# If we could land on the Moon 35 years ago, why can't we now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 21, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243 "2004-07-21T20:51:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JimMacMillan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7bcc69/32.png) [@JimMacMillan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimMacMillan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/21 "2004-07-22T03:32:52Z")
The Chinese Are Going. Here is a short story from [Space Daily](http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030916112710.3lssg42r.html). Jim ---
**Author:** ![RandomLetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8edcca/32.png) [@RandomLetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandomLetters)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/22 "2004-07-22T04:30:57Z")
With ten years, a couple hundred billion dollars, and a “who gives a damn” attitude to the enviroment, the US could put a 10 thousand ton craft with a hundred people on board in orbit around Jupiter. (Project Orion anyone? 🙂 ) All that is lacking is the will to explore, and public interest. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/23 "2004-07-22T13:49:29Z")
> [@PussyCow](#): > > I think, though, that the point about launching from orbit is that once you’re out of the irresistable influence of our planet’s gravity, you don’t need much fuel to get to the Moon… In Low Earth Orbit (LEO), about 500 km up, the typical altitude for the Space Shuttle, you are not in any way “out of the irresistable [sic] influence of our planet’s gravity.” The Earth’s gravitational force of attraction at this altitude is about 86% of the value on the surface. The real advantage of starting a journey to the Moon from LEO is that a space vehicle in orbit has, of necessity, a great deal of orbital speed. ---
**Author:** ![PussyCow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/22d042/32.png) [@PussyCow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PussyCow)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/24 "2004-07-22T14:12:39Z")
> [@JimMacMillan](#): > > The Chinese Are Going. Here is a short story from [Space Daily](http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030916112710.3lssg42r.html). > > Jim And I would _not_ be surprised if Bush made his announcement that we need to return to space in order to prove our “superiority” to China. The man pisses me off. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/25 "2004-07-22T14:18:27Z")
> [@robby](#): > > The real advantage of starting a journey to the Moon from LEO is that a space vehicle in orbit has, of necessity, a great deal of orbital speed. And doesn’t have to be built to withstand a launch from within the atmosphere, i.e. no need for heavily protected pointy rocket. ---
**Author:** ![slu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/74df32/32.png) [@slu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slu)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/26 "2004-07-22T14:41:53Z")
> [@JimMacMillan](#): > > The Chinese Are Going. Here is a short story from [Space Daily](http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030916112710.3lssg42r.html). > > Jim This article is from Sept 2003. I don’t remember hearing that the Chinese sent a man into space…did it happen? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/27 "2004-07-22T15:06:36Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > What is the payload of the shuttle compared to a Saturn V? Wouldn’t you have to haul a hell of a lot of fuel to orbit in several shuttle trips? The Saturn V could place 118 tons into LEO (low earth orbit). The heaviest payload carried by the Shuttle is about 20 tons. At 4 launches per year (pre-Columbus launch rate) it would take a year and a half to place 120 tons into orbit. ---
**Author:** ![JimMacMillan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7bcc69/32.png) [@JimMacMillan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimMacMillan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/28 "2004-07-22T15:35:43Z")
> [@slu](#): > > This article is from Sept 2003. I don’t remember hearing that the Chinese sent a man into space…did it happen? Not yet but I am waiting 🙂 If you do a search for “Chinese Space Programs” you will find some chinese sites with anticipated launch schedules. Jim ---
**Author:** ![micco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f8ce5/32.png) [@micco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/micco)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/29 "2004-07-22T15:44:36Z")
> [@PussyCow](#): > > And I would _not_ be surprised if Bush made his announcement that we need to return to space in order to prove our “superiority” to China. The man pisses me off. We went to the moon the first time to prove superiority to the Soviets. Did JFK piss you off too? Apollo was not about high-minded science and exploration. It was politics and we just happened to get some cool science out of the bargain. If Bush made his announcement in response to the Chinese, all that proves is that we are as low-minded now as we were then. No better maybe, but certainly no worse. ---
**Author:** ![InvidiousCourgette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47c2d/32.png) [@InvidiousCourgette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InvidiousCourgette)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/30 "2004-07-22T15:55:29Z")
> [@JimMacMillan](#): > > Not yet but I am waiting 🙂 If you do a search for “Chinese Space Programs” you will find some chinese sites with anticipated launch schedules. > > Jim It happened last year. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3193548.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3193548.stm) ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/31 "2004-07-22T16:28:43Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > At 4 launches per year (pre-Columbus launch rate) I meant pre-Columbia, of course… I suspect the pre-Columbus rate was a bit lower. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/32 "2004-07-22T16:55:21Z")
Another reason why it’s harder to fly to the Moon now - we don’t have the same tolerance for risk we had in the Apollo era. Those missions accepted huge amounts of risk - it’s really amazing that no one died since Apollo 1. Apollo 13 was almost lost. There were other glitches and problems that were solved in flight during the Apollo era. Also, another reason why it’s going to take longer to go back to the moon is that we want to go back in a more ambitious way this time. The Apollo hardware was incredibly cramped for three people, and the LEM was made largely out of glorified tin foil. Fuel margins were on the order of seconds. Everything was shaved to the bone to make the flights happen. Now we want to go back with hardware large enough to allow more like six people to live on the moon for extended periods of time. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/33 "2004-07-22T18:48:19Z")
