If we sent ppl to the moon 30+ years ago, what's the big deal now?

Question

I'd be curious to know how much it cost in today's dollars to do what we did back in the 60s-70s to put people on the moon. I realize the shuttle isn't designed to do it, but why do we put so much money in a space station in orbit when we could have one on the moon? If we were there 30+ years ago, why does it seem so insurmountable now?

Answer 1

It cost $25 billion in 1969. The inflation calculator in the source below says that would be $132 billion today.

Just in case you are thinking that improved technology should make it cheaper, just remember that cars, airplanes and rockets do not enjoy the same amazing improvements that computers do. A computer today is about a thousand times better and cheaper than in was in 1969, but cars, airplanes and rockets are hardly better or cheaper at all. A car cost $3,000 in 1969 and more like $20,000 today. Compare that to a modern home computer for $1,000 that can out perform a million dollar computer form 1969!

Answer 2

going in a space station is relatively easy in terms of security: if there's a problem, you can get everyone back home in 2 jours.

On the moon, the travel takes a week... That's why we made a space station. Plus, an orbital space station allows you to work in a zero G environment, while the station on the moon will be made to work on how to survive on extraterrestrial worlds (not in zero G)

It's not comparable.


Now, why is it difficult today when we already did it 30 years ago? Because we went there for 1 week at a time, max... And now, they want to go there for indifinite periods of time... It's really not the same thing.
30 years ago, you could build about anything you wanted to get there (not too difficult to get to the moon, really. We master that technology). But, to stay there for long periods of time. That's another story: moon dust will settle in the lunar station's seals, and moving parts and jam half the system if we do it wrong. If you only stay for a few days, you don't have to worry about that: the dust won't have the time to jam your spacecraft, but if you stay there a month or a year...
And that's only ONE example of what can bother them, now. They also want to make that permanent station as self sufficient as possible: that needs thinking about, don't you think? On a piece of rock that has neither water nor oxygen, you need to think about it, and make sure you're not sending people to their deaths.


And for the bill, you're talking billions of dollars for each flight. You'll need at least 10 flights before having something livable.

Answer 3

Many of the reasons we have never been back lay with manufactoring. Noone makes the parts anymore that would be needed to build an old Apollo style rocket. Also what good does a moon base do us? The ISS offers us a laboratory to conduct experiments, but there is no reason to do this on the moon it is to far away and costly to transport the same experiments. We will go back eventually, practice for a mars trip.

Also NASA's budget really isn't that large, one of the reason we have a horribly outdated and unsafe space shuttle fleet. If we diverted money from military to science and space things would get done alot faster.

Answer 4

Money. Moola. Big bucks.

Its not insurmountable ok? The question is cost effectiveness. Back when I was a kid- like 9 years old- and the Apollo Program was THE way to get into space, it cost 25 billion dollars THEN to get someone on the moon.

And it was all national pride and ego- not a single lick of common sense was involved at all. We just wanted to beat the Russians because we're Americans. And our egos was hurting hard when Yuri Gargarian was the first man in space, and he was Russian.

If you actually saw the technology they used- and I have, upfront close and very very personal- you'd have to be friggin insane to even consider going to the bathroom, much less to the moon in that equipment.

To translate this into todays dollars? Would be to spend about 350 BILLION dollars to go to the moon- and thats just for 4 people, round trip.

Now, to boom up something to the ISS is pretty cheap- about 10,000 dollars a pound. To boom something up the moon you're looking at about 250,000 dollars a pound easy- maybe much more.

Its also a lot easier to have someone drop 300 miles out of an emergency space capsule and pick them up out in the ocean from the ISS than it would be to take 4 days- minimum- to send a rescue ship to pick them up from the moon.

The moon is nice IF we had a way to turn its mass- rocks- into fuel for long distance (intesteller or interplanetary) work- but essentially its just not cost effective

Answer 5

At that time about 30 years ago there was a Space Race between Russia and the U.S.A some called it Star Wars. It was very important that we were one step ahead of the Russians. The results of new technology expanding back then could expand into warfare.
But today we don't see that kind of pressure from Russia or any other countries. The war is costing a lot of money, the economy is fragile, so the "space stuff" is not in America's best interest right now.

Answer 6

Strictly a matter of cost. The space station was created to conduct experiments in microgravity that could not be done on the earth -- or on the moon, either, since it has gravity. There are interesting things that could be done with a base on the moon, but the cost of constructing and maintaining such a thing is so huge that no one has seriously proposed doing it. It would cost far more than the cost of a simple trip there and back.

Answer 7

It's more that the infrastructure's not here anymore to make moon-shots. The shuttle fleet's here already, so building the space station's just using what's already there. Too many I think are focused on troubles on earth to consider the possibilities in space. These types see every $ spent on space as a dollar not given to the "needing". It's a sad truth, but fact is: those $'s would'nt go to the world's other causes if they were'nt spent on space, there's already enough resources to feed shelter, etc. every man woman and child on the planet. If it were a $ issue, we'd already have a utopia.

Answer 8

#1 safety, #2 its just plain hard to do. we did it 30 years ago, but we got lucky that they didn't get killed, also landings and takeoffs from the moon are much harder then a space station, and thats not exactly easy. in the end it would probably cost more to do the moon the a space station. and there is always the conspiricy theory that we never did make it... i think we did, but ya never know...

Answer 9

>>Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard performed golfing on the Moon. In front of a international television objective industry, undertaking administration teased him approximately cutting the ball to the superb. yet a slice is brought about via choppy air circulate over the ball. The Moon has no ecosystem and no air.<< by way of fact, of direction, each little thing they are asserting must be taken one hundred% actually, and heaven forbid this little exciting PR workout on Apollo 14 ought to have been observed via smoe witty banter. >>A digicam panned upwards to capture Apollo sixteen's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? << The digicam grow to be remotely operated from Earth via a guy called Ed Fendell. For the liftoff he envisioned the 2nd of liftoff and commanded the digicam to pan upwards so as that the command grow to be gained and acted on on the superb 2nd, accounting for the communications delay brought about via the area. On Apollo sixteen he have been given it incorrect. He have been given it real on Apollo 17. >>The rigidity interior an area adventure grow to be greater desirable than interior a soccer. The astronauts ought to have been puffed out like the Michelin guy, yet have been seen freely bending their joints.<< How plenty use might a spacesuit be in the event that they have been certainly puffed out like that and no longer able to freely bend their joints? A spacesuit isn't in basic terms a huge rubber bag. It has restraint layers and all forms of joints and mechanisms in it precisely by way of fact it relatively is mandatory for the astronauts to be waiting to circulate their limbs. Do you think of all spacesuits are pretend, by way of fact i've got not at all seen one that puffs up like a Michelin guy. >>The flags shadow is going at the back of the rock so does not adventure the darkish line interior the foreground, which sounds like a line twine. So the shadow to the decrease real of the spaceman must be the flag. the place is his shadow? << nicely in case you stricken to hyperlink to the %this grow to be describing it ought to help.... >>Why is the flag fluttering whilst moon has no air?<< it is not. it incredibly is held out via a rod around the precise. >>The Lander weighed 17 lots however the astronauts ft seem to have made a miles better dent interior the dirt.<< Do the calculations on the burden distribution of an astronaut on a foot and the LM on all 4 great landing pads. you would be shocked.

Answer 10

It's a big hoax! Set up a-la-hollywood stage style and telecast 'live'. Read all about this through search engines - moon hoax+conspiracy theory.