OK conspiracy theorists - get out of this! Moon landings!

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah, I just remembered the other thing that made me doubt a teeny little bit. ( not that I believe the conspiracy theory ).
But have they ever explained satisfactorily why they haven't been back to the moon?

Well, they went in 1969, and then they went back five times.

The Apollo missions returned from the moon to earth in a tiny craft, using very little fuel.
That is because it takes very little energy to take off from the moon.
The same applies to the space station. The energy needed to go FROM THE SPACE STATION TO THE MOON is not much at all. And the same applies to the return trip.

The energy needed to move all the stuff needed for a Moon Mission to the Space Station, and then move that to the Moon is the same or about the same as the energy needed to go straight from the ground to the Moon. The money was an issue, given that the priority at the time was to develop a reusable craft to get people and things into low Earth orbit, satellites and such, which were all pretty new stuff in the early to mid 1970's. The idea of it being a routine thing to bounce back and forth multiple times to low Earth orbit was brand new in the 1970s and nobody really knew how to do it. Unfortunately, we weren't willing to spend the money on both things.

Nearly all of the fuel is consumed by taking off from Earth, which they have been doing all the time, anyway.

Yes, but not with craft that could land on the moon and take off, and not with Saturn V rockets.

So if you can go to the space station, what's the problem with going to the moon?

Money.

[Coito ergo sum]

A mission from the ISS to the moon wouldn't be Apollo- expensive but would still cost a bob or two

Especially considering that you'd have to go there in something other than a Space Shuttle.

[Atheist-Lite]

A mission from the ISS to the moon wouldn't be Apollo- expensive but would still cost a bob or two

Especially considering that you'd have to go there in something other than a Space Shuttle.

I'm sure it could be done with off the shelf compoents in the private sector for very little. The one way ticket option would also save money. Just got to find someone dumb enough to take the ticket.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By now we could have walked there.

[Coito ergo sum]

A mission from the ISS to the moon wouldn't be Apollo- expensive but would still cost a bob or two

Especially considering that you'd have to go there in something other than a Space Shuttle.

I'm sure it could be done with off the shelf compoents in the private sector for very little.

There are no such shelf components in the private sector.

[Coito ergo sum]

By now we could have walked there.

Would be a nice "jobs bill" to drop a $100,000,000,000 per year more on NASA and direct them to get us to the Moon in five years. Hire the best folks, expand Cape Canaveral and the Johnson Space Center and give our kids some inspiration to get a science education at the same time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By now we could have walked there.

Would be a nice "jobs bill" to drop a $100,000,000,000 per year more on NASA and direct them to get us to the Moon in five years. Hire the best folks, expand Cape Canaveral and the Johnson Space Center and give our kids some inspiration to get a science education at the same time.

Only if it would directly benefit the private sector and there were no tax increases. Besides, we'd have to send someone who would be expendable if they didn't come back. I have a short list...

[Atheist-Lite]

A mission from the ISS to the moon wouldn't be Apollo- expensive but would still cost a bob or two

Especially considering that you'd have to go there in something other than a Space Shuttle.

I'm sure it could be done with off the shelf compoents in the private sector for very little.

There are no such shelf components in the private sector.

I'd use ingenuity and fortify a civilian helicopter - send it up in parts and use that as a landing module. Replace the rotors with thrusters and fly it like the flying bedstead. They used to be ingenious like that in the early days of flight. No thought about personal safety. If it had been left to the cautious we'd still be dreaming of manned flight today.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thanks, you just made my short list.

[Atheist-Lite]

Thanks, you just made my short list.

You'd already have a trained surplus of commercial space pilots if the instrument panel and thrusters are connected properly. That is one major cost saving. Helicopter pilots would jump at the chance. They know all about the dead mans curve and other stuff useful for putting down on the moon.

[mistermack]

So if you can go to the space station, what's the problem with going to the moon?

Post coitus depression, sort of. We'd done it and it was time to move on. Remember that it wasn't about going to the Moon, it was about beating the Russians to the Moon for most people, so support for the missions waned quickly. There were missions planned after XVII, but they were scrubbed. We had other things to do, like dig ourselves out of S.E.A.

Yeh, but, what has been the point of going to the space station all those times then?
Would a moon mission cost more than two space station missions? I can't see why.
And it should be hundreds of times safer now, than in the sixties.

That's what I really would like to know. Why is a Moon mission so much more expensive.

You have to remember that there is STUFF on the moon. Like water, and minerals. Stuff that you could use. There is nothing on the space station that wasn't launched from Earth at HUGE cost.

So I would have thought that the moon was a far more attractive destination than the space station.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Crumpet, L.O.E. is useful for research, if nothing else. It's reachable and sustainable. Add 230,000 miles to the trip and you have a whole different set of logistical issues.

[Atheist-Lite]

Crumpet, L.O.E. is useful for research, if nothing else. It's reachable and sustainable. Add 230,000 miles to the trip and you have a whole different set of logistical issues.

They solved all the probs using 60s thinking.....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Crumpet, L.O.E. is useful for research, if nothing else. It's reachable and sustainable. Add 230,000 miles to the trip and you have a whole different set of logistical issues.

They solved all the probs using 60s thinking.....

No, they kludged a bunch of fixes together and flung humans at the satellite while hoping they made it home.

[mistermack]

Crumpet, L.O.E. is useful for research, if nothing else. It's reachable and sustainable. Add 230,000 miles to the trip and you have a whole different set of logistical issues.

Actually, the extra distance isn't a problem.
A space craft uses no energy, once it's up to speed. The energy requirement is just for acceleration and deceleration.

The return from the moon uses very little fuel. It's only take-off from the Earth which is fuel hungry.

And now that they've found water on the Moon, you can actually make your own fuel, and store it there for future missions.

I can't see that it's a fuel problem. I would have thought that the shuttle could have carried a craft capable of going to the moon and back.

Actually, we have sent plenty of THINGS to the moon since, so, no, it can't be a fuel problem.