PDA

View Full Version : Should NASA Go Back To The Moon?



Bart Smastard
20th September 2005, 03:50 PM
NASA announced today it's mission to return manned missions to our moon in 2018, with the goal of eventual outposts there and to use it as a stepping stone for manned missions to Mars. NASA - How We'll Get Back to the Moon (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html)

My personal opinion is they should never have stopped back in 1972.

I like how they're using a bit of old school technology. This saves money by not reinventing the wheel.

The Apollo concept was a good one and the shuttle also proved itself over the last 20 years - sure they had some very publicised disasters but space travel ain't no walk in the park. The human species would have been extinct by now if our ancestors had given up because a few people died whilst exploring the boundries of the known world.

The benefits of sending humans back to the moon, and staying for long periods, could produce many benefits back on Earth.

Getting water will be a lot harder there than down here, so any new technology that helps produce clean, drinkable water could also be applied in the arid zones of Earth. The same goes for producing food and other necessities.

By understanding the ecology of our celestial neighbours we can also learn a lot about our own home planet.

So I say, go for it. Reach for the stars! B)

LCGuy
20th September 2005, 03:53 PM
I say go for it!

Jax
20th September 2005, 04:00 PM
So long as they take George Bush with them - Will they be ready to leave in the morning?

dangelovich
20th September 2005, 04:02 PM
I'm all for going to the moon, but I think we should try for something better...
They should be sending people to Mars or something. I mean, its not brain surgery - its rocket science.

Rayd
20th September 2005, 04:05 PM
go all the way, make a GIANT pipe that will send water and supplies to them, like a big vacum, and then... you can send PEOPLE back and forth... (ok ive been watching too much sci-fi... back to Bruce almighty :)

tommelbourne
20th September 2005, 04:08 PM
Yes, but i don't exactly think it is useful for humanity! It's better than the Americans spending their billions on Defence, though, and it sure is interesting stuff!

Disko
20th September 2005, 04:16 PM
The cost over the next 13 years: 104 Billion US Dollars.
The cost of the iraq war (so far): $195,663,975,123 USD - that figure is going up thousands of dollars every minute as well.

I'd definately prefer space exploration. Cease the mindless bloodshed and use that money to solve the problems of the world. :thumbup:

dshan
20th September 2005, 04:30 PM
Of course, they should never have stopped. It's staggering how much time and effort it's going to take to get them back where they were 45 years earlier! Amazing how so many of the news stories are already harping on how "expensive" it will be. In fact when adjusted for inflation the estimated cost of just over $US100 bn is considerably less than Apollo cost (and for more people on the Moon for longer stays than Apollo).

It was always thus with NASA, I can well remember all the news stories about how much Apollo was costing back in the '60s and early '70s, when every year the the same US government was spending orders of magnitude more money on ICBMs, the Vietnam war and other high tech weapons. Now they've spent over $US200 bn in less than three years fighting in Iraq (and are spending $US300 bn every year on defence in general) yet the press think spending a bit over $US100 bn over the next 13 years to return to the Moon and prepare to go to Mars is "very expensive"...

Arthur C. Clarke got it right when he said about space travel "At long last Mankind has discovered something more exciting than war, unfortunately not everyone has realised that yet".

Jax
20th September 2005, 04:31 PM
It's a long, long way off, but we're going to be forced to leave this place one day. I'ts probably never too early to start finding out where to and how to.

conditionals
20th September 2005, 04:42 PM
(S)he who controls the moon control the tides. (S)he who controls the tides controls the WORLD! MWAHAHAHAHHAAHA.

proctopia
20th September 2005, 04:43 PM
isn't the long term plan to use the moon as a launching pad for future trips?... something about most of the energy used going into space is spent getting out of our atmosphere, so launching from the moon would be much more practical.

which would mean that going to the moon again was vital. and probably not just once.

Phillip
20th September 2005, 04:51 PM
2018? And I thought I'd live to see man go to the Mars. Apparently the Chinese wants to send someone up to the moon too - by 2010. Although pumping money back into NASA is better than spending in Iraq, or some other war, it might be better off to spend it on fixing the USA's own problems. Like, first, teach them there is a world outside of America. :P But of course, that isn't going to happen, so I'd say Moon anyway.

The Fluffy Duck
20th September 2005, 05:12 PM
Its another space race. Cant let those commie Chinese Reds get to the moon before us lol. Thatís the mentality of it. Still a bit of the cold war one up man ship going around.
A little space race never hurt anybody. It gets us off our arse and gives the world a goal for a change. Even if its only a few countries participating. It gives humanity a goal that doesnít involve kicking the shit out of each other. Or millions of dollars wasted on pointless activities such as football and other games that dint do anything for humanity.

To infinity and beyond.......

mwot
20th September 2005, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by The Fluffy Duck@Sep 20 2005, 05:12 PM
... Or millions of dollars wasted on pointless activities such as football and other games that dint do anything for humanity.
so sporting institutions don't contribute anything at all to society ...? Perhaps true about La Crosse, but otherwise that's a pretty big call. Good luck defending that :P

Georgina EG
20th September 2005, 05:45 PM
Has NASA asked the man on the moon if he's ready for visitors again?

dangelovich
20th September 2005, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by mwot@Sep 20 2005, 05:34 PM
so sporting institutions don't contribute anything at all to society ...? Perhaps true about La Crosse, but otherwise that's a pretty big call. Good luck defending that :P
Sporting institutions contribute nothing significant to *humanity*
they do contribute something to society though... not that I care much for them. actually, make that "at all".

...stupid over-glorified neanderthals.

Nobody throws a parade or a huge farcical telecast night for the scientists who spend years finding ways to splice chipmunk DNA with pieces of provolone cheese so that we can all have a vaccine for polio. They're the real heroes. To hell with the sports people.

OK, I'm done.

The Fluffy Duck
20th September 2005, 07:17 PM
so sporting institutions don't contribute anything at all to society ...? Perhaps true about La Crosse, but otherwise that's a pretty big call. Good luck defending that

Its to keep the plebian masses in check. How does chasing a stuffed pig skin around a patch of grass help further humanity? Grid iron in America. $400,000 paid to the player for a touch down? Wow that wasnt exactly hard, and contributed nothing to humanity. Where as $400,000 in cancer research might.

Also I think this guy also summed it up pretty well also.


Sporting institutions contribute nothing significant to *humanity*
they do contribute something to society though... not that I care much for them. actually, make that "at all".

...stupid over-glorified neanderthals.

Nobody throws a parade or a huge farcical telecast night for the scientists who spend years finding ways to splice chipmunk DNA with pieces of provolone cheese so that we can all have a vaccine for polio. They're the real heroes. To hell with the sports people.

feeze
20th September 2005, 08:15 PM
And how does sitting around an internet forum discussing which is the better colour iPod benifit humanity.

Before you go criticising others about their contributions towards humanity, stop and ask yourself, what was the last great thing YOU contributed towards humanity?

Maybe you guys should sell your computers and donate the money towards cancer research. I am sure that will do more for humanity than anything you are currently using them for.

the_OM
20th September 2005, 08:38 PM
Hell yes they should.
Space is really the final frontier, and anyone who says the possibilities of what's out there isn't exciting is just kidding themselves.

In saying that though, we shouldn't just be aiming for the moon, we should be aiming for as far as we can, why go to something we can see and have been to before? Wouldn't the unknown excite everyone?

All we need now is a big fuck off space dock, a ship the size of the enterprise, and we'll be good to go!

And in the words of buzz: To infinity and beyond!

dangelovich
20th September 2005, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by feeze@Sep 20 2005, 08:15 PM
And how does sitting around an internet forum discussing which is the better colour iPod benifit humanity.

Before you go criticising others about their contributions towards humanity, stop and ask yourself, what was the last great thing YOU contributed towards humanity?

Maybe you guys should sell your computers and donate the money towards cancer research. I am sure that will do more for humanity than anything you are currently using them for.
It probably doesn't...
But then we aren't being broadcast nationally and having countless people worshipping us for discussing iPods. I realize what I do on the internet is pretty inconsequential, and I have no expectation or desire for people to sit around watching me give people advice on why their shell script doesn't work etc. But I'm helping someone. And if that someone benefits from it, then I'm happy.

I think the point is, sport doesn't really serve a particular purpose. It's just a thing people do. And in my opinion, people treat it with far too much importance - considering there are so many more people doing more important work - that doesn't get recognized.

On the grand scale of what will change the world, and what won't, I think my research into software development will have more benefit/impact than if I went out and kicked a ball around to other idiots. There's a chance I will discover and improve something. That something can have a huge impact. A ("professional") sporting person is significantly less likely to achieve that.

But my main reason for disliking sports, is that these people aren't all that smart. My reasoning, is that if they were smart, they wouldn't make a "career" out of kicking a ball around an oval for 4 hours every week. Now don't get me wrong. It's entirely possible that Billy-Bob is also a Professor of Immunology for the Department of Health... but if I were to bet money that "professional" sports-people were (on average) of a lower IQ than regular people with 9-5 jobs, I think I'd come out on top.

I think we, as a species, have a great deal of potential to do great things. And some things make us more likely to achieve that potential than others. Exploration of the outside of our corner of the Universe is important for that.

Each to his own, I suppose.
Oh, and I lied. I wasn't quite done before.

EDIT: I might also mention that I don't use my sig. below just because I like the sound of it. I use it because I believe it.

xfodder
20th September 2005, 10:00 PM
sorry but someone was bound to say this

"We Landed On The Moon ?!" WE LANDED ON THE MOON ! (i love dumb and dumber)

Bart Smastard
20th September 2005, 10:16 PM
How does just about every topic get back to sport???

And why don't people bother to read the links?

For all those saying that NASA should aim higher but couldn't be arsed to read the link (http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html). This was the closing paragraph:

"These plans give NASA a huge head start in getting to Mars. We will already have the heavy-lift system needed to get there, as well as a versatile crew capsule and propulsion systems that can make use of Martian resources. A lunar outpost just three days away from Earth will give us needed practice of "living off the land" away from our home planet, before making the longer trek to Mars."

mwot
22nd September 2005, 04:10 PM
Dangelovich - with your last post, you sound so elitist. Essentially, what you're telling me is that all people with lower IQs than you, don't make the grade (pardon the pun); they're of a lower species.

Sorry. I find that attitude pretty sad.

Fluffy Duck - while I certainly believe everyone should give out of what they earn, if you want to donate $400k to cancer research, then you should earn it yourself and do just that, otherwise, quit trying to spend someone else's money. They can do with it as they please.

Sport, in general, is as useful a function as any scientific discovery - it just fills a different void in this little world of ours. As Dangelovich insinuated, we can't all be rocket scientists/astronauts/programmers, so some of us aspire to be the best we can be at what ever activity/career motivates us most. Aint nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

Oh, right ... the topic. Yes, go to the moon. It's all truly (and I mean that) fascinating stuff.

:P

dangelovich
22nd September 2005, 04:35 PM
Maybe I got carried away... My point is that they get all this credit and attention and they're really not doing anything of any importance.

I don't think I'd say they were of a lower species, but I certainly don't consider them to be valuable members of the community.
What can I say... I'm a jerk.

The Fluffy Duck
22nd September 2005, 05:48 PM
Fluffy Duck - while I certainly believe everyone should give out of what they earn, if you want to donate $400k to cancer research, then you should earn it yourself and do just that, otherwise, quit trying to spend someone else's money. They can do with it as they please.Sport, in general, is as useful a function as any scientific discovery - it just fills a different void in this little world of ours. As Dangelovich insinuated, we can't all be rocket scientists/astronauts/programmers, so some of us aspire to be the best we can be at what ever activity/career motivates us most. Aint nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.

lol you missed the point big time. The point I was getting at is they are paid way to much for something useless. Sport is good for fitness but doesnít do anything of real importance. Sports persons get paid hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year. If you believe that they deserve that much for chasing a stuffed pig skin compared to some scientists working on a cure for cancer your a fool. Sport contributes nothing to society. Only keeps the plebeian masses in check.


The Olympics is a giant waste of time. Sure its in the name of peace, but not really. Countries still hate and fight one another. And Im sure the human race has evolved to a higher plane of existence because somebody can through an iron ball 0.23mm further than some other guy three years before.

Now if you got a bunch of scientists and medical people form all over the world under the same concept. Working on new and quicker methods of making medicine and doing other useful exercises etc. That might actually contribute something past the present. But I cant see that happening because people who dress in blue singlets, sitting on a sofa with a stubbie in one hand who would still believe that the world was flat if it wasnít explained to be false in their 10 years of schooling cant yell " OZI OZI OZI OI OI OI" to a guy in a white coat. Kinda sad.....


At least we agree we should go to the moon.

plod2
22nd September 2005, 05:55 PM
according to the newspaper here in NZ, nasa won't be asking for any more money in their budget, and instead will be redirecting funds to this project each year.

mwot
23rd September 2005, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by The Fluffy Duck@Sep 22 2005, 05:48 PM
lol you missed the point big time.
Hmmm. Must be because of my plebian mind.

But seriously, as rediculous as it does sound, $400k would just be the going rate. Never said that's what they deserve, but it is the 'award' rate. Don't forget you're talking about major sponsorship/corporate dollars. Personally, most sportsmen probably don't have the maturity to handle that kind of money, but that's no reason to state that sport, in general, does nothing at all to contribute to society.

Perhaps NASA should send some sportsmen up to the moon for scientific study?

Dangelovich - if you're a jerk, I'm happy to be stupid. cheers, mate. ;)

ultim8m
23rd September 2005, 08:20 AM
i think they should go back because i'm selfish and want to see a moon landing in my lifetime

the other thing is did they go the first time, a while back there was a show on channel 10 that showed many reasons and theories that somewhat provedthe first time was a hoax. did anyone else see this programme,

do you think they will actually go this time or just spend millions on another hoax

symean
23rd September 2005, 08:37 AM
All for space research.

Answers to current problems lie in the future. If we have the attitude "Let's get it right on Earth first" then we'll never leave the planet.

Only, can we PLEASE speed it up? When I was little I looked forward to going to the moon for a holiday and taking trips in space. The pace of space exploration is so slow. This is bullsh!t - I want to see the moon first hand, not hope that my great grandchildren might...

:)

Bart Smastard
23rd September 2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by ultim8m@Sep 23 2005, 08:20 AM
the other thing is did they go the first time, a while back there was a show on channel 10 that showed many reasons and theories that somewhat provedthe first time was a hoax. did anyone else see this programme,

do you think they will actually go this time or just spend millions on another hoax
Anything and everything on channel 10 cannot be believed.
Are the idols really idols. I mean does anyone actually idolise them?
Are neighbours really neighbours. They're certainly not my neighbours, all my neighbours are Greek (I live in Oakleigh -or Ocklay in the local tongue :D )

In answer to your question: They have a 100 billion+ budget, do you really think they'd waste that on a movie without Tom Cruise or Tom hanks?

Anyway let's get back to the topic of Should Nasa go back to the moon - which somehow got hijacked by a debate about whether sport contributes to society. How about you guys start another poll for that argument?

AusMac
23rd September 2005, 11:34 PM
Haven't read the rest of this thread yet but .. Why go to the moon? What is there for us?
Mining companies may want to go there but the only result of that will be greater pollution of this planet.
Moonbases? Talk of little green men stories.
We cannot manage this planet efficiently .. not economically nor ecologically. We still haven't even managed to get along with our neighbours yet.
Billions starve or are at threat of warmongers.
They won't even give me broadband..
What kind of a cruel joke is this?

ETHERSPIN
24th September 2005, 08:59 AM
stuff the moon... i dont hear of any plans to terraform that in the near future so save the money for something down the track!! :D

emacmark
24th September 2005, 09:32 AM
Just what they (the US of A) need, a distraction from reality. Maybe it will make them feel superior again, after all, they are having their backsides kicked by terrorists, pissed off iraqi's and now monster hurricanes. These events demonstrate how incompetant they are, so I suppose they need to do something to restore their pride.

The Fluffy Duck
24th September 2005, 05:55 PM
We still haven't even managed to get along with our neighbours yet.

All the more reason to go to the moon :P