Should we have crashed a spacecraft into the moon just to see if there was water in there?

Why not? the presence or absence of water on the moon could be crucially important to the human race some day. Don’t you plan for the future?

With an $80 million price tag attached, I’d venture a guess that it was a scientific waste of money and a terrible misuse of taxpayers funds. Additionally, if they did this because they have nothing else to do, there’s needs to be some serious oversight into what NASA is currently doing these days. That same 80 million could have been used to buy a Bose stereo or a chrome toilet for the International Space Station.

I’m not sure it was a good idea. Pretty soon people will be slamming any old thing, like toasters, old cars, and blenders, into the moon and then putting the video up on YouTube.

You do realize if they discover there is water on the moon we can start figuring out ways of colonizing it right? I mean i dont know, seems somewhat worthwhile to me. Maybe im crazy.

@uberbatman Bingo!

Nobody here has said anything about the actual reason NASA did this, the reason that water on the moon may be important.

“Finding water on the moon would be a boon to possible future lunar bases, acting as a potential source of drinking water and fuel.” TFA

I’m still not quite convinced we didn’t do it to see if there was oil on the moon.

before you bombard me with fossil facts, the above is a joke.

oops, sorry @uberbatman. It looks like we posted at the same time.

I think we might have pissed on the invisible pink unicorns that live on the moon with that little stunt. What the consequences are from annoying them will be boggles the mind. I’m glad I don’t work for NASA. I wonder how Evelyn feels about this?

@Blondesjon there is oil on the moon now, or at least hydraulic fluid.

@PapaLeo Nobody? Scroll up and read the thread.

@pdworkin now you scroll up and read what he said :P

I saw what he said, and while no one may have provided the answer in the exact words of the NASA press release several people acknowledged the importance of the mission. See the first answer, which I happen to have authored.

yea yea but you were kinda vague :P

Next time I will be sure to quote propaganda from the apposite agency.

Planning for the future (i.e. colonization or source for water and fuel) – I guess we do need to do that – what with global warming and the alarming rate with which we are depleting our fossil-based energy resources. Though in terms of colonization, an earth-like planet would have made more sense.

F-35 Lightning II costs 83 million for a single plane.

@johnpowell but does it come with a $600 toilet seat?

@johnpowell A combat craft versus moon-crashing a spacecraft. Hmmm. Choices, choices, choices.

@uberbatman I don’t see us colonizing the moon. Maybe a base for mining the moon, and possibly refuel and maintain space ships, way into the future.

EDIT, my comment about the IPU should read pissed off, not pissed on.

We will probably never colonize the moon, but we will eventually have fuel farms there, where machines will mine for H3, which can help solve our energy problems. We may also use the moon as a platform for further exploring of the Solar System.
The presence of water on the moon will make it easier and less expensive to create rocket fuel, oxygen, and regular drinking water.

@oratio i can definitely see it happening in the future. No clue when, but if there is water up there, there is a very good chance it will eventually happen.

@uberbatman What do you mean when you say colonize? Maybe we are talking about the same thing, with different wording.

For 80 million, I think we could have done something a lot more useful.

@oratio i mean permanent structures placed on the moon. People living on the moon. I don’t so much know about civilians having the privileged to live there, but possibly visit. I mean colonize in a very primitive sense, not so much skyscrapers and resorts on the moon :P

I say it all the time, and it always upsets someone, but I’ll say it again…spending money on exploration and “what if” is a waste and immoral. That money could be feeding people, or used for health insurance, or finding clean energy, or anything that has to do with the planet that we actually live on.

Absolutely. The cost was merely a drop in the bucket compared to wasteful spending that has no potential learning/benefit. Where do you think the money goes for those $600 toilet seats that the government has budgeted? It certainly isn’t for toilet seats and is going in someone’s pocket or something else shady. At least we have the potential to learn something from this.

When we’ve gone through all the resources we’ve got on this planet $80m will seem like a very small price to pay for the possibility of finding more.

And I think exploring and gaining scientific knowledge has inherent value.

Blowing up the moon is pretty cool, I guess.

@rangerr Actually, not really.

@karentookawalk This is why I love sarcasm.

Basically, it would make more sense to live IN the moon than ON the moon. Inside, there is less threat to harmful radiation from all that naked sunlight and the occasional meteorite. Since the moons’ core is cold, and the threat of moon quakes are probably pretty slim, living in the moon might actually be fun.

Based on John Varley’s Eight World series of books, anyway.

Isn’t that where Alice lives? Or was it Trixie?

@Psychedelic_Zebra Oh I don’t know. The moon ain’t too pretty, inside or outside of it, though earhrise would be totally cool to see. But personally, I’m not too interested in colonizing – we have to find a very compelling reason to do that right now (well the sun isn’t going to start dying in 5 billion years or so; but then we don’t need the sun to die to annihilate ourselve) as well as develop the technology to be able to do that – but it would have been very interesting to be part of that interstellar mission they sent out into the edge of the galaxy.

@Psychedelic_Zebra meteorites wouldn’t be much of a problem as long as we were on the side of the moon facing earth. Its the other side that gets hit.