Why have we not returned humans to deeper space or to the moon since 1972? POLL . . .

Indeed, that is possible. However I chose this answer

5) Good question but there is no satisfactory answer . . . ?

because I was not going to write a post about it being faked, since as previously stated, I am unsure.

I still would have picked the 'fake landing' answer over anything else had it been in the list, and would have liked to have seen the results of such a poll.

Yet, it is what it is. I'll go ahead and say

:5stars:

for effort.

I think society lacks the will, the drive, and the cohesion to do it again.

wouldn't you need a vote to decide if everyone wanted a new moon mission and if so , did such a vote take place in 1960's america .

Why then did we go in the first place?

There actually was a Earth-crossing asteroid mission considered as part of the Apollo Applications Program (aka, the program of continued and expanded uses for the Apollo hardware, which were axed along with the final missions of the planned Apollo series -- all except for Skylab, which didn't get full funding and crashed early as a result).

That's the mission I was alluding to; I read about it recently. The estimate was, to get astronauts to this convenient asteroid with a roundtrip of about a YEAR it would take a dozen Saturn V launches. Or, when the Shuttle came into the picture, the next twenty shuttle launches would carry nothing but the fuel for the asteroid mission.

The Moon is CLOSE, celestially speaking (and energy-wise as well). Other targets are vastly more energy-expensive to get to, and require trips of sufficient length to need habitability (low-gravity medical implications, recycling, radiation protection, etc.) that have yet to be developed.

It's sort of like climbing your first fully-bolted sports route, then considering K2. Its a whole different game. Brutally, there was a lot of stuff we got away with on Apollo that we can't get away with on longer missions.

You said it better than I could.



NASA's budget needs to be approved by Congress, so yes.
They started gutting the programme as soon as the primary goal was accomplished.



"Have you seen anything bigger than this?" - LBJ (not talking about rockets)

Indeed, that is possible. However I chose this answer

5) Good question but there is no satisfactory answer . . . ?

because I was not going to write a post about it being faked, since as previously stated, I am unsure.

I still would have picked the 'fake landing' answer over anything else had it been in the list, and would have liked to have seen the results of such a poll.

Yet, it is what it is. I'll go ahead and say



for effort.

Too expensive and no reason to go.

yes we did, the moon rocks ate them....

No reason? That's what you say, but it's not true.
Thread: So...mercury, gold, silver, uranium, argon-40, helium-4, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide on the Moon, but no life?

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

So economics should or should not explain the lack of manned missions to the moon?

Well, if you consider a base on Mars, it's pretty weird to not do the same on the Moon, which is closer.
[link to mars-one.com]

Distracted by the Space Shuttle program and the International Space Station, the most expensive construction project in human history. Remarkable achievements, but it's time to move on to bigger and better things!

A most interesting point. . . .why do you think that is?

Theres something called the Van Allen Radiation Belt.

He knows too much, get him!

Not sure. Many reasons probably.Like this one:
"Mission Control: What's there ? Mission Control calling Apollo 11.
Apollo 11: These babies are huge, sir ... enormous....Oh, God, you wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other space craft out there... lined up on the far side of the crater edge... they're on the moon watching us."

You missed an option that says 'we've never been there it was fake'

So you feel the shuttle and space station project just sucked up all the cash and energy from further manned exploration of the moon . . .? It is that simple?

Yeah, they will both go down as somewhat of a debacle. The ISS cost well over $100 billion, not including the cost of dozens of Shuttle flights to build it, at a cost of around $500 million per launch. Eventually, the main purpose of the Shuttle became building the ISS. They fed off each other. And the science that was gained on the ISS for the cost, was famously little. A space shuttle was a necessary step towards exploring the solar system, and so was the ISS, but not the giant leap like the Apollo program.

So it is not curious to you we never returned to the moon with a manned mission in over 40 years but are planning to go to Mars?

I have no idea. I hear so many different takes on this, that I can't figure out what is real and what is BS.

Not just go, but stay there.

A thing isn't going to happen that can't happen profitably.

A thing isn't going to happen that can't happen profitably.