[Cincinatus' Wife]

Back to the Moon. This time to stay.

[Support Free Republic]

"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our
wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams -

Make your statement.

[RightWhale]

Back to the Moon. This time to stay.

We shouldn't intend to stay on the moon. The moon would be a springboard to launch us into the deep end, and we won't look back. Head that Pontiac GTO down an endless highway with no speed limit. The power. It's American, can't you feel it? Sorry, Michael, you're stuck in the mud, can we give you a tow?

[Norse]

If Kraut wants to go to the moon, he can pay for it himself.

[theFIRMbss]

>Back to the Moon. This time to stay.

Forty years ago,
the high tech industry was
a domestic biz.

Big ticket science
was corporate welfare, but
the cash trickled down

to to US workers.
Big science was a driver
program for culture.

Now high tech business
is all based in Asia. Now
corporate welfare

will not trickle down
to Americans, it will
get sucked to Asia.

Big ticket science
will be a huge, whirlpool drain
of US dollars.

Asia will get rich.
(Richer.) And Americans
will get TV pics

that look like low-res
special effects shots from a
really dull movie.

[samtheman]

It took 100,000 years for humans to get inches off the ground.

He's leaving out the entire history of balloons.

[samtheman]

The space station's main purpose now appears to be . . . keep Russian rocket scientists from moving to Baghdad.

As purposes go, that's not half bad.

[bassmaner]

The cost to the United States? Twenty-one billion dollars, enough to support 127 Polar Landers. Instead of squandering $21 billion on a weightless United Nations (don't we have one of these already?),

LOL! But a large part of that $21B could potentially be covered by rich space tourists. IMO, NASA looked like bumbling bureaucrats when they attempted to stymie the millionaire "space tourist" who was willing to cough up $20M of his own money to make the trip - the more entrepreneurial Russians (!) gladly took his money.

we should be directing our resources at the next logical step: a moon base. It would be a magnificent platform for science, for observation of the universe, and for industry. It would also be good training for Mars. And it would begin the ultimate adventure: the colonization of other worlds.

In total agreement. But I believe that NASA needs to get out of the way of private companies who are willing to spend their venture capital to make the moon base happen, outside of the realm of government control. The NASA mission should be redefined: it should be on the cutting edge of research and exploration, but it should step aside for private concerns looking for return on investment to handle the more mundane aspects of space travel, exploration, and eventually exploitation. It can be done.

[tet68]

The cost to the United States? Twenty-one billion dollars, enough to support 127 Polar Landers. Instead of squandering $21 billion on a weightless United Nations (don't we have one of these already?).

Yeeeooowww!!

[finnman69]

Americans cant get excited about the moon and MArs becasue hollywood provides the imagery for them in a more spectacular fashion. Put some IMAX cameras on these probes and lets see what happens.

[marron]

As long as our sights are limited to this horizon we are going to keep dividing up the same pie over and over, cutting the slices finer and finer.

We have to lift our gaze higher, and get it in our heads that there is a very big world out there. As another writer said it, we have to blow the top off this mason jar.

[livius]

Great article.

[mylife]

WHAT MANNER OF CREATURE ARE WE? It took 100,000 years for humans to get inches off the ground. Then, astonishingly, it took only 66 to get from Kitty Hawk to the moon. And then, still more astonishingly, we lost interest, spending the remaining 30 years of the 20th century going around in circles in low earth orbit, i.e., going nowhere.

Its the same with all manner of progress, Those who have no idea of the effort involved in these milestones become complacent and demanding. Consumers tend to have no longterm respect for dedication to progress, they think things just happen.

[thoughtomator]

With regards to the "What happened?" question... Jimmy Carter happened, then after a brief ressurection of space ambitions during Reagan's term, Clinton happened.

[TruthNtegrity]

Bookmarking to read later.

[omniscient]

The response so far to this article really surprises me. I would have assumed that only leftist, anti-technology, organic, envirowacko types would have opposed big public spending on a space program. It looks like the lack of vision and imagination is actually much more universal, spanning even ideological boundaries. I was equally surprised when discovering how many conservatives actually believed in JFK assassination conspiracy theory.

[Havoc]

This guy is always a good read and a great treat to listen to.

[cruiserman]

Today, funding for NASA is one fifth what it was in 1965, less than 0.8 percent of the federal budget.

That's not a valid comparison. How about a comparison of money in constant dollars?