NASA: Large quantity of water found on the moon - Page 3

Heh, you have to start sometime

Personally, I hope we do not blow a ton of money on the exploration of our moon. It is uninhabitable, period. Any attempt to go back is a pissing contest between countries.

I am all for space exploration... within reason. All of these ideas of actually going to nearly places is ridiculous. Our money is better spent on Earth: that single place that (to the best of our knowledge) can support life.

I agree with this point, and the ONLY reason for going "out there" would be to dump our collective waste in some place other than the one that can support life.

Sadly, most countries spend more money to "defend" the mother/father/whatever land than to feed the hungry who live in them.

We lived happily for thousands of years as hunter-gatherers. Then someone planted crops, good idea. No, bad idea. Now we have fewer forests, more deserts, more hungry. This can not go on...

But we have to start somewhere, no? Manned flights, for example, to Mars (which is also barren I know, but it is not in vacuum as it has gas atmosphere so its theoretically less hostile place to go) cannot really happen unless we can do so reliably and fast to, for example, moon. Its afterall closest place to test planetary colonies and such too. This program might help space-technology, propulsions and all, to go forward (if anything better is even possible than we have now that is).

Resources is definetly a questionmark though. Both moon and mars should have some mineable resources if we ever intent to do anything space related in larger scale. If not, then I fear we are definetly stuck here, I guess anyway?

I admit, being Scifi-fan definetly skews my views on rationality of the whole subject, expanding to space and so on.

Copier jams are almost always the result of poor maintenance by the lazy operator.

The fact we are able to get 833,000 lb's worth of metal into the air and back to the ground thousands of times a day safely has me believe we are smarter than you think..


The attitude back then was "git er done" they were much more willing to take risks.. Now if someone so much as breaks a nail something has to be redesigned.

I am not sure if you really are for that idea, but I object to that idea for the reasons I said previously. Space is not ours to pollute. If we cannot get our act together, that is our own fault. To send our pollution elsewhere in the solar system is beyond insane and arrogant. It is also financially silly.

Going to the moon or other peace time expenditures on a vast military-style mission are not pointless: a lot of technology was invented for the Apollo missions.

Yes, that may be true, but the motives for going are different this time. The first time was to see if we could get there. This time... what? Live there? Mine resources from there?

Again, I embrace research to further the human race, but I am at a loss as to the benefits at hand in this instance, side developments notwithstanding.

it doesnt matter what the motives are. simply going to the moon is one of the greatest achievements in human history and drives technological innovation.

\e: look at it this way: if the usa didnt spend that money on space exploration, it probably would have gone to built weapons.

Alright then, what new technological breakthroughs do you think would result if we did Moon Pt. II or land on Mars? I am not being cynical, but I cannot think of anything that we can take back to Earth to make it better.

As for space vs. weapons, it really speaks volumes about our priorities and further underscores my premise, doesn't it?

that's kind of the point. a moon mission presents unique problems that require unique answers. just doing it will drive innovation, much like wars do, but without the massive casualties.

as humans we are going to fight, but in the meantime why not work together to explore space?

Did people in the 1940s know the inventions of the future? No, and look at what we got out of it. Not doing something simply because the benefits are unclear is not how innovation works.

A mere 15 out of over 6300 inventions and innovations.

Apollo 11 moon landing: top 15 Nasa inventions - Telegraph

Both of you are thinking micro. I am thinking macro. There is nothing for us on the moon or Mars. All of the inventions listed in the previous link could have been developed on Earth to solve problems or fill needs on Earth.

How about we take that money and invest it to fast track nuclear fusion? Solutions to environmental issues? Ways to make recycling more financial feasible? Ways to make food and water more readily available to the impoverished (which, by the way will prevent wars in the future)? Improve our infrastructure?

Forget the moon and Mars. We need to ensure our survival here on Earth. We have problems here, so why are we even wasting out money on these silly ideas. There is nothing that we can get to out there that will help us here.

colonizing the moon is more realistic than nuclear fusion, saving the environment, and solving starvation put together. and no, velcro wouldnt exist without space exploration

You think only the Earth is relevant, and I think that we need to look at space and it's potential benefits? When you think individual issues and I think innovation as a whole? Who is thinking 'micro' here?

Sure, these innovations could have been developed in order to address direct needs on Earth, but guess where they got invented first? In the space program. The space program is a tremendous impetus for change.

Not to mention direct benefits from space research, if we're to think individual issues here. Perhaps there is some benefit to therapy in zero-G for some conditions (strictly hypothetical here). Perhaps the conditions on Mars or the Moon will allow us to expand technology that was hampered by our atmospheric blend.

You stated earlier, "Space is not ours to pollute." Surely, as you have also stated, if there is absolutely nothing of value on the Moon or Mars, what is wrong with polluting there, if it is saving Earth's environment? Personally, I don't believe that space should become our junkyard, but that is because my beliefs are consistent in that there are useful things to be learned in space.

I agree with redshifter when he says that "a moon mission presents unique problems that require unique answers." What we did with these Apollo innovations was take problems that were in the way of our objective (the Moon), solve these problems with technology, and then apply that technology to also help us on Earth. I do not see a flaw in that kind of innovation.

Your second paragraph makes some good points. Why don't we use all that money on direct issues? It's because when we look at a problem only one way, when we focus too closely, we lose many possible solutions. Again, applying redshifter's poignant quote, "a moon mission presents unique problems that require unique answers." Oftentimes, we need to look at a problem in a different way if we are to solve it.

Much earlier, you said this, "I am all for space exploration... within reason. All of these ideas of actually going to nearly places is ridiculous." Then what is the point of space exploration; to look and not touch? Space isn't an antique shop, it's not a museum. Space is all there is. If we can use outer (from our perspective) space to our advantage, why not? It is ultimately advantageous to our society to pursue human space exploration, and eventually, colonization.

Oh, I'd like to see your reasoning behind this one. For one, there is no environment that is suitable to human life on the moon. No atmosphere, huge fluctuations of temperature, and no topsoil that would allow for agriculture. How is all that going to get there? We could create a biosphere, but seriously, are you really telling me that doing so would be more realistic than fixing the problems we have here? Seriously? All of those Earth problems would follow us wherever we go, because the problem is with us and not with our environment.

Velcro would most certainly exist without NASA. Is the stuff made in space? No. The demand would have existed for something like velcro, and it would have been invented. It would only have come later.

You seem to think that these advancements would not exist without NASA. This is certainly untrue. They came sooner because the need was there at that time, but they would have definitely come. No CPU's et all without NASA, please...


I'd wager Earth becoming less suitable for human existence would be an even greater impetus for change, but I do not see any real action being taken on that front.

We have finite resources, and nobody cares about recycling. We have finite fossil fuels, and redshifter thinks that fusion is not realistic. How are we going to power our proposed moon colony? The coal we shlep with us? Let's get realistic here.

We do not have the desire to take on the tasks I stated with regards to Earth problems, and we want to talk about the moon and Mars? Talk about putting the cart before the horse...



I agree that there is much to learn in space. Having said this, I stated my objections regarding polluting other celestial bodies previously. I really have nothing else to add to it, but you at least know where I stand on that issue.


I am taking the fiscally conservative stance here. We do not have the money for these kinds of projects.

Our moon does not present any problem. We have been there. We can easily study it. We can research the effects of zero gravity on the space station. Time to move on.


What advantage is space to us, if we cannot even exist on Earth without destroying parts of it? We have all we need here, and we waste it without giving it a second thought.

I do not see space as ours for the taking. I guess we disagree on this issue. I see space as a learning and species continuance resource, for sure, but based on the way we use up our resources here, I do not think we "deserve" to take from space yet. Maybe I am alone on this issue, but that is just the way I see things.