Is it even possible to go to the Moon?, page 13

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Why have they or anyone else not gone "back" to the moon? At all, ever? Not even a little bit. Wouldn't you be interested in other parts of the moon?

I most certainly am interested in other parts of the Moon. I'd love nothing more than to see a return to the Moon. Preferably a permanent one at that. But for the last 30 years, NASA hasn't had a spacecraft that they could return to the Moon in. They have the knowledge and technology to return to the Moon, NASA just lacked the money to design and build a new spacecraft to get us there while still operating the Shuttle. Only within the last few years have they been getting that money and they're now building the Orion MPCV. Once built, it will be able to travel to the Moon as well as to any NEO's.

It's extremely ignorant to even suggest for one moment that "all the moon is the same" or "seen it done it". Who ever would say such a thing has a an extremely closed mind wouldn't you say?

I agree. It is really ignorant to make those kinds of claims, but sadly some people use that as a reason not to return and some of those people happen to people who have some political power.

If we (humans) had done it, every country with a desire to explore would have done it or would be still doing it, the moon is a awesome place to visit (i hope).

How would all these other Countries go to the Moon? Where would they get the money? Simply having a desire to go to the Moon isn't enough. China has a desire to go to the Moon and they have the money, but they are taking their time and slowly working towards it. The current plan has a manned landing some time in the mid 2020's.

Originally posted by UB2120
Ok, if I am misunderstanding please explain how an Astronaut's shadow can get longer/shorter in length when only walking a few feet?

Looking at the photo examples, the shadow is going down a slop away from the view of the camera, thus it appears to be short and cut off. The surface of the Moon is not flat at all, it's very undulated.

(I know this is getting off topic a bit, sorry DJW)

reply to post by jra

---

Thank you for your reply. One of the more polite responces. Cheers.

What has been bugging me though is, why then havent they just used the old design rockets and pods etc and given them a revamp......surely if old technology worked first time it would suitable nowadays? And what's more really cheap!? Tried and tested method.....so to speak?

Surely in todays USA building one rocket to blow the sh2t out of helpless women and children is just like building another to go to the moon. Yes, i know it's a little more money but surely they would want to make all kinds of films and studies. Mearly bringing back a few rock samples and saying "well, there you go, the moon is made of that" is not good enough. Our planet has so many examples of rock and minerals that we are finding new stuff all the time.

It's just sad that "if" they went, there is no other visual proof other than a couple of sh2t films and photo's.
How much was the whole deal?

Apollo spacecraft: $7,945.0 million
Saturn I launch vehicles: $767.1 million
Saturn IB launch vehicles: $1,131.2 million
Saturn V launch vehicles: $6,871.1 million
Launch vehicle engine development: $854.2 million
Mission support: $1,432.3 million
Tracking and data acquisition: $664.1 million
Ground facilities: $1,830.3 million
Operation of installations: $2,420.6 million

The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.

And they still couldn't take some decent footage?

Interesting to note Apollo spacecraft $7,945.0 Million. In 2011, it was estimated that a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs $830,000 (£500,000).

Mmmmm?

reply to post by CaptainBeno

---

There is PLENTY of "decent footage".....

And they still couldn't take some decent footage?

(might wish to start HERE.)

(Sorry, DJW001...it HAD to be said.......)..........

reply to post by CaptainBeno

---

The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973.

Do not forget about inflation.

In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Maslo

---

$170 Billion for an old tech rocket?

reply to post by CaptainBeno

---

Exactly what is different today?

Its that same old tech lifting payloads off the ground.

reply to post by DJW001

---

I don't at all want to disagree with you, but I have to say, I have no personal experience with the Van Allen belts or how to safely pass through them. That makes it much more difficult for me to so confidently say that it's as simple as having gas money to take a trip to the moon. While i trust that the science behind what you say is genuine and correct, there must be a number of unaccounted for variables that change the severity of the effects of radiation when passing through the Van Allen belts. Of course solar flares come to mind. Most scientists of any discipline related to the subject readily admit they can not predict how or when solar flares strike. Making it impossible to gauge what amount of protection would be necessary on any given trip.So how can you be so sure that the shuttles we use would be adequate in protecting the Astronauts inside them? And I think it is also important to keep in mind the amount of trips that have been taken, and with several chances for solar flares to play a part each trip, wouldn't it make sense that a few American Astronauts have been caught in the Van Allen belt at the wrong time? And, assuming that is correct, why haven't we ever been made aware of such a situation?

reply to post by bryanfcall

---

You are making assumptions about something you have admittedly said you know very little about.

Please do some research about the Van Allen belt, how far it extends out enveloping our little jewel of a planet, why this cozy little bubble of naturally occurring electromagnetic force-field generated by our planet is lopsided, and why indeed is it a force-field, as well as how it protects us and why?

Questions to ask and find answers for during your research:
What IS radiation?
What are the differences between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation?
What is radiation made of?
What is the concentration of whatever radiation is made of around the Van Allen belt?
What is the concentration of whatever radiation is made of outside of the Van Allen belt?
Are these concentrations constant or variable?
At what concentrations do these concentrations become dangerous to humans?
How can one protect against these concentrations, here, on earth, in a controlled environment?

Is it true that Alpha particles, though radioactive aren't energetic enough to even break through naked skin?
Is it true that Beta particles, though more energetic than Alpha can be shielded against by a thin layer of tinfoil?
What about X-Rays, and Gamma?
What are the concentrations of all these different types in comparison to each other in what areas of space surrounding our planet in space?

Knowledge is power, and when you have the answers, you have something to work with, and maybe even a good argument.

Sure, learning all that stuff won't be easy, but, Nothing worth having should ever be expected to be easy.

Cheers!

reply to post by nineix

---

Yes and I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but America gained it's spot as "superpower" by doing exactly what those people did. stealing from other countries, or simply taking advantage of any situation that put us in a position to benefit. We need to use the people that know how to do that, because our own govt. no longer does, if we are to somehow turn our economy around and begin to prosper again. Not to do so will simply put us in a position to watch our "empire" slowly disappear piece by piece, like every other "empire" before us.

reply to post by nineix

---

And isn't the more important question, "Why bother going back to the moon?" We've been there. A recession isn't the best time to take a very expensive trip to a place we've already been, when, by all accounts, there is absolutely nothing to gain by doing so.

reply to post by bryanfcall

---

I think you meant 'piece by piece', because 'peace by peace' would be rather nice, and peaceful.

What you're proposing is economic warfare and subterfuge for the prosperity of one select group.
This is abhorrent, and offensive.
If money needs get got, it needs get got for the whole planet without special entitlement for select groups and nations. If we all prosper, we all win.

reply to post by nineix

---

And you want to compare Bernie Madoff and George Jung to people that steal and reappropriate trillions of dollars? I don't see much of a comparison. And Bernie Madoff was used here to illustrate the point. Let him steal from others. I'm relatively certain the C.I.A. and N.S.A. can keep track of where he puts his money. They already found it once. He wouldn't be so quick to hide it when he'd be a hero instead of a criminal this time. and George Jung simply imported a product with a very high demand. He never forced anyone to buy coc aine that didn't want it.

reply to post by nineix

---

You can't get money for the whole planet. It's not possible. If it was we would all live in a super happy utopia with no need for dissent or poverty or war or religion. There is a finite amount of goods and services that can be traded. One group always benefits from the loss of another. Do you want to be part of the group that benefits or loses? I'd rather be part of the group that benefits. And I don't care if that's offensive. Matters of money are almost always offensive if one person gains more than another. And what is this peace by peace thing? I don't see it.

reply to post by nineix

---

And by the way, what do you call wal-mart? The federal reserve? China's ultra-low priced inferior product that most Americans can't stop themselves from buying? How about a minimum wage thats only a third of what you'd need to live on comfortably? Its all financial warfare. What other kind of war is there?

reply to post by nineix

---

And what is in that bubble in the first example of your art? is it a camera or something? I can't make it out.

Hubble\'s Hidden Treasures - Incredible views of the Universe
  Posted 17 days ago with 40 member flags

Curiosity "ChemCam": 5 little holes and one strange object nearby...
  Posted 15 days ago with 24 member flags

Mars curiosity Sol2 Anomalies
  Posted 11 days ago with 22 member flags

Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?
  Posted 0 days ago with 22 member flags

Mars: Fears Curiosity Will Contaminate Planet
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags

Curiosity sends back first high- resolution colour picture of Mars+First voice ever heard on Mars
  Posted 14 days ago with 20 member flags

Milky Way in detail.
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags

Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: