So... apparently, the NASA guys want to go back to the moon. And stay there.

More info here.

Do those sci-fi fans have too much money, or what? Couldn't all those billions be used elsewhere? What's the point of building a base on this lifeless and dusty rock?

What a stupid waste.

.

Getting off this rock is about the only chance humanity has for survival. The moon is a good first step in that process.

Far from being money wasted, programs like these receive far too little funding.

I think these programs draw far more flak than they deserve. I'd be all for taking a couple billion in funding away from the military, but to take that away from the space program could seriously impair our ability to launch and maintain satellites. Space exploration has provided countless scintific breakthourghs. It's not only about being on the moon; it's about how we get there. Scientists develop all kinds new technologies that can then be applied to civilian life. A good space program is also a symbol of national prestige; also, space-based weaponry will eventually develop (I heard a few weeks ago of a Chinese laser intended to incapacitate military and communications satellites should the occasion arise.)

I'm all for it aslong as we don't just ruin the moon like we nearly have done to earth. makes me feel better knowing when this place can't take any more of our abuse i've got a chance of getting off it.

What, exactly, would constitute "ruining" the moon?



Because if you're saying we can't carve a giant smiley face into it, well then I'm sorry, but that's why I pay taxdollars to support NASA.

Moved Topic

Its an interesting idea, really, which I can hardly see as a waste. Its science and exploration, what if people who sailed ships around the world or explored remote areas said, "We should just spend the money on something else." That would have rather sucked.

Its a neat step, because while we are much closer to being able to go to Mars than we where at the beginning of the 60s in relation to the moon, what would be the point of doing that now? Building some sort of livable area on the moon is a step towards making us space faring people, which I feel is a good goal.

And a face, thats a good goal too.

And... what good will it do? Isn't the Earth good enough?

So, Americans claim not having enough money to apply the Tokyo protocol, and they wouldn't want to damage their economy trying to save the planet... but they have plenty of funds for bases on the Moon.

Terraforming the Moon and move seven billion humans there would cost much more than saving the Earth, I fear. And take much more time. And the result would never be as satisfying.

Our ship is leaking, and we've got a few planks. Why not use those planks to repair the ship rather than trying to make a raft out of them?

I'd say that it's not a one-or-the-other choice between space and the environment. Why not do both? Also, research conducted by NASA is how we know what we know about the environment, anyway. They're the ones who run the tests on CO2 levels, etc. And our government has enough money to build that base. What are we, like $10 trillion in debt? Another bit counldn't hurt that much, especially considering it's not one lump sum. It'd be spread out over like 20 years.

I agree with Morph, its not an either or, you can do both. Some things could be cut back in other projects, I don't see why NASA, whos funding is pretty low compared to other government entities, would need to take a cut.

Again, I point you back to the entire human history of mankind. Why did we move out of Africa? Wasn't it good enough? For as far as they were concerned, sure it was. Why did we move to the US, wasn't Asia/Oceania good enough? Again, as far as they were concerned, yes, it was. But we continued to explore and better ourselves, which is what we do with space as well.

Sure, you could have the conservative mindset that you have on this, but exploration and science is a noble goal, and 105 billion over a few years really isn't a dent.

No.

7 billion and rising people living on a sphere with a mere 500 million square mile surface area, each consuming an average of 2 and a half thousand kilowatt-hours of energy per year and rising. Those 7 billion people are divided into near 200 separate nations and rising, with about 10 of those armed with nuclear weapons and rising.

If we stay here we will die. Whether it's from war, heat-death, or starvation doesn't matter; but it will happen. And unfortunately it's not a death we can count on being delayed for very long, so there is no excuse for delaying in our efforts to leave.

<Had held back from replying to this thread as long as I could!>


Q: Enough funds to save Planet Earth and establish a permanent lunar base?
A: No. Don't be silly, there isn't enough RIGHT NOW. There isn't enough monies to go around for everything that we need to do. And a few hundred or thousand billion comes from taxes; those not spent on research programmes, social services, education, health, government oversight, police and fire servcies, etc, etc.

Q: Are there other sources for funding exploration?
A: Sure, private investors or even institutions could choose to sink their wealth into something that won't harvest an immediate return. And if it did, they'd only be interested in something that would insure a sensational windfall of wealth. Just like when Cortez came to America, looking for the Aztec's cities filled with gold, that was his carrot to lure away ships and men to sail to the New World.

Q: Wouldn't there be enormous benefits for further space exploration and industrial development programmes?
A: Certainly. But just as any beneficiary discoveries are made serendipitously by N.A.S.A., not everyone can cash in on those benefits. Everyone will be scrambling for licensing rights. And even the construction of the space shuttles are huge investments which have twice literally went down in flames. Let's not get into a pissing contest (space-race) against China like we felt we had to do in an arm's race against U.S.S.R. during the Cold War.

Q: Diverting funds that could be used domestically wouldn't really be noticeable, would it?
A: Already we are seeing private corporations and organizations providing basic services to allieviate suffering and to help fulfill personal survival needs. Be it the International Red Cross, Doctor's without Borders, Catholic and Red Cresent charities (and many, many others to numerous to list) would have to dramatically increase their efforts in disaster relief as well as their always ongoing attempts to salvage lives in depressed or poverty-stricken areas.



Ideally, if the government were accountable to it's citizens (as in the hypothetical, abstract "democracy" which indicates of, by and for the people), how much of it would they be able to justify taking out of the economy or social services? And who would be the person to walk up to the ones that aren't able to receive any kind of medical care or subsidized foods to say, "Sorry, you're one of the poor starving people that we have chosen to ignore to build a moon colony".

Government isn't supposed to be a faceless monster that chooses to divert monies that could be spent on foreign or domestic aid to go to high-tech, grossly expensive pursuits in space programmes. Sure, when the world is much better off, when there is plenty of money in the global economy and everyone is receiving everything they need that should be provided by a state government... then I'd love to be the one glued to the T.V. to verify with mine own eyes that some guy is actually growing a hydroponic garden on a moon-base while he makes a social call via satellite-phone while watching his H.D.T.V. screen with a feed from Johnson or Kennedy Space Center.

And let's not fool ourselves. Only a lucky few will get the honour of having a ticket to ride, unless they are like the rich guy willing to pay a million dollars on a Russian flight to the International Space Station.... or a Lance Bass (N'Sync) that won't back out on their chance.


Yes, I'd love to see the well-to-do aristicratic healthy government official walk amidst an African village full of children dying from AIDS/HIV infections and deceased parents and have them try to voice their support of the trillion-plus dollars spent on something they can't even see and sure can't hold in their hands or even eat.

Oh yer of course. but i think there's more chance of us leaving the planet than saving it. As sad as that is.

I agree! Earth is becoming populated, polluted and whatnot. Setting up a base on the moon will bring us one step closer to colonizing and exploring it further. It will bring us closer to being able to walk on planets and moons in this solar system, and beyond..........