Why NASA has never returned to The Moon?

[Matej Velko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uagbZmWcl7I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbhLad96JwA&feature=related

I've just seen these videos and I wonder what do you think about it? These videos to me seem that they aren't true but then, what is the real truth? Why haven't they returned to The Moon since 1969.? Answer me, I want to hear your opinions why NASA has never returned to The Moon.

[Strange]

There have been many more missions to the moon, just not manned. There has been no overwhelming scientific, economic or political reason to justify it. It is perhaps a more valid question to ask, why was the Apollo project created in the first place? It was almost entirely political.

[Matej Velko]

There have been many more missions to the moon, just not manned. There has been no overwhelming scientific, economic or political reason to justify it. It is perhaps a more valid question to ask, why was the Apollo project created in the first place? It was almost entirely political.
I am aware of the other missions to the moon which are not manned, but my question is why aren't they manned? There are probably lots of men who are willing to set foot onto the Moon's surface like Niel did, but NASA apparently won't let them because of something. And that something, according to these videos, are aliens.

[Strange]

why aren't they manned?

Manned missions are a lot more expensive and complex. There ROI is not considered great enough.


And that something, according to these videos, are aliens.

As it is on YouTube, I assumed it would be something moronic like that so I wouldn't have looked even if I could.

[BertL]

Why haven't they returned to The Moon since 1969.? Answer me, I want to hear your opinions why NASA has never returned to The Moon.
They did return five more times, four of which were in 1971 and 1972.

[Mellow]

As yourself another question, why would man continue to go back to the moon for short duration walkabouts and science missions when robotic probes are almost as capable?

[Swift]

Money and a lack of interest by the taxing paying and voting public. The end of the cold war with the Soviets took away one big motivation.

[Halcyon Dayz]

I am aware of the other missions to the moon which are not manned, but my question is why aren't they manned? There are probably lots of men who are willing to set foot onto the Moon's surface like Niel did, but NASA apparently won't let them because of something.
Nobody willing to give them the [expletive] load of money needed for that.

It's not as if they have their own diamond mines.

NASA policies and funding are set by the White House and Congress.
All NASA can do is make suggestions.

Politically the US pretty much lost interest in the Moon as soon as Apollo XI returned safely.
It's not as if most of them supported funding that project because they were big fans of the idea of manned space travel anyway.
They were mostly interested in the political profit (national and geo-) to be made from it.

[Space Chimp]

Answer me, I want to hear your opinions why NASA has never returned to The Moon. For the same reason they never sent a man to Mars. They got their budget trimmed and priorities changed. The Soviets never went for much the same reason.

Why would aliens be hanging out on the moon when there is a far more interesting planet next door?

[Paul Beardsley]

I am aware of the other missions to the moon which are not manned, but my question is why aren't they manned?

Because they don't have life support systems? Because they do not return to Earth?


There are probably lots of men who are willing to set foot onto the Moon's surface like Niel did, but NASA apparently won't let them because of something. And that something, according to these videos, are aliens.

It's like the map makers of past centuries putting "Here there be dragons" in unexplored parts of the world.

[Extracelestial]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uagbZmWcl7I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbhLad96JwA&feature=related

I've just seen these videos and I wonder what do you think about it? These videos to me seem that they aren't true but then, what is the real truth? Why haven't they returned to The Moon since 1969.? Answer me, I want to hear your opinions why NASA has never returned to The Moon.

Hi Matej

I suppose this is only the precursor to the question whether NASA did manage a landing at all. However, ample reasons have been given therefore I'd like you to reflect and, if possible, to answer the following questions:

#1 why did we visit the Marianna trench only once?
#2 why did the Zeppelin land in Lakehurst only twice?
#3 why has the Namcha Barwa (7782 m - about a kilometer less than Mount Everest) only be climbed once?
#4 why has the Wankel internal combustion engine been utilised only in one car type?

If to any of the questions above the answer is "impossible" then we'll need to rewrite our history.

Ex

[Matej Velko]

As it is on YouTube, I assumed it would be something moronic like that so I wouldn't have looked even if I could.
:rofl:

[Matej Velko]

They did return five more times, four of which were in 1971 and 1972.
Yes I know they did return but not with MEN

[Matej Velko]

As yourself another question, why would man continue to go back to the moon for short duration walkabouts and science missions when robotic probes are almost as capable? Yes, thank you, I see the point now. So I guess when men will be able to land on Mars it will be the 1st and the last time, right?

[Matej Velko]

Hi Matej

I suppose this is only the precursor to the question whether NASA did manage a landing at all. However, ample reasons have been given therefore I'd like you to reflect and, if possible, to answer the following questions:

#1 why did we visit the Marianna trench only once?
#2 why did the Zeppelin land in Lakehurst only twice?
#3 why has the Namcha Barwa (7782 m - about a kilometer less than Mount Everest) only be climbed once?
#4 why has the Wankel internal combustion engine been utilised only in one car type?

If to any of the questions above the answer is "impossible" then we'll need to rewrite our history.

Ex I think the answer is pretty much the same for all questions; it isn't interesting to do it all over again for no refund nor fame.

[Abaddon]

Yes I know they did return but not with MEN

Sorry, what?

Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were all manned flights. That's 6 return flights, all manned.

[korjik]

Yes, thank you, I see the point now. So I guess when men will be able to land on Mars it will be the 1st and the last time, right?

The first submarine was built in 1620. The first use of a submarine in warfare was in 1776. Yet it wasnt until after 1900 that the submarine became a viable bit of technology.

The same thing goes with spacecraft technology. We have the capability to send men into deep space, but even a trip to the moon is extremely risky. Some day in the future, maybe distant future, space travel will be far less risky, and people will do it all the time.

[Extravoice]

The same thing goes with spacecraft technology. We have the capability to send men into deep space, but even a trip to the moon is extremely risky. Some day in the future, maybe distant future, space travel will be far less risky, and people will do it all the time.

If you replace "risky" with "costly", you get an equally valid reason why there has been no manned return to the moon since the Apollo program.


There are probably lots of men who are willing to set foot onto the Moon's surface...

I agree. Do you know anyone who is willing to foot the bill? To quote Gus Grissom, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

[John Jones]

They most certainly did. Men continued landing on the moon until 1972.

[Tedward]

Money makes the world go around and I understand China may be heading that way according to news reports.

Not so long ago you could could sip champagne at Mach 2 asking U2 spy planes to get out of the way (apparently.... ;) ). But I do not think that is going to happen again for a while, it is something I would love to do. Certainly doable, but it needs great big wodges of loot and commitment. So we are stuck with the the slow airliners.

The big problem for these claims I think is that the US is not the only country in the world. Luner or later someone will try to aim for it, this time we could get HD and 3D.

