Poll of the Day > Did we travel 238,900 miles to the moon...

(+) Yeah! (+)

66 years after the first plane flight.

---

anyone who thinks the moon landing was fake is an idiot on the same level as flat earthers.
---

I don't know the exact distance but yes people went to the moon in the 1960s.

---

We went to the moon in 1969.

---

adjl posted...

We went to the moon in 1969.

69 is the 60''s
---

And then we stopped going, and haven't been back.

---

adjl posted...

We went to the moon in 1969.

Um, not 1968, but a year later.
---

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qswd5cCblAg
---

No, because they used a Hohmann transfer orbit, which is considerably longer than 238,900 miles.



---

captpackrat posted...

No, because they used a Hohmann transfer orbit, which is considerably longer than 238,900 miles.

This, too. You cant go straight there
---

captpackrat posted...

No, because they used a Hohmann transfer orbit, which is considerably longer than 238,900 miles.

So your saying we went at least 238,900 miles or more to get to the moon.

---

Why not? We had bombs that sent shockwaves around the earth for laps, why would we not have the power to yeet some chimps at a rock?
---

Its kind of odd that our technology is better than it was back then and we havent sent anyone back up there.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Its kind of odd that our technology is better than it was back then and we havent sent anyone back up there.

Why bother? Nothing up there but rocks.

---

Zareth posted...

Why bother? Nothing up there but rocks.

Cool rocks
---

LinkPizza posted...

This, too. You cant go straight there

And you have to go when the moon's full for the best chance of success.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Its kind of odd that our technology is better than it was back then and we havent sent anyone back up there.

Mainly because the technology we used then is now obsolete, and there's no real incentive to redesign it from the ground up.

Keep in mind this was a problem for the space shuttles by the end, where half the replacement parts they needed on a regular basis were no longer made commercially and had to be specially crafted at ridiculous expense. Now remember that the moon landing tech was even older and more primitive than that. The shittiest pocket calculator you can buy in Wal-Mart has more computing power than we used to get to the moon.

We basically switched from the Apollo rocket tech to the space shuttle program because we'd "won" the space race against the Soviets, at which point everyone stopped giving a shit and started taking a long, hard look at NASA's budget (and how to gut the shit out of it to save money). The switch to a shuttle that could be repeatedly reused was intended to save money (and it did), but it also meant that landings anywhere that lacked runways (like, you know, the moon) became infeasible.

At this point, a manned moon landing (or a Mars landing) would require a new lander designed from the ground up using current technology. There HAVE been at least a couple initiatives to work on such a thing (like Bush signing off on the Orion program), but they usually wind up getting cancelled (like Obama cutting funding to the Orion program, so he could push his own program, which in turn was cancelled by Trump, so he could establish his plan which will probably wind up getting cancelled by Biden eventually). Because again, the average taxpayer doesn't give a shit and doesn't want to have to pay for it.

It's why private space agencies like SpaceX will probably have to push the future of space flight (if there's ever going to be one). Because until someone figures out a way to profit from it, the motivation for it will be completely lacking.

Space was only important so long as getting there meant beating the Commies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Its kind of odd that our technology is better than it was back then and we havent sent anyone back up there.

^ Everytime this topic gets discussed, that's my 2 cents.
Surely tech is better these days.. even if it was really a race to get there before the commies, wouldnt it be worth a second look before Elon sends people to Mars?

---

Because it's not about the circuitry to get there, but, the fuel costs.
Once you figure out the trajectory, you don't need a lot to adjust on the fly, it's just point and go.

Everything past that is material costs, which, isn't ideal.

Nay, it was 238,899 miles and 5000 feet! /s

---

Is it a boon to fly to the moon at noon?
---

Revelation34 posted...

Is it a boon to fly to the moon at noon?

Maybe while riding a cocoon?

---

Does anyone know if anyone drew dicks in the moon dust? Because if you're gonna go that far you might as well leave a real mark of humanity being there like dick drawings.

---

JixHedgehog posted...

^ Everytime this topic gets discussed, that's my 2 cents.
Surely tech is better these days.. even if it was really a race to get there before the commies, wouldnt it be worth a second look before Elon sends people to Mars?

Before the main driving force was the Space Race. It wasn't just about furthering humanity, it was about a DEMOCRACY, CAPITALIST, nation furthering humanity instead of a filthy commie. As a result America was willing to throw a bunch of funding behind the missions. But now not only is the U.S.S.R. gone but there isn't much reason to soak the huge cost as a result. Trump wanted to get us back to the moon and it's unclear if Biden will follow through, but the flaw wasn't technology, it was money. Tech may be better but it doesn't really matter. A moon base would be stupidly expensive and, while tech has improved and it's not impossible, it's also just so expensive as to not be worth it.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

We basically switched from the Apollo rocket tech to the space shuttle program because we'd "won" the space race against the Soviets, at which point everyone stopped giving a shit and started taking a long, hard look at NASA's budget (and how to gut the shit out of it to save money).

Which is hilarious because the NASA budget is such a tiny fraction of the overall budget, while "defence" spending could literally house, feed and educate the entire planet. Of course the reason NASA got off the ground to begin with was because contracts were awarded to key voting districts to buy the politicians vote; it was not enough that they were headed to space to beat the communists, they also had to get their beaks wet too.

---

People forget this was mostly politics. And was largely backed by the public. The US was in a big space race against the Soviets and this was the ultimate power statement. They had free reign to spend as much money as they wanted to achieve it. And it was actually easier back then to spend money to physically go to the moon than it was to fake it. They didn't have anywhere near enough computation for that.

---

Not sure but some say it was staged because Russia was winning the space race and the US had to play catch up.

America had no rocket program until they made a deal with German scientist Wernher von Braun who designed the V2 rocket for the Nazis during WW2.

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Not sure but some say it was staged because Russia was winning the space race and the US had to play catch up.

That means that Russia would do everything in their power to expose it as a fraud and embarrass the US. Which clearly didn't happen.

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

America had no rocket program until they made a deal with German scientist Wernher von Braun who designed the V2 rocket for the Nazis during WW2.

They had a program, it just was not any good at getting the rocket to lift off the launch pad without it experiencing a rapid unscheduled disassembly.

Operation Paperclip was more then just the rocket engineers and psychicists that went on to work with NASA.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

That means that Russia would do everything in their power to expose it as a fraud and embarrass the US. Which clearly didn't happen.

If anything, the USSR as a political body saw the space race as an American propaganda, and Russia's own program was really just the dream and efforts of one man who died before America even reached the moon. The US caught up and "won" because it was determined as a whole to do so, rather than relying on a single man's wallet.

---

Entity13 posted...

he US caught up and "won" because it was determined as a whole to do so, rather than relying on a single man's wallet.

Entity13 posted...

determined as a whole

Eisenhower and Kennedy had uphill battles in establishing the programs at NASA

The role of the executive in pusing for this program, and the largely negative reaction of the populace is something that is still being battled to this day; support for the space program today is probably the highest it has ever been among the voting public.

---

Don't forget that Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled partially due to waning public interest. The landing sites from Apollos 15 and 17 were altered as well. Some of the sites that had to be abandoned included Copernicus and Tycho craters and the Marius Hills.

The CSMs (Command/Service Modules) were used for Skylab, which was also abandoned despite being perfectly functional and having an available CSM which could have boosted the orbit, leaving the US without a space station until the ISS. The final remaining CSM was used for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first joint US/USSR mission.

---

KodyKeir posted...

Which is hilarious because the NASA budget is such a tiny fraction of the overall budget, while "defence" spending could literally house, feed and educate the entire planet.

To be fair, the difference between 1% and 4% can sound like nothing, but that can also be the difference between $10 million and $40 million. So it can make a significant difference, especially if it feels like it's all being wasted.

As for defense, the problem there is that it's a hell of a lot easier to sell the idea of defense (especially when you're still in the middle of the Cold War, or when terrorist groups are taking over entire nations), than it is to sell "fucking around in space". So there will always be people who are more than willing to prioritize military spending over pretty much anything else. Because of the mindset that without significant military spending, you wouldn't have anything else.

Basically, if you want to see NASA's budget shoot up to match military spending levels, you need to prove that aliens exist and we need to fight them because they want to take away our freedoms.
---

Also remember that "money for the military" isn't just buying a bunch of tanks, it's straight up giving people money as well. The military hires people and gives them pay, it's arguably the single largest employer in the US just from salary payouts.

Don't forget all the "Military Honours" done at sporting events, entirely paid by the taxpayer.

Your local team wants an F-35 flyover while rangers parachute onto the field, as red white and blue smoke stream over our wounded veterans while the band plays Sousa; DOD pays the team to do all that.

---

Obviously.

---

I think some people dont realize the space race was kinda an arms races. Basically saying look how far we can make this rocket go now imagine how far we can make a nuke go.

I know its not completely the same. But we put people on the moon so its safe to say we could also make a missle go a pretty long ways.

So basically we proved our point and no longer needed to continue.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I think some people dont realize the space race was kinda an arms races. Basically saying look how far we can make this rocket go now imagine how far we can make a nuke go.

Even beyond that, you don't even need nukes if you can maintain orbital platforms full of large metal rods. Or a moonbase with a mass driver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

orbital platforms full of large metal rods

Project Thor is frightening in its power, but would not be economically feasible without a moonbase, and at that point you may as well build the mass drivers as well.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I think some people dont realize the space race was kinda an arms races. Basically saying look how far we can make this rocket go now imagine how far we can make a nuke go.

I know its not completely the same. But we put people on the moon so its safe to say we could also make a missle go a pretty long ways.

So basically we proved our point and no longer needed to continue.

Nuke the moon?
---

No,
We traveled 238,915 miles to the moon

---

Revelation34 posted...

Nuke the moon?

gotta nuke somethin'
---

Revelation34 posted...

Nuke the moon?

Just showing we could if we wanted to.

---

shadowsword87 posted...

Also remember that "money for the military" isn't just buying a bunch of tanks, it's straight up giving people money as well.

It's still mostly just buying a bunch of tanks.
Ask anyone who works on a military base, and they'll tell you how they fire off all their surplus ammunition so they don't get budget cuts for the next pay period.

---

Zareth posted...

It's still mostly just buying a bunch of tanks.
Ask anyone who works on a military base, and they'll tell you how they fire off all their surplus ammunition so they don't get budget cuts for the next pay period.

Step father says they charge a lot for things that should be a lot cheaper too and his claim is thats how they build their "black budget" for things they wanna keep off official records. Idk how true that is though. Sounds almost conspiracy theory to me but also slightly believable. At least thr way he told it which I cant recall his exact words

---