Did we really land on the moon in the sixties?

Question

If we really landed on the moon almost forty years ago, how come we haven’t been back? I would think that with all the technology that we have now days it would be no problem to go back and explore more. It seems that all you hear about any space missions is that the shuttle exploded or that they have been delayed, because NASA can’t work out all the bugs. I am by no means a conspiracy nut, in fact I really don’t know a lot about the space program, it just seems to me that we should be able to make it back. What do you think?

My whole point is, if we could land on the moon in 1969, why is NASA not able to get a shuttle off of Earth SAFELY by now?

Answer 1

We went to the moon. The moon had rocks. It was kind of fun to bounce around on for a few minutes. Then we realized it was lame. Then we left.

Answer 2

1) Yes, we did.

2) Yes, we went back - 6 times.

3) We haven't gone back lately because after time #6, it was obvious the public no longer cared, and there wasn't a scientific reason to keep going back then.

4) Sure, we can go back, no problem. Except we have to rebuild the technology based on what we now know about radiation. Plus we scraped the 60's technology. It's expensive to rebuild.

5) Actually, we have a lot of amazing results from NASA - it's just that only the bad stuff is ever covered in the news. For instance, look up the results from the New Horizens probe that came out last week. Amazing photos of Jupiter during it's flyby.

6) Yep, we'll make it back. Give NASA more money.

Answer 3

We, Americans, did land men on the Moon in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. I suppose we hadn't gone back there because, despite having the right technology to power rockets to the Moon, we kept on canceling proposed and scheduled lunar missions for economic reasons. Also, we were probably focusing on other space programs, such as the space shuttle. The canceled lunar missions would have brought Americans- and possibly other nations, such as Russia (they had a manned lunar program that failed)- into a permanent presence on the Moon 10-15 years after man first landed there in 1969.

I wish we should go back to the Moon because more of the far reaches of the unknown space needs to be explored. It's our final frontier. In case a nuclear war wipes out mankind as we know it, we must establish colonies on the Moon- and the rest of the solar system and the space beyond it. It's time for the United States to launch a new lunar program. This might help us go to Mars.

Answer 4

You are this kind of dreamer .. Footprints !!! Do you believe that those footprints could nonetheless exist until at present, do not you already know that the outside topography alterations despite the fact that there is not any surroundings, it might be via the rocks that's touchdown at the moon from the distance. Let's speak approximately the flag .. You ought to realize the unique situation of the flag so as to attention your telescope to be competent to peer that item. You may not see a exceptional main points and depend all fifty two stars .. however you can see an overly faint item .. once more the flag may not be relocating due to the fact no wind at the moon .. Good success

Answer 5

Lulu, listen well. We did not land on the moon using the Apollo space program. We landed another way using Einstein's theory of Relativity, contrary to those who do not have a "need to know" or are not "cleared" to unacknowledged access programs. NASA is a cover for the real space program that the public and congress is not privy too. Pay attention! The hints are given in the film contact, whereupon, William Hurt informs Jodie Foster "First rule in government spending. Why build one when you can have two at twice the price." Bravo Lulu, you're asking common sense questions!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

Of course. The reason that we have not been back is that all the useful science had been done and further expeditions were not considered to be worth the money. (Several more had originally been planned, but they were cancelled.) But the prismatic reflectors left on the moon by the astronauts are used to this day to measure the distance to the moon, which is increasing about an inch a year due to tidal friction. There is talk about setting up a lunar base to facilitate launches (using the earth's gravity well) to other planets, but this is dependent on finding water on the moon, and so far none has been found. Nor, considering the physics of the situation, do I consider it at all likely that any will be found.

Answer 7

Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot and walk on the Moon in 1969. Like the person above said it was a all about the race to be the Russians to it first during the cold war time and basically had to due with U.S. thinking what if they could lauch missles from afar! There was a lot of skeptasm that the moon landing was fake and they made a few moves and books about it. Also there is a book that discusses what might the world or U.S be like if the Russian had landed on the moon first.

Answer 8

Well of course we did! If we didn't then we'd go today cause, like you said, we have more technology. This new technology lets us put robots on the moon and see inside the moon with satalights and spacestations. Why spend the extra billion on landing a man on the moon? It's all about expenses. We've been there, why go back? Sure we will but first we have to figure out why we would. Not to mention explore the unseen depths of space beyond the moon... such as mars. ~Zachy

Answer 9

Yep we did! - My father in law cut the first rocks when they came back to send to labs and universities.

We accomplished the mission. It costs a great deal to get there and back.

Now the emphasis is the space station.

We get $7 back in technology for every dollar spent in NASA so it is a good investment. And with the millions of pieces that go into a Shuttle, there will be bugs.

Space station - now - not back to the moon.

Answer 10

Some men apparently walked on the moon in the sixties. Anyway, it is more difficult to land then take off and then land again than it is to just fly around in shallow orbit around the earth for experiments and shipments to the space station.

It shouldn't be too hard, just really expensive and requiring a lot of planning.

Answer 11

If it was a hoax, the Russian's would have let the world know it was. We were both competing in the great 'Space Race' of the time. On the outside it all seemed so 'sciency' and hip, but the underlying reality was militaristic.
Ability to put man on the moon meant that a nation could also place a termonuclear bomb in your backyard (if so desired)!

Telemetry systems, radio and optical telescopes were all keenly trained on all the Apollo missions, especially mission 11. If getting man to the moon had failed, our competition would have gleefully shouted "na-na-nana-na".