Not unless it can be clearly demonstrated that we've learned all we can about the moon. If nothing else, we could put some long-range telescopes up there.

So we can't afford health care but we can afford a trip to the moon? this is not fiscal conservatism, this is silly priorities

No it's not. Besides look at how much has been wasted on the global warming scam. At least the moon is a real target.

A colossal waste! But if done right and we get a pretty speech out of the Prez...the kind that would be equal to Pres Kennedy's...it might just help unify us and lift us all out of our complacency and the mucky mess we're in, rather than let China or India beat us to it. Or maybe this time around we can all go together?

Marketing will be a factor here. If President Obama lobbied for it, your poll results might be vastly differnt, regardless if the responders knew the program goals or whether the effort would benefit them directly. If Obama publicly came down against it, the program will tank.

Not at all. In fact, there are many Americans I'd like to send there!

Exploration always pays off-look at Columbus.

As Robert Heinlein put it: "The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars."

My spirit says yes, but it would be fiscally irresponsible. We have many, many problems to solve here at Home.

In case y'all forgot, GW Bush re-prioritized NASA from Earth missions and inexpensive interplanetary robots to manned landings on the Moon and Mars. So far, this retooling has cost the taxpayer billions of dollars and years of wasted research.

Absolutely. Only discovery to come out of the space program is Tang.

I also think 90 percent of the space shuttle missions have been a waste of money. Any time you add manned to space exploration, you add a lot of cost and little additional benefit.

No. We're going to have to learn to live in space anyway, looking ahead to the time when uncontrolled breeding, pollution and other little human errors mean we have to get into space or become extinct, and the moon is a good place to start. Yes, it's expensive, and yes, it takes money away that we could instead be wasting on left-wing groups like Acorn, and yes, we could do it better and cheaper if we and the Euros would cooperate, but we're going to have to do it eventually anyway.

@Boog:
Incorrect. Two that come to mind right off the bat are Kevlar, without which we would have lost a lot more people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and velcro, which I'm sure serves SOME purpose in the greater Scheme of Things.

Of course it's a waste of resources; but, isn't that the norm for planet Earth?

Of course it is. The economy is in the toilet. What difference does it make what is on the moon when U.S. citizens are struggling to survive. I prefer the government use my tax dollars for something that makes sense--like fixing this economic mess.

Many have insisted that what can be studied in space by astronauts can be done cheaper and more effectively by automated satellites. We may study space for the science and the knowledge to be gained, but we GO to space for the perspective gained. Never does our planet seem so humblingly insignificant or so uniquely important as it does from space. Never is international cooperation so eager and competition so fierce. Tell the administration and congress that perspective is important.

Unfortunately, we do not have a choice. Politicians will decide whether the money they extort from us through taxation, garnishment of our children's future earnings, and devaluation of the currency will be spent on follies at home, abroad or in outer space. If space exploration is truly worthwhile, entreprenuers will be able to convince investors to voluntarily finance these projects.

The moon is the most readily adaptable satellite we have. As a platform for the next Hubble equivalent or as a jumping off point for manned missions further afield, the moon is unequaled in importance.

Why study space with satellite and rover missions if we don't plan to use that knowledge? Sending men into space is the purpose of NASA. If going into space is a waste of resources, then we should not be sending anything into space.

I disagree with many things about the Constellation program. The funding level, it was a political ploy by the previous administration and therefore never fully funded. The Orion capsule, can't we get anything better? The Ares launchers, why create a new series of launchers when we already have existing heavy launchers? I disagree with the scrubbing of the Shuttle program to make way for the Constellation program.

However, no, I do not think it's a waste of resources. This new journey to the Moon is not a flag waving exercise. It will for the first time establish a lunar colony. I know it has been before during the Apollo program, but it will happen this time.

Scientists, such as Hawkins, have been telling us for years that for humans to survive, we must venture into the Universe. It’s not good to put all our eggs in one basket, Earth. Going to the Moon will be the stepping stone into the stars. From there, we will learn to live away from Earth. It’s also safer than going to asteroids and Mars like some are suggesting. Once we master the Moon then we can go to there. Its three days to safety versus 3 years to safety. Those 3 years could be reduced to months if we wait on going to Mars immediately. There are a couple of propulsions already in prototype stage that could reduce the journey to 3 months round trip.

Also consider the technological advancements we get by advancing our space program. At lot of things we take for granted today are due to the space program. For me, anything that is for the betterment of humanity is NOT a waste of resource.

The question pre-supposes that we have already been to the moon.

Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that the "moon landings" were nothing more than staged events filmed on stages in Calfornia.

They were staged so that America, during the Cold War, could propoganistically trumpet its so-called "Victory" in the Space Race, and so that Americans could feel good about how they had beat the "evil" Soviet Union.

You need to remember that Nixon was President back then, and that he, like George W. Bush, loved to manipulate public opinion (look at how Bush made 9/11 happen!)

If America ever were to go to the moon, it would do so in order to establish a military base there -- or to establish a place where it could, without the eyes of the media and thoughtful Americans and people of good will throughout the world, engage in terrible acts of torture and brutality -- the moon would become the new Guantanamo.

With all the homeless and especially homeless veterans, the entire budget for Moon and Mars should go to feed and house them.

@ Bush made 9/11:
Sir, point of order: the moon has but 1/6 the gravity of Earth. Therefore, waterboarding would be useless. The panic sensation would not set in to the victim. If that technique was effective on a 'weakling' - then other, easier methods of extraction would work first.

I was waiting for the first "we ain't been there yet" goober... but judging by their byline, I'm not surprised.

Anybody who thinks the original moon landings were staged is an idiot and has less than half a brain.

Sure. Why not waste more taxpayer money?

Great idea. Let's waste more money.
Diogenes,
Great for you to volunteer to lead the way. Just take Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and Frank with you at a minimum.
V,
Where is your proof?
Bush Made 9/11 Happen On Purpose,
I guess you do not quite have half a brain then, huh? From your post I would be gracious and say that you have one tenth of a brain. Even your precious Obama believes that 9/11 actually happened you idiot. I really hope you are kidding. If not, please seek help ASAP.
steve jones,
Very good idea!

All,

"Bush Made 9/11 Happen On Purpose" is a shill. Just laugh and enjoy the parody.

@TH
We do not have the technology (or financial resources or wherewithal) to put any sort of a settlement on the Moon or any planet.

The cost of the Apollo Program cost $138B (in 2005 $) and employed 1/4M people. Apollo brought back 840lb of rock. That is nearly $400K/gram, or about 400 times the cost to mine gold, one of the most expensive naturally-occurring metals. Mining on the Moon will be 10-100 times more expensive than on Earth, because there are no tectonic processes on the Moon to bubble metals to the surface and concentrate them. No geologists support lunar mining.

Putting a telescope on the Moon would be sheer folly, as ground-based observatories are several orders of magnitude better than the HST, and putting a smallish 'scope on the Moon would be a joke.

Wasn't it Abbie Hoffman who coined "migrate and mutate"? Only from the mind of an acid user.

Nope, not going to happen in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of our children, and maybe their children

Sorry, a mistake in my arithmetic. The Apollo moon rocks were about 8,000 times more expensive than Earth-mined gold.

@ LOL

You can use Google as well as anyone (one would hope), but here is a starting point: Bush effectively canceled EOS (Earth Observing System) platform that started in 1991 with completion in 2022, at a cost of $33B (ref NSIAD-95-175). I don't easily have the numbers for what it cost 1991-2005.

Dozens more examples exist, but I've proved my point. Whats your point?

Call me naive and uninformed, but I fail to see the benefits of having gone to the moon the first time around, so why bother doing it again? While I know planning for the future is important, how many generations will pass before any of the billions of dollars spent on the space program will benefit the public? Let's focus on fixing the problems we have now here on planet Earth and think about space later.