Why haven't "they" been to the moon again?

Question

I heard there's a Russian mission planned 2025. Why are people not constantly going back and forth if it was possible 40 years ago?

Answer 1

Going to the Moon is not the goal. The goal is the exploration and exploitation of the minerals and energy of the solar system.

We are at the beginning of the space era. We don't have the power to go out and build large structures in space.

When the technology exists that enables humanity to use the resources of the solar system, then a base on the Moon will be worthwhile. Until then, it is just not worth it.

;-D Maybe someday people will order a rainstorm, and the space weather corp. will drop frozen chunks of dwarf planet down on them. Instant rain!

Answer 2

The fundamental reason is going directly to the moon first thing was not a wise thing to do. The problem had been studied since the 1920-1930's (Willy Ley, Hermann Oberth).
The young Wernher von Braun read their books and planned actual missions.

It was clear that first you needed a permanent space station of sufficient size to support heavy construction. Then you could build a suitable spacecraft in earth orbit for multiple round trips to the moon. Then you would have adequate resupply capability to build and maintain a moonbase. Once you had that, missions to the planets could be planned and staged. The moon would become the main source of materials (it is 50% oxygen, with the rest aluminum, magnesium, and titanium). Even in earth orbit, it would be far cheaper to get the raw materials there, due to the weaker gravity (which equals less fuel and lower costs). Gerard O'Neill carried forward and refined their ideas into a workable plan to colonize the solar system. John Kennedy's short sided decision to make reaching the moon into a race with the Russians doomed the space programs of both countriesin terms of any lasting success. They are just now starting to recover. It was fantasically expensive compared to the scientists plans, and preordained to be a one shot deal.

Answer 3

Three comments.

First, the answer to your question can be answered in a single character: "$". In short, they were cutting the NASA budget even before the Apollo program ended (in fact the cutting started before the first landing). Being the first to the moon was a national priority ... continuing the enormous expense just to bring back more rocks has taken a backseat to senators building bridges in Alaska that go nowhere.

Second, I see you put "they" in quotes ... that is classic conspiracy theorist. Don't go there. It's a one-way ticket to gullibility to the point of ridicule.

Third, as soon as the moon-hoax believers realize that their belief system will make the Russians the first to the moon ... blind patriotism will override conspiracy paranoia ... "they" will become "we" ... and suddenly all this moon-landing-hoax rubbish will die down.

Answer 4

40 years ago,we were in a "space race" with our arch enemies,the Soviet Union.We were learning "duck and cover" in school,always wary of nuclear war.To be the first on the moon,after not being first in space was a huge political victory.We went with not much more than slide rules and courage.I doubt the Apollo missions would even be considered safe enough to fly today,we had to get to the moon first.After that victory,we finished the Apollo series and came back and reconsidered our position.The landings were never about anything other than being there before the Soviets.

Answer 5

NASA is funded by US congress. US Congress gets money from the taxpayer. Going to the Moon is hideously expensive ($24billion in 1970 dollars was the overall cost of Apollo). If the public doesn't want its money spent on going to the Moon, congress doesn't approve funding and NASA can't do it any more. The budget for Apollo was being cut even before the first manned flight took place in 1967, never mind the first landing.

Answer 6

Economics. People figured it just wasn't worth it. You see, for the United States (the only nation that ever landed people on the Moon), the real goal was not to make space exploration easy and accessible to everyone, but rather to ensure that space exploration remained difficult and expensive so that only they could do it. The space shuttle design is a clear result of this rather corrupt and selfish goal, and the failure to return to the Moon was most likely another effect of it. Luckily, with private corporations looking into building their own spaceships these days, the government is going to have to clean up its act if it wants to stay ahead.

Answer 7

Money. In the US, space exploration budgets have been cut steadily by the government since the 1970's and the Russians gave up when the Americans landed there first and then when the old USSR collapsed they didn't have the money or resources..

Answer 8

Mostly because of money. Congress cut funding to the Apollo program, which reduced the landing missions from 10 down to just 7. (and, one of those never landed.)

If NASA had the orders (and funding) to continue (like they should've...) we'd have had a base up there now.

Answer 9

The Man in the Moon told them not to come back

Answer 10

because we got board with the moon , get with the seen babe it's all about Mars now. we got to go big BABY if were ganna win the space race.







(hint: that was a joke)