POLL: Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

Should NASA Send Astronauts Back to the Moon?

  • Absolutely! The 40 years since the first moon landing have been way too long.

    Votes: 85 85.0%
  • Perhaps, but only if the new science and technologies from the effort can help the rest of humanity

    Votes: 10 10.0%
  • Just say NO to the moon. We’ve been there before, and any attempt to return is a ridiculous waste of

    Votes: 5 5.0%

  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

doublehelix

Guest
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.
 
J

jbo

Guest
Rudee":2egaz89n said:
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"?
 
A

Anonymous_John

Guest
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.
 
C

cpumasterwv

Guest
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.
 
M

Mlord

Guest
Rudee":byydzole said:
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.
 
G

gman42

Guest
cpumasterwv":1yc5jl2i said:
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.
 
F

fable_x

Guest
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.
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
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.)
 
R

Rocket_Nut

Guest
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!
 
S

seth_381

Guest
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.
 
M

MeteorWayne

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

welshboss

Guest
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 ;) )
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
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
 
M

MERovingien

Guest
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.
 
E

elroy_jetson

Guest
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.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
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!!! :x

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? :D
 
A

Actual_Rocket_Scientist

Guest
Rocket_Nut":1glvwt6z said:
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]
 
H

HeavyChevy57

Guest
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...
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Actual_Rocket_Scientist":3aa1vo6l said:
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.
 
A

Azpod

Guest
fable_x":tde6fzof said:
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.
 
G

General_Kenobi

Guest
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.
 
S

Solartraveler

Guest
fable_x":1a6q4i84 said:
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.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
General_Kenobi":2bpp9me0 said:
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts