Close Menu
    Weltraum

    Astronauten erklären den wahren Grund, warum seit 50 Jahren kein Mensch mehr auf dem Mond war, und die Realität ist deprimierend


    Astronauten erklären den wahren Grund, warum seit 50 Jahren kein Mensch mehr auf dem Mond war, und die Realität ist deprimierend

    https://techfixated.com/astronauts-explain-the-real-reason-why-no-human-has-been-to-the-moon-in-50-years-and-the-reality-is-depressing-2/

    View 17 Comments

    17 Kommentare

    1. Dragon___ on

      This article leaves out that the current administration proposed slashing all funding to the Artemis program, and then recently has moved to drastically change the program architecture and significantly drive up cost and create further delay. It’s a malicious narrative against the public program disguised as an attempt to support it.

    2. interesseret on

      Funding and public interest.

      There we go, that’s all explanation needed.

    3. T1Demon on

      The US Government only really cares to invest in the space program when they identify a potential military advantage. Bonus points if it can also scale to be commercially beneficial

    4. TaskForceCausality on

      >> It is political risk, budget constraints, and the depressing reality that a program that takes too long and costs too much money will always struggle to survive changes in presidential administration.

      >>As former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine put it bluntly: “If it wasn’t for the political risk, we would be on the moon right now. In fact, we would probably be on Mars.”

      I disagree. Those are factors, but the primary one is money. If there were oil or uranium deposits on the moon, best believe there’d be daily flights there today. But at our current level of technology, there’s no financial gain to visiting the Moon (or any other destination in the solar system). Without short term profit motives in space travel , there’s little reason for massive private sector investment. Without that investment, governments will spend money on more immediate concerns – like subsidies and wars that enrich their corporate sponsors today , not in 10-20 years.

      National pride got us to the moon, but it’s short term financial gain that’s going to keep us there. Until that economic motive is found, we’re not going back. Even a Taikonaut landing on the moon might not be enough provocation.

    5. sojuz151 on

      Space shuttle was a terrible program that is in a part to blame. Expensive and incapable of even being considered to beyond leo missions.

      Constellations program was canceled not because a new president but because it was extremely behind the schedule and over budget. 

      SLS and Orion consumed massive amounts of resources while giving almost nothing in return. Both of those are possible to replace with cheaper commercial solutions. This would require some modification but nothing in comparison with cost of those programs

      There was more than enough budget, it was mismanaged. 

    6. thebestguac on

      Do a TV show on the moon in tandem with research – ads will sponsor it – boom

    7. Luzon0903 on

      Funding and lack of governmental or even private interest (I don’t even know any companies going for the Moon independently, of course I could be wrong)

    8. JohnOfA on

      “We leave as we came, and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.”

      Sounds like cool premise for TV series that answers the question, what if we did return to the moon? They could call it „As We Shall Return“.

    9. WardenEdgewise on

      I’m wondering why there haven’t been many more unmanned landers/probes/rovers sent to the moon over the past 4 or 5 decades. It seems that after the Apollo missions, NASA should have continued lunar exploration with unmanned missions like they have sent to Mars over the years. Most of the Mars missions have been very successful.

    10. Techn028 on

      If the moon had rare resources and there was a profit to be made then a guarantee we’d have lunar bases and mining operations going on right now

    11. ReasonablyBadass on

      There simply isn’t much point in humans on Luna. It is close enough we can use robots to do any work we want and it is far more hostile then Mars. Mars is a much better prospect for a colony.

    13. djwaveguide on

      It comes down to long term vs short term planning and public support. I doubt many of the original explorers or people fleeing Europe would’ve come to the New World for commercially viable reasons. Similarly, setting up the first orbiting base for the moon and surface base will be incredibly expensive. Mars even more so. Then you have to maintain it over time. The idea of the orbiter is a Lilly pad design; in case of emergency jump back to the last Lilly pad and await rescue.

    17. mtnviewguy on

      Without reading the article, I’m going to make an educated guess:

      Putting a man on the Moon was a 100% politically driven competition between America and Russia. JFK’s goal for a manned mission to the Moon „within the decade“ (1960s) was the start of the race. When we got there first AND made repeated trips, the race was won and funding disappeared.

      Now I’ll read the article and see if I’m close! 👍😉

    Leave A Reply