Why is it So Difficult To Land On The Moon If We Have Already Landed On Other Planets ?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 06. 2024
- 🌎 Get Our Merch designed with ❤ / @insanecuriosity
💫Get 10% off Under Lucky Stars and enjoy our star maps completely custom-made 💫 www.underluckystars.com/INSAN...
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.99/mo before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/InsaneCuriosity 💻
Commercial Purposes ► Lorenzovareseaziendale@gmail.com
Our New Website ► insanecuriosity.com/
Throughout the history of lunar exploration, more than half of all missions have failed; some have been lost upon landing and never found, others have crashed into the lunar surface, destroying themselves, and others never arrived, so why is it so difficult to land on the Moon?
Why didn't the astronauts on the Apollo missions have these problems? Let's find out!
Although the Moon is one of the closest celestial bodies to Earth, landing on its surface remains a significant challenge for aerospace engineering.
The first factor complicating the Moon landing is its surface. Unlike other planets like Earth, which have a dense atmosphere that can slow down the spacecraft and allow it to land smoothly, the Moon has no significant atmosphere that can be used to slow down the descent. In addition, its surface is covered with craters and rocks, which increases the risk of the spacecraft crashing.
Another major cause of failures in missions to the Moon is lunar gravity, which is only about one-sixth of Earth's gravity. This means that any spacecraft landing on the Moon must be able to decelerate enough to avoid crashing, but it must also calibrate the rocket braking process well to not jump back into space. In other words, the spacecraft design and landing system must balance the need for smooth deceleration and reduced mass so that the spacecraft can remain on the lunar surface.
- -
"If You happen to see any content that is yours, and we didn't give credit in the right manner please let us know at Lorenzovareseaziendale@gmail.com and we will correct it immediately"
"Some of our visual content is under an Attribution-ShareAlike license. (creativecommons.org/licenses/) in its different versions such as 1.0, 2.0, 3,0, and 4.0 - permitting commercial sharing with attribution given in each picture accordingly in the video."
Credits: Ron Miller, Mark A. Garlick / MarkGarlick.com
Credits: Nasa/Shutterstock/Storyblocks/Elon Musk/SpaceX/ESA/ESO/ Flickr
00:00 Intro
2:40 Why is it so difficult to land on the moon?
6:05 Failed missions
7:59 The far side of the moon
9:07 the problem of autonomy
10:48 What We have learned?
#insanecuriosity #moonlanding #moon - Věda a technologie
Grab Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.99/mo before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/InsaneCuriosity 💻
Front loading the video with that.... unsubscribing.
2 minutes 30 seconds of advert at the start? Poor show there
A small step replication of an event 54 years ago still requires a giant leap forward effort from the mankind.
Yes. Cash
@@budwhite9591 yes. Reality.
@@brettvogel8418 yes we did land on the moon in 1969.
but we did it for military purposes, to prevent the Soviet Union from controlling space.
Eventually we will have a permanent base there, including commercial components, and it will be routine to go there on vacation.
We're also going to Mars in the 2030s and will be the first humans on Mars.
@@neutrino78x are you being sarcastic? Because we can't even make it to the moon now. I doubt a trip to mars will even be in our lifetimes
@@brettvogel8418
"Because we can't even make it to the moon now."
What are you talking about, we landed on the moon in 1969 and then did it three more times.
We just did the test flight earlier this year for a modern moon mission. You missed it?
The same rocket will launch with humans in 2025.
Loving the thought provoking content ❤
Correction: Luna 9 made first soft landing on the Moon in Feb. 1966 while Surveyor 1 landed 4 months later.
I am beyond disappointed that we haven't been back to the moon in over 50 years
Super info
This ad has nice moon landing video at the end.
Ironically, the video is uploaded 2h before the Hakuto-R lander apparently crash landed on the Moon!
50 years greatest shame of humanity !
How will Nasa overcome the communication gap between stations here on Earth & a man landing on Mars? That was not such a major problem for the Apollo missions because of the much shorter distance. If a spacecraft going to Mars has a problem somewhat like on Apollo 13 going to the moon, it could take several minutes to more than 20 minutes for a signal to reach Earth from the spacecraft. Then the same in replying back to the spacecraft. PJ
Probably by deploying an array of satellites orbiting between mars and earth
lronic that this came out on the same day a new privately-owned Japanese spacecraft apparently crashed there.
go back ? are you sure ? ( APOLLO 11 PRESS CONFERENCE )
I just❤ the AI Voice
NOT LoL 🤣
" the reason is because the ship doesnt have the delta v to land. They need to launch at least 15 more rockets to refuel the rocket to even attempt to land, and when they do there is no abort mode for the crew for 6 days "
I don't think I have heard such a load of BS in a long. Actually sir, all of the excuses you've proposed here have been overcome decades ago. Our technology is far superior today than it was then- period.
"Our technology is far superior today than it was then- period."
What's your point, exactly?
Yes, we did land on the moon in 1969.
Yes, we will land on it again in 2025.
Yes, we will land on Mars in the 2030s.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons.
I think you are a bit pessimistisk to what a machine can do. For example you say the astronauts that landet apollo 11 spent a lot of time and effort scanning and studying the surface to find the right spot, and a machine can not do that....(?)
Not only can a machine, today, do that. It could probably do it 1/100 of the time it took Mr. Armstrong, not taking anything away from those guys, but a machine with 50 eyes in every spectrum, +radar/laser etc sensors to measure distance will do things a wee bit faster than a couple of PhD pilots...
Wow, this is very timely given what just happened to the Japanese Lander. However, I can't believe that you didn't mention the successful Chinese orbiters and Landers (e.g., Chang'e 5), especially the one that landed on the far side (Yutu 2)! What is going on here? I really enjoy your videos, but you just lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.
Plenty of coverage of Soviet failures but not a word about China which has emerged as the No 2 moon exploration nation after the US. Will we now see a video on Mars rovers with no mention of the Chinese rover that landed successfully on the first attempt and operated for about a year? Not as good as the US rovers yet but remarkable for a first attempt.
Precisely! This was another grave point of criticism on my side... I did not like this compilation at all! The totally asynchronous and often senseless paring of spoken text and imagery was more than just irritating - it makes the whole program ridiculous and worthless! Mike, Germany
It's not difficult to 'land' on the moon. It's difficult to live there.
Have no idea about the video. A 3 minute ad at the beginning made me skip it
I just keep hitting 'L' on the keyboard - making it advance 10 seconds at a time - until such ads are over. Great time saver.
Screw that vpn
weve learned we humans never been to outerspace...why is nasa trying to figure how to get passed the belts.....
Wait hold on. I thought CZcams Premium avoided the adverts. What is up with this? I am paying to watch a commercial, Google is not rich enough?
The time of the moon landings was an age of real men with the right stuff. I doubt these soft weak diverse astronauts picked with equity in mind could hand pilot a lander to the moons surface.
Excuses, excuses. It was done almost 60 years ago. You mean it's harder today than then!?!?
Well, an attempt to land there just today just failed. So, maybe.
Its harder to keep the lie alive after so long
It's a big fat lie just to piss of Russia.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons. Even Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
There is no such thing as a “Safe” Planet to land on.🙄
Even landing safely on Earth can be a challenge.
Why it's difficult to land on moon?
Me: is it?? I thought it was easy peasy stuff
Also the fact they put a lot more safety in crewed mission then non crewed mission. A lot of testing went into the Apollo Program before man landed on the moon.
50 years ago? Should be a cakewalk now. There is absolutely no reason to believe americans stepped on the moon 50 years ago.
@@brettvogel8418
"There is absolutely no reason to believe americans stepped on the moon 50 years ago."
Lots of reasons. For one, we can send a laser beam that reflects off an artifact left on the moon for that purpose.
Why didn't the Russians or Chinese announce that we never landed? They were able to track things with radar just like us, they could triangulate radio signals just like us.
How come Chinese probes have photographed the Apollo 11 landing site and seen our gear still there? Again, they are the enemy, if they saw evidence we never went, they would say something. It would be a big win for them.
@@brettvogel8418 One good reason is that if they hadn't actually landed there the Soviets, who had done successful robot soft landings, would have known about it and exposed the fraud immediately. And some of the thousands employed in the Apollo program would have confessed in the decades since.
@@brettvogel8418 Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began and continued into the early 1970’s during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, economic recession, public apathy, and a grassroots Republican backlash against what was seen as an over-reaching of federal government into the nation’s affairs.
It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was also extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio.
The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the military missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
Thks & ??Would the-moon make a great laser reflector/repeator for eath communications??
that would mean 2,5 seconds delay...
@@alexdaland Yes, so no real-time communication but none-real-time communication is quite important (ex: txt-msging, email, backups, multi-media, transactions, etc).
Otherwise with laser retroreflectors/concentators on the-moon ??would the-moon make a practical comm satellite for everyone on the-earth?? For ex: it might require atmospheric correction (ex: adaptive optics) but all simultanuous viewers of the-moon could in-theory laser communicate with each other, quite-simple.
