Why not again to the Moon?

Question

Man landed on the Moon in July 1969. After that no more landing on the Moon is on record. Moreover, it is said that there exists a place on the Earth which looks very much like the land shown in photographs of the claimed journey to the Moon. There is a great hue and cry about a movie that proves the journey to be a fake story (fabricated by US) to beat USSR in politics.
The question is:
Why no more journey to the Moon? Was that really a fake story? Somebody solve it?

Answer 1

The public lost interest, but if we want to go to Mars, it's back to the moon

Answer 2

Manned ships landed on the moon twice in 1969, twice in 1971, and twice in 1972. And they DID land. Those who believe otherwise are either uninformed, like to think that the Earth is flat, see conspiracies everywhere, or are using those claims to try and win an eventual free trip to the moon so that they can be proven wrong. Since no one will pay for doubter to be flown to the moon, they meanwhile can create and sell books with those fake stories in it and rake the dough. The same people probably believe that aliens crashed in Rosewell in 1947, and that the US has copied and is operating flying saucers that can take them to the stars, but apparently NOT to the moon...) If there are indeed places on earth where the soil looks like that of the moon, these are NOT places where the gavity is 1/6 that of earth, and they are not in a vacuum. One of the astronaut dropped a hammer and a feather in front of the TV camera to illustrate it. Both the feather and the hammer hit the ground at the same time, showing there was no air, and slower than the hammer would have fallen on earth showing that the gravity was less. Any place where such a feat could be accomplished besides the moon would have costed a hell of a lot more to get people to. And you can be SURE that the Russians, who were tracking the mission, would have come up with whatever proofs needed to show it was a fake if indeed it had been a hoax. The Russians did not claim it was fake. Draw your conclusions.

That said, in 1973, there was the oil crisis. In 1974 Nixon resigned as president on account of the Watergate scandal. In 1975, the US pulled out of Viet-Nam. Space exploration became passe, and public interest waned.

Meanwhile, in 1972 the space shuttle development was formally launched. It proved extremely (overly) costly because the design was changed often to make it "cheaper" (but do a cheap design 5 times and it is more expensive than doing it once right) leaving no money in NASA budget (which was being reduced by penny pinching bean counters steadily -- have a look at the attached link for a chart of NASA budget as a function of time). The shuttle was supposed to do everything that NASA needed, and as a consequence did nothing very well, as far as space exploration is concerned. Also in 1972, the NERVA project was cancelled. This was supposed to produce a nuclear rocket engine that would have allowed Saturn 5 class rockets to launch payload to planets of the solar system.

Without a rocket able to launch a mission to the moon (the Saturn 5 was taken out of production), without the money to design a worthy successor, without the desire and will of the politicians, well, nothing happened.

Answer 3

You have too many errors in your question. America landed on the Moon more than one time. It was not fake.

From thespaceplace.com:

In all, twelve men, starting with Neil Armstrong and ending with Eugene Cernan, walked on the moon before Apollo was completed.

The first landing was in Apollo 11, with Neil A. Armstrong Michael Collins and Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin, on 7/24/1969 . It was the first lunar landing. They landed on moon with less than 30 seconds of fuel remaining. They took core samples, and planted American flag.

The second was Apollo 12, with Charles "Pete" Conrad, Richard F. Gordon, Jr. and Alan L. Bean. They landed on the Moon on 11/24/69. They were struck by lightning during launch. Landed near, and returned parts of the old Surveyor 3 probe.

Apollo 13 was damaged and had to return to Earth.

The third landing was Apollo 14with Alan B. Shepard, Jr. Edgar D. Mitchell, and Stuart A. Roosa. It landed on 2/9/71. They did extensive scientific experiments. The Astronauts almost got lost when lunar landscape became disorienting.

the fourth was Apollo 15, with David R. Scott, James B. Irwin, and Alfred M. Worden. they landed on 8/7/71. They were the first use of Lunar Rover. Astronauts rode over 27 kilometers. First Apollo space walk.

The fifth was Apollo 16 with John W. Young. Thomas K. Mattingly II, and Charles M. Duke, Jr. they landed on 4/27/72. the had a malfunction which almost scrubbed the landing. They stayed 3 days, got Lunar Rover up to almost 18 kph. Movies of the Moon's dust flying off the wheels and arcing to the surface prove that they were in a vacuum and that the gravity equaled the Moon's gravity.

The sixth and last was Apollo 17 with Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E. Evans, and Harrison H. Schmitt. They landed on 12/19/72. They were the last men on the moon (so far).

;-D It is very expensive to go to the Moon. Until we really need something that is only found on the Moon, there is not much reason - except national pride - to go there. That is why China and India both say they will go to the Moon.

Answer 4

Actually, we landed on the moon as late as 1972, with Apollo 17 (see reference 1).

The primary reason we've not returned is that such an investment is expensive, with little in terms of financial yield. This is to say, much more would go into it than we'd get out of it. Of course, it would be a first step to a moon base, but it's difficult to justify the cost- and risk to human lives.

Really, there is no financial advantage; it would be a big money sink. What could lunar landings possibly return in terms of financial value? While the knowledge returned from the program may have some long-term financial returns, this is generally not well-considered when making budgetary decisions.

The US was happy to beat the Russians, and after the first or second moon landing, we were happy to be number one; the Apollo program was cut short, and we're still studying data gathered more than 30 years ago.

Answer 5

Economics, primarily. The costs and logistics of staging a manned expedition to the moon would exceed the NASA budget.

There will be further unmanned explorations which are considerably cheaper and more practical for basic exploration.

Apart from the romantic aspects of visiting the moon, there are no present needs which mandate manned expeditions. In the future, if we find resources on the moon which we wish to exploit and our technologies have enabled it, then we will see more concerted efforts to be there.

And of course, if and when such expeditions are more feasible practically and economically, I should think we shall go for the sake of science and even adventure.

And, from what another poster wrote, looks like someone is already planning to go, so there you have it.

I realize this is a fairly glib response to a question worth more discussion, but I hope I hit at least somewhere near the mark.

Source: hopeless romantic who is so sad that the rocket age didn't take me to the stars, but as mama said, no point in wishing for the moon (but I crossed my fingers when I said "oh, well then.... ")

Answer 6

We went to the moon several other times besides Apollo 11. Eventually the program was discontinued, because it wasn't worth the cost to continue the missions. Recently, though, NASA has been working to send people back to the moon. There is no place on Earth that looks exactly like the moon, and there are no rocks on Earth that are like those taken from the moon. The landings really happened.

Answer 7

There were six other landings on the Moon. I don't understand why people think that this kind of conspiracy can exist. There were hundreds and hundreds of Americans involved and that many people can’t keep a secret that long. Then you are ignoring the telemetry from the instruments that were set up on the moon. There are many experiments that were set up and scientists read information from them for at least another 6 months. Using the global network with tracking stations in Spain and Australia. Or are you thinking the staffs of these two countries were involved in the conspiracy as well. Then how do you explain the Soviet Union’s keeping quiet, they were watching as well?

Even if probes were launched to set up all the experiments a different probe for each experiment would have to be launched. That’s a lot of probes and the rockets required to launch them can’t be done quietly. Every probe launched, every shuttle launched and every rocket launched leaves a huge trail in the sky of heat and smoke, one that is visible for miles and easily tracked by the Russian “fish trawlers” that were so thick along our coast. If the Soviet Union detected so many launches or if they didn’t detect the Apollo spacecraft leaving orbit they would have denounced the US to the entire world. Russia wasn’t sitting on its hands. Until the US made the Moon Landing Russia was leading in the space race and they were doing it for propaganda purposes. Or do you think that the US and Russia were really friends? Then how do you explain all the Russian arms found in Vietnam? Since the 1950s the Soviet Union and America were blood enemies, each trying to one up on the other. Look at the Cuban Missile Crisis; the world almost came to WW3. You can’t fake things like that.

Russia wasn’t just lying back. Khrushchev wanted his scientists to figure a way to paint the Moon red! They would have done anything to stop the US or to prove that they were lying in the US space program. If they could prove this then they would discredit the US to the entire world and retain their lead in the space race. We know for a fact that they were monitoring the Moon during the Moon Landings because they were sending up unmanned probes to the Moon at the same time. The US knew this because they could track the launches, and follow the probes on the way to the moon. Several missile launches failed, and at least one lunar space probe failed. The Soviet Union NEVER told the world about their mistakes especially about any in their space program, but some things just can’t be covered up. The US knew about all the failed launches from Russia, despite the base being so far inland. They knew because they were monitoring them, just as the Russians were monitoring us. The US never knew how many Soviets died in there space program, because they could cover that up. The US knew that the Russians had radar at least as good as the US’s own because they were able to shoot down a U2, and this was before the first moon landing. It also told us that they had the ability to monitor what was going on over their airspace and they had rockets that were strong enough and fast enough to hit the U2. Once you can detect something that flies as high as a U2 then all you need is a little more power to detect spacecraft on their way to the moon.

