Back to the Moon!

[Galahad]

I know many will say "where is the money going to come from", but IMO, this is just the kind of thing the government needs to be spending our money on.

Nasa plans Moon station by 2020

Why a permanent Station on the Moon

 

[mrsltg]

I know many will say "where is the money going to come from", but IMO, this is just the kind of thing the government needs to be spending our money on.

Nasa plans Moon station by 2020

Why a permanent Station on the Moon

Why, specifically, does the government need to spend this money? What is the benefit and where is the mandate? Why not ask a private firm to do it? Bet we could make it back in half the time if Uncle Sam had no involvement.

 

[Charade]

I like the idea and I think it should be a partnership between the public and private sector.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I think it's a good idea and I'm on board for it. The earth is a small planet among millions and if the human race hopes to survive, then this is a good way to go. Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[Galahad]

Why, specifically, does the government need to spend this money? What is the benefit and where is the mandate? Why not ask a private firm to do it? Bet we could make it back in half the time if Uncle Sam had no involvement.

Because ultimately, expanding beyond this planet is necessary to the future of the species whether there is profit in it now or not. If you could get it done privately, fine. But this is a legitimate use of public money IMO.

 

[mrsltg]

I just don't buy it (actually, I do, we all do as we have no other choice.) What are we going to do? Colonize the moon? How is that going to work with gravity and oxygen issues? Is this the first stop in universal domination for the human race? I don't believe so. More likely it's a hugely tremendous waste of funds with absolutely no benefit and nothing more "we landed on the moon - again" at the end of the project.

 

[crazyme5kids]

I love it!!!!!! I'm so glad it will happen in my lifetime!

 

[gallaj0]

Where do I sign up?

 

[Kimberly]

Why, specifically, does the government need to spend this money? What is the benefit and where is the mandate? Why not ask a private firm to do it? Bet we could make it back in half the time if Uncle Sam had no involvement.

Because it's more useful than throwing away TRILLIONS of dollars on war alone. Countless inventions were brought about from the space program in the 60s and 70s. On a side note, and I don't have my source, but I have read that NASA is planning to make this a joint effort between a few space agencies as well as private investors eventually. Wish I had saved that news article...

 

[Free4Life11]

http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm

Theres a link with a few of the innovations brought about by NASA. Interesting stuff.

 

[SoonerKate]

I don't think it's a good idea at all, and I honestly have no clue why we're trying to go back to the moon in the first place. Much more valuable information can come from experiments conducted in low earth orbit or remote explorations of other planets, and we're really not going to make any serious strides towards going to Mars, which is a meaningful goal. The way to Mars doesn't include the Moon -- it's just impractical. The project has the novelty factor going for it, yes, but is hardly as seriously or politically motivated as the space race of the 60's.

Though NASA's budget has increased by 3% for 2007 (after years of cuts), that budget is designed primarily to support the shuttle and ISS programs at the expense of research. Astrobiology research is having 50% of its funding taken away, aeronautics is being cut by 18.1%, and astronomy and astrophysics is being cut by 20% over the next 5 years.

I just don't see the sense of taking funding away from things that are actually forward-looking, productive and meaningful to the agency and the world at large in order to fund operations that we've been doing or have done before. Finishing the ISS is essential, as is running out the rest of the STS missions as well as funding the completion and operation of the CLV project. NASA needs substantial budget increases to finish what's already on it's plate -- it doesn't need a new pie-in-the-sky plan every couple of years.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I don't think it's a good idea at all, and I honestly have no clue why we're trying to go back to the moon in the first place. Much more valuable information can come from experiments conducted in low earth orbit or remote explorations of other planets, and we're really not going to make any serious strides towards going to Mars, which is a meaningful goal. The way to Mars doesn't include the Moon -- it's just impractical. The project has the novelty factor going for it, yes, but is hardly as seriously or politically motivated as the space race of the 60's.

Look at it this way, if we go to Mars, then the Moon is a great place to start. This is like NASA getting its sea legs back. It's been a while since we've been to the Moon and if we hope to go to Mars, then we're going to need to test the equipment and train the crews for the job. Plus, if we can establish a base on the Moon then it can be used as a base of operations for the exploration of Mars.

 

[Ticket Man]

I think NASA is one of the most important government funded agencies, and the most overlooked. Those who are clamoring about global warming should realize that the earth is only temporary, and that their pleas to save future generations are short-sided. Long-term it will take space colonization for the human race to survive, funding NASA can do a lot more for the human race long term than anything Al Gore would ever want.

Bush's support of NASA is probably his most admirable stand. Too many people are too short sided and don't realize that NASA is more important than any war we are currently fighting, or any environmental problems.

 

[SoonerKate]

Look at it this way, if we go to Mars, then the Moon is a great place to start. This is like NASA getting its sea legs back. It's been a while since we've been to the Moon and if we hope to go to Mars, then we're going to need to test the equipment and train the crews for the job. Plus, if we can establish a base on the Moon then it can be used as a base of operations for the exploration of Mars.

NASA's successes in the past two decades have come from unmanned missions; and it's not impractical to think that that'll be a continuing trend. A lot of valuable unmanned missions which would have had a much more significant return in usable science have been scrapped or delayed indefinitely in the pursuit of the Moon and Mars.

NASA doesn't need its sea legs back -- just because we haven't been to the moon recently doesn't mean we haven't made exceptional advances in science and technology. Do they have the wow factor for your average American that landing on the moon does? No. But are they important? Absolutely.

The moon is not a good stepping stone, or base of operations, to get to Mars. It takes much more fuel to get from here to the Moon to Mars than it does to go straight from the Earth to Mars. Even if we can create facilities to build ships on the Moon, we would still have to get every single bit of the raw materials and fuel up there. The costs for that would make the costs for the ISS look like pocket change. Sure, the gravity is slight; it would be easier to take off, but the energy and fuel required to land wouldn't be all that dissimilar from what's required to launch from Earth in the first place.

 

[golfgal]

I could retire on the moon. It would be cool to hit those 1000 yard drives on the golf course they would have to build there!!!