why is it theres no more landing made to the inspite of new spacecrafts use now a days?

Answer 1

We've landed on mars (many times), and titan. We're gonna land on an asteroid. We sent probes into venus jupiter. We flown by every planet in the solar system. So my question to you is WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!?

Answer 2

Assuming that you were asking about the moon ...

1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.

Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean
Apollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>
Apollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell
Apollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin
Apollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke
Apollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt


2) Why haven't we been back?

a) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.

b) 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.

c) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?


3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts? Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?

The existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos. Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA.

The radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong. You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness. And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection. "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."

"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation." When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.


4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?

In 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.

If six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!


5) What about the USSR?

Even if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.


6) Why does the flag shake? Where are the stars? Who took the video of Neil Armstrong?

On the subject of stars, take a look at the first link. Sorry, but there *are* stars in that photo. For the rest, visit "badastronomy" and "clavius". They deal well with all of the technical questions.


7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?

Answer 3

I am not sure I understand you question. Are you meaning "landing on the moon" perhaps?
If this is the case, the answer is simple: the space shuttle is unable to go beyond low earth's orbit. To land on the moon you need:
additional fuel to leave low earth orbit and go into a transfer trajectory to the moon
fuel to land your spacecraft on the moon
fuel to take off from the moon (you don;t want to stay there for ever, do you?)
fuel to leave moon's orbit and go into a transfer orbit to the earth
and perhaps a bit fuel to brake before entering earth's atmosphere

And that is a tall order, requiring specialized hardware, hardware that has been out of production from more than 30 years. And most of the people who designed them (and thus had experience in this sort of things) have retired. Already, most of the designers of the space shuttle are also of retirement age.
Simply, the reducing space exploration budgets have driven the talent to other things, and those eager to learn from their elders were prevented from doing so simply because there was not active project.
So now, we have to re-learn essentially from scratch. Big task.

Answer 4

I presume that you are talking about further landings on the Moon.

First let me tell you that any round trip flight to the Moon and back is exorbitantly expensive to finance and requires suficient justification to explain the costs. At this time there is little reason to justify the expense a return trip there. For the same amount of money we have been able to send several unmanned flights of robotic research probes to various other planets with great success.

Retrieval of anything from the surface of the moon has been priced out at something like $ 100,000 per Pound of Payload.
Don't quote me on that figure, but I think that it is close.

Answer 5

If you mean landing on the moon, you need to go read about the Apollo program, and how it took 8 years and a billion dollars to develop that ugly but essential lander.

Then you would understand that the shuttle is basically an aircraft. It is taken up to orbit by a rocket. It returns by basically gliding down, and landing on a runway.

I know this may sound insulting, but some of us are sick of people with no knowledge of the space program coming on here and saying they don’t believe men landed on the moon. But in this case here with you, have you never seen pictures of the moon. It is a mountainous and pock-marked landscape. It is covered with a layer of the finest dust imaginable, debris from thousands of meteoric strikes.

How would you expect a shuttle to land on that? That's apart from the fact that it can't fly anywhere in space on its own.

Unmanned probes are send all over the Solar System because without the massive incumbrance of having to house humans they are cheap.

Read, learn – it only takes an hour to read enough to realise how stupid your question is. You are lucky to live in the space age and you know nothing about it. You are not alone in that, and it is a worry.

Answer 6

The new spacecraft are designed to land only on Earth.

Answer 7

If you mean to the Moon, then the answer is that there is no reason to go there. We can't live there long-term, because there is no water, taking everything there would be too expensive (about $150,000 per kilogram of cargo). We don't need the minerals, because they are readily found on Earth. So, in short, the expense could not be justified, as there would be no return on the huge expenditure.

Answer 8

Because all of our new spacecraft are shuttles, and shuttles can't land on the moon. We haven't built any new lunar landers in a while since we've been concentrating on the shuttle program.

Answer 9

No more landing made where?

Answer 10

Too freaking expensive.