Why haven't we been to the moon for a while?

Haha, I am sure your answer might be right. The reason for this is because it became too expensive since neither the Saturn 5 rocket, nor the Apollo spacecraft are reusable. They is a lot of money to dish out when the thing will just burn up in the atmosphere and thats it. NASA just gave a contract to Lockheed Martin to build the new Crew Exploration Vechile which will replace the Space Shuttle one the International Space Station is built. This vechile will have the capability to land on the moon.

Idiots who use the fact that the moon landings were 1960s technology and we haven't been back with 21st century technology, to "prove" to their silly minds that the moon landings were a hoax, can be knocked back imediately.

The Concorde supersonic airliner was 1960s technology. We no longer have a supersonic airliner. In fact, our airliners now only fly about one third as fast as Concorde.

Perhaps Concorde was a hoax???

The fact is, just like Apollo, Concorde was too expensive. Speed has give way to mass, cheap transport.

Same for the current space program. NASA can put 50 probes into space for the price of one manned mission. It is as simple as that.

And those who are stupid enough to believe all that hoax nonsense have no idea of the history.

Read this carefully - the Germans developed an inter-continental missile rocket in the 1940's. The V2s were fired at London late 1944 and into 1945. That is 25 years before the moon landings.

If Germany had not been so bent on war, they could have been on the moon before 1960. Instead their top rocket engineer, Von Braun, had to escape to the USA and start up a program all over again.

Read history and stop all this stupidy.

Because, we`ve never been to the moon in the first place. In 2007, Cadillac can`t even make a car in this day and age that can do a 100 Km journey without the engine falling apart. Do you really think we could get to the moon and back 37 years ago? Live pictures and sounds beamed from the so-called moon landing 37 yrears ago are clearer than live feeds sent from another continent today - meaning the actual landing was filmed in a studio in good ol` Uncle Sam`s back yard.

Willy Ley, Wernher Von Braun and Hermann Oberth all showed that a space station is a necessary first step for a sustained presence in space. Going to the Moon was like Amundsens dash to the pole, compared to the Amundsen-Scott Base. It's a matter of a supply chain and the economics of gravity. Freeman Dyson and Gerard K. O'Neil give a more contemp[orary rendering.

because we're goal oriented we already did that and our next goal would be an actual planet like mars. the cost is astronomical to build a base there but will be done soon before mars because the moon is a mere 230,000 miles away while mars is a 2 year mission round trip. a permanent base on the moon is essential as a staging area for a mars trip and to test the technology. putting a base on the moon requires solving long term logistics like water and oxygen. mars is hundreds of times worse. and to the conspiracy theorists Apollo 11 left a prism to measure the exact distance from the earth to the moon. feel free to purchase a laser range finder and test your hoax theory. there about 20k.

After a while, public attention wanes. The original lunar landings were done as much for PR reasons, to give the nation something positive to think about amid the bomb scares and Cold War conflicts, as they were for science. After a while, most people began to lose interest, and that reason became moot. Also the Veitnam conflict hit its peak during the Apollo missions, and we had to devote more and more resources to the fighting here on our own planet. Once we lost the inertia that had kept the Apollo program going, it was just too hard to go back to it.

Yes, no beaches or tanning salons. And nothing else of interest. At least nothing interesting to enough people to justify the high cost of going there.

Research is expensive and so is the money to get to the moon. When we went to the moon decades ago, it was really just a race to beat the soviet union. Why would we go back anyway? We know whats up there now and we know we have the technology to get there so whats the point really? Not to mention what the astronauts might have seen... Armstrong gets real offensive if you question him on what he saw so i don't know what they really saw. Be warned...

We havent been back, because there is something there that scared the hell out of Mr. Armstrong and whoever else was watching back here on earth. Whoever or whatever was there told them not to ever get back.

Because we're too focused on fighting a war on terror that doesn't exist----and our new objectives are set on a more challenging mission, like the one to Mars