved over Apollo. The Orion is bigger, can carry four people to the Moon (6 to the ISS), will have the latest tech, including a 'glass cockpit'. Plus all four people will be able to go down to the surface, unlike Apollo where one person had to stay up in lunar orbit while the two went down. The Orion will also be reusable (up to about 10 times) unlike the Apollo capsules.

What about this seems like going back to the 60's and 70's?

Well jra my dislike is with using the same basic designs and theories that were common 30+ years ago with very little progress other than electronic and composite advances incorporated. And frankly the Shuttle was supposed to be our moon to earth vehicle when envisioned. So what happened too that? I still dont see why the Shuttle couldnt tranverse a moon shot with a few dockable fuel cells allready placed in orbit for them to attach or similar existing means. But now its a Multi Billion dollar orbital plane. Sorry but we are very much repeating 50's,60's and 70's technology just all dressed in new millenium drag. Oh well thats todays Nasa.
But I applaud their human safety first concept but 13 years is much too long wait IMO and we should be half way too Mars by then with todays ever rapiding advances.

And it looks like China just may win this moon race as they are full steam ahead and looks as though they may achieve lunar landings. Check the link below.
news.xinhuanet.com...

[edit on 7-3-2007 by VType]

[edit on 7-3-2007 by VType]

Originally posted by VType
Well jra my dislike is with using the same basic designs and theories that were common 30+ years ago with very little progress other than electronic and composite advances incorporated. And frankly the Shuttle was supposed to be our moon to earth vehicle when envisioned.

The Shuttle was never meant or designed to go to the Moon. It is an orbiter only. The reasons for using a capsule design is because it is the most efficient design for interplanetary travel. You don't need wings or a tail or three rocket engines or landing gear to go to the Moon. All that would do is add useless weight.

So what happened too that?

Nothing happened to that, because it was never envisioned for the Shuttle in the first place.

I think you need to re-read about the Shuttle program.

I still dont see why the Shuttle couldnt tranverse a moon shot with a few dockable fuel cells allready placed in orbit for them to attach or similar existing means. But now its a Multi Billion dollar orbital plane.

What would fuel cells do? What the Shuttle would need is more fuel for its rockets to break out of Earth orbit. Unless that's what you meant by fuel cells. The Shuttle has no way to reconnect to a fuel source. It would have to be completely redesigned if you wanted it to do that.

Another design issue for the shuttle would be re-entry. The Apollo capsules returning from the Moon re-entered the atmosphere at higher speeds than what the Shuttle does from LEO. If the Shuttle were to re-enter the same way as the Apollo capsules, it's wings would more than likely snap off.

Sorry but we are very much repeating 50's,60's and 70's technology just all dressed in new millenium drag.

I beg to differ as I stated above. A capsule is the most efficient design to use for traveling to the Moon and back. There is nothing antiquated about the design at all.

Also you do know that the Shuttle is a 60's / 70's design too right? NASA started coming up with concepts for a Space Shuttle even before Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.

But I applaud their human safety first concept but 13 years is much too long wait IMO and we should be half way too Mars by then with todays ever rapiding advances.

Well you shouldn't blame NASA for it's short comings. Blame the US Government. NASA gets the shaft when it comes to money. NASA had big plans after Apollo (which included returning to the Moon), but all those got scraped due to little funding. The cost of the entire Apollo program was $135 billion (2006 dollars). NASA these days gets $16 billion (which is divided up to be spent on and support all it's programs) and it was only recently increased to that. The US spends about $16 billion every two weeks or so, in Iraq. If NASA had more money, i'm sure you'd see things progress faster.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by jra]

There is no need to create ICBM's at the same fervent pace as it was in the 1960's. Sending a human to the moon is restrictively cost prohibitive and lacks a truely tangible quality with the high expense. Essential there is no reason, outside of developing ICBM's, to send a human to the moon. The United States does not need ICBM's.

Originally posted by etotheitheta
There is no need to create ICBM's at the same fervent pace as it was in the 1960's. Sending a human to the moon is restrictively cost prohibitive and lacks a truely tangible quality with the high expense. Essential there is no reason, outside of developing ICBM's, to send a human to the moon. The United States does not need ICBM's.

I always thought the reason we went to the Moon was:
1. To collect samples, perhaps to learn if mining would be profitable;
2. To take photographs of the Moon and stars; especially the stars;
3. To prepare to establish some kind of base or weapons platform, or threat of same;
4. For the various experience needed to do more ambitious projects.

But in reality, we only collected samples, which could have been done by an unmanned probe. Oh...we planted a flag.

None of the hundreds of Moon surface photographs advances science in any way I'm aware (*). We got no photos of the stars.

We didn't establish a base, we didn't acquire any high ground or cold war threat. We didn't do anything with the experience. We didn't build any bases or storage sites. We didn't check for water in the crust. We didn't mine any valuable minerals.

What a waste of time!

(*) oh, wait...we know it's not made of cheese.



[edit on 7-3-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Badge01
I always thought the reason we went to the Moon was:
2. To take photographs of the Moon and stars; especially the stars;

Nope, it wasn't. Just photos of the Moon.

But in reality, we only collected samples, which could have been done by an unmanned probe.

That's what the Russians did and they got a whopping 0.326kg, compare that too the Apollo's 382kg. Sample return probes just aren't as good as going there and getting them yourself. Plus unmanned probes can't pick up large rocks and take core samples.

None of the hundreds of Moon surface photographs advances science in any way I'm aware (*). We got no photos of the stars.

Why would you think that photographs would advance our science? It was for documentation purposes. And no, no photos of those stars you're so obsessed about.

So...according to you, we went to the Moon to take some photos to document it?

Way to waste several billion dollars in a dead-end program.

I'd say we did a poor job, because none of those photos document or verify that we went to the Moon.

In fact it was such a dead end that we didn't even save the plans for the Saturn V, or the Lander, or the Buggy or the Orbiter. Nor did we bother to save any of the original video.

If you know of one that would be acceptable independent verification of the Moon landing let me know. Frankly, it's impossible, because it requires verification by an independent third party.

Every other exploration of a location for the first time was required to be verified in this manner.

I guarantee you that any future missions will be credibly documented and verified.

Finally, can you imagine NASA telling the President. "We're going to the Moon, but we are absolutely NOT taking any pictures of the stars." Right.

"Also, Mr President, we're not establishing any bases, not holding the high ground or gaining any military advantage, or doing any real science. We're just going to make a dozen or so visits, and we're not going there again." I think he'd fire the person who told him that.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Badge01
So...according to you, we went to the Moon to take some photos to document it?

No i'm just saying the photos and video themselves were for documentation purposes, the sample collecting and other geology work as well as the other experiments set up there were the scientific part.

I'd say we did a poor job, because none of those photos document or verify that we went to the Moon.

Perhaps to you.

In fact it was such a dead end that we didn't even save the plans for the Saturn V, or the Lander, or the Buggy or the Orbiter. Nor did we bother to save any of the original video.

All incorrect. The Saturn V blueprints are kept on micro film in the national archives. Besides, all aerospace companies usually get rid of all the plans and specialized tooling once they are finished. To keep all that stuff would require a huge warehouse for storage. Besides, the blue prints alone wouldn't tell you how to build a Saturn V (I'm assuming that's what you were thinking?)

And only the slightly higher quality footage from Apollo 11 is missing. The other missions still have there higher quality recordings.

If you know of one that would be acceptable independent verification of the Moon landing let me know. Frankly, it's impossible, because it requires verification by an independent third party.

I gave you a link in the other thread. I guess you don't read my replies?

Photos from amateur astronomers of various Apollo missions. www.astr.ua.edu...

Finally, can you imagine NASA telling the President. "We're going to the Moon, but we are absolutely NOT taking any pictures of the stars." Right.

My my, you and those stars. No tripod + long exposure times required to get stars to appear on film = impossible to do. Seriously, the astronauts had more important things to do. Like setting up there experiments and collecting samples and all that.

"Also, Mr President, we're not establishing any bases, not holding the high ground or gaining any military advantage, or doing any real science. We're just going to make a dozen or so visits, and we're not going there again." I think he'd fire the person who told him that.

Ummm... You have it backwards. NASA had plans to go back. It was the president (or the US administration in general) that cut things short. Not NASA, like you seem to be implying. Were you aware that NASA had planed an Apollo 18, 19 and 20? Guess what, the Government took away there money, thus they didn't happen.

I've skim read the posts here but can't seem to find anyone stating what I've read about on ATS before in many threads is that, the moon is not ours, never was. We have been warned to stay away so a future project as in 2020 keeps people thinking we're working on getting there.

On the other hand we have the other people who suggest that we are on the moon now; building, mining and who knows what else.

Remirah

Originally posted by Remirah
I've skim read the posts here but can't seem to find anyone stating what I've read about on ATS before in many threads is that, the moon is not ours, never was. We have been warned to stay away so a future project as in 2020 keeps people thinking we're working on getting there.

On the other hand we have the other people who suggest that we are on the moon now; building, mining and who knows what else.

Remirah

There is some compelling evidence's that lead me to think that the NASA/gov. is frightened from what they have on record's that we are not privy too.
"If we did decide to go to the moon to inhabit it, we will need G.W. Bush for another war!!!"

Originally posted by Allred5923

Originally posted by Remirah
I've skim read the posts here but can't seem to find anyone stating what I've read about on ATS before in many threads is that, the moon is not ours, never was. We have been warned to stay away so a future project as in 2020 keeps people thinking we're working on getting there.

On the other hand we have the other people who suggest that we are on the moon now; building, mining and who knows what else.

Remirah

There is some compelling evidence's that lead me to think that the NASA/gov. is frightened from what they have on record's that we are not privy too.
"If we did decide to go to the moon to inhabit it, we will need G.W. Bush for another war!!!"

Is anyone aware of the Mooon anomalies that to date are unanswered?

Originally posted by a1ex


Is anyone aware of the Mooon anomalies that to date are unanswered?

Oh yes well aware of this fact and many will not reason that something could be different their.
But thats for another thread as this is more of a mainstreem factually known NASA Moon thread.
Try my Crater images post or Mr.Lears Moon photos post for some pretty compelling work and imagery. Also the images Ive posted are direct from Nasa themselves and with a good photo program can yield even better results.
Links below.
new.photos.yahoo.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 8-3-2007 by VType]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by VType]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by VType]

Originally posted by jra
The Saturn V blueprints are kept on micro film in the national archives. Besides, all aerospace companies usually get rid of all the plans and specialized tooling once they are finished. To keep all that stuff would require a huge warehouse for storage.

So they dont have room to keep the tools to build the most effective launch vehicle in the history of space flight?

Besides, the blue prints alone wouldn't tell you how to build a Saturn V

What are blueprints for if they cant tell you how to build something?
You tell my contractor that blueprints dont tell him how to build a house please, because he has been wasting alot of time reading them.
Also you keep saying that they are in the National Archives....can you prove this? Are you sure Sandy Berger didnt steal them?

My my, you and those stars. No tripod + long exposure times required to get stars to appear on film = impossible to do. Seriously, the astronauts had more important things to do.

Seems to me that I have seen footage of the lunar module lifting off from the moon.
The camera even pans UP as the module rises into space. I am not sure who was manning the camera, and if nobody was manning it how they got it to pan up, but anyway, wasnt that camera on a tripod? Couldnt that camera have been left pointing up into space?

Keep in mind the political atmosphere of the 50's and 60's. Not only were we in the heart of the Cold War (arms race) but we were also in a "Space Race" (arms + status race). It was as much a status symbol to land on the moon as it was a "scientific breakthrough."

There are two possible reasons why we havn't been back yet.

1) We found nothing of interest, and it's strictly cost-prohibitive to send manned missions to the moon.

2a) We found something quite extraordinary, and manned missions became highly classified routine missions.

2b) We found something quite extraordinary and were sufficiently perturbed as to not return until better equipped.

Dear VType:

I know this is not what you wanted to hear but we haven’t been back to the Moon because we never made it there in the first place! It was way too difficult back in 1969 and it still is insurmountably difficult today. One of the main obstacles is the radiation coming from the Sun. Since there is no protective magnetosphere around the Moon (equivalent to our Van Allen Belts) the sun’s radiation mercilessly shines down on the Moon and will ‘cook’ anything biological in very short order. And, no, it cannot be stopped by some flimsy spacesuit. But hey, check it out for yourself. It’s been discussed right here on ATS at

1. Another Piece Of Proof Why We Never Made It To The Moon www.abovetopsecret.com....

2. NASA’S Van Allen Explanation www.abovetopsecret.com...’

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Actually Wizard Im growing more skeptical by the day with our apparent moon and space programs. The 41 minute footage below is Nasa's own vid's showing faking of distances on one of the Moon shots and its so obvious what they are doing after watching. Its long but towards the end they show the whole botched job and must have assumed editing would dispose of this film from the spacecraft. I wondered why that far shot of Earth was barely changing and why the vocal astronaut described the view as if he was much much closer too earth. I dont know Nasa. All this fishy buisiness is not good at all.
video.google.com...

[edit on 8-3-2007 by VType]

Originally posted by 11Bravo
So they dont have room to keep the tools to build the most effective launch vehicle in the history of space flight?

Some of those specialized tools were huge and were only useful for the Saturn, so once it was canceled there was no point in keeping all that stuff. All Aerospace companies do this.

We can't make an SR-71 or a Concord now for exactly the same reasons. The specialized tools are not around anymore. Nor is the knowledge that went into putting them together. Those workers have either retired or past away by now.

Besides, there's no way we'd build a Saturn V now even if we could. There have been many advancements in better, stronger and lighter materials that we can use, not to mention other technological advancements. It's better to design something brand new then to try and rebuild the Saturn. And if all goes according to plan, the Ares V should be able to loft 18,000kg more to the moon then the Saturn V.

What are blueprints for if they cant tell you how to build something?
You tell my contractor that blueprints dont tell him how to build a house please, because he has been wasting alot of time reading them.

Blueprints for a house are different then that for a rocket.

Also you keep saying that they are in the National Archives....can you prove this? Are you sure Sandy Berger didnt steal them?

Actually, they're also at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Kennedy Space Center and a few other places. I don't know how I could prove it exactly, but I have no reason to doubt it.

You might also want to check out this article. It might explain things better then I can. www.thespacereview.com...

Seems to me that I have seen footage of the lunar module lifting off from the moon.
The camera even pans UP as the module rises into space.

I am not sure who was manning the camera, and if nobody was manning it how they got it to pan up, but anyway, wasnt that camera on a tripod? Couldnt that camera have been left pointing up into space?

A person on the ground (by ground, I mean Earth) was controlling the video camera. The camera was mounted on the Lunar Rover. On the earlier missions the video camera was mounted on it's own tripod. But I was talking about a tripod for the still camera, not the video camera. And I don't know if the video camera would have been good to try and capture stars with. It was low res and i'm not sure what it's exposure range was like.