The Moon: Seriously, no Revisitations in 4+ decades?

Only Russia has so far had the ability. They had an active program until 1974. The problem was they couldn't get their heavy lifting booster (the N-1) to not explode. China is so far the only other country that is getting close but does not YET have the capability.

all your bases belong to us

Why would they go back? What is there to gain? They went so they could say they had done it, done it, saw there was nothing on the moon, did it a few more times to proof they really did it and than got home. There is nothing on the moon, why would they invest billions just to go back there? Been there done that, now it is time for other things, like sending rovers to Mars.

Until last year I thought that we kept sending people to the moon fairly frequently and was very surprised that no one has been back. I guess they have finished with it or something.

I too have often wondered why they never went back.

I would have thought that each time they went they would take a few items to start building some sort of base that could be used for long term missions or launching vehicles to Mars etc, they did talk about this for a while as smaller vehicles could be used to take advantage of the lower gravity on the moon.

I would also assume the technology would improve over the years, ie a shuttle service to the Moon!

Hotels on the Moon, how about a honeymoon on the Moon!

It does seem that there is a good reason that they never went back, could be they never went, or its too dangerous for some reason.

I sure as hell would like to know the truth of it!!!

Uhh..
It's like taking a road trip in a 64 dodge from alaska to panama; costly and dangerous, and when you finally get there it's too damn hot.

[link to www.scribd.com]

The reason to go in the first place doesn't exist anymore.


They weren't "reaching for the stars", they were giving the Soviets the finger.


They tried that with the Space Transportation System.
Its development was underfunded and designed by committee.
The result couldn't do much of anything and sucked up all of the manned spacetravel funding.


There has been further exploration.
Cheaper robotic exploration from orbit.

You can't sell the idea of 1-billion-dollars-per-hour human explorers to Congress these days.

I have a hard time with this excuse. It was simply to beat the Soviets, nothing more.

How could we stop with technological progress. How could there be no more reason? If it can be done, why would we simply never do it again?

Is there any other major technological triumph that man has only done once then never repeated?

I'm not talking about technologies being lost to time. I'm talking about a major breakthrough that's then subsequently abandoned like manned-missions to the moon have been.

This sounds too apologetic to me. Nothing more to see here, let's never do it again.

Mankind has always strived to repeat and build upon its experiences. Perhaps if there had been a series of setbacks and failures, there would be a declaration that continuing exploration of the moon isn't feasible. But that didn't happen, we just stopped going. Period.



The idea is that once something is done, it is usually repeated. Especially when it's something new and truly a 'big step for mankind.' When has mankind ever abandoned something immediately after a breakthrough? So you're assumption is understandable. What doesn't make sense is the reality: that we haven't been back since the early 70s.

This may be a dumb question but assuming we went to the moon, would the US flag still be there now?

I would think that the only logical reason to think we never went back, is because we never went. And if we did go at all, I think they found something up there that they wanted to keep to themselves, whether it was some kinda artifact from an alien race, or a full blown alien creature.

Either way, its my opinion that much has been hidden in regards to moon exploration.

It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

But not a simple one.
When the Soviet Union orbited Sputnik 1 they demonstrated the capability of nuking American cities by unstoppable means.
The Americans seriously freaked out over this.
The dread of living under the permanent threat of thermonuclear annihilation is seriously under-appreciated by the generations that didn't experience it.
It was an existential crisis.

For its own peace of mind, as well as to reassert itself as the leader of the free world, it needed to demonstrate that their way of life was not only superior, but provided the means to defend it self and the West.

To do so a country needs a strong economy, top-notch scientists and engineers, cutting-edge technology (civil and military), a big, strong, world-class industrial base, and superior organisational skills.
A Space Race was the ideal non-aggressive way to not only demonstrate that the US had these things, but to also massively invest in these things, to enthusiast people about science and technology, so America would remain a strong leader for generations to come.
The American leadership understood that it would be hard and would require immensely vast resources, but that it was necessary if they didn't want to lose the Cold War.
It was a multi-faceted battle in a war for national survival.
You can always get funding for a war.

Landing a Man On The Moon, and Returning Him Safely, was picked as the finishing line of the Space Race because the Americans were confident they could not only do it, but do it before the Soviets.


We didn't.
But you're still going to need a Big Friggin' Rocket to actually get to the Moon.
A Saturn V cost something like 350 million 1960s dollars.
And those haven't gotten significantly cheaper since 1973. It'll still cost you many thousands of dollars to get a single kilo of payload into Low Earth Orbit.


As soon as Apollo 11 landed safely the Mondales and Proxmires started whining about the cost.
Several missions were cancelled.
Extended Apollo was cut down to just Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program.
The oil crisis happened.
The fucking Space Shuttle happened.
The Reagan Revolution happened.

American politicians don't see an overwhelming reason to spend humongous amounts of other people's money on anything other than bread and circuses, and stuffing the pockets of their sponsors.
America is politically dysfunctional and lacks vision.


But it was repeated six times.

Nobody builds pyramids any more.
The Chinese never again build Treasure Ships. They realised they just didn't need such ridiculously large ships.
It took many decades for humans to return to the South Pole, or the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Many things are so costly and so hard to do that people need an overwhelmingly strong reason to do them.


The technology wasn't abandoned.
Pretty much everywhere you look you'll see the products of the Cold War/Space Race.
From today's ICBMs and space stations to your PC.

Someday people will return to the Moon, but they might very well be the Chinese.
They still feel that they need to proof themselves.


Nothing worth many billions of dollars. (Yet.)
In case you haven't noticed, America's favourite national hobby is bombing brown people in far away countries, not space exploration.
NASA's budget is a pittance compared to the DOD's


Some experiences we would rather not repeat.

Civilisations decline and stop being great.
America just happens to be one of them.


But exploration of the Moon continued until this very day.
By more affordable means.

Does the concept of money confuse you?
Some things are more expensive than others.
Resources are finite.
It always boils down to the question: what do you want to spend it on?
So why don't you write a letter to your Congress critter demanding a tax hike so mankind can pursue its Destiny Among The Stars.


Make up your mind already.


Since your understanding of the politics and history of space travel is rather limited, what makes sense to you is hardly the gold standard.

And since when does human behaviour have to make sense?
It's really hard work for humans to act rationally.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 02/17/2013 04:22 PM

Given the assumption that we have not returned (which we may have in secret?) there are two possibilities:

1. We are unwilling to return.
2. We are unable to return.

THIS^^^^^^^

Couldn't agree with you more. We went to check out the structures found from the Lunar Recon Orbiter Missions and what we found would probably freak out the population.

I seriously think the moon was a staging area to terraform the planet. Crazy I know but that's my belief. So basically there are artificial structures millions of years old.

Can't embedd....someone else could though...



[link to youtube.com]

We are their alright. But we don't know because the life forms on the Moon aren't friendly. There are 100% lethal to Earth life form biological and viral lifeforms.

The strict measures to prevent Earth contamination is too great to hide.

Which is why we have an ISS. As a holding bay, astrological quarantine of sorts. Travel back and forth requires sterilization and strict health.


This is also why Moon rocks are illegal to posses globally. You will be raided for them if the big boys hear about it.

What is your evidence for this assertion?


So you don't know what you are asserting?
How is that not a fantasy?


What is your evidence for this assertion?


You mean, what you have fancifully interpreted as such.


"Astrological"

Guess we can discount your opinion on the grounds they came from an ignoramus.


More fantasy.
It's perfectly legal to own moon rocks.
If you get them yourself.

Most moonrocks were acquired by the US and the SU government.
They are all property of a government.
If you got any of these you stole them.

The people who own lunar meteorites don't get raided by the FBI.
The existence of such meteorites indicates that quarantining the Moon is pretty useless.
Nature always finds a way.

Not that we can't see that the Moon is a lifeless piece of rock anyway.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 02/17/2013 04:37 PM

Technically both are true but both could change. Currently Congress or anybody else is unwilling to pay for it. Since we stopped building the Saturn V we are unable currently because we don't have the infrastructure in place. Both could change.

Which would be the explanation for why there were two successful expeditions to the South Pole in 1911-1912 (Scott made it to the pole but died on the way back), and 44 years passed before another person set foot there?

Which would be the explanation for why the Challenger Deep was reached in 1960, and no submersible manned or unmanned returned for 35 years, and no manned return happened until just last year?

I asked this question in all sincerity and welcome all responses. But this seems a bit smug and condescending. It's almost like you have an agenda to go after anyone who questions anything about the moon landings.

If you feel you have the answers, then educate others, don't attack.

One thing I've noticed is that whenever any aspect of the moon landings are questioned, a group of people get highly emotional and go on the defense about it, under the guise of being rationale.

Now, the comments about the South Pole and Mariana Trench are interesting, but a little off base.

It's a bitch getting to the South Pole and going to those great ocean depths, just as it's a bitch getting to the moon. However, we know the South Pole doesn't look much different that the rest of inland Antarctica. And while there's much about our oceans we've yet to explore, deep sea diving is still deep sea diving.

With the moon, there's more to it than it just being far away. The ability to practice successfully putting man on non-earthly bodies could lead to further space exploration and manning of other planets and moons. We just abandoned it, that's it, man's not leaving earth ever again?

Going to the South Pole doesn't really prove anything and probably won't lead to many breakthroughs. Abandoning landing men on far away worlds seems, well, scientifically reckless.

As for Pyramids and Treasure ships, they were specific attributes of their respective civilizations. The Egyptian civilization faded, and the Treasure ships, while impressive, didn't really serve much purpose and a lot of what we know of them today might be embellished.

But landing man on the moon had the potential to lead to further progress, unlike pyramids and treasure ships. It is disheartening to simply abandon it when (if) we have the technology.

Explain why marine biologists are still arguing with Picard, then, if there is nothing to discover in the Challenger Deep. And explain why Amundsen-Scott was established in IGY 1956 and has been continuously inhabited since then if there is no useful science that can be done at the South Pole.

Be that as it may, there were multiple manned missions to the Moon that did extensive geology and left a whole bunch of instruments there -- which returned active telemetry for a decade (and passive instruments which are still in use today).

The geologic samples are still being investigated, with new scientific papers coming out every year.

And multiple nations have sent robotic probes out; both to learn more, and to stretch their space legs. Those same nations are also working up towards human expeditions; doing orbits, spacewalks, etc.

I can certainly imagine it being different, but I can't imagine a simple repeat; and certainly not by the country that already did the mission. Every single word about "learning something new," or "doing more" argues AGAINST simply sending up another two men for another short pair of EVAs.

And, yes, that is the other part of the comparisons. There was much to be learned about the antarctic. Most of it was done by flying over, and by expeditions along the shelf -- NOT all the way to the pole. The exercise of men and dogs walking in and walking out was done twice (the second team died on the way back). And that became done. It was expensive enough and grueling enough there just wasn't a huge impetus for Brazil to send a national team, or every hotshot who wanted bragging rights at the local explorer's club to do so.

No-one repeated the expedition. No-one ever walked back with a sledge and the ability to stay a half-day and collect a couple of rocks (which is what Scott did.)

Instead, a fleet of cargo planes landed on skiis forty years later, and unpacked heated shelters and a whole ton of scientific equipment and people who were willing to stay not just a day, but over the winter.

And, yes, we have faster computers, better micro-fabrication, great advances in information technology and biotechnology, but do you seriously think that for the price of an Apollo Program (in modern dollars) we could send up 200x the mass and establish a permanent presence on the Moon? And fund it? Just keeping a base supplied would be several times more costly than the ongoing wars we have.

I think comparing the moon to Antarctica and the Deep Sea trench is off base.

Would there be any need to falsify exploration of either? But the moon...ah yes.

Think how long it took just to trek through Antarctica. Discovered in the 1700s, not really properly explored until the advent of Industrial-era tools in the latter 19th century. An ongoing challenge.

Somehow, we went from having ZERO technology to put man on the moon to actually doing it in only a few years. It took 200 years and an ongoing process to learn of Antarctic. In the 1960s, we went from NO moon know how to doing it successfully.

How many men perished in Antarctica? Yet we send men far away from earth 6 times without a hitch?

And unlike Antarctica, where so many nations sent expeditions, only one nation has done the moon thing and it's been 40 years.

Yeah, BS analogies.

hey are 'nt there a few moon astronauts still alive and healthy (looks like the radiation story is bunk or they never went)

Must be possibility #1.
The fact that we HAVE the ability to reach MARS and remotely explore it, trumps possibility #2.

What was the purpose of that weird mission to "shoot" or "crash" a probe at the south pole of the moon a couple years ago? Seemed very odd...

I think comparing the moon to Antarctica and the Deep Sea trench is off base.

Would there be any need to falsify exploration of either? But the moon...ah yes.

Think how long it took just to trek through Antarctica. Discovered in the 1700s, not really properly explored until the advent of Industrial-era tools in the latter 19th century. An ongoing challenge.

Somehow, we went from having ZERO technology to put man on the moon to actually doing it in only a few years. It took 200 years and an ongoing process to learn of Antarctic. In the 1960s, we went from NO moon know how to doing it successfully.

How many men perished in Antarctica? Yet we send men far away from earth 6 times without a hitch?

And unlike Antarctica, where so many nations sent expeditions, only one nation has done the moon thing and it's been 40 years.

Yeah, BS analogies.

The government is a body of deceit to control the mind and enslave the collective consciousness. Most believe we landed on the moon because they saw it on TV. Therein lies the problem when government has no credibility.

The accepted rule applied to debating is that if you lie.... repeatedly or are proven wrong.... repeatedly, you lose all credibility in any argument.

Television is the single most powerful tool "they" use to shape our perception of reality.

The same tool utilised to fool us is defended by those it is corrupting.

The paradox is evident yet the ego prevails, this lends itself to the illusion being so powerful.

It may be possible to go to the moon.

The question of if we went in 1969 with the world in tow, watching this incredible feat in real time where absolutely anything could go wrong, rendering America the laughing stock of the planet is highly doubtful.

The fact we haven't returned, is because we never went in the first place.

It was a fantastic Hollywood production that did precisely what it was supposed to do..... deceive us in true government fashion.

For those who passionately covet the science and the NASA narrative of exactly how this feat was possible, that's beside the point. I'm not arguing that it's not possible, I just absolutely reject the belief that we went when the government said we did.

Then we move into the collage of discrepancies where 40+ years later, it's still the largest conspiracy to date.