• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why go back to the moon 50 years later?

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Right, this is a good question. So our trips in the 60s-70s were to prove that we could send trained astronauts to the moon. Our mission now is to send anyone. These two missions, while similar, are very different in complexity. Further, we are exploring designs and concepts that can be expanded to other planetary bodies (Mars, for example). In the 60s, this wasn't really considered because we knew we just didn't have the tech yet.

So, why go back?
  1. We need a proof-of-concept that we can reliability send individuals into space and bring them back, safely.
  2. We want to produce and test a design that can be expanded to other planetary bodies.
  3. We want to test systems that are nearly autonomous so that un-trained passengers can safely travel in the future.
  4. It is bad ***. (arguably the most important)
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
They are almost acting as if the moon trip never happened. The mission is planned for 2024.

One of NASA's main goals for 2021 is to launch Artemis I, an uncrewed moon mission meant to show the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System rocket can safely send humans to our lunar neighbor. But first, NASA made some noise with a fiery SLS test on Saturday.


See NASA's massive SLS moon rocket fire up (and shut down early)

A waste of money IMHO. Spend it on a large space telescope and new drinking water facilities in Flint, MI, for a start.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
A waste of money IMHO. Spend it on a large space telescope and new drinking water facilities in Flint, MI, for a start.
NASA has one of the highest returns on investment for any government agency in the US.

September 16, 2014 – One of my readers shared the following infographic called NASA Spinning Off Since 1962. It highlights the inventions, discoveries and economic return on investment resulting from NASA. For every dollar invested by the government the American economy and other countries economies have seen $7 to $14 in new revenue, all from spinoffs and licensing arrangements. That amounts to in $17.6 billion current NASA dollars spent to an economic boost worth as much as $246.4 billion annually.

From the Black & Decker cordless vacuum, the Dustbuster, to ear thermometers and memory foam, we clean, check our temperature and get a good night sleep, here on Earth, on NASA-licensed spinoff technologies.

The winglet found on the wingtips of commercial aircraft today, an invention to reduce drag and improve fuel efficiency, came from NASA. Orthodontists use a translucent material called TPA for invisible braces – invented at NASA for an entirely different purpose. Farmers are using field sensors that tell them when their crops need watering – invented at NASA.
No One Should Think That Money Spent on NASA is a Waste
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
NASA has one of the highest returns on investment for any government agency in the US.


No One Should Think That Money Spent on NASA is a Waste

Thanks but I have heard it all before.

edit: what I mean by waste is spending billions of tax dollars to enable us to travel around our solar system and beyond, eventually. I just think we should get our act together here first. We are causing a mass extinction event here, for example, but are enamored by exploring the universe to see if we are alone? Insanity. I do not think we should treat earth as disposable.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
From what I've seen the SLS is a boondoggle given to aeorspace giants given its history and not cost effective.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Thanks but I have heard it all before.

edit: what I mean by waste is spending billions of tax dollars to enable us to travel around our solar system and beyond, eventually. I just think we should get our act together here first. We are causing a mass extinction event here, for example, but are enamored by exploring the universe to see if we are alone? Insanity. I do not think we should treat earth as disposable.
There is no reason why we can't do both.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
In 2010: we will return to the moon in 2020
In 2018: we will return to the moon in 2024
In 2025: we will return to the moon in 2030

:p;)
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
They are almost acting as if the moon trip never happened. The mission is planned for 2024.

One of NASA's main goals for 2021 is to launch Artemis I, an uncrewed moon mission meant to show the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System rocket can safely send humans to our lunar neighbor. But first, NASA made some noise with a fiery SLS test on Saturday.


