Why didn't America build a spacestation on the Moon?

[lovuian]

its been over fifty years ...

and yet we are leaving it to Russia China India and Japan

why? Theories

[Doctor Hurt]

1. too costly for resupply

and for what return?

[GoCubsGo]

4. Exactly right.

We invested in the ISS, Hubble Telescope, Mars rovers, Cassini, Voyager, and other projects instead. They have been FAR more worthwhile than a station on the moon.

[Kolesar]

18. Add: Earth-observation satellites and x-ray telescopes

I am much more in favor of that exploration than *expensive* "manned" missions.

[slackmaster]

2. Nobody wanted to make the Moon Goddess cry

:hide:

[AngryAmish]

134. It will interfere with menses

[BeFree]

3. Too far away

It's the same as why I don't live on a beach on an island somewhere around Tahiti.

And what exactly would a space station on the moon accomplish?

[lovuian]

15. we had the vision

and we had the money

or did it all get pushed to the Military

It could be our biggest mistake as a nation or was there other reasons

[BeFree]

25. Actually

What was decided was to make the earth more like the moon.
Instead of trying to send us all to the moon, we decided to develop a moonscape down here.

[Cyrano]

5. It wouldn't affect any corporate quarterly bottom line.

It's been left to those who think long term to inherit the moon. And that could be our jumping off place to the stars.

Oh, sorry. I guess I'm thinking too far ahead.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Because we never went to the moon.

I saw it on Fox! http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

In case it's necessary --> :sarcasm:

[stuckinarut]

37. Do you have any evidence that we did?

Just wondering..you know what they say about assumptions..

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. LOL

[EOTE]

62. So you missed the late 60's, huh?

Don't worry, lots of people did.

[stuckinarut]

68. Yup, too young for that.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. You mean, aside from physical evidence, or photographic evidence?

I'm sorry, what sort of 'evidence' is it you think you're not getting on this?

[stuckinarut]

69. You missed the part about how it is impossible to travel

Through the Van Allen Belts. Even if they had done it, (which would have required a much larger rocket to lift the amount of lead necessary to protect the crew from massive, lethal doses of radiation). It still doesn't explain how we "beat" the ruskies (even though they sent an un-manned probe first) there when they had 6 hours of space flight time to every hour of ours. Don't you think IF it were possible, the USSR would have done it first? I mean they had the technology, and the ability far before we did. I know these questions are only meant to cast doubt, but seriously. If it did happen, they did a piss-poor job of documenting all the trips.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. I missed that part -about the Van Allen belts- because it's bullshit.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

"Don't you think IF it were possible, the USSR would have done it first?"

No, I don't. They were ahead of us in terms of heavy lift capability in the early 60s, however, they had significant other problems with their technology. By the time Von Braun started getting unmanned Saturns off the pad; 1964, I think- we had them matched and even beat in that area. After Gagarin, increasingly their 'firsts' were desperate and dangerous stunts, like cramming 3 people in a Vokshod capsule with no spacesuits to be 'first to send 3 people in space'. They were incapable of doing actual in-orbit rendezvous and docking, unlike the Gemini program, and when they stuck Leonov outside for the first spacewalk, they almost couldn't get him back in.

Furthermore, the Soviet space program was marred by redundancy and suspicion between Glushko and Korolev... admittedly, had they been able to get the N-1 to work as designed, they might have put in a serious challenge at getting a single man on the moon around the time we got 2, but after several disastrous launch failures with the N-1, the Soviet moon programme was doomed.

So... yeah, the N-1. "Don't you think" that if 'everyone knew' that travel to the moon was impossible- including the soviets- they wouldn't have bothered building this thing?





Were the Russians engaged in an elaborate "lets fake landing on the moon" project, too? Is that the theory behind the "doubt"?

It's fucking ridiculous, Jack. WE WENT TO THE MOON, and someday, we'll go back. They did a 'piss poor job of documenting the trips"? According to whom? They brought along exactly as much recording apparatus as the technology of the day and the extremely stringent weight limitations would allow. Yeah, I suppose they forgot to bring a smartphone and a high-def video camera, but there is a MASSIVE amount of documentation from the moon trips.

You just won't find it on, say, Alex Jones's website.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/video12.html

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/video14.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/video15.html

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/video17.html

[stuckinarut]

76. You still haven't explained how it is

That the astronauts made it through the van-allen belts. Just saying it isn't important doesn't explain how they passed through these fields in a ship that was 1/8'' aluminum. http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I guess you didn't bother to read the link.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

If you'd bothered to read further in your OWN link, you might have found this:

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/FAQs4.html#q48

Are you getting your information from Art Bell, too? :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. You haven't explained why you think their flight path was a problem

Just saying "Van Allen belts" doesn't tell us anything. Given their trajectory, what it you estimate of the radiation they would receive in the Apollo craft? What effect on their health do you think it would have?

If you want somewhere to start, try debunking this: http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm

[Javaman]

130. so, where did you did you get your astro-physics PHD from? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

151. Where is your proof that travel through the VAB is automatically lethal?

Did you try to do it in a spacecraft, and now you're dead?

Because there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence- physical evidence- that we went to the moon, disproving that hypothesis. You haven't posted one single piece of evidence PROVING that travel through the VAB is impossible, beyond saying "travel through the Van Allen Belts is impossible".

