The last time a human stepped on the moon was 1972. Why?

reply to post by l0rds0fcha0s


The Van Allen Belts can be gotten through fairly easily. The problem is why recreate what we've already done? They spent billions on getting to the moon in the 1960s, and now the NASA budget is a fraction of what it was then. You would have to essentially stop every other NASA program planned for years to get back there. And the interest just isn't there to do it.

reply to post by droid56


it seems to me that they have gone up there many times, they just do it secretly. That is to say that we have actually been up there, of which im not sure of. The thing is........what if there is no moon as we know it?

No one has gone back to the moon because the space race is over.

When news of sputnik broke in the states, TPTB got seriously worried, and the military knew whoever held the skies and space could control the world. So the U.S responded with their own tech, the space race began, and it ended when NASA put men on the moon, the ultimate victory in air superiority. There wasn't a reason to go back to the moon.

And there still isn't a reason to go back, there is nothing there that could justify the billions it would cost to get there. We could have martian colonies in twenty years, I'd rather see money go towards that.

Why would we waste time and money to send more people to the moon?

I don't believe there's life there, some other race or massive 'structures'.. amateur astronomers would have photos of them already, also, if they were intelligent and had the ability to travel light years why would they stay hidden from us on the dark side? We'd be no match for them militarily so we aren't a threat, being all knowing they'd know the advantage and righteousness of spreading their intelligence and grasp for peace..

so personally, the idea that the moon is inhabited to me, is bunk!

Also, why would it be a militarily viable option to put a base on the moon? when satellites and such are more than capable of achieving the same objectives? imagine the cost and infrastructure needed for a base, on the moon? one at the bottom of the ocean seems more, logical!

I don't think we've been to the moon because frankly, there's nothing up there worth going for. Its a dusty rock, mining the moon isn't cost effective (if there's anything on it that doesn't exist on earth)

Getting men and materials there is costly, risky and pointless.

I think our satellites have been through our solar system and discovered there's nothing worth while close, there's nothing far away that's reachable and we're yet to find traces of life.

In saying that, I believe life exists, I believe it has come by to check us out infact I believe they look exactly like us and put us on this planet to see if we could make it.

These people, are called 'god' , its plural, like fish!

The excuse of the "no good tv rates" is full of crap...

Does anyone really believe the moon missions were allowed and cancelled because of tv ratings?

Then should I conclude there are no scientific experiments going on in the world right now? I mean... they're not televised!!!

The fact it was shown on tv was made to lead people to believe the moon exploration was boring, period.


And to justify its cancellation because of economic reasons is also moronic to the most. Since 1970, how much was invested in different wars versus how it would have cost to send rockets and build a base there, eventually leading to advancement in rocket technology overtime lowering costs , etc etc?... I mean, the discovery of the American continent didn't stop naval technologies to keep on getting better now, did it?

SO for the less educated, it was stopped because it wasn't a good enough show on tv, and for the more educated, the economic reason was called in.

Strategically, scientifically and economically, the moon is a real treasure to grasp. We weren't told, that's all, or we'd want in.

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No, it was ultimately about the money, and the peoples response to it. The worst thing they could have done is leave the media to cover it. Maybe someone like Stanley Kubrick should have been in charge of the space coverage.

reply to post by droid56


Spacelab, Space Shuttle, and the ISS are the answer. USA government saw more value in getting a hold on the Earth's orbit (for reasons ranging from military to scientific).

There have been numerous robotic probes orbiting the Moon, so it's not like we stopped studying it. Ever heard of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter?

It does feel uncomfortable that the technology to go the moon has not been upgraded and tried again.
But then no-one has replaced Concorde which was way ahead if its time either.

I think we should establish a base up there. At least an official one, an international base and conduct experiments and set up a telescope observatory that would be free of Earthbound things getting in the way. Think of the discoveries that could be made!

I agree though that Mars should also have a base too. Except that with current levels of technology it would be one way trip.

reply to post by RomeByFire


Hey, dunno about you, but I was alive at the time and watched Apollo 11 in real time. It was a bit of an anti-climax, actually. Got sidelined by real life until Apollo 13 did their little death-defying stunt (it seemed real at the time, now possibly faked). By then, I was also busy with 'real life'.

The rocks they brought back could have been done by unmanned probes, and the best photos were probably faked by Stanley Kubrick.

I'm not cynical, I've just lived long enough to know it's mostly lies. The money certainly wasn't the issue because it all stayed here and just got recycled around by NASA and military contractor employees.

Now, if they want to release all the redacted files and let us know what really happened, I'm all over it. I love puzzles, but I hate being lied to by people who steal my money and call it 'taxes'.

reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss


That's what they wanted to do, but the technology required for a long term stay is quite different from Apollo, which means expensive. And years of R&D, trial and error.

It is cost vs benefit. We can send and do send probes and such to the moon that can tell us just as much as sending men did at a fraction of the cost. Until the time comes to start a permanent colony there I do not see a reason to go beyond PR. Pretty much why the Chinese are planning on doing it.

pheonix358
reply to post by droid56

 

No one was interested.
Funding dried up because no one was interested.
There were newer things to do and spend money on.
They almost lost a crew, did not want to do that, publicity like that may have maimed NASA.

P

But they kept flying shuttle missions AFTER losing an entire crew

It's because there is more potential to discover new materials used for developing weapons for destroying our fellow man, on Mars, than on the moon. That's all scientific progress has become, its not about exploration anymore, its about who can develop a quicker and more effective way of killing another person or controlling them. Go humans.

reply to post by BrianG


Because people can see advantages in LEO flights. The benefits of new technologies developed while in low earth orbit have been hyped up, and people can see the benefit in that. Where was the benefit in bringing back a few hundred pounds of moon rocks? Or the billions spent to get there, with no immediate return.

The moon race was political. It was not scientific. With the Soviet Union beaten to the punch there was no longer any political imperative to spend the money. Thats it.

All humanities expansions are ultimately acquisitive or fearful in their motivation. We go to claim stuff, or we go because we are fearful that if we aren't somebody is getting the jump on us. The european colonisation was driven by greed and imperial competition. The space race was driven by imperial competition.

Sure 'pure science' limps along regardless but in terms of colonisation of the solar system you can forget about it without the motives I mention. Until the moon is commercially valuable, rendered claimable by individuals with a long view, or some other empire goes and knocks over Armstrongs flag it wont be happening.

It's quite possible that the Apollo program was a cover for the top Secret US Military Space Program concerning the Moon and Mars. Why would the Black Ops projects, supposedly already operating secret space stations and bases on the Moon, expose themselves? They would've kept it secret from the world and used NASA as a convenient diversion.

Some have mentioned that we didn’t go back to the Moon because of funding constraints. The U.S. government has spent in excess of a two trillion dollars for disasters like Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, but didn't have funds for the exploration of space? The Apollo program cost just over a hundred billion dollars (present dollar conversion) over 5 years and that’s just 5% of the ongoing budget for ushering in the so called 'western style democracy' in West Asia and neutralizing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan!

And then, it’s more than likely that the funding which was slashed for NASA went instead to fund the Black Ops projects on the Moon. The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of between 1.4 and 15 ppb in sunlit areas, and may contain concentrations as much as 50 ppb in permanently shadowed regions.

So what's the big deal about Helium-3? Most significantly:

It is used for fusion. According to MIT Technological Review, future fusion reactors could use helium-3 gathered from the moon. Another important use is for Cryogenics.

Is mining for He3 already happening on the Moon? Probably. If so why waste more money on a NASA cover for the top secret Moon projects that are alive and kicking?

Though it’s speculation, it is a possibility. Who knows for sure? Things are happening out there that will boggle the mind!

reply to post by OrionHunterX


And the money spent on the wars was spent "defending freedom", which means people didn't care. Ask the average person about going back to the moon, or space and most probably couldn't even tell you w we still have a space program, or would say fix the problems on earth first, screw space.

droid56
So why no human moon missions for so long?

It is easy to answer using logical thinking.

It is cheaper and easier than ever to go to the moon, but yet we will not go.

There are many GREAT INTEREST's to go to the moon, from scientific point, strategic point, and much more. Can you think about any company that wouldn't want to say that THEY are on moon? Like Coca Cola on moon? Apple? Microsoft?

So only reason NOT TO GO on moon is because somebody do not want that.
It my be government, but it is not only them.

So only logical thinking could be this:
We do not go to the moon because somebody does not allow our government to allow it.

And only question then is:
WHO does not allow us to go to the moon?

reply to post by OrionHunterX


I believe your on the right track. Hey is a bean counter world. If there is not profit in it then it doesn't happen. I believe we've come to a point in the USA that we no longer need to have a manned Nasa run space program because our covert space program is so advanced in comparison that it's just deemed unnecessary. Most believe what is seen are aliens and are ridiculed and ignored for saying they saw something unknown. I believe we are seeing our own technology and those ships are cruising our solar system with impunity. It's the covert part that angers me. Just take a look at the SR-71 Blackhawk. In testing in the late 60s and fully operation in 71. Seeing it today still blows my mind. But nothing since then ??? What have we been doing ??? I think it's more likely that technology has progressed and we have not been told. Why waste billions on a PR campaign like NASA did in the 60/70 when you can blame little grey aliens who look harmless. Don't want to scare people too much and make the pop culture think they were blood thirsty 12 foot tall lizard beings. It's all a show folks. We are told and shown what they want us to know and think. The Alien cover story is more effective and profitable then a NASA manned space program. Simple economics. And Hollywood does it's part as well.