On the contrary, this is an area in which the private sector works perfectly, by noticing that the returns aren’t there and - this is the difficult part - not wasting billions of dollars for no real benefit.
Sometimes “No” is the right answer.
I am very strongly opposed to the decision to cancel this project. I think it’s a terrible mistake, and I hope Obama rethinks his ideas about NASA in general.
I think what you meant to ask was “Would you like to learn more?”
Service guarantees citizenship!
Bollocks. All physics suggest “spreading out to the universe” is nothing more than Sci Fi fantasy with about as much a chance of happening as actual magic. The pissing away billions on such ridiculous fantasy is rather worse than anything you could pin on the Left re fantasy based social policy.
At the very least spending on bio science - human and plant - where terrestrial advances might perhaps make solar system colonisation something other than heated fantasy of scifi geeks.
Quite.
Private sector =/= for-profit ventures.
Actually, it’s working fine: there’s profit in launching satellites, so private sector is moving in… while NASA switches to something that hasn’t been done yet.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20002088-239.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/science/space/9nasa-in-sci-23-36.html
Infrastructure! That’s what we need. Let’s build a framework in space, so that we can go up there and work and stay, rather than just sticking our heads up and vanishing again.
I am very disappointed to see this. But I’m probably even more disappointed to see such widespread opinions in the public that manned space exploration is pointless because, OMG, it costs money! As everybody should be aware of, NASA funding constitutes a tiny percentage of the nation’s budget (0.6%, according to wikipedia’s page on the 2008 budget), which basically immediately invalidates the constant “we have better things to worry about” tirade. Yeah, it’s really vital to society that we get that funding out of those nerds’ hands. Not to mention, as levdrakon said, the money doesn’t just flow directly into the hands of poor people or morph into houses for the homeless.
No, it’s not. This attitude is actually the main focus of my frustration.
-
The idea that the ONLY benefit has to be immediate and economic in nature. I strongly believe that in terms of long term benefit to society, space exploration tops the list of most cost-effective methods, by far. What other government program can you mention that, per dollar spent, has produced similar benefits to the knowledge gained about the universe, the technology spinoffs, and the inspiration for people to go into and excel in other science and engineering fields that NASA has?
-
We’ve already established that going into space has a near-negligible drain on our nation’s resources. So what do you have against the people who think developing moon colonies is the coolest idea ever, are willing to work to that goal, and have no motivation other than “just because we can”? Exploring, inventing, and in general, doing cool stuff because we can has been a key factor in humanity’s development. I find the stifling attitude of “people shouldn’t be dreaming about such ridiculous ideas” offensive.
:dubious: All physics suggests that it’s all fantasy? That is, as you put it, complete bollocks. There is nothing in physics that makes it impossible for humanity to spread outside of this solar system. It’s true that TODAY, we don’t have the technology to do so…but then again, 100 years ago, they didn’t have the technology to go to the moon. It wasn’t ‘impossible’, just not feasible, however. Those two are not the same thing.
Or…let’s put it another way. Show me what physics makes it impossible for humanity to ever leave this solar system and colonize another.
I think this was a big mistake on Obama’s part…and, seriously, it was done more for PR than anything else. What’s it going to save us, really? A few billion dollars? We are planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on health care…over a trillion. A couple billion here or there aren’t going to make any real difference. And we’d gain a lot by going back to the moon. There is the exploration and science aspects…there are a lot of things we still don’t know about the moon that we could learn by such a trip.
We’d also gain more a lot of engineering experience by sending people there for longer periods than the original Apollo missions were for (I think the plan was to send them there for a couple of weeks this time, instead of a couple days). We’d gain experience in how to build, operate and support a permanent facility there (that was also part of the plan, IIRC)…which is going to be invaluable if we ever decide to go to Mars. There are so many things we can learn by going back to the moon, so many things we can do there that we can’t do anywhere else…and it’s been cut to save the money that will simply be wasted on pork that will do nothing for us but fall through the waste cracks of government.
I’m seriously disappointed in this. 
-XT
You say this now but wait til V’ger comes back then you’ll be sorry 
Snark aside I agree entirely. Right now the biggest exploration bang for our buck is in unmanned missions. We really shouldn’t be thinking about human extra planetary exploration until we get a major increase in technology, that would make the benefits outweigh the costs.
Cite that I said “sole” anywhere? I suspect that if it was economical to get to the moon that space research would explode (in the good sense).