So, let's see what you've got.

[RebelOne]

67. OK, if Fox said it, then it must be true. n/t

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[stuckinarut]

78. Did I mention Fox?

There are some serious questions out there, and a significant lack of data that should be present. If this was a question of ANY OTHER scientific study, with the amount of evidence presented, it would be deemed invalid.

[ZombieHorde]

112. The 'vaccines cause autism' folks in the Health Forum say the same exact thing.

The similarities between the arguments are really interesting.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. No there are no serious questions out there.

If you aim a laser at reflector placed by Apollo 15 the light bounces back. Period.

[Warren DeMontague]

153. Yes, but the data isn't all in, and there are gaps.

Just like with evolution and global warming.

:sarcasm:

[pinboy3niner]

155. Yeah, but the earth is still flat!1!!

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

150. What are the "serious questions"? What is the "significant lack of data"?

[tridim]

7. Nobody has solved the radiation problem yet.

[FourScore]

47. I love this video. Forget the title. Just watch it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM&feature=feedf_more

[tridim]

49. All astronauts have taken significant cosmic radiation

It's a risk that comes with the job.

I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon.

[FourScore]

50. I'm not saying we didn't either. I think we did. It's still a weird video though.

One I can't explain.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I'm forcing my brain cells to die just by sitting through that turd... thanks.

First off, the video title: "banned in America". Really? I'm sitting here in Oregon, which is a part of America, and I'm watching it for free on the internet. So, it's not "banned".

The first point made: Holy shit! They've got color pictures from INSIDE the capsule, but the video from the moon's surface was grainy and black and white! Conspiracy!

No, they brought along all sorts of cameras, including super 8 color cameras, apparently. However, (a point lost on people who either just fell off the turnip truck or were born yesterday) in 1969, small hand held color video cameras DID NOT EXIST. That color, conspiracy-proving footage from inside the capsule? It had to come back to earth and GET DEVELOPED before anyone could see it. The grainy black and white video from the moon's surface was broadcast INSTANTLY, and those were TV CAMERAS. Remember, in 1969, color tv was still relatively new. I realize it's frustrating that they weren't shooting in 1080p high def color as Armstrong stepped off, but it's not proof of anything except that the only camera they put outside the LM for that purpose was a b&w tv camera.

If by "weird" you mean "idiotic", yes, it's a weird video.

[FourScore]

116. So sorry to hear that! Sounds like you didn't have many to start with!

:popcorn:

[Warren DeMontague]

117. HURR

...So, wait. Really.. You 'couldn't explain' the fact that they had color pictures from inside the capsule but black and white images of the LM egress?

Really?

[FourScore]

145. I'm so glad you have a sense of humor! n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

75. CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE "MOON LANDINGS WUR FAKED ZOMG" BULLSHIT? PLEASE?

THEY WERE NOT FAKED. Yes, I am shouting.

Some idiot from Alex Jones putting up a video on youtube doesn't prove anything. The moon landings happened, and the reasons people can't accept that have more to do with a failure of imagination or a fear of the actual size of the universe, than any deep need to expose government lies IMHO.

[LongTomH]

85. The Mythbusters took this on some time ago!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mefEKqzq8cg
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfKItI-cHPM&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOv_zvM-oJQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dTATMEJSuQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Definitely watch part 5, where an observatory bounces a laser beam off the retro-reflector left on the moon by the Apollo 15 crew.

Go ahead, argue with me. I dare ya!

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Exactly.

Of course, just like with evolution and global warming deniers, no amount of evidence will EVER be enough for some people.

[FourScore]

146. If you're still not convinced...Watch this very short video....Really!!!

You won't be sorry. I promise it won't kill anymore brain cells!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0&feature=feedf_more

[Warren DeMontague]

149. That IS pretty funny.

:thumbsup:

[FourScore]

163. I'm glad you liked it!

:evilgrin:

[backscatter712]

94. Radiation problem is easy to deal with on the moon. You've got to bury your moon base.

First landings on the moon with the first moonbase components includes a lunar rover with a backhoe. Dig a deep pit. tow the modules down in the pit and hook them up, then scoop lunar soil on top of them.

Six feet or so of dirt on top of you makes a fine radiation shield.

[tridim]

144. How do you dig a deep pit into rock with a light rover in 1/6th Earth's gravity?

Much easier said than done. How do you reinforce the walls as you dig? There is no rebar and concrete on the moon.

A cave would work better if we could find a good one, but it still doesn't solve the problem of any work done outside the cave.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. Partial answer:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/13/style/13iht-moon.html

[KamaAina]

154. Better still, into the side of a crater.

Like, one of the ones wihere they found trace amounts of water, for instance.

[aaaaaa5a]

8. Aliens told us we weren't wanted there.

Do you listen to Coast to Coast AM?


They have all the answers. :)

[xmas74]

58. I used to listen to that when I worked graves.

It kept me laughing, which kept me awake for the shift.

[AsahinaKimi]

71. ah.. Richard C. Hoagland....

the memories from Coast to Coast with Art Bell...

[NightWatcher]

9. ha ha, look here Momma, this here person thinks we landed on that there moon

we all know what that am radio guy said is true. we aint never been to the damn moon

[lovuian]

10. I find it hard to believe it was the money

it cost barely nothing in terms of today

and there is the mining rites to the moon

as well as the Military advantages

[MilesColtrane]

40. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits any country from making a sovereign claim...

of property rights on the Moon.

