If we went to the moon over 30 years ago, why with all our new technology haven't we gone again?

Answer 1

1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.

Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean
Apollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>
Apollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell
Apollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin
Apollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke
Apollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt


2) What about the Van Allen radiation belts? Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?

The existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos. Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA.

The radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong. You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness. And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection. "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."

"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation." When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.


3) Why haven't we been back?

a) 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.

b) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?


4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?

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!


5) What about the USSR?

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.


6) Why does the flag shake? Where are the stars?

Take a look at the first two websites listed below. They deal well with all of the technical questions.


7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?

Answer 2

One of the most common questions on this forum - time and time again.

Firstly, it was cost. It is tens of times more expensive to send people into space than probes.

When Apollo was cancelled, the giant Saturn V was mothballed. That was and is the only rocket ever powerful enough to take humans beyond Earth orbit.

You might as well say why haven't we got a supersonic airliner any more. Concorde was mothballed, like Saturn V. That too was 1960's technology.

All those fools who think the moon landings couldn't have happened because we have not been back, should think that Concorde never was, for the same reasons.

Fools have fools logic. Sad that.

PS - also, ignore all those that say there is no reason to go back. these people talk out of their asses. ask a moon geologist whether he/she wants to go. There was heaps of stuff they wanted to explore further, when the whole thing was cancelled.

After the success with the Moon rover, they were going to take a moon flyer to get them places they could not get to before.

remember that the moon is very rugged, and you just can't land a rocket lander anywhere.

the little flyer would have got them to the top of mountains and high crater walls, some of which are as high as the Rockies.

Why do people make things up when they know dick sh..

Answer 3

There is nothing On the moon, rocks, and more rocks. Why WOULD we go there again. "sweet, we're on the moon... yeah this is boring" see, the only benefit the moon would have is that it has bery little gravity compared to earth, so it would be an effective launching platform for a mission to mars. But that's in the far future, and the earth has bigger problems like terrorism and energy consumption, and the ozone.

Answer 4

Our present objectives in the space arena is completing the international space station.
This will enable an almost unlimited opportunity to experiment in zero gravity and greatly simplify our future space exploration.
I'm sure there will be more moon exploration when we are set up to launch vehicles, not from earth, but from the space station - at much less expense and danger.
We will learn infinitely more in the space station than merely revisiting the moon.

Answer 5

We have, several times... also there is a need to newer, bigger projects so they can get funding... We have lots of information about the moon but not as much about Mars.

Also, there is the idea that the space program is all about finding new life somewhere in our galaxy... of course we haven't found all the stuff here on earth either... but that is beside the point.

Answer 6

it was a hoax. We orbitted realized we could study our own desert and get about the same effect & It costs alot of money to have technology operate in a gravity-less enviornment that we know so little about.

I say, we just pump some ocean water onto the moon(maybe a crater or two) and see if any ocean earth-life will:
# 1. survive & # 2. Begin to evolve. Same for Mars as well.

Answer 7

First man on Moon: Neil Armstrong - Purdue.
Last man off Moon: Gene Cernan - Purdue.

The Moonshots were the culmination of a 1960's space race - development of technology - intelligence gathering and mastery intended to dismantle Communism of the Soviet Union.

To prove that Capitalism is superior to Communism. It appears to have worked. Even China is close to abandoning Communism in almost all forms.

FYI. (Communism serves the elitists in power while placing the workers in servitude. Duh.)

Answer 8

We had something to prove, cold war, the Russians were at it too. We had to get there first, i guess there was nothing fascinating in the moon. Considering that it was at one point part of the earth. if the theory is right.

Answer 9

mainly because it costs a lot of money to send an actual person to the moon. and theres no need to waste the money if we can just as easily send a robot or sumthing of the sort that can gather the same information we can.

Answer 10

Because our new technology is not new ROCKET technology. Cars, airplanes and rockets are even more expensive and no better than they were in 1970. You cannot compare them to computers, which are both better and cheaper than they were in 1970.