Discussion
Mr Trophy said:
Made the missus watch Apollo 13 with me last night and it got me thinking, with the last mission being 40 plus years ago, why haven't we been back since?
It happened because it was a race, and the race is over. Sad really, but without two superpowers and a starting gun it wouldn't have happened at all.300bhp/ton said:
Laziness.
Not at all. Getting humans to the moon is a big project to undertake. If you want to get the job done, you need to be able to justify to your pay masters why it is worthwhile doing it. Kennedy was able to do this in 1961.No one hasd been able to do this since - although that is likely to change fairly soon, in my opinion.
It's reckoned that Apollo - including all the infrastructure that was built for it - cost around $24 billion. That was in 1960s dollars. In today's world, I would expect something along the lines of $150 billion.
If the US was the main country funding a new manned lunar programme, they would probably be able to make use of a lot of the infrastructure that was built for Apollo and later manned and unmanned missions. Indeed, the cancelled Constellation programme would have done just that. The new SLS/Orion programme, which has the capability of putting men AROUND the moon (but not landing) will also make use of modified Apollo era infrastructure.
So, in many way, the massive outlay in construction that was needed in the period 1962 to 1966 is not needed any more. The necessary buildings, pads, launch structures etc are still in place and they just keep getting re-purposed as each manned programme comes along.
If the US was the main country funding a new manned lunar programme, they would probably be able to make use of a lot of the infrastructure that was built for Apollo and later manned and unmanned missions. Indeed, the cancelled Constellation programme would have done just that. The new SLS/Orion programme, which has the capability of putting men AROUND the moon (but not landing) will also make use of modified Apollo era infrastructure.
So, in many way, the massive outlay in construction that was needed in the period 1962 to 1966 is not needed any more. The necessary buildings, pads, launch structures etc are still in place and they just keep getting re-purposed as each manned programme comes along.
Eric Mc said:
300bhp/ton said:
Laziness.
Not at all. Getting humans to the moon is a big project to undertake. If you want to get the job done, you need to be able to justify to your pay masters why it is worthwhile doing it. Kennedy was able to do this in 1961.No one hasd been able to do this since - although that is likely to change fairly soon, in my opinion.
300bhp/ton said:
If there isn't the drive to do it, then there isn't the drive to find a reason to do it, and subsequently someone to fund it.
There HASN'T been the drive to do it since Apollo 17 in December 1972. However, the situation is changing and at least two countries (India and China) have expressed a desire to put humans on the surface of the moon.In addition, NASA's SLS booster will be more than capable of lifting a manned rocket to lunar orbit. Indeed, the Orion spacecraft, which has made one unmanned test flight already, is designed with this capability in mind. What's missing from the current SLS programme is a dedicated lunar lander. Once the SLS/Orion system starts flying (2021), I don't think it will be a major leap for a lander to be designed and built within 10 years - especially if an Indian or Chinese manned lunar landing programme is fully in place by then.
The cancelled Constellation programme did have a mannned lunar lander as part of its brief. Some work had already been done on this before it was cancelled by Obama so, if Orion works as planned, I see something like Antares coming along very quickly.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff