30 Years Since Last Man on the Moon

Honeydipper Dan writes "December 14 marks the 30th anniversary of the last man on the Moon . I haven't noticed any hoopla about this. Perhaps this event raises the subtext of why we haven't been back a little more than the first Moon landing's 30th anniversary did over 3 years ago. The Apollo 17 mission was a great success, however, and deserves to be remembered. It marked the first (and last) time a geologist was on the surface of the Moon. Meanwhile, NASA is commemorating the Wright brothers' flight of December 17, 1903, getting ready for next year's Centennial of Flight."

Comments

The Space Shuttle

[zabieru]

Well, the Space Shuttle is one of the main reasons. It can't go to the Moon, and NASA billed it as the ultimate wonder ship, the future of space travel. So, they can't really go back to capsules. Nothing as heavy and general-purpose as the Space Shuttle can make it to the moon in a reasonable amount of time without costing an arm and a leg. Maybe if we had something like a NERVA engine, but we don't.

Re:The Space Shuttle

[InfiniteWisdom]

Maybe the space shuttle isn't the ultimate vehicle, but I'm sure a billion-dollar a shot one-time use rocket isn't either. I'm pretty certain the spacecraft of the future will look a lot closer to the space shuttle than to the Saturn V

Re:The Space Shuttle

[Bicoid]

The Space Shuttle is perfect for what we're doing now, which is establishing a reasonable presence in orbit via satellites and space stations. This presence will eventually allow us to make more reasonable attempts at the moon, mars, etc. Right now, though, what would a manned moonshot accomplish? What the other moonshots did? The Apollo series were less scientific than they were a competition with the USSR. We just strapped people to a giant bomb and sent them off, they picked up some rocks and came back. That's not a scientific mission. If we want to actually learn about the moon, we need to either send permanent probes there, or we need to establish semi-permanent research colonies capable of sustaining a reasonably large team of scientists and supporting personnel for extended periods of time. The sheer quantity of materials and resources needed for this sort of operation would far exceed the amount of materials we can safely get to escape velocity using the equipment we have. In other words, we need to either assemble such a craft/station THERE using unmanned robotic probes, or we need to build it in orbit and then fly it to the moon.

In other words, the reason we haven't gone to the moon since 72 is because our interests have changed. Instead of trying to one-up feats of the Soviet Union (insert obligatory In Soviet Russia joke here) we're trying to establish a presence that will serve as a platform for further research.

Honestly, though, I don't see a credible moon presence until we either come up with a more efficient launch vehicle or we engineer a skyhook of some sort. Until then, expect NASA to focus entirely on putting things into orbit, especially geosynchonous orbit.

Re:The Space Shuttle

[Jaysyn]

There won't be a long term space presence anywhere until we can figure out how to keep our bones from turning to glass from lack of gravity.

Jaysyn

Re:The Space Shuttle

[sql*kitten]

I don't think there is any practical problem that would prevent another moon mission. A moon rocket could be sent up in parts and assembled in space, using the ISS as a base of operations. The problem is that there aren't any scientific breakthroughs to be expected from landing more people on the moon and having them jump around for a few days. A permanent moon base OTOH would IMHO be a worhtwhile project, because it would give us the experience we'd need to start a mars mission. Maybe they could also set up a telescope, while they're at it.

Exactly. The only motivation for getting back into space is economic, since practially all the science that can be done can be done remotely. That means mineral extraction, manufacturing that can benefit from low gravity and plenty of vaccuum, and space tourism. It's high time that the governments and scientists got out of the way and let commercial interests take over space exploration.

Competition Breeds Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

The collapse of the Soviet Union marked the end of real NASA achievement. Even the great advancements of the late 90's were just carry-overs from the CCCP vs NASA era. Until China or the EU becomes a real "threat" in the era of space exploration, we won't see any more moon landings.

Re:Competition Breeds Innovation

[susano_otter]

Could be. Not that it will matter, of course. What did we learn at the beginning of the Space Race? That putting the first satellite into orbit didn't mean fuck all. Then we learned that putting the first man into orbit didn't mean fuck all. Then we learned that putting the first man on the Moon didn't mean fuck all. I say, let China put the first man on Mars. Let them spend untold resources developing the technology. Meanwhile, let others watch and learn. In the end, it's the nation who puts the tenth man on mars, or the 20th, or the 30th through the 50th, or the first batch of 10 simultaneous mars walks, or the first permanent mars habitation to support more than 5 residents... those nations will be the big winners. The first man on mars will be a footnote, in the end, and the Martian era will be counted from a later, much more spectacular endeavor.

Hell, in 100 years, the Apollo missions will be a short prologue to the real story of Moon exploration.

Last? I hope not!

[Xtifr]

I'd like to think that the "last man on the moon" is an event that won't happen for a few more tens of thousands of years. 30th anniv. of the most recent trip to the moon, I'd accept.

Not much to show = no hoopla !

[Raiford]

There is a reason for no hoopla. If you have been stuck in earth orbit for the last 30 years after visiting the nearest celestial body what do you have to brag about ? This has been one of the greatest technological losses or our time. And yes this technology has perished. Engineering is as much an art as it is a science and all of the engineers that were responsible for putting men on the moon have long since retired or died. There was no continuing mentorship of a next generation of engineers. The US Air Force does something that NASA doesn't. The military will go through the entire design to build process of a prototype fighter every 20 years wheather one is needed or not simply to avoid losing the knowledge of how to do it. The process of passing the experience on to a new generation is of more value than the product itself.

It is a shame but...

[SmoothOperator]

I don't see how we (as citizens of all nations) will go to the moon again. Right now, the focus of the world is on war. Nobody wants to bring up expensive projects up: just look at the ISS, and how people are saying that it is a monstrous waste of money, for America, Russia, and everyone else who is involved. Going to the moon will not bring anything to America. As the saying goes, "been there, done that". It is no longer about a "race" with the Russians, there is nothing to prove.

The only people who might want to prove something, are nations like Japan, China, India and perhaps the ESA. They haven't been to the moon, and they want to prove to the world that they are at a sufficiently advanced technological level that they can do it. Plus they have the bright minds to think of a brilliant and probably cost effective plan.

As for America, I think that our generation (children of the boomers) is lost. We emerged from the greed-filled, "me-only" days of the late 20th century, but our attitudes have not changed. We still like our SUVs, our fast food, but at the same time we like to have our government "lean and cost-efficient". Perhaps our children will awake with a new sense of wonder and will realize the dream of returning to the moon, and perhaps of going beyond to Mars, etc.

Re:It is a shame but...

[Orne]

They're saying it's a monstrous waste of money because it is a monstrous waste of money. It's been covered on Slashdot before, the ISS as it exists now (and its immediate future) does not support the kind of research that needs to be done to facilitate the further exploration of our solar system.

Of course, I would differ with you... I argue that the baby-boomer generation is the "lost" one (who is it with the mid-life crisis buying those SUVs), and it is up to us to dream our way out of this nanny-state security blanket that they put us in, and get back to taking some risks & facing the future. It's not going to happen by giving up & pushing it off for another 30 years...

Well, what's the point?

[Tuxinatorium]

Do we really need any more manned missions to the moon? What research can we do with live people that we can't do with cheaper, lighter remote probes? The only real purpose of sending men to the moon was an ego boost for the US during the cold war. Further manned missions to the moon would be an expensive and completely unnecessary venture, unless we finally get around to colonizing the moon. But then, what would be the point of that? Just for fun? Maybe build a huge observatory there that won't be obstructed by an atmosphere?

NASA is like a little boy

[bace]

I feel that NASA's relationship with the moon is like a little boy who gets a great toy for christmas, plays with it for a few months then throws it in the toy box with all his other wonderfull toys of years past. This is over simplification but hey im lazy.
Remember people space still is a race, just not as hotly contested as before.

Re:Wasn't Nixon responsible?

[Shelled]

No, wasn't it Senator William Proxmire with his hugely influential Golden Fleece Awards? Proxmire made a name for himself exposing the government's waste of taxpayer's dollars. The sixties and early seventies were a time of major societal upheaval and strong anti-technological sentiments, sending men to the moon rather than feeding the poor appeared to many as frivolous. Instead they did neither. Some of the decisions weren't too bright. NASA should have claimed the moon really was made of cheese.

If we can afford war, we can afford space

[Sean Clifford]

This really burns me up. The American government can spend upwards of $200 BILLION dollars to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, install a government to do its bidding, and pillage the country for its natural resources.

But we can't spend that same $200 BILLION to open up space. You want to distract folks from the shitty assed economy? Spend that money on a space program. "We'll colonise the Moon!"

Pumping that much green into a space program and supporting programs (like EDUCATION) can fuel a renaissance in science and buck up the economy, realise orbital microwave power stations, and will spawn countless spin-off technologies.

