Did we find nothing,or more than we were ready to deal with?
2007-05-18 02:15:54 · 10 answers · asked by texaspilcher 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
There wasn't really much to check out... Plus, lack of gravity and oxygen make it a little difficult to explore.
I think the main reason is that we already know that it's uninhabitable. Since we know humans cannot live there (w/ out a lot of help/equipment at least) we lost interest. That is why we're interested in exploring Mars. It's all about finding another planet that we can pollute after we're thru with this one.
2007-05-18 02:28:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody cares enough to spend the billions required. Everybody was really excited about Apollo 11, because it was the first landing, but even the Apollo 12 landing got much less attention. By the time of the last landing, Apollo 17 in 1972, people were bored with it.
And do not fall for the old, "with 40 years of technological advancement we should be able to go back more cheaply and easily". It isn't so. There has been a great deal of advancement in electronics technology, especially computers, but rocket technology has hardly advanced at all. The most advanced rockets of today are no cheaper and no faster and no safer than the Saturn V of 40 years ago.
2007-05-18 11:09:52 · answer #2 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Budget was probably the main reason. The cost when looking at concerns (safety and the ability to complete the mission once started) that could only be addressed by a lacking technology. We did a whole lot with very little. Having done it and gotten a reward for the endeavor, at the time there wasn't a lot left to do for the cost. We have regolith samples, we learned a lot about the physical nature of the environment (Hey, this stuff is as hard as concrete covered in dust!) and tested our technology and math.
Now we see there is a profit to be made with the finding of exotic materials (hydrogen isotopes as well as some others) both financially as well as technological. This is also a proving ground to shake out the bugs for the Mars landing planned and those future rewards. One can see the value of both Mars and Moon bases as we venture out, as we will always do by nature.
2007-05-18 09:40:15 · answer #3 · answered by mike453683 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought the space station came first
and then trips from the station to the moon would begin
as far as trips to the moon go
why keep going
been there done that
2007-05-18 09:25:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing more than likely. Do we really need to go to the moon?
2007-05-18 09:18:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
president bush wants to be back on the moon by 2009 they stopped because of cost and danger and some say USSR
2007-05-18 09:21:49 · answer #6 · answered by Michael A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The general public lost interest in it and there was no budget for it.
2007-05-18 09:24:03 · answer #7 · answered by Iridflare 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Budget cuts.
2007-05-18 09:24:54 · answer #8 · answered by Wisconsin Guard OIF Vet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We never went there in the first place.
2007-05-18 10:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by sarah 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
costs,no benefits!
2007-05-18 09:24:31 · answer #10 · answered by condy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