41 Years Ago Today.

[Brovane]

We've sent more manned missions to the moon than we have to Challenger Deep. And we've discovered that the moon is a lifeless hunk of rock that is comprised of the exact same stuff we have here on Earth. We know about lunar volcanic activity, and we've speculated about its internal structure (though this is based on our assumptions about the interior of our own planet, which we have literally barely scratched the surface on; another worthy source of scientific exploration, as it would give us better understanding of tectonic movements and geothermal activity, perhaps a more efficient way of harnessing energy, but I digress). In contrast, there are vast sections of the deep sea on Earth that remain unexplored. And we know for a fact that there's life there; we just don't know exactly what, or how it may be beneficial for us. What more can we reasonably expect to learn through lunar exploration or habitation? In terms of the cost versus the benefit, is it more valuable than exploring our own oceans? Is it more valuable than digging through the crust and seeing what our planet is really made of?

The moon holds a romantic appeal because it's so near to us and we've actually been there. But is there really a vested scientific gain to be made by going up there and collecting more rocks? Moon colonization is a long way off, and may not even be possible (effects of low-gravity on humans, lack of atmosphere leaving colony vulnerable to meteors and cosmic rays, longer day/night cycle leading to temperature extremes, etc). I like the idea of space exploration, but I also realize that everything has a cost, and right now, it's hard to justify a return to the moon as being worth it.

So because more people have been to the Moon than the Deepest part of the Ocean the Moon has been more explored? I am sorry that sounds just ridicoulous to me. Right now as we speak their are people out on ships exploring the Oceans. Their has been countless dives into the deep ocean by research submarines with humans, Also this part is interesting about the Moon, it is essentially a time capsule. Because the moon from a geological stand-point is not active rocks that are preserved from Billions of years ago. Because it looks like the Earth and Moon can from same stuff we can also see what the Earth is like Billions of years ago by looking at the moon. So actually by stuyding the Moon we not only discovery more about the Moon but also about the Earth. The 6 manned landings on the Moon have only given us super-ficial knowledge about the Moon as a whole.

 

[_Rick_]

41 Years ago today Apollo 17 touched down in the Taurus-Littrow Valley on the Moon. This has been the most recent journey by humans beyond Earth Orbit.

I'm quite certain that....



...the Moon orbits the Earth. Manned space exploration still hasn't left the Earth's gravity well, although for the Apollo missions, the lunar gravity was greater than Earth's. But that's like saying that a Mars orbiter has left the solar system, because it's orbiting Mars.

 

[momeNt]

So by putting this in terms of % of federal budget. Are you asking if we grow the budget of NASA in terms of dollars in order to get it to 1% or should we shrink the rest of the federal budget to achieve that same 1%?

Since 1990 the adjusted dollars for NASA has remained pretty much the same, which is the highest its been if you exclude the 60s.

 

[Brovane]

I'm quite certain that....



...the Moon orbits the Earth. Manned space exploration still hasn't left the Earth's gravity well, although for the Apollo missions, the lunar gravity was greater than Earth's. But that's like saying that a Mars orbiter has left the solar system, because it's orbiting Mars.

Would you be more happy if I said beyond Low Earth Orbit?

 

[Sheep221]

Rainforest exploration is probably one of the cheapest scientific endeavors we can embark on, and wildlife discovered in the rainforest has led to some incredible breakthroughs in medicines over the past few centuries. So, yes, saving the rainforest is absolutely a worthwhile scientific endeavor, and a better use of resources than most anything related to space exploration.

Dude, how come you actually deny the importance of space exploration? It's one of the most important and challenging things we are working on. Not to mention ground research, like oceans and rainforests are ongoing and in much broader way as for that we don't need rockets or space shuttles just vehicles.

 

[Brainonska511]

Dude, how come you actually deny the importance of space exploration? It's one of the most important and challenging things we are working on. Not to mention ground research, like oceans and rainforests are ongoing and in much broader way as for that we don't need rockets or space shuttles just vehicles.

Why the singular focus? There are many scientists and engineers with different specialties and interests. It is possible for multiple avenues of research to take place in parallel.

 

[Brovane]

So by putting this in terms of % of federal budget. Are you asking if we grow the budget of NASA in terms of dollars in order to get it to 1% or should we shrink the rest of the federal budget to achieve that same 1%?

Since 1990 the adjusted dollars for NASA has remained pretty much the same, which is the highest its been if you exclude the 60s.

I would propose that we look at closer to 1% of the total federal expenditures. So we should look at growing the budget of NASA in terms of overall dollars or look at more radically changing how the current NASA money is spent.

 

[momeNt]

I would propose that we look at closer to 1% of the total federal expenditures. So we should look at growing the budget of NASA in terms of overall dollars or look at more radically changing how the current NASA money is spent.

So NASA should grow in lock step with the growth of the federal budget... just because?

What does war, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc have anything to do with NASA?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Dude, how come you actually deny the importance of space exploration? It's one of the most important and challenging things we are working on. Not to mention ground research, like oceans and rainforests are ongoing and in much broader way as for that we don't need rockets or space shuttles just vehicles.

I think that space exploration is a nice idea, but let's properly gauge where we are. We've been to the moon a handful of times, and sent dozens of unmanned vehicles as well, so we've gathered a fair amount of data about its composition. Are we going to learn substantially more by going back to the moon? Probably not enough to justify the cost of such an endeavor. Manned exploration of Mars is still ages away; we don't know a proper way to shield humans from the radiation they'd encounter on such a trip, nor of a way to keep organs functioning properly for such a long time in absence of gravity (the minimum length of time for a round-trip mission to Mars with current technology is roughly 8 months, though expectations are it would probably be at least double that). We've got the Mars rover going right now as it is, so that's a plus; there's not much benefit to be gained in sending another while that one is still active.

Outside of the moon and Mars, manned exploration is a fantasy at this point (and Mars is debatable), so you're talking about probes and rovers. These may net some useful data, but it has to be weighed against how much it costs to send them out. We have a finite supply of resources on our planet; how much of those do we want to devote to exploring other celestial bodies? Knowledge is a wonderful thing to pursue, but not if it comes at a detriment to ourselves. The International Space Station has cost north of $150 billion over the last 15 years, and that's just for a structure in low earth orbit. A manned mission to Mars could cost half a trillion dollars. Even probes, relatively inexpensive by comparison, cost billions to launch and take years to reach the outer planets in our system. It is irresponsible to say that we should pursue space exploration and damn the expense, because the expense is (appropriately) astronomical. It has to be considered in determining whether or not it's worth it. And, at this point, I personally don't think it is. I'm not saying we should defund NASA or stop searching with Hubble or the Mars rover. But I also don't feel that we need to drastically increase the budget for projects of questionable value.

 

[Brovane]

So NASA should grow in lock step with the growth of the federal budget... just because?

What does war, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc have anything to do with NASA?

It doesn't. I just consider NASA as more of a investment in or future. If we are willing to spend say $600 Billion on Defense then we should be also able to spend $6 Billion on NASA as a future investment.

 

[Brovane]

I think that space exploration is a nice idea, but let's properly gauge where we are. We've been to the moon a handful of times, and sent dozens of unmanned vehicles as well, so we've gathered a fair amount of data about its composition. Are we going to learn substantially more by going back to the moon? Probably not enough to justify the cost of such an endeavor. Manned exploration of Mars is still ages away; we don't know a proper way to shield humans from the radiation they'd encounter on such a trip, nor of a way to keep organs functioning properly for such a long time in absence of gravity (the minimum length of time for a round-trip mission to Mars with current technology is roughly 8 months, though expectations are it would probably be at least double that). We've got the Mars rover going right now as it is, so that's a plus; there's not much benefit to be gained in sending another while that one is still active.

Outside of the moon and Mars, manned exploration is a fantasy at this point (and Mars is debatable), so you're talking about probes and rovers. These may net some useful data, but it has to be weighed against how much it costs to send them out. We have a finite supply of resources on our planet; how much of those do we want to devote to exploring other celestial bodies? Knowledge is a wonderful thing to pursue, but not if it comes at a detriment to ourselves. The International Space Station has cost north of $150 billion over the last 15 years, and that's just for a structure in low earth orbit. A manned mission to Mars could cost half a trillion dollars. Even probes, relatively inexpensive by comparison, cost billions to launch and take years to reach the outer planets in our system. It is irresponsible to say that we should pursue space exploration and damn the expense, because the expense is (appropriately) astronomical. It has to be considered in determining whether or not it's worth it. And, at this point, I personally don't think it is. I'm not saying we should defund NASA or stop searching with Hubble or the Mars rover. But I also don't feel that we need to drastically increase the budget for projects of questionable value.

As I have already said their is a lot about the Moon that we don't know. The Apollo Missions because of the hardware where limited to landings near the Equator and no landings at all happened on the far-side of the Moon. It would be like landing in 6 different places on the North American and South American continent and saying you know all there is to know about these continents and they are explored now. If we think about the debate about how much water is on the moon will not probably be fully answered until a Astronaut ventures into a dark crater and cores into the surface and either finds water or nothing else at all.

The thing is that when we spend money on space exploration or pure science we are investing in or future. The pay off might not be as readily apparent as some other endeavours but it is there. Also all that money gets spent on Earth to build things and push the technology envelop. For example back in the 1960's NASA pushed the technology envelop on Fuel Cells because it was a perfect solution to powering a spacecraft for about 14-days. The spending by NASA pushed forward the fuel cell development. Now the building where I work has 2 fuel cells outside that power a good portion of the building. I would much rather spend 1/2 Trillion dollars going to Mars than invading Iraqi. We will certainly get a lot more pushing forward of tech than we have with Iraqi. The decision is should we invest some in the future or just stay focused on what is infront of us.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

As I have already said their is a lot about the Moon that we don't know. The Apollo Missions because of the hardware where limited to landings near the Equator and no landings at all happened on the far-side of the Moon. It would be like landing in 6 different places on the North American and South American continent and saying you know all there is to know about these continents and they are explored now. If we think about the debate about how much water is on the moon will not probably be fully answered until a Astronaut ventures into a dark crater and cores into the surface and either finds water or nothing else at all.

You can't compare lunar exploration to Earth exploration. Earth has an atmosphere, which gives it weather and climate. It has active tectonic plates. It has lots of liquid water covering its surface. And it has life. These things all dramatically shape the landscape. Obviously you can't look at the Sahara desert and confidently say that every landscape on Earth will look like that. But the moon doesn't have these things. One of the reasons you cited for exploring the moon is that it is a time capsule, a rock that has remained virtually unchanged but for cosmic impacts for billions of years. There's no erosion, no weather patterns and no standing water to shape the moon; once you've seen one patch of it, you've effectively seen it all.

The thing is that when we spend money on space exploration or pure science we are investing in or future. The pay off might not be as readily apparent as some other endeavours but it is there. Also all that money gets spent on Earth to build things and push the technology envelop. For example back in the 1960's NASA pushed the technology envelop on Fuel Cells because it was a perfect solution to powering a spacecraft for about 14-days. The spending by NASA pushed forward the fuel cell development. Now the building where I work has 2 fuel cells outside that power a good portion of the building. I would much rather spend 1/2 Trillion dollars going to Mars than invading Iraqi. We will certainly get a lot more pushing forward of tech than we have with Iraqi. The decision is should we invest some in the future or just stay focused on what is infront of us.

That's a false choice. The question isn't "do we spend half a trillion on a war on Iraq or half a trillion on a Mars expedition," it's "do we spend half a trillion on a Mars expedition or half a trillion on anything else?" If it was a choice between the Iraq war and Mars, I agree with you that we should opt for science. But there are so many other worthy scientific pursuits that we could fund with that money as well.

 

[Brovane]

You can't compare lunar exploration to Earth exploration. Earth has an atmosphere, which gives it weather and climate. It has active tectonic plates. It has lots of liquid water covering its surface. And it has life. These things all dramatically shape the landscape. Obviously you can't look at the Sahara desert and confidently say that every landscape on Earth will look like that. But the moon doesn't have these things. One of the reasons you cited for exploring the moon is that it is a time capsule, a rock that has remained virtually unchanged but for cosmic impacts for billions of years. There's no erosion, no weather patterns and no standing water to shape the moon; once you've seen one patch of it, you've effectively seen it all.

That one sentence right their tells me you have no clue what you are talking about. All you have to do is look at the Moon and see the varied geological features of the Moon. Lets look at one aspect of the Moons surface. The Regolith itself which is the surface. Because the Moon has no atmosphere the Regolith is bombarded by the Solar Wind. You can analyze that Regolith and essentially go back in time and this can tell you the Sun's activity over a chronological period. You cannot do that on Earth because the SolarWind never gets past the Atmosphere. Just the shear number of preserved impact craters on the Moon would be great for geological study since they are so well preserved. The Apollo Missions basically scratched the surface. They told us a lot more than we knew before. During all the Apollo missions the total EVA time was only around 160 total Man hours on the surface of the Moon. That was nearly enough time to get a good geological survey of such a large object.

 

[Brovane]

That's a false choice. The question isn't "do we spend half a trillion on a war on Iraq or half a trillion on a Mars expedition," it's "do we spend half a trillion on a Mars expedition or half a trillion on anything else?" If it was a choice between the Iraq war and Mars, I agree with you that we should opt for science. But there are so many other worthy scientific pursuits that we could fund with that money as well.

Lunar and space exploration is very worthy scientific pursuit for the reason that I have already listed. Also exploration of space is good for humans as a species and is a worthy goal in itself.

 

[RearAdmiral]

Viewing material on our space missions is so moving. It is the only science related stuff that can overwhelm me with emotion and provide some pretty crazy inspiration. Watching the Apollo missions is incredible, and rocket launches are still amazing to see.

It really makes me sad that our manned space exploration has tanked down to nothing.

I guess we should just spend our money on keeping old sick people alive for another 2 months instead of hardcore scientific research.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Obama's budgets have severely cut NASA's budget over the years and he wants to cut more. Change we can believe in?

http://www.space.com/20835-planetary-science-nasa-2014-budget.html

 

[Brainonska511]

Obama's budgets have severely cut NASA's budget over the years and he wants to cut more. Change we can believe in?

http://www.space.com/20835-planetary-science-nasa-2014-budget.html

Research budgets in general have been severely cut over the last 3-5 years. The push to cut spending has resulted in research being placed on the chopping block, severely hampering our knowledge base in both the short and long term (as fewer people will stay or enter scientific research in the current climate of tight funding).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wonder if humanity has always suffered from such a shocking lack of vision.

 

[AViking]

Generally when one place suffers another prospers. So while we in the "west" were in the dark ages the Islamic world was making progress across the board.

 

[Paratus]

Obama's budgets have severely cut NASA's budget over the years and he wants to cut more. Change we can believe in?

http://www.space.com/20835-planetary-science-nasa-2014-budget.html

We haven't had a real budget passed in years either.

Ideally we could continue manned and unmanned space exploration as well as Earth exploration. The return in GDP of tax money spent on research has almost always payed off in the long run.

And quite frankly, over the long haul we're going to need space exploration if we as a species wants to survive.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

And quite frankly, over the long haul we're going to need space exploration if we as a species wants to survive.

Why? There is so much of our own planet that we don't currently inhabit; the oceans, vast regions at both poles, high altitudes, deserts, etc. How is the cold vacuum of space or another celestial body a more inviting environment than areas we know already sustain life, albeit life that is specifically adapted to live there? The notion that if we don't colonize other planets human life is doomed seems categorically absurd.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Why? There is so much of our own planet that we don't currently inhabit; the oceans, vast regions at both poles, high altitudes, deserts, etc. How is the cold vacuum of space or another celestial body a more inviting environment than areas we know already sustain life, albeit life that is specifically adapted to live there? The notion that if we don't colonize other planets human life is doomed seems categorically absurd.

Eventually this planet is going to die. Either because we run out of resources, something big smacks into us, our sun sends something nasty our way, a nearby star supernova's, or eventually our sun changes enough to no longer sustain life on Earth (something that will happen long before the sun actually dies).

Any way you look at it, given a large enough time scale the only way for humanity to survive will be to spread out among the stars.

 

[Sheep221]

Why? There is so much of our own planet that we don't currently inhabit; the oceans, vast regions at both poles, high altitudes, deserts, etc. How is the cold vacuum of space or another celestial body a more inviting environment than areas we know already sustain life, albeit life that is specifically adapted to live there? The notion that if we don't colonize other planets human life is doomed seems categorically absurd.

You don't really want to see the truth aren't you, space exploration and development of space transport is really important investment for future generations, distant future but still. Just like Smogzinn said, If we will be focused only on earth, yeah there is still most stuff undiscovered but that won't make us sustainable in the event of crashing to earth or missing resources. As there is nothing right now near us in reasonable distance that could provide us a living environment, we must develop technologies that will do that for us at least till we find such a place.

 

[irishScott]

Why? There is so much of our own planet that we don't currently inhabit; the oceans, vast regions at both poles, high altitudes, deserts, etc. How is the cold vacuum of space or another celestial body a more inviting environment than areas we know already sustain life, albeit life that is specifically adapted to live there? The notion that if we don't colonize other planets human life is doomed seems categorically absurd.

So you think the human population can continue to grow indefinitely and the planet will sustain us regardless? Think a few centuries ahead, all signs point to us needing to get off this rock.

 

[Agent11]

Humanity needs to spread beyond the Earth in order to ensure it's survival. We are the only known intelligent life in the universe, we cannot continue to risk our legacy by having all of our eggs in one basket.

We know that mass extinction events have occurred on our planet in the past, we cannot assume that they will not occur in the future.