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: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
It takes so long because they have to retool from the shuttle program to build a different configuration manned launch vehicle. A large amount of the old system was built by subcontract companies, and much of the details were lost over time. There is a whole infrastructure that has to be retooled, re-tasked, and retrained to shift to a different vehicle of that complexity. For example, the old transports that were used to move the stages are gone, and the vehicle assembly building and launch pads are now set up for shuttle ops, etc...

These things are not civilian aircraft where there are thousands of them run off a assembly line. They are the most complex custom built flying craft ever. Everything has to be precision, custom made for them. The equipment to make those parts has to be built, the men who build those parts have to be trained, the infrastructure to move those parts has to be rebuilt, the facilities to assemble the completed vehicle has to be reconfigured, and so on...




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Fake Moon missions of old men who could keep their mouths shut.

Nobody has been there. Men have not walked on the Moon.

We have been waiting on robot technology to do the job for us.

The early space program was more of a close-to-Earth mission of spy satellites instead of a far away Moon walking mission.

When they are fully prepared to put decent robots on the Moon they will fake an extraordinary manned mission tragedy and then sweep in the robot astronauts and claim that space is just too dangerous for men. The robots will be unlike any you see today. They will be very productive, not just gee whiz toys.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Why has NASA not been back to the Moon, and why will it take so long for them to get back up there? The answer is that they are a bureaucracy, and thus they have always been subservient to both Politics and Congressional Funding/Approval. The NASA of the "Golden Era" back in the 1960's was a NASA of amazing minds, talent, and ingenuity, and they were amongst the top recipients of tax payer funding, and public support. However, after only visiting the Moon a handful of times, Congress conveniently decided that the citizens of America had ceased their interest in the missions, and consequently media coverage waned, funding dried up, and the talent present soon began to age and retire, and/or move on to the private sector.

Now, we are capable of technology far in advance of what we used back in 1969 to make it to the Moon, but we have to start from scratch in terms of the Talent, Ingenuity, and Directive required in order to make Lunar Landings a fact again. NASA currently does have much of the aforementioned, but they have to organize and fund such with their renewed goal in mind. They can do it, but only with our full support.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer


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.



Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969, 8 years after President Kennedy's famous speech in 1961 ,in which he proposed to send a man to the Moon and return him safely within the decade. and you are telling me that its takes that much longer in this day an age to build a new program? If that is the case(wich i do not believe it is) they need some new talent like they had back then! I think there are other reasons besides money and booster power


[edit on 13-7-2009 by paradiselost333]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


I watched a documentary showing that people already have the plans on the drawing board for the entire operation. Apparently this helium stuff is way better than crude oil as a fuel.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
This one is so simple I hate to admit it. Its called politics. We could have gone back to the moon and stayed there at the cost we have paid in being in Iraq for one month. It makes me sick. The future is for those who explore, leave Iraq and other nations to solve thier own problems. We could offer aid, but no more.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by paradiselost333
 

Back then we only ever ran a single program at one time, and each built on the preceding one. First Mercury, then Gemini (which really ran a lot of the testing for Apollo), then finally Apollo. Even then, the rockets were similar in basic configuration, they simply got larger and had more stages. Right now we have an entirely different style of spacecraft which is still being supported and holding up our ability to go onto the new one. The only way they could run both of these programs simultaneously would be to build a second assembly building, new pads, and other supporting architecture. ATM the shuttle is still required for support of the ISS, until all the heavy lifting is finished with that.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

Actually I think its even simpler then that...
Compared to war there is much less profit to be had by anything on the moon, without a major outlay of investment. Why spend a few trillion dollars to make a few billion, when you can spend a few billion and make a few trillion. Money is always the bottom line in this world.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
There is one simple reason, and that is they forgot how to go back to the moon!

NASA Forgot How To Go Back To The MOON!!

All the credit goes to Zorgon the genius in my OP!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradiselost333

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer


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.



Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969, 8 years after President Kennedy's famous speech in 1961 ,in which he proposed to send a man to the Moon and return him safely within the decade. and you are telling me that its takes that much longer in this day an age to build a new program? If that is the case(wich i do not believe it is) they need some new talent like they had back then! I think there are other reasons besides money and booster power


[edit on 13-7-2009 by paradiselost333]


That's *exactly* what I'm telling you.
Look at a much simpler project...the F-22 Raptor. It took almost 20 years to get from a request for proposals to production on something as (relatively) simple as a twin-engine fighter aircraft. The F-35 is on track to take as long, or longer. Given that kind of performance, I'll be stunned beyond belief if it *only* takes fourteen years to get back to the moon.

Now, if we could convince Congress and / or the Executive branch that it was as vital to go to the moon *now* as it was perceived to be in the '60s, and got the same sort of huge-budget crash program that led to Apollo, we could probably return to the moon in less than a decade. Unfortunately, manned space flight just isn't important to the folks that hold the purse strings...they have other votes to buy...errr...I mean pork to procure...errr...take three...I mean PROJECTS that are more important than the final frontier. Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see Gene Krantz and his crew (even at their current ages) given a blank check and a green light...but it isn't gonna happen.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5


reply to post by arbiture
 

Actually I think its even simpler then that...
Compared to war there is much less profit to be had by anything on the moon, without a major outlay of investment. Why spend a few trillion dollars to make a few billion, when you can spend a few billion and make a few trillion. Money is always the bottom line in this world.


