29 Jan
2011
29 Jan
'11
1:23 a.m.
Brent Hilpert wrote:
What makes this topical to the list though, is one of
reasons she
gave to question the landings:
The question about the moon landing is why
haven?t we been back.
And it was done in an age where computers were as big as a
couple of
rooms.
Did anyone point out to her:
1) The Apollo Guidance Computer occupied less two cubic feet. If she
doesn't believe that, there are AGCs on Earth that could be examined by
experts to evaluate their capabilities and confirm their age. Though if
she won't believe it based on the wealth of published information, it's
not likely that anything would convince her.
2) Mission planning was done on Earth using room-size computers.
3) It doesn't matter what size the computer was. We don't go back
because the Apollo program cost $170 billion (in 2005 dollars) according
to NASA figures. In 2009 dollars, that is about $31 billion dollars per
successful moon landing.
We clearly *could* go to the moon again. It still wouldn't be easy. The
reason we don't do it is simple. We don't have the will to do it, so
we're averse to spending $31 billion dollars for another trip.
Eventually another human will set foot on the moon. It seems highly
unlikely that he or she will be a US citizen, unless it is a privately
funded mission.