NASA Weighs Moon Plans 133
mknewman writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA is set to roll out next month a U.S. national strategy for lunar exploration, one that outlines both robotic exploration needs and the rationale for sending humans back to the Moon. This has been sorely missing in Bush's Vision for Space Exploration."
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd still rather see though, is human exploration being conducted on an "as needed" basis. For example, let's put robots on the moon that can determine if the moon can be utilized for its supposed natural resources (as NASA contends it has), and if these robots can't mine fuel or other supplies that could be used for a Mars mission, we can send people up there.
Good that its being done now vs later (Score:2, Insightful)
Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
This has always struck me as absurd about Bush's Moon and Mars plans, he's been drumming up such ideas now and then, while at the same time slashing NASA budget. Why anybody believes he's doing anything other than posturing is beyond me.
Re:Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's let the private sector explore space. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's let the private sector explore space.
People talk about the "benefits" of the space program, like plastics! Great, an oil-consuming product that takes hundreds of thousands of years to bio-degrade. If that's not progress, I don't know what is!
Resources on Earth are very limited. We all work very hard to pay our taxes. Let's let the private sector lead the way into this exciting new place!
Why should we send people back to the Moon? (Score:1, Insightful)
Job #1: Making people give a damn. (Score:5, Insightful)
When people want a measuring stick to judge the successfulness of our technology, they still say "we put a man on the moon..." (generally followed by "...and we still can't do [something]"); you don't hear people saying "we put a robot on Mars" or "we put launched a deep-space probe beyond our Solar System..." While important, virtually everything NASA has done since the moon landing, with the possible exception of the Hubble Space Telescope (because of the neat pictures it sent back), has failed to capture the public's interest. And as a result, they have seen their funding grow slimmer and slimmer.
To be honest, doing exploration that doesn't get the average people excited is shortsighted, because it's ultimately those people, apathetic and ignorant as they may be, who control the purse strings that are the lifeblood of the space program. If they don't care about NASA, then NASA gets its budget cut by the Congresscritters next time they're looking for money to fund their Bridge to Nowhere. And that means no money for 'real' scientific research.
Putting people back on the moon ASAP is essential to restore interest in the Space Program to a country that has, by and large, forgotten it. Manned space exploration today is a joke: it's tourism. The adventure of space is something mostly reserved for a generation that's obsessing over the costs of prescription drugs, and has stopped looking outwards for new frontiers. The younger generation hasn't been given any reason by NASA to be interested. I haven't even seen as many kids these days saying that they want to be astronauts as used to. (And why would they -- ride up into space on a vehicle that would be cat food cans already, if it had been an automobile; have basically nowhere to go when you get up there; and there's always the risk of the whole thing falling apart on the way down.)
NASA is a far cry from the national inspiration that it was to previous generations, and unless it can demonstrate some ability to capture the imaginations of today's citizens, it's going to be budget-cut into nonexistence.
Re:Charge it! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's let the private sector explore space. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Nationalism will carry the day in the exploration of space; Capitalism takes the easiest route to profit while Nationalism appeals to group notions of one-upmanship and achievement: witness China, who's 'Communist' ideology is strongly nationalist. They are putting people into space to show how fantastic they are, and don't care much less about the bottom line. The threshold where capitalism will begin to be effective hasn't come yet.
I personally feel that whatever works best we need to do and do soon; what kind of world would my grandkids live in if we are unable to stem our consumption? At that point, they will need everything we've developed so far to colonize other worlds.
Ultimately we're all prisoners of our ideologies. The best we can do is understand all of them and make the best choices.
Need a continuous series of 'firsts.' (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the firsts that are important, and that's what NASA has to be continually aiming for. It has to constantly be extending our reach; pushing us further and further out.
I can guarantee you that the first time a person walks on Mars, while it may not be quite the same event as the Moon landing, that will get people to stop what they're doing and care, if only for a little while.
The idea is that you have to be the first to do something, and thereby capture the public's imagination; then, when you have their attention, use it to get the resources you need to consolidate that achievement, and start moving on to the next 'first.'
If NASA wants to keep going, it basically needs to give every generation a moon landing (and preferably more frequently than that). If people don't perceive that the money we're spending is taking us to new places, then they're going to take it and fritter it away elsewhere.