Is it hard to believe that the 21st century space shuttle can only travel only 400 or so miles from the earth,

Question

but the early 70's era space capsule traveled 225,000 miles to the moon, and back? I mean, how can the space program reduce their ambitions THAT much (if they really did accomplish it the first time)?

Check out "Kazak"s answer. I think he got his wittle feelings hurt by this question...

Answer 1

the moon landing was fake...back then people were not as educated as us...and have you seen the re-launch from the moon when it was coming back to the earth...those sparks....look like cheesy yeah it looks fake!!! but of course back in the 70s that was the best type of graphics they had

Answer 2

Is it hard to believe that an elevator on a skyscraper can go up hundreds of stories in the sky, but the hydraulic lift at your local garage can only go up a dozen feet or so?

No, of course not. The Shuttle only goes up to about 400 miles, as you say, because it was designed to do that.

Chances are you own or drive a car, not an 18 wheeler truck. And if you do own such a truck, you don't drive it to work on a commute!

It's only economical to drive if you intend to routinely ship tons of cargo across state lines. So it is with space vehicles; you get what you pay for.

***

We will now pause for a small editorial.

Yes, "we really did accomplish it the first time."

Say, landing on the moon. That was one of *the* most complex organizational efforts humankind has yet successfully pulled off, right up there with the Normandy landing and the Manhattan project.

It mobilized the USA's military and civilian resources - and it pulled off a moon landing with 1960s technology. (by advancing that technology beyond the 60s in some cases.)

Imagine all those smart folks who had to put their all into it. Now imagine someone organizing their labor in such a way as to "seem" they are building a part that will be used for a moon landing, but without actually ever planning to *use* that part.

Impossible. The scheme would have been seen through in a hot second. We don't call them rocket scientists for nothing.

And besides, it's a mistake to say that the USA's space program has reduced its ambitions. Its "ambition" culminated in Apollo; we've not had a real mission for the manned side yet, which is why it seems so purposeless. Not that NASA has any flies on it - it built the Shuttle so as to keep employing the enormous workforce... and political clout... it had during Apollo.

End of editorial. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

I'm guessing that you already knew the shuttle was incapable of going farther than that...and that your question was bit more esoteric that that. Why has NASA been wasting its time going in circles around the Earth instead of pushing forward the frontier of space exploration?

That's a good question but, ultimately, the reason why lies in the halls of congress and, as voters, We the People, who have not indicated that such a thing is a priority. The original manned space program including the Apollo missions were, first and foremost, politically motivated by the Cold War and the space race with the Soviet Union. The International Space Station itself is the last relic of that bygone era...its original design and funding were motivated by the Soviet Union's Mir Space Station. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, we were too far in to abandon the project, so it was sold as an "international" effort, despite that the USA has funded 95% of it's cost.

Only now have we entered an era where we lack socio-political motivation to expand the manned space program. However, attesting to the lack of enthusiasm by congress and many Americans, it would seem that the glory of putting human footprints on the moon or Mars just doesn't have an amount of appeal that equals the level of funding that it would require.

Answer 4

The space shuttle was designed for the mission of circling the globe in orbit for studies relating to the earth. The life support system of the shuttle is limited along with the fuel. It is possible to go deeper into space with the shuttle, but the chances of returning to earth would be less. The space capsule is much lighter and required less energy to reach escape velocity. As far as the ambitions of the space agency, it is only as great as their funding.

Answer 5

1 - You're an idiot

2- Once you break orbit it's not how far you go it's getting back.

3 - The space shuttle is not designed to go to the moon - it's designed for short trips into space in order to get other things up there in a cost effective manner. There's no reason to go back to the moon - or at least not enough to make the cost worthwhile.

4 - I think we should send you to the moon.

Answer 6

In fairness, many of the early Russian claims of space exploration were greatly exaggerated to seem superior to the US. Non-manned craft generally can go much deeper into space than craft with a crew. Also, with our technology, we can garner information from much farther away than was previously possible. For economic and safety reasons, it makes more sense to send a craft not-so-far out if we don't have to.

Answer 7

at present, the go back and forth is docked with the ISS, which orbits once each and every ninety 2 minutes, so the go back and forth is orbiting on an analogous speed. In a decrease orbit, it would want to circle somewhat speedier, even if it would want to also be going slower in a decrease orbit, so it truly is going to possibly cancel out the help in circumference.

Answer 8

Thats why it's called a Shuttle, and not a Rocket Ship

Answer 9

Shuttle was designed for a different task. It doesn't mean it's less advanced technologically.

Answer 10

SINNER!