Why is it taking twice as long to get to the moon?

Question

Kennedy announced we were going to the moon in the 60s and it took 8 years to do it. Bush announced in 2004 that we'd be back to the moon by 2020. Why does it take so long? Russians have announced they will do it by 2025. Do you think we can get back before the Russians?

Answer 1

OK now, which moon are you referring to? In our Milky Way Galaxy there are 235 planetary bodies, of which 169 moons are in our Solar System. These 169 moons are the well documented satellite moons of the 9 planets. Jupiter alone has 63 moons. The challenge lies in how we can build atmospheres on them to support human life and all other living things. Also, we have to weed out the ones that are inhospitable. The technology to build an atmosphere is still in the works, but some major milestones have been reached.

Venus=0, Earth=1, Mars=2, Jupiter=63, Saturn=60, Uranus=27, Neptune=13, Pluto=3

The trick is to categorize them into planets/moons that either spin on their axis, or don't. Then, increase the surface gravity by inserting a Superconducting Magnet into the core. The magnet would range from 2 Tesla to 15 Tesla, depending on the amount of iron/nickel that is present in the core.

Finally, to introduce atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide) into the man made electromagnetic bubble.

This website gives the exact location of each of the moons of Jupiter: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites

and this site tells us how to make an ATMOSPHERE on all the moons: http://www.atmospheres.5u.com/index.html

while this site tells us how to make a Fischer Tropsch reactor for fuel and water: http://www.xybex.50megs.com/custom2.html

Answer 2

Because there is no funding. The answer by "tibs 101" is exactly right. bush's "return to the moon" rhetoric is empty noise. NASA could get back to the moon by 2015--if they had even a fraction of the funding the Apollo program had.

As it stands there is NO actual program to return to the moon. NASA has worked out plans--but the GOP Congress and Bush never funded it, and so far the new Democratic Congress hasn't had an opportunity to address the budget question.

And--for now--they probably won't. There's simply too many issues to deal with. I do expect a reversal of the anti-science (including cutting NASA's budget) policy that we've been stuck with since 1994. But it may be 3-5 years yet before we see real support for NASA renewed.

Answer 3

The first exploration of the Moon was always supposed to be a limited program. There were never any plans to send missions to the Moon beyond Apollo 20 which was subsequently canceled along with 18, and 19. After the Apollo project ended there was a real possibility that the U.S. would not have a manned space program AT ALL.

The next logical step would have been a manned lunar base but the budget for NASA had shrunk to a level that made that impossible. NASA was given one option. Design, along with the Air Force, and build a reusable Shuttle to continue manned space activity in low Earth orbit or nothing. NASA agreed to develop the Shuttle because it knew that it was the only way they could ever hope to build a Space Station.
It is happening now.

China has only put a man in orbit and could send one around the Moon before long. A landing on the scale of Apollo is far in their future. NASA's next lunar program, Ares ,will be much less experimental than Apollo and equipment is going to be developed for a long term stay on the Moon. The most likely location at this time seems to be the south pole of the Moon within Shackleton crater. Russia is ill equipped financially to develop any kind of Moon program at this time.
.
.

Answer 4

The above commentors who cited funding are partially right - more money/political will would make a difference.

HOWEVER, the current plan also suffers from a large series of drawbacks that are increasing the cost, and the amount of time required for development. The need to develop 2 new Rockets, instead of just one (or even better using some existing rockets) would drastically cut down the required time and cost for development and construction.

Furthermore, I would argue that its not the Russians that Nasa is in competition, or even the Chinease - rather, its what is happening in the private sector. Already there is one company, Space Adventures, that would utlize existing Russian hardware, to go around the moon.

And another company, SpaceX, is working on a vehicle, the Dragon, that is lunar capable.

Answer 5

for one thing NASA's budget is only a fragment of what it was back in kennedy's time. they have to make the vehicle and make sure that it will work all of the way to the moon while still being cost efficient. the old saturn rockets wasted way too much to be used today. i hope that the US makes it back to the moon before anyone else, but now the american public seems to care little about space and many don't believe that we were there in the first place.

sadly science has taken a back seat these days

Answer 6

The biggest difference is the change of attitude in NASA. Back in the 60's, NASA was actually in the mood to explore and was willing to take risks to beat the Soviets to the Moon. Now it is very risk avoidance, as evidenced by the money they spent on redesigning the Shuttle (the foam incident happend for the first time in over 200 missions, a chance of less than 0.004%). Unfortunately, this atmosphere is created and compounded by the media which jumps on any mishap that NASA because it helps to sale pappers.

Answer 7

velocity = distance / time or time = velocity / distance So, to make certain time for vacationing the approx 2 hundred,000 miles to the Moon, you may want to grant the fee of what you're vacationing interior. It took the capability of the main effective device ever geared up by employing people, i.e. the Saturn V rocket, a pair days to propel the Apollo tablets there. it may take the main complicated device ever geared up by employing people, i.e. the gap return and forth, some days longer using fact it does not have the capability output the Saturn V had.

Answer 8

Two answers:
1. money
2. political 'will'

If congress were to authorize a higher budget to NASA, and force the agency to spend the increase on getting back to the moon, then we could get there in 8 years (like before) -- maybe quicker.

.

Answer 9

Kennedy just wanted to get there first so he just said that with out really knowing what he was talking about. but we worked hard and go there. No we are being relistic because we don't need to get there first anymore.

Answer 10

theyre not going back for the same aim. this return to moon, is supposed to make way for a launch platform on the moon from which we can send unmanned probes more easily, because of the low gravity.