Slashdot Mirror


Soyuz To The Moon?

colonist writes "The Americans won the first race, but the Russians might beat them back to the moon. The reliable Soyuz, currently the only means of transport to the International Space Station, may send tourists on a voyage around the moon (gallery of illustrations). Constellation Services International's plans call for the Soyuz spacecraft to dock with a logistics module and an upper stage. The upper stage fires to send the Soyuz on a free-return circumlunar trajectory."

426 comments

  1. 503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    first post before a 503

    1. Re:503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      no fucking shit. I'm sick of those goddamn errors.

    2. Re:503 by MrNonchalant · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's like Slashdot got Slashdotted.

    3. Re:503 by ronnieroller · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seems like these 503 errors started when they had that upgrade awhile back

    4. Re:503 by dcstimm · · Score: 2

      yeah Im having the same issues, I even started complaining to the mozilla crew because I thought it was mozilla because it didnt happen in firefox.. lol Stupid 503!

    5. Re:503 by sharkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, that new color sceme fries more than your brain.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    6. Re:503 by v1x · · Score: 1

      I wasnt particularly amused when I got the 503 on Mozilla FireFox, but the main page managed to load in IE successfully. However, upon trying to login, IE got 503ed as well. Whats happening with you folks?

    7. Re:503 by zors · · Score: 1

      Same thing. Whenever i tried to log on, or was already logged in automatically, i got the 503. Same thing in Firefox, IE, and Safari on another computer.

    8. Re:503 by JonBuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be nice if the site admins posted some kind of explanation of why it's happening.

    9. Re:503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beat us back to the moon? What's that supposed to mean? We've been to the moon 6 or 7 times already...

    10. Re:503 by basingwerk · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Scottish got to the moon first. See Armstrong Clan. They Scots ride bikes prettry good, too.

      --
      I stole this .sig
    11. Re:503 by Rethcir · · Score: 1

      Lance actually took the Armstrong name from an adoptive father he had for a while around age 6 or so.. sorry, he's probably not in that genetic line.

    12. Re:503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if the site admins posted some kind of explanation of why it's happening.

      You must be old here.

      In the past two years, I have never seen anyone in charge comment on anything or even *fix* something that is clearly broken like the pagination system for comments.

      Face it, you're unloved, and anyone who is willing to pony up for "subscriber" status gets a free tube of KY in the mail.

  2. Be sure to get... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the "free return" part in writing.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Be sure to get... by cmacmanus · · Score: 1

      I think you're mistaken. It should be "a return". :)

    2. Re:Be sure to get... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, as soon as you are up there, they'll tell you they meant free as in speech, not free as in beer. So you have the right to get back any way you see fit, but don't expect them to get you home gratis.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Unspecified Fee by wayward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article says that they'll be charging an "unspecified fee." I'm curious how much that will be. Also, I wonder whether they'll have trouble with liability/insurance issues.

    1. Re:Unspecified Fee by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you're stuck in lunar orbit how are you going to file in a Russian court?

      KFG

    2. Re:Unspecified Fee by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it was the US, there'd be lawyers begging to do so.

      Can just imagine it: "My client is currently in a Schrodinger state"

      --

      Meh. This whole scenario is unlikely to happen anyhow. Looks to me like it's vaporware at this point. Not saying I wouldn't love to see it happen, just that I don't think it's likely they'll succeed - it's not quite the time yet.

      I'm wondering at this point if we're not going to see a lot of startups riding Rutan's coattails? After all, the dotcomm bust was only a few years ago...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:Unspecified Fee by still+cynical · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unspecified fee:

      Liftoff: free
      Trip to lunar orbit: free
      Return to Earth: free
      Re-entry: free
      Deployment of parachutes: $100 million

      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:Unspecified Fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, they'll install a taxi meter.

    5. Re:Unspecified Fee by wayward · · Score: 1

      Oh great, so will the operator be required to drive very aggressively? What kind of money will they make in tips?

    6. Re:Unspecified Fee by skribe · · Score: 2, Funny
      Can just imagine it: "My client is currently in a Schrodinger state"

      Isn't that somewhere near Utah?

      skribe

      --
      Blog
    7. Re:Unspecified Fee by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Do you have an idea how close you are to the truth?

      The mission is a complete lunacy. Their booster stage docks to Soyuz on its front and acceleration commences with the austronaughts hanging on the belts in their seats in the direction opposite to the normal. Even if the spacecraft survives, you will not. You will have your neck broken even prior to the "Return to Earth" phase.

      These people really nead a clue.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:Unspecified Fee by red+floyd · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know it was a joke, but it's a free-return trajectory. Similar to what Apollo 8 and 10-12 used. That is, if they needed to abort, they would return to Earth with no burn needed at Luna. Apollo 13 (and later) didn't use such a trajectory, giving them a larger selection of landing points. Because 13 didn't use such a trajectory, they needed to do some burns with the LEM main engines to get into one.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    9. Re:Unspecified Fee by kfg · · Score: 1

      Assuming that nothing went wrong at just the right time to remove just the right amount of momentum. Like bumping into a Nerf(tm) meteoroid or something.

      In any case my joke had a serious side, as they sometimes do, and that was to point out that the legal jurisdiction for any liablility suit would be Russia.

      KFG

    10. Re:Unspecified Fee by Nyh · · Score: 1

      Liftoff: free
      Trip to lunar orbit: free
      Return to Earth: free
      Re-entry: free
      Deployment of parachutes: $100 million

      Anyone want to commit suicide in a spectacular way? No costs involved!

      Nyh
    11. Re:Unspecified Fee by sotonboy · · Score: 1

      Dont you think its really upsetting that people are talking about pushing the boundaries of space exploration, and all the slashdot crowd can worry about how much cash the lawyers are going to get ifsomething goes wrong ?

      Why cant we do anything without them ? Im sure theres plenty of vlunteers who would absolve the Russians before agreeing to fly.

      Lawyers = Parasites.

    12. Re:Unspecified Fee by kfg · · Score: 1

      Future histories will record that American civilization collapsed under the weight of barbarian hordes.

      I am, of course, refering to liability lawyers.

      Just before civil collapse you won't be able to buy a ladder less than ten feet tall, to make room for all the required and liability suit prophylactic warning stickers.

      KFG

    13. Re:Unspecified Fee by iamacat · · Score: 1

      This whole scenario is unlikely to happen anyhow

      Let us hope for 0.1% then. What, Columbus was guaranteed to survive when he set his sail? Going to moon is definitely possible. Potential tourists don't have to cover all the costs, just enough so that my ex-country is tempted to regain some of its prestige. An orbit around the moon? $10M. Meeting Vulcans who are waiting for the first public-accessible space flight between major bodies of mass? Priceless! For everything else, there is a random chance of getting rich through birth or luck, or being selected for your abilities.

    14. Re:Unspecified Fee by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      The mission is a complete lunacy. Their booster stage docks to Soyuz on its front and acceleration commences with the austronaughts hanging on the belts in their seats in the direction opposite to the normal. Even if the spacecraft survives, you will not. You will have your neck broken even prior to the "Return to Earth" phase.

      You'll only have your neck broken if they pull enough G's in boost-phase to do something like that. Since they're starting from orbit, they don't have to pull high G's to enter a lunar transition orbit.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Unspecified Fee by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
      ...you won't be able to buy a ladder less than ten feet tall, to make room for all the required and liability suit prophylactic warning stickers.

      Ten FEET!? Are you mad? Who would be willing to manufacture a product so monstrously high that it's practically certain that someone will plummet from it in a deadly fall? Especially when you consider that those warning labels are so slippery...

    16. Re:Unspecified Fee by thestarz · · Score: 1

      You forgot something:

      Liftoff: free
      Trip to lunar orbit: free
      Return to Earth: free
      Re-entry: free
      Deployment of parachutes: $100 million

      Getting home in one piece: Priceless

      --

      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    17. Re:Unspecified Fee by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      Get it? Get it? Complete lunacy! Get it? Haha. LOL

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    18. Re:Unspecified Fee by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
      You will have your neck broken...

      What kind of acceleration are you imagining? It doesn't look like Apollo astronauts pulled serious Gs after the first stage.

      Not saying that I'd like to accelerate even at 1 G upside down, but it's not likely to be lethal. Fighter pilots experience negative Gs in some situations. It can lead to "red out", but I've never heard of broken necks...

    19. Re:Unspecified Fee by mjetzer · · Score: 1

      It really depends on how much of a kick the booster has.

      On both Gemini 10 and Gemini 11, the Gemini spacecraft docked with its Agena target vehicle and used the Agena's engine to change orbit. This is was the same configuration as the proposed Soyuz manuever (i.e., "eyeballs out" acceleration).

      Obviously, the Agenas didn't accelerate the crews to escape velocity, but I believe that the Gemini 11 crew (Pete Conrad and Richard Gordon) held the altitude record until the Apollo 8 crew performed their trans-lunar injection burn, so the Agenas did pack something of a kick.

    20. Re:Unspecified Fee by kfg · · Score: 1

      It may well be required by law. You aren't under the impression that liability lawyers actually want people to not get injured, are you?

      That would be bad for business.

      KFG

    21. Re:Unspecified Fee by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      That would be bad for business.

      And surgeons too! They totally hope to see everyone tear their hands off in snowblowers, so they can pull down the big insurance dollars sewing it all back together. I once caught a pair of ER surgeons trying to drain my break fluid!

      And then there are dentists, who are even worse. NEVER brush your teeth with "complementary" supplies from the dentist- they put acid in them!

      I could explain about firemen too, but you surely get the idea...

    22. Re:Unspecified Fee by kfg · · Score: 1

      I could explain about firemen too, but you surely get the idea...

      You don't need to. I read the papers. A number of firemen have been caught setting fires.

      KFG

    23. Re:Unspecified Fee by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 2, Informative
      The mission is a complete lunacy. Their booster stage docks to Soyuz on its front and acceleration commences with the austronaughts hanging on the belts in their seats in the direction opposite to the normal. Even if the spacecraft survives, you will not. You will have your neck broken even prior to the "Return to Earth" phase.
      How could anyone be so ignorant about human G tolerance?

      People routinely survive 50-100 G impacts in the same direction as they're proposing. Car crashes, after all, usually result in you being flung forwards into your seatbelt (and on newer cars, airbag). Severe G load and G onset rate injuries start in the middle of that range, but people in good shape are expected to survive 100 G impacts in that axis.

      Any textbook on human physiological tolerance, or any of the human spaceflight references, will show you people's tolerance for sustained Gs in the -Z axis. Which are significant, and better than head-to-foot and visa versa, if I recall (books are all at home at the moment).

      John Carmack was planning on using this orientation on an earlier version of Armadillo Aerospace's X-prize rocket, the one with the crushable nosecone.

    24. Re:Unspecified Fee by Maxite · · Score: 1

      Since everything is free except the parachutes, can I just ask them to not include the parachutes in my package and get a free trip to space, while bringing my own parachute and dooming everyone else on board?

      --
      Ah, you found me!
    25. Re:Unspecified Fee by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
      The fee is: A whole carload of money. Probably more than a carload, maybe a truckload, or even a trainload.

      This means only Billionaire$ will be going on these excursions. They don't need life insurance since they are so gosh darn rich that their money makes their physical presence irrelevant.

      I, for one am all for Billionaire$ shooting themselves to the moon because the odds of them dying in the process are high. Estate taxes are around 50%. If all the country's Billionaire$ popped off tomorrow, we'd have another budget surplus.

      Then again Billionaire$ wield lawyers and offshore tax shelters well. I may be overstating things. But all in all, dead Billionaire$ are good for the country.

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

    26. Re:Unspecified Fee by XnR'rn · · Score: 1

      Thats right. It would be nifty if we could launch Mr. Berezovski. I bet we'd even do it for free. Still, he needs to be extradicted from Britain first. ;)

  4. Intresting... by deedude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe this will kickstart a new space race to the moon. Of course, they said the same thing when when the Chinese talked about a moonshot as well (though I havn't heard anything sense). Perhaps the Russians will force a new market on space travel, and (hopefully) it'll get cheap enough in the future to be affordable. After all, who hasn't dreamed of going to the moon at some point?

    1. Re:Intresting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After all, who hasn't dreamed of going to the moon at some point?"

      A newborn baby?

      Also, it's "since", not "sense."

    2. Re:Intresting... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      "though I havn't heard anything sense"

      I haven't heard anything sense either...

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    3. Re:Intresting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We choose to go to the moon, not because it is hard, but because it has been done before!".

  5. "Back?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't they have to get there in the first place to go "back"?

    1. Re:"Back?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes indeed.
      Of course Hollywood are currently preparing a film about America's conquest of space staring Tom Cruise as Jerry Gagarin, 1st Man in space. The tale of a boy from Iowa who dreamed a dream that became a reality. Blah blah blah.

    2. Re:"Back?" by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't they have to get there in the first place to go "back"?

      "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We came in peace for all mankind."

      Therefore, in a sense, any human that goes to the moon would be going back. Or, if you wanted to really pick nits, you could say that it doesn't count as going back unless one or more of the Apollo 11-17 astronauts goes again.

  6. Wonderful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great, Tourists in Space.

    Honestly, a trip around the moon supplied by a government that can only fund such a trip from tourists seems a tad too dangerous for me.

    But then again, I haven't even left the country. :)

    1. Re:Wonderful... by new+account+for+mod · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh great, Tourists in Space.

      Coming Soon to a Theater Near You:
      Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo in... National Lampoon's Lunar Vacation!!

      "Look kids! It's the Sea of Tranquility!"

    2. Re:Wonderful... by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      Oh man, its late, I'm tired, and for a second there I thought you said Oh great, Tortoise in Space. And I was thinking to myself, hey thats not a bad idea. Then I realized the shell probably wouldn't protect them from radiation. The image of those poor tortoises boiling in a vaccum after the Russians tried to send them to the moon got me pretty depressed. Then I realized you said Tourists, and well, now I'm really depressed.

      -kaplanfx

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
  7. Fine... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...so long as it helps fund their space program. The more the merrier.

    1. Re:Fine... by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, we'll be helping them fund their program - again. Um, somewhat "unofficially". Not a bad thing, mind you.

      Not to disparage the Sovs, they have their own problems. But the irony, both ways, is getting pretty thick at this point, and I'm not just talking about the cold war, either.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  8. I would be excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they announced a mission to mars! Even if it was just to pat ourselves on the back, lets do it. Its the first baby step. I WANT DOOM3 TO BE REAL!

  9. yay me by underworld · · Score: 3, Funny

    my first slashism:

    in soviet russia, the moon circumnavigates you!

    1. Re:yay me by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      in soviet russia, the moon circumnavigates you!

      Except the moon _does_ circumnaviate everyone in russia, and everywhere else on earth as well. About once every month in fact. It's not a good "in soviet russia" joke if it's actually _true_ :)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:yay me by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Union, the commissar tells you what to laugh at. In Russian Republic, Rootin' Tootin' Putin tells you what to laugh at. In US, John Ashcroft tells you what's funny and then arrests you if you laugh the wrong way.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    3. Re:yay me by XnR'rn · · Score: 1

      You can go with the old Soviet Russia anecdote (its not valid as slashdot 'soviet russia' thing, since is a good old valid anecdote... from soviet russia...) So, Vasiliy Ivanovich tells Pet'ka: - Americans have landed on the moon! The politburo is sending you on a mission to the sun. Pet'ka replies: - Vasiliy Ivanovich, are they nuts? I'll burn there! - Ne dreyf'(don't fear) Pet'ka! They aren't stupid. You'll fly during the night! (This article in Moscow times explains a lot of old soviet russian humour. Good reference).

  10. Illustrations are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The illustrations in the gallery show the side of the moon away from the sun fading from light through gray to dark. This won't happen on an atmosphere-less body like the moon. There will be a sharp cutoff from bright to dark.

    Any point on the moon's surface can either see the sun, or not. There's no atmosphere to provide a gradient.

  11. subtle joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Timothy posted this as "from the alice-ducks department"

    If you didn't get it, google for "the honeymooners" and "to the moon".

    Classic stuff

    1. Re:subtle joke by Somegeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you hate having to explain your own jokes Timothy? I mean AC?

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
  12. To the moon and back... by GooDieZ · · Score: 1

    Loan me 20 mio. $ I wanna go.

    Abouth a month back in some German tv channel, there was a report about this.

    A bit pricey if you ask me...

    --
    Things in a rear mirror might be behind you
    1. Re:To the moon and back... by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      I for one would gladly donate $10 to see Donald Trump and his stupid haircut sent to the moon. Now that would be worth the price.

  13. 500 Internal Server Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    500 Internal Server Error

    An internal server error occurred. Please try again later.


    Interspersed with 503's, all day. What's going on?

  14. Re:If you are tired of 503 by foidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll post as a logged in subscriber, I'm not going to renew the subscription after the 503s....
    Watch the karma burn!

  15. Clip-On by usefool · · Score: 1

    According to the artcile, they're sort of recycling Soyuz that is already launched and attached to the ISS. They just launch additional modules (and passengers) up later.

    At first I thought they're launching a Soyuz directly towards the moon and cleverly navigates its way around the moon (to see the dark side too), and back to earth.

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
    1. Re:Clip-On by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      The Soyuz takes the passenger up to the ISS first, where they wait for the booster module to be launched. When the booster module reaches orbit, the soyuz (with crew and passenger), leaves the station, joins with the booster and together they fly to the moon and back, aerobraking then parachuting down to earth.

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    2. Re:Clip-On by eingram · · Score: 1

      Assuming the ISS is still there once the booster module gets there. Flamebait, I know, but really, it'd be better to skip the middle part because it may not always be there (and it would suck to have to redesign the whole thing just because you lose a space station).

    3. Re:Clip-On by mforbes · · Score: 1

      At first I thought they're launching a Soyuz directly towards the moon and cleverly navigates its way around the moon (to see the dark side too), and back to earth.

      This is entirely pedantic, but... (on /. you always know there's more coming when someone says "but...")

      There is no dark side of the moon. There is a far side, caused by the tidal lock Earth has on the Moon's rotation, but both faces of the moon face the Sun for equal amounts of time.

      There are theoretically some spots near the poles, hidden at the bottoms of craters, which may never see the sun, but that's because the angle of the sun over the horizon never gets steep enough to hit the bottoms of those craters.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

  16. Re:If you are tired of 503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And 500's too, lots of them. This is making the community look silly.

    Cripes, if you want help, just ask, don't keep it to yourselves. That's what Open Source is good at.

  17. if i had... by DeionXxX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if i had the money... i'd do it in a heart beat... talk about ridiculously cool. what besides going to Mars (which won't happen for 20 more years atleast) would top it?

    some people spend ten - twenty years training and going to school for just the chance to go to space.

    fuck buying a big ass yacht or a stupid jet, you can fky to the goddammn moon!

    1. Re:if i had... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      You've definitely raised an interesting thought for me. What I'm wondering is what kind of person whom could actually afford this ride would want to risk their life in such a way. Sure it's easy to be flip and think, 'wtf, I'd go', but I bet when it came time to walk up to the rocket and get in for take-off, more than half of the knee-jerk 'sure, what the hell' people would change their tune.

      Soo...I guess I'd rather be in the Caymans sitting on my yacht and sipping a drink while thinking, "Damn, that sucks" when the news hits that Mr. MoonShot has just had his jaunt expanded into a solar tour. Or worse(?), just turned into Mr. BuckShot across the face of the moon...

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    2. Re:if i had... by bronney · · Score: 1

      Yeah, though I agree to you somewhat. And since I have all the time in the world to read slashdot I am prolly not rich enough to get a ticket. Man I can't even afford a tercel.

      The thing is, since I am a coward, I prolly won't go no matter what; even if the price is $10. But there must be those rich bastards in the world who molest children for the same reason(s) as watching lesbians play mahjong.. they got bored of the yacht.

      That'd be one kind of "user" of this tour. But I agree with you if I were the one, I wouldn't do it cuz it's already a bit late to enjoy the earthly pleasures..

      -bron

    3. Re:if i had... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "who," not "whom."

    4. Re:if i had... by zors · · Score: 1

      Talk about the greatest adventure. These types of things always make me wonder whether or not i'd go even if i knew i would die. Probably not for just the moon, but maybe to see the solar system or another star or for the chance to meet an intelligent people out there somewhere.

      I guess that I agree with the ideology of adventure, huh?

    5. Re:if i had... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if i had the money.. ..i'd do something worthwhile on earth without needing to risk my ass. oh and a mars trip would be a FUCKING BORING ONE for most of the time(and yes you'd get quite bored of looking through one window into blackness, that is if you even have one window).

      and some people don't spend ten to twenty years for that chance to get into space, they spend 10 to 20 years doing science that may allow them to get to do some *grunt* work at space. if you just aimed at getting to space just for the kicks of it then you're definetely not the kinda person needed up there.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:if i had... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      but I bet when it came time to walk up to the rocket and get in for take-off, more than half of the knee-jerk 'sure, what the hell' people would change their tune.

