"No, we won't go to the Moon; we will visit Mars instead," says Obama

Ziggy · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:33

Source. (LOL DAILY MAIL)

President Obama has revealed America will be abandoning plans to return to the Moon and instead aim for asteroids and Mars instead.

He unveiled the new direction on a visit to Nasa's headquarters at the Kennedy Space Center, from which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made their historic leap in 1969.

Mr Obama told worried Nasa workers that the U.S. would continue to be a world leader in space travel, but radical re-organisation was needed if they were to 'leap into the future.'

Thoughts? Disappointed or excited?

Also sorry if pearoast.

Gilly · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:35

Excited, if it is quick

4p · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:35

Already been to the Moon, don't do the same gag twice do the next gag.

Gilly · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:36

Can't build a moon base without going back though

998cc · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:37

Good news, ive never cared for the moon.

Ricochet J · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:39

C.P said:
Good news, ive never cared for the moon.

Why? Without we wouldn't be alive! To understand the Moon is to understand the origins of the life.

godinman · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:41

Ricochet J said:
Without we wouldn't be alive! To understand the Moon is to understand the origins of the life.

Why and why?

4T5 · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:42

I'd rather go to Titan, Anything with Tit in it's name must be good.

4p · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:42

It affects our oceans

IceBus · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:42

Surely the moon would be needed as a jumping off point as this would cut travel time to Mars?

Also... It's only going to be an orbit of Mars by the mid-2030s - not exactly speedy, or setting foot on another planet.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/15/MNIJ1CVCBB.DTL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100415/sc_nm/us_obama_space_asteroid

Ricochet J · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:45

godinman said:
Why and why?

Wiki Answers said:
Answer

There are many benefits:

The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.

The other benefits have to do with life on earth. The moon creates tides that help many animals during their breeding cycles.

The moon also helps provide light at night, unless it is a new moon, and that allows animals to see so they can hunt for food and stay away from danger.

The other, less obvious, reason has to do with the moon actually having been a part of the earth itself a long time ago. Early in earth's history, a large protoplanet the size of Mars crashed into it and made it bigger than it originally was. The upper layers of Earth's crust was knocked off into space and became the moon. So really, when you ask the question: how does the moon benefit the Earth?" Well, the Earth wouldn't be what it is today without the moon.

siuko · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:46

I think the moon should still be the first.

I think its proximity would make building and testing long term base building etc much easier than anywhere else.

And if a big long term base is created on the moon it would make a much more sensible jump point for longer trips. Less energy required for lift off etc means more for the trip.

I'm basing this all on not a great deal of knowledge so shoot me if I'm wrong

tres · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:50

I'm a fan of either. A moon visit, with the aim of establishing a permanent base, would be incredible, probably easier for future exploration. But still, walking on another planet is an epic achievement. We're talking like 1000 gamer points. And hopefully with re-light our desire to progress and explore

The_TailGunner · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:50

malc30 said:
I'd rather go to Titan, Anything with Tit in it's name must be good.

alan titchmarsh disproves your theory

Cosimo · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:51

For those interested please take some time out and watch these videos of the speech and conference at KSC yesterday:

Dave M · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:52

More Obama lies.

silvercut · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:52

the moon is a loser, mars is better

Hamzter · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:54

How does Obama suggest we get there? He's just cancelled the only rocket program capable of a mission to Mars :confused:

It's just a political excercise, I'm sure they'll commit no extra funding to the project, and then cancel it a few years down the line.

craptakular · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:55

Will the shuttle be sponsored by Mars to save costs?

"A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play!"

Neolink · 16 Apr 2010 at 13:56

Mars is cool, but I was very much looking forward to having a moon base! A base on the moon seems like the next logical step anyway, mars is aiming a bit too high