Return to the Moon?

[jamnww]

FoxNews

So, with confidence in the shuttle failing and consistant problems with potential catastrophic losses there is a plan to replace it. Following President Bush's goal of returning men to the moon by 2020, there is also a very costly plan to once more send men and material to the Lunar surface.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is about d@mn time we return to the moon. Yes the space race with the Soviets is long since gone now and many would argue the is little if any reason to go to the moon but since when did we require a reason other than simple exploration? I am sure the money could be used for something different but it will be nice to once again get out there and expand our horizons.

So, thoughts?

 

[zab1001]

I'll take a working HF radio in my aircraft over some moon-ex waste of money any day.

 

[airgreg]

The government's role should be to create the conditions that would help private ventures get to the moon. Whether that means financing, grants, technology, expertise, etc... I don't know.
I don't really want to see another $100 BILLION dedicated to getting moon rocks while crowding out the true engine of innovation and discovery: the private sector (or quasi-private entities).
Also, NASA is one of the few agencies to have cost overruns worse than the Air Force. :icon_tong

 

[jamnww]

The government's role should be to create the conditions that would help private ventures get to the moon. Whether that means financing, grants, technology, expertise, etc... I don't know.
I don't really want to see another $100 BILLION dedicated to getting moon rocks while crowding out the true engine of innovation and discovery: the private sector (or quasi-private entities).
Also, NASA is one of the few agencies to have cost overruns worse than the Air Force. :icon_tong

What if the goal was something else, say eventually building a 'colony' or base there...

What would be the difference between a government agency waste vs. a private venture funded by the government wasting money?

 

[zippy]

Or using the moon to test new technologies so we can use something proven in a venture to Mars?

 

[jamnww]

Or using the moon to test new technologies so we can use something proven in a venture to Mars?

Absolutely, thats where I was going next...

Thinking extremely long term, so long as we are limited to this planet we will always be completely vulnerable to extinction due to a catastrophic event here on earth. Lunar exploration is a logical first step to Mars which in turn would be a first step to farther...

 

[squeeze]

What would be the difference between a government agency waste vs. a private venture funded by the government wasting money?

Because private ventures have shown time and time again they can do the same job as the government faster, better, and more efficiently. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[airgreg]

What if the goal was something else, say eventually building a 'colony' or base there...

Or using the moon to test new technologies so we can use something proven in a venture to Mars?

Completely different goals than that stated in the proposed plan.
I'm not trying to make some philosophical point here, I'm just pointing out that the track record has been less than stellar and perhaps there is another way we can go about it.

What would be the difference between a government agency waste vs. a private venture funded by the government wasting money?

There would be no difference if they were both wasting equal amounts. However, a private team (link) has already had a space flight for something considerably less than what NASA pays for catering. j/k Baby step, but it's a step.

Lastly, the program's stated goal is to return to the moon by 2018. Did anyone else realize that it would take significantly longer this time around than it did during the 1960's?

Because private ventures have shown time and time again they can do the same job as the government faster, better, and more efficiently. It's the nature of the beast.

What Squeeze said. :icon_mi_6

 

[jamnww]

There would be no difference if they were both wasting equal amounts. However, a private team (link) has already had a space flight for something considerably less than what NASA pays for catering. j/k Baby step, but it's a step.

I was waiting for someone to bring that up, good job. Yes that is a very good point and a more than valid concern. After the completion of that test flight I was hoping that NASA would seriously consider taking that approach or a similar one for the shuttle replacement.

Not saying that NASA is the best way to go or that it can't be done cheaper, but that the long term goals are ones that should be pursued and it doesn't look like the private sector is interested in deeper space exploration. As for the goals, well I would seriously doubt that NASA would come out and say that in the next 50 years they want to get to Mars, no they are going to say hey we want to be at the moon in 10 even though I would be willing to bet that they are considering longer term goals...

 

[jamnww]

Speaking of private sector endevours... Mars Cololny

New company wants Mars colony in 20 years...

 

[airgreg]

But, at 55% of the cost.

Good point, but I'm not sure how far I trust 13-year government cost estimates.

 

[Fly Navy]

What would be the difference between a government agency waste vs. a private venture funded by the government wasting money?

The difference in private sector vs public sector can be seen with hospitals.

 

[JIMC5499]

I am probably get banned from this site for this. What in the hell is going on through you moron's heads. The U freaking S government is stating our desire to go to the moon! Now since the shuttle is in the f*cking in the toilet. The current NASA bubba's don't have a job. And all of you god blessed Navy pilots don't know an opportunity when it hits you in the face you are going to dump a chance to be astronauts. Because you don't like the politics. NavAir made NASA what it is today. (oops I screwed that up) You have a chance to do it right. And you are bitc*ing! I would kill any one of you for a chance at going up in that bird. I don't have a chance but some of you future AVIATORS do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HAL Pilot]

Back in the mid-1990s when I was doing my Masters through Embry-Riddle, space technology was one of the big discussion items. One of the major points is that countless new technologies that we use in everyday life were originally developed via the space program. The space program stimulates technological growth and they said studies showed that for every $1 NASA spent on space, an overall economic gain of at least $100 (and probably significantly more) was generated in the civilain sector through the development and sales of new technologies.

So while it cost the government big to go to space, it pays back in economic growth for years to come.

An example, think about velcro and the massive amounts of money both corporations and everyday poeple have saved due to its many applications.

 

[Fly Navy]

Back in the mid-1990s when I was doing my Masters through Embry-Riddle, space technology was one of the big discussion items. One of the major points is that countless new technologies that we use in everyday life were originally developed via the space program. The space program stimulates technological growth and they said studies showed that for every $1 NASA spent on space, an overall economic gain of at least $100 (and probably significantly more) was generated in the civilain sector through the development and sales of new technologies.

So while it cost the government big to go to space, it pays back in economic growth for years to come.

An example, think about velcro and the massive amounts of money both corporations and everyday poeple have saved due to its many applications.

Completely on the mark HAL. The space program and the military-industrial complex has generated more technology than any other force in the current technology world.