surely, 40 yrs on, the technology would have made it much easier, and cost just as much as a normal manned space flight?
2007-07-15 04:23:53 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Going to the moon was just a stunt to "beat the Soviets". We got some research done, but overall the moon isn't too interesting in the bigger picture.
The Space Shuttle was also another cold war stunt by the USA to beat the Soviets and look good. In the end we screwed up. The Russians still use the ancient yet reliable R-7 and we use the horribly expensive and dangerous shuttle thats killed 14 astronauts so far.
BTW if you really want to go to the moon, Russia is offering a trip for only $200 million dollars. They won't land you but they will send you there, orbit a few times, and come home.
2007-07-15 07:43:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question is asked often and it seems like a fair one. Funding became a major issue when the Apollo program was terminated. The gains did not seem to justify the cost. Let's not forget that this was a high risk mission as well. Every time people went to the moon, there was a serious risk of loss of human life. Apollo had already lost three astronauts in a ground test and almost lost three more on Apollo 13. It wasn't known until later how close Apollo 11 came to running out of fuel as it was landing on the moon.
Since that time, the moon just hasn't had the same allure as it did back then. I'm sure a reasonable person could understand that. But if we're talking about one of the reasons some people think we never went in the first place, then we're not talking about reasonable people, so an explanation like this would be a waste of time.
When someone comes up with a mission that justifies the expense, then they will go back. Since it has almost no military value, I don't know when that might be.
2007-07-15 11:38:58 · answer #2 · answered by Brant 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the cost and risk does not really fit to the proposed outcome of such a trip.
we can send robots anywhere at much lower cost.
The lunar landings in the 70's had the cold war as background, the need for showing off bigtime and to develop technology which could underline us to be the leading nation if it comes to space.
Today more and more people see that such 'prestige projects' cost them money and the outcome is more or less doubtful since the 70's goal was reached.
even having 100 years more advanced technology, why should we go there again ?
been there, seen it, got the t-shirt .. on to something different
2007-07-15 13:09:26 · answer #3 · answered by blondnirvana 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's incredibly expense, with no current need to do so. I recall reading decades ago that the Apollo missions collected enough data for 50 years of study. I guess the 50 years isn't up yet.
A far better investment of the limited budget for space exploration is what we're doing now, ie, a semi-permanent orbiting space station.
And no, technology hasn't made it all that much cheaper. Rocket fuel, even at the mega-liter rate,is still pretty expensive.
2007-07-15 11:34:34 · answer #4 · answered by Gary H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Congress cut the funding for the Space Program...it really is that simple.
2007-07-15 11:30:45 · answer #5 · answered by l z 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one really felt like coughing up 28 billion to up grade the program. Care to write a check ?
2007-07-15 11:35:41 · answer #6 · answered by Gene 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is easier to get to..today.
2007-07-15 11:42:51 · answer #7 · answered by kit walker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
10 is unlucky.
2007-07-16 17:59:53 · answer #8 · answered by johnandeileen2000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