@@tombouie In theory, perhaps. But its far easier to use geostationary satellites that everyone always know where are, not matter time of day/week/month. And they can already talk to each other. So using the actual ground on the moon for a relay would have limited effect vs costs.
Remember, if you fly something up to moon orbit, you use x amounts of fuel. Landing will cost you y more... And landing will only make your sphere of influence smaller, not bigger - ergo, no point, even if possible. Test it out in kerbal space program and you'll quickly see the (unnecessary) limitations that would create.
@@alexdaland Soon there'll many more trips to the moon & perhaps to mars. I assumed piggy-back satellites would be very inexpensive compared to prime payloads. A laser retro-reflector/concentrator/repeater/etc satellite only has to get on the moon, deploy its laser retro-reflector/concentrator/repeater/etc point towards earth, & after-that it works ~forever (aka KISS satellites). Hopefully some geek college PhD types might give it a try. Oh, I worked the satellite control network (SCN) during the 80s as a military officer & oh-what-fun (the blue-cube rules ;).
Armstrong flying the bedstead trainer was the machine that mimic the problems of landing on the moon and he successfully did. The computers and actuators today are superior performers today.
Today you could build model of that trainer, and stuff it with dji drone sensors and flight controls, and it would probably nail it the first attempt. Wouldnt you much more than 1K$ either probably
Because we never landed there before...if we have better rockets and faster travel than we had in the 1960's, then what's the problem??
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons.
54 years later & still struggling to return. Makes you wonder what was true or not.
"Makes you wonder what was true or not."
No it doesn't. We can bounce lasers off the reflector that Apollo 11 left there.
Also the Russians and Chinese tracked us with radar and triangulated our radio signals and would have said something if we didn't go to the Moon.
It's just because we went for military purposes and once that military purpose was fulfilled, we didn't need to keep going back, so NASA's budget was cut.
Also there's an issue with the senate not wanting to fund things unless money is being spent in the senator's district.
@@neutrino78x And you know all this for a fact. LOL
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons.
Ask JOhn Glenn he did it.
😂😂😂John Glenn? He flew mercury and the shuttle. Didn’t land on anything but his own ego
So humen moon mission is false
3 minutes of your 13 minute video were ads. Come on dude.
The Moon is a self luminary object and is not solid. Neither is any of the planets. It's easily proven with a high quality camera. Even more with a home telescope. I can zoom in in a blue sky day and the missing part of the moon isn't there. No shadow it's see through. Same at night. I have pics so close that I could see a human walking. But no other part of the moon is visible during a partial moon. That's why it can't be landed on. I have photos of Mars so close and it's a rotating light. Just like a star if you know how to video then. Illuminating lights is all that you see in the sky.
Man I cant stand 5 sec CZcams ad but here your putting 3 minutes ad
I mean I know you need ads to support your content but that's not the way to do that
why don't use old apollo landing technology ? or you already destroy it ? 😆
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons.
DIDN'T THEY SPEAK TO NIXON FROM THE MOON? 🤔Everything you're saying esp with the thorough science you state, you make it sound that while we may have did it over 50yrs ago and with 50yrs of mind blowing exponential advancements in science, technology and in just about everything, it's almost impossible to do it now in 2023. Not to mention the trillions weve spent on NASA and Defense since, why was it so easy to do so MANY times before? Did you not notice how space exploration disappeared not bc of tragedies but with the sudden ability to be instantly connected with each other in the palm of our hands? 🤔A thought, not a fact but you don't have an explanation to my first statement.
Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began and continued into the early 1970’s during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, economic recession, public apathy, and a grassroots Republican backlash against what was seen as an over-reaching of federal government into the nation’s affairs.
It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was also extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio.
To an extent Apollo was reckless and the U.S. government my were right to stop it when they did as there was no provision for rescue. Had it continued it is quite possible (as some NASA managers and astronauts privately feared) that somewhere amongst the thousands of parts a fault would get through the quality control that wouldn’t be fixable and there would be a fatality in space or on the Moon.
The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the military missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons. Even Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons.
(( I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293 ))
Why would anyone watch a video with a 2 minute add to begin?
Narrator still cannot correctly pronounce "data".
LIES
So a whole 2 minutes and 40 seconds worth of ads... please do better or get another career. Atleast cut ads down to 1 minute 10 seconds...
