If mankind has landed on the moon in 1969, how come there is no other moon-landing mission for nearly 40 years

Question

What was the problems? Was the moon-landing in 1969 a big lie?

Answer 1

it was real, idiot... u think that its cheap... give nasa $50 billion and 4000 gallons of extra gas you have hidden, and then you will see another space trip to the moon again...

Answer 2

been there done that. like SIX times. 1969 -1972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_landi...

there's not much there and is too expensive to send people to bounce around a pretty dull moon.

on one hand you could go to the moon over and over and over, or on the other hand you can spend the money investigating mars, the sun, titan, saturn, jupiter, and mercury...

which do you think sounds better?

BUT bush already stated that in 2020 the US WILL establish a lunar base.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

China has released similar statements

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/chirbas...

along with Russia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...

so by 2028 there should be 3 lunar bases established to create a launch site for transit ships to mars.

nowdays, with the confirmation of ice found on mars, this is becoming worth every penny to make a manned trip to the red planet.........

and thusly

......the entire lunar base experiments will be to practice living in a dangerous and remote area for an EXTENDED period of time, so that when they DO get to mars, they'll have learned alot from living on the moon.... and they can easily recreate the living situation.

THAT......... IS WORTH BILLIONS

ha! a thumbs down...... someone's ignorance is showing

Answer 3

There is just no compelling reason to go there again, at least not one so compelling as to justify the enormous cost. We went there before because nobody had, and someone had to, for the same reason that people climb Everest - because it is there. We'll go again, one day, but not until a way is found to keep costs down.

Answer 4

Ok do your research. We landed on the moon a total of 6 times the last of which was in 1972. as I have said before we did it more than once. It was real. we were in the Cold War so if we did fake it the USSR would have know right away and would have said somthing. as they said nothing this proves with out a doubt that we did land on the moon.

Answer 5

No, the moon landing was not a lie and we really did land on the moon. Albeit, we did so more  because of the "just because" rather than for legitimate scientific reasons... And that's the reason we haven't returned -- we wouldn't gain any significantly important new knowledge by going back, so why waste billions on it?

Goto BadAstronomy.com if you don't believe we landed on the moon, there's a lengthy explanation of why all the conspiracy theorists who say we didn't are really idiots.

Answer 6

The simple answer: politics.  

Politics - from the Greek poly meaning many and ticks meaning bloodsucking parasties.  Politics can kill anything given enough time and its direction changes more rapidly than the wind.

  So, around 1970 or so, the prevailing political mindset was been there done that not exciting anymore, got a war to get out of in Vietnam and cancelled several planned missions.  The final people to walk and drive around on the Moon left it December 14, 1972 on the Apollo 17 mission. The political mindset of the subsequent 3 decades never thought about going back, and therefore, we haven't been back.  Idiot politicians.

Answer 7

President Nixon. a Republican, began to cut NASA funding in 1968, the year before the first mission.  The Apollo program was a Democrat project. Seven missions went ahead because the equipment had been built and the people had been employed and trained. One had an accident and did not land on the Moon but the astronauts returned safely.

Later the program came to an end because the US public lost interest, when that happened, funding dried up still further and NASA could not afford to send any more. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

This site is devoted to the mostly Australian men and women at the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station in Australia which received some of the Apollo transmissions. You can hear one man talking directly to the astronauts on the Moon.

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/...........

See also these YouTube clips

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ex7ukh3_xua.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v2ufmzg-bis.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=khp82n-2lh0.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=exjofca4dfa.....

There is no worthwhile evidence that the Apollo missions were frauds.

Answer 8

1969? a LIE? ..oh sorry you must've been kidding.

First of all, money money money. If they can't make any money off of it, they aren't going to go there. It's all about the Benjamins...

There are IN FACT private companies working on developing a lunar capability. But NASA willl likely be back on the moon before they are able to. What isn't clear at this point is if another country (most likely China) will beat the US back to the moon.

The reason is that the political will to return to the moon isn't there. The lunar missions were originally halted with the expectation that the Space Shuttle would serve as a launch vehicle for a new geeration of safer, better lunar spacecraft. However, the problems with the Shuttle effectively eliminated that as a possibility. Throught the 1990s and into 2003, NASA has tried repeatedly to get funding for an advanced spacecraft that can do what the job (and a lot more). But since 1993, every such program has been canceled and NASA's budget cut year after year.

The current situation is this: there is a plan on paper to return to the moon by 2020. However, at this point that plan, proposed by Bush and the Republican congress in 2003/4, is meaningless. It has no funding except for some preliminary studies--and there is no effort on the part of either party to remedy the situation.

The good news (more or less) is that in a few years Washington is going to wake up one morning and get slapped in the face with the fact that there is ALREADY a new "space race" underway, with several countries working to exploit the economic potential of space travel. Sooner or later of them is going to do something that will upstage the US in a big way--just as happened iin 1957 when the USSR orbited Sputnik. At which point they politicians (and NASA) will be very righteous about getting busy and "keeping America first in space" or some other equally nauseating slogan. But at least then things will start moving again. Sigh...

Answer 9

We never went there because the "aliens" who live on the Moon don't what us snooping around their territory !

Answer 10

nasa lost funds and the gov't lost intrest.

Answer 11

It took a very unusual and (For us space fans) fortunate collection of events to make Apollo happen and succeed. One, the Soviets were ahead in early space firsts, including, in April 1961, the first human in orbit. Given that the popular effect of space firsts' had caught everyone by surprise, this was a new thorn in the US' side. That same month, the US' international standing took a hit with the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Thus, JFK needed an issue that fit in with all that, where he could make a statement that the US was going, as they say in the poker world, all in. Space was the place, beating the USSR was the primary Cold War goal, so beating them to the Moon was a natural fit. It might never have happened without those specific motives and catalysing events.

So, a new infrastructure had to be built to accomplish all that.

From new facilities at the Cape, new rockets, spacecraft and engines, etc. All that cost money, especially since time wasn't in great supply. Once the goal had been met, on Apollo 11, national support for Apollo waned, especially as the Vietnam War was taking a lot of time, attention, and money at the same time.

So, after the first landing, budget cuts ended the program early (At Apollo 17, the program was supposed to to Apollo 20, and hardware had been ordered, built and paid for to that point), and shifted manned spaceflight to what was supposed to be a cheaper method, which would only go to Earth orbit.

Had NASA been given the money, they could have kept flying to the Moon and developed more advanced craft and bases.

As the old saying goes "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".  

The nutbars who claim that Apollo was faked are, well, morons, whose idiocies have been rebutted frequently.

Answer 12

maybe so.  on the other hand, it costs so enormously much and there's not much there anyways,  --- and actually there were other landings including one with a moon car too, the fore-runner of the un-manned vehicles currently used on other missions including the robot/vehicles we sent to mars.  Sending people is extremely expensive and dangerous, and unnecessary if you can do the same research without actually sending people.