US Won't Lead New Manned Moon Landings

[Waspie_Dwarf]

So your suggestion is we unilaterally disarm and pour all the money into space exploration?

Where did he say that? He simply suggested putting the same effort into space exploration as we do intto the military. Your posts in this topit are highly speculative, why can't highdesert50's be?

[Merc14]

Where did he say that? He simply suggested putting the same effort into space exploration as we do intto the military. Your posts in this topit are highly speculative, why can't highdesert50's be?

I want to hear what his suggestion is, hence the question mark at the end of my sentence.

[keithisco]

I want to hear what his suggestion is, hence the question mark at the end of my sentence.

Just to remind you this is actually what highdesert50 actually wrote:

"we were to focus on the opportunities of space exploration with the same zeal with which we build war machines, we could realize these goals of manned exploration and perhaps colonization. Can we celebrate the scientist with the same zeal with which we celebrate the decorated war hero, the gladiator? "

You have put your own spin on this to make highdesert50 appear to advocate Unilateral Disarmament. Disingenuous, and your "questionmark" does not chamge your specious comment.

Back to your point about H3... wont need it for decades (if ever) so would be a waste of time and money trying to mine it on the moon at the moment. Asteroid capture would actually be more achievable in the short time, and would (probably) produce the same results.

[highdesert50]

Harken back to the late sixties; the world celebrated the arrival of the first humans on the moon. Armstrong turned on the cameras. These cameras transmitted images from the moon to over half a billion people on earth watching televisions ..."That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." For a few moments the world celebrated scientific achievement. It ignited a generation of us to aspire to the sciences for the betterment of mankind, that the scientist was indeed the 20th century adventurer and explorer of the universe. That poverty has always existed, that inflated if not aberrant egos polarize nationalities; such will occur, but should not deter us from celebrating the creative genius that moves as forward in our exploration and evolution. That we live in fear necessitates a militia. But, what would you rather celebrate?

[Just Dave]

Many believe it is a massive waste to send humans when you can send robots for a hundredth of the cost, peform the same science and stay on the planet for extended periods of observation. Curiosity has done a massive amount of science in a very short time and by all indications, will be doing so for years. When the technology is advanced to the point that you can get people to Mars in a couple of months, land them for a month and get them back in a couple of months I say go but anything longer is dangerous, massively expensive and and a waste of time and money. Send robots to answer our questions until manned exploration is feasible.

I disagree the biggest science achivement will be just that a human being on another planet. It is feasible pretty much now... only problem is people working on such ideas dont have enough money to make it happen. 40 years it was impossible to go the moon yet they went with ease for that matter... they came back and that was epic progress made in history... We can easily establish some sort of habitats on other planet, we would just need money... Bigelow airspace a private company is setting up their own space station while other gov. agencies struggle with everything that isnt robotics.. And once a colony is up and running you can do many other kinds of research without the need to send more robots with different instruments...which costs would total to actual man mission...

Government buys bullets and armor, they don't sell it and defending the country against its many enemies is in the preamble of the constitution it is considered so important but no where is exploration discussed. BTW, I grew up during the apollo program and for a decade I heard the democrats rail against the cost of the program and how it would be money better providing for the poor and I expect that would occur at a much higher volume if we decided to spend $100B or more to fly a couple of people to Mars for a week.

Space exploration and colonization has many discoveries and benefits.. for everybody. not just those who travel.. I dont want to hear about poor people and costs of such programs.. They are gov. made problem, they are not saving they are making more people poor and they dont want to hear about space programs...too shortsighted for such ways... greed and war are primes of current politics not exploration and achivements... but there are private companies and richer more farsighted countries that will make it happen..i'll give it 2-4 years before something real is about to enroll.. to moon, mars, wherever they decide but as long as man is traveling it will be called achivement.

[Zero Fox FK]

The Moon seems like the perfect launch pad for future space missions, plus it probably also has a lot of resources we could use.

It just seems weird for America to just let China or another country have it.

[Merc14]

The Moon seems like the perfect launch pad for future space missions, plus it probably also has a lot of resources we could use.

It just seems weird for America to just let China or another country have it.

Nasa didn't say we weren't going, they just said they are not going to be the lead agency. If teh ESA wants to lead a mission =, or Japan he said we'd be glad to partner up. There are resources there and letting commercial ventures exploit it is a great way to asaccomplish harvesting theose resources. They'kll do it better and more efficiently than Nasa ever wouldand it frees up public funds to explore Mars and asteroids.

[Starseed hybrid 1111]

what a surprise wait no I'm not!!!

[Merc14]

what a surprise wait no I'm not!!!

???

[skookum]

I think what must be frustrating for NASA is the lack of progress in propulsion systems. When the moon landings were taking place many people thought that space travel would be an everyday thing by now. We do less now than they did then. The same limitations in fuel loads and weight still exist virtually unchanged.

I believe the future of space travel depends on better and more efficient systems which should be made a priority rather than sending men to the moon on 30 year old technology. The money would be better spent.

[Merc14]

I think what must be frustrating for NASA is the lack of progress in propulsion systems. When the moon landings were taking place many people thought that space travel would be an everyday thing by now. We do less now than they did then. The same limitations in fuel loads and weight still exist virtually unchanged.

I believe the future of space travel depends on better and more efficient systems which should be made a priority rather than sending men to the moon on 30 year old technology. The money would be better spent.

I absolutely agree. Without a major breakthrough in propulsion systems, these things all remain dangerous, highly speculative endeavors with huge price tags.

[dj_nubla]

It is obvious that there's truth to the rumor that we were warned before by aliens NOT to go back to the moon because that's theirs. It's their base. US Government cannot use the funding as an excuse because it is more expensive to send man to Mars. During those trips to the moon before, it was revealed they discovered bases and spaceships there.

[Merc14]

It is obvious that there's truth to the rumor that we were warned before by aliens NOT to go back to the moon because that's theirs. It's their base. US Government cannot use the funding as an excuse because it is more expensive to send man to Mars. During those trips to the moon before, it was revealed they discovered bases and spaceships there.

Uhh, it isn't an obvious truth to the rumor, aliens said nothing to anyone about anything and there were no bases discovered because there aren't any as proven by the many satellites that orbit the moon. Moon bases aren't a rumor either, they are a myth, a made-up story for the easily fooled to specuklate about. Choosing not to lead a mission to the moon is a simple matter of budgeting in a constrained economic period which simply means we can't afford to do everything and we have been to the moon before so we intend on spending our limited resources to get to Mars. We'll partnet with another agency that wants to lead a mission to the moon but we aren't leading one. Makes perfect sense to me.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Merc14