It's been quite a few years since i've seen or heard anything about another trip to the moon, i'm assuming it has to deal with the russian space station or whatever...but since that documentary about the trip to the moon being fake, i'm curious as to why there hasn't been another attempt. I can also assume money but there hasn't even been any....publicized 'intentions' of going, least none that i've seen or read yet.
2006-10-13 03:48:36 · 16 answers · asked by Dennis 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
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 objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't. Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.
2) In 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. 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 just one moon landing, but six of them!
3) Even if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings 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.
2006-10-13 05:27:15 · answer #1 · answered by Otis F 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
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.
2006-10-13 15:24:02 · answer #2 · answered by AresIV 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's no real need to go to the moon right now. Maybe eventually we will set up some kind of space station there, but I think right now, all eyes are on Mars. I've heard that there are plans to send people there as early as 2018. I think that is higher on the agenda, than returning to the moon.
I think that trips to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, like Titan and Europa, would provide much more information about the solar system than returning to the moon
2006-10-13 10:55:34 · answer #3 · answered by Cold Hard Fact 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hat tip to 'Otis F' above; he's nailed it. I'll just say that we've not gone back because the reasons for doing so have changed.
That is, we first went just for the prestige of having done it. The reason to go back now is to industrialize space, and so make life on Earth much more sustainable.
What we now expect NASA to do in 15 years with a small increase in it's budget, took - for our first moon landing - a 100 billion dollar committment and a huge mobilization of the United States commercial and military assets to pull off.
It took that to support three men in lunar space for the rough week or so a mission required.
But that was with *1960's technology.* President Kennedy committed us to the Moon shot not a month after we sent Al Shepard into a suborbital trajectory! Kennedy's vision must have seemed impossible to them.
This is why I've come to think that Apollo was "too successful," in a way. Our sole mandate was to land two guys there and get home.
So. As a destination - apart from scientific study - the moon sucks. Obviously: we haven't been back. We could send unmanned probes, and we have begun to do that again. The court of public opinion says: "Ho hum. What's a few pennies more from our taxes anyway?"
A few *dollars* more from our taxes will require a much more serious proposition. Such as the following:
What will keep the lights on for your grandchildren and a paycheck in their hot little hands will be greatly assisted by space-based industry. They will be able to take walks in fields that won't be contaminated with mine tailings; those tailings will be on one of the lunar mares. (Lunar lowlands, aka "seas')
And that industry cannot ignore that huge ball of oxygen, titanium, calcium etc just 250 thousand miles out from the Earth - and all in a measly 1/6th gee gravity field to boot.
Remember: Kennedy made his pronouncement not a month after Al Shepard's flight.
What could we do today if we really tried? And what better motive would we have, than to secure new, sustainable energy and resource supplies for us and our children?
We've not gone back to the moon, because no one in power has asked those questions. Make of that what you will.
2006-10-13 14:28:08 · answer #4 · answered by wm_omnibus 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We went there last month (albeit in an unmanned space craft the size of a washing machine). European Space Agency's Smart 1 probe landed on the surface of the moon on Sept 3 2006. It's there to collect data to help work out how the moon was born.
2006-10-13 11:05:02 · answer #5 · answered by pogstar 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There have been some publicized intentions recently, including by NASA and China, but so far none have gotten enough money. NASA is starting to do real work, but the time line is long, 15 years or more, because of insufficient funding.
2006-10-13 11:40:39 · answer #6 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is an oversimplification, but a major controversy in space exploration is the involvement of astronauts. As remote "lander" technologies improve, the argument is that sending humans is too hazardous and expensive to be justifiable. Problem is that sending landers doesn't seem to fire up imaginations and get support.
Aloha
2006-10-13 10:54:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
they are planning on attempting a moon launch in 2018 when they are finished developing their new rocket model go to the web site below for the information in detail
2006-10-13 10:54:27 · answer #8 · answered by blueking_456 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hey, hold on guys! Iraq and Afghanistan are already way too far! Let's not go totally off-planet!
2006-10-13 13:40:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
what benefit would we get for our 3 trillion dollar trip? so why should we go back?
2006-10-13 10:57:07 · answer #10 · answered by spiveyracing 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