It also prohibits the establishment of any kind of military outpost on the Moon.

[former9thward]

74. The Moon Treaty of 1979 was to be the specific follow-up for the Moon.

However no country that has a space program has signed it.

[GreenStormCloud]

160. There are no military advantages to a moon base.

The cost of mining anything on the moon would be greater than the value of the stuff that was mined.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Look at the rocket it takes to lift a tiny cramped space capsule to lunar orbit

The Saturn V rocket used in the Apollo project is on the far left.

[lovuian]

30. It seems America made some bad decisions in the past

But in separate interviews this week, all three said NASA and government leaders have not created a clear vision of where we should go and how we should get there. Space craft that would succeed the shuttle are perhaps years away from flight.

“There’s nothing next,” Musgrave said.
Musgrave says that the Space Station was a Huge error
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/shuttle_retirement_begs_questi.html


Military budget verses Space budget?

Where will America stand in Space with the upcoming nations such as China

[Mendocino]

63. It took all of that to send crew of three

and their supplies to the moon for an eight day mission. The very thin part at the top was is just an emergency rocket to lift the capsule off the Saturn V during liftoff. Then the cone-shaped capsule, the cylindrical service module below it, then the tapered section where the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) was contained. Everything below that was needed just to get the rest to lunar orbit. Only the capsule returned.

So imagine sending thousands of tons of supplies, construction material and related articles to the moon using this system. Hundreds of flights would be needed. I recall when the Shuttle was being touted it was estimated that each flight would cost in the neighborhood of $12 million. Well it cost $450 million now. So say the shuttle could do these missions (which it can't), but if it could it would cost $9 billion just to do 20 flights.

Some will say we could utilize resources on the moon to provide water, oxygen and the other raw materials needed. But they still need to be refined and manufactured and that takes machinery. Machinery is still heavy, bulky and requires humans to operate them. And humans need food, water, living space. In space travel weight is everything. The exponential increases in weight and the craft required to lift them... it just seems too impractical.

[Occulus]

103. We're not doing our launches correctly

We need a better alternative than a rocket. That's the long and short of it.

I think we should seriously start looking at the space sling. The advantage of the sling is that there's no propellant to take with you- all the thrust necessary to achieve escape velocity occurs at the launch site. Oh, sure, you can have supplemental engines, but if constructed correctly those wouldn't be at all necessary for launching supplies/satellites/instruments. I imagine you could even do manned missions using a space sling, and I think the technology exists to build one today.

It's "only" an engineering problem, in other words. "Only".

Another great option is the space elevator, but we just don't have the materials necessary for the cable yet.

[PavePusher]

114. Electro-magnetic launch catapults.

Some engineering work to do there as well, but very possible with current tech.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. No, you do need supplemental engines to get a satellite into orbit

because the fundamental idea of an orbit is that the satellite, once unpowered, returns to its original point. If you don't have a supplemental rocket engine for the last section, then it will come back to the top of your 'space sling' - or where it was 90 minutes ago; even if you don't hit the top of the sling, you're at the same altitude (and latitude), and can potentially hit it (at 17000mph) some time in the future. And, unless you build the sling to be over 100 miles high, that will also be low enough that there is significant atmospheric drag.

As far as manned missions go: say you have a steady acceleration of 5g. To accelerate to the orbital velocity of about 8000m/s, the distance you need is given by:
v*v = u*u + 2*a*s ('v squared equals u squared plus two a s')
or, from a standing start,
s = (v*v)/(2*a) = 8000 *8000 / (2*5*10) = 640,000m, or 640km

So, without a second stage rocket, your sling must be at least 640km long. And perhaps 200km high. This machine, to impart an acceleration of 5g to a capsule of a few tonnes, 200km up, is a technological feat unlike anything that's ever been achieved.

[Occulus]

125. "a technological feat unlike anything that's ever been achieved"

Yes, I know. Kind of like the LHC is today.

Like I said, it's "only" an engineering problem. Heh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. No, the LHC was easily achieved

It was just a development of earlier accelerators; it's very like earlier ones. It is not 200 times bigger than anything that existed before it (as a launch system without rockets would have to be, in height). You point out we don't have the materials for a space elevator; we don't have the materials for a 200km high structure, either. There are limits for any structure before it collapses under its own weight. For mountains, it's not that much more than Everest.

[MilesColtrane]

127. Escape velocity is 25,000mph.

A sling doesn't provide a slow steady acceleration like a rocket engine does. All of the "push" comes immediately then tapers off fast due to gravity.

No human could survive being "slung" into orbit, even if we could do it.

[GreenStormCloud]

161. Escape velocity at the launch site?? DUMB IDEA. SUICIDE.

The launch site will be somewhere on the surface of the Earth. INSIDE THE EARTH'S ATMOSHPERE.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Because we spent 10T on an Empire of Banksters instead.

[WingDinger]

13. That stupid monolith, or is it obolisk humming is worse than a cicada.

2001 reference

[Fumesucker]

14. Because then it would be a Moon colony?

:shrug:

[Baclava]

16. Budget cuts - - for funding more wars

Apollo 18, 19 and 20 were cut for Vietnam, and now I guess we lose the shuttle for our current wars.

