Back to the Moon

starexplorer2001 writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA's planned trip back to the Moon isn't without a significant amount of science and technological innovation. Simply 'sponging off Apollo' won't do it. Among the issues: safer human spaceflight, lunar ice, sustainability, robotic scouting missions and more. This won't be easy."

Comments

Say what?

[Anonymous Crowhead]

We can't just use 60s technology to get there? I'm shocked!

Re:Say what?

[Tackhead]

> We can't just use 60s technology to get there? I'm shocked!

60s technology you want, 60s technology you shall get!

You're going to the moon, Alice!
(POW! Right in the kisser!) Hamana-hamana-hamana-hamana...

Re:Say what?

[davygrvy]

That's becuase most all of the vacuum tubes used in the electronics aren't made anymore :)

"Set SE to AUX"

Re:Say what?

[t0ny747]

Well we could but its all fake.

Re:Say what?

[Rei]

Well... the thing is, yes, technology has advanced. It hasn't advanced by the leaps and bounds that we would like it to have advanced by, however, and that is the crux of the problem. The Apollo program cost $135B in modern dollars. Even if we consider the overall effect of technology advancements to have doubled our access to space for the same dollar, the concept of a lunar base will require at least double the landing and liftoff payload (in addition to regular trips). Probably much more. It'll take serious money.

The public tolerates out of control spending on wars because the rhetoric is so heated on it - it's either an abomination or essential to the survival of our way of life, depending on which side you listen to. The level of discourse for space missions just isn't that extreme, and so people look a lot closer at the financial aspect. Apollo-level funding just isn't politically realistic. That's why they're stretching this out over the long run. The longer it takes, the less blatant it is that we're spending as much money as we are on this single program.

Lastly, something that I should mention: CEV design is not going well 2. I agree with Jeff Bell, who's been very critical of the whole proposal.

Re:Say what?

[Rei]

We're whalers on the moon, We carry a harpoon, But there ain't no whales, So we tell our tall tale, And sing our whaling tune!

Re:Say what?

[macdaddy357]

We like the moon!

Re:Say what?

[R3d M3rcury]

Great links!

I think NASA's hope with the "initial" two-week missions to the moon is to excite the populace again. As much as I love this stuff, let's be honest: Watching astronauts orbit the Earth has gotten boring. I think the hope is that once the ol' Stars and Stripes is being planted on the Moon, the taxpayers will be more willing to cough up the dough to keep things going.

Whether that's true or not, we'll see...

Re:Say what?

[wwwgregcom]

The Honeymooners was a 50's series. And a great one.

Re:Say what?

[iabervon]

It's worth mentioning that Apollo-level funding was gotten for Apollo itself by exactly the same heated rhetoric that gets wars funded. The point of Apollo was to get to the moon before the Soviets got there and thereby... er, weapons of mass destruction! National security!

Considering that there hasn't been a factual basis for the rhetoric involved in getting massive war funding in the US since WWII, there's no reason that some good speechwriter couldn't make the case that returning to the moon is vital to defeating terrorism, and get that level of funding.

Re:Say what?

[demachina]

"make the case that returning to the moon is vital to defeating terrorism"

Defeating terrorism is a hard stretch to make.

An approach I could see working in the current climate is the need to place a cross on the Moon, to lay claim to it in the name of Christianity, and to insure all colonies are good Christian colonies.

Evangelism was a key motivation behind the Spanish drive to discover the new world. They had the added bonus of discovering millions of lost souls there they could convert to Catholicism or kill them in the process, something unfortunately lacking on the Moon or Mrs.

Europeans squandered vast treasure and many lives launching crusade after crusade over centuries to place the holy land under the shadow of the crucifix.

No one admits it but some of the enthusiasm driving the invasion of Afghanistan and especially Iraq is driven by Christianity expressing dominance over Islamic nations that are painted as barbaric and uncivilized.

Never underestimate the insanity you can get people to fall for in the name of religion.

I'll have to admit using religious fervor to justify the space program is a stretch. But if you do manage to put large colonies on Mars I'm sure the Mormons, at least, will have a church in every colony and some people in white shirts and ties who will be doing there best to show colonists the right path :)

Re:Say what?

[iamlucky13]

"Jeffrey F. Bell is a former space scientist and recovering pro-space activist. Capitane Renault in Casablanca is his favorite movie character."

The author you linked to is a self-described anti-space nut. Convincing everyone that the CEV is hopeless is apparently his crusade. His arguments are incohesive, largely incoherent, and sometimes flat-out incorrect (for example, his claims that only the space shuttle can boost the ISS's orbit and that NASA has done nothing about the foam...flat out wrong on both counts). As far as I can tell, he's claiming that Griffin himself is trying to (1) use the shuttle to kill aeronautics and science programs, (2) use the CEV to kill the shuttle, and (3) simply abandon the ISS, either to fall into the ocean or be given free of charge entirely to the Russians.

This guy is a troll. The only logical thing I can figure out about him is he must in some way be related to Art Bell.

Re:Say what?

[Rei]

He is not a self-described "anti-space nut". Find me anyone who considers themselves a "nut" and gets published, and I'll be impressed ;) He is very critical of the current space program (especially SSTOs), and I've heard him describe himself as disillusioned, but never a nut. The Shuttle was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak -- he quit NSS over it. Even then, he was a big "private industry backer", although that's faded as well as it has continued to dissappoint.

He's quite accurate that only the shuttle can boost the ISS sufficiently, although he should have mentioned *at current Progress launch rates*. The current rate of progress launches only brings up about 4000kg fuel per year, while ISS requires 8720kg fuel per year. If a contract negotiation were worked out, the Russians could increase the Progress launch rate to increase the slack. As things currently stand, however, the Shuttle is required.

Did you read what he wrote? His argument was that Griffin was trying to use the shuttle to kill the more elaborate CEV designs and go with a simpler one, and to retire the shuttle as soon as possible, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't agree with everything that Bell writes (I do feel he's too pessimistic), but he is more than competent to discuss the issue and frequently makes good points.

Re:Say what?

[iamlucky13]

"Nut" was my add on. I'm a fan of Captain Renault, too, but I don't list it on my resume.

I read his articles in some depth and they seemed to convey a really strong anti-space, and particularly anti-NASA/anti-Griffin vibe. Perhaps I misinterpreted them, but as I said, they weren't particularly coherent (he writes like my dad). The impression I got is that he was arguing that Griffin is trying to kill everything else so he can turn CEV into elaborate super-machine. I agree that the CEV should be kept simple, but flexible. If that is Bell's contention, as well, then he piles on the rhetoric far too thick to communicate the point effectively.

His dimishing private space industry enthusiasm which you mention is probably in better measure than his criticism of the shuttle (which I believe was the wrong direction to go, but far from a hopeless mistake). I expect little more from the space tourism business than a few joy rides and a lot of bankruptcy filings once the novelty wears off. The private industry's real potential lies in the less flashy companies like SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace, who are trying to improve the accessibility and living conditions of space. It's not something that's going to happen overnight, or even upon the completion of a "spaceport" or two.

Re:Say what?

[Rei]

The impression I got is that he was arguing that Griffin is trying to kill everything else so he can turn CEV into elaborate super-machine

Here's a sample article.

"In a previous column I criticised the return-to-the-moon plan presented by the ESAS study group as too grandiose and too expensive, and promised to show how it could be "simplified and de-porked enough to fit inside the budget wedge that is likely to be available".

Since I wrote that, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has already started that process without any advice from me. Just look at the list of changes that have been made already:"

He's also proposed theories that Griffin is trying to kill the shuttle. His comments on the big research cuts were that they're designed to kill off the shuttle's remaining support base, since the cuts were specifically made in order to spend money on the shuttle.

Bell wants a lean, small, single-purpose CEV. I agree with him on this. In a way, I hate seeing people propose Big Dumb Boosters to accomplish Big Dumb Projects. ;) Ignore the huge pie-in-the-sky projects, and build many small craft. Scale up whichever ones work the best. Don't go from a theory to a fully-developed craft in one iteration like we did with the shuttle; that's asking for problems. The shuttle should have been a little prototype, not a giant workhorse.

I disagree about some other things, of course; I'd like to see more money put into new craft research, while Bell doesn't see much payoff in that.

Why Then Not Now?

[foundme]

I bet this question has been asked many times, but here goes:

Why was it possible to go to the moon in '69 but not possible now even using the same old technology? Has the moon/earth/atmostphere/space changed?

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[masklinn]

From the top of my head:

• Safety, in '69 it was an adventure, costs didn't really matter, it was a first, and lives and comfort could be somewhat disregarded. Not so today, especially with the recent Space Shuttle issues.
• Public drive, in the 60s it was Being On The Moon Before The Red Plague. Doesn't sell anymore, unless you can sell Go Back On The Moon Before China Goes There For The First Time. And you won't sell that one.
• Return on Investment. The initial Apollo yielded very interresting scientific results, but not much else, it's main point was beating the soviets in the space race and putting the USA at the top. Future lunar missions will have to bring much more, and not only to scientists.

In a word, it's not that it's impossible to go to the moon now, but that it's inacceptable.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[soft_guy]

Why was it possible to go to the moon in '69 but not possible now even using the same old technology? Has the moon/earth/atmostphere/space changed?

Because it was faked in 1969 - which doesn't explain why they can't just fake it again. Perhaps people are more used to CGI now?

People realise it was a fake and won't agree to spend the money on faking it again?

Because they had to murder Gus Crissom to keep him from exposing the truth and they think they might not be able to keep it covered up this time?

BTW - this is NOT a troll. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a troll.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[monkaduck]

In short, it's all about politics. The actual physics have never changed; it's just a matter of the government giving NASA the money (which IIRC was only .04 cents/federal tax dollar for Apollo)and the clearance to do a moon shot. Back then Vietnam killed off the last two Apollo missions, and now it'll be The War On Terror and Balanced Budgets that has made it hard for us to do any realistic shot at the Moon or Mars. Quite sad, really.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[masklinn]

BTW - this is NOT a troll.

Maybe this isn't, but since there isn't any "-1 Terminal Stupidity" mod it's the closest /. has.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[mark-t]

Actually, the reason it's harder to go back now than it was then is because of money.

Back then, NASA got a lot of its funding from the government who basically weren't particularly concerned with how much it cost, they just wanted to get there and get there first.

Today, the only major incentive to go back to the moon is for scientific reasons, and unfortunately scientists don't have much of a voice in the planning of the government budget.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they stick a mirror up there for astronomers to be able to reflect off of to get a very accurate distance between the earth/moon? And the flag?

IIRC, the evidence is visible by the naked eye with a telescope. Not that that doesn't stop trolls from blabbing about it being a fake.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[ScottLindner]

$$$

What was a $2B program then would be quite a bit more than that today. We can do it, but do you want to pay for it? Especially since it's not just the straight increase in the dollars over the years, but also all of the new legal implications.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[masklinn]

They actually put 3 reflective mirrors for the LLRE (Laser Lunar Ranging Experiment), during Apollo 11, 14 and 15. The mirrors are still in use today.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[grammar fascist]

...lives and comfort could be somewhat disregarded...

Holy crap!. If they're throwing millions at zero-G recliners, I want my taxes back right now.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[NitsujTPU]

Oh yeah... well, if they put up mirrors, then why can't crazy conspiracy theorists shave by looking into the moon?

Also, how would the astronauts have survived the pungent odor of green cheese that's been aging since the moon was born?

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[SpeakerToManagers]

Return on Investment. The initial Apollo yielded very interresting scientific results, but not much else, it's main point was beating the soviets in the space race and putting the USA at the top. Future lunar missions will have to bring much more, and not only to scientists.

Oh, that's just unfair. You're forgetting all the technological spinoffs: Tang and Teflon-coated cookware! :-)

Speaker

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[dmp123]

> In a word, it's not that it's impossible to go to the moon now, but that it's inacceptable.

Me fail english? That's unpossible!

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my taxes back right now

God, if it was only that easy, the old hippy saying 'about the air force having a bake sale to buy a bomber' would come to fruitation.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Alkrun]

You left out the obvious nemesis in this day and age. The Bush Administration has evidence that terrorists plan to land on the moon.

We must not let the terrorists complete their evil plans to build a moonbase known as Moon Unit Zappa!

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Frogbert]

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't the US get ICBMS out of the Apollo Program?

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Public drive, in the 60s it was Being On The Moon Before The Red Plague.

And it saved the Moon. Too bad there is no point going to Mars.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[imemyself]

No, in fact the second generation of the Mercury program (Mercury Atlas) was based off of the Atlas ballistic missile. And after that, Gemini was based off of the Titan ballistic missile. Apollo of course came next, and AFAIK no major sections of the Saturn rocket were based off of any ICBM designs.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[elronxenu]

Inacceptable is a perfectly cromulent word!

