How Come No Ones Been Back To The Moon?

[*RAGE*]

if you're not being facetious then thank you sir for being a true capitalist and american....even if you were in our ridiculously corrupt global police military

Bro, I agree with 99% of what you post, I spent ten years in the military, for the love of the country and the people I served with not the fuvkup policies the sorry ass goverment pass down....

[Kratos]

if you're not being facetious then thank you sir for being a true capitalist and american....even if you were in our ridiculously corrupt global police military

What? What does building a space station in the vision of your Star Trek fantacy using huge amounts of not private but goverment $$$ have to do with capitalism? What's the pay off? and give me a reasonable cost estimate

[JiGGaMaN]

What? What does building a space station in the vision of your Star Trek fantacy using huge amounts of not private but goverment $$$ have to do with capitalism? What's the pay off? and give me a reasonable cost estimate

the pay-off is knowledge.

[Kratos]

we expect to return to the moon in 2018 (will probably get posponed)
the cost is estimated at 104 billion dollars (if they come in on budget) if you don't think this stuff is expensive. That's to send 4 people there, what do you think a space station would cost?

[Surreal]

if we didn't give all the douchebag lazy poor people all the tax money to spit out more and more babies and sit on their asses all day we could fund it easy

I can guarantee you that a lot of people, including myself, would rather receive tax cuts than fund lunar exploration from fiscal savings generated through welfare cuts.

[*RAGE*]

I think they should make the people on walfare take a drug test, then we would have the tax cuts and send more people to the moon....I know I am tired of raising hood rats.

[Flagg]

I'm all for more space exploration, I mean I would love to see a space station of sorts on either the Moon or Mars or both within my lifetime. It would probably take something to be built on the Moon first to be able to launch some kind of mission to Mars. As for no water on the Moon, there has been theories that there might be water below the surface or near the poles. http://www.space.com/searchforlife/0...oon-water.html

However, the cost to do something like this would be phenomenal. You imagine the amount of journeys you would have to make, just to get the material up there to build something. Then you have to actually build it, and establish a environment for us to be able to survive in. Not impossible, but not cheap either. Again though, IF there is water there it would be a Hell of a lot cheaper to actually build some kind of Lunar Base. There have even been reports of building nuclear powerstations on the Moon and eventually Mars.

Something like this will eventually happen, prehaps out of necessity to expand from over-population or because we realise that trying to kill each other and claim every resource on earth for one society is futile. I mean if there is water on the Moon, it would provide a viable means of maintaining a base of sorts up there.

And what's the point? Like Jigga said, for the sake of knowledge, for the sake of exploration and expansion.

[RuhlFreak55]

Why would you ship minerals to a space station rather than whole pieces of space craft built on earth? Do you have any idea what it would cost to build a spacecraft from dust on the moon? Starting with mining. The people the structures you'd need to build. Think of what it costs to do it on this planet then multiply it by about 10,000.

On the moon there's no water, no loose gas or liquid of any kind. The vacuum on the moon is more perfect than any we've ever created on Earth. When talking about mining, we use huge amounts of water, huge amounts of power. We consume oxygen and we put out great clouds of gas. But there is no water on the moon, nothing to burn, and no power until we put it there.

Then what are you gonna fuel the shuttle with?

You're talking about shipping an awful lot of crap here. You have no hold on reality.

Kratos you're spouting stupid shit just too attempt to spite me.....the moon does have plenty of resources....just because it isn't cost effect to bring them here doesn't mean that it isn't cost effective to use them there. And the mining and everything would still be cheaper than attempting to launch a very large craft from earth....apparently YOU have no idea what kind of fuel that takes

[RuhlFreak55]

I can guarantee you that a lot of people, including myself, would rather receive tax cuts than fund lunar exploration from fiscal savings generated through welfare cuts.

bottom line is you wouldn't get it back anyway

[Kratos]

Kratos you're spouting stupid shit just too attempt to spite me.....the moon does have plenty of resources....just because it isn't cost effect to bring them here doesn't mean that it isn't cost effective to use them there. And the mining and everything would still be cheaper than attempting to launch a very large craft from earth....apparently YOU have no idea what kind of fuel that takes

why do you want to launch a very large craft anyway? Where are you gonna go space cadet?

