POLL: Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

[shadowsound]

We need to expand our presence beyond just the low Earth orbit. This effort should take advantage of what we have learned, and impliment a planned development, using the information we have already acquired to build on the next step. Infrastructure needs to be set in place to reduce the future cost. This needs to be in orbit about the moon such as a combination GPS, communications, and landsat optical system to tprovide navigationassistance, continuous communications, and monitor ground activity in case of accidents.

On the ground solar cell gathering power systems that can be tapped in and espanded as needed as well as nuclear power that would provide main load power during eclipe times so that no location is out of reach for research and development.

The ability to use regolyth as a building material by fusing it like concrete into landind pads, habitats and tunnels for below ground. This means habitats are possible above and below ground from native material.

Oxygen is available in the Lunar soil and by sending material to the moon in solid nonvolite form accellerated to its surface and converted to water if water is not available as hoped. future resources will be water from Cerius and methane form the outer planets.

[ppatton]

It depends on whether NASA has a robust commitment to:
1) fully utilize the proposed moon base for a major well-funded program of scientific research on the moon
2) Is fully committed to using the moon base to develop technologies needed for human interplanetary travel, such as the ability to exploit non-terrestrial resources to sustain the base.
After spending billions on the International Space Station, NASA has drastically cut back on its program planned program of scientific research there, thereby wasting the money spent. This shouldn't be allowed to happen again. NASA should establish a clear mission and rationale for the base, and congress should fund it adequately to achieve its goals. NASA needs to get tougher on its contractors, to make sure its manned space program is lean and efficient, and not simply a handout program for big business. After decades of stagnation with the half-hearted shuttle and space station programs, America needs a manned space program that chooses achievable goals and is adequately funded to achieve them.

[budhenson]

Perhaps we've been placing the wrong emphasis on the wrong syllable and reading the question wrong.
Perhaps we should read the question as follows:

"Is NASA the best choice to send humans back to the Moon?" or "Should NASA (be the one to) send Astronauts back to the Moon?"

Now, THAT's an interesting question, since obviously the question of sending humans to the Moon is a logical and necessary step to confidently go beyond the Earth/Luna system.

If one accepts that mankind must extend its presence beyond the home planet, then lunar presence is a necessary step before proceeding further. We must have the experience before venturing further afield (so to speak).

Then we should ask the question, are we at the point where private enterprise - by itself - can springboard off existing/prior governmental experiences/projects to carry the torch?

I don't think we're there yet. It still has to be a multi-national effort in conjunction with private enterprise.

What is woefully lacking is a strong public voice to encourage - nay, demand that tax money be spent wisely to proceed with important science (however esoteric to the "inquiring minds" among us) and development.

I have great hopes for humanity despite the charlatans, war-mongers, petty politicians and village idiots among us. There are lots of good people out there who want the best for themselves and their children.

We ARE going to the stars - of that I am sure, because we all look up at them and wonder, "What's out there?" And we WILL find ways to go exploring. It's in our nature.

[lousephyr]

> if nasa decides not to go back to moon, you can gaurantee that china or possibly a muslim country will take the moon;
>> if u.s.a wants to continue to be a superpower in this world,then it must conquer space properly; & setting up base on the moon, so that experiments about living in alien enviroments are carried out, is essential.
> nasa also needs to make obama admin realise that most advancements in technology & enviromental technology has been greatly infleuenced by nasa; computers would still be the size of warehouses,if it wasn't for nasa's need to fit computers into orbiters,landers or satellites going to other planets;
> also saying that we need to stop spending vast amounts of money on space technology,when there are starving people on earth ; misses the point of exploring space completely; the more we learn about other planets & enviroments,the more we learn about ourselves & earth; a slightly similiar experience happens when for example a person goes overseas to reside in a foreign country;they tend to become more aligned to their home culture & become more paitroitic;

[dcnterprise]

No matter how far back you go the Moon has been lifes companion. When you look up you share a conection with most of the living things that have ever existed on this planet. Now that that life is contemplating moving outward it must be our first step. All of human existance has been driven by curiosity and the need to explore. Its what has allowed us to survive when other versions of man have stagnated and failed. Great things were acomplished on our last venture with technology that compares to todays like stone hammers. Look around people. This planet needs something that every being on the Earth can see by stepping out the door on a clear night. Something that can light imagination, ideas, and drive. I hate to let you all down but American Idol doesn't fit the bill. This planet is tearing itself apart like no science fiction author would ever have imagined. We have no vision. Our goverments and religions have failed to grasp the bigger picture and we need this. If we don't go the planet will continue unconcerned but with one less species.
After reading the comments from other users I fully expect a salvo of pesimistic fearfull reasons not to go and thats ok. After all, Columbus had to deal with that as well.

[Floridian]

That depends, if NASA is going to over-inflate the costs, waste time on outdated technology, not try anything new or cutting edge, and only take samples that are inconclusive, then no, they sure as hell should not send Astronauts back to the moon. Use the money to fund private companies that have the balls to try things. NASA shot themselves in the foot when they cut themselves off to using anything nuclear back in the late 1950s and 1960s, space is full of radiation, get used to it.

NASA is full of a bunch of egg-heads that should not be running a space program? Why? Because space travel is one of the most dangerous and technologically demanding pursuits man can engage in. A bunch of bureaucrats running a space-program isn't really a space program at all. We should have made many more advances than we have in the last 50 years. Space technology has fallen behind, to the point of being pathetic. Computer and power technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 50 years, yet NASA plans to spend more money on basically the same equipment that we used 40 years ago? That would be like the army mass producing Sherman Tanks from WW2 again, or the Air Force using Bi-planes.

[colbourne]

The main aim should be getting a person to Mars. Going to the Moon would be a useful test of the equipment but should not be the long term target.
America is going soft and that is why there has been so little progress since the 70's.
I would suggest a one way Mars mission with the aim of setting up a permanent base on Mars. This would probably take less resources than a return mission and might even be safer. As technology improves the chance to bring astronauts home would apply.
I would also suggest putting resources into building a rotating tether (bolo) space catapult as the cheapest way to launch supplies to Mars and elsewhere.

[Undrdwg]

Unfortunately ... there is a significant percentage of the population that does not believe we were ever really there in the first place. I think a manned expedition is needed for that reason alone.

[voyager_NL]

I can't believe all the nay sayers... here are some reasons I've read here why not to go. Including my replie to them:

- Done that! Why do it again?
Same reason why people went to check out that new found continent after Columbus came back. It's called exploration. It's something we humans tend to do when we're not training to become a couchpotato! Remember the words of Dave Scott, Apollo 15 during his moonlanding: "As I stand out here in the wonders of the unknown at Hadley, I sort of realize there's a fundamental truth to our nature, Man must explore . . . and this is exploration at its greatest."

This alone should be reason enough .. but since you've asked for it I'll rant along just to make sure you will understand it :

- Why do it with old technology?
By all means but Orion/Ares is not old technology. You might've been led to believe this by other nay sayers. But we have so much more technology and microgravity habitat knowledge right now. It would be indeed a worthwhile effort to go there. (just as much as we should've directly after the Apollo program). But we still have to learn a lot of things about self sustaining habitats and building structures from regolith like materials. Moon is the best place to train for that. It would be a proving ground that our current state of technology is or is not up to par for making something like this happen. Remember this time we're going to stay! Which is a totally different approach to what was done with Apollo.

Also ... yes... propulsion hasn't taken a flight into the area of hyperdrives or something that will get us there in a few hours. That only proves more why we should do a moonshot. It's the only reasonable place to go like this. 3 days of flying is very much worth the trip when it puts us back into a 1/6Gee gravity well after that.

- Too much money for the taxpayers
I've never heard any taxpayer complain about the revenues made out of the Apollo program even less complaints about the amount of jobs it created and a new space program will create.
I've never heard any taxpayer complain this hard sending hundreds of thousands American soldiers to the Middle East... only rewarded by a number of soulless victims counting in the thousands already. With hardly ANY return out of that but a budget overshadowing the NASA budget more than a 100 fold!

