Why doesn't any country go to the moon anymore?Brainy51 - 10 Answers
Like other people said, maybe it's because we already went there, or we never went there at all! I do find it very odd that no other country has even tried to go there. How many times can we go to Mars, send all of these other spaceships to who knows where, find other planets outside of our solar system, yet we haven't gone back to the moon? Possibly, the U.S. found that there wasn't anything there to look at, or maybe there is something that the public doesn't know about. Maybe we shouldn't go back there, or there is some secret pact with other countries so they can never step foot on the Moon ever again.
Another thing I find odd is that it's been over 50 years, and only one man has been there. It may be a waste of money to go there, but so many people would still be willing to go. There are so many things that just do not match up, and I can completely understand all of these conspiracy theories that pop up.
In 1969 when the U.S. first landed on the moon, the U.S. and the USSR had more money to throw around on global political agendas. Going to the moon was a peaceful alternative to the arms race while still showcasing the technological might of the winner, which in this case was the United States. Once there, samples were collected and analyzed, instruments were left behind, tests were conducted. Once the U.S. had proven their point and information and samples were shared, it must have been concluded by the world powers that there was nothing on the moon that was so valuable that it was worth the time, expense and human risk to keep returning. The technology to sustain a permanent base exists, but at this time is still not worth it. Currently the next frontier is Mars, but with most countries still recovering from the global financial meltdown, progress in this direction is slow and will continue to be until money flows freely again, if ever....
The race to the moon was a ploy to develope national unity. A common goal so to speak. The space race also had military implications. Although the US and USSR did not openly say it they could test launch their largest anti ablisitc missles with out worrying about starting WW3.
There were many side benifits of the quest to explore the moon and our lives have been enriched by the endeaver. But, the current political climate and the cost benifit analysis make a lunar landing low on the things to do list.
Currently the space station is where all the scientific experiments are being conducted. In fact the space station was chosen to be developed long ago because when we do go back to the moon we will go in stages. Like an ocean liner that cannot pull up to the dock, the new spce vehicals will be assembled in space because it is cheaper to lift smaller loads through the atmosphere.
There are two possible answers to this question. The first answer is that we never went to the moon in the first place and are too ashamed to admit it. The second answer is that it is an economically unfruitful endeavor. What are we going to their except research? We can also send robots to do the sample gathering for us. What is profitable is fixing satellites and working on the international space station. Unfortunatly, the United States now has to hitch a ride with Russia to get there.
Richard Branson has launch Virgin Galactic, which will take tourists into space for $250,000. The goal is to expand space travel commercially. By flying higher above the earth, using space craft, you could fly from San Francisco to Beijing in an hour. That would be fantastic for businessmen.
I think it's a case of "it's been done already" so why spend the money to go back there. Also, there are only so many countries that have the know-how and technology to be able to send a manned mission to the moon. Here in the United States I think NASA is working on the next great adventure which would be a manned mission to Mars. I think this would certainly ignite the attention of the world if we put a man on the surface of Mars.
I think the cost to send a mission back to the moon would create quite the controversy with all of the budgets cuts and fiscal problems that exist today.
Hope this helps and thanks for the question.
I think the idea of going to the moon was more of a political statement than what was scientifically achieved by the process.
During the time we sent a man to the moon the United States was facing many political challenges with other countries and the success of sending a man to the moon was like flexing your muscles, it showed a strength that may have deterred other countries from possible acts of aggression.
Today science continues to have an interest in space but looking beyond the moon and into further exploration such as the planet Mars.
Thank you for your question.
I think there are two reasons. The first is that the U.S and the Soviet Union were in a competition to prove which was the strongest, the mightiest, the most technologically advanced--each needed to prove a point. So, we've been there, done that, and, a half-century later, our relationships with other nations depend on so much more than a moon race.
The other reason is the cost--kinda the same reason why I don't bother to go to Dubai.
Money. It is incredibly expensive to go to the moon. There are too many other 'more pressing' needs to spend the money on so it is not politically worth any nation's while to have another lunar mission.
That said, with private companies like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and others, a private venture to the moon is a foreseeable possibility in the not too distant future, perhaps in the 10-12 year time frame.
Money is the key factor in research, our country has more issues to deal with since the recent down turn on the economy.
I believe in the near future funding will become available for space and aviation projects. Right now, we should be trying to correct the known problems our country are facing, not the unknown in space.
They don't send manned missions to the moon any more. But the unmanned missions are still continuing. Here is a link.