1.) The space program in the 1960’s was largely driven by
a desire to compete with the USSR. With the goal of reaching the Moon reached, the Russians largely conceded the race. It was the last great milestone in the Cold War race for space. With the Russians beaten, the public lost intrest and NASA found it’s funding in jeporardy.
2.) The Apollo missions were a series of expensive one-off’s. The landers cost a fortune, and brought back very little. To go to the Moon in force would have been terribly expensive, especially considering the public’s lack of interest, and distraction with Earthside problems. (Vietname-anyone?)
3.) Fearing the loss of funding, NASA pins it’s hopes on the Space Shuttle, as directed by Nixon in 1972. The shuttle is supposed to be cheap (never has been) and reusable (yes) and quick to turn around (no). After 9 years of development and cost overuns STS-1 finally takes off in 1981. The Challenger accident in 1986(?) sets the program back by at least 1-2 years and doesn’t help NASA’s funnding any. Remember Christa McAuliffe was supposed to be the first “normal” person in space.
4.) The partener to the shuttle was supposed to have been a space station that would be a gateway back to the Moon, and later to Mars. But since the Shuttle took 9 years and was so costly, the station is only getting built now, with international aid, and in a far less grand style. So, we may go back, but it’s been a hard road, with public interest so lukewarm.
They went a bunch of times. It’s just been a while since the last one. Why? Well it couldn’t have been cost, that’s too reasonable. It must be that:
The moon is really a base for several diffent kinds of aliens including (but not limited too): the original martians, the pleidians, the venutians, and the greys. They have a base on the moon so they can monitor earth, which they really just use for resources (including human slurry which they apply to their skin). Nasa doesn’t want us to know this, because it might hurt our alliance with the aliens who currently live on Mars (not the ones who built the face). They have promised earth more tech (like velcro which they gave us) if we maintain the secret that all life really evolved first on a comet that is really a living breathing space ship sent across the universe to seed (hump) the planets. That’s why life always comes back with a vengence after a nice meteor strike. The strike SEEDS the planet. So we got antigravity tech from the aliens on mars which we use to buzz small towns and then deny all reports of this. This serves to make people who know the truth seem wacko. . .
To Kimstu: Of course NASA (or anyone who does something which is questionable) must have a “fact sheet” telling why they did (or didn’t) do such-and-such. Your NASA reasoning demonstrates NOTHING except that NASA needed to provide some reasoning. Why, oh WHY, don’t we have a Moon Base?
(Your view is that “they went to the Moon again and again”. I don’t dispute that as do the “HBers”. That belief, however, [that NASA went several times] is all the more reason to ask: Why no Moon base?
To Andros: Well, now!
How, I must ask, do you know that there is nothing that needs to be explored? That there is nothing useful enough to justify establishing a Moon Base? Had only Cabot or Magellan or even Columbus had the benefit of your wisdom! :rolleyes:
Do you have any idea how is spent in the U.S. on cosmetics every year? Too expensive? Pah!
To that_darn_cat:
1.) The Russians were never “beaten”, as you say. They had (prior to the defunctedness of the USSR) achieved some pretty substantial things. We quit space (for all intents and purposes) to pay off the effects of the war in Viet Nam and to fund the newly established medical programs. With a Moon Base, the American public would NEVER “have lost interest”! Who, on the other hand, can maintain a whole lot of interest in a bunch of space probes–particularly when their products are years in the future?
2.) First explorations are always expensive–in men, in cash, in equipage. They, however, lay the groundwork for the future.
3.) Nixon?!? Nixon was a lawyer and, as such, took the “path of least resistance”. (Not, however, to slur the shuttle.) Where, one MUST ask, was the pointing-finger of “sabotage” after the Challenger disaster? (YOU say “accident”; I say that we will never know.) The Challenger “accident” set us back hugely. A possiblity of sabotage would have equally-hugely stiffened the resolve of the American public!
4.) Many people believe, MOST ESPECIALLY if we really did land on the Moon, that we should have skipped an orbital station and directly made a Moon Base. (With maybe an orbital station in the future.) I will NOT contend that the public interest is lukewarm BY DELIBERATE DESIGN, but neither will I dismiss that possibility! :eek:
To DaLovin’Dj: :wally
[ ]
To GIGObuster: Yes, we returned with probes and mappers; but it took soooo looooong!! And why just probes? To save a little money? We cringe in horror ( :eek: ) at near-pitiful Iraq; we feel threatened by Russia whose Capital is a half a world away (albeit, a mere 15 miles from one of the U.S. to the nearest territory of Russia); yet we have only to turn our head upward to see something that we know nothing about!
Think of all the taxloot we spend on spies hither and yon; yet barely a tinkle of pennies to spy out the Moon right over our heads!
Sneer at my sentiment? I say to you as I said to Poster Andros: How do you KNOW what is up there on the Moon? How, for instance, do you know that there aren’t KineticEnergy armaments (facing only 1/6 G to overcome) secreted in the shadows of craters? Or in the shadowed wobble area? Or, in fact, entire Moon Bases on the opposite side, only lightly camouflaged? You don’t and CAN’T! Yet we (as does nearly everyone) spend huge sums to find out what’s going on in nearly every other nation-state on Earth!! :mad:
It’s time, I say, to face reality!
