[LindaSmithXV]

No reason to climb Mount Everest either, but people still do it. Why? Because it's cool.

Surely one of the other rich nations of the world would want to impress their herd with a manned mission at some point in the last 37 years.

[Toscoropreark]

Back? You don't actually believe the Americans landed on the moon, do you?

[jeockammece]

Back? You don't actually believe the Americans landed on the moon, do you?

****. I forgot I posted this already.

[wantedLOX]

****. I forgot I posted this already.

Probably time to stop drinking.

[VarenHokalos]

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.

[metrocartockasur]

And why has no other country in the world been there? Referring to manned missions of course.

Two most common explanations I see are, "No reason to." and "Can't afford it."

Two perfectly good reasons! What other reason could you possibly need?

Surely we didn't learn every useful detail of the moon in a handful of trips in the 60s/70s. Even if we did, many scientists spend their entire lives researching useless ****, and use a truckload of cash doing so.

The main point is that there's no reason to send manned missions. Unmanned are much, much cheaper and much, much safer. Manned missions could still only look at a tiny bit of the surface, you're better off sending lots of much cheaper unmanned missions with specific tasks to different parts of the moon.

But actually the moon is really quite boring, and we know a lot about it. So we're focusing our missions on planets and moons we know a lot less about. Sending more missions to the moon is a waste of money.

Advances in technology, especially computers, ought to have driven the costs down significantly. And besides, going to the moon is super cool.

The U.S. government has spent approximately 483 zillion dollars (ballpark figure) since Apollo 17, but couldn't spare a few million for even one manned mission in the past ~40 years?

And no other country wants to hang their hat on the moon either?

Doesn't make sense.

China have a moon program, aiming to go back 2025/2030. And if you think it'd cost "a few million" you are way off. Optimistic projections suggest it'd cost about $125 billion dollars to sent another manned mission, starting from where we are now.

[smazibummigue]

Good luck to China, but I wouldn't trust NASA to go "back", seeing as how they've 'lost' nearly the entire record of the moon landings, including all 700 boxes of video footage, 13,000+ reels of voice, biomedical data, and telemetry data, and blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the Saturn V rockets.

Apparently the dumb bastards took out the trash one day and took the Apollo diary with it. Dumb bastards.

"The main point is that there's no reason to send manned missions."
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.

[zueqhbyhp]

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?

[pooncophy]

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.

[bugagasikaga]

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

[Sandvikla]

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.

[Farson]

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

[PPActionnGuys]

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.

[sStevenRitziI]

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.

[u2ZQGC6b]

I'm so stupid, I should have known to watch a Hollywood movie to get a better sense of reality. Thanks, germ!

And no doubt the end result is not worth it, given NASA's track record. The result of the Apollo program was for them to lose nearly every single original electronic record of the missions. Easily the most impressive human journey in the history of the earth, and it's all just "lost"? Doesn't seem a little...what's the word...unbelievable?

Perhaps not surprising Congress won't give NASA the money, they'd probly just lose it!

And the "Apollo way" looks to me like a combination of amateur origami and Christmas wrapping paper:



With **** like that going to the moon and back, I'm surprised the Haitians haven't been out for a lunar stroll or ten.

[ZenDers]

Annual "American" (I presume that means US) toilet paper spend is $2.4 billion

[aaaaaaahabbbby]

Oh yes, once they made copies someone said, "**** it, I'm taping the World Series over this crap."

Did they tape the World Series over them, or, you know, actual things relevant to their mission?

My dad took all our old slides and scanned them onto a computer. He then GASP threw out the slides! Oh noes!

Who the **** gives a ****?

And I guess we can stop spending millions of dollars protecting and preserving the U.S. Constitution and thousands of other historical documents of groundbreaking events. Who needs 'em when we got copies? They're just ugly old papers anyway - chuck em and spend that money on $600 toilet seats for the DoD. If the original Constitution had been lost and all we had were copies, would that somehow mean the U.S. Government was invalid?

Preserving it is nice for historical curiosity, but it's hardly vital or even necessary. That's the very reason we *make copies* of things.

[Kghikeds]

There is no moon. It's all a fake.

[CHyLmxDr]

Moon landings were just another day at the beach then, I guess. Silly me.

But, following the conventional "reasoning", if all that mattered was the first manned mission - popping the proverbial lunar cherry - then why did we send five more manned missions after Apollo 11? Six if you include Apollo 13's failure.

Clearly we'd already proven ourselves the top dogs with the biggest dicks aboard Apollo 11's maiden voyage. Americans were even complaining that the astronauts were interrupting I Love Lucy episodes. The money could've been spent winning the Cold War against Russia, or the simultaneous 'hot' war in Vietnam, or God-only-knows-how-many covert wars at the time. Russians had supposedly scrapped their entire program since they weren't number one. But we decided to send five more manned missions in just three years.

So it very obviously wasn't all about being "first", because we decided we wanted to be first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth!

And yet no country in the 37 years since has wanted to or been capable of being lucky number seven? Think of the marketing opportunities!

[CedssypeEdids]

Moon landings were just another day at the beach then, I guess. Silly me.

Yeah, which of course is not remotely close to anything I said.

Can you find a point and stick with it, or is that too much to ask?

I do love how you answered your own question, though:

Americans were even complaining that the astronauts were interrupting I Love Lucy episodes. And that, dear boy, is why we don't want to go to the moon anymore. A few years after 1969, Americans were already bored with it. People in the U.S. don't care about it, and convincing tax payers that it's a good use of resources would be impossible (because it isn't a good use).

And another:

And no other country wants to hang their hat on the moon either?

Doesn't make sense. China is planning to, as is India by 2015-2020 (in 2008 they sent their first unmanned mission, but they lost contact with the probe). Other countries are planning to as well, including Japan.

Could you possibly be right about ANYTHING for a change?