[NEOWatcher]

Matej; Let me ask you this.
The Soviets were on the cusp of being able to land a man on the moon.
Why did they never follow through?
I'm sure all the same answers could be said of NASA not returning.


Yes, thank you, I see the point now. So I guess when men will be able to land on Mars it will be the 1st and the last time, right?
Unfortunately, knowing the way funding goes, I would worry about that happening.

[Glom]

Yes, thank you, I see the point now. So I guess when men will be able to land on Mars it will be the 1st and the last time, right?

If it's a repeat of Apollo then there will be five or six times after that, then maybe that'll be the last.

You were aware there were six successful moon landings, right?

[Gillianren]

You were aware there were six successful moon landings, right?

Clearly not, no.

[NEOWatcher]

Sorry, what?

Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were all manned flights. That's 6 return flights, all manned.
To be fair, the OP said "since 1969". So Apollo 12 drops off the list. ;)

[Abaddon]

To be fair, the OP said "since 1969". So Apollo 12 drops off the list. ;)
Fair enough, but the point still stands.

[KaiYeves]

Yes, thank you, I see the point now. So I guess when men will be able to land on Mars it will be the 1st and the last time, right?
Not necessarily! Not necessarily at all. It all depends on what folks like us can do to convince people of its inherent awesomeness.

[FramerDave]

1. Money.
2. Political will.
3. We already won the race to the moon.

[djellison]

Why haven't they returned to The Moon since 1969.? Answer me, I want to hear your opinions why NASA has never returned to The Moon.

Entirely political. It was politics that shut down Apollo after 17. It was politics that's refused to fund a manned lunar program since.

[slang]

to set foot onto the Moon's surface like Niel did

Neil. But you knew that. :)

[jfribrg]

We haven't gone back for the same reason that nobody has revisited the deepest part of the ocean ( the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean) since 1960. It's too risky and there's no need to place human life in jeopardy when robots can do almost as much for a tiny fraction of the cost. In addition, there is no political reason to spend the money.

It's been said several times in this thread already, but it may be helpful to explicitly point out that the vast majority of the cost of the Apollo program was devoted keeping the astronauts alive and bringing them back. Most robotic missions are one-way missions. To return to Earth, you need to bring the fuel for the return journey, which requires a larger rocket, and more fuel to even lift that larger rocket to start the mission. Unless you are returning rock samples, you don't have to come back, so right there you've cut your payload requirements by somewhere around 75%. Then you have 400 pounds of astronauts, the fuel necessary to keep them warm, the heat shield to keep them from burning up in the atmosphere, the oxygen (and related equipment), the Tang, etc.

Also, over time, robotics technology has vastly improved, making it less necessary for someone to risk their life for the scientific knowledge.

[Van Rijn]

Yes, thank you, I see the point now. So I guess when men will be able to land on Mars it will be the 1st and the last time, right?

Only if it is a "flags and footprints" mission. That's why I'm against flags and footprints missions, actually. When we go there, we should go there for more than just to say we did it.

[Skyfire]

Only if it is a "flags and footprints" mission. That's why I'm against flags and footprints missions, actually. When we go there, we should go there for more than just to say we did it.

I do agree with that, but look at history and many great 'firsts', here are a few listed:

- Christopher Columbus sailing 'off the edge of the world' to get to India (or was it China?) and found the West Indies and that led to European civilisations 'discovering' America.

- Scott and Amundsen racing to the South Pole

- Edmund Hilary climbing Mount Everest

- 'Chuck' Yeager breaking the sound barrier (did have something of a secretive military interest admitedly)

- Land Speed records

I would suggest all (or most) these things were done as much as a 'plant the flag' exercise as anything. Being somewhat cynical, and knowing how we as mankind, or at least individual countries work these things, I would guess the FIRST Mars mission would pretty much be this kind of exercise. Anything after that may involve more science, if funding is still seen as viable 'because as we have already been there, why spend more going again?' ......

[Skyfire]

- Christopher Columbus sailing 'off the edge of the world' to get to India (or was it China?) and found the West Indies and that led to European civilisations 'discovering' America.


Of course, the American Indians had already 'discovered' the continent they lived on, the moment each of them was born ..... unless of course there was some far greater conspiracy going on ....

[John Q Public]

I agree entirely with your point, but I want to correct you on #2.

By "the" Zeppelin, if you mean the Graf Zeppelin, I don't know the exact count, but it landed at Lakehurst many times, as did the USS Los Angeles (built by the Zeppelin factory and given to the United States by the German Government, as it was partially funded by war reparations from World War I).

If you're referring to the Hindenburg, it's final flight would have been its twelfth landing at Lakehurst.

Sorry for the off-topic diversion. :)


Hi Matej

I suppose this is only the precursor to the question whether NASA did manage a landing at all. However, ample reasons have been given therefore I'd like you to reflect and, if possible, to answer the following questions:

#1 why did we visit the Marianna trench only once?
#2 why did the Zeppelin land in Lakehurst only twice?
#3 why has the Namcha Barwa (7782 m - about a kilometer less than Mount Everest) only be climbed once?
#4 why has the Wankel internal combustion engine been utilised only in one car type?

If to any of the questions above the answer is "impossible" then we'll need to rewrite our history.

Ex

[Gillianren]

- Christopher Columbus sailing 'off the edge of the world' to get to India (or was it China?) and found the West Indies and that led to European civilisations 'discovering' America.

This had been planned as the beginning of trade missions from the outset. The reason he was able to get financing at all was that the Spanish crown thought they'd be able to cut the Portuguese out of their trade route by going a faster way. Definitely not "flags and footprints."

[Skyfire]

The reasons for no more manned missions to the moon since 1972 are starkly simple:

1. MONEY - It costs A LOT to send a spacecraft up with all that HEAVY life support equipment (including quite useful stuff like AIR) and then RETURN THE MEN SAFELY TO EARTH!

2. MONEY - The sheer cost requires POLITICAL WILL to WANT to spend all those TAXPAYERS (i.e. VOTERS) dollars/euros to achieve it

3. MONEY - there is currently NO AVAILABLE CRAFT that will get men to the Moon and back so even to design it takes time and effort (both of which require money - see 1 and 2), even before construction (I know there is a concept design there .... and progressing I think - Orion?)


Small robot craft can (and have been) sent to the Moon for a tiny fraction of the cost of a manned ship. Some have been put into low earth orbit and then using (ion drive???) have taken weeks or months to raise their orbit towards the moon. VERY efficient on fuel, but no use for manned craft, it would take far too long, thus astronauts running out of useful stuff such as food .... and air ...

