Report says return to moon isn’t ‘viable’

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168653main_N...et_Summary.pdf

Yep, I obviously got the wrong number.

Telepresence does have limited application to the space program today. I'm sure both it and automation will play a part 50 years in the future (unlikely to be in my lifetime, the timeline I originally gave).

If you are talking 50 years in the future then why would we be sending men to the moon now? It isn't like we are going to forget how to do it. What we do today will have little impact on what happens 50 years from now.

You send people now because if you don't, then it won't be happening in 50 years. It's called taking the long view.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You send people now because if you don't, then it won't be happening in 50 years. It's called taking the long view.

By that logic we will never send anyone again anyway since it has already been 40 years since we last sent someone.

Taking the long view is looking at what going to the moon now is going to accomplish toward forwarding the next logical step, going to mars. I don't see how going to the moon now advances that at all. Add in the additional estimate of $3 billion per year it will require, multiply it by whatever number you want because estimates for space programs are always horrendously wrong, and I don't see the value.

[Apoc]

I had a space program once, you know.

3 hits of LSD and a bong. I talked to the moon for an hour at least. Apparently its pretty boring up there, and the view gets kinda stale after while. And he's not made of cheese, at all!

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

By that logic we will never send anyone again anyway since it has already been 40 years since we last sent someone.

Taking the long view is looking at what going to the moon now is going to accomplish toward forwarding the next logical step, going to mars. I don't see how going to the moon now advances that at all. Add in the additional estimate of $3 billion per year it will require, multiply it by whatever number you want because estimates for space programs are always horrendously wrong, and I don't see the value.

At this point I really don't think that America will ever set foot on the moon again because NASA is given chump change, and their budget is likely to only go down from here, as it has in the past. Like always, people are saying that the money is better spent "at home." It doesn't matter if the economy is good or bad; they parrot the same words.

So few people see the value, but space has always paid off in the past. Unless you're Grizzly Adams, you don't go a single day without being touched by the technologies that have come out of the space programme.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

At this point I really don't think that America will ever set foot on the moon again because NASA is given chump change, and their budget is likely to only go down from here, as it has in the past. Like always, people are saying that the money is better spent "at home." It doesn't matter if the economy is good or bad; they parrot the same words.

So few people see the value, but space has always paid off in the past. Unless you're Grizzly Adams, you don't go a single day without being touched by the technologies that have come out of the space programme.

I don't see $17 billion as chump change. While the budget dropped after Apollo we still spend more today on NASA than we did when the shuttles were being built even after inflation is factored in.

I think we would be more likely to be working toward going deeper in to space if we hadn't had to pay for portions of the international space station that were supposed to be the responsibility of other nations. About the only things that have ended up being international about it are the stickers going on the sides of the modules, the astronauts being sent, and where parts are being built. As far as the money side is concerned it has primarily been an American project. We could have paid for a moon program with the money spent on the international space station.

I think you are right that America, on its own, will never go to the moon again. There is no reason to go to the moon unless it is to advance going deeper in to space. I doubt any country will be able to afford deep space missions on their own. I believe the next step will be required to be undertaken by an international coalition due to the expense and complexity demanded. Currently I don't see any other nations stepping up to take part. Even if they were, America is understandably a little hesitant after getting stuck with most of the check for the international space station.

I see the value from new space exploration. I don't see the value of going down the same road we traveled 40 years ago just to see if it can still be done, a foregone conclusion in my mind.

Space does "pay off" in a global community, humanitarian kind of way. If it payed off in a checks in the national treasury kind of way more nations would attempt it on the scale America has.