Many Americans think NASA returning to the moon is a waste of time and it should prioritize asteroid hunting instead, a poll shows::Americans like NASA, but don’t support their funding going towards moon missions, according to new polls.
Who the heck did they survey that had this contradictory thought? 69% of dem and 70% of repub dissaprove of moon mission but 62% overall want more space travel??? How do they think we plan to have more space travel without a moon base?
Maybe they are bad ay data, cause that would be 31% Dem and 30% rep approve so add them together and round up a little and boom 62% approval
I point out why this is wrong but I suspect it wouldn’t help.
…well it might not help because I did it wrong on purpose trying to sort out why the OG article messed up? Unless I’m misunderstanding you
A ‘no take, only throw’ mentality.
A moon base is a waste of resources.
We aren’t really learning a whole hell of a lot by setting up a base on the moon. We’ve been there. We’ve endlessly explored it.
We are better off setting up a Mars base than a moon base. People act like it would be safer or easier to set up a base on the moon, but that’s not really the case. Once you are out there in space, getting to the moon versus Mars isn’t a monumental difference. It isn’t as if there was a major moon base problem we could just hop on over to the moon and save those people. Doesn’t work that way.
There are even a lot of people within NASA that see the moon base as a waste of money and would rather see the organization be a little more ambitious with its planning.
It’s not like every problem in space is running out of oxygen in 90 minutes. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where having additional resources in the matter of days vs months would make the difference in a life or death scenario. Especially if we were able to establish a decent support network on the ISS or other space stations.
Not to mention you would be able to realistically cycle out astronauts on a moon base, whereas being assigned to a mars base would be a one way trip for many.
We don’t even know whether people can maintain health in microgravity making enough to get to Mars. We don’t know if they’ll be functional when they get there. We don’t know what level of gravity is needed to maintain health. We don’t know odd people could survive the radiation for a trip to Mars.
Let’s figure some of these out in a shorter trip
Hmm, I think a huge thing you’ve overlooked is using the moon as a staging area like maximum Derek said above. We stockpile fuel, food, etc. And maybe even begin to manufacture vessels there to save from using a vessel stressed from an earthly launch. Would make Mars trips easier, asteroid missions, the like
Edit to add: I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s still some forms of metallurgy or other processes that can be discovered with a continuous scientific base on the moon, that they couldn’t attempt on the ISS or replicate here in vacuum
The Moon is great because of close proximity to Earth (communication, and logistics), and because of low gravity.
Space launches are expensive because of gravity. Mars is similar to Earth in that regard. To launch from Moon, we can use electromagnetic launchers installed on the surface, powered by solar panels or nuclear reactors. To launch from Mars, we need chemical rockets which are mostly fuel, like on Earth.
If we ever want to do space exploration or even space industry on scale, we need to get away from chemical rockets. We either need to make something like a space elevator / hook / sling / whatever, or locate the assembling industry and launch facilities outside of the massive gravity wells of planets. It’s hard to imagine humans launching more than a few probing missions to Mars or asteroids, without simultaneously developing a Moon base which can support more than that.
The Moon is a place close to home where we can mine certain materials, assemble our spaceships, and launch missions to everything else in our solar system. A bit like an airport outside of a big city. No one goes there because it in itself is so interesting, but because it makes it easy to get to other interesting places.
The Moon still has properties on top which make it interesting, like doing radio astronomy from the other side, which is shielded from terrestrial radiation.
A massive amount of Americans are idiots so I would not trust what they have to say. To get our selves to the outer planets we need to perfect the tools that will allow us to reach planets. The moon is a great place to perfect those tools.
A majority of Americans have little to no education in the areas of science that NASA researches and develops for.
That’s like saying the sourdough breadbakers think that the Atlanta Braves should hit fewer homeruns and focus more on defense.
The only reason it would make sense to return to the moon is to establish a base for exploration of Mars. I go really back and forth on space exploration. On one hand it is a giant money pit. On another, the research that has come out of space exploration has been beneficial to life here on earth.
The technologies we invent along the way are worth the investment, in my opinion. Look at everything that came out of the original space race.
Nah. If we go back to the Moon, we are going to need more than “new technologies”, but an actual purpose.
Right now, Helium-3, rare earth metals, and a slingshot to the rest of the solar system are good reasons to colonize the Moon if we can figure out how to do it cheaply.
like ICBMs and freeze dried ice cream sandwiches!
Only the finest thermonuclear strawberries were used, now it’s all artificial crap.
The technological breakthroughs aside, the first company that returns with mined goods from space is gonna be worth trillions.
I feel the ‘pale blue dot’ was/is philosophically important for humanity. To realize all our wars and arguments, struggles and victories, take place on this small and fragile rock, floating in an endless void of nothingness. I think this experience was both humbling and inspiring for millions, and this package only comes with (wo)manned space missions.
Long term, I also dream of space habitats and space industry, to reduce the strain on Earth’s ecosystems. Or the other way around; space habitats dedicated to preservation.
Very long term, there just is no way around it. Humans will keep exploring and push the boundary. Also it’s wise to have an off-site backup.
the research that has come out of space exploration has been beneficial to life here on earth.
But space is 100% innocent.
It was just a huge pile of money spent on research and development.
Yeah and we only spend massive piles of cash on war and space exploration. Both have resulted in technology advantages but I prefer space exploration.
Where do these oddballs (who approve of space programs, but not moon missions) think those asteroid mining missions are going to launch from?
Space tethers.
I’m glad that science isn’t a democracy.
However, I’m not so glad about NASA having to follow the current US Congress’ whims all the time.
Many Americans are anti-intellectual science deniers.
I do not hold in high esteem opinions based on woo-woo.
We should have NASA’s priorities determined by poll results from bar trivia machines.
If you want to hunt asteroids, go to the moon.
You read that right. What “many Americans” aren’t thinking about is that we are at the bottom of a very big gravity well here on Earth. Launching anything into space, like an asteroid destroyer, takes enormous energy to accomplish.
If instead we could launch from the moon, we’d be able to get bigger things into space faster and cheaper and more often. But to do this we need a base and a way to manufacture fuel. The raw materials are there, but we don’t have any of the infrastructure built.
Eventually we HAVE to get to a point where we are mining, refueling, and building off-Earth. The only thing we should be launching from Earth is people.
The moon is our first stop on this evolutionary path.
Most americans don’t understand this, sadly
Happily, though, NASA isn’t run by internet poll 👍
It is ultimately run by elected representatives though. Popular opinions matter
I think they do occasionally toss a mission into the agenda because it will capture the popular imagination. NASA has it pretty well dialed in. They serve science so liberals are happy and they have big explodey rockets and a history of competing against enemies so conservatives are happy. You don’t get to half a percent of the national budget without a good sales pitch.
Asteroid hunting is simply tracking them. You do not need to be on the moon for that. Satellite telescopes would do just fine. Doing something about those asteroids? Having something on the moon could be helpful, sure but getting the necessary manufacturing on the moon to deflect a possible asteroid would be massive and likely not something that we would prioritize considering it would likely be a one off event.
I’m perfectly happy going back to the moon, BTW. I’d prefer Mars but I’ll settle for the moon. But NASA can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can hunt asteroids and go back to the moon.
Tracking them is tracking them. Hunting them is intercepting and interfering with them. Which requires launching an interceptor. Which is less fuel intensive if launched from the moon.
It’s true that getting infrastructure onto the moon is a huge effort, but it’s a gateway to everything else we might want to do. Including going to Mars. If you could refuel on the Moon, a Mars mission would be much more viable.
Americans thought it was a waste to go the first time too.
Only 33% of Americans supported trying to land on the moon according to a Gallup Poll from 1961 https://www.newspapers.com/image/118394464/?clipping_id=128550438&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjExODM5NDQ2NCwiaWF0IjoxNjkwNDAwNzAzLCJleHAiOjE2OTA0ODcxMDN9.MEY6lxes8ZstjM9mggg5zOxedJFf2RCbBklHOKFcw9w
It didnt have support over 50% until a few weeks before launch.
More detail here https://newsletter.pessimistsarchive.org/p/the-moon-landing-was-opposed-by-majority
Yes but most Americans think asteroid hunting requires a rifle.
Hey that’s not fair. They just think that all asteroids would be safer if all asteroids had rifles.
Why can’t we have both
Both would be best. Go to the moon and use it as a base/staging area for both asteroid hunting, and further reaching space travel.
Because politicians will use the argument to rile up their base, make sure neither gets accomplished, and pocket as much of the money as they can.
Americans are eating through every shit Russia propaganda ever so I don’t think they’re the smartest people to give an opinion on it.
I remember a TED talk that sold me on big science: For every dollar we spent on the moon shots, we made fourteen.
The thing is, going to the moon involved doing a lot of development, and this time we’re going to the moon better and are going to do more things.
At some point we’ll want to put a colony up there, and will need still more development to make it work.
A lot of the technology that we use today was developed thanks to the space race. In fact, when the USSR was taking its victory laps for Sputnik, Eisenhower freaked out, signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act and then extended a grant to Fairchild Semiconductor which started the digital revolution in Silicon Valley, eventually propelling us into the cyberpunk dystopia of smart refrigerators and zombie bot-nets that we know today.
And wa- was that a good thing?
Note the use of “many Americans” in the headline. If it was most they’d’ve said most. Clickbait headlines are the worst.
Since when did we need to flip a coin on issues like this? Spoiler: We don’t! There are plenty of resources to go around.
If anything was a waste of time, it was this poll. Go home, Pew Research, you’re drunk.