[HenrikOlsen]

Also, over time, robotics technology has vastly improved, making it less necessary for someone to risk their life for the scientific knowledge.
But I wanna go!

Which is the real reason for wanting a manned return, the dream that at some time I can be the man.

[Gillianren]

Aw, Henrik, you'll always be the man to me.

[Don J]

Aw, Henrik, you'll always be the man to me.

Gillian's fantasm.....Walking on the Moon with HenriK. ;)

[Gillianren]

I don't think they make spacesuits for people with scoliosis.

[Luckmeister]

I don't think they make spacesuits for people with scoliosis.

If they don't, then I'm out. :(

[Mellow]

Extracelestial, off point but I thought I'd share....

#4 why has the Wankel internal combustion engine been utilised only in one car type?

Mazda Cosmo
NSU Ro80
Mazda RX7
Mazda RX8 and RX9
Mazda 787b Le Mans entry

Norton and Suzuki also produced Wankel engined motorcycles.

Just for info

[Mellow]

.,.... oh and the VAZ-2106s

Built without the license to use the Wankel design.

[Matej Velko]

Ok guys, I get it now. There is no need to send men onto moon's surface, it's too expensive, to risky and too expensive.:p and yes Slang I certainly knew it was Neil, not Niel... :eek:

[Skyfire]

This had been planned as the beginning of trade missions from the outset. The reason he was able to get financing at all was that the Spanish crown thought they'd be able to cut the Portuguese out of their trade route by going a faster way. Definitely not "flags and footprints."

Oops! I stand corrected! Thanks Gillian.

NOTE to self: re-read up on history if wanting to quote it!

:)

[Skyfire]

Ok guys, I get it now. There is no need to send men onto moon's surface, it's too expensive, to risky and too expensive.

That's it really. there is plenty of DESIRE to go back to the moon (and even on to Mars) from many individuals (note several responses on here to start with!!!), but the big stumbling block is that this type of enterprise involves MASSIVE resources that only a country such as the USA or conglomerate such as ESA could even conceivably put together. Well, you know what that means, you have to convince the TAXPAYERS to vote for it ..... and that hasn't been shown to be too successful over the years.

[Skyfire]

Norton and Suzuki also produced Wankel engined motorcycles.

IIRC the Norton motorbike was competitive at the time, even though they were restricted to (I think) half the cc the other bikes were allowed, due I presume to the increase in power from a rotary over a 2/4 stroke engine.

[Peter B]

Another useful comparison is with the South Pole.

Amundsen and his expedition went to Antarctica with the sole objective of being first to the South Pole.

Scott and his expedition went to Antarctica with the dual objectives of undertaking some serious science and beeing first to the South Pole.

After those two expeditions, it was something like 15 years before anyone visited the South Pole again, and another 20-odd years after that before anyone stood at the South Pole.

The fact that there's a permanent base at the South Pole shows there's plenty of research people can do there, but there was a long gap between people first reaching the South Pole and people staying there.

[Swift]

Another useful comparison is with the South Pole.

Amundsen and his expedition went to Antarctica with the sole objective of being first to the South Pole.

Scott and his expedition went to Antarctica with the dual objectives of undertaking some serious science and beeing first to the South Pole.

After those two expeditions, it was something like 15 years before anyone visited the South Pole again, and another 20-odd years after that before anyone stood at the South Pole.

The fact that there's a permanent base at the South Pole shows there's plenty of research people can do there, but there was a long gap between people first reaching the South Pole and people staying there.
I think that is a brilliant analogy.

[Mellow]

IIRC the Norton motorbike was competitive at the time, even though they were restricted to (I think) half the cc the other bikes were allowed, due I presume to the increase in power from a rotary over a 2/4 stroke engine.

Yup, the Norton has been (in the past) a reasonably competitive road racing bike. The police also used a version for a while as a motorway police bike with mixed results.

[HenrikOlsen]

Extracelestial, off point but I thought I'd share....

#4 why has the Wankel internal combustion engine been utilised only in one car type?
A good sliding seal against a flat (rather than cylindrical) wall is very hard to make so it will work well for the type of wear the combustion chamber of an engine gets.
This is the main killer of all rotary engine designs.

[NEOWatcher]

A good sliding seal against a flat (rather than cylindrical) wall is very hard to make so it will work well for the type of wear the combustion chamber of an engine gets.
This is the main killer of all rotary engine designs.
Since Swift indicated his "nice analogy", let me respond to this one.

A rotary engine was great when it was in production. But as time went on it became less advantagious than other designs, and the trade off between regulation and advancing the design to accomodate them has made it undesirable.

Same with the moon, it was valuable to science, technology, jobs, politics and probably other things in relation to other governmental tasks. But; as that science was done, the technology progressed, and other space adventures outweighed a manned moon landing, it became les advantagious. Along with safety regulations. It was dangerous, now that we did it, it's probably not a good idea to repeat it until we know it's going to be a lot safer.

[danscope]

But I wanna go!

Which is the real reason for wanting a manned return, the dream that at some time I can be the man.

Surely, you don't mean that ! :)

[Obviousman]

The government role in this sort of undertaking seems to have largely diminished; it would only be undertaken if it were "in the national interest", which I can't see happening anytime soon. What needs to happen is for it to become commercially viable - even desirable - to return to the Moon or go to Mars. For instance, if fusion reactors became possible, reactors which could safely and relatively cheaply power everything from a car to a city but required use of an element that was rare on the Earth but abundant on the Moon or Mars, then commercial exploration might (would?) take place.

[KaiYeves]

I don't think they make spacesuits for people with scoliosis.
A BioSuit (http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/index.html) design or similar might work, as the interior layer is tailored to the individual wearing it.

[Mellow]

A good sliding seal against a flat (rather than cylindrical) wall is very hard to make so it will work well for the type of wear the combustion chamber of an engine gets.
This is the main killer of all rotary engine designs.

I have often wondered if there was scope for ceramics to be used in the design of a Wankel engine (low friction, strength), but don't know enough about the technology... I should read up more.

[Skyfire]

The government role in this sort of undertaking seems to have largely diminished; it would only be undertaken if it were "in the national interest", which I can't see happening anytime soon. What needs to happen is for it to become commercially viable - even desirable - to return to the Moon or go to Mars. For instance, if fusion reactors became possible, reactors which could safely and relatively cheaply power everything from a car to a city but required use of an element that was rare on the Earth but abundant on the Moon or Mars, then commercial exploration might (would?) take place.

I'm not so sure about 'LARGELY diminished', look at how China are forging ahead .... well, perhaps not forging, but certainly moving forward. In Russia and of course USA the reduction in space exploration spending is maybe as much due to the current economic climate as anything.

With current knowledge (or maybe lack of it) about mineral resources available from the Moon or Mars (or anywhere else for that matter) it is probably something of a catch 22 situation. Until more detailed exploration is done TO SEE IF ANYTHING IS commercially viable, no commercial enterprise is likely to spend the money to explore. If or when it becomes KNOWN that there is a commercial possibility on the Moon or Mars, THEN we may see something happen.

Ah well, we can always hope things will change in our lifetimes!

[danscope]

It's like building that really big ferris wheel in London for just.....JUST one ride for two people and then it's vanished. Does it make sense? No.
Would you take a Morris Minor and travel to South Africa to get one bottle of wine and return? I don't thinkl so.
It doesn't pay.

[moog]

It's like building that really big ferris wheel in London for just.....JUST one ride for two people and then it's vanished.

Do you think so?
Please show exactly how it is like that.

First issue is that a ferris wheel does not need to be completely rebuilt from scratch every single time it is used.

[Halcyon Dayz]

The Millennium Wheel cost 70 million pounds to build, and it was build as a permanent attraction.

Now, the trip to South Africa isn't such a good example.
It would be an amazing journey, the wine is just an excuse. :D

[NEOWatcher]

First issue is that a ferris wheel does not need to be completely rebuilt from scratch every single time it is used.
I'm not quite sure what he meant either, but to me it reads as an "if" it was destroyed in some way after every two people (needing a rebuild).

As a side note, I wonder if the same controversy existed for the Wiener Riesenrad when it was built.

[Extracelestial]

Extracelestial, off point but I thought I'd share....

#4 why has the Wankel internal combustion engine been utilised only in one car type?

Mazda Cosmo
NSU Ro80
Mazda RX7
Mazda RX8 and RX9
Mazda 787b Le Mans entry

Norton and Suzuki also produced Wankel engined motorcycles.

Just for info
Mellow,
I hadn't realised the extent of the Wankel conspiracy. ;-) So many car makers claim to have used a Wankel engine, some even write it down in their manuals, but this isn't proof!
Ex

[NEOWatcher]

Mellow,
I hadn't realised the extent of the Wankel conspiracy. ;-) So many car makers claim to have used a Wankel engine, some even write it down in their manuals, but this isn't proof!
Ex
One more example, Chevy replaced the Vega for the Monza as a new car designed for the Wankel. Conspiracy? I'll let you decide.

(oh, you can add the RX4/Luce to the Mazda list)

[Swift]

I'm sure this will become more fodder for the Overmoderation thread, but enough. No more about car engines, no more ferris wheels. The thread has a specific question and this is getting entirely too off topic. I won't close the thread, but that means people have to behave or get infracted.

[neilzero]

There are some problems with a moon base or moon colony. The poles where water is available is as cold as Antarctica, The locations of perpetual sunlight, are at the top of steep mountains, and tiny in area. The solar collectors need to turn 360 degrees in each 4 week period. Most other Lunar resources are many kilometers from the solar electrcity. The Equator of the moon has some advantages, but negligible water and no electricity for the two week long nights, unless we build a nuclear power plant on the moon. Solutions are not well suited to small scale and large scale would cost the gross domestic product of the USA with likely technology available this decade. Why go to make more footprints? Neil

[Gillianren]

The poles are actually just a wee bit colder than Antarctica.

[Swift]

Matej Hello the astronauts did not return to the moon because they can not navigate through outer space. If you read the Michael Collins book carrying the fire and find page number 373 you will read that he is lying because he does not see the whole constellation he wants to fix lenient in the centaur but he does not see centaur he writes on page number 373 that the computer finds lenient without the whole constellation but that is impossible you have to see the other stars so Michael Collins id a liar and the astronauts are pretend. My sister brought me all of the nooks for telling you here to look
dastardly has been suspended for this post. He was told at the end of his own thread on this topic not to start another thread on it and hijacking someone else's thread is even worse.

I would suggest that we not further derail Matej Velko's thread with further discussion of dastardly's ideas. If you wish to continue that discussion, please report this post and we could reopen his old thread (we can even move posts from here to there)

[Swift]

I will further note that the post quoted in my previous post, and the responses to them, have been moved to the thread that dastardly originally started on the topic (link (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/126532-Astronauts-cannot-find-stars/page4))

The infraction for hijacking still stands, even if the hijacking has been un-done

[Elukka]

The lunar poles and the lunar night are not really cold in the same sense as Antarctica. There isn't a thick atmosphere constantly robbing your heat, you'll just lose some to the ground and a little bit through radiation.

[The Killchain]

Hello,

My First Post on This (or any) forum.
Thanks for the many days reading, great disscusion's.

Im confussed why anyone has'nt set foot on the moon for 40 years.
With Basic searching on the web, i found these "Facts".

6 visits by humans - Only 12 men.
They cover'd a range of 3/4 Square miles from respective LM's.
Moon Surface is 15.000.000 Square miles = North & South America Combined = Continent of Africa.

From an exploration point of view, i cant imagine landing in the middle of the African continent and Covering the areas that they did, then claiming to know everything about it.
840 pounds of rocks were brought back from the moon, Is that a diffinitive "Geological Footprint" of the moon?
Imagine finding a Element 115 mine.....

Would'nt it be more logical to launch from the moon?, for future Mars missions, You havent got to break the earth's gravity or atmosphere.
Maybe Chance to acclimbatize to conditions in space.

Robot Rover's are way more advanced now, why isnt there a program of Crawler type robots Mooching around? even if they are solar power'd.
Shurly they can "Hibernate" for 13 days, then get back into action with HD/3D/IR Cameras, Sample Equiptment, even dropping Seismic Monitors.....etc.
If there was enough of them there would be no downtime for solar reasons, Rolling coverage.

-153°C = -243.4 ºF during the night
107°C = 224.6 ºF during the day

Maybe its hard to get machine's to work in these extreme's.
But if we can get humans protected, Machine's would be easy.
(Still not shure how the PLSS radiated away 224.6 ºF so fast).
Mod note: Responses to this, moved here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/127440-Moon-temp-versus-PLSS


(Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society)
Estimates for the mass of material that falls on Earth each year range from 37,000-78,000 tons.
Most of this mass would come from dust-sized particles.
A study done in 1996 calculated that for objects in the 10 gram to 1 kilogram size range, 2900-7300 kilograms per year hit Earth. However, unlike the number above this does not include the small dust particles.
They also estimate between 36 and 166 meteorites larger than 10 grams fall to Earth per million square kilometers per year.
Over the whole surface area of Earth, that translates to 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams per year.
But most meteorites are too small to actually fall all the way to the surface.

This is Extra-Terrestrial Material, getting your hands on it before our atmosphere destroys it, might be somthing to look at.

Funding,
2007 - Global War on Terrorism = $161.8 Billion Dollars from Congress.
2004-2007 - 68 Americans killed by "Significant International Terrorism" (out of 1,907 worldwide).
(Just for comparison, 135 die of Peanut allergy / US, per year).
Coronary Heart Disease = 450,000 American Deaths / Per Year.
2007 - Coronary Heart Disease = 2.9 Billion Dollars from Congress.

Percentages and Ratio's are not exactly Justifying.

So Legitimate funding is going to be a problem, unless you convince Congress the next threat is from Aliens.....

Wow, didnt expect my post to be this long....

[Swift]

<snip>
2007 - Global War on Terrorism = $161.8 Billion Dollars from Congress.
2004-2007 - 68 Americans killed by "Significant International Terrorism" (out of 1,907 worldwide).
(Just for comparison, 135 die of Peanut allergy / US, per year).

Hi The Killchain, welcome to BAUT.

If you have not reviewed our rules, you should know that political discussion is strictly limited on BAUT. The funding and politics of space exploration is an allowed exception to our no politics rule, but comments such as I quoted above, particularly such a politically charged topic as terrorism, are not appropriate.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[The Killchain]

Sorry,

I didnt mean any offence, Just looking for Big Budget Comparison.

It will not happen again.

All Cool....

[NEOWatcher]

So Legitimate funding is going to be a problem, unless you convince Congress the next threat is from Aliens.....
That sums it up.
And; don't forget, the Congress (occasionally) listens to the voice of the American people.

All of the items you listed have no interest to the general public, even though it is of big importance in the science circles. So; funding for these items is going to be treated like any other special interest funding.

And; as far as comparing it to those other political items...
Every one of those items are of big interest to the general public and they can directly relate to how it affects thier lives, so they get attention.


From an exploration point of view, i cant imagine landing in the middle of the African continent and Covering the areas that they did, then claiming to know everything about it.
840 pounds of rocks were brought back from the moon, Is that a diffinitive "Geological Footprint" of the moon?
Imagine finding a Element 115 mine.....
I have not heard any scientist claim they know everything about it. The primary question during the moon missions was "How did it get there?". It only takes a few well selected samples for the geologists to confirm or reject various ideas.

There was other science on the moon while we were there. While this was done to help learn about the moon, none of it was meant to know the entire moon.

We know there's more to be done. But; the moon is only a small part of the solar system and its related science.

[The Killchain]

NEOWatcher

"All of the items you listed have no interest to the general public, even though it is of big importance in the science circles. So; funding for these items is going to be treated like any other special interest funding."

Yup, see your point.
It is a shame that funding is handed out by polititians, they dont have the tools to solve problems. scientist's & inventors have the tools and the know-how to solve problems.
Problems that may be solved by further exploration.

"The primary question during the moon missions was "How did it get there?". It only takes a few well selected samples for the geologists to confirm or reject various ideas."

It is a shame that they didnt think of getting some of their cash back, from the resouce of the moon. Like mining possibillitys.
Perhaps they wouldnt be able to say "For the benifit of all mankind", if it was for profit. but to cover expenses, that would be justifyable.
It does seem costly to go up there for Cold war or theory confirmation.

"I have not heard any scientist claim they know everything about it."

Neither have i, perhaps i should not have written that, just my opinion why Humans havent been for 40 years.

"There was other science on the moon while we were there. While this was done to help learn about the moon, none of it was meant to know the entire moon."

"We know there's more to be done. But; the moon is only a small part of the solar system and its related science."

True, it is a small part of the solar system. But its the only other bit we have stood on.
the first mission, to go and return safe, Done.
second, verify & compare every piece of data. (prove its repeatable) Done.

The next four missions, were they wasted cash, Was that a time to take building materials for base.
Maybe place Hubble type telescopes on far side.
(if they dare :whistle:)

Extravoice

Thanks for the Link, page bookmarked for future reference.
Dont want to go off topic, but if

(quote from universe today) http://www.universetoday.com/19623/temperature-of-the-moon/
So if you were standing on the surface of the Moon in sunlight, the temperature would be hot enough to boil water. And then the Sun would go down, and the temperature would drop 250 degrees in just a matter of moments.

Does the PLSS have a thermostat & heating element for the times you would be working in the shade, ie, other side of LM.
even if the shade isnt a 250 sheer drop, it would still be a drop. if the suit is pumping cold water as well, not workable.
How did it combat the other extreme of cold?
Mod note: Responses to this, moved here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/127440-Moon-temp-versus-PLSS

Cheers.

[The Killchain]

Ok im a newb,

i was writting a reply, sent, it refreshed and i saw the hijack warning.

Didnt mean to hijack.

Will stay on subject.

Sorry.

[Swift]

<snip>
It is a shame that funding is handed out by polititians, they dont have the tools to solve problems. scientist's & inventors have the tools and the know-how to solve problems.
Problems that may be solved by further exploration.
It is possible that the next manned mission to the moon will be by a private company, like SpaceX, rather than a government. Though, if I had to bet, it will be done by the Chinese before anyone else.


True, it is a small part of the solar system. But its the only other bit we have stood on.
the first mission, to go and return safe, Done.
second, verify & compare every piece of data. (prove its repeatable) Done.

The next four missions, were they wasted cash,


6 visits by humans - Only 12 men.
They cover'd a range of 3/4 Square miles from respective LM's.
Moon Surface is 15.000.000 Square miles = North & South America Combined = Continent of Africa.

From an exploration point of view, i cant imagine landing in the middle of the African continent and Covering the areas that they did, then claiming to know everything about it.
840 pounds of rocks were brought back from the moon, Is that a diffinitive "Geological Footprint" of the moon?

The six missions that landed (of 7 attempted) were planned to sample as many different geological regions as possible. So, to use your African example, it was not like landing in the middle of African and then claiming to know everything about it. It was more like landing in a Kenyan grassland, then landing in a rain forest, then landing in the Nile delta, then landing in the Sahara desert, and then claiming that you had a pretty good (but not complete) sampling of what Africa was like.

But, if they were allowed to, planetary scientists would love further missions for more samples. One area that was never explored was the far-side of the moon, though there was a proposal for an Apollo mission to it.

[The Killchain]

The six missions that landed (of 7 attempted) were planned to sample as many different geological regions as possible. So, to use your African example, it was not like landing in the middle of African and then claiming to know everything about it. It was more like landing in a Kenyan grassland, then landing in a rain forest, then landing in the Nile delta, then landing in the Sahara desert, and then claiming that you had a pretty good (but not complete) sampling of what Africa was like.

