Why shouldn't we go back to the moon......?

Question

Apollo 18, 19 and 20 were cancelled. Plans were for those missions to include a little "moon flyer", an improvement on the rover that could get astronauts to more remote places where the lander could not land.

Also, they were going to send an unmanned lander with supplies so that the following manned lander could stay longer.

This new technology would have got them to places like crater Aristarchus where over many years, strange lights have been reported. Also, they needed to get into one of the so-called rills - huge canyon like depressions that are still completely unexplained.

Another was planned to go to the other side of the moon. Radio contact would be maintained with Mission control via lunar satellites that they would set up in advance.

The great mystery of the "far side" is that it is almost completely void of the dark, flat, so-called Mares that we see on the Earth-side, and easily visible with the naked eye.

There are so many things they never got to find out - the Apollos that went, really never had a chance to see the "risky" places - that needed the extra technology that was never used.

The later Apollos were cancelled due to lack of tax-payer interest. In my mind all those people must have been the Moms and Dads who then spawned all the morons who keep spouting that men never went to the moon.

Answer 1

The main reason why the United States send people to the Moon was because we wanted to claim the Moon's surface before the Soviets did. However, due to financial and political considerations, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 was made and forbade sovereign claims to the Moon and planets, leaving countries with little incentive to explore the solar system.

After that, the space exploration budgets for both the USA and USSR went significantly downhill, and only the more developed space programs were allowed to continue at that time. I believe the only reason the space programs continued was because of political pressure to keep NASA employees (and politically- affluent contractors' employees) employed and paid well.

Any future exploration of the Moon will come from public pressure for governments to explore; private companies and organizations exploring; and/or a change in international law allowing private ownership of celestial lands. Please reference the source links for more information.

Answer 2

It comes down to who will pay for it. NASA is a government agency, which means it is ultimately still answerable to the folks who foot the bill -- Joe and Jane Average Taxpayer. Moon rocks are all very exciting and all, but since the Apollo missions didn't find diamonds or valuable ores or little green men on the moon, it remains a big, gray rock in the minds of most people down here on Earth. In the early 70's, there simply wasn't a compelling reason they could give the American public for being there -- we didn't have telescope systems that would benefit from being in a zero atmosphere, ground-based environment; we had no concrete plans for exploring the solar system any further out than the moon, so a moon base way-station wasn't considered useful, and we simply didn't have the scientific and technological impetus to see a need for low- or zero-gravity research. Now that we do have all these things and more, there is renewed interest in a moon base, but not as much as back when Kennedy announced the space race. The moon is still only really interesting to the small group of people who study it, and as for a base for further exploration, it's hard to prove to the skeptics and penny-pinchers we have a reason to -- so far, Mars is just as boring as the moon, only a different color, and anything further out is just too cold and inhospitable for anyone to really imagine going there. I have high hopes for privately funded space exploration, however -- if somebody comes up with a really good use for iridium ore, for instance, it might cause some entrepreneur to figure out how to get a ship out there to mine asteroids or even process comets for ore and fresh water.

Answer 3

Actually, the US does have plans to return to the Moon by 2020, and then reach Mars with a manned mission by 2040.

The new Moon rockets are named Ares I and Ares V, a crew exploration vehicle and heavy launch vehicle respectively. These will replace the shuttles in all future mission after the shuttle are decommissioned in 2010.

Orion is the name that NASA has given to the new service module that the astronauts will use to get to and from the Moon.

By 2014, NASA hopes to begin testing and flying the first of the new rockets, and by 2020 they hope to land on the Moon. The next 20 years after that will be spent studying many things that will be necessary to make a Mars mission possible. These are : New habitat, farming, and life support technologies; acclimation of humans to low-gravity environments for extended periods (longer than a year); and other rocket technologies.

By 2040, a new rocket will have been designed for the manned exploration of Mars, and the first man (or woman) shall set foot on the Red Planet.

Answer 4

Too much money, not enough of a return. Unless we use the experience in landing on the moon to set up permanent colonies or station that will refuel or supply other space craft. They few "mysteries" of the moon are really not that enticing. I would rather what little tax money that doesn't get spent on defense go toward other projects. A larger version of Hubble comes to mind for me. Or more missions to other moons, ie. Europa. Our moon is fairly boring.

Answer 5

Probably because NASA would spend years defending weather they had gone there again.
But if they went it could prove weather they were there in the first place.

Would make sense to go though. If they want to build a base on mars why not have a go on the moon first. At least then they can use it for tourists when the scientists have finished with it.

Answer 6

In the end, it comes to money. A new mission nowadays would cost many billions of dollars. Setting up a base, would cost many times that amount.
Is the huge expense worthwhile. Unless we can get valuable ores, or the Earths economics change such that we would need to have a base their for a stepping stone to other worlds, the moon is not economically feasable.

Answer 7

Well if you want to go, then go. I want to go too. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you can or should force other people who don't want to go to pay for you and me to go. It ain't gonna happen. I have a few bucks in the bank. If we pool our money could we afford our own lunar mission? I wish!

Answer 8

i think that there is osmthing up there that NASa and the goverment want to keep under cover. they are willing to throw billions of dollars and years of time into fruitlesss Mars missions where all we gained was a little red rumble and a couple of rocks, but are unwilling to go back to the moon. i think that there is somthing fishy going on.

Answer 9

May I ask for what??? it has been proved that there is nothing out there! we should stay on earth and get the ball rolling. ha.ha.ha.ha.