Should the US spend money to return astronauts to the moon? - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

jdavionic · 09-01-2006, 04:16 PM

Just a straightforward question

**einheit 13** · 09-01-2006, 04:21 PM

What are we gonna go back to the moon for?? I voted no, unless were gonna drill for oil or set some kinda evil death ray...

JakeUSA · 09-01-2006, 04:23 PM

It is my opinion that there are enough private foundations out there for the sciences that federal funding for NASA should be extremely limited. I don't really see any real benefit of knowing how potatos grow in space, nor do I know of any positive impact bringing moon rocks home to earth. If the arts, which benefit our culture, are nearly entirely funded by private foundations and grants, then I believe the same should apply for many scientific fields.

Ajcrash · 09-01-2006, 04:28 PM

Not unless their is a hell of a good reason; like setting up a station to venture out further from there.

I like the death ray idea as well.

mgeoffriau · 09-01-2006, 04:33 PM

Just to make a small point:

The question is most accurately posed:

Should Americans spend money to return astronauts to the moon?

And the answer to that question, at least for me, is no. If there are private sector interests that would like to see space exploration continue, then so be it. If there really are great scientific advances, then somebody will want to make a profit at it, and risk their own money to see it happen.

jdavionic · 09-01-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau

Just to make a small point:

The question is most accurately posed:

Should Americans spend money to return astronauts to the moon?

And the answer to that question, at least for me, is no. If there are private sector interests that would like to see space exploration continue, then so be it. If there really are great scientific advances, then somebody will want to make a profit at it, and risk their own money to see it happen.

Agreed, but it posed on the day when NASA made announcements regarding the expenditures and contracts. I thought it was fairly clear to all. But it's a good point considering the posts stay up for some time.

cucamelsmd15 · 09-01-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajcrash

Not unless their is a hell of a good reason; like setting up a station to venture out further from there.

I like the death ray idea as well.

I think Mars would be better for the first option.

Krackels · 09-01-2006, 05:56 PM

Woot!
a resounding NO!

I have to agree. There are enough private foundations out there to fund moon exploration, so why should I have to pay for it?

First NASA! Then SETI!

Krackels · 09-01-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cucamelsmd15

I think Mars would be better for the first option.

The thing is we've never put a man into 'space'. Don't forget that the moon is still in the Earth's gravitational field, so technically we've only ever sent unmanned craft beyond Earth's upper atmosphere.

First let's see if we can get a manned craft beyond the moon then we can talk about something farther.

jeff221 · 09-01-2006, 06:01 PM

These PCs you guys are using to bitch about the space program, you can thank the space program for them..... The space program is the begining of everything that falls under today's turn "Technology"....

The space programs will revolutionize the manufacturing industry.. Are you aware they can make a PERFECT ball baring in space? Lack of gravity makes these ball barings perfectly round, something that is impossible on earth...

Physics tell you that the imperfections in the ball is what slows down a rolling ball. In theory, if you could get a perfectly round ball, in a perfectly round vaccum (which also can be done from space when the technology to STAY and WORK in space is available) then you can create unlimited energy....

No, let's not spend money on the space program... Let's invade another country... We've only spent 311 billion dollars destroying and occuping IRAQ... Who wants free unlimited energy anyway... we've got a unlimited supply of $10.00 a gallon gasoline...

View Poll Results: Should the US return astronauts to the moon?
Yes	30	47.62%
No	33	52.38%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

09-01-2006, 04:16 PM	#1
jdavionic XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: GA Posts: 5,105	Should the US spend money to return astronauts to the moon? Just a straightforward question

09-01-2006, 04:21 PM	#2
einheit 13 XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Virginia, C.S.A. Posts: 5,668	What are we gonna go back to the moon for?? I voted no, unless were gonna drill for oil or set some kinda evil death ray... __________________ Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action “It is the lack of will power, and not the lack of arms which render us incapable of offering any serious resistance.”

09-01-2006, 04:28 PM	#4
Ajcrash XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,216	Not unless their is a hell of a good reason; like setting up a station to venture out further from there. I like the death ray idea as well. __________________ "The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps." Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945

09-01-2006, 04:33 PM	#5
mgeoffriau XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Jackson, MS Posts: 1,076	Just to make a small point: The question is most accurately posed: Should Americans spend money to return astronauts to the moon? And the answer to that question, at least for me, is no. If there are private sector interests that would like to see space exploration continue, then so be it. If there really are great scientific advances, then somebody will want to make a profit at it, and risk their own money to see it happen. __________________ I felt early on I wasn't going to be a respectable citizen. -- Cormac McCarthy We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.

09-01-2006, 04:23 PM	#3
JakeUSA XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CO Posts: 436	It is my opinion that there are enough private foundations out there for the sciences that federal funding for NASA should be extremely limited. I don't really see any real benefit of knowing how potatos grow in space, nor do I know of any positive impact bringing moon rocks home to earth. If the arts, which benefit our culture, are nearly entirely funded by private foundations and grants, then I believe the same should apply for many scientific fields.

09-01-2006, 05:56 PM	#8
Krackels XDTalk 15K Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Southeastern PA Posts: 19,001 Blog Entries: 5	Woot! a resounding NO! I have to agree. There are enough private foundations out there to fund moon exploration, so why should I have to pay for it? First NASA! Then SETI! __________________ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin America's Third Parties --- Duping the Foolish and Idealistic since 1832. PA Roll Call .................... My Blog

09-01-2006, 06:01 PM	#10
jeff221 XDTalk 2K Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Northwest Indiana Posts: 2,364	These PCs you guys are using to bitch about the space program, you can thank the space program for them..... The space program is the begining of everything that falls under today's turn "Technology".... The space programs will revolutionize the manufacturing industry.. Are you aware they can make a PERFECT ball baring in space? Lack of gravity makes these ball barings perfectly round, something that is impossible on earth... Physics tell you that the imperfections in the ball is what slows down a rolling ball. In theory, if you could get a perfectly round ball, in a perfectly round vaccum (which also can be done from space when the technology to STAY and WORK in space is available) then you can create unlimited energy.... No, let's not spend money on the space program... Let's invade another country... We've only spent 311 billion dollars destroying and occuping IRAQ... Who wants free unlimited energy anyway... we've got a unlimited supply of $10.00 a gallon gasoline... __________________ Springfield XD40 Sub-Compact Bi-Tone (.40S&W) Springfield XD9 Tactical Black (9mm) Springfield G.I. Milspec Stainless 1911-A1 (.45 ACP) Kimber Raptor II 1911 (.45 ACP) Kel-Tec P-3AT (.380 ACP) Charter Arms "Off Duty" Revolver (.38 Spl) Ruger 22/45 Mark III (.22 LR) Smith&Wesson M&P15A 16in AR-15 (.223/5.56 NATO) BushMaster Carbon-15 (.22 LR) BushMaster XM15 E2S 20in AR-15 (.223/5.56 NATO) Stoeger P350 Tactical Pump Shotgun (12 Gauge) Winchester Black Model98 Canon (10 Gauge)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode