It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is NASA taking 14 years to get Back to the Moon after already being there six times?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
This just has me baffled, why is it going to take so long to get back after already having six successful landings with boots on the ground so to speak. I would think they would have a lot of the data needed to return. Yea I can see it taking a little bit of time to build new equipment and test it, but from 2004 until 2018??


Astronauts on the Moon by 2018?

If President Bush's "vision for space exploration," announced in 2004, is to succeed, NASA would very much need to take advantage of resources it can find on the moon. If there is ice to be found, it can be used for drinking water for astronauts and as coolant for equipment. It can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen -- ingredients for rocket fuel that need not be brought from Earth.
Source


On Apollo missions 11, 12, (Apollo 13 was aborted, but returned to Earth safely), 14, 15, 16 and 17,

the commanders and lunar module pilots conducted a series of experiments, photographed their

lunar surroundings and returned to Earth 382 kilograms (843 pounds) of lunar surface materials
And here are the astronauts on these missions why not ask these guys?

the other two are Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt........14 years after all that




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by paradiselost333
 


They shouldn't really need any new equipment or plans if the ones they used 40 yrs ago worked so well. If anything with modern equipment they should be able to get going in 1/10th of the time.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I often wonder the same thing... why have we not gone back in such a long period of time?

I actually watched Moon Rising last night...and that gives a few explanations into what you're wondering about..

Despite some of the stretches in the movie, it actually brought up a lot of valid points.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Adroc
 

I too think that the only reason we have not gone back is because we are not wanted by those that are established in that neighborhood already. They just don't like our kind!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I mean, I've heard that we actually aren't "allowed" to go back because in one of our ealier missions, we ran into some form of intelligence with bases on the dark side of the moon warned us not to come back. I think there's a mining operation of the moon's resources going on there, and they don't want us interferring.

Check out this video of one of the supposed structures filmed by Armstrong in 1969.

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 13-7-2009 by letheravensoar]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PhilltFred
 


They also explained how every nation is pouring money into their space programs...

Well if the moon is already figured out, why does EVERYBODY want to go back?

Maybe because there is something extraordinary there?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Maybe because there's no money in it. It's expensive to send people there, and for surprisingly little scientific value.

You have to remember that the Apollo moon shots were politically, not scientifically motivated. The U.S., and in particular that hawk, JFK, wanted to show the Russians that we could best them technologically, and that was a very high-profile way to do it. So the U.S. spent a lot of money, and got it done.

Then when it became reasonably obvious that nobody was that interested anymore, and the Russians backed off, and the U.S. had bigger fish to fry (like a sagging economy and social problems galore), Richard Nixon, who always hated JFK with a passion, had a perfect opportunity to shut his pet project down, and he did.

Even now, with the Space Shuttle, the amount of science it's able to do doesn't justify sending the thing up. And a trip back to the Moon only makes sense if it's cheap enough to go for what you get out of it. It's not a conspiracy. It's economics.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The military probably already up there mining some helium three for black projects..Nasa budget=$17 billion....USA military budget=$500 billion,lets not discount the fact the pentagon can lose over two trillion in a few years and no one bats an eyelid.Not proof by anymeans...but nasa budget is pennies to these people.You think they have never thought,lets go into space or build a base on the moon? wouldn't make a dent in such numbers.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adroc
Well if the moon is already figured out, why does EVERYBODY want to go back?
Maybe because there is something extraordinary there?


These other countries have figured out that a moon shot is a reasonably high-profile way of demonstrating that they have the technological savvy to handle large engineering projects. Basically, it's advertising. Like building a really huge building, even if it's never completely filled with lessors.

And it's become a little easier over the past several years, because technology has developed to a point where coordinating a trip to the moon to take some pictures is a lot more affordable than it used to be.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


I was waiting for some one to bring up money! IMO its not money they have plenty of money " they might say its money" but Cmon do you realy believe that? Yea you can figure out what there budget is but are you going to honestly say that NASA is up front about finances!!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Maybe because you can't drive down to the local Home Depot and pick out a "ready to assemble" Saturn V?

