Originally posted by: Rockhound
Originally posted by: Jeff7
$100 billion????
Geez, they could blanket the moon with rovers for that much money. They could probably finance a few comm satellites to beam back data from the far side.
Sorry for my lack of enthusiasm about this matter. Really, rovers or landers could get so much more science for the dollar than humans. And with a round-trip communication time of maybe 3 seconds, remote guidance would become feasible.
The problem is there is no science to be gained from the moon. There is really nothing there of any significant interest. Won't matter if you put 1,000 rovers there, won't tell you a dam thing. Just like knowing if there was water on mars 2 billion years ago. This tells us what and helps us how exactly? There isn't water there now as far as we know so what's the big deal?
Its always "We need to find these things out" and "What are the origins of the universe" kind of mentality that just ends up costing billions of dollars for nothing. And if you think that this mission to the moon is going to only cost $100 billion you've got another thing coming. Double it right now. No government project like this ever costs what they say it will cost, can you say International Space station?
Another good one: If I told you tomorrow that the universe is 13,285,345,129 years old would you be happy? Why is this soooooooooooooooooooo important? What possible concrete value does this have on humanity?
NASA - just another massive government jobs program. Nothing more, nothing less.
Back in the 1960's it actually was a race between us and the Russians to see who could get there first. Now, who cares. If this is the best excuse we can come up with now (If we don't do it someone else will first), we are more pathetic than I thought.
Humans have always been explorers; we're taking it to another level with NASA. Some of my interests right now are the Prometheus project (fission-powered propolsion) which apparently is cancelled, and a Europa orbiter and lander. Europa has some source of heat, and a good possibility of a subsurface ocean.
Mars does have water ice, some decent deposits of it. And during the day, near the surface, it gets warm enough to turn it to vapor (pressure is too low for liquid water).
And as for my blanket of rovers bit, that was mainly hypothetical. If anything, I say to save the $100 billion and put it to more useful projects. A Hubble replacement perhaps, maybe out where the James Webb Telescope is to orbit (JWT doesn't see visible light wavelengths).
Maybe mining for materials to build the base on the Moon is an option?
Maybe, but that'd mean building refineries there, which will need power sources. One theory is that the moon was blasted off of Earth in its infancy, perhaps where the Pacific Ocean is now, which explains why the two worlds are made of such similar materials. So if the Moon has it, we've already got it here. Main advantage would be YEARS in the future - building and launching things from the Moon - lower gravity means either allowances for heavier probes, or less fuel used.
NASA's other benefits include technological spinoffs. Some that I found online awhile ago:
?Lifeshears -- A rescue tool which quickly cuts debris to free accident victims, using the same power source used to separate Solid Rocket Boosters from the Shuttle.
?Breast Cancer Screening -- A silicon chip originally developed for NASA's Hubble Space Telescope makes the process less painful, less scarring, and less expensive than the traditional biopsy.
?Grooved Runways -- Now applied to highways, this water-draining innovation has led to an astounding 85 percent reduction in highway accidents.
?Attention Getter -- Techniques used to measure brain activity in NASA pilots are being used to improve attention spans for children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
?cochlear implant
- Inspiration for Computer Mouse
- Bone Loss Research
- Sunglasses (derived from NASA research)
- Solar cell refinements
- An air filtration system that can kill all types of harmful bacteria - even anthrax -- and remove allergens from the air with better than 90 percent efficiency.
- An ultralight solar concentrator that gathers power from the Sun and efficiently converts it into electrical power. This could provide a significant source of energy for future space missions.
- A water purification process capable of removing two troublesome types of contaminants, perchlorate and nitrate, from water and rendering them harmless.
- Digital cameras and image processing
Pure science is very important too - science without a definite goal in mind. Without it, we'd still be living in caves. Leaving a cave offers no immediate benefits - all it does is expose you to the elements and predation. No advantage there, right?