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[ldspartan]

More that we got the apollo program out of ICBMs.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I posed this exact question when I was at Space Camp in Huntsville (also where Marshall Space Flight Center is), and I was told by different people that the reason is because all of the nitty-gritty research, specs, et al were destroyed once the Apollo program ended- all due to the cold war. NASA and the govt. didn't want those stinking commies getting their paws on it.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Furthermore, some of the papers about bouncing lasers off the mirrors are from French astronomers, which means that someone who wants to claim the LLRE is a hoax is in the untenable position of arguing that the French contributed to a US con job.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[tpemble]

Yes, I actually have one of the mirrors, but not used. They have a right angle so that no matter which way you look into it you see yourself.. it's quite fun to stare into because the image is "mirrored" from the image you'd expect in a conventional mirror.. say, blink your left eye and see the right one blink in the mirror.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disaccept your rebuttal.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[CheshireCatCO]

No object on the Moon is visible from Earth-based telescopes at present. You can verify that the mirrors are there with a suitable laser, but you can't image the landers, the rovers, or anything. And you surely cannot see them, even with a telescope. Pity, really.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[saigon_from_europe]

IIRC, the evidence is visible by the naked eye with a telescope.

There was once discussion about Moon landing here on /., and I asked if we could see Apolo equipment with a telescope. Answer was no, even with Hubble we cannot see the equipment - resolution of existing telescopes is not good enough. Still, there was a picture that seemed to catch shadows of the Apolo eqipment (Sun was almost on horizon, so shadows were loooong).

Refractors, of course, could be easily spotted from the Earth with appropriate equipment (laser and mid-size telescope).

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the top of My Head:

* Safety, in '69 it was an adventure, costs didn't really matter, it was a first, and lives and comfort could be somewhat disregarded. Not so today, especially with the recent Space Shuttle issues.

Wrong, by the end of the program, Apollo was a proven system and as I recall had high marks for safety. The Orbiter is and always has been an experimental system, hence the problems.

* Public drive, in the 60s it was Being On The Moon Before The Red Plague. Doesn't sell anymore, unless you can sell Go Back On The Moon Before China Goes There For The First Time. And you won't sell that one.

True, but you could sell it in other ways, unfortunately there is a lot more apathy in this country than there was in the 60's.

* Return on Investment. The initial Apollo yielded very interresting scientific results, but not much else, it's main point was beating the soviets in the space race and putting the USA at the top. Future lunar missions will have to bring much more, and not only to scientists.

I don't think it's possible to calculate the return on investment for the Apollo program. So much R&D resulting in new products, that today we wouldn't dream of living without, came out of the program that it would be difficult to put a number on it. The only comparison that would be a major war.

In a word, it's not that it's impossible to go to the moon now, but that it's inacceptable.

You've got it backwards. It is impossible right now to go to the moon. We don't have the gear, you can't just pull a 40 year old Saturn V out of retirement. Even if you could rehab and upgrade it (more expensive and difficult than creating a new better system), very few would know how to operate it. On the other hand it would be acceptable to go to the moon. The limiter, as it always has been, is the cost to LEO (Low Earth Orbit). This is what the Orbiter was meant to solve and failed miserably at, if anything it costs more to LEO than the Apollo's. Unfortunately, due to politics and poor management they stuck with a failed experiment, instead of moving on to a different system.

The benefit's have always been worth shooting for. Think of a whole new generation of chips made in low or zero G or high pollution factories moved off Earth. Not to mention Exploration and all the new products the R&D would bring.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

Wrong, by the end of the program, Apollo was a proven system and as I recall had high marks for safety. The Orbiter is and always has been an experimental system, hence the problems.

Not really. Apollo was on vary thin margins in a lot of circumstances, and had plenty of life threatening failures. Apollo 13 is the most dramatic, but it is far from the only close call. Fundamentally, it was high risk. Based on the history of other launchers and spacecraft, it is hard to imagine Apollo wouldn't have killed someone (aside from Apollo 1) if it had flown as many times as the shuttle.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Deadstick]

It's called a corner reflector: three mirror surfaces mutually perpendicular. It has the interesting property that light striking it from any direction will wind up going back exactly the way it came -- after reflecting off one, two or three surfaces depending on where it hits first.

Make it from sheet metal and it works for radio waves...hang one from the mast of your sailboat and vessels with radar will see you as easily as they can see the Love Boat.

rj

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[R3d M3rcury]

I suppose it's my turn to play troll. Personally, I believe we landed on the moon, but it's always a fun debate.

"Didn't they stick a mirror up there for astronomers to be able to reflect off of to get a very accurate distance between the earth/moon?"

We certainly did. The question is, did men place it there?

I hear this one alot. We obviously went to the moon because Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the moon which reflect back to Earth. How do we know that Apollo astronauts placed these on the moon? Because we saw them do it on our TVs.

If we accept the argument that the reason that NASA didn't really send men to the moon because the men would die, this does not mean that NASA couldn't send things to the moon. I haven't heard anyone say that the Surveyor missions were faked. So if we go with that, NASA landed mirrors on the moon to coincide with the Apollo missions. These could have been remotely adjusted from Earth.

Again, I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon. I'm just saying that the mirrors don't necessarily prove that we did.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[russellh]

The stuff hasn't aged well. So it needs to be rebuilt. And that pretty much means back to square one.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I read something once that said the two most important things that came from the moon trips were

-- things fail less often. The need for quality components on an Apollo was self-evident. That processing methodology just flowed into everything else. When was the last time your TV blew up? Your coffeemaker? The only reason I replace them these days is because they're outdated. (Nothing worse than drinking outdated coffee!)

-- from the moon, you can put your thumb up and hide the Earth's disk behind it. Everything you ever heard, everything you know, all history, all species you're familiar with, all countries, all goivernments, books, cars, your family, your friends, your enemies ... are all behind your thumb. And THAT would be dwarfing.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Firethorn]

Yes, but it should be relativly easy to thicken all those margins up quite a bit today. The energy levels required to get to the moon hasn't changed, but we have reliable fuel cells now, faster computers, and life support systems able to easily last the duration.

Point is, history shows us that the most hazardous portions of spaceflight is takeoff and reentry. I don't think that any space program has lost somebody in orbit.

The takeoff and reentry methods for the shuttle have thinner margins than the capsules of the Apollo missions. That's where the risk is.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Iron Sun]

The crew of Soyuz 11 died while attempting to return from the Salyut 1 space station. A faulty valve led to the loss of all their air just prior to re-entry when the service module was separated from the descent module. They had fired the de-orbit burn, so they were not technically in orbit, but they died in space proper rather than the upper atmosphere like the crew of Columbia.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[syousef]

No no, it's go to the moon before the terrorists get there and start building weapons of mass destruction. Get the propaganda right!!! :-)

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[soft_guy]

Those who can't prove their argument often resort to name calling. It shows they have a weak argument.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[greyduk]

To be fair, niether of you had arguments at all. Second, he didn't sound like he was even *trying* to prove a point, like you were, he was just explaining the popular reason for modding you like everyone did. Heck, if you're right, are you gonna complain about one negatively modded post when other rediculous naysaysers as yourself like Gallileo and Copernicusaucisaurus suffered much worse fates?

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I contrafute your disacceptionment!

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[BlueStraggler]

Why was it possible to go to the moon in '69 but not possible now even using the same old technology? Has the moon/earth/atmostphere/space changed?

A little thing called "lost technologies". It is entirely possible to forget how to do things.

A goodly portion of the knowledge encapsulated in any serious technological endeavour cannot be captured in blueprints and technical documents. It exists in the heads of the engineers, scientists, and astronauts who actually do the stuff. Going back to the original documents will give us a head start in re-learning how to do it, but not much more than that. If you don't have a teacher that actually knows how to do it, you are in the same position as someone learning how to speak Ancient Egyptian, given nothing but walls of hieroglyphics. It is possible to deduce some semblance of meaning, but it's frightfully hard to actually learn how to do it.

The primary problem is that the senior NASA engineers in 1969 are mostly dead now. They did not have any apprentices whom they could mentor in the arcane business of placing men on celestial bodies, and no young masters in that art grew up in their footsteps applying their own clever insights to refine the art further. The entire business was pretty much forgotten, and now we are back where we started, albeit with some hieroglyphics that we could spend some time trying to decode if we had to.

At Cape Canaveral, there is a complete Saturn V launcher on display at the Visitor's Centre. This is like the Great Pyramid of space missions -- a complete, working example of a device to put men on the moon. Unfortunately, they chose to lay the rocket on its side, which it was never designed to do. So structurally, the device was completely destroyed and is now useless, having even lost much of its value as an engineering archive.

So in many respects, we simply have to start over, and re-learn what we already knew.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[syousef]

The technology is also very different. When you speak of Apollo you're talking computers with less memory than just about any computerised gadget today.

The technology today's more complex and I'd argue less robust as we've moved towards planed obsolence and disposable gear with a shelf life measured in months.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Plunky]

Also, how would the astronauts have survived the pungent odor of green cheese that's been aging since the moon was born?

Space suits are impermeable to odour, you fool.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Krimszon]

...Being On The Moon Before The Red Plague. Doesn't sell anymore, unless you can sell Go Back On The Moon Before China Goes There For The First Time. And you won't sell that one.

How about being on the moon before the evil terrorists get there?

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[hplasm]

Fresh moon smells like gunpowder...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/30jan_smel lofmoondust.htm/

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[sshutt]

"If we accept the argument that the reason that NASA didn't really send men to the moon because the men would die, this does not mean that NASA couldn't send things to the moon. I haven't heard anyone say that the Surveyor missions were faked. So if we go with that, NASA landed mirrors on the moon to coincide with the Apollo missions. These could have been remotely adjusted from Earth."

Thats quite an interesting argument, I hadn't actually heared about the mirrors but they didn't land men I can see how a few mirrors could have been put there robotically. If they did land men its a lot easier to place mirrors though :)

Personally I'd like to see men back on the moon, even if its just to say "hey look we can still do it", but how would we know that its not fake?
with the cost of getting men on the moon again they could probably finance alot of CGI time to fake it

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points to emphasize your insight... true, we are the humans because we used to pass the useful knowledge and expirience to our succesors on much larger scale then any other inteligent specie known to us. Unfortunately, knowledge management is not only recently introduced (in historical proportions) but also very often disregarded, as we have an inflation of knowledge so its value is underrated below any line. Some advanced technologies' centers starve because competition places them out of business and then all the in-house expertise is thrown in dumpster, in both literal (docs) and symbolical (old experts) sense. Admitted, to extract gems of generalised insight, more mining work would had to be done but still, why isn't anyone at least putting all that in digital archives in case it's needed later?
And what is most threatening is loss of fallback procedures knowledge. Old, simple, robust technologies are both deprecated AND forgotten. If we were to face some major global catastrophy, the survivors would probably just die from starvation, cold, food poisoning, or wild animal attacks without civilisation. Today even kids are not impressed with 19th century Robinson -like survival-obsessed adventure novels any more (well, they were unrealistic anyway) as they cannot imagine the possibility of beeing disconnected from "The World" for years.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Firethorn]

Thanks for that info. I'm not as much up on the Russian side of things. I remembered them vaguely, though I thought they suffocated in the upper atmosphere.

Still, between Russia/USSR and the USA, we've lost far more people on launch/reentry than in space.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Fred_A]

The method to bind PTFE (Teflon) to an aluminium frying pan was designed in 1954 by Marc Grégoire. On this basis the Tefal brand of pans was created in Sarcelles in 1956.

Tang was first marketed in 1959, but I'm not that familiar with it. It being chosen by Nasa certainly madeit popular although they had nothing to do with its development.

And to put other myths to rest, the space program had nothing to do with velcro or WD40 either (well, ok, maybe very marginally for the latter, in 1953).

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[rhendershot]

I don't think that any space program has lost somebody in orbit.

The Entity known as 'Glenn' became a politician. That's about as Lost as it gets :/

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[rhendershot]

They did not have any apprentices whom they could mentor in the arcane business of placing men on celestial bodies

We still know how to put a complicated technological device into orbit and how to include humans in that. We still know how to find the point of breakaway orbit to accomplish putting that object in places outside of Earth orbit. We still know how to manage the health of those humans and how to return them to Earth.

I get your point, but I don't think the situation is as dire as you present.

We will have to redesign the systems. Newer composites and materials that are lighter, more resiliant and possibly, thought not probably, less expensive. But in any case, much different. Faster computers, better robotics, more intelligent software... the possibilities astound me.