Or that technology has advanced--relative to the 60s--that using the same tech and engineering would be akin to treating a current cancer patient with a good blood-letting?

Traveling to the Moon and back isn't like loading up the ol' wagon to see Aunt Hamstanner in Tempe for a couple of weeks.......



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

And it's become a little easier over the past several years, because technology has developed to a point where coordinating a trip to the moon to take some pictures is a lot more affordable than it used to be.


Yes, but maybe the fact that technology has developed to a point where don't even need to go there to get pictures (i.e. Clementine in '94), brings up questions as to why they want to actually go back to set foot.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Adroc]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradiselost333
I was waiting for some one to bring up money! IMO its not money they have plenty of money " they might say its money" but Cmon do you realy believe that? Yea you can figure out what there budget is but are you going to honestly say that NASA is up front about finances!!


Show me specifically where they're not. I have an open mind. And sure, there are black projects. But going to the moon has very limited value, scientifically, or strategically. And from my experience, even if it is "relatively cheap" for some country like Japan or India to do a one-shot photo mission to the Moon right now, the military generally doesn't do anything just for fun. We have a few probes there or headed there to look for Helium-3, just in case one day we develop something to use it for (which we don't at the moment). That's looking for future strategic resources.

Otherwise, it's not cheap to run wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No sense wasting a lot of money on a highly visible, stationary target three days away from Earth that still takes billions of dollars to get to.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
But going to the moon has very limited value, scientifically, or strategically.



Says who? Do you know what's really up there?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adroc
Yes, but maybe the fact that technology has developed to a point where don't even need to go there to get pictures (i.e. Clementine in '94), brings up questions as to why they want to actually go back to set foot.


This is one of those things were you probably don't want to believe it until you see it. There have been Moon base plans on the books for 50 years, but until somebody is actually there growing tomatoes it doesn't mean anything. Just more plans. More bullcrap. Keeping white collar workers employed so they're not on real Welfare, or out on the streets, or selling their engineering skills to other countries. This stuff gets put in the budget, then it gets cut to show voters how frugal the Administration is. It's an old dodge.

Moon plans, Mars plans. Look them up. Then count how many actually happened.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Why is NASA taking 14 years to get Back to the Moon after already being there six times?

My guesses:

1) Problems with "aliens" on dark side
2) No money (rather spend money for something else - space missions / war)
3) They faked all Apollo missions... (I dont think so...)
4) hmmm...I dont see any other possible problems :p





[edit on 13-7-2009 by Shammael]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
That's a really nice graph - most of that I never knew , thank you


Woah Alan Shepard was 47 when he stepped on the moon - perhaps there is hope for me yet?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Adroc
 


Theres a special type of helium that you can only get on the moon. The first person to grab it will be the richest in the world apparently.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


You mean, like, grab a handful of it right off the moon?

It will take a consortium or corporation of some sort to gather the resources for that kind of venture. Ultimately, it will fall to a quasi-government effort to finance the project.....with the "backend" paid right back to the duckheads that are presently raping the middle class.....and all the other "classes".



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
As someone above pointed out, the biggest reason is a lack of available booster capacity....not only do we not have any Saturn Vs ready to fly, we no longer have the tooling or production lines to build new Saturn Vs. At this point in time, it would be easier to develop a new booster than to go back to the Saturn V.

As for using the current family of vehicles for Lunar missions, it's not fun to compare the payload capacity of the Saturn to, for example, the Space Shuttle, or the Delta series. The Shuttle can put around 60,000 lbs into low Earth orbit...the Saturn could put around 250,000 lbs there. Using the smaller vehicles makes for more complex missions (thanks to the need to coordinate multiple launches), and more expensive missions, which is what drove the development of the Saturn in the first place.

Sad to say, but we simply don't have the orbital lift capacity to re-do an Apollo mission at this point. We're having to develop a new Lunar program from scratch, and it's not nearly the high-priority item that it was in the 1960s...so it takes longer.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join