[J-Dogg]

we expect to return to the moon in 2018 (will probably get posponed)
the cost is estimated at 104 billion dollars (if they come in on budget) if you don't think this stuff is expensive. That's to send 4 people there, what do you think a space station would cost?

We spend 48 billion a week in Iraq (if my numbers are still correct, but correct me if I'm wrong).

I think we have more to gain as a nation working to archive something....on the moon than in the arm pit of the world.

I'd rather america invest some money on things we did through the 60's and 70's instead of dumping money in other countries, we were a better nation then. We don't need a 680 billion dollar a year Military, especially if we are not constantly policing other countries.

America would greatly benefit from doing some research outside of earth. It's more constructive than playing in sand pits and burring our youth at a steady respectable rate.

[Kratos]

We spend 48 billion a week in Iraq (if my numbers are still correct, but correct me if I'm wrong).

I think we have more to gain as a nation working to archive something....on the moon than in the arm pit of the world.

I'd rather america invest some money on things we did through the 60's and 70's instead of dumping money in other countries, we were a better nation then. We don't need a 680 billion dollar a year Military, especially if we are not constantly policing other countries.

America would greatly benefit from doing some research outside of earth. It's more constructive than playing in sand pits and burring our youth at a steady respectable rate.

we're slated for a 1.75 trillion dollar deficit this year, largest ever by 4x
maybe any savings from ending the iraq war sould be used to focus on living within our means as a nation.

[RuhlFreak55]

why do you want to launch a very large craft anyway? Where are you gonna go space cadet?

large enough that it's cheaper to build on the moon and launch from there than launch from earth due to fuel consumption

[J-Dogg]

we're slated for a 1.75 trillion dollar deficit this year, largest ever by 4x
maybe any savings from ending the iraq war sould be used to focus on living within our means as a nation.

I agree 100%

Just saying we spend money on dumber things than going to the moon.

Call me selfish, but I'd rather go on vacation (IE America going to the moon)

Than

Remodel the crack heads kitchen across the street (IE Rebuild Iraq)

Because those crack heads will sell the cabinets for crack and ruin the rest.

[Kratos]

large enough that it's cheaper to build on the moon and launch from there than launch from earth due to fuel consumption

re-read that sentence
why do you want to build a large spacecraft?
where are you gonna go?
I ask this because it takes 3 years to get to Mars, and that's concidered close by scale of space.
Do you want to live on the moon or Mars?
I sure as fvck don't
Many experts think it would be a one way trip should you spend any substantial time on either. Do to them having fairly similar gravity much less than that of earth.
All that bouncing around may sound fun, until you turn into a marshmellow with extrememly breakable bones.
I'd rather we just control our population so I can live here, no place in the solar system nicer.

[J-Dogg]

re-read that sentence
why do you want to build a large spacecraft?
where are you gonna go?
I ask this because it takes 3 years to get to Mars, and that's concidered close by scale of space.
Do you want to live on the moon or Mars?
I sure as fvck don't
Many experts think it would be a one way trip should you spend any substantial time on either. Do to them having fairly similar gravity much less than that of earth.
All that bouncing around may sound fun, until you turn into a marshmellow with extrememly breakable bones.
I'd rather we just control our population so I can live here, no place in the solar system nicer.

There are faster means of travel....than rocket boosters. There are millions of workable idea's to travel much faster.

Mars is achievable in much less than 3 years.

Honestly, the raw resources of a asteriod even, could fund a lot.

I read an artical, about 2 years back a guy had was basicly pondering the idea of "floating" an asteroid back to earth. Most are made of some valuable metals and minerals, he crunched the numbers and it was actually pretty interesting.

So I'm saving my money to do it, don't steal my idea I stole from him.

[Flagg]

re-read that sentence
why do you want to build a large spacecraft?
where are you gonna go?
I ask this because it takes 3 years to get to Mars, and that's concidered close by scale of space.
Do you want to live on the moon or Mars?
I sure as fvck don't
Many experts think it would be a one way trip should you spend any substantial time on either. Do to them having fairly similar gravity much less than that of earth.
All that bouncing around may sound fun, until you turn into a marshmellow with extrememly breakable bones.
I'd rather we just control our population so I can live here, no place in the solar system nicer.

