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

[Uber_Noober]

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

the moon is weird

 

[CutStryker]

Aliens are anti woke and we are canceling them so

Because while tech increased the safety concerns, beurocratic red tape, amount of testing needed etc all increased exponentially. It's a different world now. While tech had taken miles leap so has all the beurocratic mechanisms. Anything the government tries to do takes 1000x longer thsn it should now..

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

 

[Streeter]

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

No. Government it seems needs to go thru several committees to okay changing a light bulb . Getting there isn't issue. There's either a specific reason why we're not going that noone clearly knows or its just being held up like everything else now a days.

 

[CutStryker]

No. Government it seems needs to go thru several committees to okay changing a light bulb . Getting there isn't issue. There's either a specific reason why we're not going that noone clearly knows or its just being held up like everything else now a days.

I call bullshit. End of fucking story!

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

It hasn't sold us it's oil rights yet

 

[rocketskates]

I think I remembered seeing somewhere that someone from NASA had basically said that we haven’t been back to the moon because there’s no reason to. We’ve been there, we’ve seen it, there are no resources that we care about…it’s not difficult it’s just not worth our time.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Landers built by private companies have a 100% failure record on the moon

This is the reason. It’s private companies trying everything they can to turn a profit, cutting corners the whole way.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I think I remembered seeing somewhere that someone from NASA had basically said that we haven’t been back to the moon because there’s no reason to. We’ve been there, we’ve seen it, there are no resources that we care about…it’s not difficult it’s just not worth our time.

I think that’a true, but also there may be a lot of water under the surface which would be helpful.

 

[rocketskates]

I think that’a true, but also there may be a lot of water under the surface which would be helpful.

I think when the time comes we may venture back, honestly Bezos and company may be chartering trips there before NASA feels the need to return.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I think when the time comes we may venture back, honestly Bezos and company may be chartering trips there before NASA feels the need to return.

Yeah, I don’t think NASA gets enough funding to really do much as far as drilling for water on the moon.
But I would much rather they get the funding, find the water, transport it back, and make it a public good. I don’t want the ultra wealthy to privatize water, even if that water is from outer space.

 

[OldTimer]

America ran out of nazi scientists to piggyback off



ARTICLES Complex Systems Won’t Survive the Competence Crisis

Came here to say that

 

[Bagatur]

Also there have been over a hundred missions to the Moon by many countries, the majority of them successful, dozens of them landings and many of them returns. So no, it is not "proving more difficult to land on the Moon", there is just no point in sending a man there.

 

[jimbob27]

The main reason is nobody is really trying like they did in the 60s.

The inflation adjusted cost for the Apollo programme is 176 billion dollars.

NASA's SLS rocket is the most expensive moon project in development, and has so far around 30 billion for the launcher and lander. They're planning a manned moon landing for 2026 so they're looking at a much smaller total budget than Apollo had.

 

[terrapin]

Why the fuck would you ask anyone here this? This is an mma forum. Even posted on the right section like why the fuck would you care what anyone here says? There is literally ENDLESS information available to you to look at and get the answer. Nah, let's ask randos online cos that's always smart.

Lame.

 

[TeTe]

Astronauts never landed on the moon, only Vasco de Gama. And the moon is flat. The earth is oval and aliens created covid to wipe us out... And put microchips in the vaccine.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Came here to say that

The answer isn’t “only Nazi scientists were competent enough to send us to the moon,” or “nobody is competent anymore because we promote people who aren’t competent.”

They’re taking anecdotal events, with no comparison to the number of type of disasters in the past that have happened, and drawing dubious and unsupported conclusions to rule people up. Most likely, it’s just a thinly veiled “No more affirmative action” editorial.

 

[Doughie99]

It seems more likely we didn’t land on the moon in 1969. The U.S. was supposed to have made a trip in the last couple years but was postponed. How do you land on the moon with less technology as opposed to more now?

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 : "

How do you land on the moon with less technology as opposed to more now?"

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).

 

[chill doggie]

Supposedly we lost some of the technology and didn’t write down how it was made or lost the instructions, that’s something that has been directly said by NASA people before.
Seems suspicious.
But I think we did land there before and I think it’s possible we have gone back but was kept secret.
Who really knows anything anymore.

 

[fica]

I think I remembered seeing somewhere that someone from NASA had basically said that we haven’t been back to the moon because there’s no reason to. We’ve been there, we’ve seen it, there are no resources that we care about…it’s not difficult it’s just not worth our time.

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