It's complicated. Some would argue that Apollo was never about scientific exploration and achieved its goal as soon as the Apollo 11 crew returned to Earth on 24 July 1969: that it was, in other words, a Cold War exercise in soft power. There's no doubt that it was primarily geopolitical in motivation. NASA itself had doubts about Apollo's continuation, for lunar exploration was risky, with every new mission offering many chances for catastrophic failure that would undo the prestige gains previous missions had achieved. I think it can be argued that 14 and 15 were flown to restore prestige lost through Apollo 13 and that 16 and 17 were flown to undermine prestige the Soviet Union gained through robotic rovers and sample returners. Some within NASA wanted to shift to Earth-orbital space stations; that is, to get back to the track the agency had plotted out for itself in 1959. As part of that, the Administrator at the time traded away two Apollos (18 and 19) in the hope of obtaining support for a Station/Shuttle Program. Then there was Nixon's desire to end the Democratic JFK/LBJ Apollo Program and put his stamp on the space program, and intercenter rivalries, mainly between Marshall in Huntsville, with its evolutionary Apollo Applications Program (which became Skylab), and Johnson in Houston, with its revolutionary Shuttle Program (which killed 14 astronauts in 135 flights). There's a lot more to it, of course, and this does not address (except indirectly) why we've never created an opportunity to resume lunar exploration using crews. I think that, after Apollo, it became abundantly clear that the whole Solar System needs exploration and that Minovitch's work on gravity assist made the whole Solar System economically accessible to robots. More here:

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/

David SF Portree

Aside from the negative result of the risk/benefit analysis, maybe we are waiting for AI to take over the task?

Manned missions for the Moon are obsolete in the robotic era, and so, robotic missions have been welcome instead.

Just an addendum to the answers above: Moon trips are expensive, dangerous and we currently don't have the hardware (rockets) to get us there.

Dear Dwight,

Are you sure about the past landing? If hardware is not available today, then how are you convincing yourself that hardware was available in 1969?

In 1969 we had the Saturn V launch vehicle that was discontinued, I believe, in favor of the low earth-orbit Space Shuttle.

The Apollo mission was a political issue, regardless extremely expensive. Once US proved its economical power and technological maturity to achieve this, it became unimportant issue to prove it again, US is simply first on Moon forever.... I am still very impressed by the US ability to mobilize and to focus the human effort for this achievement and I believe that the same mobilization will be available to face to the serious danger from space (asteroid or comet on Earth-collision trajectory).

Yes, the US by moon landings definitely were motivated by politics and by a bit of revenge for the Soviets having reached Berlin before the Allies got there in WW II.

Here is a good reference for the present question: "Debating Manned Moon Missions: Experts provide opposing viewpoints on manned missions to space", https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debating-manned-moon-missions-104905/ (2008).

It's complicated. Some would argue that Apollo was never about scientific exploration and achieved its goal as soon as the Apollo 11 crew returned to Earth on 24 July 1969: that it was, in other words, a Cold War exercise in soft power. There's no doubt that it was primarily geopolitical in motivation. NASA itself had doubts about Apollo's continuation, for lunar exploration was risky, with every new mission offering many chances for catastrophic failure that would undo the prestige gains previous missions had achieved. I think it can be argued that 14 and 15 were flown to restore prestige lost through Apollo 13 and that 16 and 17 were flown to undermine prestige the Soviet Union gained through robotic rovers and sample returners. Some within NASA wanted to shift to Earth-orbital space stations; that is, to get back to the track the agency had plotted out for itself in 1959. As part of that, the Administrator at the time traded away two Apollos (18 and 19) in the hope of obtaining support for a Station/Shuttle Program. Then there was Nixon's desire to end the Democratic JFK/LBJ Apollo Program and put his stamp on the space program, and intercenter rivalries, mainly between Marshall in Huntsville, with its evolutionary Apollo Applications Program (which became Skylab), and Johnson in Houston, with its revolutionary Shuttle Program (which killed 14 astronauts in 135 flights). There's a lot more to it, of course, and this does not address (except indirectly) why we've never created an opportunity to resume lunar exploration using crews. I think that, after Apollo, it became abundantly clear that the whole Solar System needs exploration and that Minovitch's work on gravity assist made the whole Solar System economically accessible to robots. More here:

