Going - or going back - to the Moon.

[Anchorman]

The thread title is a nod to the sensitivity of certain posters who might be affected by the news......... A loony signs a paper committing lunar explorations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322236?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

[Shaker]

I'm a little torn.

On the one hand I'm committed to human space exploration. It's the greatest adventure there is.

On the other I'm not sure (but open to being convinced by a good argument) of exactly what a return to the moon will serve or practically achieve when to my mind we should be pushing further out - to Mars, principally. And the staggering cost, when we have such urgent problems on this planet to tackle, is an issue.

[jeremyp]

And the staggering cost

The cost of the entire Apollo programme was about $130 billion in today's money over about ten years. To give you some perspective, the US defence budget for one year in 2015 was $637 billion

[BeRational]

I'm a little torn.

On the one hand I'm committed to human space exploration. It's the greatest adventure there is.

On the other I'm not sure (but open to being convinced by a good argument) of exactly what a return to the moon will serve or practically achieve when to my mind we should be pushing further out - to Mars, principally. And the staggering cost, when we have such urgent problems on this planet to tackle, is an issue.

I thought the Moon and its resources could be used as a staging post for more long haul trips.
It might be possible to make rocket fuel on the moon, and it will be easier to lift?

[Shaker]

The cost of the entire Apollo programme was about $130 billion in today's money over about ten years. To give you some perspective, the US defence budget for one year in 2015 was $637 billion

True - but there were far more programmes than just Apollo. And the comparison apparently doesn't take inflation into account - $25.4 billion in 1973 (NASA's final estimate as reported to Congress) is the equivalent of $221 billion in 2016. Your $130 billion was a 2010 estimate by the Space Review and is much, much lower than that provided by NASA themselves.

[floo]

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/oumuamua-alien-spacecraft-proof-life-seti-breakthrough-latest-asteroid-ship-a8104771.html

Alien spacecraft or asteroid?

Sorry about the long url but I thought it was interesting.

[Udayana]

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/oumuamua-alien-spacecraft-proof-life-seti-breakthrough-latest-asteroid-ship-a8104771.html

Alen spacecraft or asteroid?

Sorry about the long url but I thought it was interesting.

Another link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alien-probe-or-galactic-driftwood-seti-tunes-in-to-oumuamua/

[Udayana]

I'm a little torn.

On the one hand I'm committed to human space exploration. It's the greatest adventure there is.

On the other I'm not sure (but open to being convinced by a good argument) of exactly what a return to the moon will serve or practically achieve when to my mind we should be pushing further out - to Mars, principally. And the staggering cost, when we have such urgent problems on this planet to tackle, is an issue.

It is not clear where funding will come from for this as no new arrangements have been made. Nasa already had a programme for a gateway space station and Mars missions that could/would have involved some moon visits.

SpaceX and other private organisations also already have moon and Mars projects. Possibly Nasa will work with with them?

At base this new priority is something set out for political and Trump/Pence status boosting purposes: anything Obama set up must be rubbished!
 

[floo]

Some Christians believe our planet is the only one to host intelligent beings. I would like to  how they would react if our space exploration eventually discovers that we are not alone in that respect? What if some of them are more advanced than humans, and have discovered the origin of the universe, and prove it has nothing to do with any god? Of course the aliens might find us first!

[Anchorman]

Some Christians believe our planet is the only one to host intelligent beings. I would how they would react if our space exploration eventually discovers that we are not alone in that respect? What if some of them are more advanced than humans, and have discovered the origin of the universe, and prove it has nothing to do with any god? Of course the aliens might find us first!

I doubt whether one can 'prove' or disprove whether God - or whatever one would call an entity - started -or did not start - creation, floo.
That's a matter of faith.
Strange, though, that many astronouts )and a fe cosmonauts) have experienced a spiritual experience during or after space travel, and many 'lukewarm' believers have had life-changing experiences which has enhanced their faith as a result of their space travel.
I'm not suggesting space travel as a tool for evangelism, but the fact remains that it is a spiritual experience (depending on your definition of 'spiritual')

[Robbie]

A pointless exercise imo considering how much is needed on earth.
Still, very exciting.

[Udayana]

A pointless exercise imo considering how much is needed on earth.
Still, very exciting.

hmm.. but if we halted these projects, and those of other nations, would the resources saved go to sorting out the earth bound problems we have?

N Korea, Myanmar, Middle East, world poverty and inequality, global warming and pollution, health and new resistant diseases ...?

Or would all that remain unchanged whilst the rich find some other toys to distract them?

[jeremyp]

True - but there were far more programmes than just Apollo. And the comparison apparently doesn't take inflation into account - $25.4 billion in 1973 (NASA's final estimate as reported to Congress) is the equivalent of $221 billion in 2016. Your $130 billion was a 2010 estimate by the Space Review and is much, much lower than that provided by NASA themselves.

Well even $221 billion spread over ten years is considerably less than the US defence budget over ten years by a factor of nearly 30.

[Walter]

Well even $221 billion spread over ten years is considerably less than the US defence budget over ten years by a factor of nearly 30.

the financial cast should be irrelevant , they who can should get on with it .