Its been 37 years since we supposedly went to the moon.So with all our superior tech why haven't we gone back?

Question

With our several advancements in space travel and forms of technology accross the board it doesnt make sense that we (human beings) havent been back to expand our territory or even go back to just play around or experiment more. Better yet if we are looking into the endless reaches of space for answers etc. why dont we set up a lauch site / station on the moon ...huh????

Answer 1

Specifically, this is for wolverine and his tremendously stupid friends...
It's just tragic that hoax question keeps coming up, and even more so when you understand that those of you who believe in a "hoax" have absolutely no understanding of either science or common sense. A few points for the "hoaxers" :

-The shadows are NOT in the wrong places. They are exactly where shadows are supposed to be given both the level of the ground and the perspective at which they were taken. A simple study in photography and/or physics will show you this.

-The hubble CANNOT, in fact, resolve images as small as the lunar buggies, nor anything else that still sits on the moon. It was designed to view galaxies thousands of light years across not to view images along the order of a few meters. And there are no Earth-based telescopes with this ability either.

-The flag did have a horizontal rod going across its top. Obviously, if this wasn't there the flag would have rested against the vertical pole. It was made of a plastic material, not cloth, which gave it its wrinkled appearance simply because it didn't extend all the way to the end of the horizontal pole. In addition, the flag was NOT waving, except when the astronauts were trying to work the pole into the lunar surface. Air or no air the end of the flag would have moved when the pole was shaken around. Incidentally, for those who are so smart and KNOW it was a hoax: If the flag was waving from some sudden wind why exactly don't we see any dust flying about?

-No stars in photos...answered a thousand times. Learn and understand photography and the properties of light. Or better yet go outside on the next sunny day and take a picture of the sky and tell me how many stars are in the photo. Atmosphere or not, you can't take pictures of very faint objects when you are being washed in sunlight. It simply doesn't work.

-Radiation...This is the favorite of those who want to make themselves sound smart but have no clue what they're talking about. The Van Allen Belts can indeed be dangerous if subjected to them for extended amounts of time. The Apollo astronauts were not subjected to this.

-The cover up...The Russians, our worst enemy and space rival at the time, had every capability to track the lunar missions to the moon and back. And yet they never cried hoax. Interesting.
-During the time, NASA employed nearly 400,000 people, both under contract and in-house. Parts had to be made, engines built, plans devised, people prepared, see where I'm going? How do you keep a secret with that many people for so long? Answer, you don't.

-Okay, so you say, "well, only a handful of people knew about it..." Alrighty then, what about the thousands who actually made all the components and were told these components had to take men to the moon. Either these people say it cannot be done or they're in on the lie.
So you have two conclusions...Either you understand that 400,000 people were actually in on an impossible lie or that it was possible to send a man to the moon.

BTW, if the government was so smart and so good at creating and maintaining such an elaborate hoax how could they have made so many idiotic "mistakes" and allowed everyone to figure it out? Are we assuming that the world's best scientists are not bright enough to notice these? Please.

-These things go on and on, too numerous to discuss here. I suggest you people learn how to read and discover things for yourselves before you start believing mocked-up truths that have absolutely no basis in reality. Oh, and BTW, every one of you who says that because we haven't been back to the moon in 30 years proves that we never went...that statement borders on idiocy that I can't even fathom.

It's incredibly sad when people begin taking such a monumental human achievement and start wrapping it in myth, all because their understanding of what was and what is possible is beyond their own level of thought.

I would LOVE to edit this some more. Anyone else have a some powerful "evidence" they would like refuted? Step right up

Answer 2

Your question is extremely loaded, and can spark one looong response from me. So, i'll keep it short.

First, we haven't returned because there has been no reason to politically, or for any monetary gain. Science has been able to explore the Solar System and galaxies without leaving Earth with advanced satellites, telescopes, and other technologies. Thus, there has been nothing to be gained from manned exploration.

Second, it is extremely expensive to launch anything from Earth into space, and in order to set up a "spaceport" on the Moon we would have to constantly supply that base with food, water, and oxygen. Logistically, this is almost impossible even with our technology today.

However, we are in the process of returning to the Moon with the new Ares missions. Which will set the stage for habitat developments on the Moon, and hopefully further on. The Moon will be used as a sort of "practice" for the Mars missions that are to come.

Just to give you an idea of why no space base has been set up on the moon... The Saturn V (what carried Armstrong and Aldrin to the Moon) was the largest and most powerful machine ever built by man. It could only actually carry about 42 metric tons to the Moon. (About 42000 kg, or about 92,600 lbs.) A full sized base on the moon, that can support, ONLY SUPPORT, 4 humans would weigh about 100 metric tons or more! Thus, to answer your question, we have a long way to go, but in our lifetimes we will definitely see a new era of Moon exploration, and possibly even the first man on Mars.

