Why haven't we been back to the moon?

[MikeH]

Humanity, based on our current level of scientific and engineering knowledge. Anyone could do it if they threw the money at it, as the Chinese are proving.

[MikeH]

No point in climbing Mount Ev. either, but people do it because it's cool.

Technology has advanced light years beyond the 60s, and you honestly believe no one has had the resources or the inclination to go to another celestial body? It defies common sense.

Mount Everest doesn't cost $125 billion, so can be financed by a private individual.

If interplanetary flight was cheap enough that individuals could afford it, they'd be there now I'm sure.

And did you miss the point where China are going?

[HalfLotus]

The U.S. wipes its ass with $125 billion.

I notice the China moon wiki includes a bit about "Russian cooperation". What happened to the Russian lunar program in the 1960s? They had beaten us to nearly every significant space milestone, but after we "beat them", they just crumpled up their graph paper and tossed it all in the ****ter? Or maybe they had the same level of "record" keeping competence as NASA, which is to say none.

And now Russia is reduced to "cooperating" with China on a mission they may or may not take (I'll bet not) 55 years later? Again, it defies common sense.

[MikeH]

Because the space race was nothing to do with science. It was a cold war "who's got the biggest d*ck" contest. No point Russia getting sloppy seconds after the US had squirted their meat paste all over its boat.

[MikeH]

We should shoot for mars, if that involves a moon base, cool! If not, meh.

[HalfLotus]

The second biggest dick is still a big ****ing dick.

[MikeH]

And they were second biggest whether they went or not. But they were also broke. Apollo cost the equivalent of 1 trillion dollars. Not exactly a drop in the ocean..

[Darius871]

Of course I'm not suggesting something as ridiculous as faked moon landings.

What do you mean "of course"? Coming from you it's our first assumption. Lo and behold, we were dead-on.

[Felch]

The U.S. wipes its ass with $125 billion.

No, we don't actually. Spending 125 billion dollars is something that even Congress thinks twice about.

[MikeH]

eg. "Do you know how many rag heads we could bomb with $125billion?"

[rah]

It was my assumption that we were already spending more than that to bomb them.

[HalfLotus]

Let's get some perspective on the money thing. According to Wiki, the US spent $2,979 Billion in 2008 alone. That doesn't include war spending.

And according to this site, the U.S. has spent ~$21, 214 Billion since year 2000.

I can go back to 1972 and add it up, adjust for inflation, etc., etc. but I think we get the point. Nor will I add up the litany of absurd funding Congress has appropriate over the years (ketchup research!), to illustrate that Congress doesn't always spend its (our) money in the wisest ways.

For sure Congress needs to keep a big slice of the pie tucked away for regularly scheduled regime change in countries with large oil reserves, but the notion that $125b is even remotely beyond the means of the United States seems pretty silly.

And what would the American people say if we announced another walk on the moon? Too wasteful? No reason? Can't afford it? None of the above. They'd say, "**** YEAH!", because we're the coolest mother****ers on the planet and we want it to stay that way.

[germanos]

And what would the American people say if we announced another walk on the moon? Too wasteful? No reason? Can't afford it? None of the above. They'd say, "**** YEAH!", because we're the coolest mother****ers on the planet and we want it to stay that way.

Apparently the politicians think differently, otherwise the US would be on the moon right now.

Apollo was a great succes for about a week after Armstrong landed. Watch Apollo 13 (great movie!) to see how the public quickly lost interest. The last planned Apollo missions were cancelled due to lost interest in the missions by the large public.

NASA will loose it's lauch capabilities for manned missions in a short time. I can only conclude that's because their is no real interest for having people in Space. It's dull science and there are no lasers involved. It's nothing like Star Wars, Star Trek or Avatar. Travelling to the moon takes ages in todays instant gratifacation society.

Going to the moon is simply too last century. Been there, done that...

[DanS]

Re the OP, the expense is not worth the result. Or put another way, it's too damn expensive to do if you do it the Apollo way.

[Boris Godunov]

Of course I'm not suggesting something as ridiculous as faked moon landings.

Everyone knows that anything believed to be true a significant majority of people is automatically entrenched as irrefutable scientific fact. To suggest otherwise would be social suicide. And no one wants that.

Curious, what's the expiration date on this perceived "fact"? What if no one's been to the moon in next 50 years? 75? 150?

Perhaps by then the herd will have shifted a bit (25% and growing, presently), and people's "thinking", to use the term very generously, will have moved with it.

You have got to be ****ting me.