If landing on the moon was soooo important...why don't they do it more often?
474141
It's expensive.  But now going back to the moon is seen as preparation for going to Mars.  The technology used to go to the moon now will work out the bugs in the equipment that will be used to go to Mars.  Strangely, we are just redesigning some of the stuff that was used in the Apollo missions, basically the same capsule design updated with the latest electronics.  Why, because it worked, there is no need to reinvent the wheel when you have something that works, stick with it.
1183835
With the current advances in transportation technology, it will be possible it is just a matter of time.  The main problem that space exploration has to deal with is radiation surges caused by solar flares.  They have to develop a proper shielding and detection system that is light enough to launch into outer space.  That is one of the reasons why it is debated whether or not man has even walked on the moon because of the immense amount of radiation that the ship would have been forced to endure would it have traveled that distance.  There are a number of other proofs provided for both sides taht I will not get into.  I think that it is possible and that man will accomplish it if the Lord tarries his coming.
1036865
Still human being cannot determine simpler and safer way to get to the local orbit, let alone Mars together with long haul voyages, nowadays human's intellect is only good to sell the Moon's 'lands' for the future-based villas and finding idiotic 'smiles' on the Martian surface, unfortunately.   \ncheers
142934
Craters on the moon are important because they demonstrate that meteors do sometimes come close to the earth and are of large enough size to do considerable damage. The moon might actually fend off or catch a lot of the meteors before they strike the earth. \n\nThere are millions of craters on the moon. Here are some big ones. You can easily find many more:\n\nAristarchus 25 miles (40 km) in diameter and 2.2 miles (3.6 km) deep (from rim to floor)\nPtolemaeus (diameter=164 km ) \nAlphonsus (diameter = 108 km) \nAlbategnius crater (diameter = 114 km)
1179969
Not soon enough.\nSince there is no Super-power race for space dominance, it comes down to "will it make a profit".  So, when some industry or company decides they can make a few million bucks, it'll happen.  Until then, don't go looking for tickets for the moon shuttle.
1139913
Nothing is impossible now, with the development of science and technology.  But we should all be careful as not to do what the US did...staging it on a studio to look like the astronauts have really landed on the moon!  fooled us! but not for long, right?
297672
what is good about landing on mars? we dint make a penny from landing on moon,,,, just a money waste
1112503
Actually, no, we haven't done it since the original six landings.  The last one was Apollo 17 in 1972, and since then, we haven't sent a manned mission back to the moon.
757355
we never went there in the first place it was a hoax to show the world that the USA was Superior to the USSR . they cant do a hoax  now because the technology the public have is to good . if we did go and it was possible to resist the radiation on the moon we would have company's sending people there all the time look at all the money they would make . where there is money there is a will . but if it is not possible then no one will try.
68690
During the 60's, we spent a lot of money to get to the moon ahead of the Soviets. It was more political and less science.\n\nOnce we got there, we confirmed that it was just a giant hunk of rock.\n\nNow, it's more of a "been there, done that" attitude. It's expensive to get there, and there's no real reason to go back. It's like paying money to take a second vacation to the middle of a desert.
999749
nothing... your car nowadays have a more complicated computer system then that lunar module.  I hope your asking about the first one that land on the moon
105320
It takes a lot of energy to break out of Earth orbit, and thus takes a lot of fuel.  Just to get to the moon, it took a giant, 3 stage, Saturn V rocket.\n\nThe space shuttle was specifically designed to be used in Earth orbit and thus could not carry near enough fuel to escape Earth's gravitational pull.
131259
They aren't. My brother works at the Keck telescope in Hawai'i, which is run by NASA, and they looked at the moon recently to get some information about possible landing sites for the new missions. But there's not much call to look at the moon any more, since we can get much better pictures from sending spaceprobes there.
