Since you asked;
1. Why did NASA recently announce that it would take scientists 15 years to design and build a craft to go back to the moon? Why should it take longer now with more technology? We did it in less than 10 years back in the '60's or did we?
We managed to do it so quickly because A) There was a lot of political capital riding on our beating the Soviets to the moon, and B) Safety standards back then were not quite as rigorous as they are today.
Looking back now, it's clear to see that a lot of the Soviet space program was something of a shit-show, but in the 1960s, nobody outside of the Soviet government knew that. It was of tantamount political importance to upstage the Soviets at something like this.
Also, the Apollo crafts would not pass modern safety rigors. The ship was thrown together (relatively) hastily, and it would not provide adequate shielding from radiation and other spacebound dangers. That's how they were able to do it so quickly.
I'm not quite sure about this, but I'd wager that NASA would've really loaded up on the batteries. That, and I've heard that it was pretty terribly hot in the ship anyway.2. How could they have powered air conditioning in 200+ degrees for three days with only batteries?
Firstly, the moon isn't a planet; it's a satellite. Secondly, there have been 134 space shuttle missions over a 30-year span, of which two ended in disaster. Furthermore, both tragedies were the result of oversight of (what turned out to be) a serious issue.3. The space shuttle has killed approximately 14 people just orbiting about 250 miles above the earth how is it a half century ago we have gone six times to another planet and back with no lives lost?
It isn't waving. When it was planted on the moon, the astronauts twisted the pole back and forth to drive it into the lunar soil. This created waves and ripples in the material that stayed like that due to the extremely weak gravitational force. It isn't billowing.4. Why does the flag that was placed on the moon billow in the wind when there is no atmosphere or wind?
5. Why did NASA in 2002 admit that they could not adequately protect the astronauts working in the International Space Station from radiation yet we did it back in '69?
Because we didn't. Being exposed to the radiation of space (barring a neutrino blast or something of that magnitude) isn't some sort of BAM! You're Dead!-type situation. It means that you'll just very likely get cancer a couple decades down the line if you were exposed to enough.
Last edited: