If we landed on the moon on the late 60's, why can't we do it now?

Question

Did we really land on the moon????

Back then there no computers as advanced as the ones now. Somehow with the technology of that time we were able to get all the way over there.
Today we have all these hi-tech computer, yet we can't even get the shuttle up in orbit without all the problems.

How can I believe almost a half a century ago we landed on the moon if we can't even get a shuttle into into orbit right?

Answer 1

You should do some research before coming on here with this question.

If you did that, you would become aware that Germany developed inter-continental ballistic missile capability back in the 1940’s and their V2 rockets hit London in 1944 and 1945.

Their rocket genius, Werhner Von Braun, escaped to the USA after WWII and was instrumental in developing America’s huge Saturn V rocket, the only rocket ever built capable of injecting humans out of Earth orbit.

Had Germany won the war, and had they had the urge to turn their rocket technology to space, rather than to war, there is little doubt they could have attained the moon way before 1969, perhaps even before 1960.

So, you see, it is completely ridiculous to wonder why we can’t do it now. The potential was there way before the Americans picked up the baton, and pulled the thing off. We could go to the moon with more technology now, but the finance isn’t there.

Another thing people who question the moon landings fail to understand is that for the cost of one manned moon mission, NASA can put about 20 probes into deep space to study the sun, comets, the outer planets. They can put incredibly successful robots onto Mars, and can make many trips to the International Space station, and continue to build on that technology.

The argument about how come we had that technology then and not now, also falls over by the fact that before 1970 we had a supersonic airliner, the Concorde. It used to fly Mach 2.2. Now, our fastest airliners fly less than mach 1. The dream of supersonic travel has given way to mass transport – jumbo jets. Air travel has never been so cheap, and never been so safe. Concorde was incredibly expensive to run, and a highly dangerous machine.

Space exploration has necessarily gone the same way as air travel – cost effective solutions. This is unfortunately, a world where many other serious matters require tax payers money.

Answer 2

Beleive me--we did land on the moon. As to why we can't now--the problem is politics, not technology. Here's a (very) brief outline of what happened--that should explain the current mess.

>The Apollo program ws ended in the 1970s because the Shuttle was supposed to serve as a safer, cheaper launch vehicle for the equipment/supplies for expand future lunar missions.
>Due to political interference (bipartisan) in the early 70s, the Shuttle design was compromised--which added to its later troubles. By the mid 80s it was obvious that the shuttle would never have the capacity to support a lunar program in addition to its other duties.
>Starting around 1990, NASA initiated a series of programs to develop an advanced spacecraft to replace the Shuttle. From 1994 to 1998, the GOP Congress cut every one of these programs.
>Starting in 2001, the Bush administration made further cuts in the NASA budget, including several major safety upgrades to the Shuttle
>Folloiwing the 2003 Columbia disaster, NASA again proposed an advanced spacecraft design. The Bush administrationturned them down, and directed NASA to develop a replacement using existing Shuttle technology. This replacement contains computer upgrades, but utilizes the existing Solid Rocket boosters, the same fuel tank and main engine technology, and can put only a small Apollo-type capsule intoorbit.
>The so-called "return to the moon program" announced by Bush is pure rhetoric. While the program plan would work, the administration and GOP Congress neverallocated any funding--NASA plansarereally only studies; they have no money to do any actual preparation. The Democratic Cngress in placenow has not yet had a chance to take up the issue.

If you find this strange--remember these are the same people who laughed at engineers who warned themthe levees in New Orleans needed renovation and refused to fund those repairs prior to Katrina.

Answer 3

Yes. We landed on the moon.

A shuttle is a *much* more complex machine than a Saturn V.

The shuttle goes into orbit "right" just about every time. The failure on launch was due to an o-ring design issue (not part of the orbiter), and the 2nd failure occurred on re-entry (due to a foam strike on the Shuttle's leading edge - also not due to the orbiter...)

You can believe what you want; no one's going to stop you. But I think if you took time to research the issue (and not just watch those stupid conspiracy shows), you'll find that a moon mission (and the mathematics needed to perform it) were all very do-able in the 60's.

You didn't need high-tech computers for that mission. You just needed attitude control & precise engine firing times. On Apollo 13, they had to turn the computers *OFF*, and they were still able to control the craft.

Answer 4

A total of six manned lunar landings were done. Except for pure science, nothing of any real value was found so why go back? Due to decades of non-interest in the moon, we no longer have any launch vehicles capable of putting men back on the moon. No, the shuttle can't do it.

Beware of thinking that because our technology was relatively crude back in the late 60's and early 70's we couldn't have successfully put men on the moon. Such logic is like thinking that because a 2007 model automobile is crammed with all sorts of hi-tech stuff that a 1939 Ford couldn't possibly have made the trip from Chicago to New York City.

Answer 5

We did it. It was never really a race between us and the Russians but we pretended it was. It was basically a gigantic publicity stunt. It served no particular practical purpose, and the voters, now bored with the whole thing, didn't particularly care for the cost. Politicians understood this and the further exploration was cancelled. The space program decided to concentrate on near earth orbit and robotic spacecraft to investigate the planets. The machinery for building the Saturn V rockets was left to rust or sold for scrap and the skills were lost. The space shuttle was sold to the American People as being a cheap and safe way to get into space. It was neither. There is no cheap and safe way into space at the moment. Now idiots are claiming the lunar landings never happened at all, just like the holocaust deniers. In a few years idiots will begin to claim that world war 2 never happened and that the entire story is a GOVERNMENT PLOT.

Answer 6

All of the people who originally worked on the Apollo project have retired or died. So all of the expertise that NASA once had has dried up and moved on. It is not computers that put people into space, it is the ground controllers and engineers who put people into space -- clunky equipment is no problem if your people are smart enough and clever enough to figure out how to make it all work.

Unlike the Apollo spacecraft, the shuttle is intended to be reusable. When the shuttle was brand new, it went into space with no problems either. The shuttles you see flying now are decades old (older than most people's cars), and have plenty of wear and tear on them. Think about how reliable your family car would be if it were 10 or 20 years old, and you get the idea.

Apollo spacecraft were made for one time use, and therefore NASA used a brand new spacecraft every time that they sent people to the moon.

Answer 7

We landed on the moon. Believe it with all your might.

We would have a hard time going back right now because all of the infrastructure (mainly the rockets and vehicles and such) have not been replaced after they were used. The ones that were not used have deteriorated to the point that they are not usable.

There are plans underway to return to the moon, though. We got there in the '60s because there was a political reason - basically, to outshine the russians. This time it's for scientific purposes.

Answer 8

The emphasis has been on the shuttle, space station and research. We landed on the moon, but in doing so we really didn't accomplish anything productive other than being able to say we did it. Now, the multi-use shuttles and aid research much more efficiently. In the meantime, we have also explored other planents. Our success in space continues to advance -- its just without men actually setting foot on another body.

Answer 9

because its really, really far away and its really, really expensive.

Nasa's budget in the 1960's was 1000x it is today and even with that they had to cut to the bone everything to get to the moon.

The only reason the cost was justified was because of the Cold War and the need to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon.

Now that it has been done there is nothing left to prove and the Govt can't justify raising Nasa's budget just to go back to the cold dead rock.

Answer 10

YES WE LANDED ON THE MOON!! NASA is a goverment gaency so they got good computers before the general public. we landed on the moon. we can't do it now because space shuttles wern't built with the idea of moon landing in mind.