Back to the Moon?

[ens_tino 0]

The country already knows how he's going to fund it. He's going to raise taxes another good chunk of money.

[Images 0]

i dont see how the communist flag on the moon is any worse then the stars and stripes on it. :)

[Dumbass 0]

i dont see how the communist flag on the moon is any worse then the stars and stripes on it. :)

Because it's all red. We can see it from farther away.

[FredM 0]

The country already knows how he's going to fund it. He's going to raise taxes another good chunk of money.

Hey there,

 

From a President who's cut taxes? Na....doubt it. :)

[ens_tino 0]

I have an idea how they're going to land on the moon. They're probaly going to do what they did on the first trip. Just with a much bigger one and much more equiptment.

[STSF Precip 0]

Hey there,

 

From a President who's cut taxes? Na....doubt it. :)

Ah. I was going to say that. :)

 

In anycase it is an interesting situation when a society finds itself with the technology to do something. Yet is incapable of using that technology or putting it together for various social-economic reasons.

 

I think that is why I love Star Trek so much, because to me it is a dream of us overcoming our pursuit of wealth, and going for what's better for mankind in general. I was too little to recall any of the lunar landings, so from what I've seen in in our history of manned spaceflight has basically been the shuttle, Mir and the incomplete ISS. All have been hindered by funding issues. Will someday the issue of cost not be such a hinderance to manned spaceflight. We have the technology to do the job. But we don't want to pay for it.

 

Sometimes I really wish I was a kid during the golden age of spaceflight. Mercury, Gemini and the Apollo programs.

 

Precip

[Vex Xiang 0]

I do not feel that going to the moon or to mars is of any value to anyone, so I'm one of the few (probably the only one on this board) who does not want our country to waste money on these ventures.

 

These places have nothing to learn from that an automated robot couldn't accomplish. And what you think a human may learn from actually being there, can't possibly justify the cost.

 

It's a cute fantasy. It would be fun and adventurous. But I haven't seen any real space advances without a serious political agenda behind it. We just don't seem to fund billions of dollars for projects just to learn stuff. Rebuilding other nations and changing political balances in the world in our favor are far more important goals.

 

China is of no threat...they'll waste a lot of money building their space program, putting people on the moon...announce to the world how advanced they've become, and then they'll go back to doing whatever it is they do now.

 

I agree with someone else on this board...dont remember who made the comment, that the only purpose in going anywhere off this planet is for resources and some economic gain. And any leader wouldn't fund it without a political agenda.

 

Feel free to disagree with me. Its just my opinion.

[Semek 0]

Indeed a trip to the moon from first glance may appear to be illogical but it helps to gain space faring technology that can in cause help you humans better understand the world around you and later find places to house your ever growing populus and also with hopes of finding more resources in the endless vacuum of space.... live long and prosper

[Darius927 0]

Sending a human being back to them moon would be in the best interests of mankind. Granted, the Columbia loss was a tragedy. However, none of the proposed NASA programs will solve the USA's, or any nation's current space dilema.

 

Anyone ho keeps up on the NASA's endevors has heard of the aerospike engine. The aerospke engine, coupled with NASA's plans to eliminate the orbier's jetisinable fuel tanks, was and is the future of space travel. However, due to budget cuts and other reasons, the program was halted.

 

Now, after the Columbia disaster, the future of space travel has been left in the hands of fate. The US plans to produce a resuable space orbiter, which barely advances the capabilities of the shuttle. Bear in mind the shuttle is the only orbiter capable of lifting the remaining ISS (internation space station) components into orbit.

 

NASA's budget has been nickled and dimed to death. Politcians have chipped away at NASA's finances for years, attaching riders to bills from NASA's budget to finance their own pet proects.

 

I hope that humanity is truly contemplating a return to the moon. It will demonstrate, how far we have digressed since 1969. And also, how much further we are willing to go. We must correct the errors in the space program now... otherwise we will never progress to the "beam me up, Scotty" stage.

[STSF Precip 0]

 

I agree with someone else on this board...dont remember who made the comment, that the only purpose in going anywhere off this planet is for resources and some economic gain. And any leader wouldn't fund it without a political agenda.

 

 

Bingo

 

As for the Chinese, they are clearly making a political statement in their space program. Hence it wouldn't suprise me if they do plant that Red flag on the Moon in the future.

 

I do imagine anything that comes from the President on the subject will be pure politics as well. He might suggest a vague plan to counter a "chinese" agenda, but on how to pay for it he will dodge the issue.

 

Manned spacemissions of course are not the only means of aquiring knowledge of the universe. The Pioneer, Marineer, Viking and Voyager programs expanded what we know about our solar system by leaps and bounds. Even a crippled Galileo Spacecraft helped too. And I certainly look forward to what we will learn and see from Cassini's arrival to Saturn and our next series of Martian landers/rovers. Unmanned missions to space As Vex pointed out cannot be ignored let alone scaled back as well.

 

As for extra-orbital manned spaceflight,until humanity graduates from it's current nationalistic and capitalist state I don't see new footprints on the moon or Mars any time soon. Oh did I forget the Chinese?

 

Precip

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Well, the entire concept of the viability of the moon went into question a few years ago with some speculation and evidence there may be ice there. This added a whole new dynamic that I think no one had previously even considered.

 

As for economical viability, in a day and age when we're looking for more raw resource, moon's got just a few major things we use everyday. In addition, many have pointed out that if an observatory could be placed on it's surface, our ability to gain knowledge of the universe would be a lot better.

 

I have to say I disagree with those saying there's no point outside of politics. The amount of technological improvements that came from our first trip to the moon allowed the great "computer revolution" of the 1990s. Again, simple stuff like velcro wasn't even contemplated until Apollo. I think it would be naive to think similiar advances wouldn't take place again.

 

As for unnamed probes, there is a major limit to what they can accomplish. A probe does not have the ability to adjust if it encounters something outside of it's programming. Just look at the three or four that were recently lost trying to reach Mars.

 

Do I think we should stop funding everything to go back? No. However, an investment in the space program is an investment in R&D and the future. I know that sounds like a campaign slogan, but it's the truth.

[Images 0]

Hail Communist China! We welcome the moon's return to the motherland! Now for Taiwan!

[Nemesis 0]

I wish I was a in communist China so I could say that we were going to welcome the moon to motherland B)

[Dumbass 0]

I have to say I disagree with those saying there's no point outside of politics. The amount of technological improvements that came from our first trip to the moon allowed the great "computer revolution" of the 1990s. Again, simple stuff like velcro wasn't even contemplated until Apollo.

I think only a handful of people are saying a Moon outpost or a Mars landing would be useful only for political purposes. But we're fooling ourselves if we think politics isn't a factor.

Edited December 8, 2003 by Dumbass

[Dumbass 0]

Just for the heck of it, let's see if we can answer a couple trivia questions about the moon landing. 1) Which foot did Neil Armstrong use to take humanity's first moon step? 2) Why that foot?

 

I'll post the answer tomorrow night if no one can guess it.

[Vex Xiang 0]

Again, simple stuff like velcro wasn't even contemplated until Apollo. I think it would be naive to think similiar advances wouldn't take place again.

 

Don't forget about Tang, powder and freeze dried products, etc.

 

I would agree with you...but I doubt that advances in technology can only occur in the space program. Someone would have invented velcro for another reason. Certainly there will be more advances if we continue a space program. Undeniably. Is it worth the cost? It is my opinion that it is not. War also advances technology...should we start a few of those in the interest of advancement as well?

 

The telescope on the moon someone mentioned is something I could get behind, though.

 

I just see far too many problems here at home to be worried about seeing someone walking on a big gray rock. Personally I think the space program should be commercialized...left to dump satellites in orbit so I can listen to the radio or get good TV reception and so my car knows where it is. Huge companies that create jobs that the uneducated masses can do.

 

In regards to the manned missions...if there were some planets in our solar system that were Earth like and we could actually do something with them besides walk around in bulky canisters and collect rocks, while our astronaut heros spout off catchphrases to the population watching it all on TV, I'd be all for it. Colonization, thinning out our population here on Earth, finding more resources. Great.

 

Spending trillions of dollars to collect rocks and advance science...maybe it will help some company build a better microwave, but I'd rather use that money to give people jobs.

[Dumbass 0]

Again, simple stuff like velcro wasn't even contemplated until Apollo.

You mean the Vulcans DIDN'T invent Velcro? B)

[ens_tino 0]

With NASA's freeze dried products someday we're going to be eating those and buying those at the store.

 

Well if the earths food supply drops to a very bad rate.

[Dumbass 0]

With NASA's freeze dried products someday we're going to be eating those and buying those at the store.

 

Well if the earths food supply drops to a very bad rate.

Oh, God, no! Have you ever eaten an MRE? (Official name: Meal, Ready-to-Eat - or, more commonly, Meal, Rejected by Everyone)

 

If this is considered progress then this is one reasnon NOT to go into space. B)

[ens_tino 0]

Thats pretty much what T.V dinners are. And they taste like the box.

[Grom 0]

Spending trillions of dollars to collect rocks and advance science...maybe it will help some company build a better microwave, but I'd rather use that money to give people jobs.

::blinks:: Is that really you Vex? You almost sound conservative. B)

 

I agree.

[Dumbass 0]

Thats pretty much what T.V dinners are. And they taste like the box.

Actually, the box is better.

[ens_tino 0]

Some of that money should go towards jobs. Over millions of people are not employed because of the lack of money.

[Dumbass 0]

::blinks:: Is that really you Vex? You almost sound conservative. B)

 

I agree.

I disagree. The concept of the government owing someone a job is decidedly liberal.

[ens_tino 0]

I disagree. The concept of the government owing someone a job is decidedly liberal.

But most of it is the goverments fault why people dont have jobs. We have raised taxes and with the war going on its causing people to loose jobs.