Apollo 11

I had a lecturer at University, a man with a PHD that wore cardigans and had wild mad hair, who was adamant they never went to the moon.

He claimed that the technology doesn't exist now to put people on the moon simply because the amount of radiation lunar visitors would be hit with would simply cookthem alive; which is why we've never gone back or why we never had a permanent base up there. He always pointed out that in the history of human exploration, it took very little time for people to recognise the benefits of establishing a permanent presence in newly discovered lands. That it took years to travel around the globe in the 18th century but we had trading outposts in the Far East, India and colonies in Australia because that's what we do as a species; spread out and take over. Not that there's anyone to trade with on the moon of course but the possibilities of experimentation and industry in the moons low gravity would have been very beneficial to the human race as a whole.

Personally I think it's likely they went to the moon and once the Ruskies had been beaten in the race there was no point in going back. That's another weird thing, you'd have thought the Russians would have gone just to say they could go, even if they were in second place.

I do however think a lot of the photos that we have of the moon landings aren't real, not because we never went but simply because the cameras wouldn't have worked well in space. I remember reading that the cameras they had didn't have viewfinders so I find it very hard to believe that they could take some of those perfectly set photos with a camera through which they couldn't see what they were shooting or focus. Of course, that could have been a load of old crap I read..but..I still think the photos look way too good.

 

This simply isn't true. Just look at how long after the New World was discovered it took for the British to establish permanent colonies. It was more than 100 years. Most of that was for political reasons and lack of funds (War of the Roses, the excesses of Henry VIII, the Protestant Reformation), which are the same reasons the US isn't colonizing space even though we have most of the technology we would need. And it's only been 40 years since we've been to the Moon. Not long in the scheme of things.

The Spanish had a big head start over the British in colonizing the New World, and I have a feeling the Chinese will have a big head start in colonizing space over the US. Our economy is a disaster, and the Chinese will be way ahead of us economically in the coming decades.

 

I agree..but while there might not have been permanent colonies in the New World for some time but there were plenty of Europeans going back and forth exploring and killing Indians. Like you said, I think had there not been religious upheavel in Europe and lots of wars the colonisation of the New World would have started much sooner.

However, looking East there were plenty of people who were prepared to practically maroon themselves on the other side of the globe with very little chance of getting home alive in order to turn a profit trading silks and spices; If the climate didn't kill them the boat trip home was certain to.

I would say that it's not just a case of the US colonising space, there is an international space organisation and they seem pretty much stuck in orbit at the moment.

 

Inflation adjusted the Apollo program approaches nearly $200 BILLION.

I'm pretty sure that plays a part in why nobody gives a shit about going back.

 

If we hadn't blown our load on pointless wars and bailing out crooked financial institutions, 200 billion dollars wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

The reason there were perfect-looking photos without viewfinders is due to two factors: lots of training, and we only ever see the good pictures. There were tons of pictures that were utter garbage, they just don't make it onto magazine covers.

As for the new world, technically it took 600 years after its discovery before it was settled permanently by the British. The first European settlements actually date back to around 1000 CE. Those, of course, were in Newfoundland, but that is a lot more hospitable of a place than the Moon

The technology needed had been around for a while, what ultimately prompted the exploration of New World was more political: blockades of long-used trade routes to the East prompted the search for new routes, including both eastern (around the southern tip of Africa) and western (across "the great ocean sea", which they didn't know how a continent in the middle of it).

Unfortunately those sorts of motivations don't exist for the moon. Gravity isn't much of a reason to go to the moon, we can reach lower-gravity conditions cheaper, more safely, and more quickly in low-Earth orbit, and we don't even do that (look at how little support the international space station has gotten). Heck, we have trouble getting funding to send robots to the moon, not to mention people, and certainly not to mention a settlement.

As for minerals, they aren't really all that exciting, asteroids have much more valuable materials, and have the advantage that we only need to send probes to divert their course so they would come to us. It would be a lot more economical, yet we don't even do that.

 

According to wikipedia, the total cost of the shuttle program will be about $174 billion, while Apollo was about $170 billion. However, the Apollo program lasted about 10 years from start of development to last missions and had 7 complete missions, while the shuttle program lasted about 40 years and had 130 complete missions.

 

I lived in Florida for 24yrs and I never went to the Kennedy Space Center. It's quite a feat I have accomplished. I remember a morning about 15min before I was supposed to wake up to goto work, I heard boom that shoot the house. Pissed me off.

 

@Khaid

You moved, but it won't be a problem soon anyway since the shuttle program has been canceled.