Return to the moon

In the future the idea of a moonbase as a launch platform has some merit. Though so far we've shown ourselves incapable of keeping a space station just above our heads on target, so a moon base is still well into the future.

I think a manned mission to Mars is needed. Great as the rovers are, they have spent years doing what a geologist with a hammer could do in a days. A trip to the moon would probably be done in a preparatory phase of this project.

As for unmanned probes to spend money on, I'd love to get a glimpse of anything that might be under Europas ice sheets. If the ocean theory can be established great, if not then we still have the mystery of why the magnetic field varies to work out.

As noble as unmanned science missions are and you can't deny the furtherance of our understanding that they bring, mankind must leave this pale blue dot at some point (as Stephen Hawkins said recently). In order to do that successfully, presumably incremental manned missions are required and the moon seems to be the object of choice for many reasons.

The new NASA transport vehicles announced recently are designed with that in mind. If the moon does not have the water in quanties once expected, other sources will need to be found to fuel a Mars mission.

Besides, if NASA don't do it, someone else will - China, Japan, India. Personally, I'd like to see a joint effort to spread the cost and tap into the expertise elsewhere.

Mankind must leave Earth and we have an opportunity to take the net step. If we don't, future generations will not talk of us kindly as they sit waiting to be wiped out. Yes, it may be thousands of years hence but is that a reason to do nothing?

The funny thing is, if the US dont do it, China will.
I'd like to see a base on the moon, permanently manned.

What would also be great is to be looking through the scope while half watching/listening to a TV as they land, that would be awesome , not that you'd actually see their craft through the scope.

A worthy undertaking but I'm voting against because I believe that the funds would be better spent on the projects they were originally intended for, e.g.
Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) or Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF).

I think it was something close to $3 billion that was pulled from other projects to fund the new lunar mission. In fact, the TPF has been indefinitely cancelled because of this. Well, I guess it will eventually run.

Trev

My problem with this whole thing is that it's being done for the wrong reasons the wrong way and I'm not even sure NASA know why they're doing it.

Some of the best projects in NASA are the research ones, no the manned exploration ones and there are cuts left right and center in those programs to make way for this moon mission. Bush told them to go to the moon but didn't give them the money so it's cuts left right and center to finance Bush's little ego trip.

What really gets me is that NASA don't even seem to have an clear goal. What exactly are we going to the moon FOR?

Because the cost of this mission is good science in NASA I think it is a bad idea and I voted against it. Either do it right and for the right reasons or don't do it at all!

Bart.

I agree with the mission to the moon. Politically speaking could Bush be brought as well and left there maybe solving half the worlds problems in the process. I'd agree with Dave L in that I also would like to look at the moon through the scope knowing that other people were up there.

The only thing I'd be afraid of is if the moon was used for future missions to other planets is that the same scale of industrialism/polictics would be become commonplace-maybe not fighting over oil etc but over other minerals/fuels.

But certainly, big thumbs up for the mission.