Why has it been almost 50 years since we went to the moon? Why haven't we gone back?

Question

Looking at what humans have done in history, it makes no sense!

In 1492 when someone sailed across the ocean and found the 'new world', by 1542, 50 years later, visits to the new world were growing exponentially.

In mid 1800s the automobile was created, and by the 1900's they were common and growing exponentially.

In 1909 the first plane made its first flight and by 1959 flight had grown exponentially and was quite common!

In 1946 the first computer was made, and by 1996 computers had grown exponentially to the point where they were connected worldwide through the Internet!

All of these endeavors cost a lot of time and money at the time, and costs continued to drop over time!

But why is it that in 1969 we supposedly went to the moon (i say supposedly because there are valid arguments against it that would be foolish to dismiss), but here, just 2 years shy of 2019, the trips stalled after 3 years, did not grow exponentially, and in fact seemed to REVERT to no further than low earth orbit?

Wouldn't it be logical, based on the enthusiasm of all humankind's history, to expect that we would have had a moon base on the moon by now, farthing scientific exploration? Why has this not happened? Please don't cite cost as it's been estimated that it would cost 90 percent less to go there than what it cost us to go there (again supposedly), back in 1969?

Answer 1

We haven't sent men back to the Moon because NASA and other space agencies have deemed it a better use of their resources to send unmanned probes to places that haven't been explored yet. A manned moon base was part of George W. Bush's space plans, but the plan was seriously underfunded. However, the idea continues to be considered, and will almost certainly become a reality, someday, probably as a cooperative venture.



A moon base would be a prerequisite before a Mars base could be considered, but a simple round-trip to Mars, such as is currently being considered, would benefit far more from our experience with the ISS than it would from a moon base.

Answer 2

Mankind first visited the South Pole in 1911. A race between the parties of Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott was won by Amundsen. But, after two separate expeditions reached the pole within days of each other, there were no further visits to the South Pole until 45 years later, in 1956.



Why not? Because organising an expedition to the pole is expensive and dangerous. Because there's little prestige in "going back". Because the initial science and exploration had already been done. Because there were other places to explore.



All these things apply to the Moon too.

Answer 3

The automobile was invented in the late 1800s, and was becoming only "moderately" common by the 1910s in some countries. Rather later than stated your question. For instance: In Britain in the early 1950s (note 1950s, not 1910s) there were about 2 million cars, nowadays over 20 million.



And in answer to your question - the effort of sending humans to the Moon and bringing them home safely (especially) is far greater than the monetary value of anything which they might bring back from the Moon.



In 1492 Columbus was on a mission to discover the back route to the riches of the Orient, hoping to bypass all the traders on the way, and thus enrich European merchants. He discovered the Americas accidentally, but it was soon obvious to many Spaniards and other Europeans that there was a lot of money to be made by exploiting the riches of the Americas.

Answer 4

We haven't had the political will we did in the 1960's... in fact, that will began to subside after the very first mission that landed - and, after that, the *cost* of the missions became the central focus. And, that - along with Apollo 13's near disaster - pushed Congress into cancelling the remaining missions. Since then - the support from the public was never great enough to create another lunar program.

Answer 5

During the 60s, the middle crisis of Cuba (that heavily enfolded Russia) and the Cold War itself, launching rockets into space was a way of showing military capability; if you could send a rocket to space, you could surely send an atom bomb from Russia to the United States; or vice verse! It was a way of showing your country's world power. Now a days, it's pretty common knowledge that about 90% of the world's weapons of mass destruction belong to the United States and Russia. There's no race to show the power a country holds. The US Government finds other ways to spend our taxes these days; there's no reason to go back to the moon. It's already been done, a few times over. Why go back? There's no life and there probably never will be; unless, of course, we colonize the moon ourselves, which I highly doubt.

Answer 6

There are mass markets for cars and planes and computers that simply doesn't exist for space travel. Not that a lot of people wouldn't *want* to go into space, but a lot of people would like to travel all the way around the world, but few can actually afford to do so. Space travel, even if costs were to drop to 1/100th of what they are now, would still cost exponentially more than a world tour.

.

So, how many times have you been around the world? How many people do you know who have? It's pretty much the realm of the very rich. Other than a once-in-a-lifetime suborbital trip, that you might eventually be able to get for the cost of a decent car, Space travel is going to be the realm of the ultra-rich for the foreseeable future.

.

.

Answer 7

We have. We've sent unmanned spacecraft. It's safer and cheaper to do it that way.



Edit: This is why I rarely answer questions here anymore. You people always like to turn it into an argument. You asked the question and I answered it. It is expensive and dangerous to send people into space that is why there are no longer manned missions to the moon. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. That is the reason why. You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about because you contradicted yourself. "100% SAFE. Risky but safe." If something is risky, it can't be 100% safe. Right?

Answer 8

Ask the Congress and Presidents of the USA why they ceased to fund the Apollo and later Moon programs 45 or so years ago. Virtually every administration since then has reduced NASA funding.



No bucks, no Buck Rogers.



There are no easily exploitable resources on the Moon, apart from rock, which we have plenty of on Earth. But in the Americas in 1492 there was land available if the locals could be killed off. That was easy because they started dying of accidentally introduced diseases. The survivors could be enslaved.



Colonists did what they liked, because they were thousands of miles from any moral protests against the murder and enslavements. Many colonists were landless younger sons of Spanish landed gentry, some were illiterate, but all were looking to get rich quick.



There are no resources on the Moon. Therefore there is no money to be made from the Moon. You can make money by building cars or selling advertising through radio, television or the internet.



There are no valid arguments against the Moon landings, the claims made against it are all lies and have long been demonstrated to be lies. It is not foolish to dismiss them because they are known to be lies. The fact that the lies are still repeated does not make them any more true. Bart Sibrel, who spread these lies made money from them just as Giorgio Tsoukalos makes money by lying about ancient astronauts on TV shows and magazines supported by subscription or advertising.

Answer 9

It comes down to one thing: money.



It is difficult for NASA to justify a return trip to the Moon to.... collect rocks. From a scientific standpoint, that is what Apollo was- a series of geological expeditions- with one exception:



That exception was the Space Race with the Soviet Union.



From a purely scientific standpoint, NASA has chosen to direct its efforts at probes and research into the effects of long-term space travel. People talk about going to Mars, but without the proper knowledge of the effect such a voyage will have on the human body, it cannot be done. Both the US and Russians have been focused on this issue.

Answer 10

Republicans did not want to spend the money. Although I say that tongue-in-cheek, that is one of the contributing factors.



The main reason is that there is no cause to go there, nothing worth the effort. That is what we learned from our first visits. Look, event he colonization of North America only really started in earnest more than 100 years after we became aware of this prime real estate, so a 50 year delay to revisit dead ground should not be surprising.



The only real reason to go to the moon, is to set up base to make it easier to go out further. We aren't quite ready to go out further yet.

Answer 11

Why do you want to go there?There is no air, no way to grow food without expensive sealed greenhouses and the moon soil does not have nutrients or anything we don't have right here on earth, There is even Helium 3 bubbling out of a pond in the USA

Answer 12

Some claim the Space Aliens put the Moon off limits. The sharp un-eroded vacuum dust gums up everything on the Moon. And we do not even need the Helium 3 yet. So the Space Aliens can have it for now.

Answer 13

Because we never went and if they tried to replicate the hoax again,if we went again, it would look completely different to the point where the audience would realize that the moon landing was completely fictional. That's why they're shooting for Mars, because no one would know the difference between the technology gap.

Answer 14

When space craft become as plentiful as cogs and barks were in the 1600 century then the explanation of space will become exponential. As it is North America was discovered circa 996 by the Vikings and it took 500 years for Europe to come back to north America.

Answer 15

Because unmaned craft can do just as much.

It is cheaper and safer to put humans in low Earth orbit.

We know all about the Moon.

Isn't that cool?

Answer 16

The moon can't sustain life. Therefore risking someone's life to go there again, seems pointless. God created the earth and placed man in It. Where there is air to breath, water to drink, food to eat. No other planet is like earth, no other planet has been found to sustain life.

Answer 17

It's pretty much been answered here between funding and aliens deeming it off limits. If all goes according to plan China will be up there within the next 2 years extracting helium3 which they will then use to run their "ghost cities".

Answer 18

Because it is cheaper to send drones from the Space station. Hello?



Secondly, there is absolutely nothing there of value and we already known/seen what it had to be known/seen.



The Chinese and Russians have also been there and seen. Mars is the next frontier. The moon has already been done last century, why spending money to go where we have been/explore/investigated before?

Answer 19

Lack of political will. Much of the space race was driven by the Cold War. Once it became clear the Soviet Union was on the way out there was no more driver.

Answer 20

Your small steps cost money whos gonna pay you guess what they have slashed the budget over and [ver for nasa so it cant do everything the moon is a none destintion because its non interesting at this point

Answer 21

There is NO REASON to send men back to the MOON. Too Expensive is another Reason.

I do not want my TAXES increased for unnecessary space flights.

Mars is going to be bad enough.

Answer 22

We've lost the political will - and we don't want to spend the money.

Answer 23

The West, today, is a civilization in decline. Back then, it was on the ascent.

Answer 24

Aliens told the govt not to go back

Answer 25

Because NASA has moved on to explore OTHER domains. They have just discovered a bunch of new celestial bodies:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIlXD9sI3bg

Answer 26

There is nothing there. The moon is dez.



Mars MIGHThave life

Answer 27

A muslim is playing President & he wont let Americans go in space. Mike

Answer 28

Only so many moon rocks you can collect.

Answer 29

Go back for what? What is the benefit?

Answer 30

some say its to expensive others say aliens live on it, telling humans to stay off of it..

Answer 31

There is no point

Answer 32

what for?

Answer 33

long trip.....