      The going rate to climb Everest with expedition support is about $50,000. Several dozen do it each year. About 10% die in the process.

    7. Re:if i had... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      I agree. Wonder how long (given that this first iteration works as intended) before they replace the existing service module on the Soyuz with something that can enter/leave lunar orbit? Then they'll just be a lander away from putting people on the ground.

      I'm not particularly fond of some of the Soyuz design, but it's a good spacecraft, and could be adapted into a lunar craft if they want to make the effort.

      These types of things always make me wonder whether or not i'd go even if i knew i would die

      My daughter will graduate highschool soon, so I'm not really at liberty to do something hazardous and frivolous. But absent that constraint, I'd go in a heartbeat!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:if i had... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Yeah. That's all Neil Armstrong cared about. 20 years of science to do some grunt work on the Moon. Ditto John Glenn. Just wanting to go into space had nothing to do with it.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    9. Re:if i had... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      About 10% die in the process.

      No. Not even 5% die. And it's only as high as 5% if you count deaths vs success (reaching the top). Deaths vs (success + nonlethal failures) is a smaller percentage.

      That 10% figure would only be right if you go back for many decades.... which would make the price quoted inaccurate. Nowadays climbers have much better equipment.

    10. Re:if i had... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      No. Not even 5% die. And it's only as high as 5% if you count deaths vs success (reaching the top).

      That's what I did.

      That 10% figure would only be right if you go back for many decades

      One decade. Here's a factoid: "Best and Worst Years on Everest:
      1993, 129 summitted and eight died (6%);
      1996, 98 summitted and 15 died (15%)"

      Nowadays climbers have much better equipment.

      In 1996 they had pretty good equipment. 15 died.

      It is possible to add information without puting people down. Makes for a more pleasant experience.

    11. Re:if i had... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      That's what I did.

      Yes, that's what you did. And it's wrong to do that- to be accurate, you should measure deaths/attempts. People who try and fail still count towards the overall safety record of the activity. That's how it works for spaceflight, after all. We wouldn't say that Apollo 13 didn't count towards surviving astronauts just because they failed the mission.

      But I suppose mountaineers must use successful climbs instead of total attempts, because the former are better documented.

      One decade.

      No. Since 1924, more than 2000 people (paying customers, not guides) have attempted the climb, and fewer than 200 have died. That means the TOTAL rate is less than 10%. But it's become much safer since 1990, so the rate is less now.

      Between 1992-2002, there were been 1165 successful climbs, and 65 deaths. That gives 5.5%. And if 2003/2004 were included, it'd be even lower.

      Here's a factoid: "Best and Worst Years on Everest:

      Why would averaging the best and worst give you a value applicable to the whole decade? If you did that with human IQs, you'd get a number much less than 100 (the real, defined average)*. Do it with human net worths, and you come to $20,000,000,000. Which is noticeably above average.

      It is possible to add information without puting people down.

      Maybe so, although that's not in my job description.

      * Unless you did it back when that freak who scored 330 on a lucky test was still around...

    12. Re:if i had... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Why would averaging the best and worst give you a value applicable to the whole decade?

      I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth, like that above non sequitur, and then knocking them down.

      >It is possible to add information without putting people down.
      Maybe so, although that's not in my job description.

      If you want a discussion, rather than an argument and name calling, try it some time. Till then, enjoy having the last word if that's what gets you off.

    13. Re:if i had... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      if i had the money... i'd do it in a heart beat... talk about ridiculously cool. what besides going to Mars (which won't happen for 20 more years atleast) would top it?

      Well, lots of things would beat a single orbit around the moon. Say, actual moon base, longer-term stay on larger space habitat, could you imagine living in a hollowed-out, 10km diameter asteroid?

      Stuff on Earth (well, in Earth) that would get close, underwater resort in a beautiful location. Maybe even mobile one... big ass yacht might be boring but big ass underwater "yacht"? Count me in!

    14. Re:if i had... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soo...I guess I'd rather be in the Caymans sitting on my yacht and sipping a drink while thinking, "Damn, that sucks" when the news hits that Mr. MoonShot has just had his jaunt expanded into a solar tour. Or worse(?), just turned into Mr. BuckShot across the face of the moon...

      And I'm sure Mr. MoonShot will have a nice laugh too when he spots the huge-ass typhoon big enough to see from orbit headed for Caymans after returning from his non-expanded moon tour.

      Nothing is risk free.

    15. Re:if i had... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth,

      I didn't make you say "10% of them die". But yes, I did knock it down.

      If you want a discussion, rather than an argument and name calling,

      You're delusional.

      There. I "called you a name". It was the first time, as a simple scroll up the thread will show.

      I never made any personalized attacks on you- I only pointed out that your numbers were simply wrong. Mt. Everest is not 10% deadly. It's barely even 5%. A simple web search will reveal that the only way to get a 10% rate is to take the whole history of Everest climbing, and that going back so far includes obselete periods of higher risk.

      Somehow you managed to construe an observation about facts into a personal attack... that's your perogative, I suppose.

    16. Re:if i had... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Somehow you managed to construe an observation about facts into a personal attack... that's your perogative, I suppose.

      Yes, because that's exactly what you did. As for "facts", well, you just redefined the terms to make your "observations" about how wrong I was more plausible.

      Most of those who are gratuitously offensive in such debates don't realise they are; they think everyone else is stupid &/or over sensitive. When you call them on it they just get worse. Anyway, I've been online long enough to see when someone's motive is to score points, and as at his point no one else is reading these posts I'd just be feeding your ego to continue. You are perfectly free to construe that as a cowardly evasion or tacit admission of error if it makes you feel better.

  18. It might be a step in the right direction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being 25 now I've been thinking what I consider likely things that I'll get the opportunity to do in life and i'm semi-sure that space tourism (in orbit) becoming affordable within my lifetime is likely and possibly trips to the moon as well. I'm not that sure about Mars - if a manned mission is likely within 25 years, a huge leap in technology might make it possible for the masses within 50. - I remember reading a (funny) prediction how Mars will be the favorite resort for senior citizens in 2050 because the lower gravity will be so much more pleasant. Who knows!

    1. Re:It might be a step in the right direction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't seem that the spacecraft has the luxury to transport sightseers in addition to a trained crew. How much training will be required of the tourists in the operation and navigation of the vehicle? I wonder if a psychological evaluation would also be necessary since the occupants will be confined to a pretty small space for an extended period of time. Don't want anyone going off the deep end and endangering the other travelers and the mission.

    2. Re:It might be a step in the right direction... by zardinuk · · Score: 1

      But will they allow your wrinkly carcass to fly to the moon when you're in your 80's? I want to try wearing a ceramic/compressed nitrogen suit and jumping into re-entry... with a parachute, of course.

      --

      "What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others."
      - Confucius

  19. Re:If you are tired of 503 by Short+Circuit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Look on the bright side...503 errors don't count towards your advert-free pages. :)

    Has this been going on all weekend, or did it start this morning?

  20. Radiation by rarose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be concerned about radiation doses... I would imagine the Soyuz is only shielded for flight being more-or-less within Earth's magneosphere, but the moon is another story.

    How many chest x-rays in a moon trip? :-)

    --
    --Rob
    1. Re:Radiation by cmowire · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's no more or less shielded than Apollo.

      Basicly, the radiation dosage is small enough that you can do it once without any major side effects.

    2. Re:Radiation by Frogbert · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't think you should worry about that... Buzz Aldrin is what? 75 years old and still going strong. Ofcourse that all depends on whether he went to the moon in the first place *shifty eyes* *puts on foil hat*

    3. Re:Radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x-rays are electromagnetic rays and are not affected by earths magnetic field. I believe it is high velocity ions/particles - "the solar vind" - that you are thinking about?

    4. Re:Radiation by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's no more or less shielded than Apollo.

      Indeed, Soyuz would have been the Soviets' moon spacecraft, if things had gone a little differently. What worries me is this:

      Soyuz has gone into Earth orbit a bazillion times and has had two lethal failures, both in the early days of the programme. As a space tourist, I'd accept those odds. But Soyuz has never been to the Moon, except IIRC as an unmanned Zond test flight... Apollo went nine times, one of which was very, very nearly a lethal failure. I'm not so sure of those odds, especially since an Apollo XIII failure would be very, very likely to become lethal due to the presence of an incompetent, untrained and panicking tourist in the capsule!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:Radiation by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Funny
      *shifty eyes* *puts on foil hat*

      If you're suggesting Aldrin never went to the Moon, a tinfoil hat won't help. I recommend a boxer's gumshield.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To hell with being concerned about radiation doses! I'd be concerned about this:

      Perhaps most importantly, though, Anderman said, is that the module would carry a new toilet: the toilet currently used on Soyuz missions, located in the orbital module, is designed to support three people for only two to four days.

      Ned, step away from the freeze dried chili! Houston, we have a problem.

    7. Re:Radiation by XnR'rn · · Score: 1

      I'd be more vorried about the flight preparations. Not only you have to be quite healthy in the first place so you can survive the launch. Not only you have to spend a year, or so in training camps where they stress test you in preparation... But before you are clear for launch they remove anything that might be troublesome and can't be fixed in flight. Apendix for example. Tonsils and the like too I think?

    8. Re:Radiation by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Soyuz has gone into Earth orbit a bazillion times and has had two lethal failures, both in the early days of the programme. As a space tourist, I'd accept those odds.
      (sigh) Out of 86 flights the Soyuz has had;
      • Two fatal accidents. (Both re-entry related.)
      • Two non-fatal (barely, but non fatal) re-entry accidents. [1]
      • Four off-target landings which threatened the life of the crew. [2]
      • And two launch accidents.
      Two fatal and *eight* not fatal but very significant accidents. Those are not good odds at all. (When you toss in the four loss-of-mission flight aborts, and at least four failures of the rockets that cushion landing, the picture becomes even more grim.) Also consider that the latest model (Soyuz TMA) has completed three flights, one of which had a significant system failure. (Which had it happened an hour earlier could have left the spacecraft stranded in orbit.)

      Summary: Soyuz is not a particularly safe craft. Counting only fatal accidents is a fool's method.

      [1]In one, the service module failed to seperate, causing the craft to enter nose-first. The paint on the *interior* of the nose hatch burned away before the service module was torn away by aerodynamic forces and the recovery module resumed a more normal attitude.

      [2]Twice it nearly froze the crew to death by landing in an area that took rescue forces over a day to reach. Once it landed on a mountain ledge (missing a fall post landing by less than two meters), *then* nearly froze the crew. For the fourth accident, the parachutes dragged the capsule into a frozen lake...
  21. Space Cadet.... by theirishhombre · · Score: 0

    I'll go only if Lance Bass does.

  22. Heres some crucial info by Uplore · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Before the site /.'s

    Unlike one-man Vostok spacecraft, the three-seat Soyuz would be able to conduct active maneuvering, orbital rendezvous and docking. These features were all necessary for a flight around the Moon and for lunar expedition itself. In the early scenario of "circumlunar" flight, the Soyuz would be actually a three-part spacecraft assembled in the low-Earth orbit from elements launched onboard individual launch vehicles. This plan was later abandoned in favor of two-launch and later one-launch scenario.
    --
    I couldn't think of a sig.
  23. Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by Joe+'Nova' · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't economical to fund the Russian ships(now the only resupply to ISS), this would not be happening. I'm the type to see the unintended consequences, but if this makes money for the Russians, it might be a good thing. As for exploration of space, I think we are already there-BUT! we lost a shuttle and crew due to old systems breaking down. I think it is time to upgrade the shuttle fleet. Years ago NASA spoke of a tile repair kit, and a 'space rescue ball'. (National Geographic had those, too lazy to look up) I think WE should be doing better, not letting the Russians paste us into a corner. And I will give Soyuz program Kudos.
    Anyone else want to take a poke at NASA? Are they even fogging a mirror, letting the Hubble, the most successful program they ever had, croak.

    --
    This mind intentionally left blank.
    The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
    1. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by StarWynd · · Score: 4, Informative

      we lost a shuttle and crew due to old systems breaking down

      Actually, the old systems have been pretty reliable. In the two shuttle disasters we've had, neither has been the result of equipment breaking down because of age. NASA took very good care of the shuttle, but the culprit of one disaster was a design flaw and the other disaster was caused by an accident. There's a big difference between a piece of foam damaging the leading edge of wing on take-off and a wing not working correctly because of lack of maintenance and care.

    2. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      First off it was Columbia, not Atlantis.

      Second, the tile repair kit was considered infeasible because there's simply no place for the repairer to hold on to underneath the shuttle. This means that the astronaut is just as likely do more damage to the shuttle while attempting to repair the tiles.

    3. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The soyuz may be an old design (that is improved from time to time) - however, every soyuz that is launched is a brand new one - they are not reusable. Still the russians manage to keep the launch costs at 20-25 million dollars (compared to NASAs 500 million dollars for a shuttle launch). This is, in part, because the russian soyuz system is designed so that you either launch a capsule or you launch payload - wich means there is less fuel and other technical issues that can happen compared to the more complex shuttle.

      I just wonder - why did nasa feel that a shuttle was necessary, as long as you are not in a hurry it should be just fine to launch the payload first and then the crew? When do you need to launch both payload and crew at the same time?

    4. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nasa didn't. The military did, for missions where they *were* in a hurry. Stupidly, by the time the shuttle was ready to fly the need for such missions had been filled by better spy satellites. The space transport system America now has is an amazingly successful implementation of some horridly bad requirements.

      To editorialize further, this is a persistant problem of NASA: excellent engineering chasing inconstant political winds. Each "overhaul" would have to work organizational miracles to overcome the harm it itself causes. So far, none has, while yet another spurred by Columbia is ricocheting around as we type. Life was so much easier when NASA was given little but a goal and a blank check.

    5. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the other disaster was caused by an accident.

      There is no such thing as an accident. Only a situation where somebody f*cks up and people die.

      For the record, I'm a private pilot, a motorcycle rider, and an experienced driver. I also get out to the shooting range every once in a while.

      Mistakes do happen, and we all need to work together to stay safe.

    6. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by CBob · · Score: 1

      All things considered, look at the accidents/fatality stats per mile traveled and I'd still feel safer in a shuttle than driving to work in New Jersey.

      The "Zero Risk World" that many of the "warm and fuzzy" folks insist on is NEVER going to exist and they cannot stand that. As a result, they seem to insist even more fervently making it happen.

    7. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by ad0gg · · Score: 1
      Considering NASA breakdowns a shuttle after launch and goes over everything with for worn parts. And after all the worn parts are replaced, the shuttle is rebuilt.

      BTW, shuttle has never crashed due to worn parts. Challenger crashed because of failed O-ring that froze and cracked. Columbia crashed because a piece of styrofoam knocked off a ceramic tile on a wing.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    8. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Columbia crashed because a piece of insulating foam knocked a carbon-carbon panel out of place on the leading edge of the wing, opening a gap. During reentry, plasma entered the gap and basically melted the wing off.

    9. Re:Atlantis tragedy made economicly possible?... by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

      So it's not a accident if lightning strikes & knocks down a tree directly in your car's path, a second before you are due to arrive at that spot on the road where the tree ended up?

  24. damn preview! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something left out the rest of the sentence:
    Who knows! Maybe I'll spend my retirement days there so I don't need to listen to grandchildren complaining how their 500 terahertz watches are too slow to play the latest games...

  25. Ground Control to Major Tomsky. by mikeophile · · Score: 0

    Does the trip include a return ticket?

    1. Re:Ground Control to Major Tomsky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, at least your title was funnier than Timothy's Honeymooners reference.

  26. Soyuz error 504 by Uplore · · Score: 0

    "Moon not found. Aborting mission"

    --
    I couldn't think of a sig.
  27. Re:If you are tired of 503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple weeks.

  28. Space Race by tpgp · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Americans won the first race

    Which first race?

    Do you mean: (from Wikipedia's space race page)

    The first artificial satellite?
    The first animal in space?
    The first fly by moon?
    The first spacecraft on moon?
    The first human in space?

    They were the earliest space achievements - and all 'won' by the USSR.

    The American's won the race to get the first man on the moon - no more, no less.

    America did not win the space race.

    America did not win the 'first' race.

    --
    My pics.
    1. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Winning is such a relitive term. You are correct in that the only real American victory in the space race was the first man on the moon. However, all that matters is that the entire world saw men wearing American flags walking on the moon. This was more than enough to give the world the perception that America was the stronger country. In the end, thats all that really mattered about the space 'race'.

    2. Re:Space Race by mog007 · · Score: 1

      The United States sent up the first primate, as well as being the current record holder for human-made object being furthest away from Earth, and humans to be the longest distance from Earth. Voyager 2, and the Apollo 13 crew, respectively. Of course, back in the 60's the Russians PWN3D the United States with space travel.

    3. Re:Space Race by r00zky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly what i was about to post, these americans are falling to their own propaganda... from 50 years ago too easily.

      In the first phase the CCCPians totally pwn3d j00.

      Another hits were first woman in space in 1963, and first space station. Not bad at all for the "losing" team.

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    4. Re:Space Race by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      America did not win the 'first' race.

      Ok, yeah, but at least we did win the Battle of Pearl Harbor and capture the Enigma machine.

      KFG

    5. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 5, Informative

      America did not win the space race.

      America did not win the 'first' race.


      Hmmm.

      Some other firsts:

      First *guided* and piloted (as opposed to launched on similar orbits passing somewhat close at 4k mph) rendezvous in space: America, Gemini 6/7, which achieved rendezvous via onboard thrusters, computers, and radar.

      First men around the moon, first men *on* the moon: America (Apollos 8 and 11) - if anyone thinks that wasn't a win, you don't know what you are talking about - the Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering)

      First human in space to move around with a device made for the purpose: Ed White, America ( the Soviet space walk was tethered and non-propelled; we developed something to allow him to move around and attempt the first useful work in orbit)

      First serious use of Geosynch communications sats: America; also first "spy" sats that could transmit via encrypted video and not rely on de-orbited film canisters.

      First unmanned docking with a booster which was used to boost our manned spacecraft into higher orbits: America (Gemini, with the Agena)

      First Human-guided landing on the moon: America (Neil piloting the LM down after the guidance computers failed - also, mind you, we essentially *boasted* that we'd land a man on the moon within ten years, and we did it - the Russians did not and still haven't. )

      First space "station": Skylab (yeah, not permanently manned, but it was the first, and very profitable knowledge-wise.) The Sovs profited a lot from the knowledge we gained from Skylab. Note that they didn't launch Mir for many years afterward.

      First reusable orbital vehicle that could deliver cargo: America - the space shuttle (yeah, it's a clusterfuck now - but blame the funders, not the engineers, at least not the original ones. We could do better, if the idiots in the many layers of "oversight" had got the hell out of the way in the 70s. )

      The Soviets won a lot of the unmanned contests back then, and some of the manned. We passed them by in the mid 60s and went higher and a *lot* further. (Yeah, we stagnated after that. But that's politics for ya; thanks for nothing, Nixon; despite your public support for the space program, you did doodly to stop it getting shafted by Congress.)

      What it comes down to, tho, is that the Soviets had no "firsts" in space after Leonov's space walk; and despite starting way behind them, we passed them and beat them hands down in the "space race". It wasn't until Mir that they did something we hadn't done - and if we'd taken advantage of the infrastructure we had at the point of Apollo 11, they'd not even done that.

      SB
      (apologies, I've just finished reading Chris Kraft's excellent book "Flight", and I recommend it highly.)

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    6. Re:Space Race by the+gnat · · Score: 0, Troll

      America did not win the space race.

      Yeah, it's kinda sad how things just take longer when you don't have slave labor at your disposal. Oh well, at least after several decades our national economy isn't in the crapper.

    7. Re:Space Race by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Which first race? Putting up a media satellite capable of broadcasting "Ishtar" 24 hours a day to the Middle East.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    8. Re:Space Race by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      ...and all thanks to Werner von Braun and the other Nazis that the US government welcomed, with open arms, at the close of WWII. Think of all those slaves who died in Werner's rocket factories, just so he could perfect his engines and pass the technology on to the US military...

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    9. Re:Space Race by segfault7375 · · Score: 4, Funny


      ...he Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering...

      In Soviet Russia, the moon lands on YOU!

      Sorry, I couldn't resist :)

    10. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Informative


      Von Braun did a lot; but he was also somewhat of an obstructionist. His (and his team's) greatest contribution, late in the program, was the Saturn 1B and 5 rockets. Before that he was pretty well out of the picture, somewhat during Mercury, and totally out during Gemini and Apollo, other than his contribution to the launch platform.

      Von Braun was often described as someone who'd work for anyone, and had no allegiance to any country. I find that simultaneously despicable and admirable. The guy was one helluva engineer, and knew how to drive brilliant people to accomplish things.

      You should really read Kraft's book. There were many things in it that were an eye-opener.

      You should also think on how hard it is to work for someone you detest - Braun detested the Nazis, but he had little choice during WWII. We're just damned lucky that the Soviets didn't capture him first (IIRC he and his team *chose* to be captured by the Americans. THINK on that) .