[PuffedMica]

24. Nixon starved the space program to the bare bones because he hated Kennedy

The ramping down of the manned space program became noticeable during the Nixon Administration. He pushed NASA into the known inadequate Space Shuttle that could not exceed low Earth orbit. Space funding was diverted to programs that had maximum benefit to the military and pure research and development was left to wither away.

It is a tribute to the people at NASA to have kept the Space Shuttle flying for 30 years, well past its expected lifetime.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Apollo 18 will explain the reason

n December of 1973, two American astronauts were sent on a secret mission to the moon funded by the US Department of Defense. What you are about to see is the actual footage which the astronauts captured on that mission. While NASA denies its authenticity, others say it’s the real reason we’ve never gone back to the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F6DU6gx7-w

[Warpy]

19. Because a few rich men decided they didn't want to support the government

while they saddled us withe a bloated military budget dedicated to controlling brown people across the globe.

That's why.

[Morning Dew]

20. We'd all be living there and loving it had we only listened to the Spongmonkies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9MZNEXrElw

[Johonny]

21. there is no point? We kick ass in space contrary to popular opinion

There is nothing to do there. It costs huge $$ for extremely little benefit. All the data needed for long term space survivability could be learned for cheaper with the space station. All the science we could do on the moon we could do for vastly cheaper with robots.

Instead we built and continue to operate the best space architecture of communication, weather,mapping, science collecting, military and GPS satellites in the world. What helps you more, visions of commander cody on the moon or real science apparatus that make your life better. Imagine Katrina without the weather satellite data. We don't suck when it comes to space.

[NorthCarolina]

22. We did have a space station called Skylab. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. Because, ultimately, there isn't anything to do on the Moon. nt

[lovuian]

27. Nothing????

there is NOTHING on the moon?

Fascinating thought

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Not much, in many respects

You can do some 'geological' research. There is one form of proposed nuclear fusion reactor that would need helium-3, and the moon seems to be the best place for that. If you wanted to send a huge amount of spacecraft to Mars or beyond, there could be a case for doing some of the fabrication and fuelling on the Moon, since it takes less energy to escape its gravity than from the Earth's surface.

But to do those last 2 would require a huge investment in equipment - far beyond anything ever attempted by any country in anything, ever.

[lovuian]

32. It seems China wants to go to the Moon and we do not

Chang`e 1 Lunar orbiter was launched to the moon on October 24. 2007. The Chang`e moon satellite will take 3-D images of the moon surface for a year. This is the groundwork for the next Lunar Lander project in 2012. Lunar Sample Return in 2017 and the Chinese astronaut on the moon project. Chang`e 1 Lunar orbiter will achieve the ancient dream of the Chinese. which will bring to the world not a threat but opportunity. not war but peace.

if China reaches the moon ....will they build a base?

http://www.china-corner.com/article_list.asp?id=987
The Chang lunar orbiter
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ia4h1rKanAQ/SrpGFCrJIgI/AAAAAAAAAss/zOb_78VTG7Q/s400/earth+great+wall+from+the+moon.jpg

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. A base? Incredibly unlikely

It is a far larger effort to build a base. To assemble a space station, you can send bits up one at a time, and slowly manoeuvre them together; it takes much more energy to send something to the Moon, and then getting it precisely where you want it, without hitting a bit of the station that's already there, would be incredibly difficult (you'd probably have to build some kind of transportation system to retrieve parts from a landing area some distance away).

Being in orbit gives you a zero gravity environment, which is very interesting for some types of experiment; the Moon just gives you less gravity than Earth, so it's not really quite as interesting. There's not so much to be gained from having a permanently-manned presence there.

[Occulus]

105. Doesn't the Moon make a good jumping-off point for other places, though?

I'm thinking the asteroid belt. If any nation decides to build a base on the Moon, their ultimate goal is either Mars or the Belt.

We need fusion power first for the engines, though, or the round trip takes years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. And the point in large scale expeditions to Mars and the asteroid belt is ...?

I'm not saying that no-one will put a base on the Moon, or Mars, in, say, a thousand years. But we have more pressing scientific problems on Earth - like how to slow down and reverse global warming. My answer was about what China is planning to do. No-one is making plans to use fusion power yet, on Earth or in space, because it's a huge technical challenge.

[Occulus]

126. Mining.

There are lots of resources in the Belt- some of the asteroids out there are so metallic they shine.

And there are several projects currently underway to develop fusion power, the Navy-funded Polywell project being only one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. And which metals, or other resources, are in critical shortage?

Such a shortage that you'd spend trillions on obtaining them in large quantities from an asteroid, rather than mining them on the liveable Earth?

Oh yes, we have fusion projects. We've had fusion projects for decades. They'd help solve global warming - if they work within the next hundred years.

[Occulus]

131. You're very pessimistic about space in general, aren't you?

All you've had to say to me on this thread is can't/won't/mustn't/don't.

Do you have anything good to say about space exploration?

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. Earth observation is one of the most important areas of science we are doing now

Satellites are vital for it. Robotic exploration of various bodies in the solar system is relatively cheap, and is what is needed to find out if there will be good reasons for trying to exploit space. A space elevator is something to aim at (the materials will doubtless have many applications elsewhere). I'd love to find out if there ever has been (still is?) any form of life on Mars or anywhere else.

But the effort in building permanent habitats on other bodies, or systems that span a sizeable part of a continent or ocean to allow easier launching is a matter for another century. We've got to be realistic about what we can achieve in the near future.

[PassingFair]

39. Well, I've heard there's a restaurant up there, but critics said it was no good because it has...

NO ATMOSPHERE.


Thank you, I'll be here til Thursday!

[customerserviceguy]

51. Now that was funny!

I don't care who you are!

[krispos42]

87. There actually was a teen-orientated book about that

http://www.amazon.com/This-Place-Has-No-Atmosphere/dp/069811695X


I read that in middle school.


Damn, where did that memory pop up from???

[slackmaster]

34. Well, there's always hitting a golf ball

But that's already been done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZLl3XwlAIE

[zappaman]

26. because it's not a rock

it is an alien spaceship in disguise that keeps the Earth under quarantine.
at least that's what I read on the internetz.

[Soylent Brice]

28. THEY'RE GONNA BLOW UP THE MOON!!!11!111ONES!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5861623

:popcorn:

sorry, i had to...

[backscatter712]

96. I remember that. COMEDY GOLD!!! n/t

[Occulus]

106. *sigh* I miss Omega Minimo

:rofl:

Nope. Couldn't say it with a straight face.

[JVS]

29. Because we plan on blowing it up.

Besides, a space station is more useful in orbit.

[Long Shadow]

33. We would still be waiting for the environmental impact study.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. 44 million Americans getting food stamps currently and you want

us to build a space station on the moon?

[PavePusher]

82. Tech spin-offs from the space program have generated far more revenue

for the government than we spent on the entire program, not to mention pushed much of our economy.

[immoderate]

90. Nonsense.

Nothing comes from the space program. It is developed for the space program, by earth scientists, in earth labs, with earth dollars. The revenue, if any, comes from demand by the earth public that provides the economics of scale that accelerates tech development.

GPS and weather satellites are nice, but they didn't require a space shuttle or manned space station. And they don't justify a colony on the moon. The manned space program is nothing more than a publicity stunt. What would be the purpose of a lunar colony? (Military is banned by treaty. There's nothing there we need. :shrug:)

Priorities. Why isn't the DSCOVR climate satellite in the L1 position, instead of being in a warehouse for a dozen years?

--imm

[PavePusher]

102. Please see post # 101. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

99. This particualar urban legend, that the space program and its ilk

have produced more economic benefits than their costs, ignores the reality that 1 in 7 Americans are currently living in poverty and 44 million Americans are currently receiving food stamps.

Now if you have some hard and fast social science that proves that the space program has spurred more economic growth than its costs, why then please provide the citation. Otherwise, enough with the silly urban legends.

[PavePusher]

101. Not urban legend, and not silly.

Google term: "economic benefits of space exploration"


http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/economics.html

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=6290

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

http://thehill.com/special-reports/technology-july-2009/50201-numerous-benefits-of-space-exploration

http://socyberty.com/future/the-benefits-of-space-exploration/

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/why-space-exploration-is-worth-the-billions-spent-towards-it/

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7164226.html

http://www.emc-mec.ca/phev/Presentations_en/S08/PHEV09-S08-5_LouisGrenier.pdf

http://www.helium.com/items/1808090-benefits-of-deep-space-exploration

http://www.problem-solving-techniques.com/US-Space-Program.html



And that's only about 2/3rds of the first two pages. I left out some Fox News reports and some other obscure stuff. There's some very good reading there. If you can refute this stuff, please post your arguments and evidence.

[immoderate]

104. This stuff is mostly garbage.

They say, "If we don't explore space, we can't have colonies!"

Which one shows the benefits from the shuttle and ISS?

Where's an assessment of a moon colony? What will be the return?


--imm

[PavePusher]

107. Wow. Did you actually read any of the material?

It would seem not.

Some horses you just can't lead to water.....

[immoderate]

108. Yes. I read some of it, not all of it. What I read was science fiction...

You need to discern real science from fiction.

The space shuttle and ISS served no commercial purpose. Supposedly, the motives were scientific. Yet no science has been produced by manned missions since Apollo. If there is any, I'm sure you could point me to it.

A colony on the moon is similarly pointless. Again, what would it's mission be? Can we make money there? What would we want to learn?

Do you have any idea the cost of accelerating tons of shit to escape velocity with current technology? No, I'm sure you don't. Part of being smart is picking your shots. It's not time.

--imm

[PavePusher]

113. "What I read was science fiction..."

Sorry, if you can not discern reality from fiction, then I can not help you.

Good luck in your future endeavours.

[immoderate]

141. Well, at least you didn't try. Your premise is wrong. Your conclusion is my point.

The reality is you couldn't cite a single scientific benefit from the shuttle program, could you? :shrug:

The links you posted talked about populating other star systems. That's not science fiction?

Instead of dumping a load of crap for me to plow through, why not point out the one that you think scientifically justifies the shuttle program?

--imm

[WatsonT]

135. Good point. Let's stop all progress until we have solved 100% of our social problems

researchers, go ahead and take off for the next couple of months until we wipe out poverty, racism, illiteracy, crime and the like.

[stuckinarut]

36. Because we never went...

I still don't understand how humans could survive the journey in an aluminum can 1/8'' thick travelling through BOTH Van Allen radiation belts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belts .

