Why didn't NASA send another rocket to moon if they could send one years ago?

Answer 1

Because Congress won't fund it.

Originally, the lunar missions were suspended temporarily because it was hoped the Space Shuttle would make it cheaper to launch lunar missions--so they decided to wait till the Shuttle was completed. However, the Shuttle had major problems--and was never fully funded.

Then, in the 1990s, NASA tried to develop advanced spacecraft. However, when the Republicanstook control ofCongress in 1994, they canceled evry advanced research project on manned spaceflight--and refused to fund any for the 12 years they controlled Congress. The current "replacement "vehicle is really just reconfigured technology from the Shuttle program. The "return to the moon program" was also never funded by the GOP Congress.

So far, the new Congress hasn't gotten to the point of addressing the space program--whe'll just haveto wait and see what they do.

Answer 2

I answered a question similar to this a short while back. I'll give you the same answer here.

The reason that we have not been back to the moon is because the original missions to the moon really had nothing to do with the exploration of the moon. Back in the early 60's, what possible use would the US Government have for going to the moon?

However, at the same time, you might recall, the US was having a little issue with one of its neighbors USSR. The whole Cold War thing. Think of at the time, what other application could launching rockets to predetermined targets might have? That's right! Nuclear missles. Guess how many Apollo missions had an actual scientist on it...1, the last. The first scientist to go to the moon was also the last.

As for will we ever go back to the moon...I kind of doubt it in the forseeable future. People are too ignorant to care about the exploration of the solar system and universe. They are too busy finding out about Lindsey Lohan being arrested again. Unless the private sector takes over, I do not think we are going to see another moon landing for at least 20 years.

Answer 3

We can send veichles and probes to the moon, but then again, they arnt manned by people, and dont need so much funding for the peoples safely, as its just a robot if it fails.

If you mean sending people to the moon,

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 4

Two things: 1. You need a reason to go, and 2. You need to get Congress to fund such a trip.

#1 is obvious, but number 2 is almost near-impossible.

It drives me crazy, how on one hand a person says, "We pay NASA too much!" and on the other, "Why can't they go back to the moon if they did it 40 years ago?"

Answer 5

They sent several years ago. They stopped sending them because the US congress told them to and stopped giving them the money to do it.

NASA can't just do what it wants. It is told what to work on and given money to work on it. If the public and congress say 'don't go to the Moon' NASA can't go to the Moon. Only now they have been given a new mandate for lunar exploration can they seriously start working on it again.

Answer 6

Lack of funding. A trip to the moon isn't just a lark you know. It takes a great deal of money. The current administration is infuriatingly lax when it comes to funding the sciences.

I say let's return to the moon, and don't forget the chicks this time.

Answer 7

There is really nothing there. It is a waste of space exploration money, often funded by the interest paths of major contributors. Terra-forming Mars would be my #1 and would even offer myself as a one way ticket sacrifice to toss seeds near the ice areas, then create explosion within their deepest canyon, to stir up volcanic dust, subsequently warming and melting the ice and since the atmosphere is mostly carbon monoxide the plants would grow rapidly leaving oxygen to breath.

Answer 8

Because we've already been to the moon, we already know what's up there, and we don't need to waste any more freaking money on it. It's bad enough Bush is throwing billions at Iraq, we don't need him throwing billions at the moon, too.

Answer 9

Budget and motivation. Other priorities.

Answer 10

Good question need to answer by people who sent there