Why landing on the moon is proving more difficult today than 50 years ago?

[fica]

Sigh.

There's actually PHOTOS of more than one of the Apollo landing sites that have been taken recently (last few years) by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which can take hi-res photos of the moons' surface. All the Apollo hardware is there, the shadows, the lunar rover left behind the launch platform etc, all there, and in the exact positions left behindf by the 12men who have walked on the surface. (6 Apollo missions, 2 men on lunar surface, 1 stayed behind in the orbiting capsule each time).

There are also many other hard proofs of the landings including reflectors left behind on the surface that almost any institution / univeristy / govt / can bounce a laser off from the Earth and detect the reflected laser. Cannot do that WITHOUT the correct hardware on the moon which was placed there by one or more Apollo flights. I ain't gonna waste my time typing out any more than this, but if anyone thinks the Lunar manned landings did not happen then they lack one or all of : good education, understanding of Science/physics, ability to think logically, critical thinking, obsessive about conspiracy theories etc etc.

Doing MANNED space flight is very very very very expensive to do the R&D and build the hardware and software, PAY all the thousands of highly qualified staff who build the thing, operate the thing, etc and obviously if there's a Loss of Vehicle that is disastrous, and possibly spells the end of that manned program. So the amount of design and testing that has to be done to make sure it all works is immense.

Your Question : "

A. BOTTOM LINE = $$$$$$$$$$$ (massive budget required) and the politics to get it APPROVED by any countries government is the main reason. It's really nothing to do with technology. It's CASH. The fundamentals of the Rocket Equation remains unchanged, and we still use chemical propulsion expelled through Laval Nozzles and Isaac Newtons' Third Law of Motion results on the large metal object moving in the opposite direction (i.e. upwards!). NOTHING has changed on that since 1969.

For eg. Artemis (launched on SLS rocket system) launches cost FOUR BILLION DOLLARS each time. Yes, US$4,000,000,000. That number was calculated by an independent govt. agency. Ludicrously expensive. (and I do fully expect the SLS program to be terminated in the next few years as financially unsustainable).

more money well you could have trillions but 60s tech is nothing compare to now so really is it $$$$ or just bogus claim that they were there what makes me belive it is bogus is movie armagedon same type of movements they did as astronauts did back in 60s

 

[rocketskates]

lol you believe that so best and most logical place to go in space is to space station and back no need to go further because there is nothing to see there i guess lol who believes that

 

[fica]

you just said nasa said there is nothing to see beyong earth orbit that is why they do not go to moon anymore dummie

 

[rocketskates]

you just said nasa said there is nothing to see beyong earth orbit that is why they do not go to moon anymore dummie

That’s not what I said at all. I said there is no reason to go BACK to the moon because we’ve already been there and there’s no reason to return. I didn’t say that there is no point in exploring beyond the moon. Comprehension is your friend and also, punctuation. When you come down from your mushrooms, go back and re-read my post.

 

[fica]

That’s not what I said at all. I said there is no reason to go BACK to the moon because we’ve already been there and there’s no reason to return. I didn’t say that there is no point in exploring beyond the moon. Comprehension is your friend and also, punctuation. When you come down from your mushrooms, go back and re-read my post.

anybody with any brain wous see moon landing was hoax.rover proves it how did they put it back on capsule there were nothin there when they landed.rover was for coolnes

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

The big thing that doesn't get brought up enough is safety standards and also, just how the world was at the time. Russia had just launched Sputnik and people were terrified. Russia had a probe orbiting the globe and Americans didn't really know exactly what it was or what it was doing. Was it spying? Taking pictures? A weapon?

We HAD to beat the Soviets to the Moon or else, they could take over space. We would have done anything (yes, I believe even faking it) to beat them. The entire Apollo project was a mathematical and engineering feat. Technology in the sense that we think about it today was almost non-existent. A Casio pocket calculator has more power than what the lunar module had. It was a virtual tin can with rockets - and there lies the problem. You could NEVER do that today. We shot people to the Moon on rockets in a tin can with a calculator. Engineering, math and physics did the rest.

Today, you would have to have all of these computers, safety protocols, a million fail safes, contingency plans, etc. Back then, it was blast people to the Moon and and if they died, they had a prepared statement ready to go. It was the wild west. It was brilliant but it was also reckless. We beat the Russians to the Moon and the public was satisfied.

There's just no appetite to go back to the Moon because we don't have a vision like we once had. NASA had planned an actual Moon base by the 80s but budget cuts and lack of interest cut all of that. While I think being safe is a good thing, I can also see the downside to it. We would have never gotten off the ground if we didn't take risks and risk taking just doesn't have much these days.