Among other shoddy evidence, a few (obviously staged photographs), the fact that ALL flight data has gone missing, and the fact that aside from the Apollo missions, no mission from ANY country has ever even claimed to go near the radiation belts...I have my doubts.

Call me a kook if you want, but I am not convinced either way.

[slackmaster]

38. OK, you are a kook. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[BOG PERSON]

44. agreed, they staged the moon-landing

[Javaman]

138. You honestly believe that.

really?

You really honestly truthfully believe it was a complete hoax?

And you base this on your PHD in astro-physics, right?

[Javaman]

137. So where did you get your doctorate in Astro-Physics? nt

[Cereal Kyller]

42. 1969 wasn't "over fifty years" ago

Thus, you have answered your own question: We lack the math skills! :rofl:

[RevStPatrick]

43. No, but Kennedy's speech...

...imploring us to get a man to the moon and back again safely was over 50 years ago.
That's when it really began.

What I don't understand is this...

Our military is really little more than a giant money suck. It's purpose is largely to build hugely expensive things that if they get used at all, get used by being destroyed. And then they have to build another one.
Why can't the rich people who are ripping off our tax money through the military do it through the space program instead? At least that way their ripping us off may have some kind value, rather then just killing people?

[Cereal Kyller]

81. My God, you're a Commie!

Ha! Just kidding! I too wish the space program was recognized for all the positive contributions it has made.

[RevStPatrick]

121. Awww... why'd you take back the compliment?

I have lived a commie lifestyle.
It was a hippie commune in the Haight-Ashbury.
Total income sharing, no personal wealth accumulation, all possessions held in common (although yes, we had our own frikkin' underwear. everybody asked about the frikkin' underwear. what's the fixation on underwear?), we ran our business like capitalists and spent the profits like communists.

So yeah, I suppose you're right. I am a commie!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

45. Why don't they build a bridge to the moon?

It would take a while but it would be worth it, imho.
You could charge a toll, too. Then you could do whatever
you want to up there, colonies, vegetable gardens, factories,
everything lighter and bigger because of the gravity and
clean air, no bugs, no chemicals, no crowds. It would be
beautiful, too, lighted up at night, the Moon Bridge.
It would inspire us to keep going into the future and unplenish
the imagination to roam free.

http://randomperspective.com/?1news169

[LiberalAndProud]

46. We lacked the national will.

Of course you know the argument, how can we justify spending money on the space program when we have homeless and hungry right here at home.

That view wasn't confined by party affiliation. Space exploration has always been viewed as a luxury we could ill afford. Only the fact the Russia launched Sputnik prodded us to reach the moon in the first place.

[immoderate]

53. It would be the most expensive project ever undertaken. And no return!

Go USA! :patriot:

--imm

[PavePusher]

83. See post #82. n/t

[Taverner]

52. Because there's no oil on the moon, silly

If they ever discover it, however, expect the USS Haliburton to be there toot sweet

[customerserviceguy]

54. There are a number of reasons

First, while the space race was clothed in all kinds of Christopher Columbus exploration BS, it was nothing but a proxy war with the Soviets. Alarm about Sputnik propelled the national will to "beat the Russkies", no matter what it costs during the prosperous time of the late 50's and throughout the 60's. Winning the race by having Neil and Buzz walk at Tranquility Base was cathartic, it was a war victory without too many body bags. We'd no sooner go back to the moon than we would go back to Vietnam.

We had the money to do it then, Vietnam's costs didn't come through until after the Apollo missions had been planned and contracted for. We hit a nasty recession in the early 1970's, as the first oil price shock from OPEC dried up our ability to do showy projects. Future recessions completely crippled our ability for grand schemes.

Finally, we went from a "science is our salvation for the future" mindset to "science and technology hurt the Earth" frame of reference. Ironically, it was the image of the planet Earth from Apollo 8 that was iconic in that shift. Seeing the home world from a distance gave us a perspective that we never had before. Grab a look at advertising from the 1958-1969 period, and see all the references to "Space Age" this-and-that, and look how it dried up after the first Earth Day.

[Odin2005]

59. Yup, we haver many idiots here that are against any space exploration for that reason.

Several posters have consistently called Humanity a "cancer" and it would be a "tragedy" if that "cancer" spread out from earth.

Misanthropists suck.

[customerserviceguy]

61. Yep, I've seen that, too

The meme went from, "People cause pollution," to "People are pollution." Doesn't sound progressive to me.

[Odin2005]

64. Misanthropy is inherently reactionary.

It is associated with RW views of humanity being innately evil and needing strong, authoritarian social control to keep us out of "sin". Such attitudes are common among people like St. Augustine that are debauched hedonists in their youth and then turn into puritanical self-hating crazies. Many Boomers took the same path, not surprisingly. The puritanical misanthropes today are the ones that were into Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll back in the 60s and 70s.

[immoderate]

91. What other species pollutes?

:shrug:

--imm

[boppers]

120. Algae blooms toxins, herbivores pump out methane...

What species *doesn't* pollute might a harder question.

[immoderate]

143. Without farming and fertilizers that wouldn't be a problem.

What you cite results from human industrial activity.

--imm

[Recursion]

123. And we tied up our $ and energy on the boondoggle known as the space shuttle

A reusable orbiter sounds great on paper, I suppose, but it probably set back space exploration by decades.

[customerserviceguy]

157. It was part of the "Earth Day" mentality

The 'recyclability' of the space shuttle was an enormous selling point for it in the 1970's. That didn't seem to matter when we were hell-bent on beating the Russkies to the moon.

[Obamanaut]

55. Are there any poppy fields to bomb? nt

[roamer65]

56. Because of massive military budgets.

The Vietnam war and the other wars since then have drained trillions of dollars that could have been spent on space and other more pertinent needs.

Military spending killed the USSR and it will kill the USA as well.

[Odin2005]

57. because the PTB saw no use after we beat the Russians to the Moon.

[Major Hogwash]

60. Zoning regulations were too restrictive. Another sign our government is too big!!

Moon buggies had to be parked in the garages at night.
Rovers were not allowed to be parked out on the street for longer than 24 hours.
Buildings all had to be colored in moon tones so they wouldn't clash with future neighbors.
No pets were allowed.
And you know that really pissed off Ceiling Cat and the Pussy Coalition she belonged to.

[Evoman]

65. Because it's useless.

There is nothing on the moon that is worth the investment. If anything, the money spent on a moon base would be better used researching and developing something like a space elevator. Hell, even a Mars mission would at least be useful in a "world wide morale" sort of way.

Space exploration is fascinating, and I wish we could pool our resources to give people a basic living, and use the extra minds and resources that we are wasting on consumption and wrecking the planet on space exploration. However, people have watched too much sci-fi and don't get the logistics of space exploration. Space is huge, and if we ever want to expand, it would take every person on the Earth working together. How many people would put aside their greed and material comforts so that humankind would have a chance in this cold universe?

No one here, I bet.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

70. I want to expand with everybody in this cold universe.

But I can't do it alone. What are the logistics?

[spin]

72. Useless? It's possible that the moon holds the solution to our energy needs....

Mining The Moon


An Apollo astronaut argues that with its vast stores of nonpolluting nuclear fuel, our lunar neighbor holds the key to Earth's future. However, before we mine it, we'll need to determine who owns the moon?

A sample of soil from the rim of Camelot crater slid from my scoop into a Teflon bag to begin its trip to Earth with the crew of Apollo 17. Little did I know at the time, on Dec. 13, 1972, that sample 75501, along with samples from Apollo 11 and other missions, would provide the best reason to return to the moon in the 21st century. That realization would come 13 years later. In 1985, young engineers at the University of Wisconsin discovered that lunar soil contained significant quantities of a remarkable form of helium. Known as helium-3, it is a lightweight isotope of the familiar gas that fills birthday balloons.

Small quantities of helium-3 previously discovered on Earth intrigued the scientific community. The unique atomic structure of helium-3 promised to make it possible to use it as fuel for nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, to generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive byproducts produced in conventional nuclear reactors. Extracting helium-3 from the moon and returning it to Earth would, of course, be difficult, but the potential rewards would be staggering for those who embarked upon this venture. Helium-3 could help free the United States--and the world--from dependence on fossil fuels.

Read more: Mining The Moon - Rare Minerals - Helium 3 - Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056

[immoderate]

92. Solar power not good enough?

There's plenty of it. It will be ready long before we mine the moon for isotopes of He for some fusion reactor that has not been theorized yet.

Popular Mechanics predicted flying cars and jet packs for the 1980s.

--imm

[Morning Dew]

93. Wait! They're already mining HE3 on the moon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4h3LaTAcj4&feature=related

They're just doing it on the other side.

[Evoman]

100. Well, geez, that's great....now all you need to learn is how to contain a fusion reaction.

The problem with mining the moon is the same problem I have with mining the Earth....we use our resources on all the wrong things. We use valuable aluminum to make one time soft drink containers. We wreck the world for gold and diamonds so we can have baubles on our wrists and fingers. We extract polluting gases so that we can have the energy to drive to our useless pathetic jobs, making useless pathetic shit, and providing useless pathetic services. We take from the Earth to make shit we don't need, which ends up in a landfill a year later.

Yes, why don't we mine the moon so we can build more useless shit.

[immoderate]

109. A good summary of things humans do.

We invented pollution! :nuke:

--imm

[cottonseed]

84. It's kind of a stupid idea.

I'd rather send satellites and robots to the further reaches of space. Spend that money on higher powered telescopes instead.

[krispos42]

88. Because establishing a base would be hugely expensive.

Everything would have to be pushed up out of Earth's gravity well by rockets and extremely expensive equipment.

And that's HARD. It would take hundreds or thousands of pounds of spaceship and fuel to put one pound on the Moon.

And living on the Moon would be very technology-heavy. You can't just head out with your family, some livestock, and a wagon full of tools and start farming in a crater; you have to do everything in a space suit with NO natural resources available to help you.

No water. No air. No soil. Lots of radiation.


It would take a massive effort to get enough people up there with enough self-sufficiency in power, water, food, and manufacturing so they could maintain themselves.


Now, this effort would be noble... I mean, hell, we spend more on air-conditioning for our combat troops (over $20 billion) than on NASA ($18 billion), but it would be very hard and very slow and very expensive.



I figured the best place to put a colony would be in the permanent shadow of a polar crater to protect it from 370-hour days and solar radiation, then have mirrors on the rim to reflect sunlight into the colony for 12 hours a day so the plants and animals could keep their rhythms intact.

