Talk:Return to Earth Science
We must somehow do both
The need for more scientific data is clear. Right now most of this debate is based on fear and the possibility of later problems. Fear is not a good basis for human actions. We need a clear vision of how we can address this problem and for that we need more data on the Earth's climate.
That said, the Helium-3 from the Moon can be an important long term piece of this puzzle. We need long term vision. We need to keep this dream alive.
We clearly need both efforts.
--Jriley 04:55, 10 March 2007 (PST)
As it's written, this article does not belong in the Lunarpedia. It's just another political tract about global warming with no bearing on the moon.
-- Greg
It's a controversial question as stated - seems perfectly appropriate here.
To my understanding, based on the IPCC reports, the cost of dealing with global warming is not going to be large unless we ignore the problem for a few more decades. So there's no reason spending (government money) on climate change should prevent also spending (government money) on lunar activities.
For private money, the case is even clearer: the person who has the money should be free to choose to spend it wherever they wish - why would regulations relating to climate change have any bearing on private endeavors to return to the moon?
More importantly, going to the Moon may help solve some of our problems here on Earth. As Jriley points out above, He-3 could be an energy solution. Solar power satellites may be feasible based on lunar materials, or lunar solar power may work. Or it may just be that learning how to live in space and on the Moon will bring analogies and insights that apply in quite indirect ways to solving the problem here. Exploration always brings surprises.
So, definitely, we need to do both.
Apsmith 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
