why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Bob B.]

Another factor in the Soviet failure was that there was there was no single lunar program.  Instead of focusing all of their energy on one program, like the Americans, the Soviets had parallel programs under development at the same time by different design bureaus.  The bureaus had to fight and compete for resources, resulting in underfunded programs.  Had they picked just one program and thrown all their efforts behind it, perhaps they would have been more successful.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Another factor in the Soviet failure was that there was there was no single lunar program.  Instead of focusing all of their energy on one program, like the Americans, the Soviets had parallel programs under development at the same time by different design bureaus.  The bureaus had to fight and compete for resources, resulting in underfunded programs.  Had they picked just one program and thrown all their efforts behind it, perhaps they would have been more successful.

That's a very good point, Chief designers Chelomei and Korolev where sworn enemies and spent a great deal of unproductive time bickering and undermining each others programs - even at a meeting with Premiere Khruschev they were unable to resolved their differences. Ultimately, Korolev managed to gain control of Chelomei's program at the expensive of over stretching himself and his departments limited resources.

Another interesting point is that soviet leadership were obsessed with automating the manned spacecraft leaving the cosmonauts with little control. The engineer Boris Chertok, in his 4 volume biography Rockets and People, talks about this in great length and points to it as a major undermining factor.

Also, the ousting of the pro space exploration Khruschev and his replacement by Brezhnev was a bitter blow, as the former had little to no interest in space exploration, and was only interesting in building ICBMS.

[gillianren]

In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed.  Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon.  That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.

[Abaddon]

In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed.  Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon.  That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.

Interesting idea. Sure, they messed it up through poor planning and flawed technology, but in those mysoginistic days first woman on the moon might very well have been a coup.

[gillianren]

Given how long it took anyone to send the second woman into space, it's obvious that the Soviets sent the first one for propaganda purposes.  A woman on the Moon would have been the same.

[Count Zero]

50 years after Valentina Tereshkova's flight, Russia has sent a grand total of 3 women into space (not including foreign passengers on Soyuz).

[Al Johnston]

In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed.  Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon.  That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.

The irony being that competition is normally cited as a benefit of free market economies... 

[alexsanchez]

They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.   They said it was dry as a bone up there. 

"we thought, until recently, that the Moon was just about the driest place in the solar system."

Suddenly, 40 years later, NASA says there's tons of water up there. 

"...600 million metric tons distributed among 40 craters near the lunar north pole."

Maybe they never went there in the first place!!! That would explain why they haven't been back.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/18mar_moonwater/

[Donnie B.]

You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?

[Zakalwe]

They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

"...600 million metric tons distributed among 40 craters near the lunar north pole."

They never landed at the lunar north pole. Ever heard of something called scientific advancement? New techniques and technology become available which allow new discoveries.

[alexsanchez]

You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?

Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.  6 times they found nothing interesting?  But they kept going back to the lunar equator?  Now that's stupid.  Why didn't they go to the north pole?  They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death.  But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks.  They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.

[alexsanchez]

They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.

Rubbish?  Really?  What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?  And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

You're absolutely right, Patrick.  They never went there.  In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.

Any more stupid arguments for us?

Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you.  6 times they found nothing interesting?  But they kept going back to the lunar equator?  Now that's stupid.  Why didn't they go to the north pole?  They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death.  But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks.  They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.

Not even trying any more, are you Alex?

Give up and go somewhere where your nonsense will be appreciated like abovetopsecret or infowars.

[Noldi400]

They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water. 

Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.

We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.

Rubbish?  Really?  What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?  And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?

Still looking for other people to do your research for you?