The human race are explorers by nature. 500 years ago, thoughts of expeditions to "the new world" or Australia were considered pointless, impossible and impractical but eventually Europe started to colonise the rest of the world, mostly out of necessity due to famine and a lack of resources. But the point is, what took 2 years to reach Australia before now takes 24 hours today, and with technology improving, the sky is the limit if we start exploring our solar system.

Exploration is essential to our survival in my opinion.

[Kratos]

The human race are explorers by nature. 500 years ago, thoughts of expeditions to "the new world" or Australia were considered pointless, impossible and impractical but eventually Europe started to colonise the rest of the world, mostly out of necessity due to famine and a lack of resources. But the point is, what took 2 years to reach Australia before now takes 24 hours today, and with technology improving, the sky is the limit if we start exploring our solar system.

Exploration is essential to our survival in my opinion.

well, we know a great deal about our solar system without going physically to the planet. Mars is really the most likely one we could step foot on without instant death besides the moons of planets.

going beyond our solar system with current tech is pretty much out of the question. If you wanted to go to Pluto for example. The distance from Earth to Pluto is not constant, but averages to 3.57 billion miles. The Space Shuttle orbits at 17,500 miles per hour. Therefore it would take you 205,000 hours or 8,500 days or 23 years 105 days to get there. I can't imagine anybody wanting to spend 24 years of their life riding a penis shaped rocket.

If the end result is Mars, what's the point of investing in a space shuttle factory at enormous cost on the moon. We could just as easy build a base on Mars with a bit more cost.

[Kratos]

There are faster means of travel....than rocket boosters. There are millions of workable idea's to travel much faster.

Mars is achievable in much less than 3 years.

Honestly, the raw resources of a asteriod even, could fund a lot.

I read an artical, about 2 years back a guy had was basicly pondering the idea of "floating" an asteroid back to earth. Most are made of some valuable metals and minerals, he crunched the numbers and it was actually pretty interesting.

So I'm saving my money to do it, don't steal my idea I stole from him.

yeah, there are faster propulsion methods than the space shuttle on the order of about 10x faster. No lifting ability and rely on constant acceleration over great amounts of distance and time. But sure, maybe as technology moves forward we'll get faster. Oops, we just hit a small rock in space at ridic speed, what happens to the space craft though?

Ummm, if you start propelling a large asteroid towards earth, I'm guessing the govt is going to have a problem with that.

[Flagg]

Well I think one day we'll either come up with a faster than light propulsion system, or a means of crossing huge distances in a short amount of time. I agree that it'd be ridiculous to mount a 24 year mission to Pluto, but what takes 24 years today, in a 100 years time, could take a week or day. But the first step has to be taken eventually, so why not now?

I'm sick of us spending vast sums of money on paranoid/irrational threats to our security. We should be shooting for the stars, not at each other.

[Kratos]

Well I think one day we'll either come up with a faster than light propulsion system, or a means of crossing huge distances in a short amount of time. I agree that it'd be ridiculous to mount a 24 year mission to Pluto, but what takes 24 years today, in a 100 years time, could take a week or day. But the first step has to be taken eventually, so why not now?

I'm sick of us spending vast sums of money on paranoid/irrational threats to our security. We should be shooting for the stars, not at each other.

faster than light...I'm a skeptic but whatever.
What it comes down to is we only have so much money to spend on science. If we build a huge station on Mars it takes away from other things. We're already doing an international space station to see what we can learn from that. We've got an eye on Mars and the moon but have to go about it intelligently. Not just start building huge sturctures.

If we are ever going to travel faster than light, it's going to take investments in projects here on earth. Like for example the very expensive, multi nation involved haldron colider.

It's not a one front fight to get to a distant planet if we find one that could support life. And sure, if it makes sense to colonize mars or the moon by all means do it. At this time it makes little sense to me, and those are the nicest peices of real estate we can get to other than earth. Yuck, I'd rather live in the ghetto.

[Surreal]

bottom line is you wouldn't get it back anyway

That's a cynical outlook. Regardless, net reduced spending will allow the federal gov't to issue fewer treasuries, which means paying less taxes down the road for the purposes of paying back uncle sam's foreign creditors.

[Surreal]

I read an artical, about 2 years back a guy had was basicly pondering the idea of "floating" an asteroid back to earth. Most are made of some valuable metals and minerals, he crunched the numbers and it was actually pretty interesting.

If that's in fact the case, the private sector can go right ahead and invest in this to reap the profits down the road. No need for the gov't to fund this with tax dollars.

[Voland]

Really, who wants to go to the moon? Not me.

[J-Dogg]

If that's in fact the case, the private sector can go right ahead and invest in this to reap the profits down the road. No need for the gov't to fund this with tax dollars.

You are trying to say you want to fund my operation then?

[Surreal]

You are trying to say you want to fund my operation then?

LOL, I wish. Why don't you submit your asteroid mineral extraction business proposal to some venture capital, private equity, sovereign wealth fund outfits plus an eccentric billionaire or two, and see if any of them would be interested in providing start-up capital? Given current market conditions, your idea may seem a lot more appealing to them than investing in real estate or equities!

[Tigershark]

This is me with my shinny thing, some of you wont get that..

I love the pics with the captions those made my day.

[RuhlFreak55]

We could just as easy build a base on Mars with a bit more cost.

Mars has alot more gravity to over come in a launch than the moon duh

[RuhlFreak55]

fAnd sure, if it makes sense to colonize mars or the moon by all means do it.

i already explained to you more than one reason, but you're retarded so you're not understanding

[BritishColumbian]

My friendly moon thread has turned into a name calling hate thread,

[Kratos]

i already explained to you more than one reason, but you're retarded so you're not understanding

I think you've known secretly for quite awhile I'm smarter than you.

little less than 1/4 vs a little more than 1/3 the gravity of earth. Like I said if you're shooting for minimal gravity build the ship in orbit.

If the goal is a base on mars, no need to build a base on the moon first. All the makings of a base would need to overcome earth's gravity to be sent to the moon. Just by-pass the middle man and send them str8 to Mars.

If there was anywhere we could get to worth going, we'd already be there. We're trapped on this rock for now anyway.

[Kratos]

My friendly moon thread has turned into a name calling hate thread,

so anyway the US plans on returning. Looks like 2020 now instead of the 2018 I quoted. I'm sure that will end up getting further pushed back. But before 2030 is likely.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...sa-budget.html

I wouldn't be suprized if China beats us there. So although we haven't been back, expect it in the future.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/4266340.html

[RuhlFreak55]

I think you've known secretly for quite awhile I'm smarter than you.

little less than 1/4 vs a little more than 1/3 the gravity of earth. Like I said if you're shooting for minimal gravity build the ship in orbit.

If the goal is a base on mars, no need to build a base on the moon first. All the makings of a base would need to overcome earth's gravity to be sent to the moon. Just by-pass the middle man and send them str8 to Mars.

If there was anywhere we could get to worth going, we'd already be there. We're trapped on this rock for now anyway.

no you are not smarter than me...and i'm not arguing that mars isn't a good bet....but the time line on that is a lilttle further out for sure

[Kratos]

the pay-off is knowledge.

I'm not sure that much knowlege is really gained by putting a person on the moon's surface. The Mars rover program is a bargain for gaining knowledge at 900million compared to the cost of a manned mission to even the moon. It's more symbolic than anything, we had to prove we could out spend and beat the Soviet Union.

[Kratos]

no you are not smarter than me...and i'm not arguing that mars isn't a good bet....but the time line on that is a lilttle further out for sure

they have a saying at NASA, "spending too much money on the Moon, gets you confined to the Moon."

Meaning it's fun and all, but in the end it's unlikely to yeild anything of value. Tax payers will wonder where all their money went, and NASA won't have a high budget for long. Space offers a lot to explore, and they don't want to bet too much on the moon at this point.

[RuhlFreak55]

they have a saying at NASA, "spending too much money on the Moon, gets you confined to the Moon."

Meaning it's fun and all, but in the end it's unlikely to yeild anything of value. Tax payers will wonder where all their money went, and NASA won't have a high budget for long. Space offers a lot to explore, and they don't want to bet too much on the moon at this point.

**** it then.....lets do da damn marz thing

[Matt]

Why go and explore space when there are vast amounts of the oceans left to explore..

[*RAGE*]

Me and Mad went to the moon last night

[JiGGaMaN]

I can guarantee you that a lot of people, including myself, would rather receive tax cuts than fund lunar exploration from fiscal savings generated through welfare cuts.

tax cuts only provide short term economic benefits. innovation is the key to long term growth.

[JiGGaMaN]

Me and Mad went to the moon last night

im about to blast off on a jamaican spaceship myself.