Why do you need to have humans alive who walked on the moon? It was an interesting experiment at some point, but there's not much to gain to do it over and over again, unless you plan to have a permanent human presence there.
The current astronauts generate significant interest in STEM in school children. For example, Tim Peake took a bag of seeds to space. When he gets down they're going to send the seeds to schools along with some seeds that didn't go to space. Children are going to run experiments growing and comparing both sets of seeds.
Reaction from children is along the lines of "this is so cool; I want to work in space stuff".
I was not saying anything against having astronauts in Space. I was mentioning the point (or the lack of) of repeating over and over moon landings. You can still have astronauts in space without having to send them to the Moon. It's cheaper to keep them in the ISS, and you can indeed generate interest this way as well.
I agree, I think the ISS is an utterly amazing achievement. In so many ways I think it really is a prime candidate for humanities greatest achievement so far.
In many ways you make a very valid point, the ISS is what we've been up to for the last few decades rather than going back to the moon and the research coming from it will be essential in preparing for longer journeys. But for all that I stare up and marvel at it passing overhead some nights, it just doesn't hold the same mystique of say the moon or further afield.
Personally I think it's in our fundamental nature to want to explore things in person. I'm never satisfied with pictures of beautiful beaches or landscapes. I have a need to experience them with my own eyes.
I could understand there being no one left who has walked on the moon if we'd been concentrating on the next challenge, i.e Mars. But that's obviously not what happened.
Ultimately I think it would serve as a marker of our collective lack of imagination over the past 50 years to explore, perhaps because the costs weren't palatable relative to any resources we could hope to exploit.
> Ultimately I think it would serve as a marker of our collective lack of imagination over the past 50 years to explore, perhaps because the costs weren't palatable relative to any resources we could hope to exploit.
Honestly it's not a lack of imagination - Plans to explore Mars and even other planets existed back in the 60s and 70s. Space Exploration was very much a byproduct of the Cold War - developing rockets mean you developed the ability to produce ICBMs as well to strike with nuclear heads anywhere, anytime, and Space programs were simply the tip of the otherwise military Iceberg.
They also served as PR material to give a positive image of rockets development, while actually most rockets are made to nuke the Earth multiple times.
Now, the tensions we had during the Cold War are lower, and the need to develop new rocket tech has decreased, and you get a Space Program on diet.
I like to think of it like gymnastics or performance art: it's "worth it" for its own sake, not to mention other benefits/consequences emanating from the arts. (I use "arts" liberally, in this context)
Everything has costs though. Can you justify why we should spend 50 billions to send again 3 guys on the moon, instead of doing anything else that's actually NEW ?
Because the moon landing is one of the few events that every human coopts as ours. It is one of the few events that transcend nationality. While US made it happen - we the humanity made one of ours go up there.
