why NASA haven't sent anymore persons to the moon???

Question

Note: I'm not saying that it was a hoax ok??? I believe that that the apollo mission was real. All the accusations made against NASA have been explained, but I think this is a very good question "why they havent sent anymore persons"

Answer 1

Why haven't we been back?

1) American astronauts visited the moon on six separate occasions. Twelve American astronauts walked on the moon.

2) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't. Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.

Answer 2

Too expensive and the loss of public interest.
There have been 6 successful Moon missions, most people don't even remember the names of the astronauts after the 2nd one. And you are right, it was not a hoax. My best answer for the "hoax crowd" is, wouldn't the Russians have been crying loud if "they" thought it was a hoax? Not a peep from the Ruskies, only from conspiracy idiots. It is amazing that we went from Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years! and the computer you asked this question with is probably many times more powerful than what NASA was using at the time.

Answer 3

well there is no motivation to go to the moon is there?.during the cold war the main objective was to stay ahead of the soviet union.After that was achieved the gov & the public simply lost interest
anyway the cost of moon travel is unsustainable.

Although there have been no manned missions to the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972, there have been a number of unmanned probes. Most of these probes have been from the US and Russia.I dont think it makes any difference that these probes are not manned. Learning and discovery are the same thing no matter how it is done.

What it comes down to is safety and cost. If humans can learn about the surface of the moon through unmanned probes then they can do. Theres no point in sending humans back to the moon just for the sake of it.

Answer 4

Budget cutbacks. The last three scheduled moon missions Apollo's 18, 19 & 20 were canceled because he government pulled the funds away. The government',s contribution to space science in the US and many countries has been reduced every year since 1970.

Answer 5

Because Congress won't give them enough money. Simple as that. Congress cut Apollo 18, 19, and 20 before they flew and have never restored funding for Moon missions. Until recently. But they are already reconsidering. The new plan to go to the Moon will take another 15 years, if funding isn't cut again. Funding would have to be greatly increased to do it faster.

Answer 6

The additional science that might be obtained was not considered to be worth the cost. Several more missions had been scheduled than were actually flown, but the ones flown were so successful that the others were scrubbed as unnecessary. There is talk of setting up a station at the lunar south pole to prepare rocket fuel there for missions to outer space, but that would require that water be found and so far none has been. Considering the physics, I consider it highly unlikely that any will be found.

Answer 7

The mindset of the US populace at the time was one of fond rememberance of their late beloved President JFK and his "I believe, before this decade is out, .." speech and one of the Cold War era mentality. So, there wasn't much that was going to prevent the US from achieving JFK's goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the earth. But, like everything else now if it isn't going to turn a profit, it isn't going to get done.
There are a few companies that want to go back because of the fact that Helium 3 can be found in large amounts on/in the Moon. He3 is an isotope that could just make nuclear fusion an easier to attain reality. It would be well worth the investement of getting He3 off the Moon and returning it to earth. Fusion power would be very very profitable.

Answer 8

The main reason is because it is very expensive. We now have rovers which could trek the surface of the moon, gather rock samples and can transmit videos and information. That is a more practical and less expensive option. Also no need to risk an astronaut's life.

Answer 9

It is expensive, and there is no great benefit now that showing up the Soviets is out of the question any way. Most things we need to do from space can be done from orbit. The Chinese are planning on going in the next decade though.

Answer 10

Because Today It is considered too dangerous. since the last mission they have been working out the kinks just to make perfectly sure the astronauts are safe.