Why is it that we have not yet est. a moon base nore have we been back to the moon?

Question

I see that we are working on floating base stations, etc. Why not create one on the moon which would be stationary and easier to operate on???

Answer 1

It takes a really big expensive rocket to get enough power to go to the moon using conventional rockets... the first moon landing cost an astronomical amount of money--- although there are plans to mine the moon for a type of helium as well as other potential projects the cost is too great for many to support the idea - the economic advantage isn't there right now.

see http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html

JAPAN CHINA AND RUSSIA all I think have plans for the moon (india may also but I can't recall) EU and US of course also have posible projects but the cost of the programs is extreme due to overhead. (high salaries and materials costs in the aerospace industry ---) once a low cost to orbit system is made such as a space elevator -- the cost goes down for a moon project or mars project. --- it is possible though... it needs a good project development team and cost economy --- right now there are cheaper resources to exploit.

Do note though FUEL ROCKETS ARE NOT THE ONLY MEANS OF PROPULSION IN SPACE.. a trip to mars would likely use an ION drive.

Also NON MANNED missions can use the sun or another planet to increase their speed if used properly to make a moon landing easier (but complex)

The US seems to be touting a possible MARS MISSION .. they already know the moon ain't the next big thing.. it is MARS.. but tragically the MOON is pinnacle....in the scope of space..

Talk of 2030???? either technology gets better or I'll be 40+ by the time anything is happening up there.

For instance use of an ion drive to venus or mercury using the slingshot method to accelerate to the moon (I'm not a rocket scientist) would seem to be a fuel sensative method to drop off a payload. Meanwhile the Iondrive would slow itself down on the return as required to drop off the payload --- or perhaps into a dampening feild to pad the drop off or deposit .. or even nets of some sort..

anyway..

Answer 2

No threats or cover-ups. I am studying to be an aerospace engineer and a lot of it has to do with money. You're saying that the budget was low the first time, but you're wrong. A lot of resources were used for the "first race to the Moon." Also, the technology used in the 60's-70's only allowed the astronauts to stay on the moon for a couple of days. The new moon missions have to be capable of sustaining a living environment on the moon for months. A huge technology leap!! You need bigger and more efficient rockets to transport the heavier loads. Redesign safer and robust spacecraft takes money.

Answer 3

Reason One: The Moon is roughly 250,000 Miles away.
The ISS (International Space Station) is only about 100 miles away (not sure of its exact altitude above Earth). Moving around the ISS you are already traveling at a high veloicity, even docked, you are still traveling at a very high velocity. If you slow down to land on the Moon, you are at Zero Miles Per Hour and must "BLAST OFF AGAIN using lots and lots of fuel which must be carried along with you on your original blast of from Earth. The Shuttle carries very little fuel once it is in space...just a small amount for misc thruster usage. It essentially glides back to Earth.

Reason Two: Cost of conducting a mission is small from Earth to ISS and Back, as compared to Earth to Moon and Back. Right now we cannot find money to buy food for those starving people in the Sudan, and certainly canot afford the war in Iraq.

Reason Three: The world, as we know it, is going to end on ,or soon after, November 2008 if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election for President of the USA.

Answer 4

It's ridiculously expensive - and dangerous - to go to the Moon. Space stations in Earth orbit are only several hundred miles away from Earth, but the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away. You would need to be able to attain escape velocity from Earth orbit, enter lunar orbit, and then land on the Moon. This can be done, but it's very expensive and time-consuming. It's significantly easier to transport materials and personnel into Earth orbit.

Answer 5

The reason people don’t understand this is basic ignorance of rocketry and space.

It took a 360 foot rocket as wide as a locomotive is long (Saturn V) to have the launch capability of sending a tiny manned probe (lunar lander) to the moon.

It’s all about weight and the extra requirement of power to leave Earth’s orbit.

Space exploration will not move faster until there is more commitment for it. Manned expeditions are enormously expensive.

When you grow up and become a tax paying adult you might baulk at expensive space programs if your kids are not getting good education, the police are not coping with the crims, and you have a killer disease and they put you on a waiting list for a life-saving surgery.

Answer 6

The big difference in distance is one of the reasons.

Going to the moon cost a lot more and for what purpose?

Answer 7

the main reason is that it is not cost effective......most of the experimentation that is being conducted requires micro gravity......this is only achieved in space....there is gravity on the moon....not as strong as here but much more than in space.....one day it may be desirable to have a base or even a community there.....could be beneficial for medical experimentation.....lower gravity could reduce stress on older people....especially those with heart & circularitory problem,s.

Answer 8

How the hell is it easier on the moon? Its much farther and will cost a lot more to maintain and operate.

Answer 9

Expensive.

Answer 10

good question i'd like to se casino on the move like in the Eddy Murphy movie. I think its cause they are focusing on mars trip where they maybe life