1099240
I admit I have been wondering the same thing myself--espicially after seeing a documentary posing doubts we landed on the moon.  The photographic evidence posed on the show did give me some thought, being I do have experience in professional photography.\n\nThe LEM photos: That thing purportedly landed on the moon, firing retro rockets with enough blast power to burn the moon surface under it to shiny black glass.....yet the area looks undistrubed!  All that violent firepower had to have raised moon dust all over the place.....yet look how shiny and dirt free the LEM landing pads looked.  Espically take note of NO moon dust collected inside the landing foot pods themselves.\n\nThe Apollo mission cameras were state of the art of their time, with perfectly etched "crosses" on the lenses to assist with picture composition.  I still see the astronaut photo where one of those crosses IS BLOCKED OUT by the guy's shoulder--where it should've been OVERLAPPED to appear onto his arm/shoulder!!\n\nThe sun light / angle theory gets complicated.....but it clearly made sense to me....and gave rise to suspicions.  \n\nThe video of a golf ball getting shot out into space was good PR, but take note how the fine moon dust stirred up by the lunar rover merely falls back to the surface....when it should fly off into the air.\n\nThen there's the Van Allen belt explanation: stuff we learned back in fifth grade: a deadly belt of radiation, stretching hundreds of miles between us and the Moon.  You'd have to travel in a ship with walls of at least five feet thick of lead to safely shoot through it....the Apollo space vehicle walls were....what....maybe two inches (if that) thick???  And our guys never cooked like chicken in a microwave???? The Van Allen belt emits enough deadly radiation to singe fry the Apollo capsule electronics in about 2 minutes and cook the astronauts in about another minute past that.  So how did our guys do it?\n\nThe Space Shuttle: purportedly capable of travel to the Moon and back....yet it's NEVER been done.  Why? The thing can carry enough fuel, food / supplies and other life support for such safe travel.  In fact, it was one of the Shuttle program objectives...that got put on the back burner....and not likely due to "budget" or "safety" concerns.\n\nHowever, all this "evidence" is of conjecture; you have to be your own judge on if we faked the Moon landings, until we get a deathbed confession by one of the surviving astronauts to confirm we DID fake the landings.  Until then, it makes for great coffee-cafe debate amongst good friends.
1135240
There have been six.\n\n-- Apollo 11: July 16, 1969.\n(First manned landing on the Moon, July 20.)\n-- Apollo 12: November 14, 1969.\n-- Apollo 14: January 31, 1971.\n(The infamous Alan Shepard walks on the Moon.)\n-- Apollo 15: July 26, 1971.\n(First mission with the Lunar Rover vehicle.)\n-- Apollo 16: April 16, 1972.\n-- Apollo 17: December 7, 1972.\n(Last Apollo mission.)\n\nYes, all the landings were done within a 2-1/2 year period. Back then, there was a LOT of excitement about actually landing on the surface. But ever since then, the level of interest has been waning, and thus NASA could not justify the tremendous cost of a lunar expedition to Congress to appropriate the necessary funds. More focus has been going into unmanned exploration and surveying, with the bulk going into more practical Earth-orbit missions.\n\n(You'll notice that Apollo 13 is missing from the list above. If you've read the book "Lost Moon" or seen the movie "Apollo 13", then you know exactly why. ^.^)
768438
The main reason is that there is no weather on the moon to erode the surface.  Additionally, there is no tectonic movement of the surface of the moon.  Because of both these things, the surface of the moon is stable, while the earth's surface is constantly being altered.
92344
I have my doubts.\n\nBoth the US and China both have aims at going to the moon within the next couple of decades, but I havent seen much progresss by either nation to take such a big leap forward from their current space program.\n\nChina just launched its first person into space a few years ago, I havent heard much after that.\n\nThe US has already been there so they are probably in the best position to do it again.  NASA however is still trying to squeeze what it can out of the remaining orbiters in order to complete the international space station, besides that and trying to launch as many probes as it is, they can hardly find time to plan for what is replace the shuttle, much less going to the moon and beyond.