I really don't think that circa 1969 expertise, even having been maintained these several decades, would be all that relevent today. I see it as a positive thing actually since we're now forced into a redesign that, had those entrenched interests persisted, we might not.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[rhendershot]

yes.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Zaatxe]

Because the Moon landing was faked! Although the space technology is probably much more advanced today than in the 60's, it's still impossible to go to the moon. Besides, years of movies packed special effects made the regular eye much more difficult to fool. NASA just don't can't fit the special effects fees in their budget right now to fake it again.

At least that's what that taxi driver told me. Ask him for more details. What's his name again? Oh, I remember now, it's Jerry Fletcher.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[ScottLindner]

It was a rhetorical question.

NASA's budget has been cut to nothing, yet our federal budget has been bloating out. We need to overhaul the federal government, remove all of the entitle BS, and get the government back to what it's supposed to be to the county. That is, if we want to be able to do these great things for mankind like NASA once was for... in theory.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[rhendershot]

The american people must again become great if the vision of our greatest legacies are to come to fruition. I take any chance to add my voice to the quell, rhetorical or not, in hopes that every voice helps turn the tide.

I agree with you that out of bounds spending, the Fed garnering evermore the place of the State, and a general populist enticement towards reward instead of duty stand in the way of visionary accomplishment.

I sense danger where the decision to spend on space exploration is determined unilaterally at the top....

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too late. Where do you think Osama's been hiding?

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[demachina]

"Safety, in '69 it was an adventure, costs didn't really matter, it was a first, and lives and comfort could be somewhat disregarded. Not so today, especially with the recent Space Shuttle issues."

Uh, that was true up until the Apollo 1 fire killed three astronauts. After that the program became much more safety conscious though they didn't do what the Shuttle program did, basically stop flying most of the time and spend all their time and money trying to make it perfectly safe just before the scrap it. They did stay on schedule in spite of the setback but they also redesigned and fixed the problems quickly. In particular they switch from a pure oxygen capsule and they cleaned up the hurried, poorly done wiring.

A key difference is Apollo didn't have have a fundamental design defect that was impossible to fix and the Shuttle does. Ice shedding off the ET has happened since STS-1, you can't stop it and they have a fragile thermal protection system right in the middle of it.

I think its not a good analysis to say Apollo did what they did because they threw safety to the wind, while now you have to be safety conscious. Apollo succeeded because it was well engineered, especially for the job it needed to do and they had enough of a safety program to catch most things without crippling the program doing it. The Shuttle isn't well engineered and the whole program has been crushed under a safety bureaucracy that mostly generates mile high stacks of paper works but STILL doesn't catch or stop them from doing things that are dangerous and stupid.

Either the new program will be well engineered and succeed or it wont and it wont. No amount of safety inspections and mile high piles of paper is going to make much of a difference if the engineering isn't good. I'm not sure the U.S. has the engineering horses to do it today. In the 60's engineering and technology was glamorous and the education system turned out a lot of quality engineers. It was deemed to be essential to national survival during the cold war. Today I really doubt many talented Americans place engineer, especially aerospace engineer, at the top of the list of most wanted jobs. Aerospace engineer in particular has been a boom or bust career, with the only place with any stability being defense. Its not a great job especially if you cant stand working for giant bureaucracies that don't get much done most of the time. The only place I've seen that sound like exciting places to be aerospace engineers are the little guys like Scaled Composites, Transformational and SpaceX but its open to debate if they can muster the resources to succeed or do anything big. SpaceX for example will crater if they have a couple more failed launches. Not sure Scaled or Transformational can do anything orbital unless they get NASA or DOD contracts and then they risk getting sucked in to the bureaucracy they despise. I hope they do all succeed though. The NASA/Lockheed/Boeing politburo isn't a path to success anymore. ISS and Shuttle prove that.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[SpeakerToManagers]

You did see the smiley, right?

Speaker "You scream and then you leap."

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[mfrank]

You aren't going to see anything at the landing site with a telescope, even the Hubble (although you'd probably fry it if you pointed it at the moon). They know where to point the laser, it disperses enough so that some of it hits the mirrors, which are designed to reflect incoming light straight back out.

Oh, and the conspiracy nuts would tell you that an unmanned mission could have put the mirrors there.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[soft_guy]

I sure hate it when people can't spell ridiculous. Or believe the "moon landing" actually happened.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Guysmiley777]

Careful! The chip the government implanted in your head is STILL recording your thoughts!! Keep that tinfoil hat on tight!

WHAT!? Aluminum foil!? No! You've really done it now! Aluminum doesn't stop the mind control rays! We're all doomed! DOOMED!

Also: The Pentagon blew itself up on 9/11! Woe unto you all! WOE I SAY!!

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[cheesybagel]

The number one problem with our capability to access space is propulsion. Chemical rockets are the all around best we can do at the moment, but are huge, expensive and slow.

The best alternative to chemical rockets in terms of speed and size, given our current knowledge of physics, is nuclear pulse propulsion (i.e. lobbing atomic bombs out the back of the ship). For obvious political reasons, this is not feasible right now. Your best chance to see it developed would be if we went on war with ET or knew we *really* had to move off planet or else...

Barring that, if you just want to leave LEO, you can probably settle beam powered propulsion (laser & microwave), space elevators or tethers.

My bet is beamed propulsion (probably laser) will win. Most strides recently (read post Apollo) taken in physics and engineering involve optics (e.g. solid state lasers, chirped pulse amplification, adaptive optics) and ocasionally electronics (superconductors).

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[thebrains]

> We can't just use 60s technology to get there? I'm shocked! Use the "69 position", as in coetus interuptus...that will work.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[A non-mouse Cow Herd]

Point is, history shows us that the most hazardous portions of spaceflight is takeoff and reentry. I don't think that any space program has lost somebody in orbit.

Aside from Soyuz 11, there have been a number have come frighteningly close. Apollo 13, the Mir fire and collision all could have been fatal if the dice had fallen another way. Takeoff and reentry are certainly the most dangerous, especially if your measure is chance of fatality per time, but per mission the risks of the other parts are significant. Also remember that a lunar mission involves an extra takeoff and landing. Nevertheless, I agree with your essential point.

My gripe with the GGP was the idea that Apollo was felt to be a relatively safe program at it's end, just because it didn't kill anyone in flight. 15 manned flights (11 for the lunar program, 3 skylab, 1 ASTP) isn't a big enough sample to support that conclusion, especially given the number of problems that arose, and that fact that some of them (Apollo 7, 9, Skylab, ASTP) were LEO only. Some those involved in the program are reported to have felt that, having reached the moon, it was time to quit before they killed anyone.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[greyduk]

Ridiculous... sorry. Moon landing, fine. I made no argument to that. You continue to ignore the what people are saying in their posts, and change the subject.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[DerekLyons]

At Cape Canaveral, there is a complete Saturn V launcher on display at the Visitor's Centre. This is like the Great Pyramid of space missions -- a complete, working example of a device to put men on the moon.

Wrong on both counts - it's niether complete, nor working. It's missing (among other things) the entire IU (Instrument Unit), which contains the flight computers, most of the telemetry systems, the guidance unit...

Unfortunately, they chose to lay the rocket on its side, which it was never designed to do. So structurally, the device was completely destroyed and is now useless, having even lost much of its value as an engineering archive.

Who needs a full scale one when the entire plans and manuals are still available? Even if it was 'whole' - it's with the plans and manuals that they engineers would spend most (99.99%+) of their time with, not drooling over the hardware like fanboi's.

FWIW - the portions of your message that I didn't reply do are even less correct than those which I did.

Re:Why Then Not Now?

[Firethorn]

Oh, I agree. Space is still hazardous, and we've had many close calls. Given our shuttle losses, how many unmentioned close calls do you think there were during takeoff/landings?

I certainly don't advocate simply dusting off the apollo system for our return to the moon, but I do believe that the idea of putting the payload on top of the rocket/fuel is a better idea than strapping it to the side. I also feel that the idea that an ablative reentry system that's protected during launch also helps. The heat tiles of the shuttle are amazing technology (I held one on one side as a guy blasted the other with a blowtorch), but they're also fragile. Finally, at this time I think that disposable launch vehicles may actually be cheaper than reusable. After all, every pound is expensive to send up.

My idea of an ideal space program would be
A: Set up our own space station in a more useful orbit, as the ISS has reached the point that pretty much all effort is maintaining it, not expanding our knowledge(other than how to maintain the ISS).
B: Dedicated People launcher: Highest reliability, and is only for people/minimal supplies.
C: Dedicated Cargo launchers: reliability sacrificed as needed for best cost ratio. If you can halve the cost of an individual launch, while taking only a 20% reliability hit, do it. You'd be able to launch 6 satellites, get 4-5 of them up there successfully, for the cost of 3.

We've been using the shuttle as essentially a reusable station, conducting experiments and such in it. I say we put a new station up, develop the rescue vehicle (or use multiples) to be able to bring everyone back, then just use the small people movers. Launch supplies seperate and regularly. Don't bring anything back that you don't have to, eventually working on recycling projects in space. Even if most of the supplies end up being crudely reproccesed into extra mass shielding, it's still a step. Work on hydroponics and organic recycling once you have enough waste materials (shouldn't take that long).

Space station modules:
Habitation
Life support
Experiment/Lab(multiple)
Solar Furnace
Agriponics(hydroponics, aereoponics, maybe even soil)

Allow for the sale of experiment space, lab time, and astronaught work in orbit.

Back?

[timshea]

You mean we actually went to the moon before?

Re:Back?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8809496360 514794682&q=eagle+moon&time=0

Re:Back?

[grammar fascist]

You mean we actually went to the moon before?

Yep. And we planted a flag, which is still there, flapping in the breeze from the studio's unusually strong AC units.

And this time, we'll try not to paint the black crosses on the film before we take the pictures.

Re:Back?

[TrevorB]

Just like the Vietnam war, the moon landing is fading from history into modern day mythology. Something about "he who forgets the past..."

The Vietnam war was still being fought in my lifetime. I can't say the same thing about an Apollo moon landing.

Re:Back?

[PeelBoy]

Anybody who thinks we didn't is a fucking retard.

Everything conspiracy theorists have come up with on this topic have been EASILY shot down.

It's not even worth trying to argue about anymore. There is proof out there but people just don't feel like doing any real research.

You'd think if we staged the whole thing the Russians would have said SOMETHING about it seeing that they listened in to the ENTIRE FREAKING MISSION as did the rest of the world.

Re:Back?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see that you too don't know about the Van Allen Belt. If you did you would realize that it is impossible for us now, and forget about back then, for us to leave out planet. I don't know why it seems that I'm the only one who ever mentions the Van Allen Belt when there's talk about leaving our planet. Doesn't anyone else know about this? I know if you look it up on wikipedia, it discribes it and then has the nerve to say that somehow we managed to go throught it and also it talks about the conspiracy side of it too. I'm sure if you where able to get the figures of how much energy is in the Belt, you'd see that you'd be fried extra crispy going through that. So, getting back to your first statment "Anybody who thinks we didn't is a fucking retard." Who is the fucking retard now?

Re:Back?

[timshea]

You'd think if we staged the whole thing the Russians would have said SOMETHING about it seeing that they listened in to the ENTIRE FREAKING MISSION as did the rest of the world.

Yeah, and Martians invaded Earth BECAUSE WE HEARD IT ON THE RADIO.

Give me a break with your name-calling until you have a valid argument.

Re:Back?

[PeelBoy]

What and you have a valid argument? Give me a fucking break.

I've heard the arguments and they are stupid. Period.

I don't care to argue this anymore because arguing with a conspiracy theorist is like arguing with a kid or a religious person who uses the fact that god can do anything and everything it wants to shoot down any argument you throw at them.

Now don't get me wrong. There are valid conspiracies but this one is just stupid.

Re:Back?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously. You can't stop rambling long enough to make sense.

Rephrase your answer and maybe it'll be worth reading.

Oh don't say shit like "why does nobody listen to me?!?!" because that tells me you're probably not worth listening to.

Re:Back?

[timshea]

What and you have a valid argument? Give me a fucking break.

You:

You'd think if we staged the whole thing the Russians would have said SOMETHING about it seeing that they listened in to the ENTIRE FREAKING MISSION as did the rest of the world.

Note the lack of any supporting evidence.

Me:

Yeah, and Martians invaded Earth BECAUSE WE HEARD IT ON THE RADIO.

By the weight of the "evidence" I think you described yourself...let's see...

a fucking retard

But wait! Someone else has Actual Scientific Evidence[tm]!