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    11. Re:Space Race by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Funny

      OK, but we won the flag war ;)

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    12. Re:Space Race by andreyw · · Score: 1

      Wha? Slaves?

    13. Re:Space Race by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Slaves indeed! The Nazis used slave labour in their factories -- Google is your friend if you wish to learn more.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    14. Re:Space Race by TV-SET · · Score: 1
      America did not win the space race.

      True.

      $ links -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_race | grep first | grep USSR | wc -l
      9
      $ links -dump http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_race | grep first | grep USA | wc -l
      5

      USSR:USA - 9:5. Oh, and USSR gets another 3 points which I missed due to "as above" thingy. 12:5.

      --
      Leonid Mamtchenkov ...i don't need your civil war...
    15. Re:Space Race by Nept · · Score: 1

      if the userid didn't say kfg the sarcasm would have gone by undetected ...

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    16. Re:Space Race by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Which first race?

      The first race to the moon:

      The Americans won the first race, but the Russians might beat them back to the moon.

      The sentence is clearly referring particularly to the effort to send a manned mission to the moon, since it is predicated on the thing that the Americans did first.

      It's interesting to note that the US also nearly lost the race to be the first to circle the moon, as revealed here. Evidence suggests that the Soviets tried to beat Apollo 8 by mere days by launching a mission profile similar to this current tourist scheme. Unfortunately for the Soviets, the new Proton booster required to launch the unmanned half of the mission was still problem-prone at that time:

      A week later, the Soyuz booster is being removed from its pad, but now a Proton / L1 combination is on the Proton pad. This seems to clearly indicate that attempts were being made, right up to and beyond the day Apollo 8 was launched, to beat the Americans to the moon. The authors theorise that an attempt at a manned launch to the moon using the two-launch podsadka scenario was attempted, but that some serious spacecraft problem must have resulted in the Proton launch being scrubbed.

      This is basically the whole story of the "space race". The Soviets were first with everything that they could achieve with their outstanding R-7 booster (which was used to launch Sputnik, and evolved into the Soyuz booster still in use today). However, they had problems scaling past that in either size or complexity, and the Americans were first to do most things outside of low earth orbit (with the exception of their moon probes and their way-cool Venus landers).

    17. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      US citizens thinks they are better than the rest of the world.

      USA creates fear in the world, starting wars only for their interests with a stupid monkey-like-guy with the powers.

      USA are conivent with cheat like M$ only because make money with then.

      USA are trying to put the bulshit of patents in Europe now because they are patenting everything before everyone.

      USA thinks that only they can have biologic weapons, only they can have the nuclear tecnolhogy with argments such as "you are doing nuclear research to made nuclear weapons, only we can do that" when a country is only trying to make eletricity to suply their people and grow to an aceptable life-level.

      The comercial fly is a nice thing, but USA can't see with good eyes because they think they are superior and they whant to be ahead in every comercial model.

      Stupid US citizens, you make the world a piece of cheat, ___every US citizens___ are guilt with the modern model of fear, destruction, dictatoriarism(YOU ARE NOT A FREEDOM COUNTRY), war, intelectual-repression and every other bulshit.

      You can say this is a flame, but you can't say that is not true!

    18. Re:Space Race by kfg · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm? But I saw it at the movies!

      KFG

    19. Re:Space Race by Cyno · · Score: 0, Troll

      First men around the moon, first men *on* the moon: America (Apollos 8 and 11) - if anyone thinks that wasn't a win, you don't know what you are talking about - the Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering)

      Yep. Cowboys in space.

      First school teacher blew up on the way to space.

      First shuttle incinerated on reentry with a full crew aboard.

      I'd guess we forgot to consider the value of a human in all these races. Money should not be an object so long as we want humans in space! Unless, of course, being first is the only thing that matters.

    20. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American's won the race to get the first man on the moon - no more, no less.

      mm...not so sure about this. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that no man has ever stepped foot on the moon.

    21. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US citizens thinks they are better than the rest of the world.

      The U.S. is made up of people from the rest of the world. The New York city public school system has a 50% population born "overseas".

      USA creates fear in the world, starting wars only for their interests with a stupid monkey-like-guy with the powers.

      Every war the U.S. has been in has been for moral reasons. The bloodiest war in U.S. history (Civil War) was about slaverly. You Europeans/Arabs/Asians only start wars to steal land/resources and to eliminate an entire race. BTW, those "wars" helped create the second and third most powerful countries in the world - Japan and Germany.

      USA are conivent with cheat like M$ only because make money with then.

      Bill Gates is forcing you to use his software?

      USA are trying to put the bulshit of patents in Europe now because they are patenting everything before everyone.

      It's to stop all those French spies who dig through our hotel rooms when we travel there (to steal industrial secrets). BTW, the seats in first class on Air France flights are all bugged (industrial espionage)

      USA thinks that only they can have biologic weapons, only they can have the nuclear tecnolhogy with argments such as "you are doing nuclear research to made nuclear weapons, only we can do that" when a country is only trying to make eletricity to suply their people and grow to an aceptable life-level.

      You obviously are just reaching for anything now. Try researching biological weapons during WWI and WWII. Look into the 500,000 Chinese deaths by Japan's Biological and Human Experimentation Unit 731 during the 1930s and 1940s.

      The comercial fly is a nice thing, but USA can't see with good eyes because they think they are superior and they whant to be ahead in every comercial model.

      Yes - our planes don't crash. What's your point on this one?

      Stupid US citizens, you make the world a piece of cheat, ___every US citizens___ are guilt with the modern model of fear, destruction, dictatoriarism(YOU ARE NOT A FREEDOM COUNTRY), war, intelectual-repression and every other bulshit.

      Watch it, or I'll stop paying my taxes. Then your U.N. food shipments will stop. I'm sure France will feed you though!!

    22. Re:Space Race by ozbird · · Score: 1

      I think the Soviets beat the USA to that, too. Luna 2 carried a Soviet pennant to the moon 14 September 1959.

    23. Re:Space Race by stygar · · Score: 1

      Which first race?

      Umm, the one to the moon. I would have thought that it was obvious that's what the original poster meant, even though it was phrased poorly.

      It is important to note that the Americans got off to a slow start, but all the "firsts" you're pointing to have one thing in in common: they were the easy stuff. All they required were some big rockets (and for the human orbit, a willful disregard for the safety and well-being of your test pilot). How many of those have been duplicated by others countries since? How many other countries have duplicated the moon landing?

      On a final note, pointing to Wikipedia to back up your argument is dangerous. In this case they apparently didn't get anything wrong, but on the whole, Wikipedia generally has all the authority and accuracy of lecture notes borrowed from your roommate (who had a hangover when he took them).

    24. Re:Space Race by varjag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Soviets were first with everything that they could achieve with their outstanding R-7 booster (which was used to launch Sputnik, and evolved into the Soyuz booster still in use today). However, they had problems scaling past that in either size or complexity, and the Americans were first to do most things outside of low earth orbit

      The real problem was that Korolev, the Soviet chief designer has died in 1966, and his exceptional skills and willpower that drove the early Soviet space program were gone.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    25. Re:Space Race by varjag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First men around the moon, first men *on* the moon: America (Apollos 8 and 11) - if anyone thinks that wasn't a win, you don't know what you are talking about - the Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering)

      Of course we could, a year or two later. But coming there second was pointless in a purely political contest.

      And as much as I admire american achievements in space, I don't think your supercilious tone is proper. It's not like Gagarin got up there by pushing a cart.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    26. Re:Space Race by iamacat · · Score: 1

      In the end, thats all that really mattered about the space 'race'.

      You don't leave any possibility for space explaration deemed essential for humanity by leaders of all countries - USSR, US, China - no matter what is their opinion on other issues, do you? One day, humnity will make a second home on another star system, planet, sattelite or a space station. Or perhaps, will fail to do so and resolve to live out the remaining billions of years on Earth as pleasently as possible. Capitalism vs Communism or political boundries will be just matters of brief and boring study in elementary school in a hundred years. Just wait (if you manage) and see.

    27. Re:Space Race by Jott42 · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously saying that the early US rockets did not rely a lot on the design of the German V2 rocket??? From having seen both, I must say that they are very similar! The same trust vectoring scheme, for example.

      (And Von Braun was supervising the design of the Redstone rockets, at least according to Wikipedia?)

    28. Re:Space Race by bigsmelly · · Score: 1


      The Soviets won a lot of the unmanned contests back then, and some of the manned. We passed them by in the mid 60s and went higher and a *lot* further. (Yeah, we stagnated after that. But that's politics for ya; thanks for nothing, Nixon; despite your public support for the space program, you did doodly to stop it getting shafted by Congress.)


      But the whole point of the space race was to develop unmanned missile technology. Imagine Neil Armstrong piloting an ICBM into moscow....

    29. Re:Space Race by igny · · Score: 1
      the Soviet space walk was tethered and non-propelled; we developed something to allow him to move around and attempt the first useful work in orbit

      Nearly all Soviet space walks were tethered and nonpropelled, that didn't stop them to do LOTS of useful work in orbit.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    30. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's not at all what I said.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    31. Re:Space Race by igny · · Score: 1
      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    32. Re:Space Race by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      America still didn't win the race to space, apart getting a man on to the moon. First space station? First continuously manned space station? Just now, how has the capability to send a man to space? China and Russia, not Americans.

    33. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sure, Ace. When there are categories like
      first space flight where cosmonauts did not wear spacesuits.
      How about the first to not wear underwear?

      The point is that the only race the US was in was the one defined by President Kennedy, to place a man on the moon and return him safely to earth.

    34. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move to France asshole!

    35. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US citizens thinks they are better than the rest of the world.

      Umm as a thirty-something in midwest, I've never thought this. Please note that I *HAVE* travelled outside of the US however... Your inferiority complex is showing.

      USA creates fear in the world, starting wars only for their interests with a stupid monkey-like-guy with the powers.

      We're working on that. Wait till November.

      USA are conivent with cheat like M$ only because make money with then.

      Uh yeah, we play economic hardball. Nobody said life was fair.

      USA are trying to put the bulshit of patents in Europe now because they are patenting everything before everyone.

      And there are a load of other countries that wouldn't try it if we didn't beat them to the punch? Dream on.

      USA thinks that only they can have biologic weapons, only they can have the nuclear tecnolhogy with argments such as "you are doing nuclear research to made nuclear weapons, only we can do that" when a country is only trying to make eletricity to suply their people and grow to an aceptable life-level.

      Hate to say it pal, but Iran and North Korea don't need nukes. Especially Iran. And if you must push the issue, fuck you. The Russians and the US have got the biggest sticks (city busters). Take your shot with your 10kt homemade special, that's the only shot your civilization will ever get. Bioweapons? You're out of date by about thirty years.

      The comercial fly is a nice thing, but USA can't see with good eyes because they think they are superior and they whant to be ahead in every comercial model.

      We should sit down and let the rest of the world run over us? I think not willingly (although it is starting to happen in certain fields anyway).

      Stupid US citizens, you make the world a piece of cheat, ___every US citizens___ are guilt with the modern model of fear, destruction, dictatoriarism(YOU ARE NOT A FREEDOM COUNTRY), war, intelectual-repression and every other bulshit.

      Nationalistic? Yes, I am. Stupid? Not half as dumb as you are.

      You can say this is a flame, but you can't say that is not true!

      Your opinion was quite amusing. Take your prozac, child.

    36. Re:Space Race by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      Your post trying to show how America was "first" in space is quite amusing.

      You start with the ship rendezvous thing, but point out that the Russians did this first (although a slightly easier version).

      The men around and on the moon is a given for America, but that was after the USSR had sent unmanned probes there, beating the USA. This goes with your later point about "human-guided landing"... Surely a machine guided landing is more impressive?

      Sure the first untethered space walk may have been the USA but Leonov walked in space many years before then. Not a particularly important achievement really.

      "First serious use of Geosynch communications sats" implies that the USSR had put up such birds before the USA, just that they weren't commerically exploited.

      The booster docking is fair enough to claim as an achievement for the USA, as is the reusable orbital cargo vehicle (shuttle) claim.

      Finally as others have pointed out Salyut came before Skylab, and you're putting an arbitrary and largely unexplained definition on "space station" to make your claim here.

      Of course in your efforts to big-up the US space program you also fail to mention that Russia visited a whole load of planets (both orbital and surface), which is a pretty significant achievement.

      The USA do have some impressive achievements in space, but the claim that they won the space race is only propaganda - they won the moon race.

      Now the moon race win was of course very impressive, but it's not as big a win as you might think. A big reason for the victory is that NASA started their efforts in 1961, whereas the government of the USSR didn't get serious about competing until 1964. They still came fairly close, and if they had those extra few years they may well have won.

    37. Re:Space Race by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      That's the main problem the Russians had... if they'd kept the women in the kitchen and out of the space race, they would have won the cold war! :-)

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    38. Re:Space Race by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      FOX good, FOX bad, can't decide which anti-Americanism I want to pitch... brain exploding...

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    39. Re:Space Race by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Von Braun was often described as someone who'd work for anyone, and had no allegiance to any country.

      Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
      A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience;
      Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown!
      "Ah, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun.

      Some say that he's hypocritical,
      Say rather that he's apolitical.
      "Once zer rockets are up, who cares where zey come down?
      Zat's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

      Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
      But some think our attitude should be one of gratitude
      Like the widows and cripples in old London town
      Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

      You too could be a big hero
      Once you've learned to count backwards to zero
      "In German, oder Englisch, I know how to count down,
      And I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun.

      -- Tom Lehrer

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    40. Re:Space Race by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      However, they had problems scaling past that in either size or complexity...

      Did Korolev die as a result of the same disaster that claimed a good chunk of the engineers and administrators in a massive explosion on the launch pad of the early version of thier large rocket?

      (As I recall, they were using some volatile mixture for the fuel that was extremely unstable and had an accident. The really sad thing about this was the rank and file engineers knew it was a bad design, and the political leaders were pushing for a solution 'NOW' to beat the Americans - so they went with the bad design of the chief engineer. To show support for the technology to his superiors - and to bolster the morale of the engineers and others working on the rocket, the General in charge decided to sit near the rocket while it was being fueled - and his team did the same, so as not to lose face. Sadly, they lost more than their faces when it exploded on the pad...)

      If this is the case, then I think the American effort 'beat' them on several levels.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    41. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Ok, yeah, but at least we did win the Battle of Pearl Harbor


      But Billy Mitchell and the US Pacific Fleet are both American!

      Even if the USAAF destroy the USN in harbour, it doesn't count. :P

    42. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      If I sounded that way, it wasn't meant so. I simply wanted to point out that while the Soviets had some firsts, we had quite a few more and passed them quickly once we got our cart rolling - it was like the Hare and the Tortoise race.

      I admire the Soviet achievements, also - but I'd like to point out that they (you?) pushed hard to do what they did for political reasons and actually was the real pusher to getting America kickstarted :)

      Korolev was the real driver; and his death in '66 was a great loss. He was a brilliant man and the Soviet equivalent of Gilruth.

      When I think of what could have been accomplished had both countries been cooperating back then instead of competing, it almost makes me weep.

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    43. Re:Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Did Korolev die as a result of the same disaster that claimed a good chunk of the engineers and administrators in a massive explosion on the launch pad of the early version of thier large rocket?

      If this is the case, then I think the American effort 'beat' them on several levels.


      Korolev died because of a botched operation.

      There's too much Cheerleading American Jingoism going on. Admit it when you're not first, since you did better instead! Right now it just seems like Americans are sore losers.

    44. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Actually IIRC most if not all Sov walks before '70 were mostly showboating. I don't recall that they did any real experiments in such things as construction techniques (which White did).

      Correct me if I'm wrong, tho. I still haven't managed to read all the newly released stuff that's come out over the last ten years; I'm trying furiously to rememdy that however :)

      A tether seriously limits the ability of an astronaut to do work. Really serious stuff like construction and moving satellites around is extremely difficult with one. For that matter, even the hand-held "gas gun" that the early American spacewalkers had wasn't all that great, but it led to the more modern MMUs (which are still sort of clutzy, but they work well)

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    45. Re:Space Race by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that one was a bit obscure. What I was refering to was the way the movie Pearl Harbor extended to cover the Dolittle raid just so the movie could end looking like we were the winners of that go 'round.

      KFG

    46. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      First of all, I wasn't trying to show that America was *first* - I was responding to the parent poster claiming that the Soviets were *first*. The fact is that both nations claimed a lot of firsts in that ten years, and we surpassed the Russians fairly quickly, in addition to building our ability quicker - powered rendezvous in orbit was EXTREMELY important, the lunar missions could have been done without it, but only at a very increased cost.

      Rendezvous: What the Russians did was not "slightly easier" it was *enormously* easier! There is a vast gulf between two spacecraft passing each other at four thousand miles per hour and two spacecraft deliberately rendezvousing under power from a starting distance of 1200 km. A VAST difference!

      First unthethered, powered space walk not particularly important? Tell that to the astronauts who repaired Hubble (and other sats) using the MMU to maneuver them into the shuttle bay. Where do you think that technology started? (BTW, I was wrong about White, he was tethered, although he did have his own propulsion. But we still did the first untethered flights when the MMU was deployed. I should have previewed :)

      I'm not sure whether the Sovs attempted geosynch sats before we did, hence the qualification. However, we were certainly the first to exploit their benefits.

      I dealt with the Salyut vs. Skylab question in another reply in this thread tonite; but you are right, I should have explained why I felt that way. I was trying not to let the post run on and on, however. But you might want to read up on Salyut 1 and see just how useful it was, which was not much.

      Of course in your efforts to big-up the US space program you also fail to mention that Russia visited a whole load of planets (both orbital and surface), which is a pretty significant achievement.

      I believe we were talking about manned flight here, not unmanned. But we also visited quite a few planets in the 60s; not as many as we could have, given what we were pouring into Apollo. While it's true the Soviets were the first with a functioning Venus lander, Venera, we were the first with functioning Mars landers, and they did a lot more science. So there, nyah nyah nyah ;)

      Actually, from what I've read since the early 90s, the Soviets pretty much abandoned their serious attempt at a manned lunar landing before Apollo 11 to concentrate on building a space station. They knew they weren't going to beat us. (I'd have to dig thru my back issues of Aviation Week for quotes, but I know the info is out there; I just don't have time to dig it up right now)

      Anyway, whether you found my post amusing or not means nothing to me. You and a few other people misread the intent of the post. Happily it appears that many others did not.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    47. Re:Space Race by igny · · Score: 1

      Tether in space is much more important in space walks than seat belt in your car. It is simply a safety issue. Devices which help maneuvering, like gas-guns, may fail, or may be lost. Even White was tethered during his experiments with Hand-Held Self-Maneuvering Unit . Soviets also experimented with such devices, but they are not as essential in space walks as you think, and certainly do not eliminate the need in tethers.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    48. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      You're right about White, I screwed up there ( and already admitted to it elsewhere in this thread) - don't know where that came from.

      But the modern MMU's certainly proved important in satellite repair during the shuttle flights - indeed, I'd say they were even essential - as in it'd be impossible to stop a spinning satellite and maneuver it into the shuttle bay while tethered. (sure, we could use remotes to accomplish the same thing - but that's as difficult a proposition as using remotes in SAR, wouldn't you say?)

      Free-flight maneuvering is going to be *very important* during future construction & other missions. Assembling components while tethered could be fatal, and FF will be essential for anything involving journeys further away from the craft than just a few dozen feet.

      Even during a simple spacewalk, tethers can represent a danger, as they can become fouled. Just like seat belts, they can be both useful and dangerous, as Collins found out during Gemini 10.

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    49. Re:Space Race by HBI · · Score: 1

      A lot of people in Germany went west to avoid the Soviets in 1945. Von Mellenthin's "Panzer Battles" has an interesting discussion of this.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    50. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      That's an excellent book, but I don't recall that part. Guess I'll have to read it again :) Thanks for reminding me of it.

      I'll agree, a lot of people did; but that Braun and his team did so probably made a huge impact on history.

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    51. Re:Space Race by evilviper · · Score: 1
      America did not win the space race.

      America did not win the 'first' race.

      America certainly wasn't the first, but I'd still say America certainly did win.

      Russia took the early advantage, but was overcome 30 years ago, and has been behind ever since. They still don't have a reusable spacecraft like the Shuttle (despite it's current unpopularity, it's a great achievement). They haven't ever successfully landed a satellite on Mars. And of course, despite it being over 30 years since America did it, Russians have never landed men on the moon.

      The less traditional things are very much in America's favor as well. America lanuches more satellites, has the first global positioning system, has the only privately funded satellite-launching company. Most recently, the US has become home to the only private company that has built a spacecraft capable of carrying a man into space.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    52. Re:Space Race by varjag · · Score: 1

      Well, my point is that e.g. getting to the orbit *at all* was quite an achievement of its own, not inferior in any way to the moon trips decade later. And the engineering skill required to perform that with the economy and production capabilities of a war-devastated country was notable. Just look what it takes from X-Prize competitors to get suborbital, half century later when the tech and materials science much more advanced (sure their mission is complicated by reusability requirement, but OTOH they don't go for the orbit).

      And yes, formally it was the USSR who triggered that dick-measuring contest, but it was more of a side-effect. Initially the government din't want to spend on space at all and never envisioned the PR points that Sputnik brought them later. The first satellite was Korolev's pet project (in fact, it was the dream of his life) which he done solely on his own risk. Good illustration btw on how a nerd can influence politics on the global scale, even if not intentionally.

      When I think of what could have been accomplished had both countries been cooperating back then instead of competing, it almost makes me weep.

      At least the cooperation is going on now, although many question the value of ISS. But I hope when deep-space manned missions will be in favor again, the experience gathered will prove its usefulness. After all, the countries come and go, but the knowledge accumulated benifits all humanity.

      Cheers,
      varjag.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    53. Re:Space Race by juhaz · · Score: 1

      First reusable orbital vehicle that could deliver cargo: America - the space shuttle

      Space shuttle is not reusable. Sure, it was intended to be one, but that's not how it turned out.

      Something that basically needs to be broken to pieces and rebuilt before it can be used again does not qualify as "reusable" by any stretch of imagination.

    54. Re:Space Race by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that although "firsts" are important, Ya shouldn't forget the "Lasts".
      Last man on the moon; Eugene "Gene" Cernan.
      And I might add it was (and is) his hope that he'll lose that title in his lifetime, and no one ever reclaims it. (My dream as well, and congrats to a forgotten Hero.)

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    55. Re:Space Race by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Well said. Agree completely.

      Sigh. :(

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    56. Re:Space Race by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      First men around the moon, first men *on* the moon: America (Apollos 8 and 11) - if anyone thinks that wasn't a win, you don't know what you are talking about - the Soviets simply couldn't match our determination and engineering)

      Of course we could, a year or two later. But coming there second was pointless in a purely political contest.
      No, there was no reasonable way the Soviets could have landed a year or two later. The N-1 (the Soviet equivalent of the Saturn V) was an abysmal failure, the manned capsule (Zond) was of questionable reliability, and the lander never did really materialize.

      The Soviets in their normal fashion simply swept the evidence under the rug, and pretended they hadn't been planning to go in the first place.
  29. Cool sight... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    ...for the ISS astronauts. Seeing people return to the moon should have a profound effect, since it hasn't been done in so long.

  30. The rules are simple... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bring Back our Flag...

    And you've won. I'll be waiting.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:The rules are simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing the point, there was no "Race to the moon", that was merely an invented fiction to make the US public feel good about themselves.
      The Russians at one point considered proposing to JFK that they share resources with the Americans regarding a moonshot to help spread the expenses a bit, this obviously failed when JFK got the bullet. The Soviets didn't want to send a manned mission to the moon, it was too much expense for far too little return, they were content to let the US go there and plant a silly little flag instead. The Soviets were smarter than that, they spent their money on multiple unmanned missions to the moon, to mars, to Venus etc..(they had rovers on the moon in the 60's remember) and got back reams more hard data than they would have if they'd blown it all on mega expensive PR stunts like the moon landings. make no mistake, the USA made a huge technological achievment with the landings and I think they were fantastic acomplishments but you have to remember, it was a one horse race, no matter what FOX tells you, the Soviets had better things to do so they didn't even bother trying.

    2. Re:The rules are simple... by prof_peabody · · Score: 1

      Oh ok... "Reems more hard data". Go look up how many grams of lunar rock the russians retrieved from the moon. I believe it's about 300g. Now lets see, the Americans got back a few hundred kilos, and from various parts of the moon. Hmmm. Photos are NOT hard data!!!

      I am NOT American.

    3. Re:The rules are simple... by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

      Bring Back our Flag...
      Russian-American CTF!

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    4. Re:The rules are simple... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Soviets didn't want to send a manned mission to the moon, it was too much expense for far too little return, they were content to let the US go there and plant a silly little flag instead.

      This is complete bullshit. Kamanin's diaries prove this is untrue.

      The Soviet Union had two huge secret projects designed to win the moon race. The L1 project would send a Soviet crew around the moon before the Americans, using a stripped-down Soyuz spacecraft launched by a Proton rocket. The L3 project would beat the American Apollo program to the lunar surface. The Soviets lost both races. In the case of being the first to send a man around the moon, that loss was measured in days or weeks.
      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    5. Re:The rules are simple... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      Bring Back our Flag... And you've won. I'll be waiting.

      ...with an M808B Scorpion Main Battle Tank.

      "Red team has the flag."

      "Red team has the flag."

      KA-BOOOM!!!!!

      "Blue team flag returned."

      gg

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    6. Re:The rules are simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about it, instead of spending gazillions of dollars bringing back 300g of moon rock they spent a heap less, brought back enough moon rock to have a look at PLUS tons of data from their probes to all the other planets...all at less cost.

      All in all they "won" hands down.

    7. Re:The rules are simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the original comment: the russians brought back 300 g... NASA got about 200 kg. These rocks were critical inestablishing the theories behind the formation of the moon. PS - the first US flag on the moon is currently lying on the ground... it got knocked over by the thrusters when they left... whoops!

    8. Re:The rules are simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pfffttt...most of all that mass has never even been looked at, the Ruskies were wise.

    9. Re:The rules are simple... by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind while doing so, of course, that the first flag on the Moon was red.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    10. Re:The rules are simple... by Threed · · Score: 1

      From what I know of history, it was more like this: JFK asked the Russians if they might want to get in on the moon shot. At first they wanted a race, but later thought cooperation might be a good idea but by that time JFK was dead. Meanwhile, they had this huge rocket they were testing. It was looking pretty promising except it kept blowing up. Finally, they thought they were ready to go but had one last explosion. The USA then launched, virtually uncontested.

    11. Re:The rules are simple... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Bring Back our Flag...
      And you've won. I'll be waiting.


      I think that means by definition that they get SECOND, doesn't it?

      And by the way, what's Russian for "obsessive/compulsive about being first/biggest/whatever"? Sheesh, you guys are practically TEXAN.

      Also by the way, the US was "first to the moon". If you are racing your friends to go to "Billy's House", the winners would not be the ones who:
      a) who drove past
      b) who drove around his house
      c) whose dog visited Billy's house
      d) who stopped in the driveway
      e) who actually crashed into his house with their car

      Sorry!

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:The rules are simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, well there was a race..or perhaps the flaming wreckage of the Soviet N1 rocket on the pad after it exploded that no one ever saw until it was declassifed sometime in the 90's was just for show.

      Also, it would be of note that the americans first rose the idea of space coorperation with the then USSR after the mercury missions however the Soviets
      insisted that any such cooperation with be based on a pretext that it be tied to disarmerment talks.

    13. Re:The rules are simple... by prof_peabody · · Score: 1

      The sediment cores brought back were important for dating impacts and establishing methods of dating lunar surfaces. The russians never brought back any of this... In fact this American data from the moon is used to date the surfaces of Mars.

  31. Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Soviets planned on launching a Soyuz atop a Proton launcher (currently used as a heavy cargo launcher, roughly equivalent payload to the Space Shuttle) to put a Soyuz into a free-return trajectory around the moon.

    The Proton was soviet man-rated in the 1960s, and the design has been extraordinarily succesful over the past 30+ years, so it's not unreasonable to imagine that this process could be completed again.

    The economical way to do this would probably be to man-rate it as part of a commercial launch. It wouldn't be free, but it would certainly be cheaper then developing a new heavy lift rocket or buying Titan IVB, the only other rocket in use with equivalent throw. Of course, this is complicated by the Titan IVB assembly line shut down, so you'd probably want to look at the EELV, but that's not flying yet.

    The Soyuz is built for the high-g reentry that a lunar return entails, they just need to pull their old heatshield design out of mothballs and modernize it.

    1. Re:Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this by gloth · · Score: 2, Informative
      It wouldn't be free, but it would certainly be cheaper then developing a new heavy lift rocket or buying Titan IVB, the only other rocket in use with equivalent throw.

      The Ariane 5 can easily compete with a Titan 4B in terms of throw, as you put it...

    2. Re:Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but Arianes have a nasty habit of blowing up...

    3. Re:Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      They've fixed that problem now, an Ariane hadn't blown up for months!

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    4. Re:Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this by amightywind · · Score: 1

      The Soviets planned on launching a Soyuz atop a Proton launcher (currently used as a heavy cargo launcher, roughly equivalent payload to the Space Shuttle) to put a Soyuz into a free-return trajectory around the moon.

      You don't know what you are talking about. The Proton can deliver 20,000 lbs to ISS, the shuttle over 60,000 lbs. That is a huge difference.

      It wouldn't be free, but it would certainly be cheaper then developing a new heavy lift rocket or buying Titan IVB, the only other rocket in use with equivalent throw.

      Heavy lift versions of the Delta IV and Atlas V will surpass the Titan IV in payload capacity and cost effectiveness. Both have already launched commercial and government payloads with 100% reliability.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    5. Re:Not a stretch, the Proton is made for this by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      The Soyuz is built for the high-g reentry that a lunar return entails, they just need to pull their old heatshield design out of mothballs and modernize it.
      No, the Soyuz isn't. The current Soyuz (actually the last several generations of Soyuz) is a highly specialized space taxi designed for the sole purpose of getting to and from a space station. (IIRC, the current model has a free flight lifetime of around 60-70 hours, not even remotely enough for a lunar mission.)
  32. Re:If you are tired of 503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't this bad last week...

    --SC

  33. Recycling spacecraft by schweini · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love the idea of recycling the Progress crafts by sending them to the L1 point and docking them together there in order to form a supply-silo instead of letting them disintegrate in the atmosphere.
    Which brings up a question that has been bugging me for ages: why isn't this done with other spacecraft?
    e.g. I guess the spaceshuttle's main tank (the big brown thing) is designed to resist immense pressures, and is mainly hollow after the fuel as been burned. why not fill it up with air, water or whatever (after cleaning), and use it as some form of emergency spacestation? or at least as a scrapyard in space?
    Of course there would be problems like the delta-v to escape velocity, etc. but with those immense costs of getting stuff into space, i'd suppose i'd still pay off, and it might spark of a "dirtier" kind of space-industry, (now that we are at the verge of being able to go to space completly privately), where companies recycle stuff in space for whatever...

    1. Re:Recycling spacecraft by cmowire · · Score: 1

      Well, the big problem is that if they send it up and it explodes in orbit, it's a nasty debris storm and it sucks. And it costs propellant to put it up in orbit, that they'd rather send up something else in.

      The other problem is that human time in orbit is incredibly valuable right now. Until we lower the cost per pound to orbit, astronaut time is just too valuable for these sorts of things.

      Plus, we don't have the spacesuits nor the tools for that kind of project right now.

    2. Re:Recycling spacecraft by Aardpig · · Score: 2, Informative

      One problem I can think of is that L1 isn't stable; any spacecraft parked there will go off station over a timescale of around 20 days, unless it receives corrections to its orbit around the sun. Having to put an orbital control system on each piece of hardware you park there would make the cost unattractive.

      Besides, the L1 is already used for scientific purposes -- amongst others, SOHO and ACE are in halo orbits around the Lagrange point, and I'm sure the scientists who rely on them (including some of my work colleagues) wouldn't welcome L1 becoming a junk yard.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    3. Re:Recycling spacecraft by blackrobe28 · · Score: 1

      Or for that matter... as we phase out the shuttles why can't we dock them permanently to the space station? After all, the shuttles were built as orbiting laboratories.

      --
      Blackrobe "The Original TechnoWeenie!"
    4. Re:Recycling spacecraft by frizzbit · · Score: 1

      It hasn't been done because it isn't free to boost a spacecraft to a higher orbit and the L1 point is a long way out - so far out that it requires almost as much fuel to reach it as to escape the Earth - Moon system altogether. And once you're there you still need some fuel to keep the spacecraft there, because the L1 point moves slowly over time due to many factors. The main one is that the distance between the Moon and the Earth changes (lunar orbit is elliptical).

    5. Re:Recycling spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea.. just carry up a small return craft and bring the people/experiments back. Could also bring a shuttle back if really needed. Maybe recycle the mass for other good stuff.

    6. Re:Recycling spacecraft by jfoust · · Score: 1

      Besides, the L1 is already used for scientific purposes -- amongst others, SOHO and ACE are in halo orbits around the Lagrange point, and I'm sure the scientists who rely on them (including some of my work colleagues) wouldn't welcome L1 becoming a junk yard.

      SOHO and ACE are positioned at the Earth-Sun L1 point, about 1.5 million km Sunward of Earth, not the Earth-Moon L1 point discussed in the article.

    7. Re:Recycling spacecraft by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      My bad, I didn't read the article, and I assumed the GP meant the Earth-Sun L1 point.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  34. Great! by east+coast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finally someone has the balls to stop crying about a few lost astronauts and get off their ass and get back to work.

    Not to discredit or disrespect the dead but Jesus Christ, get on with it!

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Great! by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Finally someone has the balls to stop crying about a few lost astronauts and get off their ass and get back to work.

      Just wait until we're talking about a few lost space tourists, and see how much longer this craptacular scheme lasts. On the other hand, I guess if a group of plutocrats with something to prove decide they're willing to pay millions for a moon ride, the Russian taxpayers won't have quite so much of their money wasted on manned spaceflight.

      Given the already insane rates of executive compensation in America, if we could rent out the ISS for corporate board meetings it might finally pay off. God knows the "science" projects never will.

    2. Re:Great! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      We all bitch about Bill Gates and his amount of money but at least he uses his billions for some good via the Gates foundation.

      Why don't you and those of your ilk just go away. If you have no sense of adventure fine, don't stop the people who want more than back yard barbaques and NASCAR.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Great! by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Why don't you and those of your ilk just go away. If you have no sense of adventure fine, don't stop the people who want more than back yard barbaques and NASCAR.

      I'm fine with adventure. However, people who want multi-billion-dollar adventure should pay for it themselves, instead of soaking taxpayers. The role of the federal government should not be to keep you entertained. Otherwise, we might as well just make NASCAR a federal agency.

      It's not like I'm some raving libertarian either; I'd have no argument against increasing NASA's budget if it were all applied to actual science. Like, say, robotic probes. In fact, I love having the government spend money on science, because I get paid this way. I just don't like the government spending money on entertainment for geeks who aren't satisfied with backyard barbeques and NASCAR. Seriously, do you want a subsidy for LAN parties and Anime film festivals as well?

      (I should point out that I'm far more offended by public subsidies for sports teams than I am by the manned space program - but at least the former is widely recognized to be an atrocious waste of money.)

    4. Re:Great! by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Agreed, in part. But I feel the need to bitch, and what you said is a fine opener, so here goes :)

      --

      Then start donating whatever you have (time, money, posts) to private space efforts, rather than bitching about how the government spends money (more or less useless bitch, at least on this site) ...

      Right now, the fact is that we need *both* NASA and the private efforts. Maybe more people need to realize that they could compliment each other. For all it's faults, NASA has a lot of trained and experienced people who could really help the private efforts get off the ground.

      But there is too much of your kind of attitude - especially among the NASA people and the many layers of management above them - including Congress - to make that a reality.

      Your analogy about NASCAR is in one sense a troll, but also very insightful.

      What would happen wrt to space flight if the public spent even a tenth on it (as they did back during Apollo) as they do on NASCAR?

      Boggles the mind. Maybe we'd have a public who would realize that risk is risk, no matter what venue it's in, and cheer their heroes by participating.

      Then again, maybe not. It might become BORING. So racing around a track can't become boring, and space flight can? I mean, JESUS, people might get killed! Oh, fucking really!?

      Never mind me, I just think that most of the public is too ignorant to understand what's important. Sorry I feel that way. It's not really their fault, anyway. But I'll lay a Large Frozen Trout (~1x10^11 metric tons) on the media. Sorry to be pissy, but the desire to meet frontiers head-on died in this country with Apollo. Guess "Reality TV" and "Seinfeld" is more interesting; but I bet they don't get the billions of people watching them at any one moment that Apollo 11 did.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fine with adventure. However, people who want multi-billion-dollar adventure should pay for it themselves, instead of soaking taxpayers.

      Want to quit soaking taxpayers? Get rid of the war in Iraq.. oops.. too late for that huh? How about that sixty billion dollar ABM system we don't need that doesn't work (except in a VERY few CONTRIVED tests).

      If you want to bitch, at least pick a valid target. The Iraq war and the ABM system will do NOTHING for national security (aside from inflame the rest of the planet) yet we've spent (and will spend) far more on this stuff than NASA.

    6. Re:Great! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Right now, the fact is that we need *both* NASA and the private efforts. Maybe more people need to realize that they could compliment each other. For all it's faults, NASA has a lot of trained and experienced people who could really help the private efforts get off the ground.

      This is valid but the era of NASA could also quickly be brought to an end by private enterprise. And think; when private industry can profit from their research we won't have to worry about taxpayer funding or the grumblings from the peanut gallery that space is a waste but paying for a new stadium for a professional sports team adds value to the community.

      Your analogy about NASCAR is in one sense a troll, but also very insightful.

      Actually I posted about NASCAR but that matters little. I'm not saying NASCAR has no value what-so-ever but the general redneck flow of thought is that NASCAR has more merit than science. Not that I feel that NASCAR (or anyone else for that matter) needs to give to science but rather people should give credit where credit is due. My redneck brother thinks that NASCAR 'rocks' but money spent on meteorology is a waste. Basically the public is full of morons.

      What would happen wrt to space flight if the public spent even a tenth on it (as they did back during Apollo) as they do on NASCAR?

      Even if NASA made great strides in scientific advancement (as they have in the past) the general public would think it's a waste because they STILL don't seem to care that Uncle Joe's human-based insulin and hundreds of other daily products are a direct result from the pursuit of scientific study in space. I guess if it doesn't entertain it must be lame in their eyes. But these are also the same people who cry that there is no cure of cancer or AIDS thinking that we still live in the day and age when individuals and small groups can just invent solutions in some spare garage. They don't realize that we've moved far beyond that... Well, except for the guy who invented the double beer hat. He did it the way Edison would have.

      Never mind me, I just think that most of the public is too ignorant to understand what's important. Sorry I feel that way. It's not really their fault, anyway.

      A. Don't feel bad at being pissed at stupid people, they deserve a bit of anger directed at them. These people have the majority voice that's keeping society at large from making the kinds of advancements that visionaries had years ago and could be accomplished today with a bit of money, a bit of wit and a willingness to accept that science is really a great thing and should be embraced instead of mocked and belittled.

      B. Don't feel sorry for them either. These people aren't stupid by some random law of genetics (for the most part) but rather are lazy because they're too stupid to get of their butts and figure out and easier and better way to do things. Laziness kills in so many ways, but when these idiots suffer for their laziness they curse the smart for not making life easier for the lazy man. It's pathetic and the only thing I feel sorry about in their regards is that they have every opportunity to perpetuate their way of life by bearing children.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    7. Re:Great! by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      This is valid but the era of NASA could also quickly be brought to an end by private enterprise. And think; when private industry can profit from their research we won't have to worry about taxpayer funding or the grumblings from the peanut gallery that space is a waste but paying for a new stadium for a professional sports team adds value to the community.

      Agreed, but mostly because I think that NASA should stick to research and X-projects, and stay out of regular spaceflight otherwise.

      Don't feel bad at being pissed at stupid people, they deserve a bit of anger directed at them. These people have the majority voice that's keeping society at large from making the kinds of advancements that visionaries had years ago and could be accomplished today with a bit of money, a bit of wit and a willingness to accept that science is really a great thing and should be embraced instead of mocked and belittled.


      Agreed.

      Mostly I lay the blame on the commonilization of our educational system. Sure, there are many upon many pathetic ass-sitters out there, but at least some of them could have been enlightened were our education system better.

      When people ask me how I've managed to learn all the stuff I have, specialties and cross-field, I tell them that it was two things: One, I had some really excellent teachers who encouraged my interests; and Two, I bust my tail :)

      Don't know that I would say that laziness kills, but ignorance certainly does. Sigh ;(

      Cheers!
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  35. Obscene by noelo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a trip into orbit costs hundreds of millions for space tourists, I imagine that a trip around the moon would cost billions. I might be nieve but for an individual to spend that amount of money on a tourist trip is obscene with the amount of world povery. We all bitch about Bill Gates and his amount of money but at least he uses his billions for some good via the Gates foundation.

    1. Re:Obscene by east+coast · · Score: 0

      I might be nieve but for an individual to spend that amount of money on a tourist trip is obscene with the amount of world povery.

      But it's also funding research in it's own way. If that's what it takes to further space travel and human knowledge I'm all for it. Just like "buying" a Blackadder DVD from PBS during their pledge breaks. Sure it's four times more than down at MediaPlay but it's the idea of funding, not buying a DVD. Why not enjoy the wealth anyway?

      We all bitch about Bill Gates and his amount of money but at least he uses his billions for some good via the Gates foundation.

      Watch who you claim bitches about Billy. While I don't like his business practices and I would like his wealth I still don't begrudge him his ability to enjoy it. And to be honest if I had money like Gates the opinion of others would be very low on my list of considerations.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Obscene by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Uh, I *think* you're talking about NASA dollars. Though not an official spokesman, I'd say it'd be less using other organizations. Doesn't NASA have a 40% overhead or something:)?

    3. Re:Obscene by Chairboy · · Score: 1

      Actually, the last two space tourists have spent $20 million each to get to the international space station.

      Where did you get the 'hundreds of millions of $$' figure?

    4. Re:Obscene by noelo · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention currency......

    5. Re:Obscene by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get real. The money doesn't evaporate. It just goes to feed Russian rocket scientists instead of African AIDS victims.

      Also, your estimate is way off. Trips to the space station are $20 million. This trip will require two or three launches. Since those are the expensive part, we can naively multiply by two or three and arrive at a decent estimate of about $40-60 million per trip.

      Even if it were a couple of billion, people spend something like $600 billion a year on tourism just in the US. It would be a drop in the bucket, both compared to the amount of money "wasted" on tourism and the amount of money needed to bring about real change in the situation of the poor.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    6. Re:Obscene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For sure. Really. Why should we try to help african aids victims? All we get is a bunch of HIV negative 3rd world country inferior homosapians. And what do you purpose to do then? Feed them? Don't they have forests anymore? Have these people forgotten how to search for food? How about fishing? Seriously, if I don't know how to take care of myself rather than waiting for handouts, I'd rather die. Twits like you soil our species.

    7. Re:Obscene by andreyw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      About the Africa AIDS victim thing...

      Seriously everyone, get real - if those people don't want to help themselves, it doesn't matter how many philanthropists throw billions in food, medical, educational and technological help.

      Look at Africa - its a humanitarian disaster. South Africa - Highest crime rate in the world. Zimbabwe, Sudan and many others no one ever hears about - ethnic persecution, humanitarian disasters, hate crimes, cannibalism, rape. Many do-gooders feel some craving to go over there and "do humanity some good", only to be assaulted, raped and horribly murdered. Is AIDS in Africa the result of the rest of the world not pouring enough cash into this /dev/null? I don't think so.

      Hell, pour all of that money into something more tangible, like cancer/AIDS research or space exploration. The Earth is starting to overpopulate and the human race needs more space. Lets conquer the unknown!

    8. Re:Obscene by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      The money spent on the tourist flight isn't burned as fuel, it largely gets spent to send them there. That, at least, means all that's happening is taking money from people with a lot of it and giving it to people with not quite as much of it, in return for fame and memories. How is this any different from any other kind of tourism, except for the scale of the project (and the fact that there are no overpriced T-shirt shops on the moon yet)?

      Remember that it isn't the small green pieces of paper that are unhappy.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    9. Re:Obscene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try to weasel out of it. You were WRONG. I hope you get modded to heck, you idiotic little fucknozzle.

      Now APOLOGIZE.

    10. Re:Obscene by LS · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with the individual spending his or her money. What I find obscene is the fact that the tourist will be charged far less than the actual cost of the endeavor, which will be largely subsidized by the taxpayers. Think about it - the Space Station cost billions of dollars, and every seat on the way up and every head on the station is important and valuable. To only charge 20 million USD for a ride up is outrageous! It's like building a baseball stadium with 100 million in taxpayer dollars and letting some rich guy rent the place for $10,000 so his son can play a little-league game!

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    11. Re:Obscene by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      It's all about the price point. Several rich guys paying $10K to rent the stadium is going to net you more in recouped costs than no rich guys renting the stadium because you're asking too much for the rental.

      Secondly, the station is already bought and paid for. That funding was justified on the basis of the supposed benefits of the station, and didn't account for any dollars recouped through tourist flights. So any money from the tourists is just gravy at this point.

      Thirdly, the tourist flights were responsible for partially subsidizing the Russian launches. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been any launch. Then there'd be no one on the station, and your expensive taxpayer "investment" would be going to waste.

    12. Re:Obscene by Shihar · · Score: 1

      I think the point of the post was that the US gets shit on no matter what it does. If you are going to get shit, you should at least stop inflicting harm on yourself. If anyone recalls, the attempt to feed Somalia turned into a cluster fuck with a pile of dead Americans and a waste of money. It is pretty damned hard to feed people while they are shooting at you.

      Some days I think the parent has it right. Fuck the rest of the world. Pull out of all aid programs, stop using the US military to feed people, and for the love of fucking god, if a dictator wants to kill his own damned people, let him. Christ, we whacked Saddam and suddenly we are the bad guys for violating his sovereign right to commit genocide against his own people.

      Everyone bitches that we are not doing enough in Sudan, but the second we try and push a resolution through to meekly threaten then to stop raping their own people, France threatens a veto until the watered down crap that we sent out last week is all that is left.

      Maybe it would be better just to take the money spread out across the rest of the world, flip the bird to South Korea, Taiwan, and any other country that has US protection, and let them deal with their own affairs. Then pull out of the UN, stop funding them, stop adding troops to NATO, tell Afghanistan to work out their own shit, tell Iraq to fuck it and let them deal with their own damned insurgents, and make it clear to Israel, Palestine, and everyone else involved that we just don't give a fuck any more who wins. Then, just to seal the deal, after we have cut off our welfare check to the rest of the world, then go ahead cut the American military down until it is just big enough to keep Canada from getting any funny ideas.

      Could you even begin to imagine how much money and lives that would save? Flying to the moon? Fuck the moon. We could go to Pluto.

    13. Re:Obscene by khallow · · Score: 1
      OTOH, a bunch of inventions that helped elevate people out of starvation and poverty started as rich boy toys. I'm thinking phones, cars, electricity, refridgeration and air conditioning, light bulbs, etc. Human society may be obscene, but at least it's going somewhere.

      Also I disagree with your assessment of costs to an extent. I think the respective trips can be a factor of ten less or more using current technology. Frankly, the amounts that were being spent getting the two tourists into ISS, 12-15 million dollars apiece, were apparently most of the cost of the mission. That's not hundreds of millions of dollars to get into orbit.

      Currently, the single greatest obstacle to doing anything in space (whether it be orbiting people around the Moon or sending a probe to Saturn) is the cost to putting something in orbit. The problem isn't that we need advances in technology. The current technology is adequate. Instead it's that we don't do anything in volume. Like it or not, orbiting rich people or flying billionaires around the Moon adds substantially to current volume and will help to drive the price down.

      We are solving global poverty because the global economy is expanding faster than the rate of population growth and everyone is getting a piece of the action. Let's solve a more serious challenge. How to get into space and live there.

    14. Re:Obscene by khallow · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with the previous poster. It's better to send a rich guy up for a small fraction of the cost of the ISS rather than to let the ISS go to waste. The tens of billions of dollars that went into the ISS is a sunk cost. It's time to use that equipment no matter what it cost.

    15. Re:Obscene by mforbes · · Score: 1

      The above comment was not insightful.

      Beyond the cost of developing the craft itself (not much new to develop on this one), most of the cost of any mission to orbit or beyond is just for fuel... and once you're in LEO, you're halfway to anywhere. The additional Delta V (change in angular momentum) to go from LEO to LoLO is negligible, and for a trajectory that never even enters LoLO, but just goes translunar on a free-return orbit, it's even less, given the correct launch window.

      There was a communications satellite launched a few years ago-- I forget the name of the corporate owner-- which was launched incorrectly into a degrading elliptical orbit, but with some fuel left onboard. An enterprising firm realized that there was no reason to abandon it, as they could stabilize it by using the remaining fuel to propel it into a free-return orbit around the moon, spilling the excess Delta-V with what essentially added up to a negative gravity assist upon returning to Earth orbit.

      The hard part is getting to LEO. Once you're there, as far as energy is concerned, it's cheap to go anywhere you want, if you have the time, the patience, and the life support.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    16. Re:Obscene by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      I think you both got my point completely wrong. I had two points. The first point was that the cost was wildly overestimated. The second point is that somebody has the right to do whatever he wants with his own money, even if it is a billion dollars.

      And for some reason beyond my comprehension, both you and the post you're replying to think I'm making some reference to US governmental charity. I never mentioned the US government in my post, I was not talking about the US government, and neither was the article. Why do you bozos have to turn everything into an anti-US/pro-US flamefest? I'm really tired of everybody saying "fuck the US" or "fuck the world". It's so incredibly stupid.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    17. Re:Obscene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be nieve but for an individual to spend that amount of money on a tourist trip is obscene with the amount of world povery.

      This money will be spent in Kazakhstan and Russia, which are not exactly the richest countries on earth. If this whole space tourism thing takes off (ah !), it will create a lot of jobs.

      Now although I have not completely understood the subtleties of international trade, I know that the effects of foreign investments are more complicated than a direct inter-country transfer of wealth, but I know for sure that this will be a Good Thing for the people over there.

      Thomas Miconi

    18. Re:Obscene by orius_khan · · Score: 1

      Yeah because everyone assumes you're talking about "pesos" or "lira" when quoting costs for spacecraft launches... dumbass.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    19. Re:Obscene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now, now bitch....don't get over excited....get back in your gimp box...

  36. Won which race? by natpoor · · Score: 4, Interesting
    We Americans may have won the first race to the moon, but we decided that the first race into space (satellite, human, take your pick) wasn't worth it since we were going to lose. Avoiding races you know you can't win isn't very sporting. If you want a real challenge, cooperation is much more difficult! (Eventually we succeeded at that too.)

    Thankfully the Soviets got Sputnik up there, though, huh? Otherwise, no Internet for us!

    1. Re:Won which race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise, no Internet for us!

      Most of the networks with in the US are hard lines, not satelite. Satelite has enormous lag time wich makes it horrible for the purposes of networking.

    2. Re:Won which race? by russler · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute. What does Sputnik have to do with Al Gore?

    3. Re:Won which race? by tooth · · Score: 1

      Avoiding races? maybe check your facts. The US was in there the whole time, and falling behind the USSR the whole time. The US didn't pass USSR achievements until apollo.

    4. Re:Won which race? by natpoor · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that we learn in school that the US "won the race to the moon", and there is no mention of a "race into space". We tried, we failed, we erased it from history, thus we avoid it. We don't go around saying "we came in second in the race to space!" We don't even think about it at all. It's avoided. It's amazing that some of the posters here think I don't know that. How did we get to the moon if we didn't get into space first?

  37. Missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Soviet Russia,...uh, what were we talking about again?

  38. Crap. by FrankieBoy · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The Americans won the first race"

    First satellite in space: USSR Sputnik

    First Dog in space: USSR Laika

    First Man in space: USSR Yuri Gagarin

    First Woman in space: USSR Valentina Tereshkova

    First Space Station: USSR Salyut

    First Earth Orbit by a human: USSR Yuri Gagarin

    First Space Walk: USSR Alexei Leonov

    First Woman Space Walk: USSR Svetlana Savitskaya

    Who won?

    1. Re:Crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First Dead Astronaut: USSR Valentin V. Bondarenko (training accident)

      First Astronaut Lost During Mission: USSR Vladimir M. Komarov (Soyuz 1)

      First Full Crew Lost During Mission: USSR Georgi T. Dobrovolsky, Viktor I. Patsayev, Vladislav N. Volkov (Soyuz 11)

      "Getting there first" is pretty easy when you don't have to worry about public sentiment if you lose the crew-- if you even tell the public that you lost the crew (or for that matter, that there was a crew or even a mission).

    2. Re:Crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like the Americans really let public sentiment stand in the way of anything. Can you say "War in Iraq"?

    3. Re:Crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing Americans with George W. Bush. He's the one who doesn't give a shit about American public sentiment.

      You might have picked up on that when he assumed the Presidency despite losing the election. :-)

    4. Re:Crap. by yeremein · · Score: 4, Informative

      First Earth-orbit rendezvous: USA, Gemini VI/VII, 1965
      First Earth-orbit docking: USA, Gemini VIII, 1966
      First lunar soft-landing: USA, Surveyor 1, 1966
      First manned circumlunar flight: USA, Apollo 8, 1968
      First lunar-orbit docking: USA, Apollo 10, 1969
      First manned lunar landing: USA, Apollo 11, 1969

      The USSR made an impressive first showing, no doubt, but they fell short when it came to reaching the moon...

    5. Re:Crap. by wolssiloa · · Score: 1

      Going to the moon eclipses all of the above.

    6. Re:Crap. by TroyFoley · · Score: 1

      "The Americans won the first race, but the Russians might beat them back to the moon."

      Who won?

      Sorry, what's your problem? Are you ACTUALLY Russian and having trouble with the english language, or are you purposely being an idiot and not recognizing that the race to the fucking moon is what's being discussed? Cause you know, it pretty much says it within the sentence you quoted.

      Nobody denies the Russians props for getting a lot of firsts in space, but nobody lists how many people beat Christopher Columbus to getting a boat into the Atlantic Ocean.

      --
      After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
    7. Re:Crap. by barc0001 · · Score: 1
      nobody lists how many people beat Christopher Columbus to getting a boat into the Atlantic Ocean

      Columbus wasn't first across the ocean either. Leif Erickson beat him.

    8. Re:Crap. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      and a good reminder for where our space program is currently. Notice carefully that list of first; All from when I was a child. Sadly our leaders are not looking long term.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_race

      first soft landing on the Moon - Luna 9 (February 3, 1966, USSR)

    10. Re:Crap. by yeremein · · Score: 1

      You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.

      My reference was a web site that says Surveyor 1 "Made first fully controlled lunar soft-landing". I guess they think the Luna probe wasn't "fully controlled", despite soft-landing earlier.

  39. Atlantis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless I missed something huge, Atlantis is alive and well. It is Challenger and Columbia which have been destroyed. Endeavour, Atlantis, and Discovery remain.

    1. Re:Atlantis? by dukeisgod · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Parent post got modded down for correcting a mistake in another user's post? WTF.

  40. Race Back? by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

    Didn't the U.S.A. have more than one mission to the moon. Also while it is true that they would be second, it would be second by over 30 years. That's probably longer than quite a few slashdot readers out there.

    --
    The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    1. Re:Race Back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How long are you?"

      "I'm 27 years long."

  41. Re:News that Slashdot won't report--Doom 3 pirated by Red+Alastor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There is no way to know how much they lose. They usually try to add the retail price of all the pirated copies but :

    - The people that have pirated them would not necessary have bought the game
    - If they did, they could have waited until the price droped
    - How do you count how much pirated copies exist anyway ?

    I'm not saying that they don't suffer huge lost because of this however.

    --
    Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
  42. Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who thinks this article is a crock of ...?

    First of all, This sounds like one of those business journal articles that the company pays someone to write, the they publish it together with similar "articles" in a trade magazine. Its just hyping the company because they paid him to write it

    Further,
    look at the site of the company (csi)... Do you trust THAT company to get us to the moon?

    Even Further,
    They have a link only to the ceo's email, and look at the address, it has a suite # of what looks like what probably a rented suite in a business park building.

    this article reaks of bull, and its totally obvious. I cant believe this stuff gets posted

  43. how do they return? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the gallery it seems that the upper stage is jettisoned en-route to the moon... Ok, so how do they get back?

    1. Re:how do they return? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of 'free return' don't you understand?

  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. USSR or USA by GooDieZ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    WW3 proably Bush&co
    WW4 /. -ers uprising

    --
    Things in a rear mirror might be behind you
    1. Re:USSR or USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please.. We all know that the Second World War 2 has to come BEFORE WW3

  46. It's been thought of by zogger · · Score: 1

    I listened to some guy on a radio show a few years ago touting this idea. He wanted to have hilton hotels be the sponsor, and reuse the shuttle boosters as building blocks. I googled this now and found this about the hilton hotels, and this on reusing the shuttle tanks I think the latter is the guy I listened to on the radio. His idea makes a lot of sense, the shuttle booster tanks are pretty clean after expending the fuel, and are there for the using with a little attitude and altitude adjustment. Big ole nice structures going to waste.

    1. Re:It's been thought of by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      The problem I assume is micro-meteorites, and probably other hazards, which the tanks were not designed for. This is however unlikely so there is little need to worry about it.

      There are other challenges: refitting them in space with airlocks or the mentioned "tether" systems. Providing power (solar panels), recycling and other necessary systems. These would all have to be flown and fitted, keeping in mind that the design must be new since present systems and the tanks were not designed to work together. A large part of the cost of a space station is the guts of the modules and not the skin and these still need to be sent up, as does food for the construction staff.

      In general all these modifications are the problem, the tanks were not designed to be taken apart and alterations only help weaken their structural stability (no reinforcement around areas that will become stressed, etc.). In addition, all this needs to be done in EVA suits and in cramped space which may not even be possible. The main problem isn't any single modification but the sheer number of them and that together their cost (in man-hours/EVAs) and risk is excessive. This could also be done on the ground however that adds extra weight and complexity to the tanks (and after Columbia I doubt anyone wants the later).

      In summary, you can dump a fuel tank into orbit for free however all you have is a fuel tank. Making it into a space station is a somewhat more complicated problem. Sure it may be practical however there are good reasons for why it's not a "great" solution.

  47. bling bling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US knows that going back to the moon would not result in money made, so there's no impetus for them to do it again. It's not really a "race" or a matter of being "beaten back to the moon." The USSR is a failing economy and a failing government. They're desperate.

  48. space gapers by globaljustin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As anyone who works/lives in a tourist area knows, tourism isn't the same as the real thing.

    I hope with every fiber of my being that space tourism will ignite a new interest in space exploration, but it's more likely to fuel a new interest in space 'development'. There's a big difference.

    What we need are leaders and entrepreneurs who are interested in exploring space for its own sake...just because it is there.

    I would love to be an astronaut, but who wants to be a tour guide?

    ~j

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:space gapers by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Agreed.
      This will hopefully eventually lead us to the habitation of other planets. That way, when the crazy religious dude of the millenia tries to blow us up/poison us, we will have a redundant society!

      As it's our nature to want to live, I say we leave this friggen place and let the middle east fight it out to their hearts content.

    2. Re:space gapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As anyone who works/lives in a tourist area knows, tourism isn't the same as the real thing.

      Living in Maine, I know exactly what you mean.

  49. Check the facts, dope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Americans tried their best to win all those races into space and got their ass kicked. It must be nice to rewrite history in your favor. Oh yeah, great cooperation...like the War in Iraq?

  50. MARTY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got to come with me - BACK TO the FUTURE back

  51. great idea by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    "honey, lets have out honey moon taking a trip around the moon, even though we have a crappy take off, 4 days in empty space, 20 minutes around the moon, 4 days back, and a really crappy landing."

    well worth the 100 million this will probably cost.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:great idea by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      All you need is a curtain, and you could be the first couple to "do it" in space.

    2. Re:great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs a curtain?

      1: Space flight
      2: video camera
      3: ???
      4: Post on internet
      5: Profit!!!

    3. Re:great idea by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      as far as we know. but who is to day that some of those men and women are not doing it up there?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  52. Cool by rDx666 · · Score: 1

    This is another sign that America, a strong research-and-development nation, needs to get with the times: NASA needs more funding. We need to channel more money from Kerry and Bush's campaign accounts into space travel and propulsion research. I really hope this stirs up the US space program, and if not, China's space program. The steps that China has taken in space travel prove that more than just the Russians can cobble something together. The next step is an International Base on the moon, with the ISS a staging area.

    Colonization of outer space objects will be noticed worldwide. It will suck mindshare, for a good reason. And given the current geopolitical climate, it can't be done a president too soon.

  53. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    its called stealth, pretend to die, to sting back covertly. (jk)

    Seriously, the old spanish empire was evil too, infact all large empires are evil, as MASSIVE POWER, brings in massive insantiy leading to total utter control and paranoia.

    The elite families of earth and the govts learned that total utter control is a waste of time, an pure control/wealth is in controlling wolrd resources or access to resources, so if you wake in 80% profit of all resources, youve got it made no matter whos in so called 'real power'.

    Control money + oil = control of what happens and where and who you hurt.

    I think its not USSR that was evil, its HUMANS that behave in evil ways, on both sides of the pacific/arctic.

    Though someone learned that mathamatically, theres no ROI in killing millions of people, rather theres better ROI in keeping them barely alive and happy and working to pay taxes and not cause too much trouble.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  54. Re:If you are tired of 503 by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful


    You know that things are really going to hell (facing possible improvement? * ) at slashdot when complaints about the service get modded UP - and consistently!

    ruh roh, raggy LOL

    SB
    * maybe we need a permanent slashdot bitch forum, with moderation, and I'm NOT talking about email or IRC.

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  55. Re:If you are tired of 503 by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm tired of them.

    But then again I'm not a subscriber, so it's not like slashdot owes me anything.

    In fact, quite the opposite.

    Still:
    Worst... Slashdot week... ever!

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  56. Chinese Moon shot on hold... by Airw0lf · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, the Chinese moon shot has been put on ice, simply due to the massive financial costs involved. I read about it in the French newspaper Libération: http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=207147. The article is now subscription only, but the headline says it all: Espace. L'exploration du satellite de la Terre est abandonnée pour raisons financières. (The exploration of the earth's satellite is abdandoned due to financial reasons.)

    Personally, I think it's a shame that the Chinese are not interested at the moment. I would like to relive the drama of a Moon attempt in my lifetime. Plus all the tinfoil hat moon conspiracists can check to see if the Chinese find an American flag on the moon ;)

    1. Re:Chinese Moon shot on hold... by narl · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's interesting, because Space Daily is reporting today that "China starts development of its first lunar exploration craft".

      "China has started developing its first unmanned lunar exploration craft in order to meet its own tight timetable of reaching the moon before 2007, state media said Tuesday.

      Work on the craft, named "Chang'e 1" after a moon traveler of ancient legend, is going smoothly, making members of the moon program confident the launch will go ahead as planned, the Xinhua news agency reported."

  57. Get your facts straight, moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The first manned Space Station was Salyut in 1971, sent up by the Soviets.

    Blame the funders for the Space Shuttle? Are you kidding? As Lincoln said "Don't waste your time arguing with and idiot." Idiot.

    1. Re:Get your facts straight, moron by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Which was up there for all of 6 months, with two crews.

      Skylab was up a lot longer, and accomplished a lot more (especially given the engineering problems the first astronauts up encountered - and SOLVED.

      Mr. AC, you might want to read a bit about the history of NASA around and after the Apollo 11 flight; you are woefully uninformed about the impact the budget cuts for NASA had on the skilled and trained engineers who were there.

      You might also want to peruse some of the budget history from the late 60s/ early 70s, and particularly WRT to the shuttle designs and the politics involved therein.

      Idiot, yourself. You have no clue what you are talking about.

      FY,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Get your facts straight, moron by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There were many other aspects of Skylab that were also rather impressive. It had more volume for usable workspace than the entire ISS has currently, and while it wasn't "permanently manned" it didn't need to be either.

      The ISS has so many parts and pieces that if its manned component had to leave for several months or years, the ISS would have to be abandoned. When the Skylab 3 crew left, they deliberatly "left the lights on" so it could be used as a "lifeboat" for space missions that got into trouble, a.k.a. Columbia if it couldn't do reentry. One point of the Apollo-Soyuz missions were to allow emergency access to the Russians on Skylab if necessary.

      When the Shuttle program had some serious delays in getting launched, and only then, was Skylab given an orientation for maximum drag. Almost all station keeping fuel that was left was also used do deliberatly degrade the orbit as well, further causing its destruction. The original intention was to have one of the first shuttle flights to boost Skylab to a higher orbit, and it is unfortunate that it never happened. That it was even a possibility for a shuttle rendevous should show just how solid of a design it was.

      I'm not saying that it was the best that could be done, but a good review of Skylab should be done if there is any serious review of an orbital space platform of the Moon, Mars, & beyond program. Launches on a Saturn V-type engine would be much more economical and efficient use for station components than sending them up via shuttle cargo bay, except for finishing pieces and crew exchanges. Think bolts, antenna, batteries, and other bult spare parts, and even those could be sent in an automated cargo freighter. ISS would be a lousy vehicle to launch a Martian transit vehicle, but a Skylab-like vehicle would be considerably more attractive.

    3. Re:Get your facts straight, moron by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      Which was up there for all of 6 months, with two crews.


      So what? I mean, according to you, Skylab was the first spacestation. Why is Spacelab a spacestation whereas Salyut is not? Aren't you just making up some arbitary definitions for spacestations, so that Spacelab would qualify as one, whereas Salyut would not? Then you could just say "yeah, USA had the first spacestation".

      Why couldn't we then say that Spacelab was not a "real" spacestation, but Mir was the first. After all, Mir was inhabited for a lot longer than Spacelab was.

      See? making up new meanings for words is fun!
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:Get your facts straight, moron by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      What on earth (or off it :) are you talking about?

      Spacelab != Skylab.

      Salyut was a capsule with a couple crews. Skylab was a lot more than a capsule.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Get your facts straight, moron by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My apologies, I was indeed talking about Skylab the spacestation. Don't know how I got Spacelab in there.

      But my point remains. you are just arbitaruly changing the definition of "spacestation" so that Salyut would not qualify whereas Skylab would. Couldn't I then just as well say "Mir was alot more than what Skylab was, therefore Mir was the first spacestation."?

      Again: Why is Skylab a spacestation whereas Salyut is not? If it's "Salyut wasn't inhabited long enough!", then I have to ask: how long do you have to live there in order for the construction to qualify as a "spacestation"? If it's "It's just a capsule!". Well, where is the line between a capsule and a spacestation? Of course Salyut was less than impressive then compared to those which came after it. Hell, the first satellites in orbit were nothing more than beebing soccer-balls when compared to modern-day satellites, but they were still satellites nonetheless. By same logic: Skylab was more advanced than Saluyt was. But that doesn't change the fact that Salyut was a spacestation.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    6. Re:Get your facts straight, moron by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Well, I'm not trying a semantic argument; while most others consider Salyut a space station, I'm afraid I don't. I admit that it was *intended* as one, but only had one mission crew and was never really used fully for it's intended purpose.

      However I will admit that it certainly was the first try at one. It's a damned shame they brought it down so soon, it might have made the Mir concept come alive a lot sooner.

      Anyway, I'll not argue it any further :)

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    7. Re:Get your facts straight, moron by shadowbearer · · Score: 1



      Agreed. We need heavy lifters and medium lifters for cargo; the next shuttle should be personnel/parts/tools only. It makes a lot more sense that way (and will undoubtedly be more economical all around).

      Now if the BureauIdiots could be convinced...and that's assuming there's a next shuttle. I'm willing to bet that the next reusable space plane won't be NASA's :) and that would probably be a good thing, too.

      We are going about this whole thing the wrong way...well, that's what happens when bureaucrats and corporate planners get ahold of good ideas. Kraft had quite a bit to say about that, and he wasn't amused.

      (Rob, you really oughta read that book. It's SUPERB. Likely a local library has a copy, it's pretty popular. )

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  58. free return... by bidule · · Score: 1

    As long as its not return-free!

    --
    ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  59. There are more important things than space race! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such as who will win the race to FP!

  60. Re:FOR FUCK SAKE PEOPLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're an idiot. It's "there," not "their."

  61. Anik by bidule · · Score: 1

    First non-military communication satellite - Canada.

    --
    ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  62. Re:If you are tired of 503 by themusicgod1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think it's an omen.

    Mabye, SERVER, praise be, wants all the slashdot geeks to actually get some work done. Is there a project that requires dire help recently that anyone knows about? I just started my project wool clock folding@home team but that is not nearly the scope that I'm thinking is necessary. Does SCO need to be destroyed, do we need a filesystem to compete with Microsoft? Post under this thread, what you think the MOST important thing you ccould be doing, other than reading slashdot is, specifically geeky things. on topic: mabye the X prize teams needs some last minute help?, or mabye we need to design a moon base?

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  63. Re:Space Race... Why men on the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Why the big rip about sending men to the moon? The soviets landed machines there first and, if I recall, even managed to send the vehicles back with samples/photos etc. Everything people could do on the moon probes could do cheaper/faster/lighter, so why send people?

    The main reason for actually sending people to the moon was political: to fulfil Kennedy's "vision". Unless, of course, you want to admit that American engineering was so backward that you had to send a person to do a probe's job.

  64. To rednecks everywhere by Quickfry · · Score: 1

    If you have no sense of adventure fine, don't stop the people who want more than back yard barbaques and NASCAR. Greatest. Post. Ever.

  65. this will be fun by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0

    Got O2 ???

  66. 39 years ago by stox · · Score: 1

    Well, somewhere in that neighborhood, I seem to remember that such a feat would have been possible with a Gemini capsule and a Titan 3M booster. The project was canned, along with the MOL and DynaSoar for reasons I will leave to the reader.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  67. The Sovs? by torstenvl · · Score: 1

    Ti sovietskiy? Ya ni sovietskiy. Ti znayesh', chto eto Rossiskaya Federatsia, ni SSSR, nyet?

    Devai dumat'!

    1. Re:The Sovs? by RWerp · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it's getting hard to tell the difference between the two.

      Czasami trudno odroznic, czy to Federacja Rosyjska, czy ZSSR.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    2. Re:The Sovs? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Too true, unfortunately.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:The Sovs? by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      chto eto tokoy? polskiy yazyk?

    4. Re:The Sovs? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      da, tovarisch!

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    5. Re:The Sovs? by XnR'rn · · Score: 1

      Please consult Proposal for Russian Transliteration Standard. Ya sebye chut' golovu ne slomal poka prochital messagi iz etogo treda. Blin!

  68. The Space Race will be won by Russia and China... by huchida · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... Or even India. Because, to be blunt, those countries can handle the loss of life much better than the Americans. Every setback we have shuts down the our missions for years... Can you really see Russia or China doing the same if a manned spacecraft came to some sort of tragedy?

    Hell, the Russians had the stomach to abandon a dog in space. No way Americans would've stood for that.

  69. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by sydres · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    thats what those arabs think also and look what we did to them. and look at the japanese before wwII thought of us and we smoked their asses also. if you are from america get the hell out you unpatriotic pig. and if you are from some other country. then the only thing between you and total anarchy, is more than likely the american soldier; after all who is asked to step in more than not as "police force", american soldiers. half the world would be a nazi state if it was not for this nation of "obese cunts" during wwII. US soldiers (god bless everyone of them) dye all the time for people they don't even know and who more than likely hate americans. so soon the world forgets. I know that America has not made too many friends but we don't need them they only get our troops killed

  70. Mod parent up by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

    n/txt

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  71. Try a proxy service by johnny_sas · · Score: 1

    Don't know if it's just a fluke, but anytime I got a 503 with a direct connection, I just tried through a proxy service and I always got through...

    1. Re:Try a proxy service by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Don't know if it's just a fluke, but anytime I got a 503 with a direct connection, I just tried through a proxy service and I always got through...

      I have a proxy server at work. I don't at home. At both locations, I'm getting 50x errors. It also doesn't seem to matter much what browser I use. Mozilla got a 500 earlier, but IE got a 503 just a couple of minutes ago. At least the secure server is still working, or we'd all be posting as ACs right about now (if at all).

      Netcraft confirms it: Slashdot is dying.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    2. Re:Try a proxy service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know if it's just a fluke, but anytime I got a 503 with a direct connection, I just tried through a proxy service and I always got through...

      Fluke.

      By coming in on a different IP, you'll end up hitting a different server. (Not the one that's causing the 503 errors.)

  72. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yessir !

    I dun think that's wot rong with them there foriners, none of them ain't a goold ol Boy like me and my pappy !

    Lookit pappy ! I knows yous were the Presidents but now lookit!, I can Presidents all by myself !

    Gorge Dubya.

  73. u suk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u suk

  74. Re:The Space Race will be won by Russia and China. by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you consider other exploration groups that have been put forward by Americans, I think you are greatly mistaken. The opening up of the American West was filled with thousands of deaths, including little children that happened to be in the wrong place, like under a wagon axle or in the front of a stampeding herd of buffalo.

    The problem with NASA is it isn't being done the American way. The future of the American space program/space industry will be with groups like Armadillo Aerospace and Scaled Composites, not with "government" run projects like NASA. Americans can stomache deaths and accidents (look at the deaths of people who do base jumping in the USA). The problem is that it is very difficult to convince American taxpayers to foot the bill to allow people to do that kind of silly stuff.

    This is not to say that I think that India or China isn't welcome in space... far from it. Indeed, I see an Indian presence in space to be much more like the new American approach over time, if for nothing else than the fact that it will be the only way that India can afford a space program.

    China will be more like the traditional government run programs, but China has a tendancy of being even more cautious than the USA for doing things of that nature. This is not because they value life more or less, but the Chinese government will not want to appear to be a failure and it will affect the Chinese political heirarchy harder when failures do occur.

    BTW, the Americans used chimpanzees instead of dogs for the early spaceflights, precisely because they felt that the American people could stomache losing a chimp. Also, by using a chimp they could "test" response situations more accurately than could be done with a dog. If you want to see what Americans will support with tax dollars, just go to any animal shelter to see what is done when they get overcrowded. One method of euthenasia is death by suffication in a vacuum, no different than leaving a dog in space. Yes, I do know other methods are used like injection of lethal substances.

  75. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, I -- the grandparent poster -- am not from the USA, but I'm living here in the USA with a green card and government funding. You lard-ass suckers!

  76. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Aardpig · · Score: 1

    US soldiers (god bless everyone of them) dye all the time for people they don't even know

    No, that was 50 years ago, when the USA wasn't bent over by corrupt politicians and corporations and repeatedly fucked up the arse. Nowadays, US soldiers invade other countries in senseless acts of agression, bomb wedding parties and torture people in prisons. I'm not going to forget any of that in a hurry, matey.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  77. A whole new 419 letter by jjholt1213 · · Score: 1

    great now we will have a new 419 letter going around about how the russians left a nigarian astronaut on te moon.

    1. Re:A whole new 419 letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  78. The Space Station is in the wrong orbit by fname · · Score: 4, Informative
    Simply put, ISS is in the wrong orbit as a stopping point for cargo or people on the way to the moon. I stole this from an article on SpaceReview,
    For the ISS, its lack of usefulness as a base for lunar exploration is due to the fact that it is in the wrong orbit. In order to make the station accessible from both Cape Canaveral and Baikonur, it is in a skewed orbit, suitable for doing useful earth observation but not for much else. The Clinton administration saw it as a symbol of US-Russian friendship and for keeping the large aerospace contractors happy, but that was about it.
    The article goes on to say it's feasible if ISS is moved to an equatorial orbit, which simply won't happen unless it occurs 50 years from now.

    The reason it's not useful as a lunar stop-over base is the same reason that Columbia could not have docked at ISS. Changing from one orbit to another is extremely costly (in terms of fuel), and any lunar mission has to be essentially on the equatorial plane.

    Of course, the idea could still work, but the Soyuz would have to be launched to an equatorial orbit from a suitable launchsite.
    1. Re:The Space Station is in the wrong orbit by hengist · · Score: 1

      Good thing the ESA is building a Soyuz launch pad at Kourou, then. That's almost on the equator.

      I suspect the Ariane 5 could launch the booster stage, too.

      ESA + Russia = lunar tourism?

  79. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by sydres · · Score: 1

    whats the deal so they put panties on their heads and deprived them of sleep they did not cut their heads off. and yes our troops die for people all the timelook at bosnia, look at the humanitarian missions we run and get killed on in africa. the worlds a bunch of damn ingrates and the US gets blamed for everything when you people in other countries are more than likely just jeolous. I aint saying that a good portion of the politicians don't have their own agendas (same as in ever country out there)and that america is not hippocritical at times. at least we don't cower when we get pissed on like some European countries do, and we have enough restraint to not purposely attack civilian populations like some asian countries, it happens I know, but it gets blown out of proportion in foreign media, here it gets brushed under the rug, I gaurantee that if some of your nations troops did this the same would happen in the media.

  80. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by sydres · · Score: 1

    US funding or your own countries funding? I hope it is your own cause if not it shows you what a hippocrite you are cause who do you think is paying for you to be here me

  81. Vikings visited North America before Columbus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The subject says it all ;-)

    I think the original poster was trying to say "stop the gloating, that was just one step in the space race". But don't kid yourself. Without Russia, France, China the US space program would stop, and it would stop now.

  82. FIRST HUMAN ON MOON? EH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Left that one out, eh? First human on the moon. The finish line. Think tour de france. You can win stages along the way, but it's the yellow jersey at the end, the finish line, that counts. All the stages you listed were won, and VERY impressivley so, by the USSR. But only an idiot would say those steps were races each unto themselves. They were all baby steps to get to the moon. And I can think of only one country that had a human hand stick a flag in the fuckin moon dust.

  83. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US funding, you luser! Your taxes are paying for my cushy job at a liberal university! Hahahaha!

  84. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wut?

  85. Illustrations are RIGHT by imroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *sigh* No. You sound like the Apollo-fakers that try to pin all sorts of claimed "oddities" in the moon photos on the lack of atmosphere. Ever notice that here on Earth that shadows from the sun don't have a penumbra either? (at least, not big enough to notice)

    Go read up on "soft shadows" in any CG text. Soft shadows, or penumbras, are not due to atmosphere. Soft shadows are due to the light source being an area and that some points on a surface only "see" part of the light. These areas form a gradient on the surface from fully-lit to full-shadow.

    Presumebly you are referring to picture 6? That fade-off doesn't even have anything to do with soft shadows. That's simple diffuse lighting. As the surface turns away from the light source, it emits less light.

    1. Re:Illustrations are RIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the things that struck about shadows at the time of a solar eclipse: shadows are so sharp edged when the eclipse is almost total. The sun really becomes a point light source then.

    2. Re:Illustrations are RIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er. A ring light-source, surely? Unless the moon was a torus.. ooh that would be cool...

    3. Re:Illustrations are RIGHT by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that. It's really impressive during an eclipse. If you look at the shadows generated by leaves you can see the small eclipse patterns on the ground. It's pretty cool. It happens because you have a smaller, less diffuse light source and the patterns on the leaves act like a pin-camera. 1999 Eclipse was one of the most memorable events in my life.

    4. Re:Illustrations are RIGHT by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      You sound like the Apollo-fakers...

      speaking of which, if any Russian officials are reading this, I'm available to fake any lunar circumnavigation for publicity purposes, for a fair amount of money and fame.

      thank you.

  86. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since 1990 we've (U.S.) helped the following people - without a single thanks:

    El Salvador, Operation POPULAR TREE
    Panama, Operation JUST CAUSE
    Panama, Operation PROMOTE LIBERTY
    Libera, Africa (evacuations)
    Saudi Arabia/Kuwait Operation DESERT SHEILD/STORM
    Turkey, Operation PROVIDE COMFORT I/II
    Bangladesh (typhoon) Operation SEA ANGEL
    Saudi Arabia, Operation DESERT CALM
    Kuwait, Operation SOUTHERN WATCH
    Itay/Yugoslavia, Operation PROVIDE PROMIS
    Somalia, Operation RESTORE HOPE
    Somalia, Operation CONTINUE HOPE I/II
    Yugoslavia, Operation DENY FLIGHT
    Haiti, Operations RESTORE DEMOCRACY / UPHOLD DEMOCRACY
    Rwanda, Operation SUPPORT HOPE
    Somalia, Operation UNITED SHEILD
    Italy/Yugoslavia/Bosnia, Operation DELIBERATE FORCE
    Croatia, Search and rescue support
    Liberia, Operation ASSURED RESPONSE
    Albania, Operation SILVER WAKE
    Congo, civilian evacuation
    Serbia/Kosovo, Operation ALLIED FORCE
    Mozambique (flood), Operation ATLAS RESPONSE
    Afganistan/Iraq, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM

    These are just the ones I can remember. Where's your piss-ant country? Out killing Jews?

  87. Short Memories by Shihar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pointing out that the US is not always the shit is a no brainer. Super powers tend to fuck up because they are run by humans. Until we get rid of pesky humans, you can expect the US (and all other nations for that matter) to fuck it up and do bad things. Because the US is that last remaining super power, you can expect that when the US fucks up, it fucks up big.

    All of that said, the world is better off because of the existence of the US. People accuse Americans of having a short memory, but that seems to be a human condition, not just an American condition.

    If you recall 60 or so years ago there was World War II. Now it can be easily argued that the US stirred the pot for that war in its own way, though, if you are talking about Germany (Japan being a much different story), you can place the blame pretty squarely on Europe, and give the US credit for trying to prevent World War II. The US was one of the few countries not to demand 'reparation' payments from Germany over World War I, and in fact the US even made an attempt to pay off some of Germany's debt. A large hunk of the rest of the world did not take this approach and led Germany to complete and utter economic ruin, giving rise to fascism.

    We could talk a long time about World War II, but I think it can be summed up by saying that Russia would have fallen without a second front, and the second front would not have existed unless the US hadn't pumped resources to those brave Brits and eventually joined the fight themselves.

    On to the an interesting piece of history, the Cold War. First, the US saved West Berlin. Without the massive airlift effort in the face of the Soviet blockade, the people of West Berlin would have had the option of starving to death or surrendering to the Soviets. Zooming back a little further, it should be realized that the US spent the entire Cold War acting in the defense of democracy. It is naïve to think that the rest of Europe could have held back the Soviet Union on its own. Hell, half of Europe was already taken, and you can be certain they at least wanted the rest of Germany.

    The US spent countless trillions of dollars fighting the Soviet Union on every front. I don't think people understand what a large fraction of the US productivity and wealth was sacrificed in the Cold War simply to hold the Soviet Union back. That doesn't even begin to touch on the thousands of lives that were given up in places like Korea and Vietnam to fight them directly with guns and bullets. The world IS a better place because South Korea is not the festering pit of despair that North Korea is. The world IS a better place because West German remained free of Soviet oppression.