- Let's go to Mars directly.. we have the technology don't we?
Actually .. yes AND no! We do have some technology to get there... and back. But no actual relevant experience with 2 year roundtrips now do we? How would you think about a crew of 4-5 that have been in Zero Gee for at least 6 months with all the physical/physiological degradation that comes with that? Do you really thing that the landing party would be capable of planting that Star Spangled Banner into the red soil? Have you ever seen a Cosmonaut being helped out of his spacecraft after any prolongued time in Micro Gravity? Their first steps resulted in broken bones! This clearly teaches us that we need to come up with a solution for generating artificial gravity (e.g. rotating habitat gondoloa's) for trips like this. Something that could well be engineered in the meantime while we're "colonizing" the moon.

To me the answers are so clear that I just CANNOT understand why the general public is so ignorant about the facts...

[destroyerkahn]

Poll results are somewhat misleading. 95% chose either the first or second choice, both indicating we should go back to the moon (as long as we learn from it, which is a given - I really don't see the difference between the first two responses). But let's consider that we ARE at "Space.com" .....who visits this site anyway? Just us space junkies. So, take these results with a grain of salt. I'd prefer to see the results from the same poll posted on CNN.com or some other mainstream site.

[wtrix]

Unfortunately I cannot vote in this poll cause it's too simplistic (as most of the polls are).

Imho NASA (and hopefully other space agencies) shall go to the moon in order to ultimately build a self-sustaining base there. And the objective of the base is to support space exploration via providing fuel for interplanetary missions and making simple support structures for larger on-orbit assembled spacecraft.

[buz]

The moon is our new frontier. We have to go back and the sooner the better

[SatDiver]

We must return to the moon ASAP! The true future of our existence demands it. The space program is more vital than any earth problem. But reality is that Humans are self destructive and would rather hate each other over stupid religious nonsense than progress to the next level of evolution.

[DipakPanchal]

Absoluly sure and positive, but not to find out water or ice there.Moon does not haveGravity like earth or atleast like Mars. There are no ingradients found which can support life. but still there is much ,ore like Uranium, Helium 3 and so on. Possibility for using moon as alternate future space station as ISS is getting more populated. Last thingthat moon may be used as launching pad for the journey to Mars.

To study all these NASA must send astronauts to the moon.

[raoul]

Of course! Going to Mars won't happen in my lifetime, so go back to the Moon and learn how to use the stuff, the place, the space and the time up there so that you can eventually travel further.

[Robotic_Exploration_FTW]

I really don't think people get it. The Moon is NOT a stepping-stone to Mars, it's a detour.

No spaceship bound for Mars will be built or fuelled on the Moon in the next 100 years AT LEAST. The gain from having less gravity simply doesn't compensate for the enormous cost of building mines and factories and support facilities - never mind the time it'll take to build them. Building a Mars spaceship on the Moon makes as much sense as building Toyotas on a mountaintop in Antarctica.

What the Moon mission will do, though, is delay any mission to Mars, Europa, or Titan, because we can't afford to run more than one mega-mission at a time.

It's not even a good dress rehearsal for the Mars mission as the Moon is so dissimilar to Mars. Antarctica is actually a better training ground than the Moon is.

But the most damning for the Moon mission is that there exist no reason to go there. NASA has really tried, but still hasn't found a single viable scientific or economic reason to return to the Moon.
We're going back there solely because GW Bush decided we should, there is no other reason, and he decided that because he wanted to enthuse the US public.

It's a huge waste. It wastes better than 100 billion dollar and at least ten years which could be used for worthwhile space exploration.

[jimjetson]

For crying out loud.

The Moon as a way station to Mars? Give me a break. We escape Earth's gravity just to do it again with the Moon's on the way to Mars. What sense does that make? What have we got a space station up there for? Why can't that be used as the base and assembly site for the mission to Mars?...

$$$.,

Double Slit, the Quantum Phantom
WaKeeney, Kansas

[bbfreakDude]

I really don't think people get it. The Moon is NOT a stepping-stone to Mars, it's a detour.

No spaceship bound for Mars will be built or fuelled on the Moon in the next 100 years AT LEAST. The gain from having less gravity simply doesn't compensate for the enormous cost of building mines and factories and support facilities - never mind the time it'll take to build them. Building a Mars spaceship on the Moon makes as much sense as building Toyotas on a mountaintop in Antarctica.