I'm glad to see that you too don't know about the Van Allen Belt.

So perhaps you should get off your anti-conspiracy high-horse rocker and have a pint.

But wait, there's still more!

I don't care to argue this anymore because arguing with a conspiracy theorist is like arguing with a kid or a religious person who uses the fact that god can do anything and everything it wants to shoot down any argument you throw at them.

So now you argue that someone that believes in something that can't be proven is a "conspiracy theorist" yet someone that doesn't believe in something that can't be proven is...also a conspiracy theorist. Please make up your mind.

Re:Back?

[cutedinochick]

So now you argue that someone that believes in something that can't be proven is a "conspiracy theorist" yet someone that doesn't believe in something that can't be proven is...also a conspiracy theorist.

Yep, both true. If it's something that can never be proven, then it is something for which there is no actual evidence. Therefore it's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just a "belief." It's easy to argue against anyone who uses a belief to attempt to stand up against that which has actual evidence. You can "believe" anything you want, just don't try to pass it off as true when you have no evidence for it.

Oh, and yes I read that Van Allen belt crap. You guys will just come up with just about anything, won't you? It dangerous, not impossible, to go through it. Maybe you should reread it yourself, and put your beliefs aside. That's what scientists have to do all the time in order to get anything done. Personal belief does not = evidence

Re:Back?

[timshea]

I'll believe it when any one of us sees evidence through a telescope pointed at the moon. Otherwise it's as you say, just a "belief". ;)

Re:Back?

[Epistax]

Imagine the graphics. How many years before Doom was that?

Re:Back?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm glad to see that you too don't know about the Van Allen Belt. If you did you would realize that it is impossible for us now, and forget about back then, for us to leave out planet.

lol... Read. Learn.

Re:Back?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You need to read this site...

http://www.clavius.org/

Re:Back?

[Wooden7Dummy]

I don't need to see the flag though a telescope because of the huge amount of scientific evidence showing that we DID go to the moon and zero evidence to show that we didn't. I've yet to hear any "evidence" from people who think we didn't goto the moon that isn't a load of rubbish showing a lack of understanding.

Re:Back?

[Wooden7Dummy]

Anyone who spouts off that humans can't leave earth because of the Van Allen Belt truly is "a fucking retard". The anonymous poster who seems to think he is the only one who ever mentions it can be sure that he isn't the first "retard" to mention it and isn't the first to spout off "facts" that he picked up on late night TV narrated by some guy who was once in a sci-fi show. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Breeze on the moon? Wow, that studio *can* do magic.

Re:Back?

[sites]

Damn. That's a well done site. I was actually hoping that the conspiracy theories would hold.

I don't know what to do with my newfound disillusionment. Does this mean I have to start trusting our government?

Regarding going back, as soon as the cost of mining certain minerals on the earth exceeeds the estimated cost of mining those same minerals on the moon, we will return to the moon.

Rock samples anyone?

Re:Back?

[golgotha007]

You're either a troll or an idiot. Take your pick.

Re:Back?

[dual_boot_brain]

Both the US and the Soviet Union monitored near earth space to track satellites. The question becomes could and did the Soviets track the lunar mission and if they did would they have noticed that it remained in orbit instead of going to the moon and if it never went on a trajectory to take it to the moon would the Soviets have denounced the hoax at the time?

In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the Soviets used more then one reciever to monitor transmissions from the lunar mission and would be able to Direction Find (DF) the signal to determine with a fair degree of accuracy the location of the transmitter.

What neither of these technical solutions rules out is the possibility that the entire astronuat-side of the conversation was pre-recorded and transmitted from the unmanned lunar lander that was used to place the mirrors on the surface of the moon.

Green Cheese

[uncoveror]

Bush wants us to go back to the moon so Red China won't be able to control all the green cheese.

doh

[ezwip]

We have never landed a man on the moon and the technology to film another fake landing is really outdated!

It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[anim8]

"The Apollo program cost $25 billion, equivalent to about $125 billion in today's dollars."

[Source: http://www.waltercunningham.com/op_ed_0204.htm%5D

Re:It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[ScottLindner]

Really? I didn't know it was that much then. Another prior post of mine is in error.

Re:It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[Frogbert]

So what? Thats what? Just under half a war.

Re:It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[Anonymous Coward]

President Al Gore says we an $11 trillion dollar surplus, so we should be able to afford it.

Re:It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[kublikhan]

"The Apollo program cost $25 billion, equivalent to about 3 months in Iraq."

Re:It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[geekoid]

if we invaded Iraq in 1969.

Re:It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[Anonymous Coward]

In another 20-30 years we'll be able to do THAT as well.

Re:It wasn't easy for Apollo either

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Thats what? Just under half a war.

Far less than half, actually. We're well in excess of $400 billion in Iraq, and we're not anywhere near done.

Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[Lexor]

The whole "back to the Moon" thing is a load of garbage.

The real target is Mars. There's nothing more to learn on the Moon (unless, of course, they're still hiding things from you and me, which, of course, the U.S. government seems to do as a matter of course).

Experts have long admitted that launching a mission to Mars from the Moon is far more difficult than doing it from here.

NASA has become the "Santa Claus" of the U.S. Government. Keep the children excited and maybe they'll think there really is a future, after all.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The whole "back to the Moon" thing is a load of garbage.

Your short-sightedness is amazing here. "There's nothing more to learn on the Moon"? Where do you get that from? We've sent precisely six manned missions to the moon in all of human history. Only twelve humans have actually walked on it. Almost none of them had a strong scientific background (although many learned it in order to be more effective). Yet we know everything there is to know about the moon according to you. Your hubris is absolutely mind-boggling.

Experts have long admitted that launching a mission to Mars from the Moon is far more difficult than doing it from here.

Umm...exactly who is proposing we launch a Mars mission from the Moon? Bush sure isn't, and neither is any other sane person. To build up a launch infrastructure on the Moon would be a multi-decade endeavor and would likely eclipse a Mars mission for sheer complexity and cost.

No, the Moon is a beta test site, if you will. No human has left low Earth orbit for almost four decades! All the engineers who made Apollo work are either dead or retired. Our heavy lift capacity is completely moribund. With but few exceptions, we're going to have to learn a bunch of things all over again. Which is a better place to learn these things, a spot that's only a couple of days away from the Earth via free-return trajectory, or a spot that's months away with no such option? It doesn't take much more intelligence than a turnip to understand the former is far more advantageous than the latter. It's safer, it'll cost less, and we'll get quicker "knowledge returns".

Once we rediscover how to get to the Moon, setting up a moonbase will essentially be a "dry run" for setting up a Mars habitat. True, the lunar surface and Martian surface don't have a lot in common, but they're both immensely rugged and challenging environments to construct even a sand castle. Learning how to build a moonbase will teach us in no small part how to build a Mars base. Or would you rather we get to Mars first then try to figure all this out then, when astronauts are beyond any easy help from Earth?

NASA has become the "Santa Claus" of the U.S. Government. Keep the children excited and maybe they'll think there really is a future, after all.

While I'll freely admit NASA is merely a vast sinkhole for funds and functioning solely as a reason to have a space station right now, the return to the Moon does not fit that category. There is a future if ostriches like yourself would only see it. Instead, your cynicism and politcal bias appears to be clouding what might otherwise be a capability for sound judgement on your part.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[ScottLindner]

There's nothing more to learn on the Moon

New technologies to do it faster, better, and cheaper is a very good thing to learn. If we can do it on the budget that NASA has today.. that is an awesome achievement that will produce lots of great technology not only for future NASA missions, but also to further science which has a direct positive affect on everyone's lives.

Here comes the predictible velcro and Tang rebuttles.....

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[trout007]

NASA is hiring many Apollo engineers back as consultants to help with this. These guys did a lot with basic engineering skills and great common sence and a WHOLE lot of testing. Many are alive and in their late 60's.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[kimvette]

Actually NASA has a lot more to offer than just ISS. They also conduct experiments in aircraft technology. Even if we were to abandon space "exploration" (read: taxpayer expenditures) altogether, NASA would still have a very good reason to exist. I for one do not wish for aviation technology to stagnate - especially technology available to general aviation.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[geekoid]

Space exploration as returned more in tax dollars then it cost.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[Grishnakh]

I for one do not wish for aviation technology to stagnate - especially technology available to general aviation.

While planes like the 777 and F-22 definitely show that aviation technology is still advancing (though rather slowly), is it me or is the technology level in general aviation completely unchanged since 1950? The only thing different in today's private small planes is they've added GPS systems to supplement the ancient VOR systems; otherwise, they're still using the same old 1950s Lycoming engines with magnetos and carburetors.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[Soulfarmer]

Umm...exactly who is proposing we launch a Mars mission from the Moon? Bush sure isn't, and neither is any other sane person.

Any other sane person? Did you mean "neither is any sane person"?

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[iminplaya]

Umm...exactly who is proposing we launch a Mars mission from the Moon? Bush sure isn't, and neither is any other sane person.

Why would you say that? The moon would make an excellent base camp for mining and construction. Saves on a lot of pollution on earth. You don't climb Everest in one big trip. Why should this be any different? What's the rush? Is there somebody else that threatening to claim Mars for themselves? Or are we just trying to get there first so we can claim it? We'll get there when we get there. Two things to consider, first, no atmosphere to fly through (on launch). Second, isn't an escape velocity of probably less than 3,000mph a big advantage as far as needed fuel is concerned? A simple rail gun might be all that is needed. I like that idea better than using a pointy tin can with sparks flying out the back, a la Flash Gordon. I think slow and methodical are better than rushing headlong just for bragging rights.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[ET_Fleshy]

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your viewpoint, the FAA is quite reluctant to accept any significant changes in GA because, you know the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, there has been multiple leaps in the technology implemented in small airplanes over the past few years.

For example, instead of carburetors, most new planes now come with a FADEC system that handles the fuel injection into each individual cylinder, increasing performance and ridding the pilot of that pesky mixture control lever. Also, this system gives you real time status information on each cylinder so you can monitor their performance and detect a problem before it becomes too serious. About the mags, I can't really see why you'd want to get rid of them, they really are a pilot's best friend because even a total electrical failure (well almost anyways) cannot stop the magneto from sparking the engine. You have to always remember that aviation is practically married to redundancy, and for good reason.

While you did mention GPS being added into planes now, that's really only half the story. Glass cockpits are literally revolutionizing how we fly. Take a look at the good 'ol 152 cockpit then and now, there's a pretty big difference, no? The GPS is also going to make traveling to smaller airports in IMC a much greater experience when WASS/LAAS and TLS approaches become implemented around airports in the upcoming years.

Besides the GPS, ideas such as 'live' radar via XM radio, as well as a much more affordable radar dish are making storm traversal a much easier, safer thing for light airplanes, while Mode S transponders are finally bringing collision avoidance systems down from the major airlines to general aviation which I'm sure you'll agree is a major advantage.

Going outside the cockpit, we find that airplanes are beginning to be made with composite materials which are both lighter and stronger. However the high cost associated with manufacturing them, as well its unknown safety factor, are keeping it from being too widely accepted. The cirrus even designed a parachute for the entire plane. Overall, while the major design of airplanes have basically remained the same, I would say that there has been many great innovative improvements in general aviation that are changing the way pilot's fly.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[Grishnakh]

Very informative post. I didn't realize they were going to more advanced avionics in small airplanes; I thought that would be too expensive. I also didn't realize they were finally getting away from carburetors on some planes. My wife is in training to be a helicopter pilot, but all the R22s still use carburetted Lycomings, so I assumed planes were the same way. As for magnetos, I'm not an automotive or mechanical engineer, but the problem with magnetos is they're not as efficient as an automotive-style spark ignition system, especially during low-power cruising because the ignition timing cannot be advanced. Here's a web site that explains all this in much more detail. So while magnetos are reliable, with fuel economy becoming more and more important, I think they need to be replaced with something more advanced.

As for composite materials, small planes are already extremely expensive. Composites would only increase their cost, putting them out of reach of even more private pilots, so I'm not sure how much those are going to be used. Composites are great for $1+ million supercars like the McLaren F1, or for $100+ million fighter aircraft like the F-22, but they're too labor-intensive and expensive overall to be used in lower-end applications, unless someone comes up with a way of automating their assembly.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[ET_Fleshy]

Not to be redundant or anything, but the main reason that magnetos are still used is not because of the efficiency/performance but because they do not require electricity to work. As long as the brushes, magnets, plugs, etc are all functioning properly there will be a spark if the engine is rotating. If your alternators or batteries break, or if there is a short or something, the very last thing that you need at that point is to have your engines quit as well. It is true that airplanes are "gliders" with an engine, but when you lose an engine you sink, fast, and unless you happen to be in a great place such as the Midwest during daytime where there are fields everywhere, you're going to be in a heap load of trouble if you cannot find a suitable landing site quick. Also, that was an interesting article that you linked me to, thanks. About your comment on fuel burn, I believe that the FADEC system I linked to earlier solved (some) of those problems as it continuously monitors and regulates the amount of fuel being delivered to the cylinders. I don't believe that magnetos are (such) a big problem that they actually diminish fuel economy by that much. In fact, each cylinder has two spark plugs to ensure not only reliability, but also to maintain a consitant burn of fuel vapors during the combustion stage of the engine.

