posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:49 PM
Manned missions to the moon haven't been launched due to very low reward for very HIGH risk to man, (just one of a million things could go wrong to
kill not only the mission but the life of the men too), which missions to the moon, lasted 2 weeks tops with less than half of that time ON the moon
picking up rocks and taking a fraction of analytical measurements in a tiny area that robots can do without life support, risk of death to astronauts,
and survey much more area with better scientific instruments for the data we are after, and require about a third of the fuel and a 10th of the
expense, or less, and last for years. That is just one mission, not counting all of the R&D support to lead up to a mission to the moon that provides
ZERO reward for expense.
Apollo missions went to the moon to win the space race of the 60's, once accomplished, and we found a lifeless rock, continued missions to the moon
provided near zero reward for investment and even the public lost interest in men on the moon, (makes sense because it wasn't their personal trip to
the moon, it was astronaut's).
I find it really hard to understand how people can't understand why we, or any economy on earth, haven't sent men to the moon since, FOR WHAT?
Dry weight of an Apollo 15-17 launch, nearly 6.7 MILLION pounds (each); returned to earth, about 10,000 pounds (each), of that 10,000 pounds the
maximum payload other than the craft, men, and life support, about 100 pounds.
Like that return of investment? Think you can make money on that ratio?