What the Moon mission will do, though, is delay any mission to Mars, Europa, or Titan, because we can't afford to run more than one mega-mission at a time.

It's not even a good dress rehearsal for the Mars mission as the Moon is so dissimilar to Mars. Antarctica is actually a better training ground than the Moon is.

But the most damning for the Moon mission is that there exist no reason to go there. NASA has really tried, but still hasn't found a single viable scientific or economic reason to return to the Moon.
We're going back there solely because GW Bush decided we should, there is no other reason, and he decided that because he wanted to enthuse the US public.

It's a huge waste. It wastes better than 100 billion dollar and at least ten years which could be used for worthwhile space exploration.

I respectfully disagree. I just do not see how a straight to Mars mission would ever work, at least without getting everyone killed and setting the space program back another 50 years.

While yes we technically we have the ability to send humans to Mars. At least as so much as sending a rocket with humans on board is possible, our experience with long duration flight is non-existence and you want to test this on a lengthy trip to Mars? Apollo in case you forgot had only 10 missions beyond LEO, six in which we landed on the surface. That's about our entire experience beyond LEO.

For good reasons, humans weren't designed to live in space. You know because space is hostile towards life, and the lack of gravity is punishing on one's body.

10 short missions, 6 on the surface of the moon hardly prepares us to head to Mars.

So, since you don't want to go to the moon, where exactly would we get the experience and technical know-how to ever be ready for Mars? Earth? LEO? All of which are poor substitutes for the real thing. The moon meanwhile is right in our back yard.

[HiGh_GuY]

I respectfully disagree. I just do not see how a straight to Mars mission would ever work, at least without getting everyone killed and setting the space program back another 50 years.

It would work..not to say that there is no risk, and everything will go exactly as planned but thats a risk worth taking.

While yes we technically we have the ability to send humans to Mars. At least as so much as sending a rocket with humans on board is possible, our experience with long duration flight is non-existence and you want to test this on a lengthy trip to Mars? Apollo in case you forgot had only 10 missions beyond LEO, six in which we landed on the surface. That's about our entire experience beyond LEO.

so how does flying a short range mission to the moon prepare us for a long range mission to mars? The only way we will learn is by doing it. Also, the ammount of landings on the moon has nothing to do with mars...mars has atmosphere (yes, very little, but more than none like the moon) Landing on mars, is more like landing on earth, than the moon.

For good reasons, humans weren't designed to live in space. You know because space is hostile towards life, and the lack of gravity is punishing on one's body.

ever heard of artifical gravity...surely that would be a feature on a mars ship. Also..There have already been designs proposed for shielding from solar radiaton that don't involve any radically new technology. Maybe a tweak of current technology at the most.

So, since you don't want to go to the moon, where exactly would we get the experience and technical know-how to ever be ready for Mars? Earth? LEO? All of which are poor substitutes for the real thing. The moon meanwhile is right in our back yard.

Again...how do you think going to the moon, which is nothing like mars, is going to prepare us for mars? Lets stop pretending that the moon and mars are the same...and stop making excuses. When going to mars is CLEARLY the better option. Also...think on this. Being new/untested/dangerous...didn't stop columbus from finding the new world, didn't stop louis and clark from traveling from east coast to west coast on foot, and didn't stop us from going to the moon 50 years ago...why should it be any differnt now??? Unnfortunately, the human race is going soft. as our technology gets better and we grow as a species...we become bigger pussies...Well at least the ones making the decisions.

[grison]

Answer to Voyager_NL.
Microgravity during the trip to Mars.
It is true that a six months trip under microgravity would be very debilitating but more than ten years ago, Robert Zubrin already found the solution:
Set up a link (tether) between the last stage of the launcher (after it is burnt out!) and give an impulse to the couple. Since there is no atmosphere in Space, rotation will keep on indefinitely and maintain inside the habitat an artificial gravity which can be regulated according to the length of the tether and the speed of the spin.
NASA should urgently experiment the idea. Unfurling the tether should not be a problem because it would be attached to both the launcher and the habitat before the launch.
Of course, rotation should be stopped upon approaching Martian atmosphere and trajectory corrected.