Provide me a one single benefit of going on moon ?

[Quintessence]

I'm not certain this is a serious topic. It isn't difficult to come up with benefits of space exploration, whether it is this planet's moon or somewhere else. Whether or not the benefits conform to your personal set of values is a valid question, as is whether or not the cost-benefit leans one way or another.

 

[icehorse]

I'm too lazy to look it up this morning, but what's the DoD's budget compared to NASA's? 10 times, 50 times, 100 times?

Next, it's human nature to explore. If we deny that, what kinds of lives are we mapping out for ourselves?

I like the idea of putting some portion of the government's budget directly in the hands of tax-payers. What if, when you submit your 1040, you get to vote on the programs you like? Let's say that 10% of the government's budget was allocated to programs based on popular vote. I'd bet that the DoD would be looking at a reduction right quick-like.

 

[anna.]

Its all wastage of time and money, nothing else.

It wasn't the destination as much as it was the journey. The advancements in technology made in the process of getting us to the moon were enormous, and we as a society benefited from them.

 

[sealchan]

Its all wastage of time and money, nothing else.

Same with getting up out of bed...what use is that? We are all going to die anyway...

Sheesh! This OP is the very definition of short-sightedness.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm too lazy to look it up this morning, but what's the DoD's budget compared to NASA's? 10 times, 50 times, 100 times?

Next, it's human nature to explore. If we deny that, what kinds of lives are we mapping out for ourselves?

I like the idea of putting some portion of the government's budget directly in the hands of tax-payers. What if, when you submit your 1040, you get to vote on the programs you like? Let's say that 10% of the government's budget was allocated to programs based on popular vote. I'd bet that the DoD would be looking at a reduction right quick-like.

It would be nice to see more money for NASA.
But assuming it can't afford to do everything it wants,
how should limited resources be allocated?
I guarantee that any manned mission to Mars will
starve alternative programs. The cost of galavanting
around the solar system would be in the many hundreds
of billions of dollars range.
Would we want to do that instead of....
List of proposed space observatories - Wikipedia
Category:Proposed NASA space probes - Wikipedia

 

[Willamena]

There's a huge difference between Kennedy's vision and Trump's whim. I suspect he wants to go to the moon because he was told someone else will monopolize it first.

 

[pearl]

I see no need to go there again.
Big waste'o money.

Baby steps to Mars

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bang for the buck:
Remote sensing & unmanned probes give us so much more, eg, identifying
potentially life bearing planets outside our solar system, exploring the universe.

Outside of our solar system he?
You mean in a couple of thousand years, when our primitive space craft finally reach those planets that are lightyears away?

Going to the moon offers learning more about its geology. Meh....

That's a ridiculously shortsighted view.
If you actually really think that GOING TO THE MOON AND BACK will ONLY lead to learning about moon geology.... well, I can only ask you to think about that statement for just a few seconds. I'm sure you can figure out on your own how that is ridiculous.

Colonizing Mars:
This isn't even remotely practical for the foreseeable future.

And it surely won't be with the mentality you exhibit here with saying that going to the moon is a pointless exercise.

Why, you ask?

No, I didn't ask at all, actually.
But you are off course welcome to answer your own questions.

Travel there is so dangerous (radiation from years spent in space) & so expensive. The cost is ginormous. Re-supply of anyone there is difficult & spendy.

Well how about that....
Why is that, do you think?

Could it perhaps be because more research needs to be done and more / better technology and experience needs to be acquired first?

The first computers couldn't do sh*t, took up the same space as a football field, sucked a ridiculous amount of energy and were pretty much unpayable.

Now, you have a bazillion times that computing power in your pocket for not even a fraction of the cost.

Or cars... little over a century ago you could ask who needs cars, right? I mean, a horse is faster, more reliable and vastly cheaper. What's the point of a car?

Or airplanes.... Go tell the wright brothers that their attempt at flying is retarded. Indeed many, if not most, did. Now look at the world.


ALL technology at first is ridiculously expensive and almost unworkable.
Only through perceverance and investment, does that change.

Before even considering that, we need much cheaper & more reliable methods
of putting payloads in space.

And the only way to do that, is by actually perfecting the methods by which we can engage in space travel.
The point exactly.

The future:
Telepresence is the way. Man isn't getting any technological upgrades to make
use more productive or durable. But AI is rapidly advancing, with machines
becoming more & more capable of independently doing tasks formerly reserved
for humans. That's where the exciting & productive research lies.

That's ONE area, yes. There are other areas as well.

And they won't need advances in space travel related medicine, food, water,
oxygen, zero gravity toilets, or the huge overhead of a return trip to Earth.

But to get humans up there, you DO need all that.
Also, the technological progress made through perfecting space travel, are very usefull for technology on earth as well.

Sure, sure...space travel is fun for the very few people who actually do it.

Over a century ago, you could have said the exact same thing about cars and flying.

But the other 99.9999999% of the population experiences it remotely, no
matter whether a human or a robot sets foot on Mars.

So?

The only reason to send people to Mars is drama.
And that isn't good enuf for me.

First that's just your opinion.
Second, who are you to tell people what can or can't be enough for them?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And it still costs a buttload of money.

It is the American probes that are costly. Israel and India have done it with a much cheaper cost. Our first probe (Orbiter) cost us 54m USD in 2008, the second probe will cost us 125m USD (orbiter, lander and rover) and is slated for October. A 7-day crewed flight of 3 astronauts is slated for 2022, the government has approved 1.5b USD for it.

And happy birthday, TagliatelliMonster.

