5 ms·
This article does not actually discuss the *why*. All the article says is *that* the US turned attention away from the moon after the space race. What a garbag
by Cheer2171 3y ago
This article does not actually discuss the *why*. All the article says is *that* the US turned attention away from the moon after the space race.
What a garbage clickbait headline. It isn't as if the US has been working for 51 years to get back to the moon. The US did it to show the world they could, and then decided they had different priorities.
- sidewndr46 3y agoWe had different priorities because we realized going to the moon is mostly useless. NASA almost forgot to accomplish their original mission with Apollo, putting a scientist on the moon. They sent Dr Harrison Schmitt at the absolute last minute with the Apollo 17. Post-Apollo it was realized NASA was a cute way to subsidize the defense industry and keep a large volume of people working and educated about building and maintaining rocket systems. Notably the Space shuttle required both liquid fueled and solid fueled rockets, ensuring a diversity of knowledge and skill in multiple domains. Conveniently the only practical difference between orbital manned spaceflight and suborbital weapon systems is the trajectory. It is now politically expedient to support further manned missions as a spectacle to distract the US from real problems.
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y agoI guess China, Japan, India, Russia, the UAE, and Israel are all just trying to distract from real problems too?
- cjbgkagh 3y agoNot the examples I would use as all of those countries do have real problems and governments that would very much benefit from such distractions.
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y agoIs there any country on Earth who, if they launched a lunar mission, you would not consider it a distraction from real problems?
- cjbgkagh 3y agoNorway, Switzerland, there are many others, most countries in fact.
- dmoy 3y agoIdk if I'd say most, but there's definitely a bunch.
- cjbgkagh 3y agoI think there needs to be a combination of size of country and the degree that they're currently involved in unpopular actions that gives rise to the necessity of such distraction. For small corrupt countries I would definitely find it really weird if they had a lunar program but I would figure that they could more efficiently maintain consent of the governed through more traditional mechanisms and must be doing it for other reasons; perhaps quirky 'big man' of poor country likes to play with rockets.
- ThisIsMyAltAcct 3y agoYou seriously think the main reason to have a lunar program is bread and circuses? The ESA launched a lunar probe in 2006 but haven't since. I guess they only needed the distraction that one time? I guess each of the 22 ESA members needed a little "consent of the governed" boost?
- cjbgkagh 3y agoI do, the main reason yes. The ESA membership diffuses the distraction amongst the members to the point that it doesn't fulfil the same purpose.
- AviationAtom 3y agoA big one, not touched on as much, was cost. The public lost the appetite to fund such outrageously expensive missions. The commercial program is helping lower those costs through novel approaches.