 

[Doughie99]

more money well you could have trillions but 60s tech is nothing compare to now so really is it $$$$ or just bogus claim that they were there what makes me belive it is bogus is movie armagedon same type of movements they did as astronauts did back in 60s

The main rocket engines that power the latest greatest NASA rocket -- the SLS rocket which is going to take men back ot the moon has RS-25 engines in it (4 of them per SLS 1st stage). Do you know when the RS-25 engine was DESIGNED ?? FIFTY YEARS AGO!!! BACK IN THE 60S AND 70S THATS WHEN!!! so much for modern tech. And the solid-rocket boosters are more or less identical to the Shuttle ones except they made them a bit longer, that's all.

17 (by memory) of these RS-25 engines were stored in a NASA warehouse when the Shuttle program was terminated (1980s program!!!), and they've literally dusted them off and checked them out to use them in the LATEST rocket. Why?? because they WORK!
Again, the basic method of sending men in a capsule to the Moon is the SAME as in the 60s : design a nice safe metal tube, install 4 or 5 nice powerful rocket engines, fill with liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen, point in the right direction, and IGNITE IT. (use boosters if the payload mass requirees it). Technology HAS NOT CHANGED THAT basic method.
Yes computers etc are far more advanced now, but the guidance and nav systems they had in the 1960s still worked. without GPS, wuthout all the modern stuff. Basic Physics is basic physics. You just don't know anything about this stuff, but I do.

It's all about political will, MONEY and "can we sell this very expensive moon program to the General Public??"

Maybe you should spend a bit more time at school, learning things, educating yourself, gain some knowledge about science and rockets and Celestial mechanics before pontificating your conspiracy theories about things you fundamentally are clearly ignorant on.

EDIT:
as far as any Hollywood movie, this is simple to simulate a person in 1/6th G (lunar gravity) : If a person jumps off a ladder and lands on a surface at 1G (EArth's gravity) you simply what is called overcranking (use higher frame rate) and shoot it at a frame-rate 6 times higher than normal (normal frame-rate for movies is 24fps, so shoot it at approx 144fps) and then slow it down 6 times in post-production edit. That will give a reasonably good simulation of an object falling in 1/6th G i.e. lunar gravity. For objects moving LATERALLY or UPWARDS it won't quite work, but using a Hollywood movie as the main basis for your tinfoil conspiracy theory that NASA did not send men to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s is quite laughable.

NB#1 : The SLS program has ALREADY taken an unmanned Orion capsule beyond the moon in Nov.2022, and safely returned. This was 'Artemis I' mission. They went FURTHER than the moon in an elliptical 'free return' orbit. Worked fine. Very expensive 'stage 1' basically.

 

[James Eagle]

That’s not what I said at all. I said there is no reason to go BACK to the moon because we’ve already been there and there’s no reason to return. I didn’t say that there is no point in exploring beyond the moon. Comprehension is your friend and also, punctuation. When you come down from your mushrooms, go back and re-read my post.

We never fucking went

You don’t understand anything. It was impossible, literally.

 

[fica]

The main rocket engines that power the latest greatest NASA rocket -- the SLS rocket which is going to take men back ot the moon has RS-25 engines in it (4 of them per SLS 1st stage). Do you know when the RS-25 engine was DESIGNED ?? FIFTY YEARS AGO!!! BACK IN THE 60S AND 70S THATS WHEN!!! so much for modern tech. And the solid-rocket boosters are more or less identical to the Shuttle ones except they made them a bit longer, that's all.

17 (by memory) of these RS-25 engines were stored in a NASA warehouse when the Shuttle program was terminated (1980s program!!!), and they've literally dusted them off and checked them out to use them in the LATEST rocket. Why?? because they WORK!
Again, the basic method of sending men in a capsule to the Moon is the SAME as in the 60s : design a nice safe metal tube, install 4 or 5 nice powerful rocket engines, fill with liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen, point in the right direction, and IGNITE IT. (use boosters if the payload mass requirees it). Technology HAS NOT CHANGED THAT basic method.
Yes computers etc are far more advanced now, but the guidance and nav systems they had in the 1960s still worked. without GPS, wuthout all the modern stuff. Basic Physics is basic physics. You just don't know anything about this stuff, but I do.

It's all about political will, MONEY and "can we sell this very expensive moon program to the General Public??"

Maybe you should spend a bit more time at school, learning things, educating yourself, gain some knowledge about science and rockets and Celestial mechanics before pontificating your conspiracy theories about things you fundamentally are clearly ignorant on.

