If NASA landed on moon in 1969, then why dont they land now. Why such a big gap of 40years.?

Answer 1

why would they?

there is no space station on the moon. there are no commercial satellites or sites on the moon. There is no way of harvesting any resources from the moon. There is no "space race" going on.

The only reason to visit the moon right now is to collect moon dust. which has already been done. Better to spend resources putting up communication satellites (which everyone needs) and exploring other areas of earth and space.

By the way, is that your best argument for a "fake lunar landing cover up conspiracy?" If so, I'm still 100% convinced the 842 lbs of moon rocks brought back to earth by the astronauts from apollo missions 11,12, 14,15,16, and 17 (the missions with lunar landings) are in fact real.

Answer 2

Because they are not given the money to do it, is the simple answer.

Apollo cost $24billion in 1969 taxpayers' dollars. Although NASA designed Apollo and the infrastructure as the beginning of a continual manned presence in space, the public and hence congress viewed the lunar landing as the end goal. Once it was achieved, they lost interest and cut the funding, giving NASA a mandate to devlop other programs. After Apollo there were plans for Skylab, the shuttle, manned lunar bases and even plans for a Mars landing in the 1980s. By the time congress had finished cutting the funding and reviewing the projects, Skylab went through because it was already half finished, and al the rest except the shuttle were cancelled. Even the shuttle was hit by budget cuts, and ended up being far less than it was originally designed to be.

Whatever technology is available now, if they ain't given the cash to spend they ain't going to the Moon. That's why there was such a big gap after Apollo.

Answer 3

Since most of the folks got it right on the MONEY, I'll just address the others.
The Apollo 18, 19, & 20 missions were canceled, yes. But the ships still flew. 18 was the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program between the US and the Soviets. 19 & 20 went up to SkyLab.

The Gemini & Apollo programs were funded and carried out during the Vietnam War. Which makes Iraq look like nothing!

There is something on the moon that we could use, Helium 3. That is a mineral that could be used to get us to Mars and beyond. This is according to a question and answer session with Alan Shepard, Wally Schirra, Jim Lovell, Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, and Buz Aldrin. All men who are more intimantly familiar with the moon than you or I will ever be.

If you want to discuss the fake moon landing theories, go talk to Buz Aldrin. But you better duck. He's prone to decking people who he thinks are insulting him.

About a year ago (not sure of the time) President Bush and NASA announced plans to return to the moon in about 10 years (the same time frame as before), and use it as a launching base to get to Mars. The space shuttle wasn't designed for that sort of flight. It is a satelite repair truck that flys. As to the glib remark about using 50 year old technologies and equipment. Many of the moon walkers had said that if they had one of today's lap top computers, they could have gone to Mars with no trouble at all. NASA will design new equipment that can carry 12 astronauts. And I would be the proudest father in the world if my daughter, who wants to be an astronaut, could be one of them.

Answer 4

All answers are valid, but here is my take.

There missions planed but not funded, there was a big protest from some quarters about the the amount of money spent and the resources used than can be batter utilised else where so the missions were diverted, or scrapped. USA will have a Post,or a Manned Space station on the moon in near future, and it will be used for deep probing of the space, some day soon.

In the mean time China and India both have their eyes on the Manned Moon Landing in the near future. There were a few unmanned landing made by others also, they are much cheaper and hence more affordable.

Answer 5

These days, people are griping about why we are launching Shuttles into orbit around the Earth. The cost to send someone to the moon is several magnitudes more than a Shuttle mission. American's no longer have the pioneer, can-do spirit that they did in the past. They are content to sit in their homes being fed a steady diet of celebrity gossip that passes as news.

The only way to get people to support another moon mission is to make it a reality show: "America's Next Top Astronaut", "Space House", "Beauty and the NASA Engineer", or some such other drivel.

Answer 6

NASA would REALLY like to do that, but congress won't give them the money, or even permission to use the money they already have for that purpose. Congress canceled the Apollo 18, 19 and 20 missions (those 3 unused space craft are now on display at the Johnson, Marshall and Kennedy space centers), and totally killed the plans NASA had for a permanent Moon base, along with improved Apollo hardware that included a cargo only version of the LM to supply the base. It was all NASA could do to get the Shuttle approved, and only then because they designed it to meet military specifications and got the support of the military to push the funding through congress. The shuttle is so big and expensive because the military wanted a large cargo bay to hold spy satellites and larger wings to increase cross range maneuverability to enable abort back to the launch site after one orbit. Ironically, the military no longer uses the Shuttle at all. It is too expensive and public.

Answer 7

There are many facts that show that it is a hoax and at the sametime many to prove it was right as far I what I have read on the net. With the kind of technology and economic growth i think it was possible to land man on moon again in this 38 years gap. for me this still remains a mystery until I actually see the next mission by the nasa or any other country in this decade .... so keep your fingers crossed ...

Answer 8

Because we dont have the technology anymore, and we barely have money to fund it. Dont forget that we are occupied in Iraq, South Korea, and several other countries. And we have to fund for a number of things at home already, such as paying for working on roads and such. The only rocket we had powerful enough to get to the moon was the Saturn V rocket. Only 3 exist, and all of them are on display in museums. Besides, those rockets are almost 50 years old...do you honestly want to drive a rocket using 50 year old computers and technology?

Answer 9

Because it costs a huge lot of money with no purposeful return on investment. At that time it was an impossible challenge, which was achieved, and the technology spilled over to other useful scientific benifits. No gaps. They could have repeated that anytime after 1969. But repeating it has no specific advantage.It is like asking a Olympic 100 metres winner, " why you are walking now?"

Answer 10

The moon landing was a political event.We went with nothing much more than courage.It was a great political victory over the USSR by the US.We are returning,we really weren't much past slide rules at that point.There was no cover up.It was more a political "mission accomplished" than a real scientific endeavor.The future moon missions will be more scientifically oriented.Our goal wasn't to colonize the moon.Our goal was to get there before the Soviets.