Why have humans never been back to the Moon after 1972?
There never was much value in going to the Moon in the first place, so there was no good reason to return.When J.F. Kennedy proposed we go to the moon by the end of the 1960s, his goal was to raise American spirits, to return us to a belief that we could win in a competition with the surging Soviet Union (which was not only beating us in space, but even in the Olympics!).When Kennedy died, I think we were determined to get to the Moon in the now sacred deadline of the late 1960s, to fulfill Kennedy’s dream.Scientists liked the Moon shot, primarily (this is my observation, not based on a careful poll) because it injected a lot of money into science in space. If the same money had been made available for science in space, but not involving human transport, then most scientists would have favored unmanned experiments, including unmanned exploration of the Moon. It made much more financial sense, but most people (especially at NASA) believed that without the human involvement, the public would not support high levels of spending.Once we met Kennedy’s goals, of restoring the US spirit and self confidence, then the financial considerations took over. There simply is not much value added by putting men on the Moon; arguably, there is much science value lost. (Science experiments that have to be man-safe are far more expensive.) On the other hand, you’ll notice that not a lot of money has been spent on sending robots to the Moon. Some, and they’ve done some remarkable things, but not the many billions that go along with a man shot.Instead, we have spent our resources with unmanned exploration of the solar system, with truly spectacular results. We’ve discovered that every moon of every planet appears to be different from every other moon! (That’s only a slight exaggeration.) The great glory of NASA in the last few decades has been its unmanned program. In comparison, the Space Station has accomplished very little. (Again, that is my personal evaluation.)
Should the USA claim the moon?
By international treaty, the moon cannot be claimed by any nation. Besides which, if historical precedent is to be any judge, claiming new land involves living on it and developing it. Let's face it, most likely it will be China that achieves that a few decades from now.
Who's more likely to believe in the "faked Moon landing" conspiracy? Liberals or Conservatives?
FreeThinker: I don't completely trust government. I just don't believe they're committing acts of terror like the Boston Marathon bombing or are capable of keeping a secret among hundreds of government workers to pull off faked Moon landings or 9/11.
If you were going to fake the moon landings, how would you have done it?
The first problem is while the vast majority of the earth’s population are pretty ignorant of science and technology, a huge number of people, hundreds of millions at least, are not. Not a small enough number to control, or to silence if they “know too much”.Of these hundreds of millions of scientifically literate people, a significant fraction are amateur radio enthusiasts, many are both amature radio enthusiasts and astronomy/space enthusiasts.The problem is, large numbers of people are looking over your sholder via radio, radar and telescope.Some will be parts of air forces or navies doing this professionally.It is 100% possible to track spacecraft, especially by radar and radio. Radio transmissions are directional and can tell you where the transmitter is if two or more radio reciver cooperate and triangulate.All of these can be, and were recorded. You cannot find or know who all the witnesses are, or silence them.So to fake the landing, you must claim to have not transmitted — AT ALL, if you are not actually going.If you claim to have landed on the moon, transmissions from the moon heard by a multitude of independent witnesses, many of whom with radio direction finding equipment. That would be extrordinarilly strong evidence that you landed.Live voice interviews with a large number of press with no requirement of presubmitted questions would make it impossible to fake as the speed of light delays combined with radio direction finding from many locations on earth would prove beyond reasonable doubt by educated technically sophisticated people that you were where you said you were.That means no radio transmission at all to fake it.In which case nobody who was technically educated and not a fool, would believe you.
Why do you consider polyamory wrong (or right)?
For those who don't know, polyamory is basically polygamy without the marriage. Typically a polyamorous relationship starts when a legally married couple starts dating the same person or another couple. The reason I am asking this is because I recently learned that polyamory is becoming increasingly more common (which means it still barely exists but just more so) in the United States. Well, I found the concept interesting so I researched it to see how and why such a relationship would ever start and to read criticisms and support for it. I'm sure we all know the viewpoint of those against it, like the fact that jealousy could easily become a major factor in such a relationship or the fact that it is considered amoral by many people for various reasons. Some state that it would be confusing for children growing up with more than 2 parents in a household to answer to. Proponents of it state that polyamory allows the three (or more) people in the relationship to get what they need and want out of a relationship in a way that is almost impossible to achieve when there are only two people because there are more people to fill those wants and needs. They also claim that jealousy is not as big of a deal as is thought because polyamorous relationships require openness from the get go and most have them so jealousy does not usually become a strong factor because it is dealt with openly and honestly. They also point out to religious critics that many religions at some point practiced polygamy, even Christianity's, Judaism's and Islam's prophets often had more than one wife. So where do you stand? Do you find it right or wrong? And why do you hold those beliefs? Just in case people think I have, I have quoted what I have read from different sources as best as I can remember and I have tried to not put personal opinion in this. I have not stated if I find this right or wrong. I am simply asking for your opinion and not your opinion on my non-stated opinion.
What would happen if U.S annex the moon by sending an army of astronauts and claiming the moon as a state??
Ultimately, a territorial claim must be backed by credible force.As others pointed out, if the US went ahead and declared the Moon the 51st state, other countries would object as it would be a blatant violation of existing treaties. That being said, I wouldn’t expect any serious consequences. For starters, other nations are not exactly in a position to suspend diplomatic relations, institute an economic embargo, or otherwise “punish” the United States; any such action would harm them a great deal more, given the dominance of the US in the global economy. But more importantly, these other countries would realize that the US claim is toothless. No country, including the US, has the means to garrison the Moon and protect it against a foreign incursion. So claiming the Moon becomes a purely hypothetical exercise, with no practical impact on other countries’ ability to explore, even land on, the Moon. (E.g., if, say, India were to launch a manned lunar expedition and the US insisted on them obtaining a visa first, the Indians would just laugh about it and go ahead with the landing anyway, without equipping their astronauts with valid passports and US immigration visas.)Now if the US was to go ahead, say, and launch a serious military space effort, and ultimately establish a permanent manned military outpost on the Moon, perhaps even establish a lunar air/space defense capability… that would certainly raise more than just polite diplomatic objections. Even then, though, other major powers would have to weigh the pros and cons… unless they have tangible interests on the Moon, or consider the embarrassment politically unacceptable for some reason, it might still be expedient for them to look the other way. E.g., no matter how ticked off China might end up as a result, any retaliation against the US could have severe negative effects on the Chinese economy, for which the US is a major market…In other words, whether it is the Moon or anything else, the political, military, and economic might of the United States makes it possible for that country to get away with a lot more than most other countries can. Might does make right, sadly, even in the 21st century.
Is America going to allow a private company to colonize the Moon?
That’s really immaterial.If whichever country landed there first could claim the Moon for their territory, that would of been Russia, with Luna 2 in 1959.Lunar Mission TimelineAnd per UN treaty, no country can claim any body in the solar system. They are treated much like Antarctica is - you can set up shop, but can’t claim it.The Outer Space Treaty