You admit that the US and the USSR were in a virtual war with each other. The two countries were fighting on just about any field, as long as there wasn’t a risk of nuclear weapons being used. The USSR would have loved to have caught the US in a lie, especially about anything as important as the space race. The Russians were in the lead, and after the Moon Landing they never caught up again. They were launching probes to the Moon and to Venus, they had a very active space program and they were watching every single thing that the US did in space.

Conspiracy theories have some large holes in them. The conspiracy fans don’t think about what the competition is doing, or about the huge numbers of people required to keep such secrets. The Soviet Union had the US pretty well penetrated by spies in key spots. They were doing a much better job of spying during the Cold War than the US was doing. Do you really think they weren’t looking at the Roswell situation? If something as important as contact with aliens had happened in the 1960s Russia would have been all over the US about it. They would have jumped at the chance to contact another, more advanced, species. It the US tried to cover this up Russia would have told the truth to the entire world.

We know that Area 51 in Nevada holds a secret base; a base where the Lockheed SR71 and the F117 Nighthawk were built. Secrecy was so tight that the employees were flown in each day to work. That way only military personal would be around and the civilians could be watched closely. Still UFO watchers have known about the test programs being run there. They didn’t know what was going on, but they could see the lights in the sky. They thought that these were from government controlled UFOs, but they were actually the running lights of the SR71s and F117s. The US couldn’t cover it up and they couldn’t keep the UFO Hunters away form the base so they just denied everything, even if it was a transparent lie, but not admitting anything they could try and keep the secret.

Look at all the leaks in government. It is so hard to keep a secret, and the more people that know that secret the harder it is to keep it. President Nixon probably didn’t know about that Watergate break-ins but the cover up forced him to flee from office. No president had been successfully impeached, and he didn’t want to be known as the only one who was. Despite Nixon, and his staff’s, best efforts to keep the whole break-in a secret it leaked, and more and more information kept getting out. It was only a matter of time before someone would have implicated Nixon. So he resigned, on the condition that Gerald Ford would stop the investigation and practically give him a Presidential Pardon. Big Government can keep some things secret, usually only the small ones though. They can’t keep the big things secret for very long though, far too many people are willing to talk.

Answer 8

Because we never went to the moon for a scientific purpose; it was all being driven by the urge to show up the USSR. Ask any astronaut from that time, they will tell you how the entire program was driven by the desire to beat the Russians.

After the USSR breakup, the entire driving force was gone. I believe that any major projects in the future will either be a product of another similar "race", but will more probably be the result of a great deal of private companies.

Answer 9

Been there, done that. The present project now is a completed space station. In the future, space craft could be launched from the station for further space exploration without the increased risks, hassles and expense of booster rockets from earth. The moon is pretty much not of primary interest any more as we look toward the other planets with the Hubble telescope.

Answer 10

We will go back again someday. Everybody calls Apollo 11 fake, but few question the later missions. They really went. What would be the point of spending all that money on a fake? The shuttle is just messing about, a mere 250 miles above the Earth as opposed to the 240,000 miles the Saturn rockets took the Apollo astronauts, who had less computer power to guide them than you and I have here in our home PCs.

Answer 11

provided that NASA or another area employer manages to place in a Superconducting Ring (capability of two.5 to 4 Tesla) into the moon to create a magnetic field which deflects cosmic, x-ray and gamma radiation. Then we are able to start the activity of making a superb, wealthy and thick environment with the aid of laying down some grass, planting some acorn wood and pointing out a team of squirrels, hamsters, etc All creatures which breathe aerobically (soak up oxygen) supply off water vapor, CO2 and methane. Their waste products additionally decompose into nitrogen. This organic technique will take a pair of hundred years nevertheless. ultimately, farms animals and human beings can bypass up. Write on your area employer.