I like the idea of putting some portion of the government's budget directly in the hands of tax-payers. What if, when you submit your 1040, you get to vote on the programs you like? Let's say that 10% of the government's budget was allocated to programs based on popular vote. I'd bet that the DoD would be looking at a reduction right quick-like.

Nice suggestion, but the government think tanks my have more information than a common person.

 

[ChristineM]

Its all wastage of time and money, nothing else.

I think the prime motive for going to the moon was cold war oneupmanship.

However there have been considerable benefits, freeze dried food, water purifiers and memory foam to name a few.

And technology improvements such as the miniaturisation of electronics and cordless vacuum cleaners.

 

[exchemist]

Its all wastage of time and money, nothing else.

Learning how to launch large objects into space.

 

[viole]

Its all wastage of time and money, nothing else.

The fastest way to lose 5/6 of your weight without stupid diets and exercise.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

For brevity's sake, I'll address some things, but not others....

Outside of our solar system he?
You mean in a couple of thousand years, when our primitive space craft finally reach those planets that are lightyears away?

Going there isn't the goal.
- Learning about other planets & their formation.
- Possibly finding life elsewhere.

That's a ridiculously shortsighted view.

I'm actually taking the practical long view.
It's about exploring space in a manner which provides more information & understanding.
For the foreseeable future, manned missions aren't cost effective.

If you actually really think that GOING TO THE MOON AND BACK will ONLY lead to learning about moon geology.... well, I can only ask you to think about that statement for just a few seconds. I'm sure you can figure out on your own how that is ridiculous.

What do you expect to achieve by going to the moon...something
which can't be done more efficiently some other way?.

And it surely won't be with the mentality you exhibit here with saying that going to the moon is a pointless exercise.

I said it's "meh....", not pointless, my theme being that there
are more interesting things to do with NASA's budget.

No, I didn't ask at all, actually.
But you are off course welcome to answer your own questions.

It seems you don't appreciate my mirthful tactic, eh.

Well how about that....
Why is that, do you think?
Could it perhaps be because more research needs to be done and more / better technology and experience needs to be acquired first?

Let's do the basic research, but not set unreasonable goals (as some have suggested).
The ISS is far more useful in that regard than an actual trip to Mars. We're learning the
many many details of the humans-in-spaceships systems. It's worth spending many
decades with such ventures because we can afford to make mistakes with something
easily resupplied, as opposed to a ship on its way to or from Mars....if it ever becomes
worth sending people there.

The first computers couldn't do sh*t, took up the same space as a football field, sucked a ridiculous amount of energy and were pretty much unpayable.

Now, you have a bazillion times that computing power in your pocket for not even a fraction of the cost.

I wholeheartedly agree.
And this is the change which is making remote sensing & unmanned space
travel more & more practical. Humans remain the same. But machines
are rapidly becoming more capable. It's a game changer.

ALL technology at first is ridiculously expensive and almost unworkable.
Only through perceverance and investment, does that change.

Our question isn't whether to persevere, but rather how best to persevere.
I don't see more manned Moon missions as the best use of resources.

Over a century ago, you could have said the exact same thing about cars and flying.

So you speculate.
But seeing unanticipated historical technological progress doesn't mean
that everything imagined is actually worth doing or even achievable.

So?

We explore space not for the enjoyment of the few who go there,
but rather for the embiggenment of the rest of us. So if we can
get better results without humans in space, this should be preferred.

First that's just your opinion.

Opinions are why we all come here.
I offer mine. You offer yours.

Second, who are you to tell people what can or can't be enough for them?

I am Revoltingest.
The universe fascinates me, & I want to see
humans do that which is most interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

Learning how to launch large objects into space.

That we know how to do.
The trick is to bring the cost down.
It currently costs us about $10K or more to launch a pound of stuff into orbit.
Get that down to $100, & it will radically change our perceptions & goals.

 

[Revoltingest]

And technology improvements such as the miniaturisation of electronics and cordless vacuum cleaners.

I don't think the Apollo program effected those technologies.
But I really like our new Dyson cordless vac.

 

[Enoch07]

Its all wastage of time and money, nothing else.

To set up a permanent base to launch deeper space exploration. Breaking through the atmosphere is the hardest/most fuel consuming part of space travel. Build an outpost on the moon to refuel/repair then launch again from there will make getting to Mars and beyond exponentially eaiser.

 

[Revoltingest]

To set up a permanent base to launch deeper space exploration. Breaking through the atmosphere is the hardest/most fuel consuming part of space travel. Build an outpost on the moon to refuel/repair then launch again from there will make getting to Mars and beyond exponentially eaiser.

I speculate that your goal of deep space manned exploration
would be better served by a permanent base in Earth's orbit.
- It's closer...much closer.
- You avoid much of the the fuel penalties of escaping Earth's orbit,
& then all penalties of landing on & taking off from the Moon.
- Did I mention that it's closer?
That is of enormous value, particularly when things go wrong.
And things do go wrong.

 

[Sky Rivers]

It would be useful from a strategic point of view. Earth's defenses are quite weak. A moon base could be helpful, armed with phasers and photon torpedoes. We're woefully unprepared in the event of an alien invasion, so we need to get cracking.

So... Why don’t we already have one?

 

[Revoltingest]

So... Why don’t we already have one?

Who says we don't?

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think the Apollo program effected those technologies.
But I really like our new Dyson cordless vac.

Apollo 11 moon landing: top 15 Nasa inventions

I dont like dyson stuff, it is grossly overpriced and james dyson is something of a hypocrite with his "british made" advertising. He shipped production to the far east to reduce costs