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

[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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.