Why haven't we gone back to the moon yet?

Question

I mean, i heard that there are companies that are going to go there before NASA can get back up there. How come??!?

Answer 1

There are private companies working on developing a lunar capability. But NASA willl likely be back on the mooon before they are able to. What isn't clear at this point is if another country (most likely China) will beat the United States back to the moon.

The reason is that the political will to return to the moon isn't there. The lunar missions were originally halted with the expectation that the Space Shuttle would serve as a launch vehicle for a new geeration of safer, better lunar spacecraft. However, the problems with the Shuttle effectively eliminated that as a possibility. Throught the 1990s and into 2003, NASA has tried repeatedly to get funding for an advanced spacecraft that can do what the job (and a lot more). But since 1993, every such program has been canceled and NASA's budget cut year after year.

The current situationis this: there is a plan on paper to return to the moon by 2020. However, at this point that plan, proposed by Bush adn the Republican congress in 2003/4, is meaningless. It has no funding except for some preliminary studies--and there is no effort on the part of either party to remedy the situation.

The good news (more or less) is that in a few years Washington is going to wake up one morning and get slapped in the face with the fact that there is ALREADY a new "space race" underway, with several countries working to exploit the economic potential of space travel. Sooner or later oe of them is going to do something that will upstage the US in a big way--just as happened in 1957 when the USSR orbited Sputnik. At which point they politicians (and NASA) will be very righteous about getting busy and "keeping America first in space" or some other equally nauseating slogan But at least then things will start moving again.

Answer 2

There are two things that need to happen before we can go back to the moon. Second, someone has to pay for the vehicle development, mission design, crew training, equipment and followthrough. That would be the government (meaning you). You haven't been giving NASA enough money, you cheapskate!

First, in order to justify spending the money, there has to be a payoff. Manned missions are very expensive compared to robot missions. We already have a bunch of moon rocks. People talk about mining and scientific research on the moon, but unless they can make the case that it is in our interest, either in commercial exploitation or scientific knowledge, the money won't be there. This has to be a long-term project with multiple missions to make the develpment costs worthwhile.

NASA has started designing the Constellation project, and is currently soliciting working designs for the Earth orbit escape stage. There will be a crew module called Aries I that can also make trips to the International Space Station. The Aries V cargo ship will have the orbit escape engine and the lunar lander. It will look a little like Apollo but with some important differences. The stated purpose: practice for Mars. The Apollo vehicles were state of the art but in no way capable of a human interplanetary trip. The Aries vehicles are bigger and more robust but they have to be proven before NASA can start on the Mars mission design.

If the schedule holds, Aries I will replace the Shuttle fleet in a few years, and we may see humans on the moon again by 2020.

Answer 3

Money. Congress will not give NASA as much money as it needs to go back to the Moon. At least, they do not have enough to continue flying the Shuttle, and operating the Space Station AND building a new Moon vehicle. That is why they are planning to retire the Shuttle in 2010, build a new vehicle which can both service the Space Station AND make it to the Moon. But at any time the funding could get cut again and the part about the Moon could get dropped. Again! Sigh...

Answer 4

Since I'm an astronomer I have connections thru our observatory .
After checking things out and contacting a friend @ Nasa it is because of poor funding.
reason for other companies going there first ?
because they have funding.
Nasa is into deep financial water's because they are trying to save hubble .

so far a billion dollars have been spent trying to get it fixed now it'll be 3 times that to fly it's main camera to Earth, thousands to fix it, then another billion to send it back up.

another is the billions that are keeping the space station going and 6 million it costs to keep the astronauts alive in the I.S.S

among 3 other top secret missions they are keeping under the table that they are working on.

Answer 5

We went there in 1969, and went back five more times. The fact is that if you're not a planetary geologist or an astrophysicist, the moon is just not interesting enough to spend a couple of billion dollars to go visit.

Answer 6

It's all economics - NASA isn't "sexy" anymore, so public money isn't being spent on trips to the moon. Also, the space shuttle disasters have made politicians nervous about spending money on NASA

Answer 7

Because NASA is lazy, and we're on the verge of the private sector space exploration and travel for profit, so there's a lower need for them to rush. Scientists will be able to hop on board spaceships soon and go of their own accord.

Answer 8

It takes real talent and lots of money.

Answer 9

a moon mission is very very expensive.

Answer 10

well i dont think we went to the moon in the first place. remember everything was shoot at a studio