I mean, if you are China, it makes sense. Afterall, you didn't accomplish this in 1969. America did. But if you are America, why go back to the moon? What new engineering feats will be profitably conquered? Is the pricetag worth it? Why not just shoot straight for Mars, a place we have not yet sent humans to?
2006-07-20 01:21:28 · 23 answers · asked by myanswer418 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Only a couple of people have even come close to the real why, and the idiot that said we never went to the moon needs to just never post again.
First, Pres. Bush has been pressing for a mission to Mars by about 2030-2040. However, in order to go to Mars and get there in any reasonable amount of time for a manned mission, new rocket technologies must be developed. This will be occurring in about 10-15 years. However, the first goal is just to regain the knowledge lost since the Apollo missions. Most of the people that worked on those missions are no longer at NASA or do not work in the field anymore.
Also, in order to have a successful Mars mission, we must be able to live on Mars. Because it's atmosphere is not condusive to humans, we must develop habitat technologies on the Moon first before we go galavanting to Mars with a hope and a prayer. So, the Moon will basically be a "proving ground" for new hydroponic farming technologies, air recycling, water recycling, habitat, and rocket technologies just to name a few.
We must also test the effects of long-duration, low-gravity stays for humans. We have a basic idea of the effects of microgravity on the human body, but we have only been up there 6 or so months at a time (ISS). We must make sure that we can withstand prolonged stays lasting up to a year or more... because a roundtrip to Mars and back with a relatively short stay will take well over a year.
Also, there is no proof of water on the Moon, we only suspect there may be some near the South Pole. That is another hope of these missions: to explore the Lunar south pole in search of possible water.
2006-07-20 02:49:23 · answer #1 · answered by AresIV 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
There are a lot of things we didn't learn the first time around. And we didn't see all of the moon. It's like saying you went to Europe and saw it all because you went to Berlin. There's a lot more there, and still a lot of mysteries that we haven't even begun to unravel. Why is the dirt on the moon older than the rocks? Why did it ring like a bell when the astronauts touched down? Is there ice at the poles that we could use if we set up a base there? It would be much more efficient if we set up a space base there and launched from there instead of the Earth (less gravity to overcome, so less fuel), so it would be nice to see just what's really up there.
2006-07-20 08:27:45 · answer #2 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fundamental reason to go back can be summed up in one word: ENERGY.
You may have noticed that we seem to be running a tad bit short of cheap energy- and the prospects for the future don't support clinging to the status quo.
Do you really think any of this crap in the Middle East would be going on were it not for oil?
You want solar energy? Think out of the box.
HUGE solar collectors can be built on the moon out of indigenous material. The exo-atmospheric solar intensity is unwavering & an order of magnitude greater than that in your back yard- and the energy you gather can be either beamed back to earth or used locally to smelt/process raw materials gathered from the whole solar system.
Getting stuff to the moon is a ***** (Those asterisks aren't mine...), but getting finished materials back to the earth from the moon is a piece of cake. Once you establish operations there everything you do thereafter is pure profit.
Imagine a future not limited by terrestrial resources- and then re-think your original question.
2006-07-20 12:15:49 · answer #3 · answered by Fred S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps they are testing a new line of technology. The tech used to go to the moon today may be capable of sending people to Mars in a couple of years. The tech used to get to the moon in 1969 is outdated and would never get us to Mars.
An besides, haven;t yo useen that show that tries to prove we never went to Mars.
2006-07-20 08:38:27 · answer #4 · answered by billyandgaby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The world is starting to get a little over populated. If we can live on the moon, it would solve the population problem. Yes, I know, it’s unrealistic, but why put them down for trying. ALSO, the 1969 thing was weird. In the video, the flag was moving like there was wind. Is there wind on the moon? AND, the dust settled fairly quickly, like as if there was plenty of gravity. Is there plenty of gravity on the moon?
I think this time we will go to the real moon; not a studio.
2006-07-20 08:31:28 · answer #5 · answered by donald d 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The moon will be a jumping off point for exploration beyond. It is worth it and long overdue. Since man crawled out of the cave, he has been driven to see what's over the next hill. Any species that is stagnant and not evolving into something better is doomed to extinction.
2006-07-20 08:28:17 · answer #6 · answered by groomingdiva_pgh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because if we want to create a long distance vouge in space we should have to create a space colony at the nearest planet or sub planet and that is moon.
you know that there is water in moon in the from of ice and there is carbon in moon as ice froum.
you know that there is less friction and gravity in moon prefred to our mother planet.
if we want to go to some other planet from earth we can't create ginatic space crafts in earth and get it lunched in the orbit.because if we do like this it will be dangerous and for the ficition and gravitaniol froce it will just be a distarous.
you that we reasched our planet & not solved the mystree of bermuda triangle.we know about moon very little bit and we should reasearch it thourhly.
from
k.akbar baig,
k.akbar_baig1980@yahoo.co.in
2006-07-20 09:10:48 · answer #7 · answered by k.akbar_baig1980 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's not just a matter of saying we did it and shooting pictures. There is a lot of research to be done to understand more. You just NEVER KNOW what is out there that we haven't learned yet. Planet hopping is going to be expensive too and won't accomplish much. You need to take time to research each place separately. They could find a "cure" for something out there and if they just jump around without the research, they could miss something.
2006-07-20 08:25:52 · answer #8 · answered by butterfliesRfree 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its been a long time since man did anything wroth while in space. as you said man landed on the moon 30 years ago and what has been done so far. I guessing that new moon landing would be able to see how space people should train themselfs to land on mars.
2006-07-20 08:26:09 · answer #9 · answered by Mr Hex Vision 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I think your question is the answer to all the Moon hoax people's question of why have we not gone to the Moon again if we could back then. It is because people like you, which is most people, don't see any reason why we should.
For me, I want to go myself, just for the fun of it. Just like thousands of people every year go to Antarctica, climb Mount Everest and things like that. If there is no way to go to the Moon, then there is no way for ME to go. Before the cheap (yeah, right!) commercial flights can start, the expensive test flights have to be done.
2006-07-20 09:44:59 · answer #10 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