All this "get back to the moon" stuff makes me wonder what the purpose of going to the moon actually is. It's definitely different for different people.
If the whole point of the endeavor is just another space race exercise to demonstrate American prowess like the we did in the 1960's-- perhaps that's a waste of effort? Do we really need that symbolic achievement at such an enormous cost? Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to drop more scientifically productive robotic missions?
The fact that the dithering idiocy of our current "administration" is even uttering anything about a moon mission sort of makes me think they see this as just a baloney "show-the-world" stunt.
What if, instead, there was a focus on true science, unmanned missions, and perhaps steps towards actual space applications: mining, asteroid protection, and staging for permanent space installations ?
JFK didn't have any particular love for the scientific discovery of a moon mission. It was the same kind of thing that you're describing today: demonstrate American "greatness" in a world that seemed increasingly hostile - just substitute Islamicists/Terrorism for USSR/Cold War.
I think that tells us two things:
1) We can still accomplish great things even from lowly motivations, and
2) We shouldn't necessarily take those lowly motivations as proof of a craven administration.
I agree that people who get involved with space programs will be glad to "take what we can get" in terms of funding whether that means deep-space robotic missions or another manned moon landing.
Good things will happen with both. But why not choose the bestwayforward when it comes to space exploration?
Why not free ourselves from the strictures of yet another "space race" with low-brow nationalistic goals where we again end up citing uninspiring spin-offs as the reward for "winning" the race?
I don't think the 'space race' notion can really apply here, since at least in some of the plans for their mission, they planned on doing it in a joint effort with several other space agencies (including the Russian).
I agree that it really does seem like at least the official objective of the current administration (mostly the white house) only care about showing the world/the country/someone else that they're the best, that they have done everything, etc, etc, etc. Just like I think it's clear why they wanted to land on the moon specifically until 2024.
I would like to believe that at least for (most of) the people actually working in NASA, they view their work in a more focused way (science, global cooperation and improvements), and it can be seen by the projects that for example are currently being researched by the NASA astronauts in the ISS.
The purpose is likely to generate interest in space, and to rebuild the technology the US had to conduct missions there.
The average person doesn't care much about a probe landing on a comet, even if it is extremely impressive technologically. If you can show people walking on a celestial body, the average person can put that into perspective.
If the whole point of the endeavor is just another space race exercise to demonstrate American prowess like the we did in the 1960's-- perhaps that's a waste of effort? Do we really need that symbolic achievement at such an enormous cost? Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to drop more scientifically productive robotic missions?
The fact that the dithering idiocy of our current "administration" is even uttering anything about a moon mission sort of makes me think they see this as just a baloney "show-the-world" stunt.
What if, instead, there was a focus on true science, unmanned missions, and perhaps steps towards actual space applications: mining, asteroid protection, and staging for permanent space installations ?