People make investments based on the long term results. All early exploration did not produce profit for decades. Those with vision will know they may not live to see the long term results, but they know it will be worth it. The moon offers a lot of money in a short period of time. For those with the will and ability to get there again. The nice thing about going back to the moon is its vacant. We won't need gunships to take it over, but cargo ships. A pristine site that goes to the highest bidder, those who take the risk. I made many investments in my life, most paid off.

Going back to the moon will cost a fortune, and I have bet its right thing to do.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


The problem is getting anything back from the moon in any quantity at a reasonable price. If you notice, most of the returning spacecraft are bare minimum weight wise when they reenter.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
huggs everyone,,,


it was more politics involved when we did go there....
also,,,i feel it was really pushing it as well for safety at the time,,,

not cheap either,,,

nasa as well now gots many many projects that they are working on,,, to silly things to major...
probes and rovers,sattlelites,mars,jupiter,,,etc,,

the budget is tite,,,even if the budget doubled,, I would still go with probes and sattlelites to other planets for quite sometime still,,,


even if the president said here is 1 trillion and go to mars,,,
i would initiate think tanks/engineers/scientist for 3-5 more years befor I even started to build the ship for it...
or consider just sending a few more sattlelites and 2 dozen rovers instead...
that would be a spendy price tag....

nasa does need a tune up about its honesty!!!!
borderline overhaul...!!

I wish there was more of a public feeling of pride about exploring space....

huggs all!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
This time NASA is going to establish a permanent presence on the moon, so much detail is needed as well as surveying. In advance of manned missions NASA has established the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program which will take about a decade to accomplish. The objective of this program will be the establishment of the International Lunar Network (ILN). The ILN will consist of about 8-10 nodes which will be used as sites for manned missions. The placement of these nodes is critical and as of yet the locations have not been determined.

Future moon stations could be powered by a fission-based surface power system known as the Stirling engine. This would provide about 40 kilowatts of power per node, roughly 400 kw of power generation for the entire ILN. This would provide an ample power base to begin an indepth manned exploration of the moon.

As may be evident, this is an international venture and will be directed by NASA's Lunar Science Institute. The space agencies from Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom are the only ones participating at this time. Oddly enough the Russian Federation is not participating. Instead the Russians are planning an independent mission called Luna-Glob, which will deploy 12 seismometers in lunar penetrators establishing a global-lunar array by 2012.

Because there is almost a complete lack of co-operation between the world's two largest space agencies gives one reason for pause. Are there military advantages to be had by dominating the lunar surface and lower lunar orbit? At present, I can imagine about a dozen significant strategic advantages in dominating the moon's surface and lower orbital space.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by arbiture
 


The problem is getting anything back from the moon in any quantity at a reasonable price. If you notice, most of the returning spacecraft are bare minimum weight wise when they reenter.


Your argument is well spoken, but I stand by my view its still worth it. As for cash needed to get into space, we had a better way in the early 1960's with the X-15 program. In truth they were the first into space. We beat the Russians by almost nine months. Sticking people on top of a ballistic missle does come across as very bright.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Technically, the X-15 did make its pilots into astronauts, but only barely. They broke the 50 mile limit, however if you ever watch a shuttle video from the cockpit, you will see that they have quite a ways to go from the 50 mile limit to orbit. You have to go DOUBLE that to make LOW earth orbit...Going higher would require more Delta-V, which requires more fuel, thus requiring a larger aircraft, thereby increasing the weight, thus needing more fuel....etc..... The X-15 was only able to make its altitude by piggy-backing on a B-52.

Orbit Altitudes

It would be awesome if planes could make it into space, but the Delta-V (weight/fuel) is just not there yet...


[edit on 7/14/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Logan
There is one simple reason, and that is they forgot how to go back to the moon!

NASA Forgot How To Go Back To The MOON!!

All the credit goes to Zorgon the genius in my OP!


Imo, that is one of the best theorys I have seen on this thread..
"They just forgot" cause maybe they never went



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Why? Alright. I'll tell you why.

The Democrats were in charge when THEY FAKED the Moon missions.
The Republicans know that the Democrats were playing a little to far ahead of the technology game and now we wait....



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
I watched a documentary showing that people already have the plans on the drawing board for the entire operation. Apparently this helium stuff is way better than crude oil as a fuel.


Well, it is if you have a fusion reactor. Which nobody does. So its value at this point is debatable.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
well they will need one serious force field to get through the radation belts, 6 feet thick walls of lead seem excessive but thats the math. to protect you against the Gamma and XRays and only god knows what else.

*the space shuttle went real deep on one mission and they started getting white outs or white flashes inside their brains... (thats what I recall from an article). and then you have the moon missions hoax video's..
I don't know, they may just release a UFO that we figured out how to use.
or its a replica flying object., the smaller the energy source to more energy derived... onc gasoline molecule has more power than say a liquid gallon... so anything is possible with quantum physics.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by BornPatriot]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join