Return to the Moon by 2024
 

As today marks the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's being the first men to walk on the moon, it has been reported that the goal of NASA's Artemis program is to return a crew to the moon by 2024, putting astronauts near the lunar south pole.

At least one of the crew members will be a woman, NASA officials have said . . . that certainly works for me! :coolsmiley:

And if any Villagers are looking a great day trip or two day trip, I would recommend visiting the Kennedy Space Center and the U.S Astronaut Hall of Fame . . . especially if you have grandchildren visiting.

Return to the moon
 

Would be interesting.

Nice.

Fascinating, and would hold the interest of the world for a brief time.

It would be expensive too. And somewhat dangerous for the highly trained people going.

It would be expensive too. REAL expensive.

Perhaps the money could be better spent?

Or not.

Perhaps we should redouble our efforts to cut back using single use plastic, or look more carefully at take out genes?

Just musing.

I agree. Way too expensive. Put a donation space on the IRS tax return, and let people donate money for the mission.

Going to the moon is VERY EXPENSIVE.

However also look at all the technology break throughs, the medical advances and the many other major changes brought about by our last trip there. You would not have the the current laptop technology or the advances in food preservation or the things like cyclotron radiation (which has saved thousands of children with brain cancer) or so many other advances in science that are common today. We probably gained 25 years of technology improvements by the last effort. And I am sure we would make many more by doing it again.

So personally I believe the expense is well worth it.

They should start some kind of space tourist business and charge a great deal. I mean NASA.

A lot of very rich people would probably pay 50 million or more for that special holiday in space.

I have not found the true return on investment with the trips to the moon. The first set of trips were politically driven.....beat the Russians.


There is a post mentioning possible benefits of the moon shots, but even if some of these break-thru's were related.........there is even a higher probability the break-thru's would have happened without the shots.


It was very cool back in the 60's, but I wondering






Jus don't kno.

If going to the moon was a "giant leap for mankind" how come the United States, which represents only about 4 percent of mankind, had to pay for everything? And, when people talk about changes and spending money to protect the planet, how does the other 96 percent of the world population fit into the plan?

Even at NASA's current annual budget of $20 billion, which is not enough to even send astronauts into space, if would take 400 trips a year at $50 million each, just to break even.

"To infinity....and beyond"!
Steve

That’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout! :)

We need to get to Mars and further. I hope the future of mankind eventually extends to settlements on other planets in other star systems. I know that is a long way off but find it nice to dream.

My extended settlement will be heaven.



:pray:

:agree:

The topic of this thread is sending astronauts back to the moon. Many off topic posts diverting the thread have been deleted. If you wish to start a thread on global warming or reducing plastic waste pleas feel free to do so. Further off topic posts will be deleted.

Moderator

Over the years I've heard the same story about how the space program has brought about so many advances. Seems like all those sources that I can remember making those claims were either people in NASA or a politician whose district benefited from the space program. We already have so much national debt we don't need to be spending money we don't have.