Questions of our lifetime.
Page: 1
98 - 
7435 pts ★ Racer
5068 pts ★ NoviceYesterday at 22:31:36
my question: When are we going to the moon again?
1
Today at 00:05:35
I would put money on "not within my lifetime".
The reason why the US aimed to put the first man on the moon stems from a long list of Cold War-era politics that I really cannot be assed to list, nor would I imagine anyone would want to read on this forum (it's actually kinda interesting though). This took both a metric fuck ton of money and manpower to do for what is essentially bragging rights. Sure we could do it again, but realistically most of the "science" that the moon landings provided we already see in other scenarios, be it human physiology in low/zero gravity, collecting earth science and data about the moon, vehicle performance, communication delay, and the list goes on. This all comes with the added risk of sending a human into space where if something goes wrong it is basically 100% guaranteed to kill that human. Terraforming the moon for human habitation would thus "realistically" be the only way to justify putting men on the moon again. This is basically a pipe dream that would best be suited for other celestial bodies that may be further but have actual things going on and isn't just a big rock that happens to be close to us.
Or maybe some crazy billionaire will build a rocket and just send it, idk man.
The reason why the US aimed to put the first man on the moon stems from a long list of Cold War-era politics that I really cannot be assed to list, nor would I imagine anyone would want to read on this forum (it's actually kinda interesting though). This took both a metric fuck ton of money and manpower to do for what is essentially bragging rights. Sure we could do it again, but realistically most of the "science" that the moon landings provided we already see in other scenarios, be it human physiology in low/zero gravity, collecting earth science and data about the moon, vehicle performance, communication delay, and the list goes on. This all comes with the added risk of sending a human into space where if something goes wrong it is basically 100% guaranteed to kill that human. Terraforming the moon for human habitation would thus "realistically" be the only way to justify putting men on the moon again. This is basically a pipe dream that would best be suited for other celestial bodies that may be further but have actual things going on and isn't just a big rock that happens to be close to us.
Or maybe some crazy billionaire will build a rocket and just send it, idk man.
1
Today at 00:35:12
I would put money on "not within my lifetime".
The reason why the US aimed to put the first man on the moon stems from a long list of Cold War-era politics that I really cannot be assed to list, nor would I imagine anyone would want to read on this forum (it's actually kinda interesting though). This took both a metric fuck ton of money and manpower to do for what is essentially bragging rights. Sure we could do it again, but realistically most of the "science" that the moon landings provided we already see in other scenarios, be it human physiology in low/zero gravity, collecting earth science and data about the moon, vehicle performance, communication delay, and the list goes on. This all comes with the added risk of sending a human into space where if something goes wrong it is basically 100% guaranteed to kill that human. Terraforming the moon for human habitation would thus "realistically" be the only way to justify putting men on the moon again. This is basically a pipe dream that would best be suited for other celestial bodies that may be further but have actual things going on and isn't just a big rock that happens to be close to us.
Or maybe some crazy billionaire will build a rocket and just send it, idk man.
The reason why the US aimed to put the first man on the moon stems from a long list of Cold War-era politics that I really cannot be assed to list, nor would I imagine anyone would want to read on this forum (it's actually kinda interesting though). This took both a metric fuck ton of money and manpower to do for what is essentially bragging rights. Sure we could do it again, but realistically most of the "science" that the moon landings provided we already see in other scenarios, be it human physiology in low/zero gravity, collecting earth science and data about the moon, vehicle performance, communication delay, and the list goes on. This all comes with the added risk of sending a human into space where if something goes wrong it is basically 100% guaranteed to kill that human. Terraforming the moon for human habitation would thus "realistically" be the only way to justify putting men on the moon again. This is basically a pipe dream that would best be suited for other celestial bodies that may be further but have actual things going on and isn't just a big rock that happens to be close to us.
Or maybe some crazy billionaire will build a rocket and just send it, idk man.
During the cold war it was actually seen as a safety issue I believe due to a fear of attacks from space.
Today at 00:37:52
my question: When are we going to the moon again?
well it is planned for this year for humans to orbit the moon from what I found, so if everything goes right, soon.
Today at 04:14:56
When will we have flying cars😭😭😭
Page: 1