    The US fought the Soviets with a level of fanaticism that makes your average terrorist look mild mannered. The US had a finger leveled over the button to wipe out both the USSR and the US if it came down to that. The US was fully prepared to wipe itself out if that was the only way to hold the Soviets back. During the Cuban missile crisis, many Americans expected the end of the world. That moment where Kennedy brought the US to near nuclear oblivion over a stupid symbolic stand against the Soviets is revered in American history and made Kennedy a hero. Threatening to utterly wipe out the Soviet Union, and thus commit to having the Soviet Union wipe out the US is one of the prouder moments in American history.

    Love or hate it, the US has been fanatical for democracy and freedom since World War II. They have been fanatical enough to wipe themselves off the face of the earth in nuclear oblivion if it meant protecting the rest of the world from the Soviet Union. In that fanaticism more then a few horrible mistakes were made. The US has help more then its fair share of lesser evils to keep the greater evil at bay. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden come to mind as people the US backed simply because they looked to be the lesser of two evils at the time. To say the US has never made a mistake would be silly. The

    1. Re:Short Memories by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      On to the an interesting piece of history, the Cold War. First, the US saved West Berlin. Without the massive airlift effort in the face of the Soviet blockade, the people of West Berlin would have had the option of starving to death or surrendering to the Soviets. Zooming back a little further, it should be realized that the US spent the entire Cold War acting in the defense of democracy. It is naïve to think that the rest of Europe could have held back the Soviet Union on its own. Hell, half of Europe was already taken, and you can be certain they at least wanted the rest of Germany.

      Yay, American distortion of the truth yet again. During the Berlin Airlift, flights were flown from 9 airfields into Berlin (mainly landing at Templehoff airport and Gatow RAF airfield - I lived at the latter in the 1980s). 6 of those airfields were in the British sector of western germany, dispatching mainly British aircraft carrying mainly British supplies. The US made up just slightly less than half of the effort right up until the last few months of the effort, when Truman authorised a 200% increase in the effort on the American side, right before the Soviets capitulated and reopened supply routes.

      Also something to think about is the fact that the US was NOT 'protecting' Europe out of altruistic feelings, it simply saw that a Soviet occupied Europe would pose a huge and imminent threat to the US if the Soviets ever decided to attack. Thus the effort and monetory value put into 'protecting' Europe made sense because it was infact protecting the US. Its interesting to note that if you look at history from the late 1940s to now with a objective eye, the US comes out as more aggressive than the USSR. It was the US hatred of the Soviet way of life that fueled the cold war. Fair enough, Soviet Russia may not have been a non evil country, but the arms race was born more out of the US view of the Soviet thinking than of Soviet aggression.

    2. Re:Short Memories by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Also something to think about is the fact that the US was NOT 'protecting' Europe out of altruistic feelings, it simply saw that a Soviet occupied Europe would pose a huge and imminent threat to the US if the Soviets ever decided to attack.

      It was the US hatred of the Soviet way of life that fueled the cold war. Fair enough, Soviet Russia may not have been a non evil country, but the arms race was born more out of the US view of the Soviet thinking than of Soviet aggression.

      That is a complete and utter contradiction. First, you say that US acted purely out of self interest. Then you go on to say that it was hatred of the Soviet way of life that caused them to act as they did, and further the US just made it worse because they aggressively went after the Soviet Union. I think you have it completely right in your second statement. The motivation for the Cold War was not self interest, but hatred of such an evil empire that had consumed a quarter of the world. The US was very much fanatical about stopping the Soviet Union. They DID make things worse and create an arms race that never needed to happen. The US was overtly hostile to the Soviet Union and spent half of a centaury doing everything in its power to take it down.

      The US created the Cold War. They spent the Soviet Empire into the ground. That was a good thing though. Without the arms race the Soviet Empire would still be around today. The Soviet Union crumbled under half of a centaury of constant non-stop conflict. Inciting conflict with such a massive enemy, then very resolutely telling them that should they ever make any real gains in taking the rest of the world that nuclear Armageddon would come to everyone is not a sign of a nation acting out of any sort of self interest. That is a nation of fanatics acting out of fanaticism, and seeing as how a massive swath of the world is now free from Soviet control (including Russia), I would say that the world is certainly a better place. It isn't a perfect place, and the things done to get to this point where not always good, nor were they always right, but in the end the world is a better place.

      So I agree, the US did act out of the hatred of how the Soviet Empire treated its people, and as a result spent the better part of the last half centuary making the problem worse by aggressivly seeking to keep the rest of world ending up with the same fate and freeing the people already under Soviet control. Fucking evil self serving Americans. Always threatening to blow themselves up out of evil self serving, self interest.

    3. Re:Short Memories by plumby · · Score: 1
      Love or hate it, the US has been fanatical for democracy and freedom since World War II. They have been fanatical enough to wipe themselves off the face of the earth in nuclear oblivion if it meant protecting the rest of the world from the Soviet Union

      You have a fascinating definition for freedom, if you think that wiping the world out before the Soviets got hold of it is freedom.

    4. Re:Short Memories by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      That is a complete and utter contradiction

      Not really, first I state the reason the US thought they did it, and the reason they publically stated, then I state the real reason they did it. The two are complimentry to each other, they felt a soviet occupied europe was a threat BECAUSE of the soviet way of life. They protected europe BECAUSE they felt the Soviet way of life would lead to a Soviet occupied Europe, which would pose a threat for the US.

      Im of an uncertain mind as to whether the arms race was a good move on the US part, as they never thought to wonder what would happen if they won the arms race. Well, the Soviets would have been developing their own versions of the same weapons the US were developing, but noone thought what would happen when the USSR overspent itself, other than the USSR would implode (hopefully, either that or a war). So now we have the situation where the USSR did implode, and we have large amounts of nuclear material missing, weapons missing, scientists underpaid and willing to work for whomever can pay them. Its a mess which will only get worse.

      Its not like the USSR would have gone "ok, hey you won, lets make sure nothing untoward happens now with everything we created.". No, what actually happened was the economy imploded, and people just upped and left their positions because they needed to find jobs which put food on the table. Entire military regiments deserted, nuclear missile silos were left unguarded, weapons labs were left open, and in one case a soviet nuclear sub was left moored to a bridge, its crew just left it.

      Im not sure if your last statement was sarcastic or not, so I will hold comment until you clarify :)

    5. Re:Short Memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You have a fascinating definition for freedom, if
      you think that wiping the world out before the Soviets got hold of it is freedom.

      My South Korean wife would say you're an idiot, as I'm sure would her family which are still very grateful to the US for "wiping out" South Korea.

    6. Re:Short Memories by evilviper · · Score: 1
      if you look at history from the late 1940s to now with a objective eye, the US comes out as more aggressive than the USSR. It was the US hatred of the Soviet way of life that fueled the cold war.

      Riiiiggghhhttt.

      Somehow I missed the part in the history books that talked about America taking over other countries by military force to spread their way of life...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Short Memories by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Thats because the history books gloss over stuff like that (just the same as the history taught in the UK dont mention brutality in India and other commonwealth countries). For example:



      1954 Guatemala. US Government trained and backed exiles under the command and support of US military invades and overthrows current government. US Marines put into country to support exiles.

      1962 Panama. US Government puts troops into Panama against the wishes of that countries government. Results in over 1000 Panamanians being shot by US troops.

      1965 Dominican Republic. US Government puts troops into the country during democratic elections when it becomes apparent that the pro US government was about to fall.

      1969 Cambodia. Despite never having declared war on the country, the US government drops bombs and puts troops into Cambodia after CIA intelligence suggests the NVA was using Cambodia as a supply route.

      1970 Oman. US Government puts troops into the country to support an Iranian invasion.

      1971 Laos. US government commands South Vietnamese invasion and puts troops in upon request of SV commanders.

      1973 Chile. US government puts troops into Chile to support and train rebels looking to depose democratically elected president.

      1976 Angola. US government puts troops into country to support and train South African backed rebels.

      1981 Nicaragua. US Government puts troops into country to support and train exiled militants. US Government received a UN resolution for this, citing the US as being a 'State sponser of terrorism', the only country to be labeled as such to date.

      1983 Grenada. US Government puts troops into country to overthrow current government.

      1987 Iran. US Government intervenes on the side of Iraq, puts troops into Iran for 6 weeks. US Naval and bombing of Iran continues for a year.

      1989 Panama. US Government overthrows Nationalist government.

      1994 Haiti. US Government reinstates Haitian president who was ousted 3 years previously by the people and the military. Troops put into the country. (US Government forces this president to quit in 2003, there was no democratic elections between the reinstatement and his departure for a second time).

    8. Re:Short Memories by juhaz · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't miss that part, because it's not there. You did, however, miss the old (and correct) saying about winning side writing the history.

      Oh, and this may not be in books yet, but last time America took over other countries by military force to spread their way of life happened in 2001-2003, you might have heard about these small countries called "Afghanistan" and "Iraq".

    9. Re:Short Memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another berk who gets his history from hollywood.

  88. Earth-Moon L-1? Riiiiight by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Informative
    Interesting to note that in this slide they allude to the possibility of making some kind of permament "depot" at the Earth-Moon L-1. Which makes great PR, but also leads me to wonder just how much real analysis has gone into their mission concepts.

    Libration point mission are hard. Manned libration point missions - if we ever do one - would be harder, since they tend to be much more susceptible to last-minute changes in trajectory. Then add the complications of trying to do proximity maneuvers, let alone rendezvous-and-docking, in such a complex dynamic environment (the cutting edge in L-point research right now is formation flying - not close maneuvers, but just trying to maintain any kind of coordinated trajectory between multiple spacecraft). Finally, throw in the fact that the Earth-Moon libration points are tenuous at best, with dynamics that are seriously warped by the Sun's gravity (libration "points" are an artifact of three-body dynamics, such as Earth-Moon-Spacecraft), and you have a recipe for a severe difficulties or a serious cost explosion. Not to mention the propellant costs incurred by attempting to station-keep for any appreciable period of time in the vicinity of their "depot". As I said, it makes me wonder about the quality and/or depth of their analysis...

  89. from a national geographic article by kc8jhs · · Score: 1

    This is from an old one...circa late 80's but it basically admitted that the Russians were whooping us when it came to space. At the time the statistics were like 5 times the successful launches that we had, and over 7 times the man hours in space, there space station had been up for over twice as long as skylab had....it was just mind boggling. They also mentioned that they had 3 major spaceports in russia, each of them many times the size or kennedy, and edwards combined. -mikey p

  90. Slightly OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The russian soyuz seemes more reliable and much more cheaper than the american space shuttle. USA won the space race to the moon, but I guess that in the end the Russians won in terms of safe and cheap access to space.

    Each shuttle has a flight cost in the order of 500 million dollars (source) and each soyuz launch has a cost of 20-25 million dollars (cant find a source, however the spacetourists that paid 20 million dollars paid covered the launch costs IRC). So when the soyuz is 25 times cheaper than the space shuttle (ok, if you want to launch humans and payload, you need 2 soyuz launches, but its still cheaper) - why dont Nasa simply buy human/payload launch services from the russian agency, that would be much cheaper for Nasa.

    1. Re:Slightly OT by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      The reason is the same as the answer of the question - why americans ( knowing that they could support russian production of spacecrafts just after the loss of shuttle when the matters were tought) did not do that. the problem is - the US law prohibits to finance russian space industry as it somehow has links to iranian tech programs ( and us law respects any contacts in tech with iranians which allegedly , tend to develop nuke (or the don't as they say and claim that they just want nuclear power plant?) but anyhow - nasa knows that it is cheaper, but reluctunce to lend russians a hand in past led to that russinas started to offer tech to iranians and then were punished for that for long ( but hey here we want to eat... and in 90 s there were NO finacial sources for most russian tech developments) so here is a sort of a dead lock and the most problem that US still treats russians as not friends for this simple reason - there are always tentions. but if to return to the theme - nasa cannot finance russian space program and the law will not be chaged ( it was discussed after shuttle crash - but nasa was told no chanse...) ( for example it took almost 10 years after russia become democratic that JACKSON-VENIK amendment ( which clued trade restrictions with immigration from russia and since then for ex almost half of Israelis had origins from former ussr and maybe you know quite a bit of russians around you in us ;)) restrictions on trade with russia were lifted ) it is just seems - US politics is not about to look for the friendship with russians ( what ever you hear from politicians there are a lot probs here and there esp in trade etc). it is long story with many different aspects being involved why this situation has to be. I think the discussion on these issues would be complete offtopic - but again the answer on your quesion is - currently US cannot not buy or fund production of rissian souz es due to law. Btw it is intesting how the company in the topic ( which seems to be US based) is intended to order souzes ( as it is prohibited by anti_nuke_to_ iranians law not only to nasa ) ?

    2. Re:Slightly OT by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      oops first post to slashdot :) ... next time will use preview and edit. But hope ideas of the post ( though there are some bugs in text) are clear.

    3. Re:Slightly OT by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      Because the shuttles can carry MUCH more cargo than the Soyuz can. Not only in terms of tons of cargo, but also in terms of size. Things can be only so big on a soyuz; on the shuttle, things can be any size you want that will fit in the cargo bay and be secured in place.

      The reason that there are only two people on the ISS right now is that there are not enough supplies to support more than that. Water is a big problem. So are spare parts. The shuttle was able to lift all the water needed for 3 people on the ISS and still had extra. You have to launch several Soyuz capsules to get the same amount of materials up there.

      If you consider only the progress resupply vehicles as your source of cargo vessel, you still end up needing many more missions than if you had a shuttle in the mix. Progress is basically a soyuz design with autopilot and all the people stuff thrown out. It's built for cargo carrying only (and they REALLY pack stuff tight in those things!)


      Ideally, to have one vehicle that can get people and cargo up to orbit, or purely cargo, you need one of two approaches:
      1) A high-altitude lifter to get a cargo module up high enough for the cargo module to boost itself to the proper orbit (similar to the White-Knight/SpaceShip One approach).
      2) A soyuz-like approach where you have a capsule lifted to orbit by multi-stage rockets. With a capsule that is large enough to support people and a significant amount of cargo.

      Both approaches would require a fast turn around time. Basically, you have smaller vehicles in terms of cargo lifting capability, but send up a nearly continuous stream of them to get a similar amount of material up there.

  91. I'll Soyuz on the Dark Side of the Moon by Tex+Bravado · · Score: 4, Funny

    Over 30 years ago, Roger Waters knew what was coming.
    Cosmic ! Or merely Brain Damage...

  92. * Re:If you are tired of 503 by tqft · · Score: 1

    Ask and you shall receive:
    http://groups-beta.google.com/group/slas hdot

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
    1. Re:* Re:If you are tired of 503 by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of something hosted on slashdot, however. Of course it'd be hard to bitch during a 503 Event, tho afterward...heheh. ;)

      Thanks, tho, I wasn't aware of that group. Hrm... oh joy, another time-waster, erm, uh, place to contribute :) What's the Troll ratio there? lol!

      Cheers,
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  93. this was done before, sorta by jonwil · · Score: 1

    way back when (when apollo was being fixed after the apollo 1 fire but before apollo 7) the soviets fired an unmanned "zond" craft around the moon in exactly this free-return path.

    The US govt (CIA etc) got wind of this and told NASA. This news was what caused the change in plans that led to the Apollo 8 lunar orbit mission.

  94. Re:News that Slashdot won't report--Doom 3 pirated by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    Hey, this is DOOM 3.

    Do you have any idea how widely pirated Doom and Doom 2 were? Back in the Elder Days of passing stacks of floppies about at school EVERYONE had a (virus-riddled) copy.

    Did it stop Doom being massive? Not really. It probably helped: if everyone has Doom, even a pirate Doom, then the value of Doom to a prospective customer rises because there are more possible Deathmatch opponents.

    So people are pirating Doom 3. Big deal. People are spending hundreds of dollars on new kit just to play this game, so I doubt they'll blink at the cost of it. Meanwhile, kiddies pirating it are probably getting about 10fps...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  95. USSR 21 : USA 14 by j0kkk3l · · Score: 1

    The USA was basically earlier in docking spacestuff, landing men on moon, and in deep space exploration.

    The USSR was quick in bringing things and people to orbit for the first time. They also did the first succesfull landings on the moon, later even the first automatic rover!

    Check out the wikipedia article.

  96. Both were caused by bad management by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    Both were warned against by the engineers, both times multiple warnings were ignored by management and the engineers did not press hard enough in fear of their jobs. NASA has become a business where the suits call the shots not the rocket scientists.

    As shown with the second "accident" NASA hasn't learned and I very much doubt they have learned this time.

    The shuttle itself is an extremely bad design. The engineers wanted to fit an escape mechanism. Kinda like the ejection cockpit the F-111 bomber has. Funny thing is that such an thing exist on the russian rockets, there has at least been one case of a crew succesfully ejecting from an exploding rockter, but was rejected for the shuttle. The first "accident" would have been a perfect use of an escape pod. The cockpit survived the blast and the crew was not killed by the exploding rocket but by hitting the ground several minutes later. Plenty of time for to pull the eject handle.

    Old or new something is only reliable if you use it properly. Start letting the suits decide and you are just waiting for them to screw up.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Both were caused by bad management by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "The first "accident" would have been a perfect use of an escape pod. The cockpit survived the blast and the crew was not killed by the exploding rocket but by hitting the ground several minutes later. Plenty of time for to pull the eject handle."

      The 'concious on the way down' is conjecture, as you can be pretty sure that explosive decompression that high up would have brought on hypoxia extremely quickly, and I'd be very surprised if there wasn't interruption in the environmental support systems.

      Note that ejectors of pretty much any description have to used in the horizontal plane; the shuttle is multiplanar throughout the launch right up to orbital insertion. A tumbling piece of wreckage isn't going to be the ideal place to eject from, either.

      There *are* (at least as far as I'm aware) draglines from the launch towers...if you can undog the main hatch and get out, you can use a basket to get a nominal distance from the shuttle itself, but like the escape tower on the Apollo flights, the circumstances where it becomes useful are vanishingly small, and nothing would help a catastrophic failure.

      "Start letting the suits decide and you are just waiting for them to screw up."

      Nonsense. Let the suits decide and they'll go for the most cost-effective option on a risk assessed plan that shows a favourable break even point. That isn't screwing up, that's business. You could, and should argue that science and business are diametrically opposed to each other in aim and execution, however.

      Atlantis was a debacle, though. There was nothing that could be done unless someone had watched the launch tape from the camera and alerted someone to make a visual inspection by undertaking a spacewalk. Even then, the damage may not have been completely apparent, but the attitude of most ("It's just a piece of foam") was ignorant of the most basic physics involved; something to be frightened of if these people are deciding space policy.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    2. Re:Both were caused by bad management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'concious on the way down' is conjecture, as you can be pretty sure that explosive decompression that high up would have brought on hypoxia extremely quickly, and I'd be very surprised if there wasn't interruption in the environmental support systems.

      That's why they wear pressure suits during the launch.

      Hypoxia does mess with your head -- I've been at about a 2-beer level of hpyoxia after a fast climb to 9000ft. Well, if you can call a Cessna 172 in a thermal a fast climb, anyway... :-) I need to spend some time in an altitude chamber (or in the big wind tunnel that we have at work) in order to learn more about how I react to it and to practice staying focused.

    3. Re:Both were caused by bad management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atlantis was a debacle, though. There was nothing that could be done unless someone had watched the launch tape from the camera and alerted someone to make a visual inspection by undertaking a spacewalk. Even then, the damage may not have been completely apparent, but the attitude of most ("It's just a piece of foam") was ignorant of the most basic physics involved; something to be frightened of if these people are deciding space policy.

      Are you talking about Columbia?

    4. Re:Both were caused by bad management by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "That's why they wear pressure suits during the launch."

      You sure they aren't to avoid blood pooling by compressing the blood vessels in the limbs during ascent? Note what I said at the end of the quoted by about environmental support failing; I'm aware that the helmets worn during launch are connected to cockpit systems rather than having self-contained supplies.

      "I react to it and to practice staying focused."

      Altitude training, the cheapest being getting as high above sealevel as you can and using a snorkel while running. ;o)

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  97. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >american soldiers. half the world would be a nazi state if it was not for this nation of "obese cunts" during wwII

    Yes, sure that the private Rian won the WWII. But get the facts and not Holly(wood)shit:
    About 70% all nazi losses was on the East front (clarifying for the Rian fans - US Soldiers were on the West front. The East front - USSR).
    The role of US in WWII was very important but not dominant. And I am so sorry that some people try to forget which country _actually_ played the dominant role in the victory.

  98. It is not their resposibility to solve poverty. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Most poverty results becauses of abuses of the local governments. Go do research into how much aid is spent on Africa that acutally reaches those who need it.

    Do not begrudge people for how they spend THEIR money. To deny people the right to spend their money as they see fit would rob these these same poor of even more. Success and profit from that success drives people to new heights and opens many doors that no one may have ever dreamed of looking at. Yes some people may spend their money on themselves but it does pass through the economy and may be applied better by someone down the chain.