See NASA's massive SLS moon rocket fire up (and shut down early)
International relations. This is something that everybody likes, particularly if its a joint mission with other nations. Even if its not a joint mission we still can do experiments for groups in other countries. Suppose for instance Japan wants a core sample from the moon etc. or Australia wants us to test kangaroos on the moon. We can do that.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
A reply to everyone.....
If we can use a telescopes to see galaxy's several light years away,,,, why do we need to go back to the moon? Surely we can see all that needs to be seen there being it is so close to us.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
A reply to everyone.....
If we can use a telescopes to see galaxy's several light years away,,,, why do we need to go back to the moon? Surely we can see all that needs to be seen there being it is so close to us.

The truth is that with the technology of today a human space mission can provide with more information.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Right, this is a good question. So our trips in the 60s-70s were to prove that we could send trained astronauts to the moon. Our mission now is to send anyone. These two missions, while similar, are very different in complexity. Further, we are exploring designs and concepts that can be expanded to other planetary bodies (Mars, for example). In the 60s, this wasn't really considered because we knew we just didn't have the tech yet.

So, why go back?
  1. We need a proof-of-concept that we can reliability send individuals into space and bring them back, safely.
  2. We want to produce and test a design that can be expanded to other planetary bodies.
  3. We want to test systems that are nearly autonomous so that un-trained passengers can safely travel in the future.
  4. It is bad ***. (arguably the most important)
5. Mining the Moon (and asteroids) will become profitable in the near future. Having a foot in the door is important.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A waste of money IMHO. Spend it on a large space telescope and new drinking water facilities in Flint, MI, for a start.
Maybe ambitions go farther than exploration.

There's a lot of resources out there in our solar system and I'm guessing sights on a future generation that will start to mine planets for materials. I can see the moon as a staging point.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Wasn't a major factor that the 60's mission was to claim the Moon before the Russian's got there?
ie It was political and after Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin the US was well behind in the Space Race
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
There is no reason why we can't do both.

Manned explorations are too expensive now and simply not justifiable, I think. We could afford it though if we didn't spend a trillion dollars a year on the military.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
A reply to everyone.....
If we can use a telescopes to see galaxy's several light years away,,,, why do we need to go back to the moon? Surely we can see all that needs to be seen there being it is so close to us.

False comparison. For example, we could not determine the composition of moon rocks with a telescope. We could not determine aspects of the geology of the moon with telescopes. Distance isn't the relevant factor: brightness and (angular) size is.

Also, you are *way* off in your distances and our capabilities. Galaxies are *millions* of light years away. But we don't see in as much detail at that distance as we do with things up close. other stars are light years away and we can barely get images of their planets at all (we use other techniques to show they have planets).

So, for example, we cannot see the landers from the original moon missions with any Earth-based telescope. Even turning a professional grade telescope towards the moon runs the risk of harming the telescope: the amount of light reflected from the moon would overwhelm the system.

As another example, telescopes alone produced some information about Mars, but the level of detail we got when we started sending probes was/is simply not possible with a telescope. We have learned a tremendous amount about the geology and history of Mars by actually having probes there. But the extra we could learn from having a person there goes well beyond even what a probe can do.

As another example, compare what we could see with the Hubble telescope for Pluto with what we were able to see by sending a probe past it. There is really no comparison.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Manned explorations are too expensive now and simply not justifiable, I think. We could afford it though if we didn't spend a trillion dollars a year on the military.
We can afford manned missions anyway, but is it the best use
of the money? I still favor unmanned missions & remote sensing.
Much more bang for the buck.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
We can afford manned missions anyway, but is it the best use
of the money? I still favor unmanned missions & remote sensing.
Much more bang for the buck.
True for many missions with a limited scope. But for general missions and for remote operating that can't deal with 2 second delays, you need boots on the ground.
And we'd like to know the long time effects of low gravity on the human body.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
True for many missions with a limited scope. But for general missions and for remote operating that can't deal with 2 second delays, you need boots on the ground.
And we'd like to know the long time effects of low gravity on the human body.
That is rapidly changing as computing power increases.
Humans are enormous burden in space. They're fragile
& needy things.
 
Top