The Lunar Soapbox...

[Boerseun]

And so we're going back to the moon, right?

This is a topic which have been covered quite well on Hypo, but I want to put a new slant to it:

How to justify it?

Consider:

In the 1960's, NASA's lunar adventure was purely a function of the Cold War - an international d$%#-measuring contest, if you will, which simply happened to include the moon. It cost billions of dollars, and after the moon landings became routine, and public interest waned, NASA pulled the plug and haven't been back since. Reason for that, is that they have successfully done what they wanted to do, and that is simply to go to the moon to achieve superiority over them pesky Russians. The science behind it had to take second place behind the politics.

So what happened now?

China declared its intent to send a human to the moon. This was a few years ago, and shortly after, the US stated its intent to go back to the moon, to use it as a staging ground to eventually get bug-eyed bipedal hairless apes to Mars.

Doing it because we can and because it's cool and humanity's future lies in space and all those kind of reasons, is noble in itself. I'm actually happy (in a sneaky kind of way) that China is growing into the vacuum left by the USSR in terms of space capability, because it's lighting a fire under NASA's bloated beaurocratic butt to get up and do something cool. And I'm just dandy with it.

But think about it for a second:

Getting to the moon isn't all that hard. I'm willing to bet if the budget is there, and the will is there, you can basically get to the moon today with off-the-shelf technology. What with today's computers and big enough firecrackers, anybody could do it.

So what will a new moon-race achieve?

Won't the money (from NASA's side) be better spent in dumping all of it into the US' education system? It's pointless going to the moon when the dumbing-down of the US public and lowering all educational institutions and standards to the lowest common denominator, and the celebration of mediocrity keeps on eroding the US's intellectual capability and capacity.
Going back to the moon needs very little research into new technology. As a matter of fact, 1969 technology would do just fine. So what would the broad American public gain by this? I'm perplexed...

Is an international phallic insecurity complex reason enough for this venture?

I'd love it if they do go back, don't get me wrong - I'm just wondering if the US will be a better place 50 years from now if either

a) They spend hundreds of billions of dollars to go back to a place where they've been - and found nothing; or
b) They dump hundreds of billions of dollars into the US educational system to prevent the further erosion of the US' intellectual capacity.

Thoughts? / ?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

China declared its intent to send a human to the moon. This was a few years ago, and shortly after, the US stated its intent to go back to the moon, to use it as a staging ground to eventually get bug-eyed bipedal hairless apes to Mars.

Not only China. India, Russia, Japan, and Europe have stated that they are going to the Moon. If the US don't, they'll be behind. It's no longer just a race, it's a stake-of-claims thing.

Getting to the moon isn't all that hard. I'm willing to bet if the budget is there, and the will is there, you can basically get to the moon today with off-the-shelf technology. What with today's computers and big enough firecrackers, anybody could do it.

It is extremely hard. It's difficult enough to get into orbit as it is. The number of spaceflights that have brought people into space is far lower than you might think. And the amount of flights that have taken people *out* of Earth orbit: 9. All happened more than 34 years ago!

Won't the money (from NASA's side) be better spent in dumping all of it into the US' education system?

One of the *really* good things about NASA, and the space program in particular, is NASAs ability to share the results with the public. Data from space probes are released on a daily basis (often live). Educational programs are in place to utilize satellite data from both Earth-orbiting satellites (everything from telecom to Earth observation, weather, astronomy etc) in classrooms. So a lot of the money that go to space programs actually also helps build better tools for educators.

In my experience, as a communicator of the results of space activities to the Norwegian public, few things excite kids (and adults!) more than space-related things.

It's pointless going to the moon when the dumbing-down of the US public and lowering all educational institutions and standards to the lowest common denominator, and the celebration of mediocrity keeps on eroding the US's intellectual capability and capacity.

But see the "dumbing-down" is very relative. It's not a qualified proposition, really. Are the schools better or worse than they were in the 60s? Why? Why not? Which criteria do we use - more students get education? Teachers are better paid? More programs in place to help students with problems?

Placing the education system as an opponent on the funds table is ok. But let's put other things there as well: Overseas wars, for example. Since more money is spent on wars than on space programs (and some of the money spent on space programs are used in warfare), I think it would be more just to consider the war cost vs education system than space exploration vs education system.

Going back to the moon needs very little research into new technology. As a matter of fact, 1969 technology would do just fine. So what would the broad American public gain by this? I'm perplexed...

