POLL: Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

[doublehelix]

NASA’s Apollo 11 astronauts made the historic first moon landing on July 20, 1969. Many spaceflight enthusiasts favor returning astronauts to the moon by 2020, a plan put forth by President George W. Bush, and then sending them on to Mars. Others say robots can do most of our cosmic exploration more efficiently, and that it is too risky and expensive to send astronauts out there. The whole spaceflight program is currently under review by the White House.

[jbo]

same question applies now that applied 40 years ago:


How do you propose to get them past the Van Allen radiation belt?

How about "in the space capsule"?

[Anonymous_John]

The only thing that robots can do better, is taking photos from orbit. On the surface, there's nothing better than boots on the ground.
We learned more about the Moon from Apollo than from all the unmanned missions before and since. Mars will be no different.

[cpumasterwv]

It seems to make sense to establish a presence on the moon. Less gravity, untapped resources; it would definatly make Mars trips much more cost effective.

[Mlord]

same question applies now that applied 40 years ago:

How do you propose to get them past the Van Allen radiation belt?

As they did last time. Through it, where it's thinner, and with heightened risk for the astronauts of receiving cancer during their life time.

[gman42]

It seems to make sense to establish a presence on the moon. Less gravity, untapped resources; it would definatly make Mars trips much more cost effective.

Throw in the discovery of uranium ores and there's now a lot of good reasons to go back. It would make launching a nuclear based craft to mars much, much easier technically and politically.

[fable_x]

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.

[ZenGalacticore]

Absolutely yes! We should go back to the Moon. But only if we are going to stay and establish a permanent presence. (Which we should've done years ago.)

Besides, where else are we going to go? Leap-frogging off to Mars for one or two sensational missions at this point would be a big waste of money-and too high a risk- IMO. Once we have lunar outposts and bases that are as self-sufficient as possible, then, and only then, should we seriously consider venturing to Mars.

After all, if something goes seriously wrong with the life-support and other systems on our moon bases(which they are sure to do), it will be relatively easy to send in rescue and supply teams. Not so on Mars.

To insure success in a Mars venture, we would have to have redundant orbiting supply ships with equally redundant safe return-to-Mars-orbit craft. And then we're talking serious $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

IMO, Mars can come decades later, after great experience is learned living and operating on the Moon. If we can survive on the Moon, perhaps surviving on or in orbit around Mars would be a relative cake walk since we know for sure that there is at least frozen water on Mars and with the CO2 a way to make oxygen. (Although oxygen exists in the moon's regolith, TMK.)

[Rocket_Nut]

Of course we should go again. We have barely scratched the surface of Lunar exploration. We know next to nothing about what is beneath the regolith. We have not explored for caves and lava tubes. No astronaut has yet stayed on the Moon over the Lunar night! We need to prospect for water, helium 3, uranium and all the other stuff we haven't found yet.

This poll will not be too useful however - since only us space nuts are voting here. We are polling the choir!

[seth_381]

My idea is why go back we really have no good reason other than to suck the moon dry and get a little experience. I say spend the tax dollars to go to mars forget the moon and go directly. We've wasted enough time waiting to go.

[Guxx_Fufadoo]

{Off Topic Comment Deleted}

Meteor Wayne

[MeteorWayne]

Guxx_Fufadoo:
Please stick to the topic of the thread, and leave political cheap shots elsewhere.

[welshboss]

IMO we need a permanent base on the moon.... for a launch base to mars and eventually the outer solar system.
We also need a facility that houses a huge ground based telescope that would be able to see even further than ever.
We also need a NEO early warning outpost... actually several strategicaly placed on various parts of the moon to cover as much space as possible.
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.

Personally I would prefer to live on the moon with its countless dangers and bleak landscape if it meant getting away from some of my bloody neighbours!! (Just as long as I had a T1 BB connection )

[MeteorWayne]

MOD HAT ON ****

This topic is for serious discussions.

Posts that discuss moon hoax theories will be moved to a thread in the Unexplained which is for that purpose

MOD HAT OFF****

Meteor Wayne

[MERovingien]

It's pretty obvious that everything is -by chance- in place down and up there for the human race to proceed with baby steps. From Africa to Europe, from Asia to the Americas, from Earth to LEO, from Earth and LEO to the Moon, from earth and the Moon to Phobos, from Phobos down to Mars. We Earthlings should consider ourselves lucky to have the next step within reach, and lay down in such a logical way!
Let's go back and stay on the moon; Then apply the same to Mars and all will be for the best in the best of solar systems.

