Sea Sorbust posted:
I suspect you have seen an explanation, though you appear not to accept it. The fundamental reason is that the Apollo mission was not fundamentally about science. Despite whatever has been said, Apollo was primarily a political endeavor. It was a competition with the Soviets to prove our superior technology, and our superior economic and political system (capitalism beats communism - yea!). The only reason Congress was convinced to cough up the money for the program was because the political implications were that we were getting beat by the Russians, and we couldn’t let them remain superior. Thus the nation had a reason. Apollo (i.e. moon exploration) just gave a method for the goal, demonstrate superior technology. As soon as that goal was accomplished, political will evaporated.
Recall that while Kennedy proposed the program and set it in motion, it was mostly Johnson who carried it through, and by the end of his terms he was getting hammered on other, “more pressing” social problems. Things like the Viet Nam situation raging on, civil unrest over race relations (can you say riots in the streets?), and the attitude that the moon shots were a big stunt with no real improvement to American daily life.
So with the President and Congress cancelling the program and reducing funding, NASA had to pick other goals. They started with a near earth space station (Skylab), then determined that a reusable spacecraft would be cheaper to build and operate, so they turned their attention to the Shuttle program. Having limited funding meant one or the other, and Skylab was sacrificed. Once the shuttle got operational, attention was turned to making a new space station - a better space station. Only it wasn’t as easy as orginally envisioned, and lots of reasons have drug station out much longer than the original deadline.
NASA’s goal became after Apollo a more orderly expansion into space, beginning with low orbit and working up to moon return and eventually Mars and beyond. It’s just taken longer than intended to get there. At least in part because of limited budget and political fights in Congress.
That’s the answer to why we haven’t been back since the end of Apollo.
As for looking “stoopid”, judgement is in the eye of the beholder.
The judgment of “beating Russia” is of course subjective. Getting to the moon first counts as beating for many people. Despite their long string of firsts in space prior to that. But the Russians went on to build MIR and have topped us in a few more things. But what made the moon landings such a large “victory” was that during the heat of the race when the need to actually reach the moon was fast approaching, the Soviets suffered a devestating loss by the explosion of one of their N1 rockets on the pad. It took out a huge chunk of their technical crew. That’s why they weren’t in a position to chase us to the moon. They had to recover from that while we were preparing to launch.
As for the American public vs. a moon base, the scope of a moon base project would have been 5 times as expensive as the Apollo missions - easily. This at a time when social problems were stirring up all the attention. People just weren’t watching the Apollo missions on TV, and this when the actual exploring was being done. The same effect is played out in attention over shuttle launches. It’s human nature.
Yes, but the person/agency coughing up the money for that exploration have to have incentive to do so - some expected eventual payoff. They have to be far-sighted enough to realize the eventual benefits.
After Challenger, sensible people were not out stirring up trouble by making up stories, but were investigating. They determined the cause of the explosion - the frozen o-rings. And there was much incrimination and finger-pointing with regards to how the situation was allowed to occur. Don’t you remember that Morton-Thiokol engineer who was briefly publicized for his repeated warnings about that problem that went unheeded? But sabotage? No, it was pretty well proven it was a case of using the SRB’s beyond thier proper temperature range. Also, you would have to prove the sabotage was by some group that the American public would be outraged against. If the Soviets were the cause, then maybe, but what if it were a Timothy McVeigh? How is that going to stiffen the resolve of the American people? Stiffen their resolve to do what?
By design? How could public interest be by design? You are the public interest. Your neighbor down the street is public interest. How is that controlled “by design”?
Regarding going direct to moon base, it would have been a massive undertaking even more challenging than the largely show Apollo missions. There are many things to be learned about living and working in space that can be done more easily and cheaper in low earth orbit, with lessons applicable not only to the moon but also to Mars missions. And frankly, I think you are ignoring the true mindset of the American public at the end of Apollo.
This is just pathetic. You blabber out the most speculative and unbased comments you can propose about the moon, and then admonish us to face reality. Does anyone else see the utter irony of this?
And of course the government concentrates on foreign powers and spying on foreign governments. Those are known threats. The moon, as far as we can tell, is a lifeless hunk of rock 240,000 miles away. While you may disagree, the government sets the priorities and this is the way they see things. Now if a giant hovering disk appeared over, say, Mare Tranquilis, then we might have a rapid reassessment of priorities. Until then, sorry, your interests are second string.
Sea Sorbust, your arguments are all unfounded and illogical, and you fail to grasp the complexities of the political reality.
Uh, and why would we do that? What evidence even suggests that? See, there you go again. You admonish us to face reality, but you’re premises totally lack any correspondence to reality.
Bio-dome had many problems, and they had to shut down early, and the people were not healthy when they came out. As for comparing Mir and ISS, they are completely different type of projects. Both MIR and ISS rely upon resupply from the ground - they are not self-sufficient by any means. Biodome was intended to be self-sufficient - supplying it’s own food and oxygen with no outside resources (except maybe power). Neither Mir nor ISS demonstrate the types of technology for an extended Mars mission, much less a colonization.
As for space mining, when it becomes economically feasible (i.e. the resources on earth are too expensive to reach), then we won’t need the government to do it - private companies will find a way.
) ESPN had become CNN Headline News at the behest of the local Merrill Lynchers: the sound was off; I had 20:300 vision and no eyeglasses. Whence: