Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 246 posts

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#71

Post by nunobrito »

This will go on until one day a large enough government admits that moon landings back in the 60s/70s were filmed, instead of real.

The large majority of people here are based in facts instead of religion and dogmas. As a fact-based society, we should be able to look from a distance and re-evaluate the facts with a colder perspective.

From what I observe, every year we are either 5 year away from settling on the moon (or Mars), every year there are nn reasons why it didn't happen (loop and repeat since the last 50 years).

Very few doubt the fact that selfies of astronauts smiling directly at the sun are possible (without injury).

Very few wonder why the first landing was a success, right on the first try even as other agencies (SpaceX) iteratively fail on the first runs.

Very few ask why the the original recordings don't exist any longer, only botched TV recordings.

The effect of radiation outside the earth shield is simply too strong. We have always sent animals during any space milestone before humans. Look up what happened to them, if you can find the records.

I'm an engineer. If possible, would like to see humans on the moon during my lifetime. Instead, we are taught that the sun orbits around the earth and burn apostates on the public square. We can do better.

Happy 2018! :-)

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#72

Post by aurizon »

They need driverless, conductorless subways/trams in enclosed tubular right of way with passengers entering from one side and exiting from the other, via offset doors. Think of the days when you had elevators with operators who were paid for pushing the floor number for you - (a carry-over from the cable-pull hole in the wall days when operators were needed.) These trams were killed by the wages of the operators, in much the same way that modern subways are ruined costwise by the wages of the drivers and conductors who each have hourly wage costs of $50 or more = large ticket costs and avoidance to car use. In effect opportunists grabbed all the $$

In the moon race, NASA is so burdened by legacy wages and other costs AND the fact that Congressional opportunists grab the money that NASA was prevented from that course.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#73

Post by ourmandave »

nunobrito wrote: post #71

This will go on until one day a large enough government admits that moon landings back in the 60s/70s were filmed, instead of real. The large majority of people here are based in facts instead of religion and dogmas. As a fact-based society, we should be able to look from a distance and re-evaluate the facts with a colder perspective. From what I observe, every year we are either 5 year away from settling on the moon…

You forgot the /s

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#74

Post by golergka »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #58
jpatokal wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic trams and modern light rail are different beasts. Trams were popular worldwide back in the days where automobiles were far too expensive for most people and buses hadn't taken off yet, and since they were the only practical means of transport for medium distances, even small cities had massive ridership. They also ran right on the road, sharing space with cars, which was OK because there were a lot less cars…

Yes, that's a very good summary of what happened. I'm aware of those factors, but I still think we took a wrong turn. Maybe not in the US due to the population sparsity and sprawl, but in Spain and many other European countries, if we could connect every town or city of more than 10K people by either rail, light rail or tram (instead of having spent billions on highways), that would cover 80% of the population. A lar…

> A large majority wouldn't need a car, and could instead use Uber-like services for the last mile.

They wouldn't need it, but I bet that majority would still want it.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#75

Post by johnminter »

The author answers the question in the first sentence. It is not that we can't, the problem is that it is not cost effective to do so. Or, as the cliche goes, "It's all about the Benjamins".

The inconvenient truth is that the US has a national debt of over $21T and a federal bureaucracy with a reputation of being unable to bring projects to completion on budget. Think of this in a more personal context: you need to plan to support yourself in your old age (retirement). Your lifestyle depends on a successful return on investment. What percentage of your savings would you invest in this? Where does this fit on your hierarchy of "needs" vs "wants"?

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#77

Post by stupidcar »

johnminter wrote: post #75

The author answers the question in the first sentence. It is not that we can't, the problem is that it is not cost effective to do so. Or, as the cliche goes, "It's all about the Benjamins". The inconvenient truth is that the US has a national debt of over $21T and a federal bureaucracy with a reputation of being unable to bring projects to completion on budget. Think of this in a more personal context: you need to p…

Your analogy makes no sense. America isn't a person, doesn't have a limited working life, and isn't going to "retire".

The solution to an inefficient federal bureaucracy and a large national debt isn't to cut economically irrelevant spending in those areas where the US enjoys an actual advantage over other countries. It's to improve the bureaucracy and balance spending in meaningful ways.

Unfortunately, any sane attempt at improvement is blocked by "small government" Republicans, who deliberately impede evolutionary improvements in government functioning in the hope that, by forestalling them, they can hasten some future libertarian revolution, wherein it becomes politically possible to eliminate all social programmes altogether.

In order to maintain their false image as being in favor of fiscal constraint, these same Republicans attack easy targets like NASA. At the same time, they protect insanely profligate projects like the F-35 fighter, which provide essentially socialist redistribution to defence contractors in their own districts. In your flawed comparison, it'd be like someone complaining about his children's spend on candy, while buying a dozen broken Ferraris every day.

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#78

Post by jandrese »

kalleboo wrote: post #59
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #50

This seems to happen to a lot of things. In my city (random Spanish mid-sized city, around 250K population) there is often debate about building a light rail or tram public transport line. But it is always dismissed by the administration for being too expensive, pharaonic, disproportionate for a city of this size, etc. Doing some research on the history of the city, I discovered that not only there were several tram…

I lived in a Swedish city of a similar size. They had a tram network that was dismantled bit by bit until it was completely shut down in 1973 because it was seen as unmodern. And now 40 years later they're all talking about building trams again since they're so modern...

Even in the US you see this. There was a light rail line[1] that ran west from Washington DC connecting several small farming communities in the early 1900s. It was dismantled and turned into a bike trail and now we are spending billions of dollars[2] to build a Metro expansion parallel to the old rail line.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_and_Old_Dominion_Ra...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/02/1...

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#79

Post by JumpCrisscross »

badminton1 wrote: post #19

Because the Apollo Program happened during Bretton Woods, a period of time where America had virtually infinite money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege#Oppositio...

> Because the Apollo Program happened during Bretton Woods

We are still under the Bretton Woods system, more or less. Almost 2/3rds of foreign currency reserves held by central banks are held in U.S. dollars [1]. If anything, real interest rates are lower today than they were in the 1960s.

[1] http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2017/03/31/pr17108-IMF-R...

Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?

#80

Post by dmead »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #50

This seems to happen to a lot of things. In my city (random Spanish mid-sized city, around 250K population) there is often debate about building a light rail or tram public transport line. But it is always dismissed by the administration for being too expensive, pharaonic, disproportionate for a city of this size, etc. Doing some research on the history of the city, I discovered that not only there were several tram…

many places in the US are like this as well. trains used to criss-cross many cities and towns, but those lines have since been paved over for roads or just fallen out of use altogether.
Post reply on HN