2:37 For a freaking AD!..that was the longest ad I have ever had to skip through, i hope they paid the channel pretty well because those are the kinds of things that get people to NOT subscribe and/or not view there content....NO MORE THAT THAT HORRENDOUS GARBAGE, ULTRA LONG AD'$!!!!!
we can't go back to the moon to live ...
THE LIZZAARDD PEOPLE WON'T LET YOU!!!
they also hate the garbage we keep leaving!!!
( a clean moon is a happy moon ) 😊😊😊
The disparity between the commentary and the displayed images was highly disturbing and irritating! Completely pointless was the imagery of the STS (Shuttle) in this context! The STS has nothing to do with moon landings... The Chinese have been mentioned according to their achievements. When the commentary spoke of the Soviet Luna Probes... one could see Artemis head on... This whole piece is simply low quality journalism, sloppily produced! Sorry!!
Its hard to land on the moon now but it wasn't back then. Yeah right I don't believe they went to moon in the first place
I'm starting more and more to agree that they never went. They say the radiation shielding needs an instrument to test how it works, if they went then why do they need so much data. Everyone is acting like it's the first time we've tried. I can't fathom how they went in the 60's
@@Jezee213 ikr it's crazy cause technology is move advance now
@@jelisagordon4163 why do you believe that?
@@kristinehansen. because there wasn't any proof that they went in the first place, not only that talk about like it's the first time they will be going .
Yeah I bet communist Russia & communist China both agreed to help the USA-Nasa cover it all up. Shalom
All that detail and not a word about Chinese automated missions that have landed on the Earth facing side of the Moon, explored and then sent samples of rocks and regolith back to Earth. Then you gave long details about the issues involved in landing on the far side of the Moon without a word about the only mission that has done that - a Chinese lander and rover. I understand that the US needs adversaries to justify its armaments industries and the vast sums fed into the Pentagon. I understand that you have selected China to be your main adversary. But what benefit is there to you or to anyone in your ignoring what a rival power is doing? You just lose credibility by doing that.
" I understand that you have selected China to be your main adversary. "
First of all who's you? What country are you from?
China and Russia have large nuclear arsenals on a hair trigger against NATO. This is a real thing. It did not stop in the 90s. I served on submarines in the USN so I know a lot of details about it that I won't discuss, but yes, nuclear war is very real. We are very much on the same hair trigger we have been on since the 50s.
If your country is in NATO it's OUR. Not "your". OUR.
NATO members:
Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Montenegro
Netherlands
North Macedonia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
If your country is not in NATO but otherwise an ally of the USA such as Japan or Australia, or the European Union, again, it's OUR. Not your.
UK and France have independent nuclear arsenals and are allied with the USA.
China is a communist dictatorship, Russia is a fascist one. In no way is either country among the good guys.
And no, China has not landed men on the moon, nor has Russia.
@@neutrino78x China and Russia have their missiles aimed at the US? Why they probably do. After all there is only one country that has used nuclear weapons in war. And where are its missiles aimed? Oh, yes. How aggressive of them to aim right back! All of which is no reason, in a video on lunar exploration, to make no mention of the second most active and effective lunar exploration country.
@@rais1953
" China and Russia have their missiles aimed at the US? "
The USA, UK, France, and the other members of NATO.
They are also dictatorships. They are not free countries. Nothing about what they do is to be celebrated.
" to make no mention of the second most active and effective lunar exploration country."
lmao they're like the 20th most active and effective. 2nd would probably be the European Space Agency, followed by Japan. lmao I don't know where you got that.
The Question is Wrong!!!
Why is it so difficult to land in the moon if we landed 50 years ago with caveman technology ….. or we haven’t ????
My thoughts exactly 💯
When they’re building new hardware from scratch it’s a big deal. The guys that built Apollo 60 and 70 years ago, didn’t exactly save all their blueprints on auto cadd. It was all built by hand. They don’t build like that anymore. That’s why. Unless you’d care to dust off a 60 plus year old Apollo capsule and take it for a spin
@@Ligma-Balls-69 It wasn't caveman technology.
Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began and continued into the early 1970’s during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, economic recession, public apathy, and a grassroots Republican backlash against what was seen as an over-reaching of federal government into the nation’s affairs.
It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was also extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio.
The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the military missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige. There was no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons.
The “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
Nobody landed on the Moon!
Sigh.
Easy we haven't been yet
Because there's too much on the moon that they don't want us to see now and it would be too hard to hide
that is silly nonsense!
The same reason I never went back to Istanbul...... I never went there in the first place.