How long do you think it will be until we return to the moon

[jinglesassy]

Hello, i am wondering how long the orbiter community thinks it will be until we return to the moon.

 

[adamb193]

Tuesday

 

[agentgonzo]

I think that they will decide that there's not enough science to be gained from sending man back to the moon for the amount of money that it will cost on Constellation, so they will cancel the moon-shot in favour of going to Mars. Then in 20 years time they will do the same with the Mars mission and cancel that. I don't think that man will return to the moon for at least another 50 years. I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong.

 

[jinglesassy]

yeah me too agentgonzo i think it would be awesome to be on the moon

 

[Dambuster]

Being optimistic, I've put 11 years. Provided that NASA gets their budget raise, that the Constellation Program goes ahead, and that the Augustine Commission is correct, I think a Moon landing in 11 years is achievable.

 

[Ark]

I think we'll wimp out and cancel it, then someone else will go instead.

 

[Ghostrider]

Maybe never. The tech is there but the spirit is gone. If you think about it, the decades between 1940 and 1960 saw a tremendous tech development. We went to break the sound barrier, to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, to space, to the Moon.
And now? We seem to be contented with what we have, and just wait for the next iteration of things already seen.

 

[liber]

Hello, i am wondering how long the orbiter community thinks it will be until we return to the moon.

100 years,and I will watch landing live.

 

[movieman]

I reckon the first Virgin Galactic lunar tourism flight will land there around 2025...

 

[Ark]

Maybe never. The tech is there but the spirit is gone. If you think about it, the decades between 1940 and 1960 saw a tremendous tech development. We went to break the sound barrier, to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, to space, to the Moon.
And now? We seem to be contented with what we have, and just wait for the next iteration of things already seen.

Indeed. Nobody wants to spend money to re-do something we already did 40 years ago. Not when we're stuck in two unwinnable wars, the planet is falling apart, people's retirement accounts have evaporated, and we're gonna be at 10% unemployment at the end of the year. People support stuff like this when they're optimistic, not when the world is falling apart around them.

 

[Ghostrider]

People support stuff like this when they're optimistic, not when the world is falling apart around them.

People were optimistic in the '80s and in the '90s - when the economy was booming. The economy is not the problem, it's the mindset. Not even the argument about the "billions wasted" when there are "so many starving" is really valid, because the world was not one happy and well-fed place back before space travel.

As for the "unwinnable" wars, that's another sign of the times having changed. WW1 and WW2 were FAR worse than anything Afghanistan and Iraq can ever be. But the harder, stronger spirit of the WW2 and post-WW2 era is gone. This is the age of the wimp, when we cry for mommy for a paper cut, sue if the coffee is too hot and we're scared of our own shadows.

 

[jinglesassy]

People were optimistic in the '80s and in the '90s - when the economy was booming. The economy is not the problem, it's the mindset. Not even the argument about the "billions wasted" when there are "so many starving" is really valid, because the world was not one happy and well-fed place back before space travel.

As for the "unwinnable" wars, that's another sign of the times having changed. WW1 and WW2 were FAR worse than anything Afghanistan and Iraq can ever be. But the harder, stronger spirit of the WW2 and post-WW2 era is gone. This is the age of the wimp, when we cry for mommy for a paper cut, sue if the coffee is too hot and we're scared of our own shadows.

yeah we are pathetic now more people died on one beach the very first day then have died throughout the entire iraq war and there were 2 beach heads. we are getting soft i say we need another world war to fix the world and to teach the new generation what it means to truely be at war.

 

[eveningsky339]

yeah we are pathetic now more people died on one beach the very first day then have died throughout the entire iraq war and there were 2 beach heads. we are getting soft i say we need another world war to fix the world and to teach the new generation what it means to truely be at war.

What the frick are you talking about?


Anyway, we will be on the moon as soon as NASA either disappears or sees the light.

 

[Ghostrider]

i say we need another world war to fix the world and to teach the new generation what it means to truely be at war.

Since most armies are now professional, that wouldn't work and it would be a SHORT war indeed.

Of course, I guess that should for instance Western Europe be threatened with invasion, mandatory draft would be immediately reinstated, probably with unemployed people being sent to the front pronto while our governments relocate to some remote island in order to "guarantee continuity".

 

[Moonwalker]

13 years.

I think we'll wimp out and cancel it, then someone else will go instead.

Yes, but unmanned basically. Who has got the billions to go manned if even NASA/the USA does not?

I reckon the first Virgin Galactic lunar tourism flight will land there around 2025...

Back in the 60's people thought that in around 2000 we'll have hotels on the Moon And these days NASA tries to give people the Moon-spirit again. But I think it will be the last time somebody does do that on such a scale seriously. It doesn't really work. The enthusiasm on such things has gone long time ago already.

Anyway, I fairly doubt that Virgin Galactic would ever get proper funds for the required massive infrastructure to go to the Moon. I'm quite confident that without a government involved we don't see manned flights down to the lunar surface at all. Not even Boeing could go. Not even NASA could, if there was not all the companies all over the USA who actually build all the stuff, and taxpayers who make all that financially possible, whether they agree or not. And on top, you have the government which actually sets those massive goals. My personal estimation is that Virgin Galactic will continue dreaming and remain parabola fun for rich people, but still a losing bargain.

Manned lunar flights will quite likely also remain a massive losing bargain, at least within this and probably even right into the following century as well. Nobody really wants to pay for such "useless" technologies. It's too, way too early for mankind to do what science fiction authors and space enthusiasts dream about for more than 50 years.

If NASA does not go, forget about men on the Moon. Something will happen that did happen since the last Apollo flights, and that's exactly: nothing.

 

[Kaito]

If we can find a CHEAP (and I stress, cheap) way to go back to the moon, that will probably be the best thing the human race has ever done. That way, we can colonize the moon and relieve some stress on this planet. Now, the only way I can EVER see us developing that cheap method is by some kind of war (sadly). Competition drives innovation. If someone honestly thought they could develop a better nuclear bomb by using Lunar regolith, but it took 1 year of hard human labor to do it, then we would get to the moon as fast as we could to develop the bomb first

 

[jinglesassy]

yeah, competition is best for technology development i mean just look at during world war 2 technology sped up alot to stay ahead of everyone else so a big long war would be very helpful in technology and probably space travel and also overpopulation(hey several million will die so it would get rid of over population) but in the long term it would be so good.

 

[RisingFury]

I think that they will decide that there's not enough science to be gained from sending man back to the moon for the amount of money that it will cost on Constellation, so they will cancel the moon-shot in favour of going to Mars. Then in 20 years time they will do the same with the Mars mission and cancel that. I don't think that man will return to the moon for at least another 50 years. I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong.

I think this is one of the things a lot of people don't understand...

If we wanted pure science, we would send robots. They're cheaper, they don't need constant attention and best of all - they don't need to come back home, while they can still do almost all of the science that humans can do.

The science per price for robots is very high.


But we don't send people to space for science. We send them to learn living in space, to gain experience and to further our technology and prove it. ISS, just like a Moon outpost, won't be there primarily for scientific purposes, but for the purpose of proving our technology.



We won't go straight to Mars. The reason is that the most we've learned so far is to live in orbit around Earth for a period of months. That's not the same as living on the way to Mars and living on Mars. Both of those will face unique challenges.

The Moon will provide us with a stepping stone so that we can learn how to live on a different world, while still being close to home. If you're on the Moon when something goes wrong, you're close to home that you can return to. If you're on the way to Mars and you have a problem, you're dead.

ISS, together with a Moon outpost, will provide us with the experience and knowledge we need to go to Mars and beyond.

Learn how to walk before you run, right?

 

[Moonwalker]

That way, we can colonize the moon and relieve some stress on this planet.

And I'm Santa once again

You would have to get more than a billion humans to the Moon to relieve "stress" on this planet affectively. The Moon is a dead desert in a vacuum with no reason to live on. It would be like a big jail, for "guilty" people. Guilty on causing stress on Earth. Those humans won't ever "live". They would go to the Moon to miserably die with and because of guilty feeling.

This whole space colonizing ideas to "safe" the planet is nothing more than pipe dreams. As I always say: if we don't learn to solve our problems, we won't learn it elsewhere. Not in the water, not in the desert and less than ever in space. Running away does not change anything. We have to learn to appreciate what we have on Earth. Because there is exactly one fact and no margin for our species: we have just one Earth. Within our solar system, and light years beyond, we'll always depend on it in the long run.

And by the way: humankind is not endlessly increasing. Regarding the current trend, we won't see significantly more humans than 9 billions until 2050, with a following decrease.

 

[Andy44]

Colonizing other planets to relieve population pressure is a flawed idea.

For starters, transporting billions of people through space, even with sci fi technology, is too expensive. When we do colonize other worlds, it will be with small groups, until enough for a viable gene pool arrive, at which point most colony growth will occur from local procreation. This has been the case in every historical colonization.

In addition, every place on Earth is easier to live on than any place off the earth. Antarctica is a horrible place to live, for instance, but it's got water, food (penguins, mmm tasty, and you can grow vegatables indoors), breathable air, you don't need a space suit, and you can walk around outside with a coat. Try doing that anywhere else in the Solar System! On top of all that, it's only a boat ride away.