This is a misunderstanding. A huge amount of research is needed. The rockets are being designed from the ground up, reusing only those parts that can be used - like the shuttle boosters which will be used on Ares 5. the CEV is a completely new vehicle. Yes, it uses *ideas* from Apollo (capsule design, parachute reentry) but it also has completely different systems and requirements (better shielding to enable long-duration space flights, for example).

Even the space shuttle is 1970s technology. It will officially be dead in 2010. It is a wonder it has been working as long as it has!

I'd love it if they do go back, don't get me wrong - I'm just wondering if the US will be a better place 50 years from now if either

a) They spend hundreds of billions of dollars to go back to a place where they've been - and found nothing; or

Found nothing? Qualify this statement, please!

b) They dump hundreds of billions of dollars into the US educational system to prevent the further erosion of the US' intellectual capacity.

Dumping money into anything wihtout a plan is useless. There is a very detailed plan for the US' Return to the Moon and eventually Mars missions. The returns of such a plan is impossible to calculate, but first of all it does secure lots and lots of jobs. In fact, a need for more engineers is a likely problem for the US in the next few decades.

This can only be solved by improving the education system. So, in fact, you need to both make sure the education system provides a steady supply of able, skilled workers and engineers, as well as a space program which can give them jobs. There is no reason to have a perfect education system if there are no jobs to go to when it's over.

[moo]

Actually "getting there", while hard enough, isn't near as difficult as returning (which requires "getting there" with enough working equipment to enable a return).

moo

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by moo

Actually "getting there", while hard enough, isn't near as difficult as returning (which requires "getting there" with enough working equipment to enable a return).

moo

A good point but there is a saying that "even the longest journey starts with the first step". I think neither the problems of getting there nor those of getting back are the reasons it is taking so long for the US to return to the Moon. It is rather the challenges of establishing a permanent presence there.

[moo]

I think neither the problems of getting there nor those of getting back are the reasons it is taking so long for the US to return to the Moon. It is rather the challenges of establishing a permanent presence there.

Possibly, but I'm not entirely sure that's the reason. Methinks there was basically no need for a presence on the moon until the possibility of other nations establishing one arose.

A communist (or other unfriendly) presence there, along with any resulting tactical advantage, is a wee bit worrisome....

moo

[Racoon]

I like your continuity of subtle resentments and jabs at America and Americans in general.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Won't the money (from NASA's side) be better spent in dumping all of it into the US' education system? It's pointless going to the moon when the dumbing-down of the US public and lowering all educational institutions and standards to the lowest common denominator, and the celebration of mediocrity keeps on eroding the US's intellectual capability and capacity

Much of the 'dumbing down' is a direct result of invading hordes of uneducated immigrants. Too many to be effectively educated in a system that was designed decades ago and is severely underfunded. Thanks in part to other world nations who can't properly maintain their own populations or provide any real opportunity or education for themselves...

Aside from having said that, I agree.
Its pointless to land on the moon again, and that it really only serves political agendas.

On to Mars instead!

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

And so we're going back to the moon, right?
How to justify it?

Consider:

Glory. The footnote in history that says it was done and who did it. To be recognized - even symbolically - as being the cutting edge of human acheivment in its time.

The sense of world pride in the accomplishment and renewed faith in the potential of man for the whole world to share is worth the price. We are already several steps behind where history tells me we should be. It is time to get steppin'.

Bill

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

And so we're going back to the moon, right?
…
How to justify it?

As a means of assuring the long term survival of the human race.

Something I find interesting in the latest series of announcements and journalistic comment concerning a permanent moon colony is that, for the first time in my experience, NASA appears to be including “the long term survival of the human race” in its list of justifications for the program. Though I’m unable to find any specific mention of this reason on nasa.gov, or directly attribute it any NASA speaker, I’ve read it in several news stories about NASA’s recent announcements.

It’s possible that journalists and the blogsphere are confusing recent statements of a similar nature by Steven Hawking with those of NASA speakers, or that NASA is gloming onto Hawking’s. Regardless of its origin, I’m encouraged by signs that the “survival of humanity” argument is becoming more popular. IMHO, it’s the most compelling one for the majority of people, who tend to be more motivated by an aversion to catastrophic annihilation than enthusiasm for the advancement of science.

[Jay-qu]

Sounds pretty cool to say that you are concerned about the long term survival of our race, but is it true, are the really genuine? we are selfish people by nature

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Sounds pretty cool to say that you are concerned about the long term survival of our race, but is it true, are the really genuine? we are selfish people by nature

I disagree - selfishness is an attitude, not a cultural trait. People generally stand up for each other, and in many cultures the familiy or town is more important than the individual.

But I think on a lower level humanity is driven by the same urge for self-preservation as all other animals.