Question every assumption and go towards the problem, like the way they flew to the moon. We should have more moon shots and flights to the moon in areas of societal importance.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Of course, mankind would not have landed on the Moon in 1969, were it not for two things: conquered Nazi rocket technology and post-war anti-Communist paranoia in the United States.
My view is that we should go back to the moon, build up the infrastructure to make flights there commonplace - be comfortable with it - then use that infrastructure to expand and go to Mars.
Throughout history, when societies have been faced with big challenges, they've put their best people on them. During the Space Race, American and Russian scientists, engineers, astronauts and cosmonauts pushed the bounds of what was possible and landed men on the moon.
I think that when NASA works on a moon shot, they know too well that all of the people working on it must do their job at 110 percent. Sometimes they probably put in 18 hour days, but they're aiming for the moon, and that's what counts.
The way I see it, commercial interests should manage a lunar base while NASA gets on with the really important task of flying to Mars.
Sending a couple of guys to the Moon and bringing them back safely? That's a stunt! That's not historic.
Why should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction and expenditure?
The way I see it, what is going to come out of the moon activities is a respect for U.S. leadership.
Well, I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there.
I'm in favor of changing the destination of humans. There are a lot of manned missions that can be done, but not in the direction of the moon.