For people like "Wolverine" below... I have a great quote from Einstein. "Two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the Universe."

Answer 3

A lot of the other answerers have pretty much summed it up. Politics and money. When we went to the moon it was to beat the USSR. In the general populace's mindset during the Cold War, the Soviets were always on the verge of launching their plan for global domination. Sputnik went up and the US interpreted this as the Russians having "the high ground advantage", a common tactic militarily. So, instead of orbit, JFK set our sights on the then ultimate high ground: the moon.
Now, with the USSR broken up and the cold war over, there is no political need for the moon.
The moon could be a huge source of energy, but the money involved in setting up a solar gathering station and transmission station to beam the collected energy to earth is too great for anyone to invest it. The would have to wait decades or longer for a return on their investment, let alone make any profit. The only persons the moon has an attraction for now are scientists and astronomers. But, there is a guy somewhere [I am sure you could find him through a Google or yahoo search] who is selling deeds for plots of property on the moon, so maybe at least one potential realtor is attracted too.

Answer 4

The plans in the 1950's and '60's of NASA as a whole, was to have a manned mission to Mars, by the 1990's. Particularly for the benefit of astronomy, mankind could set up very large telescopes that wouldn't have interference from earth or from the solar wind, and could see much more than ever before.

Science and space travel is a "good within itself"; the Apollo program returned $14 to the economy, for every $1 spent. Various new inventions, such as in the medical field and computers, were a result of the space program.

And, by the way, man did indeed land on the moon. Those who speculate otherwise are either liars or tremendously cynical about mankind. There was a very valuable resource discovered on the moon, which is Helium--3, which can be used as a fuel in nuclear energy.

We do now have superior technology, but the take-down of the NASA programs began in the 1970's, but not for the reasons usually cited. It was political, in the sense that with the takedown of the committment to science and technology, to a large degree, was the ushering in of the "post--industrial society", and the industry, farms and manufacturing base of this country began to be dismantled. This trend led to increased pessimism amongst the younger generations in terms of hope for a future. Funding was slashed repeatedly for NASA and related programs, so now we're left with a barely functioning space program. Mankind historically, has oriented our navigation, and other mapping, by looking up to the heavens. The task is to discover what sorts of problems are waiting to be solved, by mankind going "out there"?

Answer 5

Because after exploration and winning political points in the Cold War, it turned out that the Moon didn't have much that was attractive to us and that couldn't be done more cheaply and safely with unmanned devices. If recent work with those devices proves accurate, indicating a possible water ice cap beneath the south pole of the Moon, it may become worthwhile to send people up there again. Until then, it would be just a dangerous, expensive stunt -- like the Chinese are considering, because they want to be thought of as something more than commie thugs.

Answer 6

Our computer technology is about 1000 times better today than 37 years ago but sadly our transportation technology, including rocket technology, is hardly better at all. Maybe 20% better. A one thousand dollar home computer today is far more powerful than the multimillion dollar computers that filled rooms 37 years ago. But a car today is pretty much the same as one 37 years ago. Oh, sure it has minor improvements, many of which are actually computer controls, but the basic engine and drive train is pretty much the same. And the cost is pretty much the same, higher in a way, due to inflation, but the same after adjusting for inflation. The same is true of rockets. Our technology for actually going to the Moon is hardly any better today than it was 37 years ago.

Answer 7

I do not know ...But maybe I'll tell u something Armstrong NEVER LANDED ON MOON....ya that's right and I'm not drunk...If you have that picture u'll find that the USA flag hoisted is fluttering just like at earth.At moon u do not have an atmosphere how come the flag is flying....Moreover Armstrong had Four shadows on ground although we have only one SUN....The fact is that the photograph was taken in the NASA studio as an effect to amaze people....haaahhh i can give you more proves....Even some of my friends say No-one has ever been on moon.

Answer 8

I'm quite sure it also has to do with understanding what effects, if any, going to the moon had on the astronauts. Analyzing samples ( moon rocks), performing tests with devices left behind, more experimentation with newer technology on earth, etc. Basically, hours of research needed to be done.

Answer 9

ok only cool down!! it is all going to be only superb :D it appears like you adore your household and your unborn twins that is superb. you're already a mom so have journey elevating children so thats a tremendous commence. as long as you adore those children and comprehend a thanks to guard them (that you already do!!) you'd be thoroughly superb. of route elevating 2 children at one time will be extra frustrating than only one yet i'm certain you'd have the capacity to attend to. once you're having problem once they're born, possibly you ought to employ a nanny to furnish you better help? good success with your being pregnant and congratulations on having twins!! :)

Answer 10

i wanna tell anyone who doubts the moon landing that they should spend the money and go rent time at an observatory so they can look through one of those huge telascopes and see the crap we left on the moon. and its really expensive to go to the moon, u need a lot of fuel and technology nad we cant afford it really at the moment.