What gets me is the inability to repeat this. Not that they actually went there, but why we haven't successfully gone back with more advanced tech available to us as there is today? The original crew of travelers had a Radio Shack parts bin thrown together and wrapped it up in a layer of tin foil and they made it there.
Cost-prohibitive today? More capital available to us than ever. Motivation? More people today than ever would love to see a successful human re-visitation of a celestial body -- not just an unmanned probe or vehicle. Priorities? Wouldn't you as a nation love to demonstrate your grasp on the cosmos by going there again?
I guess Artemis is attempting a manned re-visitation of the moon's surface, but it's just staggering to me how it took this long to repeat something that came out of an exponentially more rudimentary period of time. Something doesn't add up. I'm the most curious what sort of tech is being hidden from us, tbh.
More than HALF A CENTURY after the 1969 moon landing, we haven't been back and even the rare UNMANNED landings on the moon sometimes have problems.
Fifty-five years of scientific and tech progress have taken us from primitive computers the size of a small room to wristwatches with far more computing power and memory (not to mention graphics capability) than could be bought for any price in 1969. We've gone from bulky low-res CRTs to "retina" resolution LCDs and other flatscreens; from smog-belching cars to gasoline vehicles whose exhaust is often cleaner than the surrounding air.
But we just can't seem to put humans on the moon again.
I'm sorry but what is it you think is missing between a version of a manned mission to the moon and an unmanned mission to the moon? The only thing you need to provide for the astronauts is extra oxygen to be there to go out the door when it lands on the moon. This is not rocket science actually, the moon is actually really easy to reach. It's when you decide to send science experiments and other complex things to actually start analyzing the moon and determining which parts you want to claim and which parts have the highest levels of helium 3, do you even understand why we go to the moon in the first place?? This is why the mods here remove people that are retarded on site. Why would you go to the moon? Answer that question for me
One other point: You are either dramatically underselling the difficulty of putting HUMANS in space or are unaware of them.
Humans need more than oxygen (although that's a big damn deal, really: the tanks and the nearly bullet-proof containment required in space, along with designing with the fire danger in mind aren't trivial and add quite a bit of weight) -- humans also need bathroom facilities, they need food, they need radiation shielding, they need G-force consideration for launch and maneuvers, they need tools and suits and much more. And going to and from the moon, plus of course STAYING there for even a short but useful time, makes this all much more difficult than just lobbing someone up for a space ride or taking them to the space station.
Is it really "retarded" to wonder if we actually had the technology to go to the moon with the much cruder tech we had 55 years ago?
The highest G-Force in astronaut experiences is 7 G's during reentry which they do pretty easily no problems because they are lying down.
It's actually easier to send humans in space and they're in a lunar module. The module has to be completely sealed like a submarine so it's pretty easy to keep the astronauts alive. All systems have carbon dioxide scrubbers and oxygen emitters
What gets me is the inability to repeat this. Not that they actually went there, but why we haven't successfully gone back with more advanced tech available to us as there is today? The original crew of travelers had a Radio Shack parts bin thrown together and wrapped it up in a layer of tin foil and they made it there.
Cost-prohibitive today? More capital available to us than ever. Motivation? More people today than ever would love to see a successful human re-visitation of a celestial body -- not just an unmanned probe or vehicle. Priorities? Wouldn't you as a nation love to demonstrate your grasp on the cosmos by going there again?
I guess Artemis is attempting a manned re-visitation of the moon's surface, but it's just staggering to me how it took this long to repeat something that came out of an exponentially more rudimentary period of time. Something doesn't add up. I'm the most curious what sort of tech is being hidden from us, tbh.
Great point, LordK.
More than HALF A CENTURY after the 1969 moon landing, we haven't been back and even the rare UNMANNED landings on the moon sometimes have problems.
Fifty-five years of scientific and tech progress have taken us from primitive computers the size of a small room to wristwatches with far more computing power and memory (not to mention graphics capability) than could be bought for any price in 1969. We've gone from bulky low-res CRTs to "retina" resolution LCDs and other flatscreens; from smog-belching cars to gasoline vehicles whose exhaust is often cleaner than the surrounding air.
But we just can't seem to put humans on the moon again.
Something is off here.
I'm sorry but what is it you think is missing between a version of a manned mission to the moon and an unmanned mission to the moon? The only thing you need to provide for the astronauts is extra oxygen to be there to go out the door when it lands on the moon. This is not rocket science actually, the moon is actually really easy to reach. It's when you decide to send science experiments and other complex things to actually start analyzing the moon and determining which parts you want to claim and which parts have the highest levels of helium 3, do you even understand why we go to the moon in the first place?? This is why the mods here remove people that are retarded on site. Why would you go to the moon? Answer that question for me
One other point: You are either dramatically underselling the difficulty of putting HUMANS in space or are unaware of them.
Humans need more than oxygen (although that's a big damn deal, really: the tanks and the nearly bullet-proof containment required in space, along with designing with the fire danger in mind aren't trivial and add quite a bit of weight) -- humans also need bathroom facilities, they need food, they need radiation shielding, they need G-force consideration for launch and maneuvers, they need tools and suits and much more. And going to and from the moon, plus of course STAYING there for even a short but useful time, makes this all much more difficult than just lobbing someone up for a space ride or taking them to the space station.
Is it really "retarded" to wonder if we actually had the technology to go to the moon with the much cruder tech we had 55 years ago?
Maybe we did, but I'm not convinced.
The highest G-Force in astronaut experiences is 7 G's during reentry which they do pretty easily no problems because they are lying down.
It's actually easier to send humans in space and they're in a lunar module. The module has to be completely sealed like a submarine so it's pretty easy to keep the astronauts alive. All systems have carbon dioxide scrubbers and oxygen emitters