If we ever landed on the moon, wouldn't it be much easier to get back there?

Question

But it seems that since Bush made the determination for us to get back to the moon, he says it's going to take 10 years to do this.

Doesn't this support the theory that we never made it there in the first place?...

I recall as a child when we supposedly landed on the moon, and in my mind I recall the supposed film clip of the lunar module landing and take off and remember thinking to myself that it looked fake.

Never in my wildest dreams at that time did I think we didn't actually land there.... I just remember thinking how fake it looked...

Now many years later there is significant evidence that we were never there...and if we were, how come it's taking so long to get back to somewhere we've already been... We obviosly have better technology and craft, so why is it so hard to do this, if we ever really did it at all?...

Answer 1

"We obviously have better technology and craft"?  Point us to a rocket capable of a manned mission to the Moon.  

You are wrong in assuming that technology always improves.

Answer 2

Please present the "significant evidence" you have that indicates we never went to the moon.  

I think, personally, that it only taking ten years to get back to the moon is amazingly fast, especially considering that for 20 years I worked in a government building that was condemned and every year when it came to budget we got told it would take another ten to fourteen years to replace the building.  

You obviously have NO experience with government bueracracy and red tape.  

~edit~  

PS - I apologize for the rude behavior of CJ and Andre (above).  Andre made some valid points, but I don't see the reason for people to be insulting on here.  It's just a question and answer forum, and the whole point of it is asking and answering questions.  If everyone already knew the answers, this forum wouldn't exist.  Insulting other people only makes the person doing the insulting look bad.

Answer 3

Somebody once said to Winston Churchill - "It takes all sorts, to make a world".    His reply was "No.  There just are all sorts".   This applies to cranks who like to believe that the moon landings didn't occur, that nothing in particular happened to the Jews in Europe during World War II, that the planes that flew into the World Trade towers merely set off a hundred stories of buildings that had already been drilled and connected up with 10,000 demolition charges, and that there is considerable scientific evidence that the earth is six thousand years old.

The moon landings program was stopped before it was planned to do so, because of the phenomenal cost, and the questionable scientific point in continuing a manned space program to the moon.  It was always a political decision, largely aimed at establishing the poor  relative scientific and technological status of the Soviet Bloc.   The American economy is now in a position where a national expenditure on the same scale is not possible, and any space program would have to be done with proportionally far less resources dedicated to the task.  The political will is not there to dump the cost of a similar project to the Apollo rockets on to the American tax payer.  For similar reasons there was a big drive in the eighties on behalf of both the US and Soviet union to reduce the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles each side was maintaining - rockets cost a lot of money.  The moon landings were a national effort similar to the Manhattan project, and nothing short of  a national emergency could cause anything similar again.   NASA will have to run on the cheap, and I suspect the talk of manned missions to Mars and the Moon will remain just that,  (at least for the United States.)   Other countries such as China might try a moon landing for reasons of prestige.

Answer 4

It would be easier and faster if we

- could spend the same money we did back then

- just wanted to go back for a quick visit

Neither of this applies.

Answer 5

if you look at the dates, it took the better part of 10 years in the 1960s, from 25 may 1961 ("i believe this nation should commit itself...") to 20 july 1969 ("the eagle has landed"). that was the height of the cold war, with all available resources applied to the project, and broad public and political support. it's not like that now.

there is no "theory" that ppl never landed on the moon. idiocy, gross stupidity, abysmal scientific ignorance, yes. theories, no.

please go away and learn something before you embarrass yourself further.

Answer 6

we have landed there and yes it was easier to get back since lunar gravity is about one sixth that of earth it was much easier to leave the moon than to leave the earth.

Answer 7

To add to Andre L:

On one of the last Apollo missions, we left equipment on the moon to gather data.  That equipment allows us to measure the distance from Earth to the moon. We're still using that equipment today.  (It's one of the reasons we know exactly how far the moon is travelling from the Earth each day).

The fact that we have measuring equipment on the moon and have been using it the past 40 years is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that we landed on the moon.

Answer 8

Boy, is this one massively ignorant "question".

First of all, in the 60s there was the national will and MONEY to make getting to the Moon a top national priority. None of that applies to now, even to Bush's plan, which is limping though Congress.

Your statement of "doesn't this support... we never made it in the first place" is also retarded: The only two supersonic passenger aircraft have been retired with no replacements, does that now also mean that the Concorde and the Soviet TU-144 also never existed ?

What you recall as an ignorant child is irrelevant; The facts do show that all of the 6 Moon landings were real. Are you seriously suggesting that YOU as a child are a better expert on astronautics than actual experts ? Thats pretty damned arrogant of you...

It looked DIFFERENT from the Earth for a host of reasons; 1/6th the gravity, no atmosphere, no objects there to give scale at distances, and so on.

And, no, on this matter, we do NOT have "obviosly have better technology and craft", since the Shuttle was designed to fly to low Earth orbit ONLY. If it were loaded with a payload to send to the Moon, it would have LESS capacity than a Saturn V rocket, that WAS specifically designed to send payloads to the Moon could.

If you want 60s type results, you have to provide 60s type resources. The Apollo project multiplied the then NASA's size and resources, so that, with all that added engineering talent and money to spend on it, and what they created, it was possible to build a large new capability. These days, neither condition applies, so, without money and talent, you don't get any major expansion of abilities.