> [@PussyCow](#): > > … once you’re out of the irresistable influence of our planet’s gravity, If it’s “irresistible” how can we “get out”? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![PussyCow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/22d042/32.png) [@PussyCow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PussyCow)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/34 "2004-07-22T19:33:21Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > If it’s “irresistible” how can we “get out”? > > 😛 Oh our planet’s gravity is so cute, I could just eat it up! ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/35 "2004-07-22T19:44:48Z")
> [@PussyCow](#): > > Oh our planet’s gravity is so cute, I could just eat it up! Ya’ll will have to change your member name to **Black Hole** if you do so. 😉 Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/36 "2004-07-22T20:02:43Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > …Another reason why it’s harder to fly to the Moon now - we don’t have the same tolerance for risk we had in the Apollo era. Those missions accepted huge amounts of risk - it’s really amazing that no one died since Apollo 1… On the same note, there were some interesting quotes in a recent [AP news story](http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040720_2518.html), comparing the Apollo-era NASA to the NASA of today: > [@](#): > > Norman Chaffee, 67, who worked on the spacecraft propulsion system, noted, "There was much less bureaucratic oversight at that time. People generally felt like if it made sense, go ahead and do it. > > “We were much less risk averse. Now with the Challenger accident and the Columbia accident and some of the other things, we have become so risk averse that we don’t dare do things,” he said, adding: “The key is to take responsible risks.” > > Randy Stone, deputy director of the Johnson Space Center, said many things made the Apollo era easier than today for space projects. “We were in the Cold War,” he said. "We were in a technological race that most people believed we could not afford to lose. > > “The naysayers didn’t have as much influence,” Stone said. “It was still hard to get money, but it wasn’t near as hard as it is today.” > > …Stone said accomplishing something great, however, is difficult regardless of the era: “Technical things and things where you are putting people’s lives at risk are tough at any time.” > > …Milt Heflin, chief of JSC’s Flight Director Office, said taking a man to the moon was the “gutsiest thing that we have ever, ever done.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/37 "2004-07-22T21:47:40Z")
> [@robby](#): > > The real advantage of starting a journey to the Moon from LEO is that a space vehicle in orbit has, of necessity, a great deal of orbital speed. Well, there may be an additional advantage, if some sort of lunar industrial plant can work autmatically to harvest materials and fuel from the local minerals. It would require big advances in robotics and AI, as well as getting a nuclear reactor to the moon (to supply power during the two-week night) but it could be done. ---
**Author:** ![PussyCow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/22d042/32.png) [@PussyCow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PussyCow)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/38 "2004-07-23T13:29:03Z")
Just to let you know that NASA is working on missions where the goal is to prep for future robotic _and_ human landing missions. This is from a current NASA Announcement of Opportunity: > [@](#): > > The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) solicits proposals for measurement investigations to be carried out by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission to obtain those measurements necessary and sufficient to characterize future robotic and human lunar landing sites and to identify potential lunar resources, with emphasis on applied science/engineering assessments. The LRO mission is expected to carry a variety of instruments and to be launched in the fall 2008, with a prime mission phase in lunar orbit of at least one Earth year. The launch services and spacecraft will be NASA-provided resources. Proposals in response to this Announcement of Opportunity (AO) will be due 90 days after its release, and participation in this AO is open to all categories of organizations domestic and foreign. ---
**Author:** ![trupa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@trupa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trupa)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/39 "2004-07-23T16:26:16Z")
> [@micco](#): > > We went to the moon the first time to prove superiority to the Soviets. Did JFK piss you off too? Apollo was not about high-minded science and exploration. It was politics and we just happened to get some cool science out of the bargain. If Bush made his announcement in response to the Chinese, all that proves is that we are as low-minded now as we were then. No better maybe, but certainly no worse. Indeed. I read an excellent colum recently (wish I could remember where :smack: ) that said FEAR was the main reason the US government decided to go to the moon. Fear that, with the Soviets having Sputnick, and orbited a man first, all the smaller nations of the World would see that as proof of the superiority of the Soviet communist system, and would be more likely to gravitate to the eastern block. It is depressing as hell to this doper that the the cold war, and some version of the Domino theory, that essentially a giagantic pissing / dick measuring contest, were responsible for this achievement. :rolleyes: I was glad the chinese started a similar space program. The current American administration appears especially prone to these types of contests, if I may say so as a Canadian. Hopefuly the next one will be as well… ---
**Author:** ![bughunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243/40 "2004-07-23T23:34:27Z")
> [@PussyCow](#): > > Just to let you know that NASA is working on missions where the goal is to prep for future robotic _and_ human landing missions. This is from a current NASA Announcement of Opportunity: Actually, we just submitted our letter of intent. It was due Monday. But don’t feel left out! Because you can still submit a proposal, they just won’t guarantee you a fair evaluation by qualified reviewers. They need notice in order to put the review teams together. But if you want to try, the proposal due date is September 17th. It’s a very The LRO mission is intended to characterize the lunar poles: terrain, radiation environment, solar illumination patterns, locations (if any) of surface water ice, and perhaps to survey other minerals. It will fly in a 30-50km polar orbit around the moon, and have a mission life of 1 year. Depending on the kinds of instruments they pick to fly on it, the at end of life they’ll either raise the orbit, or lower it, whichever will work better. Cool, eh? We haven’t had this much fun since Clementine! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-we-could-land-on-the-moon-35-years-ago-why-cant-we-now/256243.md?page=1)