I heard that on one of Richard C. Hoagland's video's, and stuck in my head as one of those curiosity things......
But when looking at google moon, simple screenshot.
16192

It seems more like a 240,000 mile target, with not a bad cluster.
(I cloned a flag & space man next to scale, just to keep perspective, Each flag & space man on this pic covers an area of aprox 400 square miles)
Remembering the range of apollo crews, 3/4 miles.
The people that plan this stuff have alot more info about where to land than i do, but just on sheer size, and the blankness/similarity of the sites, is there that much diversity in the site's chosen?
Pole to Pole is the most diverse, one being permenant twighlight & the other frozen.

Wright brothers - 1903
Nasa - 1969
2012.....(where is my hover car & anti-grav boots?)

I guess the big gap, from 1972 untill now isnt such a big gap for the people planning future missions, for the next land mark, Maybe Manned Mars.

Cheers Skyfire.
Thanks for link, i recognized the page from a time i zipped through to look at photo's.
My favorite thing with the missions is lunar photography, Loving the LROC High res stuff..

Van Rijn
Thanks, Im going to read a bit more before i throw up a non related question.
If you take the extreme's and make them more dramatic with speed and wording, it creates a very different picture of the working enviroment of the astronauts.

I know its a bit of a hippie style idea, but if worked as a team, All the major and minor space agencys, together, may have the resources for action.
If a different country's agency get a base on moon, do they own it, was it claimed by USA, with a flag. Will that matter.
No Need for race against any country. especially one that might beat you.

Ok, i have took the headband off & kicked out the campfire,
If there was a rouge nation with enough resorces to purchase a semi finished or complete space program.
Do'es the USA defend a claim on moon, (if there is one) from a millitary POV.
Deploy the "Rods from God" & hope no one see's a giant Hedgehog where there used to be a moon base,
or do'es the respective goverments go cap in hand to a formerly unfreindly nation, for some second hand rocks.

A rouge nation with enough resorces to purchase a semi finished or complete space program, that could happen if its in the private world of trade.
Maybe that would start the Base Race.......

[The Killchain]

The six missions that landed (of 7 attempted) were planned to sample as many different geological regions as possible. So, to use your African example, it was not like landing in the middle of African and then claiming to know everything about it. It was more like landing in a Kenyan grassland, then landing in a rain forest, then landing in the Nile delta, then landing in the Sahara desert, and then claiming that you had a pretty good (but not complete) sampling of what Africa was like.

But, if they were allowed to, planetary scientists would love further missions for more samples. One area that was never explored was the far-side of the moon, though there was a proposal for an Apollo mission to it.

That makes sense, to land at the most diverse locations, looking for the scientific extreme's.
Would be good logic, for limited trips, but in 1969 they didnt know it was going to be all over in 72.

I took a simple screen shot of google moon, highlighting the Apollo landing sites.
(i quikly cloned a Spaceman + flag, by the scale, to keep perspective, each Spaceman + flag covers aprox 400 square miles.)
16198

By looking at this, it looks more like a 240,000 mile target, with not a bad cluster.
when looking at pics and footage from missions, do they really seem that diverse?

The poles, one being permanent twighlight and other permenent freezing, they are diverse.
The far side proposal would have been nice to get approved.
And it shows the will to do more.

[djellison]

Your graphic is misleading, and your assumptions fail to take into account the engineering constraints placed upon the Apollo landing site selection process.
Firstly - the map on Google Moon wraps - you image actually cover about 480 degrees of Longitude - You're looking at about 1/3 of the moon, twice. Ergo - it makes it look like we explored less of the moon than we did.

Secondly - we couldn't land on the far side of the moon...we would be out of radio contact with the crew and whilst a relay satellite was proposed, as an engineering risk and a cost problem, it was ruled out.

Thirdly - there are a swathe of of other landing site constraints - http://www.solarviews.com/history/SP-4214/ch6-2.html lists many of them

Fourthly - you state that the Apollo could only explore 2/3rds of a mile. Apollo 11, 12, and 14 - yeah - they could only walk around. Apollo 14, the crew walked about 1.7 miles from the LEM. Apollo 15 and beyond, because they had a rover - they went much MUCH further - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#Usage

Finally - given those constraints - they actually visited a very diverse range of sites. They certainly visited the two gratuitously different terrain types - the dark Mare, and the bright highlands. They also visited the scarp of mountains, a collapsed lava tube and so on.

The reason we've not returned to the moon is NOT scientific. It's ENTIRELY political. Period.

[R.A.F.]

...when looking at pics and footage from missions, do they really seem that diverse?

Given missions constraints, yes...as djellison (great post) pointed out.

[grapes]

Your graphic is misleading, and your assumptions fail to take into account the engineering constraints placed upon the Apollo landing site selection process.
Firstly - the map on Google Moon wraps - you image actually cover about 480 degrees of Longitude - You're looking at about 1/3 of the moon, twice. Ergo - it makes it look like we explored less of the moon than we did.
I'd say it was worse than that, maybe almost 1/2, just judging by the repeat pattern left to right. Plus, since it is a flat angular map, the edges must be blown out of proportion.

Secondly - we couldn't land on the far side of the moon...we would be out of radio contact with the crew and whilst a relay satellite was proposed, as an engineering risk and a cost problem, it was ruled out.And, since the landings were made at early morning, on the moon, for light and cool temperatures, landing on the far side would have meant the moon would be closer to the sun in the sky, making things even more difficult.

[The Killchain]

Nice links, thanks djellison.

1/3 of the moon, twice, = 2/3 of moon.
1/3 short of full.

looks even worse now.......

1/2 of moon twice = 1 moon.

[Extracelestial]

Hello,

* 6 visits by humans - Only 12 men.
They cover'd a range of 3/4 Square miles from respective LM's.
Moon Surface is 15.000.000 Square miles = North & South America Combined = Continent of Africa.

** From an exploration point of view, i cant imagine landing in the middle of the African continent and Covering the areas that they did, then claiming to know everything about it.
840 pounds of rocks were brought back from the moon, Is that a diffinitive "Geological Footprint" of the moon?

....

Hi Killchain,

neither has anybody claimed to know anything about the moon nor were the landings purely explorative.

However, this is not the point. Any good science starts with some well established questions. You just don't go somewhere and look what's there but you go there to find evidence to support or refute your ideas; i.e. check whether your ideas are misconceptions. In this fashion the landing sites where chosen to find primordial rocks to support the theory that all crater are volcanoes. The most cherished theory of the time was that the moon is a celestial body that accumulated mass on its own and was captured by earth. To see what it's made off one needs samples from deeper layers as the surface is littered with meteorids. Therefore they went for volcano craters to grab some pebbles which were ejected from deep within.
However, it turned out that none (i.e. rock samples) where of volcanic origin and so the least likely theory (or so they thought) how the moon came into existence was the best explanation for the evidence. Apparently a mars size planet scrapped earth and tore off material which became our moon.

