Poll: Should NASA Return to the Moon?

June 28, 2009

It is currently NASA's plan to return man to the Moon by 2020. It will probably be after that, but that's the plan. However, it is far from clear whether it will be the Constellation Project (in its current form -- Ares rocket, Orion crew vehicle, Altair lunar lander) that will be taking us there. There's a lot of ideas flying around at the moment, including the point that perhaps we shouldn't be going back to the Moon at all.

As we fast approach the 40th anniversary of the Apollo lunar landings, what do you think NASA should be doing? Discovery Space is asking a very basic question to get a feel for the current situation from our readers: Should NASA Return to the Moon?

Read on, weigh up the options and vote. I'll be publishing the results on July 6...

Ever since President George W. Bush announced his "Vision for Space Exploration" in 2004, development of the Constellation Project commenced in the hope of sending US astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. Once a manned presence on the lunar surface is established, the technology and techniques we acquire from our lunar escapades will put us in good stead for a manned mission to Mars.

It all sounds good on paper, but as time ticked on, the worlds economies slumped, and so did the enthusiasm for a return trip to the Moon. In fact, NASA has been facing severe criticism for budget overruns and mismanagement of big projects -- such as Constellation and the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) -- making the situation even more murky.

Space exploration pessimism is widespread, especially now NASA seems to be lacking direction with its shrinking budget being spread thinner and thinner across a growing number of disciplines. However, this pessimism is misplaced, NASA is still the premier space exploration agency, it is investing heavily in the private sector, and most importantly, it is doing all its science on a shoestring budget.

Five years on from Bush's "Vision," have the goalposts changed position? Could it be that the Constellation Project is simply unsustainable? Last week, NASA announced a budget launch vehicle it calls the "side-mount shuttle," or simply "Plan B." (Presumably the Constellation Project is still "Plan A.") Is this a signal that NASA is reconsidering its options, scrapping the Constellation Program in favor of an alternative "Vision"? Perhaps Buzz Aldrin's recent opinions about a return trip to the Moon are valid, why go back to the Moon when we've already done that? Perhaps we should skip the Moon and mount a Mars mission sooner rather than later.

What's Your Opinion?

On July 20, the world will be celebrating the landing of Apollo 11 on the lunar surface. That was 40 years ago. On Discovery Space, we have a huge Wide Angle planned, starting on July 6, including interviews, news, slideshows, top 10's, puzzles and loads more -- a fitting tribute to the bravery of the pioneering astronauts who risked their lives in the late 60's and early 70's for the advancement of mankind in space.

In light of these amazing achievements, and as we are on the verge of a possible return trip to the Moon in the next decade, Discovery Space wants your opinion.

For the next week, I'll be running a poll to see what our readers think of NASA's plans to return to the Moon, and then I'll publish the results during our Apollo landings celebrations on July 6.

Feel free to follow the link below and cast your vote. Also, if you have an opinion you want to share, drop me a comment below. The future of the US space agency is far from clear, but it would be good to see where you think NASA's attention should be focused...

Comments

[oh]

Why don't we just learn how to fly planet earth. With magnetics or something. Oh no not another planet flying theory. You freaks need to expand beyond a little capsule we have a flying planet we are on right now. Just need to propel and steer. That way we can take the food and air with us. Everyone can experience it. Later. If we stay within the suns range we'll be fine. Or use solar energy for farther from the sun travel(to warm up). etc.etc.

[jim]

We need to keep up space exploration, but sending crews up just for the sake of doing it is foolish. Make a plan. If there's a good reason I'll be behind it completely.

Is there a reason to return to the moon or are those other people right and we have to go to honestly say we've been? Is there a real purpose to go? Isn't there somewhere else out there that needs a closer look? Can't imagine the cost difference would be much different going to Pluto. Get a decent travel agent.

[shawnee]

What does NASA stand for?

NOT ANOTHER STUPID ADVENTURE

:)

[shawnee]

We are burying ourselves in our own trash and they want to spend money on sending them back to the moon?

Have they seen the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?

Do you know not only are burying ourselves in our own trash we are eating our own trash. The fish are eating the plastic particles, we hunt the fish for consumption, there is no way we can get all those tiny particles out.

[shawnee]

This is soffa king we todd it!!

[Jamal Elkarib]

The is the only way, we must develope beyond ourselves. Man has no future on Earth, if we don't go into space!!If we go into space, we create jobs on Earth!! created by NASA, and by private corporations investing in space. Think how far that could take us in the future. space the solution for fixing economies!! I don't know what we are waiting for?? 50 years on, we decide to go back, personally I think we should have gone back sooner, and we souldn't wait till 2020. Abort all missions, stop all wars, and make the moon a priorty, go now.

[Shawn]

Honestly.....it's a complete waste of money!!!!!!! Why should we explore other planets, let alone live on them, if we cant even fix our own earth!! Now, people will say that all this science junk has help us further advancements on earth. Oh really, then why is it then that still our airplanes on this planet are still crashing?? Why is it that we have so many tech issues still? Why is there no cure for anything yet? Do people honestly believe that the moon will help this? I think not!!!! Then there is the money issue. People will state that with the money we spent on the stim. package in less than a years time, that would be the total cost of NASA. Now with the stim. package.....we at least tried to fix something in our nation. Does anyone think that by going to the moon will solve anything here?? Also, that money remains in our world while spaceships will literally burn away money. Also, really, how many people do you honestly think would want to live on the moon?? No beaches, no blue skies, no freedom to go anywhere! Furthermore.....the cost of building a home on the moon. Now....how much does each manned mission cost for 5-8 astronaut's? $250-500 million or so? Now, even if were to move the smallest state by population, Wyoming with 532,000, and lets even say we can fit 100 people per mission. $250 million times 5,320 missions it would take $1,330,000,000,000. Umm.....does anyone realize that this is 1.33 trillion just for the smallest pop. state in America. Now, if you take the pop of America (over 300 million divided by 100 per shuttle) times it by the how much each mission costs.....thats 750,000,000,000,000 or in other words......750 trillion. Our Nation debt is only 10 trillion. Plus....if it takes each group a min of one week to get trained.....that would be min of 3,000,000 weeks or 57,692 years! Does anyone really think this is realistic??? Thats not including any time spent on transporting the shuttle or being able to make that many safely. PEOPLE! Lets focus on the real issues here. Our econemy, our world saftey, our health. We need real cures, real solutions, not just maybe's. Now, the things I do support NASA with is, for example, the new sattelite they just put up to help with weather predicting ON EARTH! Now that I fully support NASA doing. Its fixing a problem that we have on the only planet we can realisticly live on. Oh, and if anyone finds anything wrong with my math, please do correct it.

[todd]

I can think of a couple reasonable scenarios for returning to the moon;
1. Maybe Neil Armstrong dropped his car keys and can't afford to have ignition replaced on his 67 Mustang
2. One of the astronauts saw a gold nugget up there and wasn't able to retrieve it. Maybe that would pay for both missions.

[nate]

to all who think it's too expensive, or we're broke, or we're in a recession... hello? the government prints money? the term we can't afford it is a lie.

the apollo program was responsible for the prosperity that lasted decades after it was ended, and was responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology. where do u think wealth comes from?

don't think about things in terms like spending what you raise thru taxes. there is a prcess called capital budgeting where credit is created for projects which will yield more in future tax revenue when all's said and done than they cost. that's the reason why roosevelt and kennedy were so successful. for every $1 of national investment, $15 is yielded over the lifetime of the typical (well-planned) investment.

when the settlers from europe fled because of the corrupt oligarchy in europe centuries ago, they specifically came to north america with specific purpose. they came here to bring the best european civilization had to offer to a place free of the influence of the corrupt financier empire operations that has been going on throughout history. in recent times the empire has retaken the USA, initially with truman, and completely with the murder of kennedy. we now need to create a new new world, a place that like america was before, free of the corruption of european oligarchy. that place is mars, our future depends on its settlement.

[Ryan Ray]

YES!! There are vast deposits of silicon in the sand of the moon which could be harvested to create solar panels that encircle the globe providing free and clean power to the entire world! Sound crazy? Check it out!!

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/about-the-prize/introductory-video

[Ben]

Yes! We need to go back to the moon ASAP.

For those that don't understand why we should go, outside of the scientific reasons:

Helium-3.

It's not native to the Earth, but is in abundant quantities on the moon. Used in nuclear fission, just 15 tons of HE3 can power the entire United States of America for an entire year - replacing every other source of energy we need.

We can keep using inefficient, non-renewables that the Earth provides, invest trillions in hopes that Solar ever becomes efficient, or spend a fraction of that to go to the moon and solve the energy problems. With areas that are constantly lit and the HE3, unlimited energy is right around the corner. We could beat the fossil fuel crisis before it even begins.

[John Vail]

Space exploration is an investment in our future. Columbus was looking for a short cut to India when he discovered America. You don't always know the benefit of something...

We need to continue space exploration - not only to the moon but beyond as well!

[Paul]

It will cost billions that would be better spent on far more important things. There is NOTHING on either the moon or on Mars that could possibly justify the cost.

The "knowledge" gleaned from the last trip to the moon amounted to useless cocktail party trivia, for the amusement of some guy, living in an ivory tower who wants to be Captain Kirk at our expense.

This will not cure cancer, improve our schools, or put bread on anyone's table. It's utterly useless.

[Timothy2035]

I think we should go to Mars. Let's see what has happened to our Rover and get an idea of what can happen on Mars with its atmosphere and climate. Our moon is pretty much lacking even gravity. There is more to be discovered about Mars than the Moon.

[Neek]

You know, posts like this always get the obligatory.. "why spend for space when we need to help the jobless here, the foreclosures there, and the jackrabbits in the other place."

Goodness gracious, let's keep our options open, spread out (land on the moon first) and in that big small way create jobs too.

[K.L. Turner]

For those people who do not see the financial side of space...here it is. My wife is on layoff right now at this very moment. She works for a rubber company. They make all kinds of parts for all kinds of things. This company makes parts for everything from cheese wiz cans to military machinary (Tomahawk Missle). One of the other things they make there...and actually won't be making soon from now...are parts that go into the space shuttle. Yeah, its not a very high prodruction part, but it is a part and is made by a company in america that is already struggling to find ways to keep its people working. If we embraced space exploration fully, think of how many jobs could be created not just by NASA, but by private corporations investing in space. Think how far that could take us in the future. Is space the solution for fixing ailing economies? Not in the short term, but in the long term it may be one of the best things we could strive to do.

[ushtate jones]

Sounds like a fun vacation except that the vacationers are unemployed.
Would it not be better to fix the crumbling infrastructure here on earth first?

[Justen]

Why not build a permanent lunar station on the face of the planet? There could be a lot of scientific benefit from doing so, namely the issue of dealing with human life in limited gravity.

[K.L. Turner]

We as human beings need to spread out. Look at the population of our planet. Is anyone really willing to say that we need to control our population through any means necessary. It will come down to that eventually. It is not the machines or the smokestacks that are killing off the planet, it is all of us as a species. We HAVE to start exploring elsewhere before we kill ourselves. This shouldn't be a U.S. Mission objective, this should be a WORLD mission objective.

[rxntrik7]

C'mon investing in things like further solar system exploration or renewable energy technology is unnecessary and lame. U.S should just keep on dominating in world military spending like it's been doing. You never know, those smart bullets and super soldiers might come in handy when we get attacked by space terrorist from another galaxy!

[Devin Serpa]

Yes we should go back, not for a science trip but as a permanent colony. Otherwise it's just a waste, might as well just shoot for Mars at this stage.

[Crystal]

We should be focusing on the recession!!!!

[David]

No. Money is tight, and this is the only place the species has to live (and will remain so, despite fantasies otherwise). The money should go toward research and possible remediation of the damage we are doing to our environment.

[Jamion]

Absolutely we should go back to the moon. Mars is a lofty goal with little room for error. On top of that it is big money and time sink for those people working on it, at least a five year round trip (probably longer). The moon is only a few days away, and we can learn a lot from exploration of the money that we can put into practical application on Mars. So I think we should not only go back to the moon, but build a base, colonize the moon, that way when we get to Mars we know what we are doing and we don't have to waster 40+ years trying to figure out the next step on Mars. We can do a landing and establish a base all in one first step so that way return trips will be made easier, which it of course lead to more frequent trips and thus more progression of the Human race into space. I believe that both Luna and Mars are key steps to our reaching out into that big black final frontier.

[Joel]

I WANT TO SEE A MOON LANDING!

I also want to be able to vacation there in my lifetime but a landing would be good enough.

[shane]

Yes we should go back to the moon. Well if we ever really went at all. Mars would be great, but lets do the moon first to get the ball rolling again. For all the people worried about the economy and not wanting to spend funding i say, "Humans have a need to explore and nothing pulls people together more than discovery".

[Woody]

Heck yes. Unlike the billions we've spent on welfare over the past fifty years, we actually get something for our investment in space technology.

[Pat]

I've made a Digg vote on this. Thank's for sharing Barney!

[Pat]

Oops - before I get flared - I do know that technically Russia has already made 'space travel' commercially available - I should've kept it specific to 'moon travel'

[Pat]

@hobbie
"To eliminate all conspiracy theories and to test our science achievements, I believe we should go back to the moon."

As a skeptic, I second this motion :)

@Felipe
"We could learn a thing or two about recycling and using less resources with those space development."

I think you're on to something here...

I also agree with most of the other comments regarding space travel eventually being moved to the private market - likely to be done first in the US of course..

[StevenW]

Of course, it's a ridiculous question.. Go to the moon, go to mars, go to venus and pwn them all.

[Kthor]

instead of going to the moon, use the money to invest in schools first, job creations and helping stop foreclosures

[Michael Mealling]

"Should NASA return to the moon?" is a very different question from whether America should return to the moon. There is a very good chance that the first lunar rover back to the moon will be a Google Lunar XPrize team, not NASA.

NASA can return but there is no reason it should be building and flying its own spacecraft to do so. NASA is not the end-all be-all of American development of space.

[Michael F.]

The answer to that question, in my not so humble opinion, is a earnest "Yes!" Nobody can deny that he amount we could learn by going to Mars is inestimably large! However, I have simple reason for choosing the Moon: We can go to the Moon in the near future, but we might not be able go to Mars in the near future. Quite frankly, we do not currently have the capability to safely land a man on Mars, not even close. Technology is being developed that is changing this sad fact, and making Mars a priority would speed it up even more. However, even with all that added drive, some estimates say that it could more than two or three decades till the technology to safely land a man on Mars will be developed. The question is this: If we aren't going to Mars anytime soon, then why not the moon?

[Felipe]

Technology that was developed once by NASA today works for us all. I believe they should use the moon as training or reasearching for a future mission wherever (Mars would be the logical choice). So yeah, they should go back to the moon but not to leave footprints but to start some laboratory (like that international station).

In the end, space shuttles and moon bases should be very lean in its energy and material needs. We could learn a thing or two about recycling and using less resources with those space development.. Just my 2 cents.

[Vyk]

returning on the moon will be a quite exciting historical moment
turism, extracting helium-3, hydrogen..

we need itt lol alternative energy surces, imagine how many people will invest into the moon mining companys.

if well shared, the moon will become a cooperative nation of all the nations on earth it would be awsomeez :D

[Steven H]

Mars seems very mysterious yet if we send people to the distant planet, I fear they may be in danger. I give it a high probability the first few missions to Mars will be a one way trip.

[Hudson]

With all of the economic problems the world is facing, another moon mission is the last thing we need the government to invest in. We can invest in exploring our own world, and unlocking some of its secrets, as well as bail ourselves out of the problems we're facing, and leave space exploration to private enterprise.

[nceeno]

Over two-thirds of our planet has only been scratched at. It would be more beneficial to the human race to explore the oceans first. We have 5 billion years to get off this rock before the sun goes supernova. If we destroy the oceans we won't be around long enough to see either.

[Wy.]

Instead of returning to a place we have once ventured, we should instead venture into the unknown by going to a new planet such as Mars.

[Mathew R.]

I think we should go to the moon, i can see mars would probly have to many problems in the long run so stick with the moon and when were ready go to mars.

[hobie]

To eliminate all conspiracy theories and to test our science achievements, I believe we should go back to the moon.

[Matt E.]

Who cares if NASA goes back? Humans are going to colonize the Moon by private means without having to land a government mission there again. It is time for people to realize that USA is already on the next moon race, the race to land a privately funded mission on the Moon. Everybody else is clearly placing themselves in catch-up mode by doing the government thing nearly half a century after the first Apollo landing.

[Michael Burke]

It's by far the closest and easiest for us to explore... why would we not go back?

[gaetano marano - ghostNASA.com]

.

A: "not with the current Ares rockets"

.

however, I've just posted my suggestion #8 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA:

"resize the Orion to 4.5 meters and its crew to three astronauts"

http://ow.ly/f3vQ

.