Close Menu
    Weltraum

    Warum ist es so schwer, zum Mond zurückzukehren?


    Warum ist es so schwer, zum Mond zurückzukehren?

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-it-so-much-harder-for-nasa-to-send-people-to-the-moon-now-than-it-was-during-the-apollo-era/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit

    View 27 Comments

    27 Comments

    1. parkingviolation212 on

      Because NASA is trying to do a lot more with a lot less.

    2. d1rr on

      The old adage, “if you don’t use it, you lose it,” rings true here.

    3. Amadeus_1978 on

      Because it costs money. As there is no military requirement and there doesn’t seem to be a profit and the billionaires have hardons for mars. We did get a couple robots on mars. And a couple cool telescopes, and that seems to be the most we can do with that measly budget.

    4. AirplaneChair on

      Our level of risk was astronomically greater back in the 60s vs now

      Plus there was a national pride for the space race. An us vs them mentality against the USSR. It’s incredible what the country can do when the entire country rallies behind something.

    5. Jump_Like_A_Willys on

      Because it was so hard to do the first time, and now we are trying it again with much high safety standards and a much lower tolerance for risk.

      Plus the plan is to stay on the surface for longer than a few days, which requires a whole different level of equipment.

    6. Apprehensive-Care20z on

      far away, moon is.

      That, and space hates life. Inhospitable doesn’t even begin to describe it. Also, you have to bring the astronauts back.

      one reason it is hard is because NASA is required to have 100% guaranteed perfection on a mission like this. And that is very expensive and time consuming.

    7. starhoppers on

      Because a)it’s dangerous; b)it’s very expensive; and c) no real return on investment (yet)

    8. chris8535 on

      The sub never wants to hear this but because no one can clearly articulate why we need to go and what we can gain.  

      Realistically life will need to change far far more than you’d expect to survive in space. 

    9. FragrantExcitement on

      The moon is getting farther from the earth by 1.5 inches per year. So the distance is greater now. /s

    10. schwerdfeger1 on

      It’s not that it’s harder, it’s that it’s more expensive. And there is no incentive, relatively speaking. And I really don’t see that changing any time soon.

    11. SawtoothGlitch on

      It’s the cost/risk/benefit ratio. In the 60s it was all about national pride of being first, this was the benefit that outweighed cost and risk. This is no longer relevant today. Other than occasional exploratory missions, the next reason to go there regularly may be economic if something valuable is discovered there. Otherwise the Moon will remain as it has been for the past 4 billion years–a dark piece of worthless rock.

      In the far future, after major advances are made in propulsion technology, it could become a tourist destination due to its low gravity environment.

    12. Unicorn_puke on

      It’s expensive. What’s the goal for it? Better be worth it for research or bringing back resources. That’s why

    13. BeerPoweredNonsense on

      There’s also the problem of pork.

      The US has a program to go back to the moon, but when a new *launch tower* for a rocket costs over a billion dollars, there has to be massive pork involved.

    14. Iama_traitor on

      It was hard to begin with, and now we are trying to do it with much less money, much less risk, and a far more ambitious plan. This is not just boots on the ground and rock samples, this is building infrastructure for a future civilization to explore and inhabit the solar system.

    15. Brutumfulm3n on

      I don’t think it’s about difficulty. What is the motivation of pumping billions into that task? Will there be a return on investment?

    16. padizzledonk on

      Its not hard….well, its definitely “hard” but the main problem is funding

      The moon landing program cost about a 165B dollars in todays money

      NASA’s total funding for 2024 is 24.8B

    17. herb28g on

      Wait until the Chinese set up a permanent station on the moon, you won’t believe how quickly other nations will have it too.

    19. mackzorro on

      It was hard the first few times. It’s very hard now due to the decades of budget cuts.

    20. 4scorean on

      Lack of funding ! Lack of will ! Lack of support !
      BIGGER FISH TO FRY ❗️

      DJT=💩4🧠

    21. Arctic_Turtle on

      I saw a good explanation for this once, unfortunately I don’t have a link but there was detailed explanation and math provided. 

      Basically, you might say just use the same material as when we went to the moon before. But that is no longer manufactured and setting up the manufacturing again is more expensive than to start over from scratch with modern materials. Now, modern materials are also expensive because you can’t just use raspberry pi’s with human lives at stake. So it still takes a significant investment. You want to get a return on investment so there has to be something valuable up there and the samples from previous missions were not particularly impressive. There’s also huge risks of increased costs from accidents. So it all boils down to finances. 

      Of course, there are asteroids and planets and moons that could potentially be more financially viable, and having a moon base could lower costs for such ventures. But then you have to develop asteroid mining first. 

    22. toxicbooster on

      Governments ran by corporations don’t see it as worth it. Billions ventured and no obvious (or quick enough) payout.

    24. Shadow_Raider33 on

      Because the space race led humans to make really risky decisions, all in the name of their country. They did things they wouldn’t do today

    26. ScottyC33 on

      It’s too much of a political risk for any administration. The US already did it, without fatalities (during the actual moon missions). If the US does it again, then they just prove they can do it again. If they attempt and FAIL then symbolically it makes it seem like the US is a failing superpower now.

      If another country does it, then they’re just matching an achievement many decades old. If another country attempts and fails, they failed something the US did many decades ago and it looks embarrassing. It’s just too politically fraught for anyone to seriously go after it again for now.

    Leave A Reply