:shrug:

But that may not be possible due to eccentricities in the moon's orbit.

[Amaya]

89. because we never went

:)

[pokerfan]

95. The shuttle doesn't fly to the moon

The ISS was created to give the shuttle something to do. After it failed to compete with expendable satelite launch systems, it had nothing to do.

[backscatter712]

97. In theory, the shuttle could have carried a lunar vehicle in its payload bay...

Though it'd take several trips up, and the mission would have to be assembled in orbit - there's a reason why the Apollo missions had to go up on the Saturn V, which was enormous. Probably most of the weight would be fuel, so maybe it could be the Shuttle that delivers the transfer vehicle and the lander to orbit, then an unmanned rocket could bring up a big tank of fuel.

A little late for that now, though I suspect we could find a cheaper and more effective way to get to the moon if our politicians would pull their heads out of their asses and fund NASA well enough to let them do something useful.

[pokerfan]

98. LEO rendezvous & assembly was also a Constellation lunar design

I guess if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. The shuttle just makes it even worse because after you've spent all the energy to launch the orbiter plus whatever is in the cargo bay, the orbiter (i.e. most of the LEO payload) returns to earth. Incredibly wasteful. You want to go to the moon, you build a moon rocket. You want to go to Mars, you build a Mars rocket.

[Romulox]

110. To what end? nt

[Supply Side Jesus]

111. Cuz those damn clones kept figuring everything out, which fucked up everything!

stupid asshats

[ChoppinBroccoli]

115. I Thought They Built Two

Moon Unit Alpha and Moon Unit Zappa

[Recursion]

122. Huge cost and risk with little to gain

Though I suppose you could say that about all space exploration.

[CBGLuthier]

124. The moon was a cold war illusory goal post

We shot. We scored. We beat the dreaded reds.

It served its true purpose which was the development if the ICBM.

What's not to understand?

[WatsonT]

136. Because it would be a moonbase, not a space station

Also because the soviets didn't.

[Kaleva]

158. Unless one crashes the space station into the moon.

[WatsonT]

159. A blatant attack by the moon-people, and casus belli for war!

A good war with the moon might distract people from domestic problems and unite the various factions here on earth.

[Javaman]

139. This post certainly brought out the DU luddites. nt

[whistler162]

140. After what happened in 1999 as shown in the documentary

Space: 1999 what did you expect!

[Freddie Stubbs]

142. The Cybermen or Ice Warriors would only attack it

[NeedleCast]

147. Science Doesn't Get Votes

This is 'Murica, FFS. We don't need those book learnin' interlecturals here!

[Baclava]

148. 140 Saturn V launches would have done the trick....Project Horizon (1959)

9 JUNE 1959
PROJECT HORIZON REPORT

A U. S. ARMY STUDY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A LUNAR OUTPOST



A. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This part of the study presents applicable technical information which substantiates the feasibility of the expedited establishment of a lunar outpost, and it relates U. S. capabilities and developments to the accomplishment of the task It is comprehensive in its scope, covering the design criteria and requirements for all major elements of the program including the lunar outpost, the earth-lunar transportation system, the necessary communications systems and the considerable earth support facilities and their operation. The technical assumptions concerning design parameters for this program are realistic yet conservative. Likewise, the assumptions which concern the scope and magnitude of other U. S. programmes which will support HORIZON are reasonable and in line with current and projected programs.

B. RESUME OF THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM

The basic carrier vehicles for Project HORIZON will be the SATURN I and II. The SATURN I, currently being developed under an ARPA order, will be fully operational by October 1963. The SATURN II, which is an outgrowth of the SATURN I program, could be developed during the period 1962-1964. The SATURN II will utilise improved engines in the booster and oxygen/hydrogen engines in all of its upper stages.

By the end of 1964, a total of 72 SATURN vehicles should have been launched in U. S. programmes, of which 40 are expected to contribute to the accomplishment of HORIZON. Cargo delivery to the moon begins in January 1965. The first manned landing by two men will be made in April 1965. The build-up and construction phase will be continued without interruption until the outpost is ready for beneficial occupancy and is manned by a task force of 12 men in November 1966.

This build-up program requires 61 SATURN I and 88 SATURN II launchings through November 1966, the average launching rate being 5. 3 per month. During this period some 490,000 pounds of useful cargo will be transported to the moon

During the first operational year of the lunar outpost, December 1966 through 1967, a total of 64 launchings have been scheduled These will result in an additional 266,000 pounds of useful cargo on the moon

The total cost of the eight and one-half year program presented in this study is estimated to be six billion dollars. This is an average of approximately $700 million per year. These figured are a valid appraisal, and, while preliminary, they represent the best estimates of experienced, non-commercial, agencies of the government. Substantial funding is undeniably required for the establishment of a U. S. lunar outpost; however, the implications of the future importance of such an operation should be compared to the fact that the average annual funding required for Project HORIZON would be less than two percent of the current annual defence budget.

(much more)


http://www.astronautix.com/articles/prorizon.htm

[TNLib]

156. No profit it in. if they discovered oil on the moon we'd be there

nt

[TBF]

162. I'm fine with doing that - AFTER we feed, clothe, and provide

jobs/housing for ALL on earth. Then we can move on to the moon.

Unrec for cold-war mentality being resurrected for some odd reason...