Why is it going to take NASA until 2018 to send a man to the moon if we already did it almost 40 years ago?

Answer 1

Apollo was a staggeringly complex and expensive program. NASA's new program is intended to make the trip much more reliably and far, far cheaper than Apollo. The ONLY reason Apollo worked — according to senior NASA engineers — is because 110,000 engineers and technicians all decided, "if something is going wrong with this mission it will not be with MY part of the project!" And even with the spectacular level of dedication and quality control, three Apollo astronauts were killed in a launch pad fire in 1967 in Apollo 1, and three more almost perished after an oxygen tank exploded on Apollo 13.

Answer 2

Remember also that Apollo was designed for nothing more than to prove it could be done. The astronauts spent no more than a few hours on the moon's surface, and by-the-by they did what could be fitted in.

Since then, there has been no particular need to go back. We know basically what's there, and while I personally think it should have been continued, I know little of the huge costs involved. Remember, it was billions of dollars to get two blokes there for a few hours, in perilously dangerous conditions.

All the developments in space habitat technology since then have been aimed at making it possible to live in extra-terrestrial environments, so we're getting there. There's just no point in going back until we know we can do everything we need.

Answer 3

Much depends on the scope of the mission and the number of people involved. In 1969, we sent three people at a time for three days with (after a few shots), a moon rover and some small-volume experimental or PR items. Second, the 1969 effort had high priority in the budget and with NASA due to President Kennedy's support.

Answer 4

Lack of funding and interest. Lack of funding has led NASA to focus on less expensive yet equally important unmanned probes to explore our Solar System. Important research has been conducted in the weightless conditions aboard the space station. The return to the Moon is to construct moonbases by 2024 as a jump-off point in preparation for manned missions to explore Mars.

The current delay has to do with the aging shuttle fleet which will need to be replaced with more modern spacecraft. It takes time to design and test such rockets. The end will be worth the wait as they will prove to be safer, cheaper, and much easier than the old Apollo rockets.

Answer 5

Yes, it has been canceled. There is no approved and funded plan to land men on the Moon again. But I am hopeful that after commercial space companies like SpaceX start flying cargo and people to the space station that the cost will come down enough that NASA will be able to afford to go for the Moon again, if congress approves it.

Answer 6

Apollo was highly experimental in nature. The project was accomplished but was done on the cutting edge of the technology of the day. The Orion project will lead to a permanent presence on the Moon and will not be limited to the 10 lunar missions that were originally planned for Apollo.
.

Answer 7

The first landing was pride of achievement.
The second was for scientific purposes
A current one would be low priority unless some major information could be expected.
Mars is next.

Answer 8

money money money, back at the time of Apollo nasa was given a blank check and told to go to the moon.

today they don't have that option. they have to make do with a shrinking budget and lagging interest.

if they had the money they did back in the day they could go back to the moon quicker most likely.

Answer 9

They have to figure out a newer, more complicated way to do it to show everybody that the USA is still in the tech loop.
Seriously, though...
They want to set up a semi-permanent space station there to mine water to make hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel, and we'll use the site as a refueling station for interplanetary travel. (No, I'm not making this up. I saw it on a program last night on the Science Channel...)

Answer 10

Most big projects in this day and age are mostly cash transfers from the treasury to the large scale businesses that own the politicians. These businesses like to be at the treasury trough for a long time.