Why NASA hasn't sent more manned missions to the moon?

Question

I was watching conspiracy videos in youtube and quite frankly they have a point , why didn't the russians stay in the race or try to get there at least second? why haven't the americans or any other country tried to repeat the feat how about lunar bases ?

Answer 1

they won't the problem is the money and the technology.  basically, it's too expensive right now, and they are having too many problems with the programming and the computers, so, we will not see anything for about another 20 years.

Answer 2

It cost alot to go there. So it is really not worth it to go there since we now know that there is really nothing there.

Answer 3

We've been to the Moon 6 times between 1969 and 1973.  That was enough for everyone; the public lost interest.  The Russians were beat and there was no one else to race to the Moon, so they didn't bother.  They were the first in space, after all, and the first to get a man in orbit.  They won the other parts of the space race.

The Chinese will be heading up by 2020.

Answer 4

The whole reason to go to the moon was for either the Soviets or the Americans to prove themselves technologically superior to the other and progress their own missile technologies. Once it was clear the Americans would get there first the Soviets conceded the space race. Even if the Soviets had put a man on the moon they still would have proven themselves inferior only they would have spent billions more dollars then if they had just not gone at all. Instead they sent up there own rovers as a consolation prize for themselves so they wouldn't be completely disgraced... see the link below.

And though many would like to think of the space race as a glorious achievement on the part of mankind an only fueled by the lust for exploration this was not so. Like I said before, going to the moon was an ego trip. There would have been cheaper ways to prove superiority, but by developing huge rockets that could send men into space they also developed huge rockets that could send nuclear warheads anywhere in the world... two birds with one stone as they say. When the Apollo missions were over with the politicians had gotten what they wanted so they cut funding. The average person would like to hear their government put a man on the moon... but none wanted the raise in taxes to do it in the first place.

So, the answer is: no more political agendas and money money money!

Answer 5

Because congress has severely slashed NASA's funding, ever since the last lunar landing in 1972. There were to be three more Apollo missions, but the funding for them was cut, and has never been restored.

Answer 6

Good question.  Short answer--short-sighted politicians (onn oth sides).

Look, here's a good example--and this is history, not conspiracy theorists--you can look it up.

At the time Sputnik launched (10/4/57) the US had not one but two rockets and satellites sitting in hangers ready to go. Explorer and Vanguard--and when they were finally launched both were successful.

So why did Sputnik end up first?  Because the conservatives--including Eisenhower--"didn't believe" in space travel--so they refused to allow a launch attempt.

In 11972 the Nixon administration adopted the design for our now ancient Shuttle--against the advice of aerospace engineers, who wanted a smaller, more sophistaced craft. Why? Because the conservatives wanted a spacecraft big enough to carry lots of military hardware. The design was so flawed it never came close to being able to lift the orbital bombs they wanted.

In the 1980s against the advice of engineers the Regean administration adopted a plan of ran "international space station."  which ended up costing 5 times what it was suppossed to--even though it was scaled down to a three man instead of a 7 man station.

In the late 1990s the conservatives in Congress canceled funding for every single initiative NASA had for advanced spacecraft--sespite warnings that the Shuttle was aging.

In 2003 Bush rejected NASA calls for a second gnereation shuttle in the wake of the Columbia disaster.  Over the objcctions of enigineers.  NASA was directed to build a "replace ment" using a 1960s typecapsule and leftover Shuttle technology.

NOw?

NASA is currently negotiating with Japan to buy rockets to launch needed payloads because the US won't have the launch capacity after the Shuttles are retired in 4 years.

Now--do you still need to ask why NASA has not gone back to the moon?

Answer 7

I agree with you and I was wondering the same thing.

But it's probably because we have found enough information (I think) about the Moon. And plus. we're already been there, not much to see there, and it would sorta be a waste of money. But I agree I also have been wondering why NASA hasn't sent more missions. Seems like they're doing nothing, but - I guess they are? With all the Mars stuff.

Answer 8

NASA would LOVE to... I assume by your question that you are interested in paying for such a venture?  Fine, fine.... just sign on the dotted line and we will send a few more boring boring boring missions to the Moon for you.

Hey, we DID it!  Wooo!

then we got bored with it.

cancelled the last three launches as there was really no interest left.

Unless we send Lindsey Lohan and Brangellina to the Moon, there wont be a NEXT mission either.

Answer 9

haha :) then basically, i'll expound on this further, and answer your question with another question. :p

[ has NASA actually sent a manned mission to the moon successfully? ]

i think all the answers you're looking for hinges on that question.

Answer 10

Isn't it obvious?  Lack of funding.  NASA relies on government funding, donations, etc. to fund their missions.  Just launching a satellite into orbit costs an arm and a leg -- a manned mission to the moon costs billions of dollars, and NASA doesn't have that kind of money right now.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans seem to think that space exploration shouldn't be a priority, and some have even said that NASA should be shut down (which is ignorant, as many technological advances come from within NASA -- a lot of the medical technology we have nowadays was developed based on research that came out of NASA).  The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are also draining the funds.

If they got the chance, NASA would go back to the moon in a heartbeat.

Answer 11

One word: money.

The space race was not about scientific feats. It was about national prestige. Sure, we learned a lot in the process, but science for science's sake is not really a priority to politicians. This applies to every country, everywhere.

Answer 12

I read someone's comment on Yahoo Answers not long ago that pointed to a faction of Flat-Earthers as the culprit for starting this awful "were the Moon landings a hoax" baloney. I wish it would go away, frankly.

Answer 13

IT WAS FAKE PEOPLE!

Answer 14

I won't bother explaining why it wasn't a hoax. I'll answer quite simply, by saying that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for many reasons to pull a hoax like that..

The reasons we haven't been back in 36 years are as follows:

It was extremely expensive to send two men there for a couple of days. Because the wallet is in the pockets of politicians, they saw that THEIR goal had been achieved, which was to beat the Soviets and ratchet up the national prestige a bit. The scientific considerations didn't concern them. Three further missions were planned, but cancelled.

You don't just build a rocket and find three blokes to put in it. It was called the Apollo PROGRAM because there was a h**l of a lot of development in it. It's the same way that a country can't instantly stage the Olympic Games. Many are capable of it, but the things that go on are not things that normally go on in that country, and have to be planned, built, used, and dismantled afterwards.

Because the program was ended, it would have to be begun again to go back. It's only recently that this has been considered seriously, and they've been doing other things meanwhile. The shuttle, the ISS, planetary exploration. And now that they have started work on it again, they want to be able to go back for longer than two days, and to do more than collect rocks. That's going to take some serious R & D.