Why will it take NASA so long ,until 2019 to land on the moon? Again?

Question

This would be 50 years since it was done with the first Appolo landing. Do you think that the first landing might have been fabricated during the cold war just to pump up the moral of the American people? To take 50 years to return with all the advances in technology seems suspicious to me. What is your opinion?

Answer 1

Apparently there was no reason to collect more rock samples. Most experiments that are conducted, need to be done in weightless conditions. This would not be possible on the Lunar surface. Conducting these experiments in the ISS has been ideal.

Lunar moonbases are only being constructed as a jump off point to explore Mars.

There is absolutely no reason to infer a Lunar landing hoax from this. Hoax theories are fabricated by those with a limited understanding of space exploration technology and funding.

Answer 2

If they even do it that soon!

It is because Congress will not give them enough money and not allow them to spend the money they already have on lunar missions. Even back in 1972, after the 6 successful landings of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, there were supposed to be 3 more Apollo missions. And NASA had big plans for an ongoing program with improved Apollo hardware and a Moon base. But congress cut the funding and Apollo 18, 19 and 20 were canceled, even though the space craft and Saturn rockets had already been built! Those rockets and space craft are now on display at the Marshall, Johnson and Kennedy space centers.

Answer 3

sure, Apollo 11 (and 5 later missions) did flow to the moon. NASA has the technologies to rreturn to the moon. What they have not got is the money. A (short) historic previous: following the Apollo programa determination replaced into made to enhance a complicated launch spacraft--the return and forth. the belief replaced into to have a fee-valuable and sturdy spacecraft, improve and build an enduring area station. With that, safer and greater interior of your skill journeys to the moon could be achievable--eventulally a lunar base and journeys to Mars. Congress does not fund the layout counseled by NASA--quite investment a "el cheapo" R&D software. And have been given what they paid for. by using fact the "Republican revolution"--1994-2006--the GOP has many times gutted NASA budgets, has canceled each more desirable spacecraft project NASA had or has tried to initiate. this present day, Bush's "return to the moon software" is organic propaganda--there is as yet no investment for an extremely software. The chinese language, on the different hand, do have a nicely-funded lunar software that is making sturdy headway on springing up a lunar-in a position spacecraft. isn't outsourcing remarkable?

Answer 4

Because NASA just invested in a new space ship technology that will take some time to build. They just contracted Lockheed Martin to build the Orion Space Ship. It's a space ship similar to that of Apollo. During the many years it takes to build, test, and then qualify the ship, you need to send it on a few space missions before sending it to the moon. All of this takes time, even with good technology. It can be argued that if it takes so long, why not just used what we have? NASA would prefer to use the new technology rather than the current due to tile and foam failures on every launch.

Answer 5

indeed it would be 50 years since the first landing, and I think they did this on purpose. the first landing was not fabricated. look closely at the video, and you see how fine the moon dust is, and also you notice that instead of billowing up wherever disturbed, it rises and falls in perfect parabolic arcs. this could only take place in a vacuum, and we don't even have the technology TODAY, let alone almost 40 years ago, to make a studio with complete vacuum.

of course we could have been to the moon again. but why? no gold, no silver, no granite, no minerals of any kind, no water, no oxygen even, and no life. nothing but rocks! trust me, Earth has plenty of rocks, and we aren't about to run out.

also, it would be tremendously expensive to build anything on the moon, and the only reason for it would be to say we did. also, we would have a bit of trouble keeping air from escaping through the ground to the outside, so we would have to dig. it would just be a living hell.

anyways, there you have proof of landing, a reason for not goign back, and also my opinion =) I call that a bargain.

Answer 6

What "advances" are you referring to? Last time I checked, F=GMm/d^2 is still in effect.

So computers have gotten smaller. Big deal. That means the computer on the next moon lander will weigh 1/8 oz. instead of 8 oz. Wow.

People haven't gotten any smaller. Liquid oxygen hasn't gotten any lighter either. The three things that make launching a vehicle from Earth difficult are:
1. weight
2. weight
3. weight.

Technology has advanced in many areas in the last half century, but the things that make going to the Moon tricky haven't changed.

Answer 7

Do you know why? Because first NASA gotta find a way to plant some foot prints on the moon and drop an American flag there so when they finally go back, they can said "Voila! The flag and footprints from the Apollo 12!"

Answer 8

well one reason is because it was originally schedule for 2014, instead of 2019, but NASA got cut off some of their money from the government, so it takes them that extra five years to get the money they need for the ship....and besides that it takes time to test the ship and make sure it won't blow up or go flying out into space or something...and those experiments take time

Answer 9

I think it has to do more with the funding they get they currently have other projects in progress trying to explore mars and upkeeping the international space station that the money they have coming to them in the next few years is already spent on these projects so they need to plan well in advance for new explorations

Answer 10

We went to the Moon, and found out that we were not welcome.

Go to google video and search: Karl Wolf Moon Base

or The Disclosure Project