So, from a scientific point of view a question has been answered: mission accomplished.

And the reason for not returning is purely political: it is so much more rewarding to pamper some wall street bankers than to explore.

Ex

[R.A.F.]

Nice links, thanks djellison.

1/3 of the moon, twice, = 2/3 of moon.
1/3 short of full.

looks even worse now.......

1/2 of moon twice = 1 moon.



Umm...ok...


Do you acknowledge that the Apollo landing sites were, in fact, more diverse than your graphic would indicate??

[Rhaedas]

We're fortunate that the nearside has many areas of flat terrain. Given the constraints for landing areas, one glance at the far side topography and you have to wonder if we could have landed there at all. I realize that they would have found some candidates, but the two sides of the Moon are definitely night and day, pardon the pun.

[Daggerstab]

Here is a better map of the Luna (red), Apollo (green) and Surveyor (yellow) landing sites on the visible face of the Moon:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_landing_map.jpg
(click on the image for the full resolution)

[The Killchain]

Umm...ok...

Do you acknowledge that the Apollo landing sites were, in fact, more diverse than your graphic would indicate??

Yes, my graphic was poor.
And the scientist's planned landing sites for scientific reasons.
but the photography, mission footage, looks similar in many ways.
This was my reason for diversity question, well answer'd by the people on this forum.

[The Killchain]

Here is a better map of the Luna (red), Apollo (green) and Surveyor (yellow) landing sites on the visible face of the Moon:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_landing_map.jpg
(click on the image for the full resolution)

Nice pic, thanks.
So if i double the image (place exact size circle on left, to represent far side.)
Wipe off the red & yellow marks, that will be a representation of where humans have been.
Is that right?
Am i right that,
From W zero degrees to E zero degress is 5,460 km, on this pic.
So the farside pic next to it would give 10,921 km?
Equatorial Circumference.
Scale is important to the representation.

Cheers.

[The Killchain]

Hi Killchain,

neither has anybody claimed to know anything about the moon nor were the landings purely explorative.

Hello,
Yep realised that was a flopper straight away, should have said that...



Therefore they went for volcano craters to grab some pebbles which were ejected from deep within.

Thats a cool job discription.



So, from a scientific point of view a question has been answered: mission accomplished.

And the reason for not returning is purely political: it is so much more rewarding to pamper some wall street bankers than to explore.

Ex

HA HA..... That seems very true.

Perhaps NASA should get a different type of sales strategy, try to convince congress to spend.
Alien war might work, could be reason for moonbase......
Damn, they need a good salesman.

[The Killchain]

We're fortunate that the nearside has many areas of flat terrain. Given the constraints for landing areas, one glance at the far side topography and you have to wonder if we could have landed there at all. I realize that they would have found some candidates, but the two sides of the Moon are definitely night and day, pardon the pun.

The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point. Harrier Pilots get in some tight fields, and they are dealing with an atmoshpere/wind...etc.

Could a NASA pilot land there.......

[Rhaedas]

The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point. Harrier Pilots get in some tight fields, and they are dealing with an atmoshpere/wind...etc.

Could a NASA pilot land there.......

And once down there, there might be plenty of flat areas within all the craters, so it's more of a large scale picture that makes it seem daunting. But your analogy has at least one thing that's flawed. A Harrier pilot normally isn't running on close to empty as he's landing. That's based on Apollo 11, I don't know if they bumped up the fuel for the next missions or not. But unused fuel is weight that wasn't needed, so they likely didn't have a lot to play with either.

[moog]

The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point. Harrier Pilots get in some tight fields, and they are dealing with an atmoshpere/wind...etc.

Could a NASA pilot land there.......

I suspect a Harrier pilot would be very reluctant to land in a random unknown field, one pothole in the wrong place could cause a few problems.


And once down there, there might be plenty of flat areas within all the craters

The problem would come if you did not know in advance if that area was flat and clear enough.
Time for finding an alternative landing site would be very short.

[The Killchain]

I suspect a Harrier pilot would be very reluctant to land in a random unknown field, one pothole in the wrong place could cause a few problems.

The problem would come if you did not know in advance if that area was flat and clear enough.
Time for finding an alternative landing site would be very short.

Agreed, Given the visability restrictions & fuel levels, there would'nt be many second chance's for the Nasa pilot.
Must have been tough, 1 decent engine to control, Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.

[Hornblower]

Agreed, Given the visability restrictions & fuel levels, there would'nt be many second chance's for the Nasa pilot.
Must have been tough, 1 decent engine to control, Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.My bold. The lunar module had attitude control thrusters that performed the same function.

[The Killchain]

My bold. The lunar module had attitude control thrusters that performed the same function.

So with more fuel & visability, you could drop that baby anywhere.....

[Skyfire]

So with more fuel & visability, you could drop that baby anywhere.....

I'm sure visibility would be enhanced by modern ground radar plus the added advantage that you could have one or more video cameras giving you more views. Good quality cameras are now so small and light these days, and with fairly light flat screens to view them on, I would have thought this would be an integral part of the ship. I know weight is the primary importance, but surely this small amount would be allowed?

[The Killchain]

I'm sure visibility would be enhanced by modern ground radar plus the added advantage that you could have one or more video cameras giving you more views. Good quality cameras are now so small and light these days, and with fairly light flat screens to view them on, I would have thought this would be an integral part of the ship. I know weight is the primary importance, but surely this small amount would be allowed?

If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....

The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
must be Space age to the 1969 LM.

Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......

[moog]

Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......

A 16mm Film camera, not that handy for the purpose of scouting a landing site.

[Shaula]

The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
must be Space age to the 1969 LM.
I'm sorry but this cracked me up. I know you are using Space Aged to mean advanced but rephrase what is being said here:
The systems in a plane must appear space aged compared to those in a genuine space vehicle.

We need to redefine Space aged to mean "legacy hardware maintained at great cost because a lack of new systems mean that it is the only system that can do the job"

[NEOWatcher]

NEOWatcher
[...]It is a shame that they didnt think of getting some of their cash back, from the resouce of the moon. Like mining possibillitys.
With the constraints of time and life support they already had a hard enough time getting the few scientific experiments going.
There would be no payback spending more resources and weight to bring back some mined material. Just lifting off the moon with anything of any value to justify it would be a losing proposition.

Besides; the payback was in the science they were able to get done.


the first mission, to go and return safe, Done.
second, verify & compare every piece of data. (prove its repeatable) Done.

