tyla homepage
tyla homepage
  • News
    • Politics
    • Entertainment
    • Celebrity
  • Entertainment
    • Celebrity
  • Life
    • Animals
    • Food & Drink
    • Women's Health
    • Mental Health
    • Sex & Relationships
    • Travel
    • Real Life
  • TV & Film
    • True Crime
    • Tyla Recommends
  • Astrology
  • Beauty
    • Hair
    • Make-up
    • Skincare
  • Style
    • Home
  • Advertise
  • Terms
  • Privacy & Cookies
  • LADbible Group
  • LADbible
  • UNILAD
  • SPORTbible
  • GAMINGbible
  • UNILAD Tech
  • FOODbible
  • License Our Content
  • About Us & Contact
  • Jobs
  • Latest
  • Archive
  • Topics A-Z
  • Authors
Facebook
Instagram
X
Threads
TikTok
Submit Your Content
Real reason why no human has been sent to the moon in the last five decades
Home>News
Published 14:32 6 May 2025 GMT+1

Real reason why no human has been sent to the moon in the last five decades

Apparently, it has nothing to do with NASA's technology

Britt Jones

Britt Jones

google discoverFollow us on Google Discover
Featured Image Credit: CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

Topics: Nasa, Politics, Science, Space, US News

Britt Jones
Britt Jones

Advert

Advert

Advert

Astronauts have not set foot on the moon in five decades, and the reason will shock you.

You might recall that the last NASA mission to the moon which saw people touch down on the giant space rock was in December 1972, during the Apollo 17 mission.

After having made history, you’d think that it would become common place for astronauts to fly out to continue their studies.

However, there’s a very good reason why they’ve never been back.

Advert

I mean, NASA landed 12 people on the moon- it’s something that is no small feat.

The Apollo 17 mission in '72 was the last time a NASA astronaut set foot on the moon (HUM Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
The Apollo 17 mission in '72 was the last time a NASA astronaut set foot on the moon (HUM Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

When they got there, astronauts would go on to collect specimens like moon rock, took photos of their surroundings, and also planted flags to let everyone know that they had been there.

But they didn’t go the extra mile and attempt to set up a base for large-scale operations, or even plan out regular visits.

But why?

According to Jim Bridenstine, who ran NASA during the Trump administration, said it's not science that has stopped NASA from returning people to the moon- it’s the budget issues and political strain.

Even though the space agency has promised that we’ll see astronauts once again land on the planet by September 2026 at the earliest, in their Artemis mission, Bridenstine said to reporters in 2018 as per Business Insider, it’s all tied to the president.

"If it wasn't for the political risk, we would be on the moon right now," she said. "In fact, we would probably be on Mars."

Also, there’s a lot of risks involved with setting up base on the moon, and if it’s not done right, it could risk the lives of all on the planet.

According to Chris Hadfield, a former astronaut, who told the publication: "A permanent human research station on the moon is the next logical step. It's only three days away. We can afford to get it wrong and not kill everybody.

It's apparently to do with politics and money (HUM Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
It's apparently to do with politics and money (HUM Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

"And we have a whole bunch of stuff we have to invent and then test in order to learn before we can go deeper out."

While it would be tricky, there is one major hurdle that NASA would have to jump over, and that’s the massive costs.

As NASA's 2024 budget was $24.9 billion, it just wouldn’t be enough to cover the expenditure.

With US Congress taking its sweet time to pass its 2024 budget, NASA said that this was a very significant reason it had to cut eight per cent of its workforce at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory earlier this year.

"NASA's portion of the federal budget peaked at 4% in 1965," Walter Cunningham, an Apollo 7 astronaut, explained during his congressional testimony in 2015.

Now, NASA's 2024 budget is only around 0.36 per cent of US spending, as per the the Planetary Society.

With an Apollo mission costing $257 billion today, the $24.9 billion yearly budget is nothing in comparison to what they need to make another moon landing possible.

"Manned exploration is the most expensive space venture and, consequently, the most difficult for which to obtain political support," Cunningham said.

He added, as per the publication, Scientific American: "Unless the country, which is Congress here, decided to put more money in it, this is just talk that we're doing here."

Choose your content:

23 mins ago
an hour ago
2 hours ago
3 hours ago
  • Mark Cuthbert/UK Press via Getty Images
    23 mins ago

    Royal Ascot's strict dress code rule that forbids anyone from wearing popular clothing items

    Racegoers are being urged to check the rules before heading to Berkshire

    News
  • Getty Stock Images
    an hour ago

    Police urge people to watch out for 3 subtle signs of abuse during the World Cup

    England is set to take on Croatia in its first game during the 2026 World Cup tournament this week (17 June)

    News
  • Getty Stock Image
    2 hours ago

    Which social media platforms will be banned for under-16s in UK - as petition reaches 190,000 signatures

    UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the divisive under-16's social media ban on Monday (15 June)

    News
  • Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images
    3 hours ago

    Anyone with an England flag on their car risks £2.5k fine ahead of World Cup Croatia match

    Motoring experts have issued the urgent warning ahead of the England vs Croatia match this evening (17 June)

    News
  • Astronaut explains why we haven't visited the Moon since 1972
  • NASA are sending Americans back to the moon for several vital reasons
  • US appears to set out plans for moon takeover
  • 24-year-old woman is preparing to become first ever human to go to Mars despite major risk