Why do we have to go back to the moon?

Question

We've been there before, set up radio and TV towers, found the algae that supposedly supported life on the moon, etc. It just seems like a waste of money seeing there is nothing really left to do.

Answer 1

I agree with you. Even though we found water there, and have had the rovers running around for nearly 2 years, it seems that it is not worth sending men there again. I think we should use it as a repository for our nuclear waste, and for testing ICBMs. The radioactivity from these would not endanger anyone, and we would be putting to good use a worthless piece of rock. I have read that the Chinese are preparing to send some of their waste to the moon also. So this seems to be the general consensus about what the moon is good for.

Answer 2

I take it that you have never met a rock hunter, a miner, or a geologist. While I tend to agree with you since there are millions of people starving to death here on Earth, I do suspect that there will be some future launches of landing missions to the Moon in future years. The problem of when will be dependent upon finances and mission priorities. If either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama make it into the Oval Office in 2008, all bets are off anyhow. So your best bet will be to wait until after Nov. 2008 and see if we are all still alive.

Answer 3

We've been to Antarctica, set up radio and TV towers, found bacteria there, etc. Seems like a waste of money - there's nothing really left to do there, so why keep going back?

We can learn a lot going back to the moon:
- how to build a base on an airless world with no resources except rock and sunlight for power - can we "bake" oxygen and water out of the rocks, can we use rocks like on the moon or Mars as building material, etc.
- how to protect people and equipment from solar flares and cosmic radiation (Earth has the magnetosphere that protects us, but the moon and Mars don't and some of the outer moons of Jupiter and Saturn may not either)
- how to socially and emotionally thrive in a sealed environment with no "fresh air" or green plants to look at

The gravity of the moon is one sixth that on Earth, so launching long-distance probes to other planets is easier (uses less fuel, less atmospheric interference).
Then there is medical or physical research that would be harmful on Earth but would pose no threat if done on the moon.
The low gravity means we could run low-gravity physics and engineering experiments.
Since the days are 2 weeks long, an array of solar panels around the equator of the moon could provide clean renewable energy for not just the moon but could be beamed back to Earth as microwaves to collectors on Earth - we could eliminate our need for fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The far side of the moon is always shielded from the Earth's magnetic field and our electronic interference, so large telescopes would have no interference. Plus, no atmosphere means there is no atmospheric interference, no haze or smog or clouds to worry about. Plus a lower gravity means we can build really big telescopes without the huge amount of support materials (and moon rock may make good glass for telescope lenses).
The longer baseline of an observatory on the moon means we could make more accurate measurements of distances to other stars.

There are probably a lot of other things I've left out.

Answer 4

I'm gonna bet 100/1 that you have no idea what all the previous Lunar missions were all about. To find life? water? play Space Golf? Take pictures of the Earth from the Moon? Bring a piece of rock from space?

Well, not really. Armstrong and those who followed, did not go to the moon on vacation - well, maybe Armstrong did, since he didn't conduct many experiments, but not those that followed..

Seriously, I think that before you ask 'why go back to the moon?', you learn all about the previous lunar missions. There is very interesting data if you search the internet carefully, and stay away from wikipedia, because you will only find an overview of the missions, or what they like to call "Mission highlights" to keep it simple.

So you have an idea of what they do up there, I'll give you a link to Apollo's 12 lunar checklist:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12_cdrcuff.pdf
Sure you might not understand most of it, but I chose this checklist because of what the backup crew inserted on them - just read it, and **look at the pictures**. The best stuff is at page 6 of the pdf file. This checklist was actually on the moon! lol

Answer 5

The only real reason to go back to the moon should be to set up a tracking system for rouge asteroids. A few years ago one passed between the earth and the moon, close call. We could go the way of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. For what we spend on a few aircraft carriers, we could set up high power deep space radar on the lunar poles to track them. It would at least give us a few years to get something up there to stop it. If one hits us there won't be any intelligent life here for at least 2 million years or so.

Answer 6

Actually, going back to the moon is essential.

I understand that many people feel it a waste of time, money and resources to undertake space exploration. They have a point when considering all those resources could be spent on making things here on Earth better. Such as feeding and housing the poor, arming ourselves against ever growing threats of terrorism around the world, correcting global warming, developing alternative fuels.

All of those are great arguments and I would agree with all of them. However, we cannot abandon research in space, simply because our inquisitive nature compells us. In addition, man has always benefitted from the technology invented to overcome obstacles of space research. It propels us forward to doing greater things, and ultimately, with any luck, finding out the answer to the profoundly ultimate question of "are we alone?".

But, I digress. Why we need to go back to the moon, and wy were are planning to go back to the moon is not simply to research it more. We do need to research to see if it has the basic compounds to build structures and extract some type of fuel resource. The goal is to build a base which we can launch other expeditions from.

It takes an enormous amount of fuel to break the orbit of Earth. So much so that vehicles expell the greater portion of their fuel storage for this task. It would be much more efficient to launch from the moon.

I, for one, understand the significance of space travel and research. All of the things wrong in our societies must be tended to, but maybe, just maybe, somewhere out there is the answer to many of our problems.

~jaz~

Answer 7

Maybe instead of going forward [not back] to the Moon again, we should go back into the caves our ancestors moved out of. Or we could just sit around doing nothing but turning oxygen into carbon dioxide and playing with our Xboxes and never make any progress. Let me guess, you probably have a Play Station II as well, huh?
I could explain why it IS worth the money and that there are many things left to do on the Moon, but you would've had to have paid attention in your science, and even economics, class to understand the terms I'd use.

Answer 8

Well, one day we will mine the mineral resources that are found on the moon.

We will also set up astronomical observatories to observe space in a way it cannot be observed from earth.

Also one day, people will most likely live on the moon.

We are destroying and overpopulating the earth at an alarming rate. We are going to have to think towards the future of the planet.

Also it seems that a lot of useful technology is always derived from ventures like this.

Answer 9

Uh, to move the moon landing movie set up there before the Japanese send up their mapping satellite?(heheh)

Answer 10

in some ways it is kind of a useless hunk of rock, but if we seriously want to colonise space it is a good stepping stone. it's only a few days away, it doesn't have a big gravity well, it has some natural resources, it would be a good base for astronomical observatories.

also scrooge, because it's there!