And by the way: What REALLY counts in 2001 is MARS! We need to get on with a manned mission to Mars (assuming that it’s not already too late)!
We’ve been there. What, to your thinking, could there be to explore? Big-breasted native women? A shorter trade route to India? You do realize that your comparison is completely silly, right?
Riiight. Another silly comparison. NASA does not have infinite resources, nor will Congress be providing them any time before hell freezes. Again, there is no immediate financial, social, or political incentive that would justify the huge costs involved in another moon shot. When that changes, we’ll go back.
Not that it’s a problem yet, but folks, please remember that this is not the Pit. I see the potential for personal attacks, and I really don’t want Gaudere to have to move the thread. Or slap wrists.
That’s because cosmetics can increase your chances of getting laid. Going back to the moon isn’t going to get anybody laid, particularly because there’s no one on the moon to do it with.
To andros: I find neither analogy silly. In the first, I was, after all, being sarcastic and used the “official” symbol for sarcasm ( :rolleyes: ) for this Board. Nonetheless, explorations are explorations and when Magellan (and others) left to explore, who knew what they would find? It is, after all, exploration!
As to the amount spent on (for example–I picked the most useless expenditure that I could think of) cosmetics, I agree that it has very little to do with spending on exploratory stuff. I merely was using it as an illustration.
As to the personal attacks on several of my propositions, “Whatever!”. I am outnumbered. I am hungry. I am having troubles with the software on a new (new to me, that is) B.Board. It is time for supper. And it’s getting late.
So as they say on ABC: “Good-bye”.
P.S. Has any of you ever considered that there might already be some humans (from right here on Earth) on Mars? (No. I suppose not.)
Seriously? Yes. That picture that came out back in the day sure as hell did look like a face. And then a bunch of probes disappeared on the way to Mars. I started thinking . . .
Suppose Nasa did find proof of an ancient civilization on Mars. Say they released this info. Obviously, there would be an instant rush by all nations with the capability to get there as fast as possible and check it out. Now:
What are the possible artifacts they could find? Architecture, art, fossils, and maybe (the kicker) weapons. Now suppose the ancient civilization came up with some weapons of mass destruction. We wouldn’t really know until we got there if they had or not. But if they did, and they could be used, whoever gets them first would have a shot at world domination (assuming the weapons were advanced enough). So I could see the powers that be deciding to keep a lid on it, until they knew national security was not at risk. Send an expedition, find out the deal, then if it’s safe tell everybody. If they do find weapons, they would probably continue to keep it a secret as long as possible. So. . .
Could it happen? Perhaps. Has it? Probably not. But it’s no reason to go discounting science as a whole.
Sea Sorbust:Your NASA reasoning demonstrates NOTHING except that NASA needed to provide some reasoning.
Hmmmmm. I see. Finding an answer to a question demonstrates nothing except that somebody wanted to provide an answer to it. Well, that’s true as far as it goes, I guess, and it certainly does make it easier to ignore any answers that you don’t happen to like.
dalovindj wrote, re finding artifacts from an ancient civilization on Mars:
Heck, we don’t need long-lost technology for that. We already have weapons of mass destruction. Ya can’t get much more massively-destructive than a hydrogen bomb!
Tycho Crater is actually the Death Star’s main planet-destroying cannon, disguised to look like an ordinary crater! Thank heaven it’s not pointed directly at Earth right now.
Too expensive and too dangerous without enough gain. Tell me, sir, what gain is there to have for a Moon Base? Mining? We’re getting all we need, so far, on Earth. Trade? Nobody to trade with. Scientific discovery? Any discovery, again, wouldn’t be worth the cost.
A Moon Base would cost BILLIONS, if not more, just to set up the damn thing, an billions more just to maintain it. That would, effectively, wipe out every single one of NASA’s other planned missions. Do you have any idea how many scientific experiments are conducted on the ISS? Dozens, if not hundreds.
So, here’s my challenge to you… What gain is there to be found in the establishment of a Moon Base?
Two ways - 1. Telescopes and probes, 2. We’ve been there. What, exactly, do you think they’ll find? What proof is there that there is something new to be discovered? (Psst… that’s challenge Number Two).
Almost none of that money is spent by the Federal Government. Therefore, your analogy is fatally flawed.
My dear Sorbust, you are clueless in this matter. “Kinetic armaments”? There is no evidence of them, nor is there any reason why NASA would think they exist. NASA doesn’t plan missions thinking “Hey, we might find stuff that isn’t there!” NASA plans their missions based on the Scientific Method, which requires a hypothesis (which is also known as an “educated guess”… you do know what “educated” is, right?) and a method for determining the accuracy of that hypothesis.
NASA is NOT composed of a bunch of six-year-olds who watch cartoons and say, “Hey, maybe we’ll find robots and pokemon on the Moon!”
