The race to develop rocket technology was in full swing after WWII. The space program was a way to prove the concepts and improve the technology of ballistic missiles. Eisenhower pushed the issue for it's military value, Kennedy inspired the country to get behind it with the quest to reach the moon. Johnson wasn't the biggest supporter but had to continue the quest for Kennedy. Nixon supported the program but was losing ground. We had reached the moon and the Vietnam war and race relations were distracting peoples attention and sapping the spirit of adventure and exploration in favor of taking care of business on the home front.

Ford had very little support for any serious efforts and Carter was just not interested in spending money on space. Skylab was left to burn up on reentry under his administration. Reagen reinvigorated the space program for it's military and inspirational value. The fact that so many technologies invented for the program had improved domestic life didn't hurt that support either. Bush 41 gave lip service but cut NASA's budget in half and Clinton barely mentioned the space program unless something was going very wrong in it. Bush 43 called for us to return to the moon and set a time of something like 15 years. It was a hopeful speech but meant nothing to those serious about the program.

We hit the moon in less than 10 years at a time when technology barely let us get into orbit. Rocketry was dangerous experimentation and the on board computer in the Apollo spacecraft was less powerful than most cell phones and many pocket calculators. With today's technology and our launch programs producing consistent results with both manned and unmanned payloads, we could return to the moon in very little time. Just using the old technology we could put a man on the moon in under 2 years and the technology is in place to do it better, safer and more accurately than Apollo astronauts could have hoped for.

Why have we not gone back? No political will. No one with the vision and the guts to stand up to the legislature has chosen to re-spark that dream in the hearts of Americans. When they do, it won't just be the moon. Look for manned missions to Mars and potentially to the moons of the outer planets. 

We know that man went to the moon because of what we found there. NASA scientists had a vested interest in proving the theories of evolution but their trip to the moon did exactly the opposite. If the earth and moon were as old as claimed then the lunar dust would have been at least 20 times deeper than it was and probably a lot more than that. Lunar material returned to earth gave little to no indication of the things they had theorized and the astronauts observations did not support the theory of evolution.

With each additional trip the scientists would claim that the previous observations had been anomalous and that the other parts of the moon would fit their theories. Six missions landed on the moon and each had more resources, made more observations and brought back more evidence but every shred of it defied the theories and argued against the idea of an earth that was millions of years old thereby weakening evolution theories further.

Why haven't we gone back? For the same reason we don't send astronauts to Mars. Until someone outside of the program pushes the issue the scientists in our space program are not going to do anything that will further undermine the theories they are being paid to promote.

Automated missions are a wonderful tool. They gather information and send it back without risking lives. The information is only as detailed as the robot that gathers it and raw data can be interpreted many ways by people depending on their agenda. Human beings, particularly those chosen for objectivity and armed with the spiritual awe inspired in nearly every astronaut and cosmonaut who ever went to space, are far more likely to provide specific and accurate information with great detail. Unlike robots they can bring back large amounts of samples for study. They cover more ground and give information not skewed by the technology.(the skies of mars are not red, it was an effect of the camera technology used but, we didn't know that until well into the 21st century despite decades of automated missions to mars)

Scientists have agendas based on who pays them. The hole in the Ozone is a perfect example. NASA shows us thin spots in the ozone layer supporting the agenda of politicians who fund them. They fail to mention that the thinning over Australia was predicted after Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed out 200,000 times more ozone depleting chemicals in one eruption than all of humanity has created in all our history. They also never mentioned that that thin spot disappeared in a couple of years.

They showed us a thinning over Antarctica but fail to mention ozone is an Ionized particle. It has a magnetic charge. The earth's poles also have magnetic charges. Just like grade school physics tells us, like charges repel creating a thinning over the pole that is nothing more than proof of the theory that Earth acts like a giant magnet. (that is why compass's work) Ever notice they don't say much about the Ozone over the arctic?

I think I've made my point.