And I voted Yes...because using the moon will achieve a good portion of what we need to learn to make a Mars trip. Done properly much of the needed equiptment for a safe exploration of Mars can be field tested close to home, rather than watching a failure of technology with a twenty minute delay, and a six month return trip. As an example:Thinker said:I voted no because going to the moon achieves little. It's a poor base for further
exploration as almost everything needs to be brought from Earth.
A direct mission to Mars must be the next step; going via the moon would be
wasteful in time and energy.
Why would anyone, other than for entertainment purposes, want to go to the moon ?Billo_Really said:
It's a good base for solar exploration, a good place to test technology for a Mars expedition, and because of its lack of atmosphere telescopes are much more efficient.robin said:Why would anyone, other than for entertainment purposes, want to go to the moon ?
Rocks have been collected. How much more do we need to know about the place ?
Though there is one reason... If there's water there, then that's a source of oxygen & hydrogen to use as rocket fuel that is not in as much of a gravitational well as the earth, meaning if launched from the moon then more of a rocket's fuel would go towards velocity rather than overcoming gravity.
I'm not sure the cost of a telescope on the moon would be any less than one orbiting the earth. In fact probably dearer & you then have the problem the moon spinning so you can't point the telescope in one direction 24/7.Engimo said:It's a good base for solar exploration, a good place to test technology for a Mars expedition, and because of its lack of atmosphere telescopes are much more efficient.
Is there a educational value for going back to the moon?I think not.Billo_Really said:
The moon is a waste. Do you not understand the difference between an unmanned exploratory spacecraft, versus transporting a few humans to the moon for no reason?imprtnrd said:Going to the moon? No big deal! We have a craft on the way to Pluto and it will take 10 years to get there!!!!! Now tell me the moon is a waste!
That doesn't mean we have to start sending people to the moon right now.DeeJayH said:aBsolutely YES
we have to have somewhere to go when we are finished destroying this little blue marble we call home :lol:
Agreed. I think it'll be a monumentous waste of money. The earth is filled with many problems, we shouldn't worry about going to the moon. How many people are suffering from AIDs? How many people face famine? If we would divert all the resources towards bettering humanity, opposed to space travel, we could make some interesting advances in the future.Kandahar said:No, we shouldn't. At least not in the next few decades. I'm sorry but the benefits of sending humans to the moon (or Mars) does not justify the incredible expense. That money can be better used to address problems here on earth.
We'll learn almost nothing new from going to the moon (or Mars) that we couldn't learn from sending robots, but we will significantly increase the cost of the mission. Simply going for the sheer hell of it, because we believe it's our "destiny" to do so, is a selfish irrational reason. If it's our species' "destiny" to do so, there's no reason we can't wait a few more decades when the cost of doing so will be significantly lower.
people changing their behavior will stop AIDS, not governmentkal-el said:How many people are suffering from AIDs?
we could spend all the money activists want to stop famine or starvationkal-el said:How many people face famine?
Actions by the government that have 'bettered humanity' have been accomplished due to pressure from the public sector. Politicians dont just wake up and do the right thing. they are pressured by their constituentskal-el said:If we would divert all the resources towards bettering humanity
do you have any idea how many advancements, in science alone, as a result of space travel?kal-el said:we could make some interesting advances in the future.
First, money spent on space research and development does not disappear into thin air. It goes toward creating knowledge, jobs, new businesses, and technologies, many of which have direct application to other activities. This is the spin-off argument. A moon initiative will require increased sophistication in, to name a few areas, solar-power generation, cryogenic technologies (cooling and storing liquefied gas), and human-robot interaction. These advances in the state-of-the-art will benefit energy, environment, health care, and many other areas. Many of the capabilities required for human exploration are synergistic with defense needs. Bush’s initiative will likely lead NASA and the Department of Defense to pool resources, lowering development costs for both agencies.
There will also be important scientific returns. The NASA Hubble Space Telescope has literally changed our understanding of the universe. A telescope on the moon, shielded from both solar and earth radiation, has the potential to see further into the universe than anything previously built. During the Apollo moon landings, we arguably learned more about lunar geology and the solar system in general than we could have in many decades of robotic probes. This kind of science merits government funding.
An often-ignored benefit of space activities involves its capacity to increase international cooperation and generate goodwill. A return to the moon will bring the international community together in an activity that pits man against the cosmos. An international effort will not only lower costs through the pooling of resources, it will create concrete links between the U.S., Russia, Japan, Europe, even China; and this will have tremendous symbolic over-tones. Last, but certainly not least, while space enthusiasts often point somewhat apologetically to the benefits described above in order to justify space exploration, there is a deeper reason for their fascination. It is the same reason that gives space exploration its great symbolic weight -- the innate human desire to learn more, to see more, to explore the unknown. While this need does not easily find its way onto a budget sheet, it has an important place in society. ...
These common secondary uses, called space spinoffs, have continuously enhanced the lifestyle of Americans and strengthened the U.S. economy since the 1950s.
The technologies that led to the computer bar codes in retail stores, quartz timing crystals and household smoke detectors were originally developed for NASA.
NASA technology has provided many benefits to the medical field. The pacemakers used to treat cardiac patients as well as the remote monitoring devices for intensive care patients were derived from the telemetry systems that first monitored astronauts and spacecraft. Much of the portable medical equipment carried aboard ambulances has its roots in NASA's needs for such portable equipment in space. These are but a few of the more than 30,000 secondary applications of space technology providing daily benefits in Earth-bound hospitals, offices and homes.
Bedlamite articulation. This is one of the FDA's top priorities. New drugs, home blood tests, HIV antigen test, and a viral load test are among the most recent in a long line of products the FDA has come up with to treat/prevent HIV/AIDs. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/197_aids.htmlDeeJayH said:people changing their behavior will stop AIDS, not government
or a pharmaceutical company that actually creates a cure ( i know, that last one is laughable)
Haha, I guess this "god" fellow of the bible was corrupt:we could spend all the money activists want to stop famine or starvation
but until Corruption is eliminated, we would only benefit the powerful & corrupt
I guess since you are basically saying we have famine because of corruption, so I take it you do not believe in the god of the bible? Surely he was a corrupt individual, cause he loves money. Famine is caused by shortages of food plus shortages of cash to purchase food, natural disasters, other countrie's monetary aid, and poor government management of resources.Genesis 41:29-31
Seven years of great abundance are coming throughout the land of Egypt, but seven years of famine will follow them. Then all the abundance in Egypt will be forgotten, and the famine will ravage the land. The abundance in the land will not be remembered, because the famine that follows it will be so severe.
Of course you are correct, but if not for the extravagent expenses incurred for space travel, we might be able to achieve "heaven on earth."Actions by the government that have 'bettered humanity' have been accomplished due to pressure from the public sector. Politicians dont just wake up and do the right thing. they are pressured by their constituents
Yes, it seems we are perfectly happy to spend the money waging wars, and making us "safe and comfortable". I'm not saying space travel is a bad thing, I'm only saying the earth has priority over our egotistical desire to conquer space.
That's the two-cent answer. That's like saying that the best way to cut down on crime is for criminals to stop committing them. It's a trite, meaningless tautology.DeeJayH said:people changing their behavior will stop AIDS, not government
or a pharmaceutical company that actually creates a cure ( i know, that last one is laughable)
And this same corruption is non-existent in space programs, which are also government-run?DeeJayH said:we could spend all the money activists want to stop famine or starvation but until Corruption is eliminated, we would only benefit the powerful & corrupt
What's your point?DeeJayH said:Actions by the government that have 'bettered humanity' have been accomplished due to pressure from the public sector. Politicians dont just wake up and do the right thing. they are pressured by their constituents
As a matter of fact I do. Very few, especially compared to the enormous cost of manned space exploration. The new science/technology benefits don't even come close to recovering the costs.DeeJayH said:do you have any idea how many advancements, in science alone, as a result of space travel?