If man had walked on the moon, why hasn't one do it again ever since? -?
- considering the technology is much more advanced now?
been wondering how Apollo 11 took off from moon soil? it was very difficult to take off from earth yet alone from moon?
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
The race to the moon was between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was largely a matter of status, in which the "winner" would get to the moon. Things were very competitive, and John F. Kennedy was the one responsible for the United States getting there first- pledging that we would have a man on the moon before the decade of the 1960's was done.
After the first moon landing, there was less competition to get there and have a permanent presence. Space travel is expensive, dangerous, and offers few immediate rewards. A permanent base would cost billions of dollars, have little benefit that could compare to that cost. As a result, the Soviets- which never landed a man on the moon, although a couple of robotic landers retrieved tiny quantities of lunar soil remotely- gave up. Since then, there has been no space program with enough funding or interest to return there, although the Chinese have stated they will do so. This will probably be the only reason the United States goes back: competition has made it worthwhile.
As for how the Apollo landers took off from the moon- look at it this way: although the lunar surface where the Apollo landers were located is primarily accumulated surface debris and dust, it's very similar to the beach. After all, the beach is comprised of sand, but we don't sink in more than a couple of inches, no matter how deep the sand. Even trucks and larger vehicles can maneuver on sand- or even in dust, if you look at the deserts of the American southwest. The action of the rockets to return Apollo 11 to orbit were against the moon, not against any single patch of dust- equal and opposite reactions and all that. The engines simply had to eject a gas at high velocity to propel themselves into orbit.
This was made even easier by the fact that lunar gravity is much smaller than that of Earth- about 1/6th that of Earth- and that the Apollo lander had a MUCH smaller mass than the massive Saturn V that put them on their way. In fact, the lander was just a tiny fraction of the Saturn V, even after the boosters had been lost, as another vehicle stayed in orbit around the moon with a man on board while two others went to the surface with the lander.Source(s): Too many geology classes.
- 1 decade ago
The main, underlying goal of the Apollo program was to beat the Soviets to the Moon, and that goal was reached by the middle of 1969. After that, support for the program began to decrease, mostly due to problems back on Earth such as the Vietnam war. The near miss on Apollo 13 in 1970 caused the public to further question lunar exploration.
Originally, NASA planned on having three more Apollo missions, labeled Apollo 18-20. In early 1970, they cancelled one of the missions, as they needed a launch vehicle for the Skylab space station and were unable to fund the construction of another Saturn V rocket. In late 1970, two more were cancelled due to budget cuts.
The Apollo landings were meant as initial surveys; it was believed that the Space Shuttle which was approved in 1972 would offer cheap access to space on a much more frequent basis, and through the use of a space station, a more effective presence in space and on the moon could be built from there. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
- mathematicianLv 71 decade ago
To get people to the moon is costly, dangerous, and has little value other than for show. We almost lost Apollo 13 entirely. Every other trip has at least one malfunction. The cost was prohibitive considering the other things that the money could be used for (social programs, military, etc). Also, the priorities have shifted from going to the moon to learning how to live for longer periods of time in space. This can be done in low Earth orbit and doesn't require the heavy lifting capabilites that going to the moon does. In fact, we have put so much money into the Space Shuttle that we have very little heavy lifting capability other than the Shuttle right now. Finally, it is much cheaper to send non-manned probes than it is to send people.
As for lifting off the moon, that was quite easy because the gravity there is much less than on the Earth.
- BryanLv 71 decade ago
As for taking off from the moon. Gravity is considerably less than that of the earth. There are also not as many additional forces such as wind resistance and air friction to contend with.
There were several Apollo mission which landed on the moon.
As to why no one has done it since. NASA is no longer controlled by scientists and explorers, the decision making power is in the hands of bureaucrats. Going to moon is expensive. There has also not been any driving force guiding in that direction such as there was in the early 60's when JFK said we would go to the moon, and then challenged our scientists to make it happen.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
1) Nobody's been back because it's exceedingly expensive. NASA's budget wouldn't allow additional flights in the 1970s, and then priorities shifted to the Space Shuttle program.
2) It was not as difficult to lift off from the Moon because the Moon has only 1/6 the gravity of Earth (so very little pull against the spacecraft) and no atmosphere (so no drag against the spacecraft).
- exttonLv 51 decade ago
Because there's nothing of any interest on the moon, and it costs a lot of money to get there. It's a lifeless chunk of rock orbiting the earth.
You apparently are not aware that there were multiple moon landings.
And, it's actually much easier to take off from the moon than it is from the earth. Things weigh a lot less on the moon.
It's just basic high school physics. Read about it.
- 1 decade ago
You could easily get in the worldbook of records if you're the first man or woman to play volleyball on the moon, or do a back flip, or how 'bout hit a golf ball about the longest anyone ever has anywhere... they would have to rewrite a lot of records.
If that's not enough motivation to get back, I don't know what it.Source(s): brainscrambled
- Isis-samaLv 51 decade ago
Because it is cheaper to send unmanned robots, and there is nothing on the moon valuable enough to humans (at least that's been discovered yet) that justifes sending expensive manned missions.
- 1 decade ago
too expensive and nothing is really gained...unless we stick a for sale sign on it.