POLL: Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

[MeteorWayne]

Oddly enough, 5% if the choir says absolutely not.

I don't think that's odd at all. While it wasn't my vote, there are good and rational reasons to hold that viewpoint.

[Azpod]

Okay, all conspiracy theories aside. Has anyone thought about the fact that "technological advance" has been at a virtual standstill? I mean since the aliens crash-landed in 1947 and gave us all that great technology, we haven't progressed much beyond the Moon. Don't get me wrong the Space Shuttle is an amazing piece of technology, but with the Orion project, aren't we taking a step backwards and just slightly re-designing the Apollo craft?

I think it's embarrassing that we haven't gotten way past such an archaic spacecraft. We should be moving into the realm of at least nuclear powered spacecraft not to mention exotic anti-matter driven spaceships. I know what everyone is thinking (untold amount of resources needed, blah, blah, blah), but in relative terms, we have gone nowhere since 1969. The whole Moon landing might as well have been a hoax (daddy, if people really landed on the Moon why haven't we been able to go back). Now we're talking about 2020 to send people back? Okay, a lot of people say Obama's Administration is the continuation of the Kennedy Administration, but I see no inspiring speeches about space. No vision, no plan, no John.

OK, allow me some suspension of disbelief. Assume for a second that you're right, that aliens crashed on Earth in 1947 and that we used their technology to get to the moon in 1969. Much of the technology used to get to the Moon was invented before 1947, in the form of the V2 ballistic missile used by Nazi Germany. Technology gleaned from a downed alien spacecraft would be far more interesting than how to make a chemical rocket work (something we already knew how to do.) An alien FTL drive, even if broken and non-functional, would revolutionize our understanding of high energy physics. But no, we're still stuck smashing atoms together to find out how the Universe works, as if we're the 21st Century version of cave men smashing rocks together to make fire. They'd need either a fusion reaction or some sort of exotic reactor capable of generating energy using a knowledge of physics we don't yet understand. But taking apart such a reactor, even if it's broken, would give us valuable insight on how best to proceed with our research. But no, we're stuck building enormous research reactors at immense cost... not even knowing if they'll work or not at the end of the day!

The reason it's taking us so long to get back to the Moon isn't knowledge or technology. We have plenty of both. It's funding. The Apollo program consumed a significant portion of our nation's budget, far more than the portion of the budget NASA eats today. It was a national goal, a way for us to show the Soviet Union that space will never be exclusively their domain. People of the day were terrified of a Soviet base on the Moon with nukes that can rain down on us at any time. (Though, in truth, nukes in low-Earth orbit would be the only way to hit us with more surprise than nukes launched from ground or sea locations on Earth.)

We don't have any of that this time around. The Russians would be just as happy to be our partners as our competitors. Public funding for space projects just isn't a priority now so NASA has to made do with a tiny fraction of the budget it had in the 1960s, as adjusted for inflation. You can get to the Moon in 9 years if you have an army of engineers and workers to get you there. When you have a much smaller workforce, it'll take much longer to reach the same goal.

[General_Kenobi]

We do probably need to find out all in regards to the Moon. It is part of us after all. And if going there helps this, then by all means, go back.

Plus, when the brown dwarf crashes into the Moon, we're going to have to go there anyway to expell it.
And I hear Pluto Nash already has plans for a lunar night club.

[Solartraveler]

Has anyone thought about the fact that "technological advance" has been at a virtual standstill?

We should be moving into the realm of at least nuclear powered spacecraft not to mention exotic anti-matter driven spaceships. I know what everyone is thinking (untold amount of resources needed, blah, blah, blah), but in relative terms, we have gone nowhere since 1969.

I think there are two sides. On the mechanical side, there was surely no much improvement. The rocket engines are basically the same and they are in my point of view the main problem with spaceflight. There were the ion drive invented, but this does not get anyone into an orbit or fast back to the moon.
On the other side electronics has since apollo improved a lot and spaceflight benefits from this. Without this thousands of high resolution images and from mars would not be possible and the rovers could not drive autonomously. Moreover simulating things with a computer reduces real testing, which makes developing cheaper and faster.

So I think the engine limitations is the main problem of spaceflight and no big improvement is on the horizon. But I always wonder why flying with an airplane is cheap and a single shuttle flight is more expensive than building two mid size aircrafts. I am pretty sure spaceflight would get more cheaper if there is a need for many flights. And if there is a base on the moon or mars this would be the case.
I personally do not like the nuclear reactor spacecraft idea. But antimatter would be a really great thing. With this I would be possible to accelerate for days, making a moon round trip possible for a weekend and a mars round trip for a long holiday. Everything in our solar system would relatively be reachable by humans.(It would even enable interstellar spaceflight within the lifetime of a person).

So yes, get back to the moon, less for the moon but to try to make spaceflight more routine, which would make things cheaper even with current engines, because fuel costs are currently only a very small part of the total costs.

[MeteorWayne]

We do probably need to find out all in regards to the Moon. It is part of us after all. And if going there helps this, then by all means, go back.

Plus, when the brown dwarf crashes into the Moon, we're going to have to go there anyway to expell it.
And I hear Pluto Nash already has plans for a lunar night club.

Again, this thread is for serious discussion. If you want to have fun, plese start your own discussion in The Unexplined. That's where this foolishness belongs.

Meteor Wayne

[bbfreakDude]

Okay, all conspiracy theories aside. Has anyone thought about the fact that "technological advance" has been at a virtual standstill? I mean since the aliens crash-landed in 1947 and gave us all that great technology, we haven't progressed much beyond the Moon. Don't get me wrong the Space Shuttle is an amazing piece of technology, but with the Orion project, aren't we taking a step backwards and just slightly re-designing the Apollo craft?

Hey, don't knock it, if it works why not use it? Besides, its not just a "slight" re-design, and to say that it is is misleading and just wrong.

I think it's embarrassing that we haven't gotten way past such an archaic spacecraft.

Rockets & capsules are proven technology, proven technology is A: Cheaper and B: Safer. You can go on all you want that we should have some more advance spacecraft by now, but the fact is there isn't a more practical spacecraft then capsules at the moment, nor a better solution to getting off the planet then rockets. Which is all we should be concerned with, not weather it looks like the future. If it does the job, who the hell cares?

We should be moving into the realm of at least nuclear powered spacecraft not to mention exotic anti-matter driven spaceships.

Nuclear spacecraft? Are you insane? There are very good reasons for not having nuclear spacecraft which launch regularly from earth. One is depending on if you mean the direct approach, the result is fallout. >.> Two, yes the resources aren't there and its terribly expensive. Three, anti-matter is expensive. How expensive? This will help "This means to produce 1 gram of antimatter, CERN would need to spend 100 quadrillion dollars and run the antimatter factory for 100 billion years." Anyway, you get the idea. Nuclear spacecraft, anti-mater spacecraft, both totally unpractical ideas (Though, I think anti-mater becomes more practical during long duration space flights but we certainly don't need it now). At least once you get beyond earth nuclear spacecraft are feasible, assuming we really can mine the moon.

I know what everyone is thinking (untold amount of resources needed, blah, blah, blah), but in relative terms, we have gone nowhere since 1969. The whole Moon landing might as well have been a hoax (daddy, if people really landed on the Moon why haven't we been able to go back). Now we're talking about 2020 to send people back? Okay, a lot of people say Obama's Administration is the continuation of the Kennedy Administration, but I see no inspiring speeches about space. No vision, no plan, no John.

Space exploration, especially manned space exploration takes more than a plan and more then a vision. It takes money, something we're quiet frankly willing to commit to at the moment. NASA is the most capable space agency on earth, and yet their budget is constantly under threat. Which means, you certainly aren't going to see any of that stuff from anyone else.

[lunautic]

Yes, NASA should send astronauts back to the moon, but with purpose beyond pure scientific investigation. While I personally think knowledge of space environments is worthwhile in and of itself, I am more optimistic that the economic support needed to sustain human presence in space will only come if the effort served a more practical purpose - like protecting the earth's biosphere from human activities.

As a former molecular biologist and team manager on the Human Genome Project, I think the moon or distant space stations would be ideal for creating and containing recombinant DNA. Since the early 1970's, engineered genetic material has posed a risk to human health and the environment. More specifically, I am concerned that recombinant DNA could be transcribed and/or translated into viruses or viral material with little to no possibility of our realizing it. I have communicated this idea directly to hundreds of biologists, and none have argued that it is not possible. Some have responded that it is unlikely. The type of hazard, like a viral pandemic, is not knowable until it occurs; and then the extent of risk is only knowable if we can trace the origin to a lab-derived molecule. So what I am proposing is that all scientists manipulating nucleic acids, and thus all governments and institutions supporting such work, come together to build earth-to-moon infrastructure to protect all constituents of earth's biosphere from a risk that may not be real but is plausible.

Biotechnology provides solutions to problems where alternatives do not exist or have failed. Space infrastructure could also support other hazardous but beneficial technologies like certain chemical processes and high-energy research [like anti-matter production].