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/

David SF Portree

It is, in my opinion, because of the following three main reasons:

1) Manned missions would cost much more,

2) Radiation hydrodynamics would hamper manned missions, and

3) Artificial robotic and digitized systems would give better and more accurate results as per desirability.

Thierry,

" while the cosmic rays outside the Earth (Van Allen Belts) are deadly "

It depends on what you mean by 'deadly'.

The dose in lunar orbit from cosmic radiation is known.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1080.abstract

500 days outside the Earth's Van Allen belts leads to 0.3 Sv.

So 5 days would yield 0.003 Sv.

This is less than the average exposure that the typical US citizen receives per year.

Does it cause harm?

Sure.

Is one trip significant?

No.

At the lunar surface the dose is slightly higher from secondary particles created from cosmic rays hitting the regolith. I imagine that the TRS has reports from the various radiation detectors that have been flown to the lunar surface and to lunar orbit.

Technically there are no unsolved problems preventing a return to the moon.

Economics rather than finance or politics is the key here. The reward for reaching the moon is trivial compared to the drain on the economy resulting. Analysis of moon rocks demonstrated it was very unlikely to contain significant levels of very rare elements, while the cost of bringing back mere pounds of any such matter was huge.

The 'scientific' rewards were similarly limited, especially when compared to the lesser cost of putting and keeping a space station in orbit.

So the principal rewards were all about 'face' or status and the US is not a culture where face is all that important. They have much more practical things to worry about. Such as the level of poverty experienced (at that time) of significant minority groups.

Even if the moon were seen a staging post to Mars, it is unlikely the US would return without significant pressure from competition or from 'enemy' states. It would be economically and technically preferable to use a station

BBC News (2019): NASA To Return To The Moon

Nasa wants to send astronauts to live on the moon: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47182487

NASA's public business is always trying to drum up financial support for some scheme or other - and they are always a 'decade' or so away.

The reality is that the US hasn't got the will to return to the moon.

President Trump's new 'space force' was announced and there wasn't even a hint of a moon base.

It may well be that the US will put soldiers on there, but it will be in response to China doing so first.

My best guess (and belief) is that China will be there, with military hardware, in the next 5 years. Then you will see a major panic in Washington.

Greetings Dr Proffitt,

Here is the original BBC interview of NASA returning to the Moon. It was also suggested that China's lunar ambitions is what was going to prompt the U.S. and other nations into action.

It was emphasised that international participation in future space explorations improves the chance of success.

BBC TV World News Interview with Dr Ken Kremer, NASA Return to Moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_SwX3VIwCw

Regards

Nice discussion, informative, helpful ...

The last response to this was from me on 10-07-2019. Since then on, no update was seen in this thread. Thanks a lot to Dr. Thierry De Mees

Thanks a lot for valuable contributions

If one understands the Apollo missions, conditions on the Moon, how radiation works, etc., etc., then all the "we never went to the Moon" stuff becomes gibberish and hence not very interesting. The actual missions are far more interesting. I generally tell people that if they study the actual missions, making the effort to dig into the real science needed to understand them, then they'll have no doubt that we landed astronauts on the Moon. The psychology of "we never went to the Moon" is probably the most interesting part of it. What induces people to share the fact that they don't understand science and engineering with lots of other people? Why is it appealing to some to believe that one of the greatest human engineering accomplishments never happened? It's like saying the pyramids were never built and then setting out to prove it.

Thierry De Mees

There is a short answer: The moon has no wealth and resources.

The Apollo-mission was made at first to earn political capital. Scientific results were secondary.

Sole the construction of the lunar modul was worth its weight in gold. It is much cheaper to discover the solar system by automats and probes.

Mohsen Lutephy

A remarkable claim.

On what basis do you have these thoughts?

Mohsen Lutephy

1. I've followed the X-prize since its inception - what story did you have in mind?

2. Well, that would be quite a challenge. But simply because a terribly difficult thing was *not* done is not suggestive of a conspiracy. I mean, we've not colonized the sea floor either.

3. Is it? A great many places in our solar system cannot support life as we know it.

4. I'm British but am not familiar with 'god law' - can you explain?

5. Suddenly? I don't remember that. 18 through 20 were cancelled *years* before they were to be flown - it was hardly a last minute change in direction.

Mohsen Lutephy

1. I know of no documents that show that the Ansari X-prize knew that lunar missions were impossible. Can you provide a link?

2. I'm not sure what you mean by this.

3. See 2. There are parts of this world that have no life. There are no signs of life elsewhere in this solar system, or beyond - as far as I know. Why would life be a necessary result?

4. You claim to be from another galaxy and that trees can locomote like animals?

I clearly do not grasp your sense of humour - and they say that that transcends cultures!

5. Yes.

I'm not sure that I'm any closer to knowing why you think that there is life on the Moon *and* a secret US base.

Mohsen Lutephy

I'll have to step away from this conversation. I'm not sure that it's useful to either of us - we appear to be separated by a gulf of comprehension - I do not understand some of your statements.

Your claims that there is life in all planets, I suggest, is not supported by any information that I know of. If I can be corrected, factually, I welcome such data.

Cordially;

In my opinion, it is only "Life" that may be possible in all planets; but, not "Human Life"

Dear @ Mohsen Lutephy

Thanks a lot for reply. Please provide the authentic references supporting the figure of 18,000 and your statements

It is believed to have a very poor socioeconomic status; and, so, such results

For Thierry De Mees

If you make a 3D model, then you may find out that the fixed position moon man see almost the earth in one position in the dark sky, however, the image of the earth is being changed due to the moon rotation. I said almost because there is tiny spin.

So, the fixed position moon man may never see the Earth rise/set.

Thierry De Mees

I think, if you do a little research, that you'll find that the only times when Earth was viewed on the horizon was when the crew were *in orbit* and passing the line that demarcates farside from nearside.

I know of no Apollo photographs from the surface which show the Earth hugging the horizon.

As is utterly expected.

Farhad Vedad I think you are correcct. It seems Thierry De Mees

DEc, 2015 -- NASA releases new photos of Earth from moon, explains how some of the photos are created from different cameras being used to take photos of Earth from a satellite near the Moon's surface. Perhaps people are calling the image "fake" because it is merging two kinds of images -- color and black and white -- to obtain better resolution. For discussion see,

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015/

Aleš Kralj it is easy. Moon is made of green cheese, so the Earth is blue cheese.

Thierry De Mees

It seems to be point away from the real focal point

when I was first read about this interesting subject The source was the highly reputable Kuwait Journal in 1971 - 6 years old - AL Araby- and from the the highly detailed and comprehensive photo attached to the subject I could understand every module in this highly sophisticated subject and indeed the photos of Neil on moon has inspired me so many times till now and repeat his famous phrase in the lecture - one small step for a man- Giant leap for Humanity????

When the most clever people in the earth the Russians has shown that Apollo Project is no more than one small lie from man - and giant cheat for human kind!!!?? beyond doubt when they captured the return module even closed and sealed near Hawaii??? for Apollo 13????? what we have been left with to speak??

I like simple phases = Apollo is the most ever costly movie directed by Hollywood from the poor tax payer American people who where repeatedly cheated by their Admin while poor American people die daily on regular basis in Vietnam ??????? may any one answer me?

wisam