It is true that composite materials are expensive, however many of the kit planes, as well as some production planes like the cirrus/diamond air are using them because of the enormous performance gains you get by utilizing them. I believe that once the process is even further streamlined the cost will only continue decreasing until almost all airplanes use them. While there is the infamous starship blunder involving composite materials, the cirrus continually sets new sales records and that only goes to show that people are willing to pay for high quality, especially when it comes to an expensive hobby such as aviation where most of the people are already rich to begin with. If that seams hard to believe (it does for me too since I'm just a poor college student) you only have to look at the VLJs coming out. If people can afford to buy personal jets, then I believe that the additional price will not be a factor during these initial years when the material construction process is being perfected.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[JohnnyDanger]

While I'll freely admit NASA is merely a vast sinkhole for funds and functioning solely as a reason to have a space station right now, the return to the Moon does not fit that category.

Remember that NASA funds a lot of basic research in Earth and space science. Resetting NASA's priorities in this way represents a shift in funding, away from science and to aerospace industry. To me, this seems short sighted. Most of the recent successes (robotic Mars rovers, Stardust, microwave background anisotropy measurements) come from the science portion of the budget, and not from the manned program, which is more what I'd called the "vast sinkhole for funds."

Although NASA budget is increasing overall, science is getting squeezed out. Quoting a recent New Scientist Space article:

The $16.8 billion budget request, announced in February, includes $5.3 billion for science in 2007. But it calls for $3.1 billion in cuts to science programmes by 2010, compared to projections made in the 2006 budget request.

A shockingly large fraction of this shrinking budget (30%-50%) is already committed to just one project, the James Webb Space Telescope. Smaller projects, the source of much innovation and knowledge, are being considered for cancelation or slated for "indefinite postponement." For this and other reasons, the 2007 budget request was roundly criticized by the National Research Council, mentioned in the above article.

In my opinion, from a cost/benefit/risk point of view, it is foolish to divert money from science projects with modest costs, strong research returns, and low risk (for failure and to life and limb) to expensive projects with perhaps marginal research returns and much higher risk.

Is one manned moon mission (estimate $100 billion) worth 200 mid-sized science missions (at 500 million each)? Even if my numbers are a bit off, my thinking says no.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[prisoner-of-enigma]

A very valid point. However, a simple look at NASA's budget will quickly show where the dollars are flowing. It's to the Shuttle (that fatally-flawed boondoggle result of some earlier 1970's technological compromises) and the ISS (that fatally-flawed boondoggle result of late 1990's downsizing of Space Station Freedom). Basically, NASA claims we need a Shuttle to service the space station and yet we need a space station to give the Shuttle somewhere to go. It's a circular justification that benefits almost no one except the various contractors involved in both projects.

Take the entire Shuttle and ISS budget and redirect it to a moon shot, moon base, and manned mission to Mars. Things would happen a lot faster and, quite likely, with greater efficiency.

Re:Moon Base Bush is pie in the sky

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Is one manned moon mission (estimate $100 billion) worth 200 mid-sized science missions (at 500 million each)? Even if my numbers are a bit off, my thinking says no.

Yes, it is worth it, although your opinion will undoubtedly differ from mine. Why is it worth it? Because although we'd get less "hard science" from a manned mission, ultimately the human race must leave its cradle. Unmanned missions offer us the luxury of not having to improve our life support and propulsion systems, because a probe needs no life support and doesn't care if it take five to ten years to get to its destination.

Sooner or later, though, we're going to have to expand beyond this rock we're currently on. The longer we delay manned interplanetary expeditions, the longer it's going to take us to settle something other than Earth. And there's the not-insubstantial benefit of getting all of humanity's eggs out of one basket, so to speak. After all, we're just one planetary catastrophe from extinction just like our dinosaur predecessors. That shouldn't sit well with you if you're the least bit interested in humans eventually colonizing space.

To paraphrase JFK, we should send men (and women) out into space not because it is easy, but because it is hard. Risk -- and its rewards -- moves the species forward. Exploring the universe by unmanned proxy is beneath us if we seek to inherit the stars.

It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[kitkatsavvy]

Hey come ON! They didn't even land on the moon in the first place - if they DID infact land on the moon on July 20, 1969, then WHY the hell HAVEN'T they been back there YET?

If you are stupid enough to believe that we did land on the moon in the first place, you should go and get a life! This time around, they will run out of funding anyway, and they are only saying it because China WILL beat them there first - genuinely! America is just a DYING world power, and everybody knows that now - you idiots!

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[brian0918]

"WHY the hell HAVEN'T they been back there YET?"

I guess you could say that the public interest in a given topic does not LET'S RIDE BIKES!!

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[masklinn]

Hey come ON! They didn't even land on the moon in the first place - if they DID infact land on the moon on July 20, 1969, then WHY the hell HAVEN'T they been back there YET?

Dunno, maybe because there wasn't any reason to after:

• Having severely beaten the soviets at the Moon Race, which was the main point (showing that the USA could beat the Soviets at space races)
• Having performed all the scientific experiments they could think of
• Having brought back some 300kg of moon rocks and dust

?

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[kitkatsavvy]

like where now - did i hear a hollywood studio! hey how come Neil Armstrong has NEVER given a real interview on how he "landed" on the moon? come ON you idiot! the government could tell you WHAT the damn hell it wants to tell you! they could have gotten lots of sand from anywhere - its the same basis as believing in religion - it's like - OH i believe in god JUST because all of these little books and priests told me its TRUE!

gawsh!

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[masklinn]

Yep, of course, how didn't I think of that one, the american government created 300kg of rocks that couldn't have been created anywhere on earth, shipped them all around the world, and no scientist ever realised it!

Those 419 guys are sooo beaten...

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[mark-t]

It's not that it's physically impossible, just fiscally impossible. We haven't gone back because nobody has enough money to foot the bill for a lunar mission that's actually willing to make it happen.

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[Jim_Callahan]

In the conspiracy nuts' defense, the composition of the moon is held to be similar overall to that of the earth, with a little higher surface iron content from meteors. So realistically if I was really committed I probably could find rocks on the Earth's surface similar in composition to those brought back from the moon. Atmospheric wear would probably give the game away, though.

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those 419 guys should kick it up a notch to 420 and chill out.

Re:It's not like they EVER landed there anyway!

[Duhavid]

The Chinese have already been there.

The old phylosopher dude, with the chair and the balloons,
and the gunpowder rockets.

One more irreverent comment

[fm6]

This won't be easy.

What, the new technology? That's easy enough — if you can get the money. That's worse than difficult — it's simply not going to happen. And GWB knows this. Of course, he also knows that he'll be safely out of office before anybody realizes that.

The last time I made that statement, I got flammed up the wazoo. Any GWB loyalists left out there?

Re:One more irreverent comment

[spun]

Any GWB loyalists left out there?
Maybe a few, but most of them are keeping a pretty low profile these days. The smart ones have deserted him and the average ones are keeping their mouths shut, it's only the stupid ones that are vocally supporting the man now.

On slashdot they have been reduced to the "Yeah, well Clinton did it too!" argument every time their boy is exposed in a new set of scandals. It would be kind of funny if it weren't my country he's fucking up.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[Erbo]

Well, Lord knows Bush has done plenty to piss me off, but I welcomed the announcement of a return to the Moon. I'm the kind of person that gets misty at the final line of the movie Apollo 13: "I look up at the Moon, and I wonder: When will we be going back? And who will that be?" For the first time in a long while, I felt, there was a possibility that the answers to those questions would no longer be null.

It's useful, though, to keep another line from Apollo 13 in mind: "From now on, we live in a world where man has walked on the Moon. But it wasn't a miracle. We just decided to go." That says a lot about how we made it happen the first time...and how we will make it happen again, if we do. We, as a society, are going to have to "decide to go." That decision's going to be a lot harder to make this time around, though.

Certainly, if this effort does fail, given the timeline involved, it will likely be long after Bush has stepped down before the fact of its failure is realized, so you're kind of right there. But I hope that, somehow or another, you're proven wrong...

(Now if only there were a way to develop an "open-source space program." Could a band of international volunteers succeed where major governments have failed? Even I think it's unlikely...but it would make a hell of a story if they could.)

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

You flatter yourself :)

I support him, prove me stupid.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[jlowery]

You support him. Q.E.D.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Support him how?

Support his spending policies? WMD jokes? Support him as in 'athletic supporter'? How?

Re:One more irreverent comment

[WilliamSChips]

That you're a Mormon.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

*Sigh*

Probably too afraid to lay his cards on the table.

Next?

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

If Bush were a mormon too you'd have something.

Next?

Re:One more irreverent comment

[fm6]

Jeez, dude, it's supposed to be left-wingers that lack a sense of humor!

Re:One more irreverent comment

[fm6]

"We just decided to go?" I hope nobody quotes that stupid line when they get around to asking Congress for the money to actually build the hardware. Assuming things actually get that far. GWB would seem to be assuming that they won't. Moral: if GWB makes you misty-eyed, it's probably the garlic he had for lunch.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[spun]

Ah, I jest, I jest. Maybe you are stupid, maybe not. I'm tired of political flame wars. I just like to carry on the old slashdot "troll tuesday" phenomenon by posting at least one inflamatory comment on tuesdays ;-) I may think Bush is a corrupt authoritarian fuckwit, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

So out of curiosity, why DO you support him?

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

Ooohhh, Gotcha.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

All's good.

why DO you support him?

A few reasons:

* Instead of the covert, behind the scenes nonsense that put dictator after dictator in power (by every president since Eisenhower, including Carter) Bush had the gumption to go in full daylight and set up a government in two countries in plain view of everyone. No Iran-Contra. No Guatemala. No Noriega. No more Saddams. If I hadn't been wanting to see someone finally do this after many-many years, perhaps I wouldn't still be cheering so much.
* He's for supply side limitation of government. With your own medical savings account and retirement account you don't need the government. I've been waiting for someone to replace that poor excuse for Enron style accounting for years. Bush at least tried, I wish he succeeded.
* He's for flattening the taxes. If it were my way all taxes would be voluntary, but in the mean time flat taxes are a good comprimise.

And if nothing else, who's made a fool of whom? Count Richard Clark, Dan Rather, Wilson, etc... A long line of people who took a pot-shot and wound up looking bad. In many examples it was because obvious deception or forgery was involved. Dan Rather, btw, considers himself the person who took down Nixon or one of them. Now he fought the W and discredited himself. These attempts bounce off like bullets off superman. Thats presidential entertainment.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean that if I felt the urge to "setup a government" in theUS, that was friendly to my way of thinking, that you would be all for me invading the US, instigating a change of government and putting your illustrious leader on trial? I bet the newspapers around the world will have the same quotes as were touted just before the US invaded Iraq "The people of the US will be welcoming their liberators".

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

I'm not sure.

I don't see us as just deciding one day to remove a bad government from power (which happens in 4 year cycles in the USA). Not even in Afghanistan where 9/11 made us wake up and do something there were we just doing something. The Taliban owe a lot to past presidents for their power. The history means something.

We put Saddam in power, it was a bad decision. Its the kind of decision I was getting fed up with. Its easier, more covert, and unfortunatly with the uproar Bush recieved is probably how presidents in the future will do it. Well maybe not since although a PR nightmare, Iraq is pretty well off considering it just had a major revolution after years of tyrannical rule. Read US early history sometime, or even visit the south in the 1950's (still harboring ill will after the civil war). You'll see the lynchings and general bad behaviour there that you see in Iraq now. But democracy instills ideals of representation and equality and over time changed the US populace. It will in Iraq also.

But just think of the powers that be that Bush had to fight against. Who set up these dictators and really loved the manipulative power they had? Well, his Dad did as head of the CIA. And now guess who is using their old playbook to undermine the president now... Yep, the CIA. Internationally we see the people who had the most to gain from Saddam screaming at his diposal, the international socialists and islamo-fascists have marched all over europe hand in hand in (ironically enough) peace rallys.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[Anonymous Coward]

A long line of people who took a pot-shot and wound up looking bad

That is the difference that I see in Bush's supporters. Correct me if I am wrong, but Clark and Wilson have not been discredited in what they said. In fact, what they said is supportive of each other and generally fits in the overall picture of the obsession with Iraq (Pearle, Wolfowitz, etc.), and the selective choosing of what intelligence to use to justify the war.