There are a myriad of economic, political and scientific implications, but I think people should seriously consider the idea and not dismiss it as hopelessly fantastic and idealistic. Economically, there would be many jobs globally requiring advanced education and also many opportunities to contribute in manufacturing. Scientifically, research goals would have to be scrutinized by more critical reviewers and many lab processes would be standardized and centralized. Politically, everyone on the planet would be united in an effort to protect life while endeavouring to alleviate suffering that life imparts.

[Astrochimp]

My thoughts on finding Uranium on the moon...

OK so we found Uranium on the moon. Now what.

How much is it going to cost us to set up a Uranium Processing Facility on the lunar surface. The cost alone of ferrying the necessary materials to the moon is going to be ( pardon the pun ) astronomical. Then you would need to construct that facility.

How long and how much would it cost to do that?

I would bet that it would be cheaper to process the Uranium here on Earth, then ship that material back to the moon to use as fuel for space ships.

[mistrowl]

The moon is a waste of time. How about we grow a pair and go to Mars?

[Anonymous_John]

I mean since the aliens crash-landed in 1947 and gave us all that great technology.

Assuming that it did happen (which I don't believe), what makes you think we could understand or exploit it easily?
Suppose you went back to 1939 with a camera phone. Easy enough to show what it did, and scientists of that year would be able to understand the theory of solid state electronics (if you could explain it. Could they use that knowledge to build one in much less than 70 years? No. They didn't have the tools to build the tools needed.
Alien technology a few hundred years ahead of us would be an even bigger mystery.

[PDX_Doug]

Return men to the Moon? Absolutely!

But only for the purpose of proving technologies and gaining skills that will allow us to travel further to more hospitable destinations (i.e.: Mars). The notion that we will be able to mine the Moon for resources - especially to then send them back to Earth - is absurd. Refining the materials - in usable quantities - into a useful form on the Moon itself is equally ridiculous. The ability to lift the kind of machinery required to do such work on a practical level is just not in the cards. All one has to do is compare the kind of mining equipment required here on Earth to the flimsy 'save weight at all costs' tools we send into space now. How exactly do you plan on getting it all there? And, yes, I know... The Moons gravity is only 1/6 that of the Earth. But you will still need heavy, strong, durable tools and equipment to mine the resources everyone thinks makes colonizing the Moon so appealing. And once you get them, how are you going to get them back to Earth? Most importantly, can it be done at a profit? Because if it can't, it ain't gonna happen!

And what about colonizing the Moon just for the sake of colonizing the Moon? We should have learned the absurdity of that notion by now with the ISS. Think that albatross is a waste of money? Try doing the same thing on the Moon!

Now don't get me wrong... I love the notion of human space flight, and have followed it with great enthusiasm since I was a wee lad. But the Moon is a dead end. There is nothing we can do there that we can't do better and cheaper on Earth or in LEO. The Moon is however perfectly suited as a training ground for future voyages to the stars. The Moon is the perfect place to practice and perfect the skills we will need when we head on to Mars. Better to get the bugs worked out of those issues in our backyard before we send a crew off on a multi-year mission to another planet.

So by all means... Let's get back to the Moon as quickly as we can and turn our eyes to the stars! Let's just not kid ourselves that the Moon itself is ever going to be mankind's future or salvation.

[HiGh_GuY]

I voted NO

I think that NASA should focus way more effort/funds on human spaceflight and exploration. I just don't think we should go back to the moon. what we should be doing is sending humans to MARS. It is a much better option. I think most people, wether they think we should go back to the moon, mars, or somewhere else, would agree that the next time we send people to another planet/moon we should do it to make a permanent presence rather than just a publicity stunt with no purpous. And Mars has so much more to offer than the moon, especially if we are going to make a permanet presence. Heres what Mars has that the moon doesn't: more gravity, less solar radiation, an atmosphere (yes VERY little, but more than none), similar days/months/years as earth, water (waterice, but confirmed...unlike the moon), rocket fuel (made from atmoshphere)......oh yeah....and the ability to be terraformed. Several scientists say terraforming is possible, sooner than later, without any radically new technology, which i agree...wether or not you agree is a whole differnt debate....but the point is at some point it CAN be done, again...unlike the moon.

It seems the top 2 reasons I hear Some people say we should go to the moon is because its closer/safer/easier and because it has substances that can be minded. Well let me say this....just choosing the closer/safer/easier option....not to mention a redo of something we've already done......doesn't help us. the more we push ourselves, the more we will learn and accomplish. Also, no astronaut from NASA or anywhere else in the world, goes into space thinking its as safe as a plane ride. Any astronaut knows the risks before signing on, and would give anything to be the one to go.