First, AFAIK and from (most) everything I’ve heard, the Constellation project has become a waste of money; to continue it would be to throw good money after bad. Second, funding for research – both in a general sense and for NASA specifically – has been increased by the administration (rather substantially, as I understand). Now, I’ll readily admit that my understanding could be wrong – in which case I’d appreciate being set right. 
But…my wife is a planetary geologist (mostly lunar research), and we both work at a small research institution (I’m the IT guy) that is very much in tune with what is happening in space project development and funding situations. While I’m not privy to any details, my impression is that things are getting better for NASA (and research) recently.
The initial capital investment is too high, the risks too great. That doesn’t mean it’s not economical, however. The US road system has been an economic boon to the country…but private industry didn’t and couldn’t initially build the thing because it cost to much for any company or group of companies to do on their own, and there was no way to recoup the costs in anything like a timely manner.
I think private companies COULD go to the moon, and even set up a base, but the initial costs would be enormous, and their ROI would be years or decades in the future. Eventually, having spent all that money, others would tie into their investment, and THEY would make money…but the initial company or companies would probably go broke before they started to turn the corner and make a profit.
-XT
Wrong.
Here is a partial list of technology with its roots in space travel development.
Bollucks yourself; a more narrow-minded and parochial approach to science is difficult to imagine.
What “physics” suggest this, specifically?
Much as I’d love to push on to the moon and the galaxy, ad infinitum, I have to agree with Obama. We don’t need a lot of basic research on the moon, what we need is some good engineering to get us into orbit at a reasonable price. If we can get into orbit cheap, the moon is not that tough. Perhaps this comes from going to a talk by Burt Rutan, but what we need now is a lot of different approaches to launch vehicles ironed out, and a bit more of a willingness to accept risk, which the government can’t do. And I agree that we need an economic reason to go to the moon again. We went last time for politics, but if we had gone for a good reason we might still be there. The old sf I used to read in '50s magazines assumed an established orbital presence before a moon launch. We did a short cut, and suffered for it. If four companies had done a shuttle, maybe one of them would have gotten it right.
I hope companies can find a better way to pay for spaceflight than bringing rich tourists to orbit - but I’ll settle for anything. Rich tourists are expendable, after all. 
Like finding intelligent life on Fox.
I agree…and disagree. It’s really two separate things, and we need both basic research and practical engineering for both. We need a cheaper, more reliable launch vehicle. And we need experience and development of landers, of setting up and allowing for the occupation of long duration and permanent facilities on other planets. The moon provides us with the perfect laboratory for one of those necessary research branches. We can get there. We can support whatever we put there. It’s only days away, but offers everything we need to learn and refine. Plus, as a bonus, it has a lot of science still to discover, an environment for experimentation for science and engineering that you can’t get here on earth and offers a great platform for mounting things like telescopes and such. It’s a win/win. It’s also not hugely expensive to get there, and it’s less risky than going to Mars…especially since we still have all that research and engineering to still develop.
Yeah…we need a new launch system. However, once we get it, we won’t suddenly just know all this stuff we’ve put on the back burner. Developing a new launch system is a vertical research path…it doesn’t help you develop all the other stuff you’d need to land and set up shop on another planet. While we are developing that new launch system we can be doing the OTHER lines of research necessary…plus discovering new things, and refining our understanding of both the science and engineering.
To me, it’s not an either/or proposition.
-XT
Spinoffs are great, but it always seems to be a bit of a round about way to get technology. If we want to build a better golf ball we should put money into golf ball physics, not into space engineering that will have the side effect of a better golf ball. Money would be better spent on basic research or on other large scale scientific enterprises that have real value in and of themselves. There is no reason to believe that the spinoffs we get from further research in manned space flight are any better than those you would get from spending the same money on research into unmanned space flight, or into fighting cancer, or into advanced fusion research.
We do need research on exotic launch vehicles, but we’ve been doing rockets for a long time. As for the other research, it would be a lot cheaper if we had commercial launch capability. When people do research in foreign climes, they don’t need government transportation, even if they are being funded by the government. In any case, not spending a fortune on a premature return to the moon now will free up money for real research.
No matter how Columbus dreamed, it was good that he didn’t try to reach the East when he only had canoe technology. He might have made it, as the Polynesians did, but it would have been hard to follow up. Our space technology is at the canoe level now - let’s build some sailing ships.
Well, all it takes is a moment to google “reasons to go to the moon.”
“Just because we can” isn’t the most often cited reason.