Report Abuse
|||Maybe they realized that going to the moon was a complete and total waste of time and money.|||I can't afford to go from here to the next state, and you're worried about going from here to the moon?|||basically it's because it's SO expensive, we've been waiting for a valid, cost effective reason to go.
we went originally as sort of a bet between us and the USSR, with whom the US was great rivals in the 50's and 60's. we learned a LOT from those trips, but didn't have reason to keep going that would validate the huge expense.
(by the way, the moon is our nearest celestial neighbor, not a star.)
the reason we haven't sent anyone to Mars yet is because it would take years to get there with our current technology...
it was most certainly not a hoax. we still use equipment that was set up there on former missions.|||It would still cost a lot of money, and there are no advantages.
The moon is a satellite, not a star. the Sun is a star.
The moon landing were not a film, or faked. They actually happened.|||first of all, the moon is not a star. The sun is a star (firey, hot, makes it's own light) the moon is a planetoid and reflects the sun's light.
As for why we don't go there anymore, there's just not much reason to. No exploitable natural resources (like air, for instance) and we've taken thousands of samples when we were there before, so there is no reason right now to go to the expense of sending people to the moon. Plus, space shuttles aren't capable of getting there anyway, we would need to build big multi-stage rockets like the Apollo missions (yes, they were real) used to get there and that would be very expensive.|||The moon is not a star, only suns are stars.
No, the Apollo landings were NOT filmed on a soundstage. We really went to the moon, which is amazing if you really think about it. We sent 7 missions up there, and 6 of them landed and studied it. We eventually decided there wasn't much more to see, so we stopped going.
However, we ARE going back. NASA is building a new spaceship, similiar to Apollo (although MUCH larger %26amp; powerful) which will take us back to the moon. Eventually, we plan to build a moon base. This moon base will serve as a stepping stone for future missions to Mars.
Here's the link to see the new spaceship and NASA'a plans for the moon:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/explor鈥?/a>|||Another guest from some far away cave who hates the thought of reality. Tell me about this great conspiracy that had to involve thousands of government and military people, all of the news media and countless others. How were they able to pull that off - and not have a single person who was involved, step forward and dish the details, in all of this time?
Lots of debate? By the boys laying in puddles of their own urine down by the railroad tracks?
The moon is the closest star? When did that happen? What the hey, we should fry up during a full moon, quicker than those ants did when I'd get them under the magnifying glass when I was a youngster...
Where do you people go for your information - it never ceases to amaze me what passes muster for some people to fill their brains with...|||It currently costs about $10,000 per pound to get something in orbit. And more to send it to the moon.
It's possible that if the Fusion reactor being built as an international effort (ITER) is successful then mining H3 on the moon might actually be useful.
The Constellation program is currently working towards building a new ship and rocket. The first ship will be called Orion and the rockets will be known as Ares I and Ares V (Ares I for orbit, Ares V for moon transit).
The new Orion craft will be built in a very short time frame (about 4 years). Most automobiles take 3 to 6 years to design. Considering we've built far more cars and they have MUCH less requirements than a space craft, I think we can all agree that building the new space craft is being done quickly.|||Do not make the common mistake of assuming that rocket technology has advanced as much as computer technology.
Electronics has enjoyed HUGE advances in technology that far outweigh inflation. A computer costing less than a thousand dollars today is far, far more powerful than a million dollar computer from 1960.
Now compare transportation. A car costing $20,000 today is scarcely any better than one costing $3,000 in 1960. The same is true for airplanes and rockets. The $25 billion Apollo project would cost $130 billion today due to inflation, and it would be hardly any better than the original Apollo.|||Not a hoax. Just lower priority. We've been using the technology and (limited) money to go to other planets, asteroids, and comets. Many times in tandem. The feats currently pulled off by NASA make moon landings look like child's play, like hitting a comet with an impact device, filming asteroids up close, sending Voyager probe missions to essentially every planet in the solar system and out of our system, and landing rovers on Mars that send back more information in a day than the astronauts did during the entire Apollo program.
The nay-sayers and conspiracy theoryists have been contradicted many times with facts. Some very good treatments refuting such accusations have been on TV. Most of the theories promoting a fake moon landing are either for self-promotion (a book) or ego, and all are idiotic.|||I think there would be a need to go back to the moon before investing millions on the project. We went there in 1969 to prove to the world that we could do it first. Woo hoo for the United States.|||We've already got what we want from the moon. We brought back samples that we still have and can continue to study. Going to the Moon again would be a waste of time and money. The idea is that if we are going to spend ALOT of time and money to go somewhere besides the Earth then we may as well go somewhere we haven't been yet.|||I'll ask you a question:
The Supersonic airliner Concorde was designed in the 1960's. It is no more. It is scrapped. There have been no other supersonic airliners built.
I suppose you think the Concorde was a hoax and never existed.
Money, economics, politics, the fickle American public - those are the reasons we have not been back to the moon.|||the moon is a big rock with basically nothing on it of any value to anyone. there is simply no reason to go back. in that regard, it is much like West Virginia.|||First, you can't form a coherent sentence. Second, the Moon is not a star. Third, noone except undereducated (or in your case uneducated) people wonder why we haven't been back. It's simple common sense why we stopped going. Money and neccessity. It's not worth my time to explain that to you.
We are going back with Ares by the way. When the shuttle goes off-line in 2010, Ares will take its place. I work on both the shuttle and Ares as an aerospace engineer. Do some research, and learn some english. Maybe people will take your questions a little more seriously.|||Excuse me? THE NEAREST STAR?????
Turn off your TV, we don't have that technology yet. As for the moon, if you think the only reason we put people in space is because we have the technology to do it, that's rather naive. The things really required for such a mission are political motivation and funding. President Bush has proposed returning to the moon...but neither congress nor the American people seem to have the motivation to pay for it. Personally, I'm guessing the next human to set foot on the moon will be Chinese.|||%26lt;i%26gt;Is the appollo mission was just a film?%26lt;/i%26gt;
Yep - a film, by the way, that NASA seems to have conveniently misplaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment