Printable View
This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Moon landings.
Since the Apollo missions ended, we haven’t been back since. Another series of missions would cost quite a bit ($102 billion) - is it worth the money?
I’d say so, but I’m also cognizant that we have issues right here on Earth which should be attended to first. What say the PF assemblage?
fuck yeah the moon is awesome.
The "problems on Earth" argument was used to end Apollo, and guess what- it didn't help, and I would argue spending that money on fixing those problems just made them worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by GardoneVT
Depends. $100B isn’t peanuts, but I’d rather use that $$ to generate high tech jobs and potential offshoot technologies than feed another generation of Gimme dats.
Also kind of want a goal for the program aside from to go there cause. We already went there cause. Research station, observatory. Mars launch point???
I can’t say yes enough!
NASA has failed by becoming focused on science instead of exploration. Unmanned missions can certainly do more science for less money and risk than manned missions, but NASA should be in the business of exploration, not in the business of science. NASA can assume risks to human life that no other spacefaring organization can, and that makes exploration their best actual purpose. I do worry that they’ll never see it that way, the there are too many bureaucrats, administrators, and scientists to actually prioritize exploration.
Ya’ll want to hear some sad stories? Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were planned and funded, had rockets built, but were canceled. There’s a whole Saturn V at JSC, I’ve seen that one live and in person, as well as the one at MSFC, but I haven’t seen the KSC Saturn V. Yet.
Skylab was an outcome of the Apollo Applications Program, replacing the upper Saturn V stage. We lost Skylab under frankly embarrassing conditions. Nixon’s lack of interest in space, combined with NASA’s now obviously misguided fixation on the Shuttle, eliminated the Apollo Applications Program. Using Saturn V rockets, moon visits could have gone from 2 to 14 to 30 to 90 to 180 days duration! A moon base instead of the Shuttle! von Braun was already working on super booster “Nova” rockets of 10-20 million pounds thrust.
Please, let’s go back.
That is, and I say this as politely as I can, one of the dumbest things I've read this year. If you think science has stood in the way of space exploration, you are...out of your damned mind. Like seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron
It wasn't as though John Glenn was hanging out in his covered wagon waiting to go to space as an explorer and just needed permission from the scientists to "go explore". The National Aeronautics and Space Administration not only conducts more research than most organizations can dream about. It has developed some of the most important pieces of technology in use here on Earth. It has done the impossible more times than should be possible.
We navigate, use this thing called the internet, and have satellite TV and communications courtesy of that "science".
The only reasons we haven't sent people to Mars or beyond has far more to do with the current limitations of propulsion than, "Oh we're too busy doing science to send someone to Mars." And how are we going to extend beyond that propulsion? Well, I guess we can try...science. :rolleyes:
And you guys realize that there are two Americans in space right now? Flying over us, in the International Space Station which has been continuously inhabited by humans for 20 years? For 20 years we've had a colony in space, no big deal.
___
I'll take this moment to be a jackass and remind you that there has been continual cuts of funding to NASA annually. And reduction in financial support of science in general. If Americans want America to be a global leader in space exploration, technological development, intellect etc. We have to commit to those things financially. We sent men to the moon once, because we were committed as a country to do it. We were motivated by fear, but committed none-the-less. We have not been committed to American Excellence in 50 years*...
*Which by the by means you can't lay the blame for that loss at the feet of "millennials".
Denying the Chinese access is reason enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAZ
Might disagree. They have had a significant role in aeronautical development. Interesting engineering projects are in place.Quote:
NASA has failed by becoming focused on science instead of exploration.
I’m against the program entirely. I wish they’d shut the whole thing down. Leave it to the private sector.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Read my login name.
Absolutely we should go back. And this time, we should stay. The near term future for exploring and exploiting our little solar system lies in a self-sufficient and self-contained lunar colony. From the moon, with its 1/6th gravity, we can easily and cheaply launch ships, manned and unmanned, to other locations.
Not until we develop some exotic drive will we be able to reach the outer planets and the asteroids easily and inexpensively from Earth, and even with an exotic drive, it will be cheaper from the moon.
The lunar colony must be self-sufficient, producing food, water and O2 in quantity. They will need an industrial base to design and build whatever they need to survive, thrive, and expand outward. Once they are truly self-sufficient they can become independent and it's this independence from Mother Earth that will let them make their own decisions, and not be just an instrument of any one country's foreign policy - even ours.
The future is out there. Whether we learn to take care of our little planet or end up destroying it, if we are to survive as a species, we need to colonize other worlds.
How can anyone look at the photos returned from the Hubble and not be awed by what's out there and not wish to visit those places. Yes, we should return to the moon. Sooner rather than later.