POLL: Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

[Bill_Wright]

Absolutely not! We have done this stunt already. There are two issues that should push space travel: risk and reward. We are at risk from asteroids and comets, but both may also host reserves of water and metals that we may be able to use to expand our economy. That is where every penny should go. No more stunts!!!
-- Bill

[Able_Orion]

Going back to the Moon seems like a waste to some, but we can actually gain in technologies that are needed for future long duration manned space flights and learn what we need to learn in what Astronauts will need to know when they are on the surface of Mars for a year or longer.
The main problems that have plagued the Space Program ARE NOT the ones that have been flouted so contemptuously by supporters and detractors of NASA, but have actually been the following:

*Lack of Leadership in the Federal Gov't. and irresponsible fiscal mismanagament thatj eopardizes spacecraft and crew.
*Petty bickering over pet space science projects and hypocritical arguments and opinions regarding manned vs. unmanned space exploration.
*Lack of cooperation and cohesion between gov't., industry, business and science in formulating a long term U.S. Space Policy.
* The apathetic American Public which continues to regard manned space exploration as the province of juvenile science fiction/fantasy garbage ala "Star Trek" and "Star Wars."

We KNOW that WE CAN DO IT!!!!! Let's stop wasting time, money and resources and GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dragonsbreath]

Okay, do we want a practicle reason to put a colony on the Moon?

Yes it will be expensive, many see it as retro (personally, I see replacing the 7-person shuttle with a 3-person capsule retro - there is a REASON all ISS construction came to a stop while our fleet was grounded).

BUT..

Where is it better to learn how to build an automomous colony?
- on Luna, where we can get there relatively quickly in an emergency (or at least give them the equipment to get to Alpha),

or Mars where we can say "Next time, we will know that the concrete must be fully cured before we start adding oxygen and people (Please review data learned in Biosphere II)

[LVRspaceplace]

Forty years ago - and the longest single stay on the moon was for three days. We as a civilization and as a technology are NO WHERE NEAR ready to make the jump out to Mars, as much as I would LOVE to see that day. The moon is still the place to aim for. Let's be sure we can handle the challenges the moon has to offer, front AND back sides, before we make the more distant and dangerous decision to head off to Mars. That trip will occur, after a well thought out and step by step mission program such as Apollo was is developed. The development of the Mars mission plan will rest on the foundation of what we learn by setting up the moon bases first.

[billwald]

NO! The money would be better spent exploring the oceans.

[starmagus]

Yes.

Why should the US spend trillions of dollars on a human lunar mission?

Because they're the only ones who can, and who have a similar ideological outlook to most of western civilization.

I'm not saying that its the best organization, nor that US has the best approach toward being able to coexist. But it is the closest to what I grew up with.

Having said that, I think the importance lies in maintaining hope for our future survival, maintaining a new frontier, we only need to remember the Roman civilization to understand what is possible in the near future.

When I remember the hope that was generated by the Apollo mission in 1969 (at 5 yrs old) I still feel frustrated with the lack of opportunities I have; to be able to join the select group of astronauts who have actually managed to venture beyond.

I also agree with the comments about having a near shore outpost and the comments about diminishing costs through frequent flights.

And on a different note, I'm quite sure China is happy about NASA taking a low key approach, you only need to review their actions on buying up mining concessions and companies in Australia to be able to see their real intentions in Space development. As in politics, or we get involved or we accept the decisions made for us.

[grison]

Certainly not. Going back to the Moon is a waste of time; we must now go to Mars. This is today's challenge. The Moon is yesterday's. The moon is dead, dry, sterile. There is no atmosphere, no water, gravity is very low, its day are 14 times longer than ours which make them very difficult for our human use.
We can say almost the contrary about Mars: The 4th planet surface was impregnated with water during hundred of millions of years; it still has an atmosphere which can give some protection against radiations and which can be cracked down into oxygen and, adding up some hydrogen, could give us methane (i.e. propellant); it has water ice on its surface (polar caps) and within the soil; its gravity its twice the gravity of the moon; its days are about the same length as those of Earth and we could use its day and night cycles to grow almost anything within greenhouses.
Mars is very far indeed but still within reach, especially if we developp ISRU to produce the oxygen needed to breath and the methane needed to move on the surface and go back to Earth. Since the braking effect of the Earth atmosphere cease after we are out of it and since we can use aerobraking when we approach Mars, we do not need more energy to go to Mars directly from Earth, than we need to go to the Moon. If we go to the Moon to afterwards go to Mars, we would have to extract ourselves twice from a non negligible gravity well (and with which energy since there is no ISPP possible on the moon?).
On top of that, there is much more science to do on Mars than on Earth on account of a much richer geological history. There should be no wavering: let's go to Mars, forget the Moon.

[GHAM]

Anyone that thinks a "robot" can do what a human can do is stuck in a science-fiction world or they give way too much credit to brainless mechanical devices. Quite absurd.

For you folks that think we should stick to robots... what are you afraid of? Discovery? A new frontier? Adventure? And if your sole reasoning for using robots is that it "costs too much" then you're in the wrong business - you're a bean counter at heart with little want or need of a frontier and you need to go work for an accounting firm somewhere. How sad life must be for you.

And if you fear for human safety... then why did you endanger your life by driving to work today? That's one of the most dangerous things on Earth.

[Robotic_Exploration_FTW]

I just think everyone should realize one thing: Going back to the Moon does not speed up any manned mission to Mars in any way.
The Mars spaceship will not be built on the Moon, it will not be fuelled with Moon-produced fuel, it will not be crewed by people from the Moon base. It will be at least 100 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of sorties from Earth before the Moon has capacity to go from ore to finished spaceship - if it EVER gets that ability, a lot of raw materials, especially oil, is simply missing.
In fact, the Moon mission will delay any missions to Mars or Europa because there simply aren't resources for more than one such mega-mission at a time.

Returning to the Moon is something we do for its own sake. It isn't done for science, it isn't done for exploation, it isn't done to expedite exploration of Mars. It'll be done so we can say there's a base on the moon, exactly like we today can say there's a space station in orbit around Earth. It is what it is, nothing more nothing less.

And no, I for one do not think it is worth it. I think we should aim higher and go straight for Mars, Titan, or Europa.

[HelloBozos]

They should send them, only to stay, no more visits..reality show on the moon would sale like hot cakes..

[abgarbet]

NASA should most definitely return to the moon and beyond. Besides the science, knowledge, new products and innovation, it will bring mankind closer together and provide a new frontier which we and our children sorely need. It will also provide new outlets for our growing population along with new ways and means to address problems here on Terra.

Bill Garbett
All Gave Some: Some Gave All

[far]

The operative word ABSOLUTELY is a no-brainer response to this important question.

[srmarti]

Yes. If humanity doesn't explore and advance why even have intelligence? As a matter of national pride should Americans just sit on their butts and watch the rest of the human race make advancements?

[mwagner]

We have squandered the last 40 years in low earth orbit. Those were forty years during which me could have been developing the skills needed to contruct ships and habitiats in high earth orbit which could then be launched to Mars and beyond.

The only GOOD reason to go back to the Moon is to create a permament presence on the moon. From such a moon base, building and launching far more sophisticated and unmanned spacecraft (than we can launch from Earth) as well as manned spacecraft would be far less costly.

If we are going back to the Moon just to leave again, we are far better off to seek a permament base in high earth orbit and launch our fabricated-in-space ships to Mars and beyond from there.

[Len]

While NASA resurrects a 50 year old technology, Burt Rutan gets to the moon sooner and at a fraction of the cost. Long ago, Robert Heinlein imagined a private company staking a claim to the moon while the major powers fussed. Who would have imagined such a thing might be possible. Pay attention to Scaled Composites and T/Space. That's where the action is at.

[Namorado_TX]

. . . Konechno, tavarish! I agree with frodo2008's observations and several others, and add, similar to the science fiction "Time Machine" about humans evolving into two species, one of which lived underground with all its manufacturing capacity (but in this case, I hope, not cannibalizing surface animate-species), on the Moon and Mars we should build our cities and manufacturing entirely underground. Mining and tunneling should be easy in the less-compacted rock layers in fractional gravity. We should materialize scientists David Criswell and Alex Ignatiev's decades-long dream of lunar solar collectors, supplying near-constant supply of electricity to Earth via microwaves to surface receptor stations (with parallel communications that instantly terminate transmissions should the beam go off-target for any reason). Other solar-collector/battery combos would be made for lunar electric-powered accelerator-track launches to orbiting space fleets under construction. I don't know which of many publishings by or about Criswell and Ignatiev are best; from a web-search of their names I link you to http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nergy.html and http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... r-fro.html as examples describing their plans.
. . . Launching from Earth is too expensive, and adds to atmospheric pollution! Underground colonies on the Moon are protected from solar radiation and all but the rarest large meteorites; go deep enough and you're in the destructive range of only really large meteors that could be detected and deflected. On Mars, I believe in the next decade robotic missions will detect an extensive network of natural underground river and volcanic channels (just look at the sinkholes visible from orbit in the area east of the Tharsis Montes, some as wide as a football stadium, and at least as deep), and again less-dense layers should make underground cities easy to build. Only entry-exit portals and greenhouses should be above ground.
. . . Ala'n Ala'n Apurim in Houston

[Jonathan_B]

If this is supposed to be a serious discussion why do you let this pass?

There's so much we could use the moon for. For example, new cities to help cope with the population problem thats getting worse each generation. Penal colonies for the really dangerous criminals (eg GWB or the man who shot MJ) and so on.

GWB is the one who proposed a return to the moon. Had I posted the same comment about Obama me thinks it would have been deleted post haste.

If he keeps up what he's doing we won't have any money to go to the moon or to visit grandma.

[MeteorWayne]

While NASA resurrects a 50 year old technology, Burt Rutan gets to the moon sooner and at a fraction of the cost. Long ago, Robert Heinlein imagined a private company staking a claim to the moon while the major powers fussed. Who would have imagined such a thing might be possible. Pay attention to Scaled Composites and T/Space. That's where the action is at.

We'll see. So far nothing's made orbit, which is the baby step long before a lunar mission.

[just_curious]

If we go, we better bring a flag to place their before the Chinese go and find out there is no American flag there.

[jphighlander]

Here is how I look at it. Going to the moon is expensive, but so is any worth while endeavor. I was born 45 days after the first Moon landing and still see the reruns of that eventful day some almost 40 yrs since. There is so much engineering to salve so much in the way of information to be gained just in the attempt. The one thing I do not like is that it will not involve the shuttle or a real successor. We are a little past the strap a rocket to a rock and send, yet due to cost that is what the next ship is looking like. While I am not looking for Buck Rogers, I personally think that since we pretty much did this before it's time to have a ship that could set up a base on the moon and the vehicle where sending isn't it. For now let's get there, but let us think of the next for after that