Why hasn't man been back to the moon?

Question

It's been over 30 years.

Answer 1

There is no oil there

Answer 2

Plans are well under way for man to go back to the moon to build a base to proceed to the planet mars,, this will be happening by the year 2012 if my memorie serves me right,,

Answer 3

We have been back...at least remotely...and with the world gearing-up militarily, it might prove vital as a vantage point in the unforeseen future. There's a lot of working equipment up there that the general public is unaware of. And just as conspiracy theorists contend that we never went in the first place, who's to say that we haven't gone back since? If we haven't actually landed men on the moon again, it's probably because of the attention directed to the International Space Station, Mars and beyond...

Update: Man, this is a tough crowd...

Answer 4

Looking at some of the answers to this question, I see that the conspiracy fools are out in force today.

NASA's budget is a small fraction of what it was during the Cold War. Consequently, it has to prioritize its spending. Sending people to the Moon is monumentally expensive, and unmanned exploration is far more cost-effective and safer.

Let's follow the logic of the conspiracy fools for a minute. I went to California a few years ago, but I haven't been back since then. Since I haven't returned to California, does that mean I never went in the first place? Of course not.

Go ahead conspiracy theorists, give me a thumbs down for thinking rationally and logically!

Answer 5

On the first mission the astronauts failed to mention (until they returned) that they were seeing flashes in their vision. These flashes were micro meteors perhaps the size of single protons passing through their craft, their bodies and to be notice their eyes. Also NASA timed missions according to low activity periods int he Sun. Human kind has not been back to the moon because the flag fluttered. (Solar Wind) It may be true that they have been quite on this because an agency being given so much money is expected to have all the answers. The answer is that life to survive any were requires protect of a magnetic field. Our Earth has one, the moon does not. The rocket that took they did not either. Apollo 13 Oxygen tank exploded may have been caused by solar ejecta, or perhaps they destroyed their own tank like a child that smashes dishes in order to avoid washing up. Any one thing IS clear to travel in space one requires the protection of a magnetic field. elections create a magnetic field as they travel through a wire, but what is a electron? I define a election as a point of no mass. Anyway if we are to travel successfully trough space we should be answering the question, why is it that helium balloons float? Gyroscopes offer a tantalising look into a thing called frame referencing or a way of holding postion, given if it is big enough. The trick will be to build an engine out of them. Why has't man man been back to the moon? In short. People can not live in space, some don't trust even others around them and we are too busy getting the better of each other with the idea of money.

Answer 6

In a word, MONEY.

It costs a lot of money to go to the moon. Nobody wants to spend the money for us to go back.

The reason we went the first time was for bragging rights... to be the first.

The subsequent missions were scientific. While there might more we can learn about the Moon, people seem to figure a few hundred pounds of rocks should be enough to satisfy anybody.

The Moon's too inhospitable to colonize, so that's out. It also precludes mining or any other long term occupation.

Answer 7

There is only a limited amount of money available and so it is a question of priorities. After going to the moon (in order to win the "space race" and little else) attention turned to more cost -effective projects like Skylab and the International Space Station, and a lot of work using unmanned craft. However, the emphasis is shifting back now to revisiting the moon and launching a manned expedition to Mars. Interestingly, the technology to be used for these projects is similar in principle to the technology used in the 60s to put men on the moon!

Answer 8

Quite frankly it is an issue of Cost Versus Rewards.

What kind of mission to the Moon could possibly be worth 50 or 100 Billion Dollars US? What is there that would be worth that amount of money?

Right now the USA is experiencing its largest moment of National Debt because it is fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan plus assisting about twenty other nations with their military agendas. So the USA is rather economically "busy."

However, several other countries have recently announced that they will begin to test their scientific capabilities by launching missions to fly around and even land on the Moon in the near future. So, when they do so, they will have proven the sophistication of their rocket science to the world.

Until then, possibly you should consider for a moment if it is worthwhile to spend those billions of dollars while we have millions of people here on the Earth who are starving, and more millions of people who live in societies where repression of fundamental human rights is prominant.

Answer 9

Simple answer: because it's very expensive, NASA is funded by the US taxpayer, and the US taxpayer doesn't want his taxes spent on sending men to the Moon, or on anything that doesn't provide obvious immediate tangible benefits to himself or human kind (check out the frequency with which the question 'can't the billions spent on space be spent on poverty and disease instead of being wasted?' turns up on this site). Selfish and immature, but that's the way it goes.

Answer 10

Hello Bogmonster,

To put it simply, has been thought to be too expensive.

Man has been already and the US have thought in the past that it costs too much to return.

However, I believe the US are seriously considering changing their policy and going back.

Of course the conspiracy theorists have always believed that the flights to the moon by the US never actually happened.

I don't subscribe to that theory personally.

Poseidon

Answer 11

The public lost interest.