- events
- /
- member info
- /
- support
- /
- shop
- /
- about us
- Become a Member
- Join Now
- Sustaining Members
- Member Benefits
- Match Your Contribution
- FAQ
- Existing Members
- Member Discounts
- Member Benefits
- Change of Address
- Tax Information
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Planned Giving
- Match Your Contribution
- Donate Stock
- Donate a Vehicle
- Become an Advocate
- Volunteer
- Become a Sponsor
- Radio Heartland
- Wonderground Radio
- Company Information
- Stations
- Public Insight Journalism
- Contact Info
- Press Room
- MPR People
- Career Opportunities
- Partners
- Educational Sponsors
- MPR Advocates Network
- Tapes & Transcripts
- Tower Rental
Is going back to the moon a good idea?
Posted at 6:00 AM on October 29, 2009
by Eric Ringham
(14 Comments)
Filed under: Science/Technology
NASA on Wednesday test-launched a rocket that one day may carry astronauts to the moon, which humans last visited in 1972. Is going back to the moon a good idea?
Comments (14)
I have heard alot of talk about that we shouldn't go to the moon until we fix the earth first..Why does it have to be an all or nothing deal? We can work on our earth problems and also have a small budget for space exploration..In the off chance that a meteor comes to take out Earth, we will be glad that we took the chance...Imagine if they told Christopher Columbus to not sail the ocean blue until England was perfect..
Sure. Right after the schools receive all the funding they need, every American has affordable health insurance, and they fix all the pot holes in my town.
Upon examining the latest trends of humans existence on Earth we seem to have no choice but to try once more elsewhere. The Earth is convulsing. When it gets fed up with us, we had better be ready to leave. Unwanted guests we have become.
How sad that the same scenario may happen all over on some innocent planet we come to inhabit.
After everything else important to the country / planet is paid for.
Yes -- What is not often noted is that building an environment on the moon or Mars will require building a recyclable and sustainable habitation. It is not clear whether we can succeed or fail in such a venture.
But what should be noted is that either success or failure may very well provide insight which will be helpful here on earth.
It is not an either /or in this matter. Investment in space does not preclude or deny investing in research to maintain our earth bound space craft. It is a a matter of priority. My guess that the annual expenditures on cosmetics or perfumes would fund several space programs. Maybe that should be the change less rouge and pancake makeup and more adventure and knowledge
No. It's money that would be better spent here on earth developing alternative energy technology that will keep us alive.
Also, any future NASA missions should not be geared towards sending humans into space. Robots can do it for a fraction of the cost thus we can do much more if we don't have to worry about the safety of humans.
Returning to the moon should be a high priority of the United States. In addition to multiple research opportunities that this would give, a trip to the moon would allow for the testing of technologies to be used for a Mars mission. Colonizing other planets is essential because as it stands right now we are one asteroid or comet away from extinction.
Project Constellation (the Moon/Mars program) is expected to cost $20 billion over 20 years, from 2004 to 2024 (source), an average of $1 billion/year. The 2009 NASA budget is $17.2 billion and the 2010 budget is $18.7 billion, so Constellation is not an excessive portion of the budget (approximately 5.5%). However, please remember that $18.7 billion is 0.52% of the 2010 United States budget. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png for a graphical representation of the 2008 budget. NASA doesn't use that much of the federal budget. Therefore, the "cost savings" of eliminating Constellation would be negligible.
Bottom line is Constellation is an insignificant amount of money that will, over time, have tremendous benefits to all of humanity.
Didn't money invested NASA end up granting us many technological breakthroughs that might not have happened otherwise?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions10.htm
I say go for it! If we constantly say "not until we fix what's wrong here first", then when will we ever attempt to reach beyond our own Planet and Moon? It is only through a reason to create that we make giant leaps in tech.
There are so many scientific needs here on Earth, projects that can drastically improve the quality of life for those on the outer edges of our society. Unless a moon walk can help the needy here among us, I think we have an obligation to help our neighbor first.
I would consider a new (and improved!) Science agency at this time, to focus on important issues facing the planet and its survival. Unfortunately, its finances will face greater scrutiny than the Federal Reserve, Treasury or the Lords of Wall Street.
The 1969 moonwalk was a tremendous achievement for America, which had been envisioned by a young, ambitious President in 1961. He was later martyred, but his successors bulked up NASA's budget tremendously, for the political benefits that photos of American astronauts on the moon would have, in defeating the Soviet Empire's attempt to topple Anglo-American and Western hegemony.
Later missions would ultimately sway the Soviets into agreeing to cooperate on Earth-orbiting docking missions, where Cosmonauts would dock their craft and come on over and visit, to prove to the rest of the world that we're all humans. It was only a matter of time before the Berlin Wall fell.
I think it would be interesting to see what new information we would be able to obtain from another moon exploration. So, yes, i think we should go back to the moon.
Forget it for now. We have enough problems right here on earth that need our resources and our attention. Spend those dollars and employ those scientists to work on clean energy.
Don't worry. The Chinese will take care of it for us.
Yes but only if we can send Pelosi, Reed and the other far left democrats on a one way ride.
| October 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- What's your spending plan for the holiday season?
- Should a public hospital have to treat anyone who comes in?
- Are you comfortable increasing Minnesota's reliance on nuclear power?
- Do terrorism suspects deserve the same legal rights as other defendants in court?
- What do you think of the new guidelines discouraging mammograms for women under 50?
- How can the United States and China best cooperate in world affairs?
- What story in your community needs more attention?
- Would you ride commuter rail if it were available to you?
- What should the U.S. do to promote religious tolerance at home?
- What's the best way to honor veterans for their service?
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Fundraising Credentials
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock