In 2009,how can it take NASA longer to get to the moon, than in 1963?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


It all boils down to money.

and our current Elected representitives flat out suck at managing it.

I'm sorry I don't want to derail the thread, I just still cannot get past how much money has been burned in Bank bailouts, yet the banks still go bankrupt. money litterly wen't down the drain. Now the admin is scrambling to tax business and middle class alike out the rear to make up the money for it.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mikeyy
 

Well -- you're not really derailing the thread that much, because it really does come down to money.

In the 1960s, the Apollo program was the #1 priority (or among the top priorities) of the United States. NASA and its contractors had a HUGE budget and a HUGE workforce. The yearly budget for the Constellation Program today is much, much smaller -- therefore less can get done in the same period of time.

...And the second most important reason that the Constellation Program is taking longer to get us to the Moon than the Apollo program is that the mission of the Constellation Program is much different than Apollo.

Apollo's first and foremost goal was to get to the Moon...that's it...just "Get There" (and of course get back). However, The Constellation program has much high goals rather than just "stepping on the Moon". The hardware being developed for Constellation is being developed to create an infrastructure that will hopefully one day get us to Mars.

The Constellation program consists of TWO different launch vehicles -- the Ares I, Ares V (and there is even now and Ares IV -- so that's technically 3 launch vehicles). The Ares I is designed to launch the new Orion Crew capsule to orbit -- to later go to the Moon or to the space station (the configuration of lunar version of the Orion will be different that the Low Earth Orbit version), while the Ares V is designed to launch the heavy stuff into orbit, such as the equipment that will go to the moon after docking with the Orion Crew Vehicle. It may also launch large pieces of Equipment to the Moon to act as Lunar bases which will be the precursor to manned missions to Mars.

The Ares V will also hopefully play a big role in that future (but yet unfunded) manned missions to Mars. Ares V can lift large amounts of equipment into orbit and beyond -- much more so that the Space Shuttle or the Saturn V could. That heavy-lifting capability will be important when assembling a manned Mars vehicle.


So...there are two main reasons it's taking us longer to get to the Moon:

1. Smaller yearly budgets (by far)
2. More ambitious mission goals

So it really isn't a mystery that it is taking longer.


[edit on 6/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
They clearly aren't telling us something...

Either all the recent moon missions are top secret involving spy hardware..

OR

There is something on the moon that we have encountered and do not understand it enough to confront it.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelMysteries
They clearly aren't telling us something...

Either all the recent moon missions are top secret involving spy hardware..

OR

There is something on the moon that we have encountered and do not understand it enough to confront it.


...and I suppose you have evidence supporting your statements?

I'm sure there are some top secret spy-hardware missions into space we don't know about (although perhaps not secret Moon missions), but I fail to see how that has a lot to do with why the Constellation program is taking longer than the Apollo Program in getting back to the Moon.


[edit on 6/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelMysteries

There is something on the moon that we have encountered and do not understand it enough to confront it.


Let me up there, i'll confront it!



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
It was more important in the 60s to go to the moon.
Easier to fake by the end of the 60s.

The German free energy ufo scientists needed jobs after
1945 to 1955 getting the ufo saucers over Washington D.C.
and the signing of an international treaty governing the ufo
technology.
So it was off to the moon.

Other engineers outfitted submarines just like they did for
Germany that put missiles off the East Coast.

Now I can't tell you what NASA is doing.
It can't go to the moon.
Obama won't let them.
He may have restricted the Tesla ufo flights out west
in New Mexico already.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I recall a post perhaps in another thread with the general sentiment
that NASA should have a mission to the Moon just to prove
the Landers are where they are supposed to be.
This of course stifling the confusion of the conspiracy talkers.
But NASA does not have to as they know they did land and
need not take steps to avoid incidental images of Lander
locations.





top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join