Does anybody else think that we seem to be going backwards in our space travel?  If we have been to the moon why not go to other planets instead of just orbiting the earth?  And why not make an actual Space Ship instead of some small little plane that people call a shuttle?
204142
Several probes have been sent to other planets. There is currently a probe going to Pluto. I believe it will reach that planet by 2010ish.\n\nOne reason to not send humans to other planets is that it would take SO long to get there. Living in space for extended periods of time is very hard on the human body. Mostly it just degenerates your muscles.\n\nIt would cost a lot of money to develop a vehicle to transport more people than the shuttle carries. And there isn't really a need to develop one at this time.
514392
As you travel through space you travel through time.  As you sit reading these answers you are traveling through space at the same rate as the Earth is traveling through space.  We have made our own increments of time in relation to the amount of space the Earth travels in one revolution around the Sun as well as the one rotation on our axis.\n\nThe secret of the Bermuda Triangle is ~~bzzzzzzzxt~~~~\n\n\nMessage from Yahoo:\nConection lost.
1654
These answers "seem" correct. But Im not sure thats really the case. Within our solar system there is still gravity. What do you think is holding all the planets in place? Perhaps between systems that might be more true.\n\nThe problem is getting a large mass moving fast enough to really be productive. You still need loads of energy to get a real spaceship moving. We just dont have that tech yet. \n\nRight now scientists are working on a plasma engine. Check it out.
550355
1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.\n\nApollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin\nApollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean\nApollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>\nApollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell\nApollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin\nApollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke\nApollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt\n\n\n2) What about the Van Allen radiation belts?  Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?\n\nThe existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos.  Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA. \n\nThe radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong.  You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness.  And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection.  "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."\n\n"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation."  When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.\n\n\n3) Why haven't we been back?  \n\na) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't.  Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.\n\nb) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?\n\n\n4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?  \n\nIn 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.\n\nIf six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!\n\n\n5) What about the USSR?  \n\nEven if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.\n\n\n6) Why does the flag shake?  Where are the stars?\n\nTake a look at the first two websites listed below.  They deal well with all of the technical questions.\n\n\n7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?
207948
The Space Shuttle can’t fly to the Moon—it only makes it about one five-hundredth of the way there, to low Earth orbit—because it doesn’t have the sheer thruster-power required to do so.\n\nIf you were to design a mission to the Moon, though, you’d need to use a carefully-calculated trajectory that takes into account the gravitational effects (and the mutual motions) of both Earth and the Moon.  The first step is to escape Earth’s gravity enough to head toward the Moon (and not just into a different orbit around Earth), so you fire your thrusters to change your velocity.  Then you need to aim for where the Moon will be (’cuz it’s constantly in motion around Earth, remember).  And then you have to enter orbit around the Moon, firing your thrusters again to position yourself properly in orbit.\n\nThat’s one way.\n\nESA’s SMART-1 spacecraft took a somewhat different approach.  It’s a lightweight ship that was launched with several other satellites into a geostationary orbit—about 50 times higher than the Shuttle flies.  Except that SMART-1 didn’t “circularize” its orbit like the other satellites; instead, it pushed itself into an orbit that took it very close to Earth then very far away.  Engineers timed the spacecraft’s most distant passes to take advantage of the Moon’s gravitational attraction, and eventually, SMART-1 nudged itself into orbit around the Moon.  In this case, very little thrust was used on the part of the spacecraft, so it could allow gravity to do most of the work.\n\nIn short, engineers tend to plan spacecraft trajectories very carefully, using a combination of thrust and gravity to get a ship exactly where they want it.\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
146996
Is there life on the moon that we are simply unable to detect? Maybe. Not likely though, when we think of the parameters to which life seems to be constrained. It would be a very different life form from any we have encountered.\n\nThen again, this is like asking "How do we know that there aren't invisible people walking around us all the time? They might just be very quiet." There's just no really good reason to think so.
47040
Yes - we learnt that there was no cheese in the moon or that there were no green men in mars.\n\nJokes apart - improvements in space travel - hs helped in improving sea going vehicles (submarines etc) also treatment of paraliysed people, also treatment of muscle atrophied etc...\n\nalso the satelite age heraled the ability for us all to better predict weather changes and also determine where the next oil deposit could well be...etc\n\nso you need to look at it all in the context of the benefits of space travel...so yes its important...\n\nand the money spent is well spent
296064
Supposedly it's true, there were visitors around the ships, I think that they (Astronauts) refered to them as "Space bugs", they were (and are) seen floating around the ship on several occassions, NASA is well aware of them, they show up on just about every launch, supposedly harmless, but still a life form of some sort. One school of thought is that the reason the moon shots were cancelled was because, NASA had found evidence that now, or at one time the moon was being used as an observation post for another life form that was studying Human behavior on Earth.... Perhaps they got sick, after seeing how we treat each other, and left ! Pretty interesting stuff, Huh ?
639405
because the mass of sun is higher than all the other planets ...Moon has a smaller mass compared to earth so it revolves around the earth ...actually it's all 'relative' ...Motion is relative ...if you are driving in the car ...you can say the whole world is moving backwards ....we don't say that ...beacuse of the frame of reference ...we have chosen i.e. "the driver" also the complexity of the motion ....involved when looking at the world the other way....similarly you can say that sun is revolvin the planets but in the frame of reference the motion would be very complex ....so we choose the easier frame of reference ....alo the whole galaxy is rotating ...if you look from the outside frame of reference ....\n\n\nMOTION HAS A DUALITY ....NEVER A SINGULARITY ....
572815
Most communication is pointless chatter so in some ways you might as well ask how we made do w/out noise.  When you think of the amount of money and time and effort currently being wasted on computers and mobile phones a better question might be how on earth do we manage to get anything done now and could we get to the moon again by just yakking and emailing?
158901
i dont' know what causes the rotation of an orbiting planet, but the moon would definitely have gravity even if it didn't spin.  that dude was full of crap.  if anything, the spin would cause things to fly off.
350304
1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.\n\nApollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin\nApollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean\nApollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>\nApollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell\nApollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin\nApollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke\nApollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt\n\n\n2) Why haven't we been back?  \n\na) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.\n\nb) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't.  Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.\n\nc) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?\n\n\n3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts?  Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?\n\nThe existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos.  Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA. \n\nThe radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong.  You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness.  And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection.  "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."\n\n"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation."  When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.\n\n\n4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?  \n\nIn 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.\n\nIf six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!\n\n\n5) What about the USSR?  \n\nEven if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.\n\n\n6) Why does the flag shake?  Where are the stars?\n\nTake a look at the first two websites listed below.  They deal well with all of the technical questions.\n\n\n7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?
469727
1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.\n\nApollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin\nApollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean\nApollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>\nApollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell\nApollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin\nApollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke\nApollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt\n\n\n2) Why haven't we been back?  \n\na) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.\n\nb) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't.  Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.\n\nc) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?\n\n\n3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts?  Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?\n\nThe existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos.  Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA. \n\nThe radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong.  You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness.  And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection.  "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."\n\n"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation."  When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.\n\n\n4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?  \n\nIn 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.\n\nIf six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!\n\n\n5) What about the USSR?  \n\nEven if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.\n\n\n6) Why does the flag shake?  Where are the stars?  Who took the video of Neil Armstrong? \n\nTake a look at the first two websites listed below.  They deal well with all of the technical questions.\n\n\n7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?
12900
why would it be just bush? i believe many presidents have given money to space exploration, was kennedy not president when we landed on the moon? i realize that it is popular to bash the current president but all have given money to space exploration, not just bush
93508
Sounds to be a good a theory as any other...to say no..would mean closing doors to limitless possibilities..\nI do find it strange that suddenly the United States and China both want to go to the dark side of the moon..They never wanted to before..Is there a connection there too?...ya just never know..\nPerhaps ..very soon we ALL we learn the truth about life and the universe..Just don't expect to hear it from the government.
18536
Maybe we should start a little closer to home...if we can conquer the moon...then maybe we can move on to others like mars and yes there is extraterrestrial life..but I have doubts they are there on Mars..We certainly are not the only Intelligence in the universe..but then ...Humans on a daily basis make it very obvious that we are far from intelligent.
331689
The Shuttle was only ever meant to be used to go into orbit.  The grand idea behind the shuttle program was to use it as a taxi/moving van to get people and cargo into orbit.  Once there, spacecraft to go to the moon and other planets would be assembled from parts brought by the Shuttle, much as is being done with the International Space Station.\n\nThe references to the Shuttle taking astronauts to other planets and beyond was in reference to the Shuttle's being a stepping stone and advancement as a reusable transportation system.