[elroy_jetson]

To give up on the Moon would be insane. Our Moon truly lies within the ocean of deep space, well beyond Earth's protective magnetic field. In comparison, the International Space Station rests in the relative safety of an inland harbor. Luna isn't real far offshore, but it's fully exposed to the challenges of deep space - cosmic radiation, solar storms, micro-meteoroids, and more. Exposed to things we need to learn more about before attempting the long and arduous journey to other places within our solar system. Additionally, maintaining and resupplying a lunar outpost will lead to an evolution of our launch systems, as we seek ever more dependable and efficient ways to send payloads to the Moon. Lying beyond Earth's gravity well, the Moon requires a real interplanetary spacecraft to reach. A spacecraft not so different than what will be used on a journey to Mars. A spacecraft under continual refinement with each new deployment to the Moon. We really do need to get back to the Moon. Without goals, nations and people deteriorate from within. It is in humanity's best interest to reach for the stars - starting with the Moon.

[frodo1008]

Going on to Mars with a single vehicle is a recipe for a disaster for the manned space program! There will BE NO Apollo 13 type of rescue, some millions of miles from the Earth on the way towards Mars! And then we can all be treated to an even greater media circus than the recent death of Michael Jackson! We would get to watch (if some kind of a failure at least left the astronauts alive for awhile) while these truly great and good people slowly died!! And then we could kiss any manned space efforts goodbye probably forever!

If that IS what you want, then by all means let us just try and go to Mars right away! Because a certain Mr. Murphy and his laws would then see to it that is what we would get!!!

But if we do go on to Mars in an intelligent manner, we will sent a large enough of a fleet of space vehicles that if one (or even two) should break down, the supplies and people of the others would be able to take up the slack (and the people and supplies that would otherwise be lost forever in the crippled ship) and make sure that the mission was completed!

But how can this be done without spending literally $trillions of tax dollars?

The answer lies on the moon! Not only should we go back to the moon for far further exploration of that closest and most interesting cosmic neighbor to us. After all, if you were to give a fast and slight exploration of the San Fernando Valley, you might just have what we did in the Apollo program. But, the moon has the approximate land area of the continents of Africa and Australia put together. Would you then say that we have even begun a full exploration of that much territory? If you did, then I have a certain bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell someone as smart as you are!

Just how many people have walked on the hidden side of the moon? Exactly zero. Not the "Dark side", that is the kind of uneducated thing that we sometimes get even on such a site as this, it is NOT dark, it is merely hidden from our eyes on the Earth!

But, the main reason for going back to the moon before going on further out is that the materials of the moon are just what would be needed to inexpensively build the infrastructure of a manned space civilization, including the fleets of vehicles needed to safely and reliably go out to Mars and even beyond!

And I am not even talking about the possibility of water, uranium, or helium 3. What I am talking about is iron, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, manganese, and many of the other space age materials just lying on the surface in the lunar regolith. This along with some 45% of the lunar regolith being the oxygen that binds of these various materials into their constituent oxides. We know these materials are there in easily mined quantities from the legacy of the materials brought back from all six sites by the Apollo astronauts. And what a wonderful legacy that was!!!

These materials could either be then smelted on the moon and literally thrown off its surface by a linear mass launcher as the moons gravity is only 0.16 that of the Earth's, with no atmosphere to burn up the materials when so launched!
Or they could just be mined and then thrown off the moon to be totally processed in space itself, with its ease of gravity and almost limitless quantity of energy directly from the sun itself!

I know that going back to the moon and doing this is in itself going to cost a lot, but when it is done, it will make the costs of future manned space ventures far, far less expensive, safer, and more reliable in the long run!

And THAT is why going to the moon is ALL important to both the future of a true space faring civilization, and eventually the fate of humanity itself!!

Is that explanation understandable?

[Actual_Rocket_Scientist]

same question applies now that applied 40 years ago:


How do you propose to get them past the Van Allen radiation belt?

Quickly

[Actual_Rocket_Scientist]

Of course we should go again. We have barely scratched the surface of Lunar exploration. We know next to nothing about what is beneath the regolith. We have not explored for caves and lava tubes. No astronaut has yet stayed on the Moon over the Lunar night! We need to prospect for water, helium 3, uranium and all the other stuff we haven't found yet.

This poll will not be too useful however - since only us space nuts are voting here. We are polling the choir!

Oddly enough, 5% if the choir says absolutely not.[/quote]

[HeavyChevy57]

Shud we go back....ABSOLUTELY!...We have quite of bit of research we can do up there and it makes a great practice field!. Not necessary for just the environment, for the elements, the actual history and what about the Dark Side!!!! Been around it, looked at it, never landed there...still gotta go...lots to do and places to see. I would even like to see a moon based observatory placed on the dark side...