In particular, I don't see how you can say Wilson was discredited. The Bush white house outs his wife as a CIA agent because they think the CIA has it in for them and they want to connect Wilson to the CIA through his wife and thereby tarnish his message, how does this diminish Wilson's comments? Who comes off looking worse here? I also would be interested to hear how Clark was discredited as well. For what it is worth, Rather got burned by a fake document, but the message of the document has not been discredited either.

Now when you say they all came off looking bad, that isn't because of the things they said, but in the controlled smear campaign against them from the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox News circuit, to actual deliberate leaking of classified information to go after them (and I hope you are honest enough not to try to spin it as "the President released the information so it isn't classified anymore" saw because not only did Libby let someone know in secret (I would argue that letting a single reporter know in a hotel room is quite a bit different than, say, letting the press corps know at a briefing if they really wanted to let the press know), the president himself promised to get to the root of the leak and fire whomever leaked it). Now we hear that telephone records are being used to connect the endpoints between calls to and from reporters. Bush makes the Nixon white house look like the Carter white house.

Reagan and Clinton had bullets bounce off of them (literally, in one case). Bullets stick to this president, but he and his people just don't care.

I find it curious that you include some economic reasons in there. One can argue the merits of tax cuts and their effect on the economy, but Bush has got to be the most fiscally irresponsible president we've ever had. His budgets spend and grow the government like FDR and LBJ on a bender together. To do this and simultaneously slash taxes is just obscene. It is no wonder the "Reagan Republicans" hate the man. It has to be disheartening for the Reagan followers to watch what Bush has done to their vision.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

Correct me if I am wrong,

Clark, to my knowledge, has not supported Wilson's charge that Saddam never sought to purchase yellow cake from Nigeria. That claim was discredited by every independant investigation thrown at it, both in England and the US.

Clark made a large laundry list of gossipy statements that proved to be nonsense. Like Rice didn't know about Al Queida before he mentioned it to her, etc...

They are making the same grand accusation, but their data doesn't mesh. The coordination in their messages is something to note, but does not validate it.

The Bush white house outs his wife as a CIA agent because they think the CIA has it in for them

Actually, the outting was because Wilson lied in saying it was the white-house that sent him. Turns out it was his wife, and one wonders why.

And yes, the CIA has it out for this presidency as far as I can tell. If you wish to argue that topic, just let me know.

Now when you say they all came off looking bad, that isn't because of the things they said,

Well, you can blame the smear campaign or you can blame the fact that the documents were forged, Wilson and Clark said statements that turned out to be knowingly false, etc... Given one explanation is stupidity and the other is malice, I favor stupidity on their part as the explanation.

BTW, you won't hear my blame the MSM or Fox/Rush/etc... for anything. People are in general smarter than that and if they do err most of the time it is because they outsmarted themselves, not that someone outsmarted them.

Now we hear that telephone records are being used to connect the endpoints between calls to and from reporters.

Ever find it interesting that two very wierd and contradictory directions are happening at once with leaks? Scooter Libby leaks, and its a grand investigation. Others leak information, also breaking the law and the investigation is somehow wrong. FWIW, I think all of these leaks of information have been useful and I wish to see a David Brin style transparent society. The problem is not all of these leaks have turned out to be true.

Bullets stick to this president, but he and his people just don't care.

You'll have to show me the bullet holes then. I am suspicious you are suffering from that outsmarting yourself I talked about earlier.

To do this and simultaneously slash taxes is just obscene

You want tax cuts in two cases, national emergency where you invest in the populace to help boost the economy and surplus. Word is there was a tax surplus last month. Bush started the tax cuts when there was a surplus in 2000. Inbetween we had the largest attack ever on US soil to a main financial hub and a large bubble burst.

My take on the spend-spend-spend is simply Bush has been giving Congress a blank check in exchange for them supporting the work in Iraq. Bush is one of those presidents that is very comprimising except on the one or two things he thinks are most important. Its a gambit that I am waiting to see how well plays off, but for now (and before he was president) I've simply agreed on what he considers to be most important.

Well, social security reform is one of those areas where the most important part just didn't happen. BTW, if you ask me this illegal immigration thing is congress's way (economically, not politically) of sweeping the problems with social security under the carpet for a decade or so longer. I can discuss that further if you wish, just say so.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[Anonymous Coward]

That claim was discredited by every independant investigation thrown at it, both in England and the US

I'm confused. I thought that Wilson said the yellow cake claim was not true, and the white house came around and admitted the fameous "16 words" in the state of the union were in fact not true and Wilson was correct (well, they never would have actually said Wilson was correct).

If I recall, I thought Clarke didn't make just "gossipy" claims, but very disturbing ones such as how he couldn't even get an audience with Rice, et al. regarding al Qaeda, how he and Tenet warned of an impending attack but it fell on deaf ears, and how the day after 9/11 Rumsfeld was planning a retaliatory strike against Iraq. He claims that they were under great pressure to find any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, and how he put together a report with the FBI and CIA, whom all cleared the report, that showed no Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and it got thrown back at them to "try again." Take this with Wilson's comments about selective choosing of intelligence, it is very clear that there is no debate in the Bush white house; they decided to attack Iraq, and they were going to do it no matter what. Remember how when they were selling the war, the costs were going to be 50-60 billion tops? Then a white house economic advisor Larry Lindsey mentioned it would be 100-200 billion or more and he was fired. Apart from Colin Powell, anyone who voiced an opinion that was different than what Bush and Rove believed were forced to leave willingly or not. Paul O'Neill for criticizing tax cuts; and Mike Parker of the Corps of Engineers as well. There is a whole slew of them who were asked to leave for essentially voicing disagreement.

I don't necessarily see a problem in the two leaks you mentioned. The Libby one turned into a grand investigation because the white house made a big deal out of investigating it and "firing the one responsible." The leak on the NSA is viewed differently because of the disturbing notion that the government is now spying on the "free press" in a manner that brings facist or communist regimes to mind. The truth of the matter, of course, is that the white house is very upset with leaks such as disclosing overseas CIA torture cells and NSA domestic spying because they truely want to keep those secret. However, most washington leaks are deliberate, such as the Plame one, to serve political purposes, and the whole of washington would probably die if that kind of leak was ever truely plugged.

People are in general smarter than that and if they do err most of the time it is because they outsmarted themselves, not that someone outsmarted them.

I'd like to think that, but Reagan and Michael Deaver showed a long time ago that the medium controls the message, not the substance of the message. You don't have to look very far to see opinions change with media blitzes of "Swift Boats," illegit black babies, Willie Horton, riding in a tank with a big helmet on and big goofy ears sticking out, rumors of being a lesbian, etc. I disagree that people tend to outsmart themselves; I believe that a large portion of people make their minds up early and don't listen to anything that doesn't support their viewpoint. Remember how big the drug issue was when Clinton was running ("I didn't inhale") but it went away when Bush ran? Or the criticism Clinton took for bombing the bin Laden camps to supposedly draw attention away from Lewinsky, but the same voices criticise him now for not doing more when he had the chance?

Well, social security reform is one of those areas where the most important part just didn't happen. BTW, if you ask me this illegal immigration thing is congress's way (economically, not politically) of sweeping the problems with social security under the carpet for a decade or so longer.

You sound like you are old enough and/or politically astute enough to know that

Re:One more irreverent comment

[WilliamSChips]

I was proving you stupid, not Bush. Bush has already been proven stupid.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

I thought that Wilson said the yellow cake claim was not true

Correct.

the white house came around and admitted the fameous "16 words" in the state of the union were in fact not true

Source? I remember them saying they shouldn't have put it in the address, but no statement that I'm aware of retracted the statement as untrue.

[me:]every independant investigation thrown at it, both in England and the US

The GOP has a page with a good summary on how Joe Wilson lied. The Washington Post also has some more.

I thought Clarke didn't make just "gossipy" claims, but very disturbing ones such as how he couldn't even get an audience with Rice, et al.

The end of that sentence undermines the beginning.

The leak on the NSA is viewed differently because of the disturbing notion that the government is now spying on the "free press" in a manner that brings facist or communist regimes to mind.

Or you and me private citizens. Anonymous sources are the tools of a kangaroo court, which is much of what the media runs these days.

And the NSA program is nothing I see a problem with. While one can wonder what such a vague term as "domestic spying" means, the actual program and what is going on is nothing I've seen a problem with.

but Reagan and Michael Deaver showed a long time ago that the medium controls the message, not the substance of the message.

I'm not saying people can't be duped. I'm saying if people are duped its their fault becuase the truth is usually very accessible. If not the truth than proper principles that help one decide the right thing to do with little information.

entitlement reform just won't happen until those programs actually crash and burn

*Sigh* but one can always hope. Looking at GM and how they are litterally knocking on the door of bankruptcy for what they pay out in pensions, I can't imagine what will happen when the US government goes bankrupt also. I imagine the furor we saw when people only suspected they would be shortchanged would be a hundred fold more sevier when they are faced with a real loss of everything.

Re:One more irreverent comment

[On Lawn]

You wound up only proving yourself bigoted, intollerant and stupid.

Your proof requires one to believe that all Mormons are stupid, that is simple bigotry. The page you linked to expects that what others have experienced must be wrong if they can't demand the terms of such experiences, and that is intollerant. To try to use that as a proof to show someone else as stupid is, well, stupid.

*Sigh*

Perhaps you wanted to make a more serious attempt?

Hmm

[lucienshand]

Maybe all the scientist have gottn fed up with no one listening to their warnings about the environment, and have decided to leave. Score 1 for Darwin!

Re:Hmm

[pilgrim23]

Actually is this not part of NASA's primary mandate? -Insuring the survivability of +60 year old engineers on government payroll and to boldly go where no pension plan has gone before.
If you want to explore space I think there are two means: Abolish NASA and start over, with less pencils to push or....learn Mandarin.

Re:Hmm

[Samah]

> Maybe all the scientist have gottn fed up with no one listening to their warnings about the environment, and have decided to leave. Score 1 for Darwin!

...and thus will be completely wiped out by a virus originating from a dirty telephone.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I want you to build an ARK!!

Tech for Sustained Human Space Colonization

[Stanistani]

We're doing this to lay down a sustainable infrastructure for continued unmanned and manned spaceflight.

We don't have the industrial setup to make new 60's gear - and doing so would be unsafe and unwise.

This is like building shipyards - so we can build ships.

Properly done - and I have some doubts about the CEVs basis in design - this will allow for much more access to space.

Re:Tech for Sustained Human Space Colonization

[wired_LAIN]

Why are we going back to the moon? What exactly are the advantages... Lower gravity? If we really wanted to establish "a sustainable infrastructure for continued unmanned and manned spaceflight" than shouldn't we be spending more money on the ISS (NASA's budget for ISS development has been declining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nasabudget.gif) rather than on going to the moon? We've already been there and there's nothing new to see.

Re:Tech for Sustained Human Space Colonization

[LionKimbro]

I agree with the other guy.

Here's a deeper, fuller explanation. Basically, our next job is to be able to grow plants in space.

Actually, I think discarding bodies entirely is even better, but nobody will go for that today; We may have to wait 40 years before a society that can defend itself decides that that is not a controversial way to go, and has the technology to do it.

Personally, I think we should go for that as quickly as possible. NASA should study cybernetics, not how to make spaceships with showers and treadmills in them.

Oh, wait- they are..!

Re:Tech for Sustained Human Space Colonization

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I have some doubts about the CEVs basis in design

What, don't you like solid-fuel boosters on a crewed vehicle?

Re:Tech for Sustained Human Space Colonization

[Stanistani]

Well, if I HAD to have a solid-fueled booster, this is probably the most proven one in existence.

But yes, that's one of the points.

SCE to AUX

[Brett Buck]

It was "SCE" to Aux - Signal Conditioning Electronics to Auxiliary. The SCE was what provided the intrumentation that went to telemetry, so when the primary SCE got zapped, the telemetry itself was invalid, so you couldn't see the actual state of the spacecraft on the ground. Once that was fixed, they could then begin assessing the state and providing corrective reconfiguration commanding.

        Brett

I might even be inclined to be sympathetic...

[jd]

...towards NASA, but they're sponging off the Indian space program, for chrissakes!

