If we actually did go to the moon, then why for over 30 years...

Sorry if this was brought up before on ATS, not sure.
What I do not understand is why if we actually did go to the moon over 30 years ago then why we have not gone back since then or no other country has gone to the moon since then?
I am talking about actual men on the moon , not just sending probes, etc.
Are we actually on the moon right now or not telling the public about it? Or is there a reason the public is not being told about that we or no other country is going to the moon since the 1960's.
I am not really talking about if we did or did not actually go there, but more so that (given the benifet of the doubt) why would we not go back or no other country has gone there by now?
Is it simply because there is no real reason to go back or that there is more to the reason we have not gone back (or it looks like we have not gone back)?

What I do not understand is why if we actually did go to the moon over 30 years ago then why we have not gone back since then or no other country has gone to the moon since then?

Simple.

After being "second" in the space race so many times, the commitment was made to be "first" on the moon and beat the Russians. Once that goal was met, and a few times, the incentive was gone (and so was the funding). With advances in computers, robotics, etc. , the same missions could be done without risking lives, and at a much lower cost. It's no mystery why most NASA missions are unmanned...it's economics...

Then why do we keep going into space with the space shuttle which is manned?

Also I still think other countries would want to go to the moon just to say they did.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by GREGNOW]

or you could persribe to the theory/conspiracy/whatever that we didnt like what we found or we where told we werent welcome there..............

This has been debated and explained many times:

A) Too Expensive
B) Everyone else is incompetent

Then why do we keep going into space with the space shuttle which is manned?

There's a BIG difference between orbit and going to the moon. Say a few miles for starters ...not to mention a host of other mission challenges. Robots can't repair satellites or the space station. Plus, there are tangible economic benefits to orbital space (such as satellites, that you use to call on a cell phone, weather forecasting, geological mineral surveys, etc.). The same isn't so true for the moon.

Also I still think other countries would want to go to the moon just to say they did.

They do. China has been quite public about it. They plan to go in about 5 years, so they so, as I recall, maybe longer now... Russia once was going for it, but then faced the same problem others face...MONEY. It takes Superpower level dollars to mount a manned lunar mission. Most don't fit that qualification....

While I think money is the primary reason, I don't think it's the input of money that's the problem. I mean, on a regular basis various companies--as well as the federal government--spend more than enough to fund a trip to the moon. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that we could easily go to Mars if a couple of large businesses decided that it was important to do so.

Unfortunately, there's no money in a moon mission, at least not that anyone with enough finances to back such a mission would ever bring themselves to see. There's no money, and there's no political agenda behind it--ie no one to "beat" to the moon to make us look good. Our government and our corporations only care about their respective bottom lines, money and political image. Science is only a good thing if it increases profits or can be spun to make one country look better than the other.

Given that there is little public interest in extra-orbital activities compared to which diet to try next or which new pill will better my sex life, there is no reason for anyone to back a moon landing. Sure, it's a notch on a belt, but that's about it. The news will go back to Iraq the next day, and immediately after the modern version of Armstrong's speech we'd get another commercial about Bob and how he's the pride of the clubhouse now (wink wink). We go on with our daily lives and that company or government just spent X billion dollars on a news segment that earned them nothing--and that's what they'd focus on, the lack of any gain from it.

I dissagree - because of the Helium 3 up there the mining (and sending back to earth) would be a profitable enterprise.

To me there are only two answers to the question posed:

1) We already have and maintain a base of some kind there (automated or not)

2) We found more than we expected when we went.

There seems to be no othe reasonable explanation to me as to why the Moon has been "abandoned" by America.

To me, the real test will be if they unreasonable prohibit private companies from going and doing their own thing on the moon - or even putting a probe in orbit around it.

(which I totally expect)

To me that will be one red flag too many.

Originally posted by GREGNOW
Then why do we keep going into space with the space shuttle which is manned?

Politics and romantic fantasies about space. The need for manned space missions is exaggerated, sure the human flexibility is a lot greater than automated systems but it is doubtful it justifies the expenses.

Originally posted by Frosty
B) Everyone else is incompetent

That's a nationalist notion. Both Europe and Russia could do it if they had the political will to provide enough money for such an enterprise. It is likely however that China will try to go to the moon for propaganda reasons. When that happens, I predict that the US will invest more into space programs again as the US government can't politically make it to the public that China stands anywhere else but into the shadow of US successes.