Isn't that something to get patriotic about? Something to unify the country about? Something that will make our neighbors look upon us as friends rather than some dillhole bully that's going to whack them and steal their stuff?

Re:If we can afford war, we can afford space

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you trade another September 11-sized attack for the ability to put another manned mission on the moon?

We already have the ability to put another manned mission on the moon.

if you're asking, would i trade another Sept 11 for colonizing the moon? yes, easily and without hesitation. A few generations from now sept 11 and the war on terror will be another footnote in the history books. When people look back on the 20th century they won't give a damn about the cold war or who had an affair or what song was number one on the billboard charts.

The 20th century was when man made flight possible, discovered DNA, nuclear power, and landed on the moon.

I'm sure building all those roads and aqueducts seemed pretty wasteful a few thousand years ago, too. That stupid Parthenon probably cost a fortune!

Re:If we can afford war, we can afford space

[EchoMirage]

The American government can spend upwards of $200 BILLION dollars to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, install a government to do its bidding, and pillage the country for its natural resources. But we can't spend that same $200 BILLION to open up space.

This is a false dichotomy often used against a government's involvement in war. Unfortunately government spending is not an either-or proposition - if we decided not to go to war with Iraq, it doesn't automatically mean that we have $200 billion to spend on education or the space race.

The U.S. government, for instance, allocates a certain amount of yearly resources to defense spending, regardless of the current political climate. During war or wannabe-war years, that spending increases, and is often deficit spending to address a perceived need. The government usually isn't willing to deficit spend on education or technology, unless absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, you neglected to mention that the United States citizens themselves, not our elected officials, usually vote down spending for social issues (regardless of party affiliation, I might add). So even if it were an either-or dichotomy, we'd still have ourselves to blame.

Re:If we can afford war, we can afford space

[prisoner-of-enigma]

First off, I'd love to see your evidence that the U.S. has "murder[ed] hundreds of thousands of civilians" and "pillage[d] the country for its natural resources". I'm assuming you're talking about Afghanistan, since it's current. Exactly what "resources" are we pillaging? There's not much there to take, except perhaps some oil, but there's no way to extract it as the country is in ruins -- ruins of self-inflicted wars since the Soviet's left two decades ago.

Plus, I want to know where you got the "hundreds of thousands" figures. Man, we must've dropped some really neat bombs to kill that many people! We didn't drop anywhere near enough munitions to kill that many people unless they were all just clustered somewhere in the middle of the desert. Of course, you have proof of this, right? Who am I kidding, this is Slashdot, the land of making grandiose, unsupportable, unsubstantiated claims.

Now, next I shall enlighten you a bit on how government budgets work. You simply can't take the entire defense spending of a nation and spend it elsewhere without some pretty severe effects. For example, you would immediately create a few million unemployed military people. And then all the industries that depend on military spending, from Boeing on down to the dry cleaners on military bases, would rapidly go out of business and lay off even more millions. Then their suppliers would tank, and so on and so forth. Anyone with the slightest understanding of economics would know that what you propose is folly of the highest possible order. And, let's not forget, with no military we would be defenseless, as well as having no further say-so at all in world events. Do you want folks like Saddam running the show? Didn't think so.

You're missing the point

[Sean Clifford]

Ahem. You are entirely missing the point.

We're not safe. We'll never be "safe".

You cannot prevent another 9/11 type attack. You cannot make America "safe" no matter how many jackbooted thugs you put on the street, no matter how many unconstitutional patriotic-sounding acts you pass, no matter how many citizens you spy on, and no matter how many informants you recruit.

9/11 is a direct result of American foreign policy. The United States funded, armed, and trained the asswipes that planned that attack.

The best way to ensure that something like 9/11 never happens again is to (drum-roll) turn American foreign policy on its ear. Stop invading other countries, stop overthrowing other countries governments, stop murdering their leaders, stop stealing their natural resources.

I'm all for rooting out the ones responsible for 9/11 and seeing them receive a fair trial and just punishment, whether they lurk in a cushy Washington D.C. office or in a dank Afghani cave.

Re:You're missing the point

[overunderunderdone]

The best way to ensure that something like 9/11 never happens again is to (drum-roll) turn American foreign policy on its ear. Stop invading other countries, stop overthrowing other countries governments, stop murdering their leaders, stop stealing their natural resources.

To a large degree I happen to agree with you. America is fairly well insulated from the conflicts in the world and if we withdrew from them we would much safer. We would probably have even have more influence (though less power) as an example rather than as a meddling power.

