To go to the moon or not to go to the moon?

Should we return to the moon?

  • Total voters
    12
Feet planted in space =

met-a-phor ... a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another. (Ex. the curtain of night, "all the world's a stage", etc..)

Used to imply that once a colony is established on the moon (gravity), homo-sapiens will be there to stay.
 
It will be a good thing if it's done for good reasons, not like the super conducting supercollider which was just pork barrelling.
 
I say we spend money to put weaponize space so we can go back to the moon any god darn time we want and not have to worry about a chinese flag sitting on the sucker.
 
rotc boy said:
We have already put people on the moon and theres probably nothing more we could learn by sending men up there than we could by sending robots.
Click to expand...
:evil: Sure sacrifice us robots, we can always be replaced.
 
As Charge mentioned the large mineral resources of the moon, I wondered: "What if, say, the US claimed sovereignty on the moon and declared annexation in order to use it either as a huge resource supply or a military/technological base?". I don't think any international treaty bans that. I mean it's not Antarctica, it's the moon.
 
I say we should. Eventually we are going to explore the moon and mars and so forth. Lets think of the costs. Going to mars would take a lot of materials, money, and resources. Going to the moon wouldn't take as much of these things and we could transport various things needed to make a lunar base. Once that is completed various countries could work together to make a rocket to mars with live people. Because we are already out of the atmosphere we don't need all the resources to go through the atmosphere. Besides those of us that want to be an astronaut and are determined to not give up (me ^_^) of course I would prefer to go to the moon. Set me up and ship me out!....blast.....
 
International Space Agreement

(United Nations)

The Moon Agreement was considered and elaborated by the Legal Subcommittee from 1972 to 1979. The Agreement was adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 in resolution 34/68. It was not until June 1984, however, that the fifth country, Austria, ratified the Agreement, allowing it to enter into force in July 1984.....................

...................The agreement provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and that an international regime should be established to govern the exploitation of such resources when such exploitation is about to become feasible.

_______________________________________________________________________________
In other words, no one (including the US) can claim sovereignty over the moon - only a consortium of nations under UN auspices can claim the moon or ANY celestial body according to the agreement.

It remains to be seen whether this agreement can retain the force of international law once man gets into space and begins to populate other planets and "celestial bodies".
 
In my opinion, we should have had a colony/scientific base on the moon twenty years ago!

By the year 2,000 we should have been building a base on Mars.

We have the technology, all we lack is the will.
 
There are a number of reasons why there should be a base there the first is for exploration and the other is for a stepping stone to outer space. What we learn on the moon would be invaluable in setting up bases on other planets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top