Why have we not gone back to MOON since we landed on it?

reply to post by griffinrl


A simple 'virtual' high five to ya!!

OOps, sounded too much like Sarah Palin there...

Well, off to the MOON to shop at Neiman's....


Joke....old, but still relevant....did you hear about the review of the new restaurant on the Moon?

Food was OK....but there was no atmosphere.

Another joke....three men walk into a bar....the fourth ducked......

OK, three nights a week, thank you ladies and germs!!!!!!

reply to post by Roufas


Prick is a military radio Roufas. The manufacturers name

My apologies to everybody on the vacuum thing.

I was wrong.

reply to post by Salt of the Earth

No worries Salt. I respect your candidness my friend

what if there's an alien base on the moon? aren't they (the aliens) cooperating with earth governments? if so, why were the astronauts warned? sorry but i dont get it

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
My apologies to everybody on the vacuum thing.

I was wrong.

Good on you mate. That is seldom heard in these forums.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Einstein comes into the 'equation' because.....as satellites move faster than us on Earth, there is a slight time difference.....things that move faster, will slow down time....SO, the clocks on the satellites have to be adjusted....to operate in a way as to correlate with Earth-based clocks.

Correct - it's called relativistic time dilation.

Griff, my understanding is that the satellites are regularly given time corrections from the control stations.

Salt; Yet further proof that things are goin' on up there...

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


Salt....wow, it is an amazing thing for somebody to admit they were wrong.

I've done it....I just hope Mods see this, and give you a 'Bonus', because you deserve it.

We all come into this, with pre=conceived notions.....open minds, very welcomed, I hope!!!!

There really isn't anything interesting on the Moon. The only reason we went there there in the first place was to beat the Russians. Now that we've gone to the Moon and see what's really on there, we've discovered there really isn't anything there worth seeing.

reply to post by darkclaw1256


I think darkclaw basically summed it up. Not much ROI for going back and forth to the moon at this point.

Why have we not returned to the moon?
Two words.....moon dust.

What a little moon dust can do.

"The fine dust got into every seal, every spacesuit joint, and every moving part on the missions. Many of the astronauts found dust particles had jammed up the shoulder joints of their spacesuits. Moon dust got into the joints and wore down seals, causing the spacesuits to slowly leak air pressure.
Any future missions to the moon will have to have aggressive plans for dealing with this toxic abrasive. The Apollo missions were short enough a duration that the seals to the exit hatch were not greatly affected. Longer missions will need to plan for hatch failures, and related hazards. Apollo's missions of a few days could afford having extra sets of gloves and slow spacesuits leaks. These annoyances would quickly become serious in an extended mission. Once you're out of air, your options get pretty slim."

mitchross.com...

"The dust issue is one that just has to be addressed. It's going to be the major environmental issue for future missions to the Moon." Gene Cernan, Apollo 17.

moon dust and duct tape.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by calcoastseeker]

[edit on 19-2-2009 by calcoastseeker]

[edit on 19-2-2009 by calcoastseeker]

More than likely the Chinese will send a manned mission in the next decade or so and that will fire up the US again. I think calcoastseeker has a point there about moon dust but I would imagine that we'll find a way to handle that part eventually too.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by griffinrl]

I think Helium-3 is a good reason to head back. Very plentiful on the moon and rare here. Apparently will make an excellent fusion fuel.

Even assuming we went to the moon in the first place, back then we couldn't do it, and I doubt with our current technology we wouldn't be able to do anything except send rovers there.... I'm sorry but the vanhallen belt is too dangerous H3- is a good reason to go there of course but they need to do a super overhaul on their spacesuits in order to actually walk on the moon

Originally posted by parker
You are assuming they really did go to the MOON, there are alot of conspiricy theorys about the whole subject.
The Soviets claim that it would be impossible due to the VanAllen belt (an area between the earth and the moon) that is so highly radoactive that Neil Armstrongs Ball's would have fallen off, after the ONE STEP FOR MAN speech, I myself have not done alot of research on this subject of fatal radioactivity in this area, but experts claim the apollo capsules would not have had the sheilding necessary to sustaian the men on board on the way there nevermind the trip back ,and for them to still be alive today. nobody to my satisfaction has explained this.
Park

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by parker]

My first suggestion would be do the research They were fine it can be done and was .Sorry your not satisfied with that. Oh and the Russians are planning on sending people to the moon as well so if they know it cant be done what is this population control?

Those Moon missions were 100% fake, and everyone knows it. They were proven to be fake over 20 years ago. Those who still believe in the Moon landings need to get a grip on reality.

NASA has not explained why they used fake photo's, 20 years on, and I am still waiting for an answer

reply to post by jheated7


H3 is an EXCELLENT, and cost-effectve reason to go back to the
moon!!!

A: Mounting the equipment to mine the H3, will, after the initial cost of lofting to the Moon, pay off in the long term....

B: The problem of the Lunar soil, and how it affected the seals and the EVA suits.....well, imagine you were from another planet, and landed on Earth, in the desert....grit is a problem, especially if it is statically attracted.

C: After Apollo was cancelled, back in the early seventies....after such successes, the COST of re-mounting the effort simply paled in comparison to the effort in VietNam. PLUS, the 'ho=hum' attitude of the American People....who just did NOT understand the potential of space exploration.

I didn't, 'til just now, how old this thread is....

Hello 'Blobby'....you still around???


Glad it got dug up again, because youngins' who, today, focus on baloney YT sites, instead of really knowing science and astronomy, need to see this, as an attempt to help them learn....about science and astronomy.

I love what Hollywood can do.....George Lucas, and 'Star Wars'....sheesh!!! When was that? 1977???

Prior to that, Lucas did 'American Graffitti'....AND, 'THX1138'.....

Gene Roddenberry is responsible for 'Star Trek'.

Fun entertainment, but NOT scientific fact....

Confusing the two, is what might be an issue here.

What I mean is.....an entire generation have grown up SINCE Apollo, and have been weaned on Hollywood SFX films. Combined with weak understanding of REAL science....well, the combination seems obvious.

NOW....the Moon. YES, Apollo was real. YES, there are reasons not to go back....ONE is....it's expensive. SECOND is.....there might be other forces at work......but that's for another thread, and they exist here, at ATS, in the 'Aliens and UFOs' forum......