We Have A Winner
One small step, billions of dollars. Should NASA return to the moon?
Live dates: August 4th-14th
Current round: Winner announcement
Dear Reader,
We have a winner. Sixty-one percent of participants have rejected the motion.
This house rejects the motion that "NASA should not send humans back to the moon." In other words, you think NASA should return to the moon.
Neither candidate can declare victory through the power of rhetoric or logic—the final score is a figure that has barely shifted throughout the course of the debate.
Both debaters want to extend human presence beyond Earth, but each has a different vision of how this will be achieved. Mike Gold argued for the motion, saying that NASA is not capable of doing the job. Nonetheless, most of you voted against the motion. This is even in the absence of any obvious agreement about what the basic reason for human spaceflight is.
Mr Maryniak argued that if we are to choose to explore space seriously, we need the moon and we need NASA. Private industry, and other governments, will follow NASA's lead in sending people to begin the real settlement and utilisation of space, but the world, he says, needs NASA to take the next step. You have agreed.
It will be fascinating to see how the new US administration manages to juggle aspirations with fiscal realities.
Although the debate is over, you still have the rest of today to have your say on the issues at stake.
And look out for details of our next debate. I am sure you will find it just as thought-provoking as this one.
Natasha Loder
Debate Moderator
Science and Technology Correspondent
The Economist