Why is going back to the moon so hard? I mean I understand the

We never been there, that's just a fact

>>8343759

There's no reason to go back, for now. It's not a wise choice of already limited funding.

File: NASA-Budget-Federal.svg.png (33KB, 900x585px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 900x585px

Even if NASA had the same budget it did in the 70's they'd rightly spend it on unmanned rovers, probes, space telescopes, etc. It's more science discoveries per dollar.

>>8343765
Like I said, I know the motivation for not going. What I want to know is why IF someone went today, it would take even more time, money and invention of new untested concept tech than the 1960s

What magically made the Saturn V better than everything after it, that only now well into the 21st century companies and governments are making rockets that are almost as good as it?

>>8343776
Oh. because of safety reasons and the increased cost of materials.

The early missions were basically just guys strapped to missiles in a vacuum sealed pod.

>>8343775
fucking nigger obongo, he's killing NASA

>that based Dubya tho

>>8343776
Rockets are designed around their application. A rocket built to get three people to the moon wouldn't be as efficient as getting satellites into orbit or rovers to other planets as other designs.

van allen radiation belt

>>8343765
I think it's silly to talk about missions to colonize mars using techniques that effectively will never be tried until some human is actually there hoping for dear life that it works.

The moon provides a close staging ground to practice things like
>Establishing habitats on inhospitable planets
>Space farming techniques
>Efficient travel between two celestial bodies
>Analysis and mitigation of hazards

And really anything related to true space infrastructure that will be required for real space colonization.

Also we should be investing way more for in space and in orbit manufacturing.

>>8343784
It must have been terrifying to be an astronaut.

>Right now I am strapped to this giant thing
>My country's brightest minds spent months designing and building this
>The only purpose for this thing is to move me VERY far away from here at VERY high speeds
>My job is to hold on tight and hope I don't die

And you know subsequent rocket iterations
>That big thing we strapped that guy to that took him really far away?
>Make it bigger. Put him farther away.

>>8343759
theres no reason

nasa never did anything manned for "exploration"
low earth oribt doesnt count

there has to be a political reason to go back to the moon

if the Chinese were gearing up for a lunar mission you can bet we would be there before them

no way we'd let some gooks get to the moon before us

>>8343817
From what I've heard the problem with the moon is it's covered in regolith that's sharper than dry Captain Crunch because there was never any wind or erosion to settle it down, ANYTHING left on the moon would be constantly rubbing on trillions of tiny razor blades

In that respect Mars is much better. It also has more gravity and, as shitty as it's atmosphere is, it isn't a vacuum

>>8343820
>don't worry about the fact that the last one blew up. We fixed the single loose o-ring that caused it. The weather seems good too.

>>8343851
>if the Chinese were gearing up for a lunar mission
The Chinese ARE gearing up for a lunar mission

They put their first lunar orbiter up in '07, just landed a rover in February and want boots on the ground by 2030

File: 1466287145694.png (15KB, 345x322px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 345x322px

>>8343863
>The Chinese ARE gearing up for a lunar mission
>in 15 years

>>8343872
Just saying they've already launched enough shit at the moon for it to not look like a complete buff. There's a rover there right now, and early next year they're sending a drone to collect a bunch of moon rocks for them and bring them back

File: 1473793005578.jpg (68KB, 472x361px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 472x361px

its not hard its intergalacticly illegal.
its not earthling property.
we were invited but Armstrong fucked us over when he flipped out and hit the retro rockets to not land on the landing pad but over the rigeline. so fuck you Armstrong you embarrassment to humanity now we are locked out of the core galaxy's for at least another generation . I hope the millennials will fix your mistake in time for me to see the death of religion.

because noone put the budget & willpower towards doing it

And we don't have a launch vehicle for it either.

File: Nixon Thumbs Up B&W.jpg (7KB, 195x259px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 195x259px

>>8343759
>few rewards
There is a catalyst for fusion reactors which is exceptionally rare on Earth but is plentiful on the Moon.
Ask the people in >>>/x/ the real reason we haven't gone back to the Moon.

>>8343885
Why does it matter? We already did it 50 years ago.

>>8343776
>What magically made the Saturn V better than everything after it
Kraut space magic.

>>8343787
>what is Congress

>>8344143
Those "moon rocks" came from the US north west and were basalt that could be easily and accurately sourced with modern geological analysis today - which is why they have all but mysteriously disappeared.

>>8343759
>Why is going back to the moon so hard?

It's not. It's just that the laws of economics supersede the laws of physics.

>>8344245
The moon rocks came from the moon you imbecile
They disappeared because most of them have been stolen over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

>>8343759
It's not that it can't be done, it's that nobody will fund it. NASA runs on a shit budget, as do most space agencies across the world. From a government's point of view, pretty much anything you can do on the moon can be done better on the ISS.

Basically, the last part of your post isn't true. There's nothing saying we can't go to the moon right now if we choose. The problem is, we won't choose to go to the moon anytime in the foreseeable future. It doesn't make economic sense. It costs literally a fortune just to send three guys. One of them doesn't even land on the moon.

>>8344245
>>>/x/ for you

File: NASA-NERVA-diagram.jpg (31KB, 702x330px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 702x330px

It isn't that hard anymore, actually. I heard about a recent estimate by experts at NASA that it can be done again now for minus 90% of the cost while collaborating with private companies like SpaceX.

http://www.popsci.com/colonizing-moon-may-be-90-percent-cheaper-we-thought

It may get even cheaper if NASA incorporates nuclear thermal rockets like the ones developed for NERVA in the design.

>>8343759
I don't think it's hard, It's just that the moon isn't all that interesting to finance another mission. We don't really need more moon rocks.

>>8344567
fuck you we need more space rocks

File: Orion Mars.jpg (62KB, 550x385px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 550x385px

>>8344368
The only thing nuclear thermal propulsion is good for is irradiating the crew and the craft.

To get somewhere you need nuclear pulse propulsion. Due to higher mass and noncontinuous reactor, the radiation dose is very much lower.