As far as mining substances from the moon. Don't forget it will probably take 50 years minimum just to get a mining operation up and running. Also, there is nothing on the moon to mine, that we don't have enough of on earth. Unless, we completly run out of a substance that is found on the moon, then this is just a huge waste of effort/funds.

[kmaduka]

Not only should NASA return astronauts to the moon, there should also be a removal of any restrictions not allowing non-governmental access to the moon. Let the competition go forward. All forms of transportation and exploration flourished without government control and so will space and moon transportation and exploration.

Exploration is a dangerous business and danger makes Heroes of the common man.

Katibu Maduka

[misner2]

One could argue that the moon is useful for a base or a plateform for a large telescope. This is a complex question.
Bush also directed the country over the last eight years...look where we ended up. If discovery is the challenge then
Mars is the destination. One could argue had we invested our resources in space exploration instead of the war in Iraq
we possible could be already at either one of these potential destination, now. Bush got us into Iraq as well. The
egg heads don't want an Apollo style Mars mission. That places that type of discovery mission to Mars, well into the future for humans. They wanted their 15 billion dollar (joke) space station to nowhere and they got it. Then they turned supplying it over to the Russians. They got their multi-billion dollar Messinger Mission to Mercury...it's a rock.
I could go on and on. Who's making these choices? Our leaders make these choices for us and then they don't adequately fund them. President Kennedy was the last president to challange Americans to go to the Moon and then
fund it. America lack vision. We are to politically inmature to venture into space at this time. I'm obviously in the minority, but I still vote for Mars. If discovery is the human challange let's forget about the moon until it serves a purpose. Let's go discover something interesting. Lindbergh would have set his sights on the next big human discovery and adventure.

[pdholden]

Not now, because there are real obstacles to funding such a mission. Until we solve these, we can't go anywhere.

1. The Apollo 11 mission was funded by a spirit of patriotism. The budget required to plan and implement these missions was beyond reason, and it was approved solely because of the Cold War. We *can't* go back to those days. 2. Most of the American public doesn't care about human space-flight. Really. People watch ESPN more than NASA TV. Few care about shuttle launches, and they tolerate the space station.

Until we can prove to the world that sending astronauts anywhere outside LEO is beneficial... even profitable, then I think we shouldn't even be talking about sending anyone to the moon or Mars. For now taxpayers fund all these missions, and they're the ones we have to convince. I wish private space exploration was greater than it currently is, but even the private sector sees that space-flight isn't currently profitable.

I'm not trying to be a naysayer. I hope Virgin Galactic works out, and I hope the private sector sees a surge is growth and profitability. But curiosity and a spirit of adventure doesn't foot the bill. We shouldn't be spending money on this right now.

[Cincinnati_RIck]

Can't participate in this poll with its lame choices. Isn't it possible that one could be opposed to focusing on a lunar return for some reason other than whining about wasting resources that could be better spent on earth or insisting on some return that would directly benefit the masses as a condition for going?

[kdavis52]

Yes we should go back! They've found a way to extract oxygen from the regalith. spelling? Any how it would be an added benefit to make a pit stop at the Moon to supply with more oxygen on the way to Mars. Pitstop how? There would be an Oxygen Docking Unit in orbit for an on going ship to Mars instead of having to land. Kind of like when the KC139-s do for our jets here for jet fuel. I know the KC-139 doesn't orbit but you get the picture.

[Kat21]

We are not going back simply for more Moon dirt or just because we can. There are serious scientific inquiries that will have a better chance at being answered with a return to the Moon. Potential key projects include: "gravitational physics via lunar laser ranging, radio heliophysics from the Moon, and low-frequency cosmology and astrophysics from the Moon". You can read more about it here: http://solo.colorado.edu/~hallman/lunar ... LUNAR.html

[muchow]

We should definitely go back, but we should be testing some new tech also, and not just sending them back in a bigger capsule with proven technology. Specifically, we should be testing tech that would be needed for future mars missions: extracting oxygen from rocks (or whatever), new power generation technologies, communications, whatever. While I agree that national pride is a big part of this, it's an expensive way to pump up our own ego, and I still don't think we're as serious about this as China is right now.

[freddetucson]

We should already be there. The moon should be our training ground. If we can't make a 'go' of the
moon, what chance do we have of a success on Mars or someplace further out....further isolated from
Earth. As for the "NO" answer. It is a bit silly. Should we all avoid any places we've been which did not
make us wealthy at that time? Fred in Savannah Ga