It's a sign of our lazy, short attention span, self indulgent generation that we've pushed technology to the point that all of us can have touchscreen mobiles that let us blog (and I know I'm doing it too, so I'm as much to blame) and bitch, but it's too hard for us to go to the moon in less than ten years when they did it in the 1960's with nothing but a sliderule and hard work. It's the 21st century! The future doesn't mean progress.

@LC

This is what happens when you put politicians in charge of space exploration. The original moon landing did not happen because our govenment, which in case you didn't realize it runs NASA, had some genuine deep-seated desire to explore space and begin colonizing the galaxy. It happened because we were in the middle of the Cold War and we needed to prove that we were technologically superior to the communists. We did that, and since the Soviets never upped the anty by sending their own manned mission to the moon, our government never bothered sending anybody else there, especially after Apollo 13 proved that it could be too dangerous and too costly.

This is the same reason why we're still using the space shuttles 30 years after their invention, even though most people today drive cars that have more advanced technology in them. Government always tries to do things on the cheap, and when government bureaucracy decides to make cutbacks, scientific programs like space exploration are among the first things to get cut.

If we are ever to start seriously exploring and colonizing space, I promise you, it will not be because of NASA. It will more likely be because of men like Richard Branson and companies like Virgin Galactic--private enterprise, just as it did 200 years ago with the settlement of the American West or 300 years before that with the first European expeditions to the New World, will spur the new age of exploration. Wait until the day that someone discovers useful natural resources on Mars or or somewhere...major corporations will be lining up to help fund the space program, and if NASA isn't willing to build the ships and provide the astronauts, they will do it themselves. That's the only realistic way humans will ever get into space: you have to provide them with incentive.

Umm, let me understand this correctly: the USA is -finally- looking at going back to the moon ... and the SciFi Wire writes about the little bit of LITTER we left behind previously? Come on -- I expect better from SciFi Wire than a silly "Go Green! Save the Moon environment!" article. Sheesh.

In 1961 Kennedy committed us to putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Eight years later we did it.

Now 40 years later we need eleven years to do it again? We truly are pretty pathetic.

@antodav:

It is true that we drive cars with more advanced technology than the Space Shuttle. There is a world of difference, however, between building a passenger vehicle for road travel on the highway and building a space ship purpose built to ferry cargo and crew into Earth orbit.

The latter requires a deliberate, paced approach with an emphasis on safety, efficiency, and longevity. You don't willy-nilly upgrade the systems in the Space Shuttle as you would an automobile or a home computer. The comparison you make between the Space Shuttle and an automobile is not even in the same ballpark. Systems are updated on space vehicles only after significant research as to feasibility, safety, and requirements, and that can take years.

Additionally, the maintenance scheduling and recording of the Space Shuttle, and frankly, all aircraft from jet fighters to commercial jets, is more rigorously handled than automobiles. In short, automobiles are designed to be disposable within a decade -- aircraft are not.

This is precisely why aerospace systems are designed to last years. Many commercial aircraft flying today are older than the oldest member of the Space Shuttle fleet.

Additionally, the Space Shuttle Endeavour is less than 20 years old and has not reached its projected operational lifetime.

What possible point could there be for going back to the moon? We were there 40 years ago and are currently no better for it. What a colossal waste of money this will be.

@TheGigaShadow

If you havnt noticed, this planet of ours as a finite amount of mineral and resourses to give to the ever growing population that continues to increase. So the choice are, we either cut down on our use of the natual resourses (yea right), cut down on our population (no one want to advocate state sanction death), Birth control (I can hear the relegious crown mumering), recycling (could help, if we use one of the 3 previous ideas. But only a band aide for a gun shot wound). Or we find other planets and planetoids to mine and use to keep the human race alive.

TheGigaShadow-Almost every electronic device you can buy today is a direct result of the space program. I think it's a waste to send people to Mars, but the moon will have it's benefits some day soon.