why hasnt the usa gone back to the moon?

Question

please do not answer BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN THEIR.

please do not answer MONEY, because we seem to have plenty of money for other space adventures

for the record i do beleive we were on the moon but i beleive we discovered something we were not supposed to find. here at cal tech in pasadena,ca their is a signal that is sent to the moon every so often and the signal hits the moon it sends back info, thats proof enough for me

Answer 1

Americans were the first ones on the Moon. The first humans at least. We discovered a base on the far side of the Moon, and it became immediately apparent that we were not welcome.


"The US government, in collusion with the other national powers, is determined to keep this information from the general public."---Victor Marchetti, former Special Assitant to the Executive Director of the CIA.



People don't even want to know the truth, and that's why it is so easy to keep it from them.

Answer 2

You are right in that just saying "money" isn't an explanation. That's part--but not --all of the reason.
maybe the best way to explain this is to give you a timeline:

>1972: in the wake of the Apollo program, the decision was taken to concentrate on developing a next-generation spacecraft--teh Shuttle. The idea at the time was that all space projects--including lunar missions--could be done far more cheaply by using such a craft to boost the required supplllies and equipment into orbit at low cost.
>a major reason we quit going to the moon thus was that everyone expected to resume flights in the early 80s--but with farr mor capability and far lower costs. Which is logical.
>1972 Congress rejects NASA's proposed system in favor of a design for a larger spacecraft tha twill save in development costs--but at the cost of higher oprational costs. The warnings of the engineers against this were dismissed. That is what gave us the space shuttle as we know it.
>by the mid 1980s, especially with the Challenger disaster, it became clear that the Shuttle would never be able to fly often enough to support all the activities that had been planned. Plans for a return to the moon were shelved. Hope for private sector support vanished when companies withdrew from pilot orbital manufacturing project, unwilling to invest in view of the shuttle's unreliability.
>1990-4 A series of projects to build a smaller, advanced Earth-to-orbit spacecraft are initiated by NASA
>1994-98 All programsfor advanced manned spacecraft are cut folloing the Republican takeover of Congress. The costs of the ISS climb toward $100 billion--several times the original estimate
>1998-2003. Congress continues to cut funding for manned spaceflight, including several safety upgrades to the Shuttles.
>2003 Columbia breaks up on re-entry.
>2003-4 The Bush administration again rejects NASA proposals to develop a next-generation shuttle. President Bush announces a "return to the moon program" and plans for an eveentual trip to Mars. No funds were appropriated for either project, however (nor have any yet been allocated to either project).
>In lieu of a new spacecraft, the administration finally approves a replacement for the shuttle. This consists of a modified solid rocket booster of the type the Shuttle uses, a second stage using an engine and fuel tank that are modified versions of what the Shuttle uses, and an Apollo-type capsule (somewhat larger and using modern materials and electronics). Originally slated for 2010, the system is now not expected to fly till 2012.
>NASA currently is hoping for a 2020 return to the moon--but so far no funds have been allocated for a lunar program.

Answer 3

The focus of recent expeditions with rovers, orbitters and people the last few decades have largely been to search for life or evidence of past life. Mars and Jupiter's Icy Moons (JIMs) like Europa are our best bets within our solar system because there is evidence of liquid water or past water. Good NASA and "follow the water" for more info. So, while there may be money, there isn't enough to do everything and our focus has been on destinations that are good possiblities for astrobiological finds.

However, the Bush Administration has recently convinced NASA to plan another trip to the moon in lieu of planned missions to Mars and Europa. This is upsetting, because the scientific value of going to the moon over these other two destinations is much less. We know there is VERY little chance of life or past life on the Moon because of its history and composition, lack of atmosphere, and lack of water. We also know much more about the moon than Mars or the JIMs.

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

funding, funding, funding.

After Apollo 11, people started to think of going to the moon as ordinary and that it didn't really have any reason.

Many people think that going to the moon was a waste of money because there are other problems down here on earth that need to be solved.

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of Americans are short sited and don't demand that the government send people to the moon.

Until recently, it was illegal to try to send a ship into space in the US. The first permit were only handed out since the success of the Space Ship One and the X Prize.

Another factor, is that we don't have any presidents that have really made it a priority. Bush only made up the program because the Chinese announced they were doing it, but he hasn't provided enough funding for us to go to the moon. Reagan wanted the International Space Station, Clinton and Bush Sr both followed along.

I don't know what Carter or Ford really thought, but Nixon must have cut money. Johnson was just continuing Kennedy's vision of sending a man to the moon not because it easy, but because it is hard.

Answer 5

After the first four trips there is no reason to.

Humans can't really do anything there that a probe can't do. And it's extremely risky.

And money is a factor. Any given space program has to be as efficient as possible. If they have a plan to do something on the moon and someone asks "Can a robot do it cheaper?" then you have to rethink it.

Answer 6

The main reason we were rushing to the moon was because of the cold war. Getting there before the soviets was like saying our space program is better than yours. After getting there, we didn't find any really good reason to go back. We don't have the technology to colonize/mine the moon yet, so just landing on it again wouldn't have any point to it.

Answer 7

Because there is no reason for us to return.

Yes, it's exciting in the grand scale of human achievement, but let's be honest; it's a big ball of dust. No real reason to go there, other than because we can. Unless we find an endeavor that produces real returns (Helium-3?) then going there is simply a trip just for the sake of going on a trip..

Answer 8

It's a matter of setting priorities. NASA is chronically underbudgeted and have to cut things that they want to do all the time. Not to mention they're a government agency, so they're not the most efficient bunch in the world. They do have tentative plans to go back. However, we'll see if that actually happens.

Answer 9

Well because there was nothing there and it Cost too much money. I think that you a trying to knock down the answers because you think we never went there.

Answer 10

Its very expensive to go there. The technology that they used last time (Apollo) is very old, worn out, and would be considered unsafe and out of date by today's standards. Although America is a rich country, it can't afford to spend billions to do something unless there is some payoff.