HOWEVER, It is not America or it's foreign policy or colonialism, capitalism, communism, fascism or any other "ism" that causes human conflict, hate or cruelty. It is humans and human nature. While some "isms" may exacerbate and some may mitigate against those human traits none are the cause of, nor the panacea against, them.

That being the case even with a safer and more reserved (and more sane) foreign policy we would still need a few "jackbooted thugs" (to use your term) and to spy on people (even on occasion citizens) It is unfortunately not the case that meaning no one else harm is proof against someone meaning YOU harm.

There is even a strong case to be made that withdrawing our (invading, overthrowing, murdering and stealing) presense from the stage of world events would lead to MORE of all the those bad things happening. In historical terms the USA has been remarkably underachieving in all those activities considering it's economic, technological and military dominance. Most nations in our position have been far more efficient and effective at them. Also, the result of a power vaccuum is often far worse than even the most cruel of empires. Of course such vaccuums are only temporary, they last only as until one of the invading-overthrowing-murdering-stealing contestants ends up on top. Any attempt on our part to prevent someone else from invading-overthrowing-murdering-stealing (as they inevitably will) leads us right back to where we are now, forced by the situation to do such things ourselves if only to prevent those that would likely be better at it than we are.

Still, that is not an argument to pursue power to prevent it's abuse by others (even if we had such pure motives). We should content ourselves to secure our own safety and ours alone - we should be "the friends of liberty everywhere but the guardians only of our own" any course more ambitious leads us to the inevitable moral comprimises and involvement in other's conflicts that tempt them (more than they normally would be) to fly jumbo jets into our office buildings.

Technological aberration

[cybercuzco]

The landings on the moon was a technological aberration that only occured at great expense in money, manpower and time. For example, if Queen victoria had thrown enough resources at Charles Babbage, they might have created a computer as powerful as the first electric computer. this would have been a technological achievement at the time as landing a man on the moon. Even if babbage and whatever people were on his team had succeeded, the technological underpinnings for a practical computer were not in place yet. Eniac may have been built in the 30s or late 20's instead due to the leaps from the project, but it wouldnt have started the revolution itself. The same can be said for the apollo program. Many technologies were advanced due to the program, fuel cells, computers, powder based drink mixes, but the ability to travel to other planets wasnt one of them. Also keep in mind that these things take time. The Americas werent colonized in 1493, or 1494 or 1524. The first real colonies came in the late 1500's and colonization began in earnest in the early 1600s, over 100 years after it was proven that america could be accessed reliably from europe by sea. Space is at least as hostile an environment to us now as the sea was to sailors in the 15th century. We will get into space, but i t will take time, and we will go there for the same reason europeans came to america: to get rich. Just as soon as they figure out how.

*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Long ago, the 'evil' communists known as the Soviet Union dared to put a satellite, a dog, and a man in space. This was unacceptable! They might place nuclear weapons in space next! If that happened, why, they'd take over the world, and we'd all be drinking vodka instead of cheap american piss-water. Errm, I mean, Budweiser.

Anyhoo, some chap by the name of Kennedy, who was more of a man-slut than Clinton ever was, said, "Screw the Russians - we're going to the moon! Pow! Straight to the moon!" The people loved him for it.

The moon. Long has it been an object of speculation for humanity. Was it really made out of cheese? Were there aliens on it? Was that a man in the moon, or a lady in the moon?

Much like the ancient Romans cheered Caesar for his bread and circuses, Americans cheered Kennedy for his tang and rocket launches. And then he was assassinated, likely by members of his own government. He could do no wrong, and frankly, he could've probably declared himself Emperor. We all know Emperors are bad things to have if you're a senator.

Anyhoo, we got to the moon. And people were rejoicing and dancing in the streets. Aside from some nuts who insisted it was all a plot by the oligarchy of the commucapitalist far right and slightly to the side wing. Or something like that. They were largely ignored.

So we went to the moon again. And people cheered.

And again. And people did the golf clap.

And again and again. And people yawned. Except for the missions where astronauts came close to or were turned into fertilizer. The people booed then.

The fool's ideology eventually set into humanity. They no longer gave a rat's ass about space travel? Amidst endless wars and the constant threat of full nuclear strikes from the USSR, people cried, 'Shouldn't we fix things down here, first?!' A few religious nuts probably added fuel to the fire, insisting that a rocket might end up hitting God's pinky toe, causing him to destroy the earth. Ever have a stubbed toe? Their righteous ramblings made a lot of sense to those that have.