EDIT:
as far as any Hollywood movie, this is simple to simulate a person in 1/6th G (lunar gravity) : If a person jumps off a ladder and lands on a surface at 1G (EArth's gravity) you simply what is called overcranking (use higher frame rate) and shoot it at a frame-rate 6 times higher than normal (normal frame-rate for movies is 24fps, so shoot it at approx 144fps) and then slow it down 6 times in post-production edit. That will give a reasonably good simulation of an object falling in 1/6th G i.e. lunar gravity. For objects moving LATERALLY or UPWARDS it won't quite work, but using a Hollywood movie as the main basis for your tinfoil conspiracy theory that NASA did not send men to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s is quite laughable.

NB#1 : The SLS program has ALREADY taken an unmanned Orion capsule beyond the moon in Nov.2022, and safely returned. This was 'Artemis I' mission. They went FURTHER than the moon in an elliptical 'free return' orbit. Worked fine. Very expensive 'stage 1' basically.

lol biggest bogus in moon hoax is rover and the driving it on the moon and then capsule lands on earth and no rover to be found

 

[dirtypablo]

lol biggest bogus in moon hoax is rover and the driving it on the moon and then capsule lands on earth and no rover to be found

How is that bogus? They left it on the moon.

 

[blaseblase]

NASA is practically “the government “, if the Government wanted to go to the moon, they would have went by now. Imo
View attachment 1025104

NASA doesn't have the budget it used to. When we were in a Space race with Russia and the president's stated goal was to put a man on the moon they basically had unlimited capitol to reach that goal.

 

[fica]

How is that bogus? They left it on the moon.

How did they lift off from moon and they left rover on moon

 

[dirtypablo]

The big thing that doesn't get brought up enough is safety standards and also, just how the world was at the time. Russia had just launched Sputnik and people were terrified. Russia had a probe orbiting the globe and Americans didn't really know exactly what it was or what it was doing. Was it spying? Taking pictures? A weapon?

We HAD to beat the Soviets to the Moon or else, they could take over space. We would have done anything (yes, I believe even faking it) to beat them. The entire Apollo project was a mathematical and engineering feat. Technology in the sense that we think about it today was almost non-existent. A Casio pocket calculator has more power than what the lunar module had. It was a virtual tin can with rockets - and there lies the problem. You could NEVER do that today. We shot people to the Moon on rockets in a tin can with a calculator. Engineering, math and physics did the rest.

Today, you would have to have all of these computers, safety protocols, a million fail safes, contingency plans, etc. Back then, it was blast people to the Moon and and if they died, they had a prepared statement ready to go. It was the wild west. It was brilliant but it was also reckless. We beat the Russians to the Moon and the public was satisfied.

There's just no appetite to go back to the Moon because we don't have a vision like we once had. NASA had planned an actual Moon base by the 80s but budget cuts and lack of interest cut all of that. While I think being safe is a good thing, I can also see the downside to it. We would have never gotten off the ground if we didn't take risks and risk taking just doesn't have much these days.

I agree with much of the sentiment, but I think you're underestimating the amount of engineering rigor and safety precautions that went into the early missions. Calling the Apollo missions hardware a tin can and calculator is massively understating the amount of incredibly brilliant engineering work that went into those systems.

 

[dirtypablo]

How did they lift off from moon and they left rover on moon

? What are you talking about? They didn't use the rover to take off from the moon, the used a specific lunar module. They left the rover on the moon, took the lunar module back to the module that would then take them back to earth and left the lunar model in the moons orbit.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

I agree with much of the sentiment, but I think you're underestimating the amount of engineering rigor and safety precautions that went into the early missions. Calling the Apollo missions hardware a tin can and calculator is massively understating the amount of incredibly brilliant engineering work that went into those systems.

Well, I said it was an engineering feat. I've read numerous books including the fantastic "Man on the Moon" which details all of the Apollo missions and they essentially said the same thing. The technology was in the materials used but the raw computing power, it was almost non-existent. We made it to the Moon by brilliant math and engineering - not so much technology. At least the way we think about technology these days. If we were to go to the Moon now, it would be all about technology which is why I think it would be much harder to do.

 

[Cielo_]

Well, I said it was an engineering feat. I've read numerous books including the fantastic "Man on the Moon" which details all of the Apollo missions and they essentially said the same thing. The technology was in the materials used but the raw computing power, it was almost non-existent. We made it to the Moon by brilliant math and engineering - not so much technology. At least the way we think about technology these days. If we were to go to the Moon now, it would be all about technology which is why I think it would be much harder to do.

With AI? I don’t think so pal

 

[fica]

? What are you talking about? They didn't use the rover to take off from the moon, the used a specific lunar module. They left the rover on the moon, took the lunar module back to the module that would then take them back to earth and left the lunar model in the moons orbit.

so where is lunar module in orbit of moon. they trying to prove they were on moon by shooting laser on placed artifacts on moon. should it be easy to prove by taking pics of rover on moon and not ome irror