Why we have never gone back on the moon?

Answer 1

Because going to the moon was a government program,
and not driven by market forces.

Once the government went there (for political and military reasons), there was not much benefit in doing it again. (In fact, they cut out the last few planned missions.)

However, the government also threatened to stop any commercial missions, and nobody was going to risk money investing in a profit-making scheme when there is a very great risk that the government will stop them. Contrary to popular opinion, there IS great value that can be obtained from the moon (if only the government didn't stand in the way).

Personally, I've been extremely disappointed that three decades have already passed the last of the dozen men walked on the moon. With the Soviet Union long gone, there's no excuse for the U.S. government continuing to block private ventures. The returns could be very great, including valuable minerals, energy production, communications, manufacturing, etc. and even agriculture! (See below.)

For an excellent description of how exploitation of the moon could greatly benefit the people of Earth, read Robert Heinlein's novel, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". In it, he describes a future world where a self-sustaining moon colony produces most of the food to feed the Earth! Heinlein (a former engineer) worked out all the details, and spells them out nicely in the book. Here are a few points:

* Huh? No dirt and air on the moon for plants to grow?
Think again: most of the moon's rocks are oxides; all you need is seeds, and some chemicals to start the process up.

* Plants will need CO2, which animals and people breathe out; the waste product of plants is Oxygen.

* Then, there's energy.
Without an atmosphere, there's lots of Solar power, 24 hours a day, two weeks at a stretch -- that's enough growing time to produce a new crops each month!

* Transportation?
Getting DOWN is easy. Just catapult off the surface at 1/6 G, then ride down the gravity well. Stopping is a bit of a problem, but it's not too hard to go into orbit, then shuttle or drop then food packages down.

* People to run things.
Oh, I forgot to mention, Luna began as a penal colony (like Australia). By the time of the book's setting, it's become a prosperous agricultural colony -- which wants to become independent. (I won't spoil the plot, except to say that the little guy has some advantages being up there at the top of the hill.)

..

Answer 2

Simple answer.

We never went there in the first place.

There is a lot evidence out there to prove we did not land on the Moon.I believe WE DID NOT.
Not all the evidence is fact yet but it will.Some day!

For you believers think about this:

Simple: If we can see a 6 foot diameter creater on the Moon with good Earth telescope,why can't we see the remains of Apollo 11's lunar craft on the surface of the Moon and it's certainly bigger than 6 foot.Hint: It landed on the side that faces the Earth.

Complicated:How did they put a footprint on the lunar surface soil without any moisture to bond the particals of soil together?There is no atmospere.Very little gravity.No water.Then how was a footprint made on dry soil.Impossible!Think this one over real good.

We do not have the technology to reach the Moon or Mars either.

Our government has faked us out for sure.And that will NOT BE the LAST.

Answer 3

Because no one wants to fund it, and there isn't enough public interest in it. There is still tons of research to be done on the Moon, but without the money and the will, it will never happen. When the US Congress saw how few people watched the later Moon landings, they cancelled the rest of the program.

We're just lucky that they let Apollo 17 go ahead, as that was the ONLY expedition which had a professional scientist aboard, and the only mission which produced abundant serious scientific results.

Answer 4

Why should we? It was a giant publicity stunt during the cold war, wrapped up in a suit of scientific respectiblity.
Our moon is a big, worthless mass of barren rock. It would cost many billions to go there, and for what? Do we need more rocks? I've spent some time in Turkey, and if you need rocks, Eastern Turkey has lots, and it wont cost you a king's ransom to go and get them. If you asked politely, I'm guessing they would give you all you wanted for free.
We allowed the infrastructure that got us to the moon in the first place to rust, the tools were destroyed, and the people who accomplished the task have largely grown old and died without passing their knowledge to a new generation. The institutional memory is largely gone.
Yes there is TALK about going to the moon again, and some money has been laid out for plans, but by and large this is POLITICAL noise. Defense contractors are being given lots of money for their support of the president in the guise of space travel research. I have serious doubts whether the moon will be revisited, at least by Americans. I'm betting the Chinese might do it to score some propaganda points.

Answer 5

Pretty much a total lack of economic incentive. Unless someone discovers gold (or something equally valuable) the Moon will probably never be more than a scientific outpost (if that). It's just too expensive to put a 'moon base' there, and would have no ROI (return on investment) other than scientific knowledge about its geology.

Doug

Answer 6

Nasa is about to reinstate the Moon Program, and by 2020 we will have the first moon walk since the 1960's. They are also trying to put the first ecosystem, on the moon. It will probably be a bubble where the astronauts breathe through it, but the thing is they do not have the funding, and it is still on the drawing board.





[e-mail]

Answer 7

A combination of factors:

1: It costs a great deal of money.

2: NASA is funded by taxpayers and mandated by US congress to do certain things.

3: Taxpayers don't like to see their money spent on anything that doesn't have immediately obvious benefits.

4: Going to the Moon appears to offer no immediate benefit to the average taxpayer (having already given them the feeling of superiority over communicst Russia that the first landing was supposed to provide), therefore they don't want to see their money spent on it.

5: No US congressman is going to fund a program the voters don't want the money spent on (not if he wants to get re-elected, anyway).

6: Therefore, since going to the Moon isn't a clear benefit to anyone, taxpayers don't want to fund it, and the congressmen don't want to tick off the people who voted them in, so NASA isn't given the money or the mandate to send men to the Moon. Ergo no-one goes to the Moon.

However, NASA is now embarking on a new, more spread-out lunar program. Hopefully they will get to finish it before the plug gets pulled.

Answer 8

Because it costs too much money and nobody cares. Evidence that nobody cares is the small audience at the newly released documentary about the Apollo program, "In the Shadow of the Moon". See the movie and prove me wrong!

(EDIT)
And nobody even knows the facts! The guy above me thinks it was 2 guys for 3 hours! It was NINE FLIGHTS over a period of 4 years, SIX LANDINGS, 12 men walking, and 3 cars driving on the moon! People today just have no clue how big a deal it was!
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

Answer 9

Question # 17, Occurrance 1148

It is a question of Cost versus Benefit.
It will cost billions of dollars to mount another Lunar Expedition. What Benefit would such a mission provide?
Just a fun ride?

Answer 10

In my opinion, Vietnam and then the politcs of war and such took the focus from space exploration to conquering this planet. It probably won't resume until people quit fighting with each other.