NASA tried to generate interest again. They revealed the space shuttle, which wasn't so much a shuttle as it was a ridiculously expensive inefficient platform for getting into space. But it looked cool!

People were kind of interested in this, because there had been a rush of science fiction movies over the years, and the shuttle looked kinda like an actual space ship. Then NASA got greedy, tried to leech off some more publicity, and sent a teacher up on one of the shuttles. It exploded in a rain of hellfire. And the people lost interest in space again.

This sort of thing continued to the present day. We now have the undermanned and useless ISS. Geeks often confuse it with Microsoft's IIS, which breaks down less often and is generally more useful to humanity. Sad, that.

Why haven't we been back to the moon? If we could do it so long ago, we could do it now. Why haven't we been to Mars? It isn't for lack of technology - have we become so cowardly that no one is willing to dare the unknown and risk their life for exploration?

I urge you all to help fund private space flight, or, at the least, pray to your respective deities that some other country beats the living shit out of NASA and builds a moon base.

And now, we'll play name that speaker! Tonight's quote is:

"There's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

Who said it?

Re:Wasn't Nixon responsible?

[rodgerd]

What, to add a few more years to a war the US had already lost and was illegally expanding into Laos and Cambodia?

Gee, that sure was a good use of money. Propping up the corrupt South Vietnamese government, thousands more Americans and tens of thousands more Asians dead, and the US backing the Khmer Rouge. Much better than some stupid space program.

Re:I have news for you

[JMZorko]

I'm sorry you feel that way. "... a good chunk of the middle east" as well? These are _people_, just like you and I. They have valid issues.

Regards,

John, once again lamenting the human condition

Falling You -- exploring the beauty of voice and sound

Re:Wasn't Nixon responsible?

[nomadic]

Rand was a bitter old crank; what exactly did she put in the novel that came true? Did all those square-jawed libertarian architects run away and start their own little society?

Re:Wasn't Nixon responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Christ don't tell me you think that trash is amazing. Please keep your "enlightenment" to yourself. Next you'll be telling us your bummed about what happened to those Enron execs.

Capitalism is not the root of all good and socialism is not the root of all evil.

But I guess you'd say I'm a communist.

Re:Wasn't Nixon responsible?

[Edgy Loner]

Which I think kind of limits the whole argument of "needing a new Cold War to get some space science done". While the Cold War certainly started the Lunar program, it also ultimately killed it.

Re:Wasn't Nixon responsible?

[Com2Kid]

• Gee, that sure was a good use of money. Propping up the corrupt South Vietnamese government, thousands more Americans and tens of thousands more Asians dead, and the US backing the Khmer Rouge. Much better than some stupid space program.

Ask somebody from South Vietname how they feel about communists. We where there for a damn good reason.

Have To Disagree: Shuttle Takes Us Nowhere

[reallocate]

I have to disagree. The Space Shuttle is a politically compromised vehicle with no place to go. It has failed to live up to its promise of reliable, cheap and frequent access to orbit. The capability to build and sustain a permanent human presence in Earth orbit should have come in the context of creating infrastructure to support missions to explore and exploit the Moon, Mars and the rest of the Solar System. Lacking the vision and the courage to actually commit to going someplace , we have instead conjured up the ISS, an expensive dead-end that appears to be little more than a more polished version of Mir.

While scientific research is a major and obvious component of space exploration, it is not and should not be the major motivation. Space exploration and exploitation should be driven by familiar human drives of wealth, power, greed, curiosity, freedom, etc., that have always sustained human expansion.

The greatest contribution the scientific and engineering community could make to space exploration right now is the development of propulsion technology that provides at least an order of magnitude increase in lift and speed capability. We aren't going anywhere as long as we're dependent on wimpy chemical rockets.

Re:Wasn't Nixon responsible?

[Eagle7]

Well, Nixon wouldn't have had the opportunity if Socialist-boy Johnson hadn't of expanded the war, while implementing a ton of social services and welfare programs back home. Not that the latter are/were all bad, but you can't finance a war and a psuedo-socialist state at the same time.

In other words, LBJ and Nixon both "had control" of the conflict for 5 years. Approx halfway throught that time period, Nixon began to pull back.

Don't make it seem like Nixon was just some war monger that took a dying conflict and made it worse. He was handed a hornets nest. Not that Nixon was a perfect guy, but he was arguably better than LBJ.

Details on the timing of things (and where I double check my facts) are here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/time/timeline 2.html