Why havent we gone back to the moon to apply the much?

Question

more advanced technoly we have aquired, for further reasearch of the moon

Answer 1

main reasons:

1. Too expensive.

2. We already went there 6 times.

3. We did everything we needed to do.

4. Too dangerous.

5. Money is better spent towards Mars landings, or Europa landings.

The only possible reason we would go back to the moon is for a scientific colony, and even then I am doubtful.  

Answer 2

Congress thinks that killing Iraqis is a more worthwhile expenditure than space research.

Answer 3

Can't justify the expense for studying a dead rock.  I, personally, believe further exploration is worth it just for the secondary advances that it would produce (for example, we got velcro from the space program).  I want to live on a moon-base for a few years before I die!

If there was a way to make money going into space, or to the moon, then there would be a push by private enterprises to do so.  But until oil is discovered out there, it is hard for government officials to justify spending billions on the moon when back on earth folks are suffering economically.

Answer 4

Very simple: lack of money. Congress cut NASA's funding after the sixth lunar landing in 1972 because the public seemed to have lost interest in the Moon and the "space race" with the Soviet Union had been won. It was tragically bad timing, because Apollo 17 in 1972 was the _first_ Apollo voyage to have a trained scientist, Harrison Schmitt, on board, and was supposed to be the first of three scientific expeditions.

More was learned about the Moon and its history in that voyage than in the previous 5 put together, and much more would have been learned if the two next voyages had been funded. Instead the US space program was redirected into the boondoggle of the shuttle and space station programs, neither of which has made much contribution to science.

Answer 5

Costs lotsa $$$$$$

Answer 6

Because it's too expensive.

Answer 7

The lack of public interest on the one hand, and the lack of sufficient return on private investment on the other.

A lot of what we would like to do on the Moon requires long-term habitation and a more robust infrastructure.  While our technology in some areas has increased dramatically since the 1970s, our technology for getting to, and surviving on, other planets has not.  We simply haven't needed to develop it any further until recently.

Answer 8

It takes a lot of rocket to get to the Moon and such big rockets are not now being built.  Just because you can get a spacecraft into orbit does not mean it can get to the Moon in a reasonable time.

Your spacecraft has to get out of orbit and head for the Moon.  This takes a lot of speed.  Trouble is then that you have to slow down a lot so that the Moon's weaker gravity can grab the spacecraft.  Slowing down takes fuel, and then you have to have the fuel for a return.  If you put people in the spacecraft it just makes things more complicated.

Computer technology etc is not much help with this, it's actually mechanical engineering and it is not an area where technology has advanced a tremendous amount.

On the Moon improved instruments of one kind or another might now give better results, but there is little indication that the analyses of rocks brought back from there would be any better.   What else could improve?  Surveys of the Moon's gravity or magnetic fields?  A lot of that can be done from low orbit, same with taking photographs in any kind of wavelength you like.  

While there have been some landers and probes scientists generally have lost interest in the Moon.  It is basically a big round rock pile and places like Mars which have water and an atmosphere are a lot more interesting.  

Answer 9

Our next mission to the moon will likely be aimed at creating a base there we could use as a starting point for more ambitious missions.  The economics and the "been there done that" mentality of the taxpayers who ultimately support the mission are the reasons why we haven't returned recently.

Answer 10

1. Costs. No bucks, no buck rogers.

2. NASA. NASA engineers have the problem, that they have a NASA manager sitting in their back each, shouting and complaining about engineering work. If you would task NASA to design a bicycle, the engineers would be forced by the managers to make the bicycle able to carry a Mk-84 bomb, so the air force also provides additional funding.

Answer 11

Are you kidding?  People don't like paying extra taxes to improve their own SCHOOLS... and you want them to fund a return to the moon????  

Answer 12

The Apollo program was mainly about beating the Russians with a thin veneer of science lightly smeared over it.  Politicians certainly didn't care about the moon.  Most of the public didn't care either.  Once we beat the Russians, America lost interest.

   We no longer possess rockets capable of taking astronauts to the moon.  All the factories that produced the components for the saturn V disposed of the machinery and tools.  They took up a lot of space, and the factories retooled to produce things people wanted.  The technicians and skilled workers and the engineers... they all got different jobs or they retired or died.  The institutional memory was lost.  America decided that our manned future in space lay with a space station and the shuttle.  Orbital space was most important.  The rest of the solar system could be explored more cheaply and safely with robotic probes.

Returning to the moon is pointless.  What is to be gained?  More rocks?  There is no commercial value to anything on the moon.  The place is completely deadly. Returning there would use huge sums of money that most scientists think could be spent in better and more scientifically productive ways. Namely their projects.  Only the large aerospace companies are supporters of returning to the moon.  They stand to benefit enormously with fat government contracts.