Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-01-2015 01:40 PM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
One of Kennedy's solutions to stimulate the flagging economy was to spend money on sending Americans to the Moon. One of the results of this decision is evidenced by what happened at Michoud.

---

Not true. Vietnam and ICBM/SLBM deployment had a bigger effect. Even ICMB/SLBM without the war, spent more money than NASA. Michoud is not a relevant since money was taken from somewhere else.

You can't just look there, you have to look at the country as a whole. Some other government program suffered or taxes were increased (which increased inflation) for Michoud to gain. It is a zero sum game when it some to tax funded activities.

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 07-03-2015 08:21 AM               

---

While the ICBM development during the Cold War attributed towards the technology used in rocket manufacture including materials, fuels, rocket motor development, guidance systems and a vast array of other items there was a clear gap between the technology and reliability of ICBMs and man rated rockets. It is well known that there were many problems getting Redstone and Atlas rockets man rated. In addition to increasing the reliability of the rockets, the design and development of flight instrumentation, flight navigation systems, life support systems, space suit design, launch and recovery infrastructure, spacecraft hardware transportation by land air and sea, the recruiting and development of flight controllers, the myriad of other technical and administrative personnel all had the effect of employing far more people than the missile programs would ever have employed.

The movement of money through wages and taxation of 400,000 employees must have benefits for governments via taxation, contract implementation and employment. Private sectors benefit, towns benefit, teachers are employed to educate the children of employees of these personnel, medical, law enforcement, tourist operations and every conceivable offshoot that such an enterprise can generate including collecting space memorabilia have benefitted from man rating and developing the spacecraft during the trail to lunar landing. All of which are additional on top of the development of ICBMs.

Astronauts and other individuals involved in the Apollo program even before Apollo 13 began to question how long the program would continue after Apollo 11. Evidence of this can be found within the interviews recorded in the oral history program. There are many and varied opinions on why the program was cut short, just as there have been many opinions about returning to the moon, travel to Mars and the exploration of the solar system. Hindsight may show that there was a gap too wide between Apollo and shuttle that prevented the full capabilities of Skylab to be utilized (apart from Skylab's own problems during launch)

The original question: If Apollo 13 was successful could the program Apollo continue until Apollo 18? In other words, could Apollo 18 not be cancelled? Yes. But it did not.

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

Posts: 1677
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 07-03-2015 03:02 PM               

---

If you don't like the original link, how about this one. Though not specifically Apollo related, the programme and its economic benefits are mentioned.

A better understanding may be found here. This gives most of the Kennedy speeches from which the Apollo soundbites are taken in full. It's interesting to place these in the full context.

Posts: 1039
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012

posted 07-04-2015 09:48 AM            

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
But does the moon have that much to explore? It doesn't have areas of large physical differences (desert, rainforest etc.). There are no seasonal changes (I think). It appears to be a big ball of rock.

---

Gary, that's all highly speculative and a bit philosophical really. Until the moon's been fully explored we'll never know the answer!

The vast majority of human experience comes from one source and I'd suggest that more than slightly skews our perspective. I agree that on the face of it, our moon appears to be a lifeless ball of rock and dust. But in 1972 when Apollo ended, who'd have thought there was a significant amount of water ice there?

We've got a lot of data, maybe most of it in quantity terms. Then again I don't think it's just quantity that counts but quality.

So I'll stick my neck out and say that the moon probably has quite a few more surprises in store for us.

Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-04-2015 09:57 AM               

---

From a global geologic perspective, probes like Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Kaguya (Selene), Chang'e, Chandrayaan, LCROSS and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter have provided a comprehensive map of the composition of the moon.

True, they could not detect orange soil (volcanic glass), but the need to put feet on the ground for geologic exploration reasons has lessened since Apollo.

Posts: 408
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-05-2015 03:01 PM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oly:
...and every conceivable offshoot that such an enterprise can generate including collecting space memorabilia

---

You gave me a good laugh...

God knows my spending so far on space collecting could significantly stimulate at least a small third-world country's economy. Put all of the entire space collecting community together and we may be able to prop-up Greece!

Posts: 396
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Jan 2012

posted 07-06-2015 06:42 AM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...the need to put feet on the ground for geologic exploration reasons has lessened since Apollo.

---

Don't even say that in jest.

In the immortal words of Dave Scott, "As I stand out here in the wonders of the unknown at Hadley, I sort of realize there's a fundamental truth to our nature, Man must explore... and this is exploration at its greatest."

