questionsshould we go back to the moon soon?


Unless there is some other knowledge that we can gain from going to the moon, I vote that we do not. Going to Mars seems like a better idea since we haven't been there yet.


I think right now there's not much reason for a manned trip other than practice. It's more cost effective to send robots until we're ready to put a semi-permanent base there.


Odd you should mention this. I have been unpacking from a move, and I came across my boxed set of From the Earth to the Moon (enhanced 16x9, Dolby 5.1 version), and have been watching it, so I've been thinking about this a great deal.

Overall, my heart says yes, but my brain says no. NASA has stagnated. The personnel have little imagination or energy, mainly because I think they are too old. The last crop of Astronauts were in their 50s. When Alan Shepard re-entered the active astronaut rotation and flew on Apollo 14 to the moon, he was my age (47) and thought to be way too old at the time (1971). NASA needs a project that fuels the imagination like Gemini/Apollo did. Robots are, frankly, dull. Look, the Curiosity lander got a few hundred thousand streams. A man jumps out of a gondola from a gas balloon high in the atmosphere (more or less duplicating work done in 1958) and he gets 7 million. (continued)


@wilfbrim: It's not the NASA engineers' fault. Blame your Congresscritters and the lineup of idiot NASA Administrators (for whom you can thank any/all of the most recent sitting presidents). Today's NASA is constrained largely by budget; major initiatives (and their funding) come from Congress, not the engineering staff.

They're also constrained by safety: whereas astronauts, true to their test-pilot roots, are prepared to take big risks to do something amazing, the modern NASA won't (or can't) proceed with any program that could plausibly result in a boo-boo.

In a day when parents get cited by police for letting their kids play "unattended" in suburban cul-de-sacs, you'll never get to see the glory days of rocket cowboys again. Well, not from NASA, anyway. And that's a crying shame.


I don't know. What is on the moon? Unless there is something of value up there it is kind of just a giant waste of money. Don't get me wrong it would be cool and I'm all about space exploration, but is it really practical? I'd rather see Mars.


Your question implies that we've been there before. =P

I kid, I kid, don't kill me.

I absolutely believe we should go back and I think it's sad we stopped going in the first place.


I think that going to the moon is a great idea if we go for Helium 6. But NASA is not the way to go unless the start thinking moon base.

Now hear me out. in order to get to mars most experts agree that you would need to refuel after leaving atmo. We could create a moon base mainly to be a holding area. I think that Commercial Space companies finds new and innovative ways to cut costs with out cutting safety. NASA has these great ideas but missions get bloated with excess experiments going on or doing silly things like make new chairs (rather expensive) for every astronaut when they have had the patent (and won't give it up) to remold able chairs. PS the shuttle while cool was so not cost effective. Asteroid mining, helium from the moon, these are the things that are the future of space. Things that create profit will advance the tech to get us back to the science of space travel, and the Moon is vital for long term travel away from the earth.


We should definitely be working on sending people somewhere. It's true that we have already been to the moon, but we didn't stay long and, at least right now, we don't have the hardware to go back there. So I'd like to see us make plans to go to the moon and establish a long term base there. Not because there's anything of specific value on the moon but because it's nearby and there we can learn to live long term someplace that's not on early.
And I'd like to see us take the lessons that we learn from a long term moon base to send people to Mars. I believe there's much we can learn on Mars but I think we can learn just as much from just going. So many technological advances have been made as a direct or indirect result of the space program, everything from the miniaturization of electronics to fleece fabric, that I can't even imagine what would come out of a reenergized space program.


NASA has more important things to worry about, like how they only have 3 years left to get a hoverboard to market or the space time continuum will be destoryed and my Dad's bully from high school will become a billionare... or something like that


ooo, I love the moon and I looove me some cheese, I'll go!


@gt0163c: "We should definitely be working on sending people somewhere. "
I know of a fair number of people I'd like to send somewhere. :D

But yes, we should go to the moon, and everywhere else we can while we're at it.


Since Mars seems to be a better candidate for terraformation, I'd say invest money in Mars. The money to get there is quite a bit more, but it seems that with the frozen polar caps, that it would be leaps and bounds ahead for terraforming than the moon.

I think the ultimate goal for these kind of research trips should be the intention of creating a new home on a now-uninhabitable planet so that when our resources here start running out, mankind can make a smooth, millenia-long transition from one planet to the next.


While there probably is nothing on the moon that we would profit from, the moon does present a possibility for greater space travel. Due to the smaller size (and substantially less gravity), launching a rocket from the moon is significantly easier than the earth. But, for the time being, we would still have to launch that rocket from earth first in order to get it to the moon. The moon may be the key to extended space travel, but probably not in our lifetimes.

But, in all seriousness, lets blow it up!


We can't "go back" to somewhere we have never been...


I'll go! I would like to see the Moon Park, but not the Goophy Gopher Revue:


Of course we should! This is as silly as asking European explorers if they should map Central Africa, or asking if Indian and Chinese traders should figure out the silk road, or the earliest settlers of the American west if they should go west. Yes, yes, yes, and here's why:

It's there, it's new, and it's interesting. We don't really know all that's there, which is why we're crashing probes into it to analyze the soil makeup. We spent very little time on the surface, and it will help us figure out a lot more about the early history of the solar system. On top of that, if you want to go anywhere you want a stable place to build stuff where you can launch from without a huge gravity hit. Now if only there were such a thing - oh wait, there's the moon.

Astronauts are recruited every couple of years, and no NASA is not too old. NASA is listless and has no direction. You want to know who to blame? Easy, the people at the top.



The current US president was completely serious when he said during 2008 that he would gut NASA's budget and mission, and his administrator has made sure to destroy employee morale wherever he can. We're still graduating a ton of aerospace engineers in this nation and have the top talent, but they're smart enough to follow the money and the inspiration, and without any sort of decent leadership NASA is not the place.

Yes, we should go to the moon. We should explore all around us. It's silly not to, and here's the rub - All those environmental concerns, worries about uprooting ecosystems, destroying nature - who cares on the moon? You aren't destroying squat. So smelt away, fill the atmosphere (what there is of it) with smog, who cares. Not exploring is a great way to make ourselves go extinct. We know comets have hit before, how stupid do we have to be to think it won't happen again?

Ignorance disguised as 'fiscal wisdom' in space policy makes me want to puke.


Yes, because I'd like to put those psychopaths who think the moon landing was a hoax to rest. Proof and Proof 2: Maybe this five minutes would change your mind..

No, because I feel that the money should be put elsewhere such as the Mars mission. Which I would like to happen at least in my lifetime.


We should at least keep exploring the moon and beyond. That was one thing that made America great.


We left an incredible amount of cool stuff up there. We gotta go get it before anyone else does.


@figgers3036 and @izzyizzo: Wow! I can only offer this to you...well spoken!


@inkycatz: @gt0163c: "We should definitely be working on sending people somewhere. "
I know of a fair number of people I'd like to send somewhere. :D

I nominate most of our politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and activists. Let's just not bring them back any time soon.


If we fly missions to Mars, the Moon will undoubtedly become a space station in the future.

More importantly, we must fund NASA to send manned missions to Uranus. We must probe and explore the depths of the forbidden planet.


@joshobra: Today, I doubt there are really that many people that believe we didn't go to the moon.

However, I think I know how this controversy started.

1. A presidential advisor (I believe Donald Rumsfeld) thought we should film the first steps of us on the moon in case there was a catastrophic failure. He felt it best to not tell the American people about the tragedy and show them the fake film instead.

2. The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)" had the perfect studio to make this film.

3. NASA lent special lenses to Stanley Kubrick so he could shoot Barry Lyndon (1975).

4. This Quid Pro Quo was so NASA could use the "2001" studio alone without any of Kubrick's staff being around.

5. The movie was filmed in secret and around 30 years later the people that were involved came forward in the documentary "Dark Side of the Moon" and came clean about their intentions.

In summary, there really was a fake landing filmed but we did make it so it film was never seen in public.