What evidence leads you to believe that nasa is currently run as efficiently or as innovative as during say the first half of Apollo. Everything I’ve heard from people who worked there is that it’s generally become more and more of nightmare
If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
11–20 of 246 posts
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#12THere is little POINT in putting a man on the moon after you've done it. We have plenty of moon rock to run experiments on. Any micro/low gravity experiment can be run cheaper in LEO. There aren't any valuable resources there to exploit. It's a bit like asking why we don't build a habitat on the bottom of the Marians Trench - we COULD, but why WOUDL we?
Because it's awesome. :)
I mean, we burn piles of money just for fun. May as well burn a pile of money to put someone on the moon again. Doing it just because we can is a fine reason.
"Still got it!"
One tweak, though. Rather than forcing them to find a reason to go, i.e. gathering moon rocks, they should just let the astronauts play around. That's the goal. Go there, then turn on a webcam and romp around for a few days.
That would get the world thinking. And that'd be pretty cool.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#13THere is little POINT in putting a man on the moon after you've done it. We have plenty of moon rock to run experiments on. Any micro/low gravity experiment can be run cheaper in LEO. There aren't any valuable resources there to exploit. It's a bit like asking why we don't build a habitat on the bottom of the Marians Trench - we COULD, but why WOUDL we?
Lunar resources could have great value just by their location. The energy cost to lift them into space is much lower than from Earth. Doing anything ambitious in space would require a lot of material, which has limited our ambitions since the 1970s. (Asteroids might serve better, though: a wider variety of stuff, comparable in energy cost but farther away.) I wish the damn article would link to this new report, or at…
>Doing anything ambitious in space would require a lot of material, which has limited our ambitions since the 1970s.
We go to the moon because materials are cheap because... we want to build what?
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#14We can't because the USA prefers to create more bombs and other war machines rather than invest in science.
We would never have done it the first time if not for military competition with the USSR.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#15THere is little POINT in putting a man on the moon after you've done it. We have plenty of moon rock to run experiments on. Any micro/low gravity experiment can be run cheaper in LEO. There aren't any valuable resources there to exploit. It's a bit like asking why we don't build a habitat on the bottom of the Marians Trench - we COULD, but why WOUDL we?
Because it's awesome. :) I mean, we burn piles of money just for fun. May as well burn a pile of money to put someone on the moon again. Doing it just because we can is a fine reason. "Still got it!" One tweak, though. Rather than forcing them to find a reason to go, i.e. gathering moon rocks, they should just let the astronauts play around. That's the goal. Go there, then turn on a webcam and romp around for a few d…
We already have good reasons though. Starters would be to prep a moon base and see how structures handle being constructed on the moon and how they fare.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#16What evidence leads you to believe that nasa is currently run as efficiently or as innovative as during say the first half of Apollo. Everything I’ve heard from people who worked there is that it’s generally become more and more of nightmare
You ask for evidence, then follow up with "I heard from people..."?
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#17Because capitalism, as religion while in its optimization frenzy- cripples the ability's of mankind? Reaching the moon already was only done to compete with a faction outside the reference system. Without commies to race and lean against, the western system decayed to just another nice decorated, well managed cotton plantation.
There is no price on the far future events, such as bollide strikes. If there where, suddenly the moon would have holiday resorts.
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lunar resources could have great value just by their location. The energy cost to lift them into space is much lower than from Earth. Doing anything ambitious in space would require a lot of material, which has limited our ambitions since the 1970s. (Asteroids might serve better, though: a wider variety of stuff, comparable in energy cost but farther away.) I wish the damn article would link to this new report, or at…
>Doing anything ambitious in space would require a lot of material, which has limited our ambitions since the 1970s. We go to the moon because materials are cheap because... we want to build what?
An industry in space.
To send larger probes around the Sol system. To build larger orbital laboratories, LEO or otherwise. To build all supporting infrastructure for that. To manufacture things that benefit from microgravity conditions (like optical fibers, see [0]) to be used both on Earth and elsewhere. To enable large-scale Mars missions, including eventual habitation. To eventually access more raw resources than we've ever imagined.
--
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#19Because 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...
Re: If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can’t We Put a Man on the Moon?
#20NASA can’t put a man on the moon, but Elon soon will make putting two lambos into lunar transfer orbit with the falcon heavy
You sure it's not Tesla Roadsters?