President Bush recently announced plans to send NASA astronauts to the moon by 2018 with a price tag of $104 billion in federal funding.
However, at a time of so many hurricanes and other international emergencies, some are questioning whether tax dollars should be focused on space.
"It's misplaced priorities right now," said Bill Wilson, a retired University of Tennessee clinic services coordinator and local astronomy enthusiast. He said the question is more political than scientific.
NASA will retire its shuttle program in 2010 to focus on moon mission funding and planning. Landing on the moon will give NASA a chance to set up a possible launching pad for future space missions to Mars and beyond.
"We're in the red," said Wilson, who added, however, that NASA is a very significant program and the problem is more the timing.
Gary Edwards, an instructor of history at The University of Memphis, said he sees going back to the moon with a sense of national pride, like the days when President Kennedy was seen as beating the Soviets in the space race.
Edwards said man's "innate curiosity" is what drives programs like the Apollo missions and the new moon journey.
He said it would be better for private corporations to fund this mission, but he does not think they will since it would not profit them in the near future.
NASA abandoned the Apollo program in the 1970s. The new program would be like an intense Apollo mission. New technology would allow astronauts to land anywhere on the moon, whereas before Apollo crews were limited to the moon's equator.
This is significant because Astronauts could land where they believe elevated levels of hydrogen exist. These places most likely supported life in the past, or would have the highest chance of supporting it in the future.
"I think it will be a cool trip for whoever gets to go, but besides that, it is pretty much pointless," said Michael Mentz, a South African native who is now a junior majoring in biology at the University of Tennessee Chattanooga.
"The money could definitely be spent in better ways. It could be used to ensure that no U.S. citizens live below the poverty line, be used on medical and scientific research to find cures, alternative energy sources."
However, Mentz said, "although technology from this (NASA) has really improved life standards and things like telecommunication."
Former University of Memphis student Jessica Oppenhuizen, now an administrative assistant at American National Insurance and a space aficionado, said she is sort of in the middle. She said they have had too many problems with space shuttles breaking down and exploding.
She said that hitch should be looked into before sending anyone to the moon.
She also said the $104 billion is "a whole lot of money," and that it should be used to be "beneficial to human kind."
Visiting law professor at The University of Memphis Dent Gitchel said his opinions are mixed, although he supports space exploration. He said there are a lot of needs in this country that should be addressed.
Kevin Carroll, a sophomore in music business at The University of Memphis and one time space camp cadet, said he believes it is vital to explore space, citing the possibility of finding a cure for cancer on planets like Mars.
"It seems like a lot of money, but not over that period of time," said Carroll.
Rachael Long, a freshman and biology major at The University of Memphis, said the idea of returning to the moon is "insane."
A statement by NASA said plans to go to the moon would include learning to live off the raw materials found on the moon, especially for creating jet fuel and water from those resources.
The main goal would be to establish an outpost on the moon. This would only be the stepping stone into deeper space.
In the movie "Vanilla Sky," Rebecca Dearborn, when explaining the reaches and possibilities of science and technology pointed out, "They laughed at Jules Verne, too."
However, no one equipped Jules Verne with $104 billion in federal funding.
