Does Lunar program like Apollo is cheaper now than it was in 60''s

[Sandworm]

That would be both a violation of the outer space treaty and pointless. Putting enough hardware on the far side of the moon to have a useful nuclear test would be impossible to hide.

Like I said, it never developed into a reality. But the need to develop the ability was there. Another example of this thinking was Buran. Treaties made its shuttle-mirroring abilities pointless and it never performed a military mission, but they wanted it around just in case shuttle was developed into a weapons component.

And I'm not sure a nuclear test behind the moon would be so easy to detect. Without seismic sensors all you'd have would be a radiation spike. That would likely require sensors orbiting moon. So even enforcing a treaty would probably require the ability to orbit devices.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Sandworm

[SuperFastJellyfish]

What do you mean Gemini was created for Apollo?? That makes no sense...

"After the existing Apollo program was chartered by President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961 to land men on the Moon, it became evident to NASA officials that a follow-on to the Mercury program was required to develop certain spaceflight capabilities in support of Apollo."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini (just a wiki, but good enough for this)

[xcorps]

Gemini was considered a serious possibility for lunar landing as early as mercury. The proof of concept missions for Apollo didn't develop until after Gemini was in progress. The choice was made for Apollo to be the landing program after Apollo already existed. In fact, the first Apollo spacecraft design was made before it ever had the mission of lunar landing. The changes made to that design to fit the launch vehicle precluded it from landing on the moon at all. The second plan was a lunar crasher.

See Max Faget and the Goett Committee. Lunar landings were being conceived of and planned in 1959.

Hell, van Braun was dreaming up Mars landings before that.

Edited December 27, 2014 by xcorps

[GoSlash27]

http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/Lawsburo.htm

Moore's laws of bureaucracy dictate that goals only get more expensive and difficult to achieve as bureaucracies increase in size (whether government or private sector), so no... a moon- shot would be more expensive and difficult today than it way back in the '60s and will be more difficult and expensive tomorrow than it is today.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited December 26, 2014 by GoSlash27

[Kryten]

And I'm not sure a nuclear test behind the moon would be so easy to detect. Without seismic sensors all you'd have would be a radiation spike. That would likely require sensors orbiting moon. So even enforcing a treaty would probably require the ability to orbit devices.

It would be difficult to detect for the nation doing the test, rendering it almost useless for actual testing. Given neither superpower made any real effort to actually hide nuclear tests, and underground testing remains allowed under international treaties to this day, such a plan would be pointless.

[NERVAfan]

http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/Lawsburo.htm

Moore's laws of bureaucracy dictate that goals only get more expensive and difficult to achieve as bureaucracies increase in size (whether government or private sector), so no... a moon- shot would be more expensive and difficult today than it way back in the '60s and will be more difficult and expensive tomorrow than it is today.

Best,

-Slashy

If it were performed entirely by NASA, developing all the hardware from scratch, like they did for Apollo? Probably yes.

If someone (NASA or otherwise) paid a comparatively "lean" private company or group of private companies (like SpaceX) to do it, that would be entirely different.

And I don't know how much overhead the Chinese space program has.