It's Been 43 Years Since Man First Walked on the Moon: Does Sending People Into Space Still Make Sense?
deBrice
2012/07/20 19:00:00
SLIDESHOW: Does Sending People to Space Make Sense?
1 of 6
The Apollo 11 Crew
Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins
-
The Apollo 11 Crew
Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins
-
"We choose to go to the Moon"
On May 25, 1961, J.F. Kennedy announced his plan for an ambitious space program: The moon!
-
First Moon Landing
On July 20th 1969, two Americans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, were the first human beings to walk the moon.
-
Mission Success
On July 24th, 1969, Houston mission control euphoria: The capsule returned to Earth, with three astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. The mission was a complete success!
-
Appolo 13: "Failure is not an option"
The Appolo 13 issue with the air filter forces engineers to find a way to filter CO2 in the capsule with only what's available to the astronaut. Ultimately, they found a solution that saved those astronauts.
-
What's Next?
More than likely, no more humans will be sent into space, at least not in the near future. We are now in the era of AI and Drone.
It's Been 43 Years Since Man First Walked on the Moon: Does Sending People Into Space Still Make Sense?
|
|
|||||
|
145 votes
|
|
23% | |||
|
479 votes
|
|
77% | |||
Forty-three years ago, two Americans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, were the first human beings to ever walk on the moon. But in today's space program, sending people to space isn't really a priority anymore, when drones and rovers can go farther, for a longer period of time and for a cheaper amount (one-way ticket instead of a round trip.) Do you think sending people into space still makes sense?
Top Opinion
-
Franklin 2012/07/20 20:36:21Yes, there is no substitute to an astronaut.
You stil have no explanations or sources for your opinion and you continue to ignore the vast amount of accomplishments and advantages to the science, medical, farming and communications industries due to NASA.
Oh I get it, the EPA want's to do the same thing to rocket fuel as it did to jet fuel.
During the late 90's early 00's I appreciated and utilized NASA, with my students. It was as valuable a resource as The Library of Congress THOMAS, the Smithsonian, NOAA, local business partnership, etc.
Thank God the NASA site still offers the education partnership but I'm sure it won't for long, i've been posting warnings for my teacher friends to print print print. :(
Ever since Al Jazeera reported and Bolden commented and started the Muslim nation outreach, it's understandable why people question it's value.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/pol...
It is not worth our money.
While in this country , we should propose that this nations wealth be spent to make this nation better and they can do as they please.
Good fences make good neighbors.
Where'd you get this information?
Secondly...
It's a long video and I by far expect nobody to watch the whole thing, but it's an astronomer speaking about why allowing the space program to continue to develop is important.
Humans are explorers. Space is, as they say, the final frontier. We have our beautiful planets, but we want to know what's out there. What can we discover? What scientific advancements can be made? Space has fascinated humans since its existence began and now we have the technology to reach it. If we stop now, it would be like nobody returning to the "New World" after it was discovered? America wouldn't exist. Right now, we can't do much, but you have to ask, "If we stop, what will we miss accomplishing?"
I leave you with the voice of Carl Sagan:
And what, exactly, is unconstitutional about space travel?
By the way, NASA's budget isn't even a full penny on the dollar. It's a half penny.
Please tell me the Article and Section where I can read the Constitutionally-granted authority for the Federal Government to travel in space. I can't seem to find it in my copy.
I don't care what NASA's budget is. It should be cut entirely if their mission is unconstitutional.
There are always astronauts on board the International Space Station (though they may not necessarily be American): google it. They're there to maintain it, for scientific purposes, and to maintain satellites (government satellites which are essential).
Question: Did satellites exist before the international space station? If so, how were they maintained, since they require constant maintenance?
Yes, as you stated astronauts are there "for scientific purposes". Is this the United States of Scientific Research? No. It's not. As far as maintaining "essential" satellites is concerned, I want proof that they are essential, from a Constitutional standpoint. Show me the money. Or better, show me the Article.
I can say this: the space program has done more and brought more worth back than most social programs. You may not be the "United States of Scientific Research" but unless you want scientific progress to halt, you shouldn't stop it. Not to mention that the US isn't the only country up there, so who are you to say manned space travel (in general) should be halted?
Space travel is progress for progress's sake. It's the advancement of human civilization. It inspires people to become scientists and gives them something to contribute to. Every penny that goes into the space program is a penny that goes into the future.
You are probably right about your next statement but it is still irrelevant. ALL social programs are unconstitutional. I don't want scientific progress to halt so I'm not suggesting outlawing scientific research or an international ban on space travel. As I've already stated, if a private company wants to spend its money on space travel or research, be my guest! Please give geeks something to do besides play Halo and Angry Birds.
I agree completely with your last paragraph with one clarification, you need to add the words "privately-funded" before both "space travel" and "space program".
Pragmatically however, it simply makes economic sense. I understand that you may not be able to comprehend the advantages of having a first rate scientific community, or the contribution to the science and technology which we rely on daily that investment in pure research and exploration have afforded us. But estimates are that the ROI for such research is around 33%.
When taking into account that the IRS estimates that it has wasted over $8 billion on EITC over payments, the federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008, we spend $25 billion annually on maintaining vacant federal properties, spend $75 billion annually on farm subsidies that go to commercial farms, which report average household incomes of $200,000 or more, the IRS has more than $300 billion in uncollected taxes, etc. The notion that a space budget of under $10 billion is being questioned as somehow too costly and unnecessary is a joke.