Carolyn Porco has a very interesting opinion piece in the NY Times on the current NASA ramp-up to land on the moon in the 13 years, and it's possible benefits to Unmanned space exploration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html

Thanks for the link, interesting read indeed. Ah yes, the Saturn V... I didn't realize operational costs in todays dollars would be only half of the Space Shuttle, I was under the impression the Saturn was an über-expensive machine.

It's a shame newer generations will never know the roar of the 5 F-1 engines. Just imagine a gigantic mission launched by Saturn V to Saturn VI...

Incurably romantic, however deeply flawed as a work of rhetoric. Would be nice to actually see supportable numbers laid out to lay a foundation for her florid arguments. It was a pleasant read though.

Counter point by Burt Rutan:

http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=b_rutan

I agree that advances in rocket technology and generally in the way of getting stuff outside the Earth gravity well are badly needed, but going back would hardly be an acceptable solution. Government investments would be appropriate only when the free market is not advancing the technology sufficiently. Going back to the Moon would hardly advance the technology.
The actual problem is, in my opinion, that there is not enough pressure from commercial entities to develop bigger, more reliable rockets. More reliable means good enough to launch nuclear reactors, not just some shiny communication satellite. That's where NASA and similar government agencies of other countries should step in. The goal should not be Moon and Mars, but technology development that would allow such travel at the cost compared to the Apollo program.
In my opinion, NASA should be leading efforts that are not attractive to the investors due to risks, yet could open a new page in space exploration and guarantee the United Stated the leading position. We need new approaches for rockets engines, from using new fuels (e.g. liquid propane) and new materials on the "conservative" side, through tried but unflown designs, such as all-altitude aerospike engines, to the superpowerful rockets utilizing nuclear power. We need ways to get raw materials from the Moon and asteroids and utilize them. We need government investment into technologies enabling the space elevator, primarily carbon nanotubes.
Going back to Apollo would waste taxpayers' money on already researched and developed technology. That's not what NASA should get money for.

I support Carolyn's argument. Let's see that international cooperation and really make a go of it. You can't expect commercial interests to take a long term view.

I don't think that is what she is saying. She is lamenting the loss of the technology. Regaining the lost capabilities is emphasized, but I don't think she means using 1960s technology. What really strikes me is that we didn't even save the money we intended to by ending the program.

ngunn,
I can't believe you just said that, after the fiasco of the VSE. Gov't officials almost always take the short-term, what does this do for my consituents today, view. I argue private companies do a better job of the long term view. They have to, because their future depends on it.

Is the moon really a valuable target again? We've been there and done that. We know there is nothing there but a pretty blue planet to look at. How about focusing on Mars, after all, we don't do these things because they are easy! I am seeking not to infringe rules about politics, policy and opinions, so will just quietly mention the following:

SpaceReview

It will take years of interesting robotic and remote-sensing missions to prepare the way for humans to Mars and so a Mars program would give us many years of the type of inspiration Burt Rutan talks about and that we've participated in directly with MER. I worry though that unless there is really a focus on Mars, there won't be enough money and motivation to actually do it.

We may have been there, but we certainly have not "done that".

As citizens we have an interest in the long term because we have children and grandchildren. As investors we don't care if a company moves out of space travel and into electric toasters as long as it stays in profit. How well or badly our 'representatives' really represent our long term interests as citizens is another matter of course. I suspect my views on that would attract an 'Ahem' from Doug.

Go and read the rules boys and girls.

Doug

I will simply address the "safe" question here -- is it worthwhile to do more work on the Moon?

I think the answer is unequivocally YES. Our Moon has a surface area roughly the same extent as the continent of Africa, and we have looked really craefully (with manned landings) at only six locations, and a little less carefully (with unmanned landers) at ten others. We've done some medium-resolution mineral mapping of the rest of the surface, but we don't really know how the mineral signatures we see from orbit relate to the actual evolution of the rocks on and under the surface.

Libration data suggests that the Moon not only has a core, but that its core may rotate at a slightly different speed than the rest of the body! But detailed analysis of volatiles and trace elements deposited on the surfaces of glass beads erupted in lunar fire fountains indicates garnet in the mantle and core rocks, which argues against a large bulk of the Moon having ever been molten (i.e., it is still made up of chondritic material).

And, since our best models don't allow for all of these things to have developed in the same body, we have very little clue as to how all of this could happen.

Developing models that explain *all* of the observed facts will require more data from the Moon. And yes, it will require more data from the Moon's surface. We can argue endlessly as to whether we ought to pick up more Moon rocks with gloved hands or with robotic scoops, but I don't think it's possible to successfully argue that there is no need to even *try* to pick up any more.

-the other Doug

Should add that the Moon is a nearby source of raw materials with only 1/6th of Earth's surface gravity and a much gentler gradient. Therefore, it is the logical staging area at some future time for extensive exploration of the Solar System. By the time we (the human race) have set up permanent, self-sustaining colonies and an industrial base on the Moon the cost savings compared to direct-from-Earth launches will make doing so from anywhere else ludicrious.

I mean, heck, you can even get a gravity assist from the Earth on the way out if you time things right...

I revieved yesterday the current and very good issue of the Planetary (Society) Report ...all about the moon.
May be I'm too naive but what Buzz Aldrin wrote there is just very right to my eyes...have a look if you can.

More: Africa is 30 million km^2, the Moon is 38 million km^2. The Moon is closer in size to Asia, which is 44.5 million km^2.

I agree with all the rest.