    To sum it up, if application of money had to pass a "fairness" test then what would drive people to earn more? Nothing. It feels "good" to say that //you// or anyone else would do it for the benefit of others but those people don't exist, or if they do they only appeared after they made too much for themselves to handle.

    Besides, this keeps the Russians busy in the space industry and who knows, one of them might one day invent something with funds derived from these ventures that solves a major world problem. Far better than sending 20million to some rat hole in the third world to have it spent by a dictator on a palace.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  99. Have you ever looked at the moon? by Nevermine · · Score: 1

    Tell men when you have last looked at a half moon and seen a gradient that seems to stretch about 1/8 of the total circomference?

    The moon is a lot smaller than earth, so the twilight zone will also be a lot smaller. On earth I'd guess it stretches some 100 KM, thus a really rough guess would be that it stretches no more than 10 KM on the moon. It's also a give that it's shorter on the moon due to no athmosphere and no refraction of light rays.

    1. Re:Have you ever looked at the moon? by mlyle · · Score: 1

      This photograph disagrees with you-- it's not some sharp edge, but a nice gradient.

  100. Re:long term by zmollusc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Few politicians look to the long term. In the long term, they are out of office. Sink money from today's unpopular taxes into something that will pay off for someone else? No thanks!

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  101. ISS departure, Riiiight (Re:Earth-Moon L-1?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISS has a rather strongly inclined orbit for missions to the moon or other planets, you have to first adjust your orbital inclination. This would definately be a major percentage of their fuel costs. It might be cheaper if they launched from someplace equatorial and forgot about ISS entirely.

  102. Good spacecraft, no launcher by amightywind · · Score: 1

    The Soyuz is a fine spacecraft and can probably be modified for the mission, but do the Russians have a launcher to get it to the moon? The Soyuz launcher is only suitable for LEO missions. The Proton is only slightly more powerful. The Energia no longer exists. What other options are there?

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Good spacecraft, no launcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proton rocket is roughly 3 times more powerful than Soyuz rocket, in terms of payload on the low Earth orbit. Having Proton launch a booster, which docks to Soyuz and accelerates it to the moon - even if booster uses kerosin, not hydrogen - is quite possible, from the needed velocity standpoint.

    2. Re:Good spacecraft, no launcher by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      actually russians could renew Energia for the 100 mln us dollars ( there were plans in 1999 which were announced by Kazahstan prezident Nazarbaev see in russian http://www.avia.ru/cgi/news/news.cgi?action=get6&i d=924782310) maybe price has changed since then back in 90 s there were plans to enhance Energia to lift to available by Energia 100 tons on LEO to 180 tons delivered to LEO so the launcher has a potentia still russians have no much ideas to use the launcher ( it is too heavy for regular operations) I do not think that tourist would be enought source of funds to revive the complete infrustructure to produce this launcher. But it is possible. as still it is relativly inexpensive to use old development of russian space industry. But are americans intrested :) to invest ?

    3. Re:Good spacecraft, no launcher by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      Proton will not suite at least for manned flight launch - it's over g (overload) during launch is more than man could stand - so it is used for unmanned launches only. there is Angara launcher which could be used as a replacement for Proton ( and is a bit more powerfull and which is safier for environment and could be used to launch manned spacecrafts. But I'm not sure as it requires computations if the rocet will suite to launch souz to moon orbit and have enouth fuel to return it back.

    4. Re:Good spacecraft, no launcher by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      Angara 5 specs could be viewed here http://members.lycos.co.uk/spaceprojects/lv/angara .html

  103. Re:Obscene - Progress by Markvs · · Score: 0, Troll

    I love comments like this. If humanity actually EVER stopped to keep all of its members from being in poverty, we'd still be back at the level of the Spartans. They were the last (and perhaps only successful) society to function without money.

    There has NEVER been a society with money and without poverty, period. And I, for one, and SICK of hearing how people shouldn't do this or shouldn't do that because we should help the impoverished.

    I'm not saying that the poor don't need help. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be agencies to help them. What I *am* saying is that the "this is a waste of money" arguement is a fallacy at best.

    Conisider: What if Spain had used it's money to fund a social welfare system instead of Columbus's four voyages?
    What if the US had spent Nasa's budget on the the "Great Society" instead? ...in both cases, probably not much.
    The old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish analogy still stands. The trouble is that on a scale of more than one, it becomes a much more complex issue.

    In the cold reality of day, we've "Fed the Children" for 30 years now, and probably will for 300 more. All it equates to is a temporary bandage, not a cure for poverty. There isn't one, barring full employment for the planet, which won't be possible unless one of two things happens:
    a) We become a singular world government and start working on superprojects.
    b) We stop the world economy and get rid of the concept of money. This, of course, will practically guarantee an end of modern society. ... I don't see either happening anytime soon...

    -Markvs

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
  104. How about some important ones? by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    First game of golf played on another planet or moon: USA, Alan Sheppard, 1971
    First wheeled vehicle to be kicked because it wasn't working on another planet or moon: USA, Apollo 15, 1971
    First mutant space fungus to be grown entirely in orbit: Russia, Mir, 2000. Bonus points to the USA for bringing the original strain up with them on the space shuttle.
    First zero-gee sex in orbit: Still waiting for confirmation on this. Suspect a government cover-up of some kind.

    1. Re:How about some important ones? by XnR'rn · · Score: 1

      There was a wedding in space already. Unfortunately newlyweds had to wait for the groom to return to the surface... Sooo... No Sex.

  105. Other nation's inferiority complexes. by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

    Man you guys got the worst inferiority complexes I've ever seen. Chill out this is about space and not some damned pissing contest.

    Oh yeah, the US rules j00r country!

  106. this being slashdot by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    I feel I have to make a somewhat geek retort to this...

    A while ago, scientists doing genetic research for the Israeli Government (IG) found hard proof that Jews and Arabs are basically the same people at the genetic level. The IG suppressed the findings, which were some time later published in Europe.

    So, uh, who's out killing "Jews/Arabs" again? Bet you could draw parallels between the current situation in the Middle East and the Dead Kennedys song "Kill the Poor".

  107. No Darl McBride post yet by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    I'll give five bucks to put Darl McBride on the first flight.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  108. The Russians 1st & Gene Cernan by Markvs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've recently finished reading "Last Man on the Moon", which is an autobiographical account of Gene's life.
    Gene, in my mind, is perhaps the best astronaut the US ever had. He made the hardest spacewalk in US history on Gemini 9, flew (and nearly landed) on the moon on Apollo 10, and was the last man to walk on the moon when he commanded Apollo 17.

    In his book, he points out that the Russians did land (Luna 9 in 1966) on the moon before the US, and up to Apollo 8 (the first Apollo to fly around the moon, included Jim Lovell of Apollo 13 fame) there were serious fears that the USSR would land a manned mission to the moon first.

    -Markvs

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
  109. Apollo 13, radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not so sure of those odds, especially since an Apollo XIII failure would be very, very likely to become lethal due to the presence of an incompetent, untrained and panicking tourist in the capsule!

    Yep, the tremendous training and discipline posessed by the Apollo 13 crew were big factors in their safe return after the explosion, as was the support of Gene Kranz's people back at Houston. They barely made it back alive, and all the stories and movies that have ever been written about it are still a huge understatement of everything that transpired.

    As to the radiation, just going thru the Van Allen radiation belts on the way to the moon gave the astronauts aboard about 1% of a fatal dose. Nasty stuff out there. It will be a problem to contend with if a space elevator is ever built too.

    1. Re:Apollo 13, radiation by cmowire · · Score: 1

      I agree that the radiation that the Apollo crews experienced was pretty nasty. The continuous doses that the low earth orbit astronauts experience is also pretty nasty.

      Thankfully, this will be mostly solvable when we get to building a space elevator. The main reason why they experience the radiation is because you need too much mass to absorb it. So they opted to take a calculated risk of an excessive radiation dose so that the mission would be possible within the technology of the time. A space elevator may not need such restriction.

  110. Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no russian oligarch (sic) snapped up their space program at bargain prices. Wonder about future tourists if we get a "Moscow (actually, don't know location of russian space control), we have a problem"

  111. Only first that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First sex in space.

  112. So wastefull by V_IL_Len · · Score: 1

    Everytime I look at particularly moon shots but all space vehicles two thirds of the construction materials get jettisoned at some point. To bad there isn't a way to engineer some of those components to be useful for something else after their primary use has been accomplished. Have the booster shells be recoverable in space by the shuttle or something and towed to the space station to be retrofitted as an extra component. It costs so much to get a pound of weight up there finding a way to recycle the thousands of pounds they jettison on each mission would seem to be cost effective.

  113. Once again... by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    Once again our big, expensive, fancy space shuttle seems more turkey than eagle; as the cheaper, disposable Soyuz proves itself adaptable to more missions.

  114. my low earth tidbit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    w00h00 so whens america moving out of earth? maybe everyone will finally get some peace.
    oh oh oh does canada get first dibs on ex-patriated soil?

  115. first pen in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should not forget another US achievement: the first pen that works in space! After Russians lost this race, they just used pencils.

  116. Not true by varjag · · Score: 1

    We could talk a long time about World War II, but I think it can be summed up by saying that Russia would have fallen without a second front

    Well, it can't. USSR went through the hardships of 1941/1942, when the Western front could really come handy, but by the late 1943, the wermacht and the fascist regime were largely doomed, and many suspect that the U.S. joined mostly to salvage at least a part of Europe from the Soviet occupation.

    Eastern front exceeded the western one in duration, geographic span and combat intensity. If you prefer headcount, the western front and the african campaign combined accounted for less than 10% of German combat casualities. Transfer to the Eastern front was used as a punishment for German soldiers on the Western front.

    We are infinitely gratious for the American lend-lease and their effort on the Western front (which indeed likely saved hundreds of thousands of Soviet lives), but pay credit where it's due. Would you find it outrageous if I claimed that it was the USSR who defeated Japan, just because it happened to knock out the Kwantung Army? Then you understand what I feel when reading your post.

    Remember, there was a reason why Charles de Gaulle said "The Second front will always remain in history as the second".

    --
    Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    1. Re:Not true by Torgen · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union would have folded in months, if it weren't for the millions upon millions in supplies and vehicles the US poured into the country. The Soviet Union survived because the US and British spent the blood and money to get those supplies through. The Soviet Union survived WWII because the US kept them alive. Without those hundreds of convoys fighting their way past Uboats and surface raiders (why was the Tirpitz and latter Scharnhorst in Norway? To strike at the Murmansk convoys. They were still in range of the RAF, as they would have been in Kiel.) There would have *been* no 1943, no victory at Stalingrad, without US Lend-Lease. Did the US and British use Stalin to keep Hitler busy until they could prepare for an invasion of the Continent? Sure. But you know what? Without the US, the Soviet Union would have been destroyed. Stalin knew it, FDR knew it, Churchill and Hitler knew it. That is why there was so much struggle and death in those Artic waters to get the convoys through, and to try to defeat them. If it hadn't been important, you wouldn't have seen both sides using battleships in an effort to decide the outcome.

    2. Re:Not true by varjag · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, lend-lease amounted for 4% of Soviet wartime production.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
  117. Re: Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Tell men when you have last looked at a half moon and seen a gradient that seems to stretch about 1/8 of the total circomference?"

    You forget which side you are looking at.

    Look at an orange - the gradient is expanded by the texture of the surface. since the back side of the moon has a rough surface, the gradiant is expanded considerably. This gradient is formed by the mountains -- the farther into the shadow, the less the mountain is exposed to sunlight, and the greater angle of incidence (note, the higest incident occurs BEFORE the penumbra starts). So the mountains get full/nearly full illumination first, casting a shadow toward the penumbra. After
    the pnumbra starts, the mountains light up less and less. But it doubles (at least) the effective gradient.

    The near side of the moon has a much smoother surface.

  118. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and its very convinent about how we forget that the US supplied the east front with millions in munitions, vessels and supplies. If the east had been lost, the germans could have easily redoubbled their forces against the USSR and whiped it off the face of the planet. We stopped that.

  119. Russians and finishing what they start by heroine · · Score: 1

    So is this like the flying saucer the Russians were going to build in 2003 but never finished? Is this like the Russian nuclear power station on Mars that was never done? Is this another Russian post office abort the space station that never happened? If it's anything like the Russian suborbital space shuttle planned in 2002, it could be a long wait.

  120. Space-tourist etiquette by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    With the question of insurance/liability having been brought up already, I can imagine such an underwriter requiring a space-tourist on a long voyage (to the moon, etc.) to HAVE to wear (at ALL times) some sort of "incapacitation device" that would render them, er, mostly harmless in the event they have an episode of "space rage" -- it may suffice to rely on their fellow passengers whacking 'em across the back of the head with a drink tray for "air rage" on domestic and international flights, as an emergency landing is at most a few hours away (plus the added complication of subduing a rowdy drunk in zero gravity (ok, ok, freefall) isn't a problem), but in space there's no place (or time) to pull over and invite the troublemaker to walk back home.

    If this isn't a "feature" on the very earliest moon-tourism excursions, just wait until some jerk takes a dump on the drink cart and see how fast they invent a "remote-controlled Mickey patch"!!

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    1. Re:Space-tourist etiquette by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      it may suffice to rely on their fellow passengers whacking 'em across the back of the head with a drink tray for "air rage" on domestic and international flights,

      All NASA flights are equipped with hypodermic sedatives and duct tape, and the standard training pamphlets show each crewman how to employ them in the event of either homicidal or suicidial outbreaks.

      Of course, once restrained, the uncontrollable passenger is still a major problem- just guess who's gonna take him to the toilet...

  121. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's something else you might not want to forget in a hurry, matey: Abu Graibe prison is a notorious place. Not because of the humiliation the Iraqi soldiers were subjected to, but because of what happened there when Saddam ran the place: People getting their hands cut off, children killed in front of their parents, women raped in front of their husbands, etc. Don't forget the acid baths, and the beatings. Fact is, most of the poor, poor soldiers the US troops humiliated were right bastards in their previous capacity; They were the ones killing, raping, and beating innocents.

    As for "senseless acts of aggression", sure, that's true, if you call liberating millions of people from a brutal dictator, then rebuilding the infrastructure and seeding a democracy in the country a "senseless act of agression".

    "Forget in a hurry" seems to be exactly what you've done, matey.

  122. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that was 50 years ago, when the USA wasn't bent over by corrupt politicians and corporations and repeatedly fucked up the arse. Nowadays, US soldiers invade other countries in senseless acts of agression, bomb wedding parties and torture people in prisons. I'm not going to forget any of that in a hurry, matey.

    Which sounds a lot like 40-50 years ago to me.

    It's already been 40 years since the start of Vietnam.

    Oh, and the USA has *never* *not* been bent over by corrupt politicians and corporations. US Steel, Rockwell, etc.

  123. "British" supplies and aircraft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay, American distortion of the truth yet again. During the Berlin Airlift, flights were flown from 9 airfields into Berlin (mainly landing at Templehoff airport and Gatow RAF airfield - I lived at the latter in the 1980s). 6 of those airfields were in the British sector of western germany, dispatching mainly British aircraft carrying mainly British supplies.

    If you really loook at it, planes and supplies may have been British, but they were bought with US reconstruction dollars. At the end of World War II, Britain couldn't afford to pave a road, let alone design, build, and buy aircraft without American dollars.

    One way or another, modern, first-world Europe owes its existence to the United States that helped rebuild it after it self-destructed.

  124. Re:The Space Race will be won by Russia and China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    China will be more like the traditional government run programs, but China has a tendancy of being even more cautious than the USA for doing things of that nature. This is not because they value life more or less, but the Chinese government will not want to appear to be a failure and it will affect the Chinese political heirarchy harder when failures do occur.


    AND because the traditional Chinese method is also exceedingly slow and methodical... through several millenia of practice, and large bureaucracies.

  125. Skylab not the first by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
    First space "station": Skylab. .... Note that they didn't launch Mir for many years afterward.
    Sorry if someone has already pointed this out, but Salyut was launched in '71, Skylab was launched in '73.
    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  126. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by sydres · · Score: 1

    you are welcome!

  127. Re:All hail the mighty USSR by sydres · · Score: 1

    finaly someone who has a clue. The U.S. was a industrial powerhouse, Russia was as well but they were quickly running out of key resources like aluminum. plus without our distraction of german forces Russia would definitly have fallen as you said. A wise man once said, if we fail to learn the lessons from history we are doomed to repeat them. I certainly did not take all my history in public educ. since it has a definate bias same as in all countries

  128. over the top of our /.ers heads by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    I assume you're talking about the legal principle of less liability in regards gifts.

    Liftoff: free = gift
    Trip to lunar orbit: free = gift
    Return to Earth: free = gift
    Re-entry: free = gift, therefore
    Deployment of parachutes: $100 million is the only item with the implied liability of a commercial transaction.

    Mind you with the millions of statutes in US civil law destroying any posibility of minimising legal counsel, I doubt such logic would work in a US juristiction. However Russian spacecraft are Russian registed meaning generally Russian juristiction, & I have a funny feeling that one maybe able to get away with such logic in a Russian court.

    1. Re:over the top of our /.ers heads by still+cynical · · Score: 1

      No, actually I was making a sarcastic comment on the possibility of sending people up into space for the aforementioned "unspecified fee", and then specifying the fee once they're in orbit and their lives depend on them paying.

      But you raise an interesting point. No, I don't think it would stand a chance in a US court either, but the way Russia is going these days, nothing their gov't or courts could do would really surprise me.

      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
  129. Re:The Space Race will be won by Russia and China. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


    I'm not sure that the American Way means what it used to; but I do think that the war in Iraq is, perhaps, changing that.

    We lost a lot of national pride somewhere. We need it back, and we're getting it back - not, perhaps, in the best way, but it is happening. How that translates to purely "science fiction" endeavours - not my words - I don't know.

    Commercial space entrepeneurs are definitely going to be the future. Hopefully we won't let civil lawsuits choke them. I'm not going to hold my breath on that one, either, tho. There *will* be the suits and the fight, one can pretty much guarantee that. How it affects the fledgling industry remains to be seen.

    Agreed, any country that can establish themselves in space is welcome to. It might foster some competition among the rest. Good. We need to get up there, any way we can. Long term, I'd place money on the Chinese.

    Just FYI, most euthanasia techniques in shelters are painkiller overdosages, which is about as painless as it gets. I doubt suffocation is painless. CO2 suffocation may be.

    (BTW, Rob, Gina and I are considering becoming shelter volunteers next year; although the paperwork is crazed. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff they ask you. It's almost like applying for adoption. Hurk. :)

    Something that was an eye-opener for me in Kraft's book was that there were people in the hierarchy of the early NASA who considered doing centrifugal and other tests on chimps to the point, where, quote "some of them were destroyed in the interest of science" so that they could continue testing the Mercury systems before a human manned launch - apparently, forever and ever. Somehow I doubt that even then that would have gone over that well with the public (it sure as hell wouldn't now) but fortunately it was slapped down, and not for humanitarian reasons, either.

    This country is so confused at this point it's a wonder it's still functioning. The frontier spirit is not dead among individuals, but it's hopelessly tangled/strangled as to government policy. I'm not even going to go into the rest of the tangle here.

    Cheers, and call me sometime, eh?
    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  130. Re:If you are tired of 503 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you metamoderated lately?

  131. Re:The Space Race will be won by Russia and China. by evilviper · · Score: 1
    One method of euthenasia is death by suffication in a vacuum

    Well, that's really not true.

    The chamber is actually filled with CO2, which results in animals feeling tired, falling to sleep peacefully, going unconscious, and then dying. It's not really suffocation, and it's most certainly not what people think of when they hear suffocation.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  132. Re:Obscene - Progress by Markvs · · Score: 1

    How on *Earth* did someone mod this as Troll?

    -Markvs

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
  133. Hey Retard! by FrankieBoy · · Score: 1

    It was called the SPACE Race, not the MOON Race. And yes, the Russians kicked the Americans ass, in the SPACE RACE. Another thing, neither the Russians NOR the Americans would have gotten anywhere without the Germans. By the way, old Chris didn't discover America either. Jerk.

    1. Re:Hey Retard! by TroyFoley · · Score: 1

      It was called the SPACE Race, not the MOON Race.

      colonist writes "The Americans won the first race, but the Russians might beat them back to the moon. The reliable Soyuz, currently the only means of transport to the International Space Station, may send tourists on a voyage around the moon (gallery of illustrations). Constellation Services International's plans call for the Soyuz spacecraft to dock with a logistics module and an upper stage. The upper stage fires to send the Soyuz on a free-return circumlunar trajectory."

      "It" was called "the SPACE race" where? Don't blame me because some yahoo can't distinguish between 1960's lingo and [b]the article that he is talking about right now[/b].

      --
      After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
  134. Re:ObsceneSunk cost? by XnR'rn · · Score: 1

    I think you ment the MIR station.

    ISS hopefully remains as floating cost. At least for a while.

  135. Re:ObsceneSunk cost? by khallow · · Score: 1

    Heh, pretty good. Though to be more accurate I'd have to characterize MIR as a combination of sunk and vaporized cost.