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I dissagree - because of the Helium 3 up there the mining (and sending back to earth) would be a profitable enterprise.

No it wouldn't. Those are pipe dreams. We can't even get the easiest fusion, between deuterium and tritium, to work past break even. Let alone fusion with helium 3 which requires even higher temperatures. On top of that, even fusion with helium 3 releases neutrons and generates hence radioactivity, just somewhat less. It is extremely doubtful the benefits of reduced radioactivity (which is projected and designed to be short lived anyway even with D-T fuel cycle) would outweigh the enormous costs of mining that stuff on the moon. Bush however fell for it or wants to make you fall for it.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Simon666]

One good reason why we should go back to the moon, it WOULD be very profitable. The major elements that make up the moon are titanium and aluminium (at least that is what I understand to be the truth).

So what? You can get titanium and aluminium on earth for over one thousand times less the price.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Simon666]

The only reason people will be going for the moon (in large numbers) is for tourism (or propaganda/military). But is't going to take a while to take those prices down.

my answer would be:

- because space exploration (at least for the US) is now a political ploy / tool...

- because (maybe this is true, i am guessing) the US has used alot of money on the "war on terror" and none can be "wasted" (as Bush might state) on space...

- and, of course, the aliens don't want us to go to their homes

The main reason we went to themoon in the first place was because of the Cold war, and the ensuing space race which was in full swing a decade before apollo 11. There was tons of policatal and popular support for the mission, and of course the 20 billion dollars we allowed to be spent even with the veitnam war g oing on at the same time.

TOday and 30 years ago there is no such political and popular support since "We have allready been there" is the first thing to come up. Even a mars mission is struggling to happen.

It is much more affordable to use the space shuttle and work on orbital stuff, such as communication and weather sattilites, and of course spy sattelites for the military.

There is no such reason to go to the moon that warrents the cost of getting there and back in the first place.

The real reason? Because we can't. Some genius threw out the Titan V plans, which was the only ship capable of getting there.

Combine that with a general ignorance on the advantages of the moon, and space exploration in general, plus a number of other things that cost money (Vietnam, Great Society, Civil Rights, Economic boom) and you're just dead in the water.

Ehhh I betcha I could design a better ship to get there

Just Show Me The Money!!!

Erm... uhm... anyway... yes yes yes there are a hundred and one really good reasons we should have gone to the Moon between the last landing and the next... but none econimcally viable, none politically stable, and none with enough public support. Everyone was all about giving the Red's the finger.. now there's noone to rally against. Does the American public care about the Chinese playing with their rockets? Not really. Do we care about India starting up a space agency (snicker) .. not really. Nothing unites people greater than a common goal in defeating an enemy, which we dont have.

So it takes budgeting and political manuevering, along with a clear and concise demonstration of viable profitable technologies to give the majority a reason to support a revisit. Pretty simple, really.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
The real reason? Because we can't. Some genius threw out the Titan V plans, which was the only ship capable of getting there.

You mean Saturn V, and even that is some kind of an urban legend.

Excerpt from this site
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SATURN V PLANS

Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints
have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on
microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic
feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of
volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated
in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine
production to assist in any future re-start.

Originally posted by GREGNOW

Then why do we keep going into space with the space shuttle which is manned?

Also I still think other countries would want to go to the moon just to say they did.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by GREGNOW]

we send people in to space because we are still at the experimental stage of space exploration. they do tests etc, which there is no robot that can perform so for the aid of science nasa still send people in to space.

The real reason we've never been back? We've got our priorities screwed up. Society has a collective mentality that can be summed up as 'what's in it for me'. The United States spends about one trillion dollars a year on social welfare programs of one type or another, with questionable success. If you're a politician, you can propose more handouts all day long and the average Joe moron on the street will love you for it, all while his personal taxes rise along with the national debt.

On the flip side, we've seen what happens when you propose a $5-10B increase in Nasa's budget to fund a moon program. But...but...its too much money. We've got blah, blah, blah, to pay for. The me-first generation is firmly in charge in our society and is stifling our scientific progress.

I leave you with an applicable quote that I'm sure many have read before:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

We went back, 6 more times with 5 other Actual moon landings. (Apollo 11-17, Apollo 13 didn't land)