Why have we not been back to the moon in 38 years?

Question

If it is cost or budget I say B.S.! We spend billions on crap every year! The U.S. does things everyday for vanity alone. Why not prove we can go back anytime for no good reason at all.... after all it's the American way "Because We Can".

Answer 1

No more political compulsion.

Answer 2

Cost is one of many reasons why men have not gone back to the moon, but there are others as well. One is the danger of an accident, such as the one that nearly killed the crew of Apollo 13. There was no way to rescue them if something went wrong. Another is the fact astronauts during the Apollo missions were naked to any solar flares, which can easily kill them because their spacecraft could not be shielded sufficiently to protect them from cornonal mass ejections. In fact, one month after the Apollo 17 crew took off from the moon and returned to Earth, a very powerful solar flare took place. Had the crew been out there at the time, all of them would have died of lethal doses of gamma radiation. Anothe reason is there's been no political will to follow up the Apollo missions, and to be worthwhile, any manned mission to the Moon has to be more than landing on it, staying a few hours or a couple of days grabbing rocks then taking off again. Much of this can be done with un-manned spacecraft, but humans will have to return to the moon because there's a lot to be done there which humans are uniquely suited to. Such as recognizing features of particular interest. Apollo astronauts did indeed find strange and intriguing rocks that proved very important finds when examined back on Earth. But they were limited because they just didn't have the time to do a truly thourough investigation of the surface. Public support for manned missions to the moon has also been lacking, and that is also important to sell such a program to Congress as well. Many people have no idea how much the Apollo program actually benefited them with new products, services as well as creation of well paid, high skilled jobs and a stronger economy. However, there is a program underway to go back to the moon, this time to establish a base there eventually. Called Project Constellation, crews will be going back and forth to the moon, with the first flight taking place sometime in 2018. One thing that will certainly be included in these missions will be astro-geologists. A permanent base is the ultimate goal, which will allow many if most most of the goals set during the Apollo ear to be accomplished, plus many more. The lunar base will also be a valuable training ground for manned missions to Mars, as well as a perfect staging area for getting there and back. In the meantime, spacecraft have already returned to the moon, and there are new players in lunar exploration too. China and India are right now developing spacecraft and launch vehicles to get un-manned probes to the moon. There's a great deal to learn about the moon still, and we will see humans walking the moon again in our lifetimes. I remember the Apollo landings I witnessed as a child, it would be great to see humans explore the Moon again. Hopefully this will be in the spirit of international goodwill and co-operation and not the militarization of space.

Answer 3

The 'space race' was due, in large part, to rivalry between the US and the USSR. The reason for going was mostly public relations. Going to the moon was expensive and still would be. There is nothing we know of on the moon that justifies going there.

Yes, the government wastes money left and right, but what's left of NASA's budget is going towards the Space Shuttles, which hasn't worked out so well, but that's where the money is going now. Maybe the guys who build the Space Shuttle have better lobbyists than the guys who build the big dumb booster rockets.

Answer 4

Likely because ther isn't much point in it, as there wasnt much sending a manned mission in the first place other than we can say we did it. Space exploration is better suited to robotics and automation than manned missions, easier cheaper & more efficient. The majority of cost & payload for manned missions is simply to keep said persons alive, when robotics could do as well or better. So there really isnt much point in sending a man when a automated probe would do. Off hand I cant think of anything that was done on the moon by man that couldnt have been accomplished by robotics & computers. The manned Moon landing wasnt much more than a PR stunt...

In actuallity there really isnt a good reason to send people to Mars as proposed either other than to say "we did it".. really think about it what info could a man gather that several automated probes couldnt at less the cost of sustaining a person in flight? None that I can think of...

Answer 5

There are 165 planetary bodies in our Solar System alone, and some claim as many as 235, not to mention all the other galaxies in the universe. You must build a Dynamo on each one to create an atmosphere. If it spins on its axis, like Mars, it can be a MOLTEN IRON Dynamo, which will sustain itself because of eddy currents spinning. If it doesn't spin on its axis like the Moon, then a Superconducting Magnet or Neodymium Boron type of cylindrical/bar magnet must be inserted into the core. The Earth's core conists of Iron and Nickel and is a molten iron Dynamo. The strength of the Magnetic Dynamo must be 10,000 Gauss (1 Tesla) or more. On Earth, the Dynamo is at least 5,000 Gauss (1/2 Tesla) and the magnetic field strength is 0.5 Gauss over the surface of the Earth. With this knowledge, we can build restaurants throughout the Milky Way Galaxy.

Answer 6

It costs money and congress is not about to spend billions of dollars to do something that has no benefits whatsoever.

There is no benefit for racing to the moon or going to the moon.

Same thing with Mars. If China lands men on Mars first, that's great. US couldn't care less. China/Russia wouldnt care if US lands men first on Mars either.

The government doesn't want to spend billions of dollars just to prove that we could beat other countries by sending men to Mars first. The Cold War is over. There's no need to prove to Russia/China that we're better.

Answer 7

It exchange into better than probable a hoax by the individuals to triumph over the Russians on the time. they could have despatched area ships there yet i dont think of it exchange into accessible decrease back contained in the 60s for a guy to make it. The Russians got here first in each little thing of the area race different than for the so referred to as maned moon landings. And the individuals hate dropping to the communists

Answer 8

Because we don't have, and pretty much never really had the capability to do so..........Now, let me explain....

We (the US) did not go to the moon in the 60's to establish a lunar base, or conduct any real research...we went to beat the Soviet Union there. which means that all we needed to do was land 2-3 guys and enough equipment to survive for a week or so........they planners managed to squeeze some research into it, but it wasn't feasible to pay for the rockets and materials and not get anything in return.........then we built the shuttle, which is barely able to get to Earth's orbit....and does so very inefficiently........resulting in a lack of interest in America.......and NASA doesn't want to spend so much on getting to the moon without SOMETHING to show for it....so it'll be a few years (read- decades) until we get the capabilities back

Answer 9

Short answer--politics. Following the lunar landings, NASA focused on developing the Space Shuttle--and planned to sue it as a launch vehicle to put future lunar spacecraft, fuel, etc. in orbit for a more ambitious lunar program.

However, since tha ttime, Congress has consistantly refused to adequately fund NASA. That problem became even worse with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Over the next 12 years they cut program after program--including safety upgrades to the Shuttle that might have saved the Columbia crew--and every single advanced spacecraft design program NASA had.

At this point Bush's "return to the moon" is empty rhetoric--the program isn't funded and he hasn't asked Congress to fund it.

Answer 10

The main reason we havent been back to the moon in the past 38 years is because currently NASA has a contract to work and help deliver materials to the orbital space station being constructed by multiple nations. NASA's contract is up i belive 2010 and NASA plans to begin more serious mars exploration and send more people to the moon once the contract is up.

Answer 11

reason why, is b/c we are still debating on weither we should mine it or not. a new substance called helium-3 can be deprived from moon rock and is the most powerful fuel in universe(from what we know). want for this power could result in wars over the control of moon mining. currently japan n u.s. are in want for this. but know one has made an atempt to mine it. and THERE IS ALOT OF BENIFITS FROM GOING TO THE MOON. ITS CALLED HELIUM-3!!!! do some research people. keep ur opinions out