how come NASA havent been to the moon again ?If technology is advancing?

Question

If NASA went to the moon in 1969,how come they havent done so since?surely with the modern advancements in technology NASA shouldve already built a moon base by now?If technological knowledge doubles approximately every two years why hasnt NASA or anyone else established a regular moon programme?And why dont people question the lack of moon missions,its relatively easy to get close enough to orbit and achieve weightlessness but its mathematically almost impossible to land on the moon,why do scientists and the public accept things that they have no way of proving and that NASA hasnt reachieved in the last 30 years?

Answer 1

First, you're a moron. How many times does someone have to hear that before they realize it's true and they shut the fu ck up. Second, "Been there, done that" pretty much covers your question. Third, money. Why go back to the moon when there is no financial gain involved. NASA is trying to get to Mars. One reason they might go back to the moon, is to make a base to help them get to Mars.
Source(s):
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#backgrounds

Answer 2

1) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary object, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't. Perhaps if we discover He3 or something else valuable, we'll go back.

2) In 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.

If six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not one, but six!

3) Even if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landing well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.

Answer 3

YES WE DID.

NASA has had many moon missions between 1969 and the late seventies/early eighties. There's not much point in going back at the moment, although they are planning a mission for 2016ish (China in 2020ish) for further research.

It's not impossible to land on the moon - where did you hear that? Check out www.badastronomy.com for more details on the moon missions and why we DID land on the moon.

It doesn't take much technology to plan a mission to the moon - it's closeby, and we understand orbital mechanics very well - have for a long time.

Answer 4

certain, Apollo 11 (and 5 later missions) did bypass to the moon. NASA has the technologies to rreturn to the moon. What they do no longer have is the money. A (short) historic previous: following the Apollo programa determination develop into made to advance a sophisticated launch spacraft--the go back and forth. the conception develop into to have a cost-efficient and strong spacecraft, advance and construct an enduring area station. With that, safer and lower priced journeys to the moon might want to be conceivable--eventulally a lunar base and journeys to Mars. Congress would not fund the layout cautioned through NASA--rather funding a "el cheapo" R&D software. And were given what they paid for. because the "Republican revolution"--1994-2006--the GOP has persistently gutted NASA budgets, has canceled each and every more desirable spacecraft project NASA had or has tried to initiate. as we talk, Bush's "go back to the moon software" is organic propaganda--there is as yet no funding for an incredibly software. The chinese language, on the different hand, do have a properly-funded lunar software that's making strong headway on coming up a lunar-able spacecraft. isn't outsourcing outstanding?

Answer 5

Go look at the NASA website http://www.nasa.gov. They are in the design phase for the next generation of moon rockets. My guess is we'll be back there by 2015 (maybe a little earlier). The moon will be used as a jump off point for ships to Mars in the 2020's. There is thought now that there may be water on the moon below the soil. This would be a wonderful find as it would help support a moon colony. I disagree that there is no economic incentive to go back. We will be able to make fuel from the resources on the moon to fuel the Mars ships. I think it's going to be an exciting time in the next two decades.

Jim
Port Charlotte, FL

Answer 6

The reason we haven't been back to the moon is because, quite simply, going there isn't worth the expense.

"Mathematically almost impossible to land on the moon"? Surely you're joking. The math itself is quite simple, the engineering is the tough part. We've managed to land the Mars rovers just fine, and that's technologically more difficult than landing on the moon.

"No way of proving"? Uh, the evidence in favor of the moon landings is rather overwhelming, what with photos, moon rocks and what-not.

Answer 7

There is no scientific need.

Without a scientific need, or an economic justification, there is no need to bother.

For example, If there were Hope diamonds, or just plain industial diamonds littering the moon, we would have robots there every day picking them up off the ground for collection and transport back to Earth.

Unfortunately, there is nothing with any new scientific or economic value to bother.

There is so much proof that men landed on the moon, the rest of your question is not worth answering here.

Answer 8

Wow bad question.
You have some misconceptions that you need to overcome. Also, you show a bad attitude that is beyond skeptical. It is fine to be a skeptic. But if you carry it too far then you just show others that you are a foolish, ignorant, and opinionated person. Is this what you want to do?

Maybe you just want to play that old psychological game, 'Lets You and Him Fight.'

Visit NASA, APOD, and Enchanted Learning to find out more about astronomy and space exploration. Maybe you will find it to be an interesting and exciting area of study. I hope you can leave the bad attitude somewhere else and come to Yahoo! Answers with an open mind and an attitude of kindness.

;-D Enjoy life. Enjoy learning!

Answer 9

Unfortunately there are things that our government doesn't tell us because it's so classified.....still. Going to the Moon isn't so much of a priority until we have achieved world stability. Creating a much larger and superior space station would make far more sense first. The arguing about the Moon landings makes as much sense as arguing about 9/11. It wouldn't change the commonly known facts either way.

Answer 10

1. Much too expensive at the moment, with not much economic suppourt, and not much need
2. The science community has found all it wants... for now.
3. As the technology has progressed, so have the bugs and glitches that may be infecting the technology or mechanisms. Soon, we may run into one of those incidents.
4. Not to get to political about it, but Bush wasted too much money on the war and basically, we're poor. I'd rather have Clinton, at least back then we had so much money we didn't know what to do with it.