There really is no substitute for a pair of human eyes (and the mind that goes with it) in any form of exploration. Robots only show us what they see. They're programmed to look for certain things and only those things. Human eyes can report and interpret everything they see, not just what they're told to look at. That's a huge difference in my book.

Posts: 43576
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-06-2015 07:31 AM               

---

The question wasn't about exploration but about the geologic content of the moon on a global scale.

Solely from a "what is the moon made of?" perspective, the robotic orbiters can and have done a much better job answering that question than any number of astronauts in lunar orbit or on the ground could have done, if for no other reason than the probes' ability to do things humans cannot (e.g. "see" in different spectrums, operate continuously for months or years, slam into the surface to kick up material).

Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 07-06-2015 08:19 AM               

---

The moon has been impacted by so many asteroids that could have potentially be composed of strange and unusual materials for such a long period of time that there is a strong potential for an scientifically significant discovery to be made just "around the corner" from man's last exploration. Imagine how gold is distributed over the surface of the Earth, it could be just under the surface, laying face down, embedded in a rock sample or hundreds of feet underground.

We spend thousands of man hours scouring the earth with satellite instrumentation, geophysical survey aircraft with sensitive instruments, geological surveys, wandering in grid patterns with metal detectors and scouring the surface with the mark one eyeball. And yet sometimes gold is still discovered in areas previously repeatedly searched.

There could be similar discoveries across the surface and below on the moon, without spending the time investigating then the answers will remain open.

A return to the moon will only happen when mankind desires to go again, without the incentives to go that were present for the Apollo Program the drive to do so will not happen. The point has been put forward many times before that a long duration exploration of the moon should be used as a training aid in a step towards Mars and beyond, we need to have the capabilities of repeated, fast turnaround missions to the moon, to be able to resupply and ferry crew and equipment, to have observatories, telescopes, laboratories and workshops that function to support such missions, to learn the effects of long duration exploration and operations on space suits, equipment and machinery, on humans, plants etc.

The shuttle program should have been evolved into something bigger, more ambitious.

When mining companies look to the moon and beyond for resources, this would provide the drive, the insensitive, the catalyst that will drive the investment into exploration. Perhaps NASA or other bodies could share the exploration cost, the race could be on for mining royalties for rare and exotic minerals that do not exist on earth. The results of such a venture may not be so pleasing to us as the spirit of adventure and the excitement of the space race were.

Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 07-06-2015 10:29 AM               

---

Currently, our lunar scientists have identified only two or three areas of the moon from which they would like to obtain samples, any permanently shadowed crater near the South Pole, the farside lunar highlands, and the South Pole-Aitken Basin. These are suitable for robotic exploration and sample return missions. Sadly, to my knowledge at least, there are no proposals that have made the cut to the funding stage. If NASA is not willing to allocate money towards robotic missions, then surely expensive, complex manned missions to the moon are far more unlikely in the foreseeable future.

I am glad that I grew up seeing American astronauts explore the moon, but I have no illusions that I will live long enough to see it happen again. Any other country (China?) that lands its 'nauts on the moon will probably just plant their flag, pick up a few rocks and conduct exploration similar to an early H mission. Been there, done that.

Posts: 408
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-06-2015 08:30 PM               

---

I say this only half tongue-in-cheek but the next moon mission may be commercial space tourism for extremely wealthy and daring adventurists.

The infrastructure needed to support moon landings though still seems to be enormous and best done by government agencies who can create and feed that beast. We'll see...

Posts: 244
From: FRANCE
Registered: Jul 2007

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 07-08-2015 02:45 PM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
What would be the point for government agencies to build such infrastructure?

---

Jim, there may not be any point. I think the above poster meant that only a government could afford a commitment to the infrastructure required for lunar missions (as opposed to private or tourist based ventures).

Thanks to all for the info regarding robotic explorations of the moon in response to my question about it being mainly rock.

Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 07-09-2015 05:28 AM               

---

Having spacecraft orbit the moon using magnetometer, reflectometry, spectral analysis and other processes provide a great source of information on the composition of the moons surface, however, if a body of a certain material is covered in dust or soil of another composition it will not show on the spectral analysis, the moon is though to have a very thick crust after seismic tests done during Apollo, it was said to ring like a bell after the impact of used spacecraft. This makes remote sampling more difficult.

There would have to be good suspicion or evidence that there were materials of interest on or in the moon to warrant further investigation by man hands on. However, if we were to combine exploration together with establishing a base for testing long term habitation and long duration exploration equipment and additionally develop an observatory along the lines of a manned Hubble then this would drive an industry of developing freight spacecraft with capabilities other than LEO resupply missions, if the goalposts are moved further back, the industry will find a way to kick longer goals. We will not fully explore the moon until we have trodden the surface fully and explored the caves, caverns and craters. Taken deep core samples and sampled the water ice.

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

Posts: 408
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

Posts: 1488
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

Posts: 971
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 07-14-2015 05:25 AM               

---

The exploration of the moon and any potentially significant discoveries need to be carried out "on the coal face." As I mentioned above, there is only so much exploration that can be done remotely. However the remote exploration should be conducted with as much detail as possible first.

For us to progress to manned exploration of Mars, asteroids and other bodies we should be able to build, operate, maintain and expand workshops and bases on our nearest neighbour first. If was can't do reliable repeated crew change, freight, supplies evacuations, and any ad hoc mission to the moon then in reality Mars is beyond us with current capabilities.

A moon base with a laboratory, observatory, workshop and hub would be the best location to test spacesuits, vehicles, equipment, and other items, without a 9 month one way trip. Items can be turned around on lunar missions in 8 days, not 18 months.

The burden of effort and expenses will lay with whoever chooses to carry it out.

In reality, there is not a chance this will happen in the near future unless we begin another step by step endeavour. To me I find it sad that with modern materials, technologies and experience that a modern Version of shuttle was not built, with the weight reductions and structural improvements that could be designed into such a craft it would have far greater payload abilities. The capability to get large payload into orbit and assemble a craft with Orion, space hab, fuel tanks and other items needed to do the deeper space exploration departing from ISS or lunar spaceport ads a whole new capability to our space flight skill set.

Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 07-24-2015 06:33 AM            

---

This post seems to have turned into a why should we go back to the moon thread. If it was up to me then we should be exploring, but exploring how to live away from the Earth on another body. Living structures, life support systems, etc., should be what going back to the moon should be about.

Astronauts just wandering around taking hundreds of photos of rocks, talking about rocks and collecting rocks kind of killed Apollo, that's only interesting to geologists. Just imagine how much more interest could have been generated if NASA had gone ahead with primitive living structures and fully enclosed long ranging LRVs and moon landings on the farside. I still think too much time and effort went into rocks!

Posts: 2458
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 07-24-2015 06:54 AM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robsouth:
I still think too much time and effort went into rocks!

---

Our modern way of life on this planet began with the time and effort spent going 'into rocks' as you put it. To some extent the continuation of living standards still very much depends on the exploration of what we stand on.

Might not the same be said for the Moon or Mars?

Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 07-24-2015 07:00 AM               

---

Rob, you have some terrific ideas for living and driving on the moon but these extra items would have required a second Saturn launch for the missions that used them.

With interest and funding already decreasing by the time of Apollo 11, the money for these increased costs would have been very hard to find.

Sad to say it usually comes down to money. The idea of a person exploring and reporting back from the moon appeals romantically to us all because we imagine ourselves in their position — if only for A, B or C that could be me. But the cost to do this by robots is only a fraction of a crewed mission — and therefore more likely.

Posts: 1051
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 12-01-2015 02:49 PM               

---

Maybe we strayed too much from the original question:

If Apollo 13 had been successful, is possible that budget cuts hit only Apollo 19, and that Apollo 18 would have flown as last Apollo mission on the moon?

Posts: 1624
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 12-04-2015 08:19 AM               

---

My guess is that had the Apollo 13 H-2 mission succeeded, there would have been little left to prove about American dominance in lunar exploration with six more missions. NASA, at the Nixon Administration's behest, probably would have cancelled the four J missions altogether, Apollos 16-19. Then, the last Apollo mission, 15, would have landed at Censorinus Crater or the Davy Chain in 1971.

Remember that Nixon (as well as his two predecessors) did not count science as adding to the National Interest. Cancelling those missions would leave NASA move on to Skylab and the shuttle.

Posts: 69
From:
Registered: Jun 2014

Posts: 891
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 12-05-2015 02:28 PM               

---

Quickly ending a relatively risky program like Apollo, after a successful landing, would have been a politically expedient thing to do, but not one that I would have favored (not that anyone asked me at the time).

Further flights would either be successful but add little to American prestige since they were merely repeat flights in the eyes of the voting public, or end in disaster thereby reducing American prestige. I am under no illusions how most politicians would deal with these two possibilities. I doubt very much that the fact hardware was already built and paid for and would be wasted (not used) would even come into their decision making process.

As a science-oriented person, I would certainly have favored additional missions/landings. As a someone who knows how really risk-averse politicians really are, I am grateful for the limited missions that were flown and the science returned.