Why has no other country conducted a moon landing and why haven't we since?

Question

Wouldn't you think we would have gone back by now, tried to build some space stations, study space from there?

Answer 1

because no other country wants to spend billions of dollars for landing on the moon.

Answer 2

The only four space programs even remotely capable of making a concerted effort for a manned lunar program are the Chinese, the European Space Agency, the Russians and the Americans. The Chinese have only completed two manned missions, and have a lunar program as a long term goal, which most experts believe it will take around 20 years to achieve. The ESA has thought about manned spaceflight - they started design of a minishuttle called "Hermes" in the late '80s - but the end of the Cold War opened an additional partner in manned spaceflight in the form of Russia. After both programs teamed up with the US to build the ISS, there was no need for a European manned space vehicle, and the project was cancelled.

This leaves the Russians, who had a pretty extensive manned lunar program. A couple of museums carry prototypes of a one-man lunar lander, called the LK. A modified version of the Soyuz spacecraft, called the L-1, was designed for circumlunar flight. The booster which would carry this all, called the N-1, suffered from critical technical problems, however. The rocket failed in all four test runs during the late '60s and early '70s.

After the race ended, the Soviets strived to reach other firsts for political gain; they pioneered long-term manned spaceflight and landed probes on Venus and Mars. The Russians still want to reach the moon; last year they offered a seat on a Soyuz circumlunar flight in 2008 for $100 million (there were no takers). Their current plan is to replace the Soyuz with a minishuttle in 2010, and reaching the moon sometime between 2015 and 2020.

Answer 3

there really isn't anything useful or interesting there. It's rather difficult and risky to do. Bush wants to go back but he has absolutely no understanding of space or anything really. He has a mandate to switch out all the current shuttles for ones capable of landing on the moon. Costing absurd amounts to an already underfunded space program. He wants a moon base (probably cause he thinks it's neato). Most experts agree that a free floating space station is a much better way to go. As we can easily dock and don't have to worry about colliding with a huge rock (the moon) traveling at thousands of miles per hour. Also would require alot of fuel and enegy to get off the moon, but you can just detach from a space station. Can also simulate gravity on a free floating station but not on the moon. Bush kind of wants to claim the moon before someone else does but he's sacrificing the spacestation to do it.

Answer 4

China, 2010 a moon landing...that's their big project. The International Space Station was a huge project in the early 90's. I think these moon landings and space station projects happen ever other 25 years.

I'm not an "expert", but believe it takes a lot of a countries' GDP and resources to dedicate to space exploration.

Answer 5

The US conducted several moon landings, did research on the moon, and brought back samples. Interest in the moon waned because there wasn't anything particularly useful to be found there. Other countries weren't willing to spend the large amounts of money to send their own missions when we were already doing so.

Interest in another moon mission has recently been sparked by (the worst president ever) George W. Bush for 2 reasons. 1) to gain him popularity and take some heat off of him and his mistakes, and 2) to aid in preparation for a Mars mission by establishing a presence on the moon as a resup station and/or base of operations for such a long distance mission.

Who knows if we will actually go back and how effective it will be in bringing us closer to our goals of space exploration. We shall see.

Answer 6

justify spending billions of dollars going to the moon with all the crap going on today. The fact is, when the novelty of the "Space race" had worn off, NASA lost a huge amount of funding which caused it to focus on other things like reusable spacecraft, space stations, and unmanned missions. Russia landed unmanned probes on the moon in the 70's but no other country has had the money to land on the moon since. China however is planning on putting a man on the moon.

Answer 7

Because there's really nothing there worth having. Although recently they have felt that carbon13 which is rare on Earth but common on the moon could be a future source of massive energy.

Having a moon base provides no advantage over launch from Earth as you'd have to use the Earth's gravity to get any real momentum towards locations outside the Earth/moon anyway.

Other countries cannot afford the trillion+ dollar price tag. Even the US will embrace this as a worldwide effort in the future.

Answer 8

We were the first to land on the moon (so they say) so the other nations don't need or have any desire to go there.

It makes to do space exploration in space, but unfortunately, there aren't any materials or supplies on the moon. It would cost a lot of money to keep sending supplies to the moon (although we are sending money to the space station).

Answer 9

Russia also wanted to go to the moon .. actually the former soviet union. however after initial lead in the 'space race' the USA made it first towards the moon.
so as the americans already made this 'milestone' there was no reason to go up there as second country, due to the enormous costs, and major problems with the soviet lunar-landing-capable rocket N1.

so as the prestigeous event of first manned lunar landing already took place.. no more reason for the soviet union to spent billions of dollars only to be runner-up.

- building a lunar base would also be too expensive at present time.

Answer 10

The U.S. decided to land on the moon mostly because we wanted to show the world that we could do it. There is really not a great reason to go back right now. It is very expensive and somewhat dangerous. I guess other countries were not interested in the risks and costs when the U.S. had already been there.

Answer 11

too expensive.. and we found out that we needed to improve some technology before returning.. we will go back.. around 2010 or something I think it is planned.

also.. we need a stable supply line if we are to establish a space station on the moon.. and have enough people in space to rescue someone if there was an emergency.