Is it true that we never went back to the moon because there was no need?

Question

I love some of the rebuffs people make here to the idiots who keep asking that tired old question “did we really go to the moon?”. However, even some of the best answers seem to suggest that the reason nobody has been back is that there was no need – “been there, done that”.

That part of it is completely false. Lunar geologists were devastated about the cancellation of Apollo. There were a million things to learn about the moon that cannot be learned without humans digging around there.

Did you know that there were plans for a “moon flyer” – a small rocket propelled vehicle that could more easily get the astronauts to places that were too dangerous for the lander?

And if you want a good rebuff to those who say “how come 60’s technology got us to the moon, and we haven’t been back”, try this. 60s technology got us a supersonic airliner – the Concorde. We aint got one now, folks. Perhaps Concorde was a hoax.

Of course, Concorde was scrapped for similar reasons to Apollo – too expensive, when there are more economic options (jumbo jets, in the case of Concorde; ISS, deep space probes and Mars rovers in the case of NASA).

Answer 1

There were several reasons we never went back, as Gene and Cirric mention, politics and money were the main obstacles.

NASA could not convince Nixon of the need to keep exploring the moon, we were fighting a war at the time and John Q Publics attention span is about 30 seconds, unless it's a hollywood scandal.

Without the strong support of a leader, like JFKs support, it was virtually impossible to continue with something that had already been done.

NASA also did and does a poor job publicizing the benefits of the space program, partially due to limits on advertising by a government entity.

Answer 2

human beings make the mistakes of evaluating a cutting-aspect computer costing $a million,000 to a million dollar mainframe that had a procedures a lot less computing potential and filled a room in 1969 and say that proves technologies has progressed adequate to make it more beneficial accessible to bypass to the Moon at present. From this they leap to the accurate that if it nevertheless too expensive and problematical at present it ought to were no longer plausible then. What they ought to do is study a $20,000 automobile at present that receives a similar MPG and has a similar accurate % as a automobile costing $3,000 in 1969 and then do not ignore that in undemanding words computers (and all electronics technologies) has loved stunning advances at the same time as autos (and all transportation technologies including rockets) have not. So that's in undemanding words as expensive and problematical at present because it replaced into in 1969 and nevertheless no longer worth to fee to save doing it. that's likewise why any such vast volume of serious robotic missions to planets have flown considering that then. because the small, gentle weight, and fantastically able robotic area craft we are able to construct with progressed electronics technologies may be honestly despatched a lot farther away than the Moon with the usual inefficient and expensive rockets we are nevertheless making use of.

Answer 3

I think it's just a result of our society thinking that Jerry Springer and Professional Wrestling are more important than understanding our universe beyond the screened porch on our mobile homes. A lot of welfare recipients are just really mad because of all that money going out into space. "There's nuthin' up there anyway.... we cain't even feed areselves and they're puttin' million dollars rockets into space..."

I'm sure you've heard that from your local trailer trash on disability. I'll probably piss off some of them, but true is true.
"Disputing history is not a very good excuse for not learning it."

Answer 4

It was done for political reasons and the exploration was secondary. Congress lost interest and the cost was so high that they took away the appropriations. In today's dollars it costed over 29 billion dollars.

Answer 5

Hi. It is not so much a 'need' that's missing. We don't 'need' to do any exploration in space. Be we are curious creatures. We satisfied our curiosity to the point where John Q Public did not see the 'need' to go back again. We will, however.

Answer 6

Not to mention, we DID go back. We went to the moon seven times in the 60's and 70's.

Answer 7

There's always a need for scientific discovery... we didn't go back because we won the race and lost the heart to continue.