|
>to the moon? Why?
Money. It's insanely expensive and Congress' priorities have drasticlly changed.
(partial swipe)
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/45-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-landings/121-why-hasn-t-nasa-gone-back-to-the-moon-beginner
The main reason is funding - going to the moon is very expensive. NASA gets its money from the United States Congress, and in order to go to the moon again they would need to make a compelling case to Congress as to why the program should be funded. This is not something that would have been easy to do in the 80's and 90's, or today, for that matter.
I think the main reasons that the lunar landings happened in the first place were political - the United States wanted to prove to the world that it was better than the Soviet Union, which had previously beaten the U.S. in the space race. Consequently, there was a lot of public support for the missions. Eventually, however, the U.S won the race to the moon, went there several times, and the novelty wore off. At the same time, the Cold War was waning and eventually ended, so going to the moon no longer has the same public support and urgency that it once did. In the intervening years, NASA has moved on to focus on other projects, such as the International Space Station and scientifically-oriented unmanned missions around the solar system. Going to the moon would either involve shifting money away from these projects or increasing NASA's budget, neither of which Congress (or the American public) seems likely to do right now.
Personally, I don't think NASA will go to the moon again unless there is some compelling political reason to do it. For example, the landscape may change if China ever goes to the moon (as it plans to, including the 2013 launch of the uncrewed Chang'e mission with its lunar rover, Yutu). In the case of a crewed mission from China, I think you will see a renewed interest in the subject in the United States that could lead to another, more ambitious trip to the moon planned by NASA.
(partial swipe)
http://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html
Rather than visit the moon for hours or days at most, Constellation astronauts will embark on missions that could last months. They will need new tools and technologies for living on the moon, and must construct semi-permanent habitats on the lunar surface. Besides the challenge of designing these systems, NASA must build a spaceship than can transport all the extra supplies.
Rocket science
NASA's current rockets and space shuttles aren?t capable of surpassing low-Earth orbit to reach the moon with the amount of gear required for a manned expedition.
"The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn?t exist anymore," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation program manager. "It exited in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability."
NASA is developing new rockets, called Ares I and Ares V, for the return trip to the moon. These will be larger and taller than their Apollo-era Saturn counterparts, and will be able to carry significantly more weight.
The Constellation plan calls for these new rockets to surpass the Saturn vehicles in capability, but to do it on a budget.
"We want to do it cheaper, and we want to do it safer," Hanley told SPACE.com. "That's a pretty tough prescription for NASA to meet."
And on top of those challenges, Constellation plans to go farther than the moon: The lunar voyages will be a staging ground to prepare humans to journey to Mars.
"The complexity of leaving Earth's orbit, we understand that," said Frank Peri, director of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program at Langley Research Center in Virginia. "But getting back to the moon is not trivial, staying on the moon is not trivial, and going on to Mars is even beyond that."
Fiscal challenges
While engineering a return trip to the moon won't be easy, some experts say the biggest hurdle for Constellation is money. NASA is spending $35 billion to build Orion and the Ares I.
"The technologies that we need to do the job are largely in hand," Hanley said. "In terms of the challenge, it's really a fiscal challenge - the amount of money that the nation can afford to spend."
During the Apollo years NASA's budget was almost five percent of the federal budget. Now, it's less than one percent.
"We understand the technologies that will be necessary, but it's going to take an investment to do that," said Roger Launius, space history curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. "That's the rub."
During the 1960s, many Americans felt the expense of Apollo was justified because of its importance to national security during the cold war. Today, some people question whether human space exploration is as valuable.
"There are not compelling publicly-held reasons for doing this," Launius said. "Without a rationale that everybody understands and can buy into, it?s a very hard sell to get the resources to do it."
NASA maintains there are a host of good reasons for going back to the moon. In addition to the lunar science that can be learned, and the thrill of human exploration, many of the new technologies could have applications on the ground. For example, advances in high-efficiency batteries, energy storage systems, and closed loop environmental control and life support could benefit people back on Earth, Olson said.
"Despite the fiscal challenges and the tough times that we currently are experiencing, we need to go do this because of the economic benefits, because of the positive impact on people in our society," Olson said. "It truly is a worthy goal."
(partial swipe)
http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-real-story-of-apollo-17-and-why-we-never-went-ba-1670503448
Changing priorities
Just a year after Apollo 11 landed, NASA began to reprioritize: plans for a space station were revived, and in 1970, they announced that Apollo 20 would be cancelled in favor of the creation of a new venture: Skylab. On September 2nd, 1970, the agency announced the final three Apollo missions: Apollo 15, 16 and 17. The agency was forced to contend with political pressure as well: In 1971, the White House intended to completely cancel the Apollo program after Apollo 15, but ultimately, the two remaining Apollo missions were kept in place. Harrison Schmitt, who had been training for Apollo 18, was bumped up to Apollo 17 after NASA faced pressure from scientists to send one of their own to the Moon.
On December 14th, 1972, Cernan became the last human to step on the Moon’s surface:
07 00 00 47: “Bob, this is Gene, and I’m on the surface and as I take man’s last steps from the surface, back home, for some time to come, but we believe not too long into the future. I’d like to Just list what I believe history will record that America’s challenge of today has forged man’s destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus Littrow, we leave as we come and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17.”
In the forty-two years since those words were spoken, nobody has stepped on the Moon. The levels of federal spending which NASA had received before 1966 had become untenable to a public which had become financially wary, particularly as they experienced a major oil crisis in 1973, which shifted the nation’s priorities. Spending in space was something that could be done, but with far more fiscal constraints than ever before, limiting NASA to research and scientific missions in the coming years. Such programs included the development of the Skylab program in 1973, and the Space Shuttle program, as well as a number of robotic probes and satellites.
This shift in priorities deeply impacted the willpower of policymakers to implement new exploratory missions to the Moon and beyond. Optimistic dreams of reaching Mars had long since perished, and as NASA focused on the Space Shuttle, the physical infrastructure which supported lunar missions vanished: No longer were Saturn V rockets manufactured, and unused rockets were turned into museum displays. The entire technical and manufacturing apparatus, which has supported both military and civilian operations, had likewise begun to wind down. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and its successors began to freeze the numbers of missiles which could be deployed by both the United States and Soviet Union in 1972, and each country largely began to step down their operations. The urgency which fueled the Cold War arms race had begun to cool, and along with it, the support for much of the efforts required to bring people into space and to the Moon.
Since that time, US Presidents have spoken of their desire to return to the Moon, but often in terms of decades, rather than in single digits. It’s easy to see why: up until recently, US spaceflight operations were focused entirely on Low Earth Orbit activities, as well as admirable cooperative international programs such as the International Space Station, and major scientific instruments such as Mars Pathfinder, Opportunity/Spirit and Curiosity. Other major concerns have redirected US attentions from spaceflight: the United States’ War on Terror, which is expected to cost US taxpayers over $5 trillion dollars in the long run.
The launch of Orion atop a Delta IV Heavy rocket was exciting to watch, as well as newer players in the space launch field, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation, which suggesting that a new generation of infrastructure is being constructed. The reasons for visiting the Moon and potentially, other planets and bodies in our solar system, are numerous: they could be the greatest scientific endeavors of our existence, allowing us to further understand the creation of our planet and solar system and the greater world around us. More importantly though, such missions contribute to the character of the nation, demonstrating the importance of science and technology to our civilization, which will ultimately help us process and address the issues of greatest concern: the health of our planet. Hopefully, Cernan’s words and hope that our absence from the Moon will be short-lived, and that we will once again explore new worlds in our lifetimes.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