The next four missions, were they wasted cash
Absolutely wrong. Each mission had new scientific packages being deployed along with being able to sample various areas.
Even you said there weren't enough sample sites, so the first two were absolutely not enough in your opinion.

The genesis rock was not even found until Apollo 15. That was a very important key in our understanding. That only left two missions for verification.


The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point. Harrier Pilots get in some tight fields, and they are dealing with an atmoshpere/wind...etc.
Could a NASA pilot land there.......
The Harrier was designed for combat conditions and rough terrain. It's landing gear is highly strengthened for various landing conditions.
If the LM were designed for such landings, we wouldn't have been able to get it to the moon with the technology we had at the time. It was a trade-off. Safer landing sites compared to extra weight of structural support.

[R.A.F.]

...but the photography, mission footage, looks similar in many ways.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The Moon is pretty much the same. Why would you "expect" the photography/footage to be significantly different for different missions?

...actually, if you've looked at all the photos/footage, there are differences between landing sites...the major being the location of craters.



The LM was a VTOL Aircraft, to a point.

...if that "point" ignores that one craft was designed for atmospheric flight at one "G", while the other was designed to operate in zero, or 1/6th "G", and not for atmospheric "flight" at all.

[R.A.F.]

Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent?

How would that "aid" descent?

[R.A.F.]

The next four missions, were they wasted cash..

No, and am I ever glad you weren't "running that railroad".



...if you were standing on the surface of the Moon in sunlight, the temperature would be hot enough to boil water.

The temperature of what?



...And then the Sun would go down, and the temperature would drop 250 degrees in just a matter of moments.

Moments?, really??.

...and, again...the temperature of what.

[danscope]

Just a side note: Cameras for landing on the moon get in trouble in the presence of the considerable amount of dust
kicked up by the descent rockets. Gets on everything. Nothing's easy.

[djellison]

Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent?

They didn't need them. The windows faced out and down - they could see where they were landing ( all be it with the dust flying around )

They had RADAR to tell them how high they were, an 8 ball to tell them their attitude, other instruments to tell them their horz.velocity, and eyeballs out of the window to survey the landscape.

Using all those - the Apollo 12 astronauts landed EXACTLY where they needed to - from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12

"Conrad actually landed Intrepid 580 feet (175 m) short of Pete's Parking Lot because the planned landing point looked rougher than anticipated during the final approach to touchdown, and was a little under 1,180 feet (360 m) from Surveyor 3, a distance that was chosen to eliminate the possibility of lunar dust (being kicked up by Intrepid's descent engine during landing) from covering Surveyor 3.[5] But the actual touchdown point — approximately 600 feet (185 m) from Surveyor 3 — did cause high velocity sandblasting of the probe."


And yes - if the LEM were designed today it would be different - in the same way the F35 is different to the F4, which was a cutting edge aircraft at the time.

Sorry - what is your point, exactly?

[Glom]

My bold. The lunar module had attitude control thrusters that performed the same function.

And the descent engine was itself directable.

[Jason Thompson]

If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....

I doubt it. Yes, the computer systems might be very much different, but the basic premise of the LM is a landing vehicle in two parts with a couple of rocket engines. The basic principles behind the LM design have not changed.


The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
must be Space age to the 1969 LM.

I must add my amused response to this. As someone has already mentioned, the LM itself is space age, since it was a real space vehicle.


Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......

So were the astronauts' eyes. Why do you need cameras to aid a descent to a surface you can already see? With their eyes and the landing radar they had all the information they needed to make a landing.

[Jason Thompson]

If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....

I doubt it. Yes, the computer systems might be very much different, but the basic premise of the LM is a landing vehicle in two parts with a couple of rocket engines. The basic principles behind the LM design have not changed.


The systems in a Raptor/Eurofighter/Apache....
must be Space age to the 1969 LM.

I must add my amused response to this. As someone has already mentioned, the LM itself is space age, since it was a real space vehicle.


Why didnt they have camera's aiding decent? The camera's were pointing out the window......

So were the astronauts' eyes. Why do you need cameras to aid a descent to a surface you can already see? With their eyes and the landing radar they had all the information they needed to make a landing.

[NEOWatcher]

If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....
In what way?
I bet it would be very close to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_(spacecraft)).
Descent rocket, two stages (descent and ascent), spindly legs, an ingress/egress ladder.

[Obviousman]

Must have been tough, 1 decent engine to control, Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.

I'd disagree. Purely on physics, yes.. but when you include engineering... no.

[JayUtah]

Harrier has four directable nozzles.... that would make life easyier for harrier pilot.

The only way to do that in a rocket-propelled vehicle is to have four separate rocket engines. The Harrier has one engine whose thrust is divided and directed to the individual nozzles. The probability of a failure in any one nozzle is very remote. However, in a four-engine LM configuration all four engines would have to function correctly, whereas only one engine has to function correctly in the single-engine configuration. A four-engine LM is much less reliable.

[ineluki]

I doubt it. Yes, the computer systems might be very much different,


I guess to appeal to todays youth, it would have to be a "iLM" running a special moonlanding App instead of using human brains.

[captain swoop]

Harrier has one engine with four nozzles that nozzles work together to provide the main thrust, they aren't controlled independently they move as one unit. Attitude control is provided by nozzles in the wing tips, nose and tail of the Harrier. There is an HP air bleed from the compressor stage of the engine, these nozzles keep the harrier stable

[gwiz]

Harrier has one engine with four nozzles that nozzles work together to provide the main thrust, they aren't controlled independently they move as one unit. Attitude control is provided by nozzles in the wing tips, nose and tail of the Harrier. There is an HP air bleed from the compressor stage of the engine, these nozzles keep the harrier stable
In terms of the piloting tasks, the two vehicles are quite similar. In both cases the pilot keeps one hand on the throttle to control the descent rate by varying engine thrust and the other on a control stick linked to the small outboard jets that are used to control attitude. The Harrier engine nozzles are left in a fixed position during hover, and only moved during transition to or from wing-born flight. The LM task is actually easier on two counts. The lower gravity means things happen more slowly and the pilot doesn't have to worry about keeping the nose into the wind to prevent aerodynamic instability.

[Garrison]

If the LM was design'd today i bet it would be a totaly different beast....


And you would lose that bet, this is Altair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_%28spacecraft%29)from the Constellation program circa 2007. Yes it had some upgrades and improvements but you will notice the basic similarity of the design to the Apollo LM. Yes the avionics would be better but the basic mechanics would be the same. And it isn't just a matter of a NASA design philosophy, this is what the the soviets came up with for their cancelled moon program, the LK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_%28spacecraft%29)
Barring a radical propulsion breakthrough or the ability to refuel on the moon the critical elements are going to remain unchanged.