THAT is how our great, illustrius NASA is getting to the moon - by outsourcing the R&D and get low-paid foreigners to take all the risks. (Bet you 10:1 that almost all early next-gen manned lunar rockets are built and manned by India, with NASA only using their astronauts when India becomes expendable and the rocket has been constructed.)

I strongly urge all nations with space programs of their own to refuse to cooperate with the American space program unless treated with respect and as equals. I feel reasonably sure that many such programs could reach the moon without much trouble, with no help whatsoever from NASA, before NASA could reach the moon on their own. The more such programs do so, the better. If Russia, China, India and the ESA all get manned mission vehicles that outperform NASA's best at that time, maybe - just maybe - we will see greater cooperation and less nationalism. Total cooperation, total pursuit of technology (and not applause), total openness (none of this "ITAR stops us telling you why our spaceship rammed that satelite" b*shit), and we could see achievements in space taking an order of magnitude less time yet achieving an order of magnitude greater results.

Re:I might even be inclined to be sympathetic...

[Jim_Callahan]

NASA has always been one of the more multinational project groups. If you look closely, for instance, you'll notice a Canadian flag marking the manipulating arm on most of the space shuttles. NASA takes advantage of other countries' expertise and manufacturing capabilities, and everyone in world has by now somehow benefitted from NASA-funded research, which gets put into everything from automobiles to food-packaging for refugees and supply drops. So, in short, I don't see what you're bitching about... oh, right, something you made up, because you're too lazy to actually do basic research.

Also, booster-rockets are not generally reusable. The closest they generally get is being recyclable/salvageable. So if the rockets have already been manned by indians, they'd need to be rebuilt to be manned again by anyone else... this is true even of the boosters for shuttle missions. In conclusion, please know something about something before going off and making random assertions. Either knowing something about how spacecraft are designed and built or about scientific and technological cooperation would be acceptible... I'm not foolish enough to expect you to manage both. Or either, actually. Never mind.

Re:I might even be inclined to be sympathetic...

[Anonymous Coward]

THAT is how our great, illustrius NASA is getting to the moon - by outsourcing the R&D and get low-paid foreigners to take all the risks.

NASA is supplying three experiments (payloads) on a space flight. This is similar to buying a ticket on a airplane and then claiming that R&D of air flights are sponsored by the person buying a ticket. From what was reported, there is no R&D outsourcing.

Re:I might even be inclined to be sympathetic...

[Tiro]

. . . blah blah blah blah . . .

Despite your low UID you have a remarkable inability to command either Italics tag or Preview button technology.

Re:I might even be inclined to be sympathetic...

[WindBourne]

And yet, IIRC, it was india that came to NASA and asked to used our stuff, not the other way around. Keep in mind, that India is still proving that they can reliably launch.

Oddly enough, so are we (the USA).

AMD or Intel

[zenst]

You have to ask if they will use Intel or AMD chips to power this lander. But as we all know (geek wise) they use chips which have truely tried and tested with no hidded gotcha FPU bugs or the like. they also like chips with large tracks unlike the ever decreasing die size due to beyond a certain size the chips tracks become suseptable to the more exotic matter buzzing around space and large chip tracks can take a full on hit and still leave enough wifth for the electricity top flow. They also prefer ultra redundancy and iirc the shuttle currently has 4 onboard computers with a 5th back at ground control all running the same software at the same time and checking each others results (I'm sure somebody could give a more exacting account).

So given all that do people expect to see an AMD chip in space, I would imagine that running the same x86 code on an INTEl,AMD,and selection of the many other X86 based CPU's would be a reliable way to compare and iliminate CPU errors on many levels.

As for going to the moon, well beyond seeing a Ghostbusters size marshmellow man walking on the surface, they will never convince the sceptics they ever went there.

Some argue that if we could go there then we should be on the mars by now.

But think of this, the moon project was born out of the cold war and was driven politicaly.

Today moon projects although still driven politicaly are more driven scientificaly. This means that safty and assurances of a perfect mission become more of a factor as well as costs. That alone puts how daring the first moon mission actualy was.

Some compare the first moon landing to the flight of the wright brothers. Now would you fly in one of those planes today, hell no.

It is only now that we can saftly and reliably technology wise afford to look at the moon. Also remember that it is also what we do there that has also been advanced technologywise. Even doing simple deep drill core samples would of been totaly unviable in the early days due to space suit design alone, heck maybe still unviable today but at least we will be able to build a semi automated rig that dosn't weigh more than the craft taking it there.

I await the conspiracy theories; That only now that AMD has a proven track record in doing x86 chips, are we able to go back to the moon :D.

Re:AMD or Intel

[soupforare]

Judging by what they've been using in the Shuttles, I'd say it'll be an 80386.

Re:AMD or Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, probably fuel cells will power the lander. :)

And you're assuming a lot with the x86 thing. You know there are other architectures out there, don't you?

The real reason Bush wants to go back to the moon

[Quick Sick Nick]

You guys are COMPLETELY forgetting about space oil!

Why we don't use Apollo Hardware

[trout007]

The reason we won't use Apollo Hardware is because we want to do much more then land 2 guys on the moon for more then a week. The ultimate goal is to build a moon base and use that as practice for a Mars base. In order to do that you need to bring more stuff to the moon and be able to keep your service module in orbit unmanned for up to 6 months at a time. This isn't all that hard. But currently NASA is working with its current budget so things won't get really rolling until Space Station is built and shuttle retires. Those two programs ending will free up almost $10B a year for NASA. That is plenty of money to do a slow gradual build up to a moon base.

Re:Why we don't use Apollo Hardware

[LifesABeach]

Let us examine the "slow growth" of going to the moon. Ummmmmmmm, nothing in the last 35+ years. Any slower, and humanity evolve to the next higher order thus making NASA obsolete. Now I understand GWB's plan!

Perhaps this film explains why

[drpimp]

A Funny thing happened on the way to the Moon

Re:Perhaps this film explains why

[Iron Sun]

And perhaps this site will explain why Bart Sibrel is a lying, attention seeking con artist without a clue. When the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter takes pictures of the Apollo hardware on the surface I would dearly love to see some documentary crew follow him around and hound him relentlessly like he does to the astronauts. Not that he won't just claim that the new evidence is faked as well.

Re:Perhaps this film explains why

[Aranth Brainfire]

That movie is flat out ridiculous.

"The flag is waving in the wind! No, it's not because the guy is rapidly spinning its pole! CONSPIRACY!!!!!!"

Re:The real reason Bush wants to go back to the mo

[zenst]

space oil - LOL. SAying that also forgot that the film experts have finished with the 9/11 pentagon film :|.

Hmmm maybe NASA during last budget request to the President slipped in:

TRACE ELEMENTS OF OIL FOUND ON THE FARSIDE OF THE MOON.

Too which the president may of thought, hmmmm yessss of course that explains the black bits, once again proving its not made of cheese. HAHA I'll get one over those French. Thereupon we have the second comming too the moon upon us.

Good chance for everybody to test out the HD TV sets dont your think, wonder if NASA has shares in a few manuufactures of HDTV's. I know I will nearer the time ;o).

Meshes nicely with the earlier WTC story

[HardCase]

I'll bet all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are ready to join up with the moon landing conspiracy theorists to form the new conspiracy brotherhood.

We should all welcome our new conspiratorial overlords!

-h-

Yeah but...

[Spy der Mann]

I have a question - once we get there, how are we supposed to get Bush back? :P

Re:Yeah but...

[kimvette]

Why not send all of Congress and federal justices along with Bush, and start over with a clean slate while you're at it? They want the moon? Let's give them the moon, on a one-way trip. :)

One can dream. . .

Re:Yeah but...

[davidc]

*Ahem* you presuppose that we would actually want him back...

Re:Yeah but...

[smchris]

You're assuming he'll still be "president" in 2015?

Bush doesn't have the curiosity to want to see the moon. And he surely isn't going to send Jenna and Barbara.

It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Rifter13]

They should still have the sets around somewhere, and I think today's CGI is FAR better than what they had in the 60s! On a more serious note, I saw a report several years ago, showing that for every $1 paid into NASA, $9 came back into the economy by way of R&D advances, and taking those advances to market. Not to mention, the amount of cutting-edge medical knowlege and equipment that has come from the space program. It is very dumb, not to fund bleeding edge technology to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[BitGeek]

False economics. For every $1 paid to nasa, maybe $0.10 went into R&D that had a practical use here on earth, and that's generous, as most of it went to overhead, materials and non-R&D stuff. And what did go into R&D was mostly to solve problems for getting to the moon, not for getting products to market.

So, if the $0.10 that actually went to useful R&D resulted in $9 in economic growth... then if the whole $1 that went to NASA had been retained by the economy (it was taxes, remember) then $90 in economic growth would have resulted. (As the value not destroyed by NASA on a project with no positive economic impact, would have circled the economy at least ten times before going somewhere that was a dead end, so each $1 retained would have resulted in at least $1 in R&D even if the initial dollar was spent on floor wax.)

Socialists (eg: anyone who supports government development of anything) always point to the benefits, but never pay attention to the costs. And the costs are always much higher than the benefits.

If they' just shut down NASA a private space program would get to the moon again faster than NASA could. NASA is interfering with private efforts ,and of course, sucking billions out of the economy that would otherwise be available for a wide range of research and development.

And this is just the economic argument. It doesn't even address the massive number of truely talented people who could have prusued access to space in an economically viable way, who were instead wasted working for NASA for 20-30 years. NASA's brain drain probably exceeds its budget impact by an order of magnitude. Imagine what kind of a space industry we'd have if venture capitalists could have underwritten access to space back when the technology was just viable and everyone wanted it? (Unlike now when 40 years of NASA incompetance have caused people to give up on the possibility.)

Fortunately, private entities are working on it. But they have to fight NASA every step of the way.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Retric]

That's some nice fuzzy logic.

If 1$ into NASA = 9$ back from R&D and only .1$ was spent on R&D then for each 1$ of NASA R&D you get 90$.

However, this tells you nothing of what the other .9$ ends up doing, and it says nothing about what else you could have spent the money on. I don't think that spending such money on new cars would create 90$ in economic benefit.

PS: Most government waste = someone's profit which is why most people want to privatize government so they can profit from such waste. It costs the economy just about nothing to have the government give Bowing 1 million dollars. The only time you have economic loss is when some resource is consumed without benefit. AKA: A house burning down, someone getting sick, or an auto accident. The only things which create long term economic gain are that which increase economic efficiency such as R&D, Education or Infrastructure because they prevent waste.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Grishnakh]

Are you nuts or just stupid? As a previous poster said, the Apollo program cost $135 Billion. What private entity has that kind of capital lying around to spend doing something as extremely risky and dangerous as sending humans to another celestial body?

Even worse, what private company would spend ANY money on a purely scientific mission such as the Mars landers or Titan probe?

If there were ANY instances of private companies doing anything successful like this, you'd have a point. But you're just trolling.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Mr. Slippery]

The only time you have economic loss is when some resource is consumed without benefit. AKA: A house burning down, someone getting sick, or an auto accident.

Nah. Under currently mainstream economic theories, those things add to the economy. Rebuilding a house, needing medical care, repairing a car - that's consumption, which means production, which means a higher GDP!

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Firethorn]

Simple enough, the government, rather than doing itself, contracts it out. Preferably on a competition bid.

Actually, way back when NASA was new, they weren't bad. They had a specific goal and a mandate to reach it as fast as possible. Bureaucracy hadn't had a chance to build up. Now it's got it really bad, and the big three subcontractors for NASA are just as bad, if not worse.

I like the bounty system. You have multiple competitors for the goal, and the first wins. Increase the reward each year until somebody gets it.

Odds are that, on average, it'll be cheaper.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Grishnakh]

Hey, I'm not arguing against government contracting. It seems to work ok for the defense industry; all the super-advanced military aircraft are built by contractors, after all. But these other posters' idiotic Randian ideas about the government not having anything to do with space exploration and private companies doing it all, with no funding whatsoever, is a complete fantasy.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Rifter13]

I would like to point out, I said for every $1 paid into NASA, $9 worth of economic growth came out. That was NOT just R&D, though, I suspect, that is where the vast majority of the money came from. Sorry, I wish that I had the exact numbers, etc. It was a while ago.

I am not a socialist, which I think the above poster made it sound. I DO think that PURE research, like this, is more likely to be government funded. Pure research is a good thing.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Nefarious Wheel]

False economics. For every $1 paid to nasa, maybe $0.10 went into R&D that had a practical use here on earth, and that's generous, as most of it went to overhead, materials and non-R&D stuff

Ding! Thank you for playing.

The space race gave a few things back, plowed directly into the economy. The integrated circuit, biomedical monitoring, Teflon, Satellite communications, improved weather forecasting, the fuel cell come immediately to mind. There are others, but I'm off to a meeting...

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[EachLennyAPenny]

>Are you nuts or just stupid? As a previous poster said, the Apollo program cost $135 Billion. What private entity has that kind of capital lying around to spend doing something as extremely risky and dangerous as sending humans to another celestial body?

Bill Gates?

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[CaptainAvatar]

I'm as big a fan of space exploration as anyone. But half of these are not attributable to the space race. Integrated circuits were first proposed in 1952. Teflon was invented in 1938, fuel cells in 1838 - yes, in the 19th century! I'll grant you satellite communications and weather forecasting, but also note that these did not and do not depend upon manned spaceflight.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Firethorn]

Well, I'll admit that I'm pretty Randian normally speaking, but I'm also one of the 'we have to get off this rock

eventually' crowd, and right now there's no real financial motivation to go to the Moon or Mars, or even do much

beyond sending up communication and weather satellites.

You can get a suprising amount of private research for things that most don't see profit potential in though. Just look at Bigelow and how much money he's plowed into developing private space flight and his inflatable modules. He's done it all on the cheap as well, and gotten it to the point that NASA and other agencies are very interested in them.

NASA has proven to be a real pain for the civilian space industry. Certain FAA type regulation is fine, but from what I've heard NASA can be downright hostile to private space launches/travel.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[mdwh2]

Under currently mainstream economic theories, those things add to the economy. Rebuilding a house, needing medical care, repairing a car - that's consumption, which means production, which means a higher GDP!

This sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy. Clearly, the economy is poorer by one house - the fallacy is in ignoring what else the money would have been spent on.

Which also relates back to the idea of getting research out of NASA - it ignores the possibility of spending money on research directly (it's kind of like when people say wars are good for the economy because they create jobs and encourage research - although obviously I'd rather have space travel than wars).

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[plunge]

So? That still doesn't demonstrate that the other .90 wouldn't have been better spent on stuff like.... more research. You don't have to actually send a huge billion dollar rocket the moon to invent teflon. You can just do R&D directly. The idea that the space race created these things and so paid its way is pure fallacy.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Mr. Slippery]

Clearly, the economy is poorer by one house - the fallacy is in ignoring what else the money would have been spent on

It's clear to you and me. To many others, it's not - the article you cite points out that Paul Krugman suggested that the 9/11 attacks would end up providing a net benefit to the United States economy.

Which also relates back to the idea of getting research out of NASA - it ignores the possibility of spending money on research directly

Yes, the "spinoff technology" argument is lame. (That's not to say there aren't good arguments for space exploration!)

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Grishnakh]

Well, I'll admit that I'm pretty Randian normally speaking, but I'm also one of the 'we have to get off this rock eventually' crowd, and right now there's no real financial motivation to go to the Moon or Mars, or even do much beyond sending up communication and weather satellites.

This is exactly why government research is needed for many things, especially space exploration. Left to their own devices, people simply won't or can't do it themselves, because there's not much profit potential. Look at all the great research NASA, the ESA, and the Soviets have done with things like the Mars and Venus probes and landers, the Voyager and Galileo missions to explore the planets in the outer solar system, the recent probe which landed on a comet, various astronomy (including the Hubble), etc. I guarantee 99% of this would never have happened without some type of government funding. Personally, I'd love to spend my life doing important research like this, but I don't have a huge pile of cash to do it with, and no private company's going to pay me to do it. This is why we still need government funding and research in a free-market economy: because for all its benefits, the free-market economy's big flaw is that it doesn't reward people for or enable people to do things which benefit society in non-economic ways (at least in the short term).

There are definitely long-term benefits to space exploration as well. Besides the spin-off technologies (cool it with the Tang jokes), imagine a future where we might have a solar power station pumping gigawatts of power back to the earth instead of burning fossil fuels, or asteroid mining operations which bring us huge quantities of rare and valuable minerals (which then, in turn, enable us to further develop other technologies dependent on those rare materials, because they'll no longer be so rare or valuable). These are things which could certainly generate lots of profit, but not any time soon; they require technological development spanning decades or more, and enormous capital input.

You can get a suprising amount of private research for things that most don't see profit potential in though. Just look at Bigelow and how much money he's plowed into developing private space flight and his inflatable modules. He's done it all on the cheap as well, and gotten it to the point that NASA and other agencies are very interested in them.

That's interesting, but look how long it took for anyone to get to the point where they'd even seriously consider private space flight; because of government involvement, many technologies and much scientific understanding was developed back in the 50s-70s, which undoubtedly is instrumental in people like this achieving what they do. Without government research into rocketry in the first half of the 20th century, we probably wouldn't even have commercial satellites now.

NASA has proven to be a real pain for the civilian space industry. Certain FAA type regulation is fine, but from what I've heard NASA can be downright hostile to private space launches/travel.

This is really a separate issue. But while I certainly advocate government sponsorship of space exploration, I don't think they should be hampering anyone else's efforts. If someone wants to spend their own money on this pursuit, by all means they should be allowed to, without having to deal with a lot of red tape.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Disagree. I was there. There is nothing like a large dramatic goal to galvanize people into wanting to contribute, no matter how peripheral the contribution. They were very exciting days, and that's what people did.

I would much rather have technology advanced by the space program than have it advanced by war, the other great science & technology accelerator. Wouldn't you?

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[BitGeek]

Right, and for every $1 paid to NASA at least %90 of it went into things other than R&D. I think I'm being generous, but its a reasonable figure, and of that R&D, most of it went to things that had no practical value (Eg: little of today's business is focused on going to the moon.)

The problem with this is that if that money had been left in the economy, far more pure reasearch would have been done.

People look at the spending and then look at the return-- $1-$9, or $0.10 to $9, and think that's a great return on investment.

But they ignore the fact that the $1 came from somewhere, and it came from people who would have likely invested $1 or more of those retained earnings in R&D, after the earnings worked thru the economy a couple times.

People never calculate how much economic damage was done by taking that $1 out of the economy. Due to compounding, it is likely to be far more than $9. But assuming its only $9 in damage, then you have a situation where your spending was less than half as effective as not doing the spending.

These figures (eg: your $9 figure) are generally rather generous in estimating economic impact. But we do know that in a capitalist economy retained capital goes to growth, and that growth results in a lot of pure R&D.

So, if you actually account for the opportunity cost, NASA was a detriment.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[BitGeek]

Before being smug, you should try and actually comprehend what you're replying to.

All those things would have come much sooner had NASA not taken that money out of hte economy. We would have had cellphones, the internet, and a thousand other technological advancements about 10 years earlier if a signficant portion of the GDP hadn't been redirected to a race to the moon that didn't really benefit anyone.

And fuel cells were invented a long time before NASA started using them... and the integrated circuit wasn't even invented by NASA.

You make the false assumption that without NASA spending these advancements wouldn't have happened. Yet the reality is that they would have happened faster.

Ding, indeed.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[BitGeek]

Another false economy- -war verses government boondoggle. Wait, war is a government boondoggle.

Why is it you assume that anything useful has to come from government?

Most scientific advancement comes from private enterprise. And big foolish goals do nothing but keep people poor.

I'm sure you had a great time at taxpayer expense. Lucky you. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the fact that the country would have been better off-- technologically and financially-- if we hadn't wasted that money.

Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.

[plunge]

No. Again, it's just as possible to do pure research without actually wasting money on pointless goals, and a lot more cost effective. The fact that someone invented Tang doesn't make up for the fact that vast vast amounts of really important science research have been slashed in favor of a shuttle missions whose only real purpose is to bore the heck out of the public and kill astronauts.

Manned flight without gumption.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mars Rover (wikipedia) wasn't cheap either. The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90 day primary mission was about US $820 million. I would love to see a mission to the Moon. It's right "there". Why not do a few marketing missions? Put up a video plaque with optional live feed from NASA? I'd like to see some addtional moving and non-moving scientific equipment that could be rented out. Would it not be nice to have a small extra-web cam that can be monitored from the net? It could point to earth and be rotated. Mmmmmmmm.

Re:Manned flight without gumption.

[Jerom]

Yes, and a TV show. Survivor on the moon base. Vote who gets to walk the plank ^h^h^h^h^h airlock every week.

*grin*

J.

Bout Time

[truckaxle]

Life needs to find a way off this gravity well before the next "great extinction". For better or worse that burden falls on us, homo sapiens sapiens. People view earth as some permantent hospitable sustaining womb and that "we should just solve our problems here on earth first" before venturing out.

The truth is we will never solve our problems here and geological and life history tells a story with several instances of wide spread extinction of species. Life has come a long long long way and if our puny existance has any meaning at all it is spread self-aware intelligent life beyond our little neighborhood.

There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling...let us go....

Re:Bout Time

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, let me say that you are absolutely right. The problem we face, is convincing the rest the planet that they need to adopt a broader view of time. If we humans want our lives to mean anything in the long run, then we need to start taking better care of this planet, and begin the process of colonizing others. Guess what? Eventually you, humans as a specices, this planet, and even our Sun will no longer exist; but, maybe one of your descendents will. Of course they won't, if we pollute our planet until it is uninhabitable, have a nuclear war, or sit around waiting for the next big asteroid. Its your choice humanity.

Re:Bout Time

[GWBasic]

The thing about the great extinction is that, in every case, a species survives to make its own branch in the evolutionary tree. While I am a firm believer in space colonization, I have no doubt that humans are smart enough to survive a mass extinction without space travel.

Re:Bout Time

[Anonymous Coward]

>For better or worse that burden falls on us, homo sapiens sapiens.

Aww, c'mon, I'd rather leave it for the Homo Superiors.

Re:Bout Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really want the cockroaches that survive the nuclear holocaust to be our only legacy?

Re:Bout Time

[Larthallor]

In the last 500 million years of life, not one of the "great extinctions" even came close to turning the Earth into a dry, frozen world with little or no atmosphere. And yet, you seem to think that putting people on just such worlds (the Moon, Mars) are going to help? That makes zero sense.

First things first, the liklihood of a catastrophe large enough to wipe out humanity is geologically small. The most likely forms for such catastrophe would be man-made, such as nuclear or biological war and even these aren't likely to wipe out humanity by themselves. We can afford to wait a very long time for technology to make colonies cheaper and more practical.

Second, for the forseeable future, any Lunar or Martian colonies will be dependent on a healthy Earth to supply them. If Earth gets wiped out, these colonies are all dead within a generation. It will take a great while before we have the technological and financial ability to create truly self-sufficient colonies on Mars and even longer to do so on the Moon. In the meantime, you're wasting your survival money.

Third, any disaster that could threaten an unprotected humanity here on Earth could be better (and much more cheaply) survived by building self-contained shelters/cities here on Earth. If you really want to prevent a calamity from wiping out humanity, it is much easier and cheaper to build Terran colonies than Martian ones.

Here on Earth, a Terran colony would only have to be self-contained until the conditions improved enough to go outside again. Even if that is 50-100 years, it's much better than on Mars or the Moon, where it is never going to get better. A more realistic scenario would have a staged recovery on Earth, with full self-containment only necessary for a short period of time, if at all. Maybe you would only have to be entirely self-contained for 5 years, after which you could start to pull in filtered air and water from the surface while you continue to shelter in the colony. That's not possible anywhere else in the Solar System.

Let's review what Earth would offer would-be survivalists only months after an asteroid strike of the proportions that wiped out the dinosaurs:

1. Ideal gravity
2. Ideal atmosphere
3. Abundant liquid water
4. Ideal soil conditions
5. Ideal temperature
6. Ideal Solar flux
7. Zero travel costs

The rest of the Solar System is a very inhospitible place to live, let alone raise children and flourish. Even an Earth ruined by war, global warming, or impact is literally a "hospitable sustaining womb" relative to any other place in the Solar System and can not be beat. It may not help you get to see Mars in your lifetime, but the best place to escape a catastrophe on Earth is Earth.

Re:Bout Time

[Anonymous Coward]

The sooner we have an established colony off-planet the sooner a market will be created to drive the appropriate technological innovations for space exploration. We've gotten real good at drilling for oil, but we kinda suck at building space hotels.

The sooner we invest the larger the returns will be.

Re:Bout Time

[khallow]

While you have the best form of this argument I've seen, it still sucks. First things first, the liklihood of a catastrophe large enough to wipe out humanity is geologically small. The most likely forms for such catastrophe would be man-made, such as nuclear or biological war and even these aren't likely to wipe out humanity by themselves. We can afford to wait a very long time for technology to make colonies cheaper and more practical.

I don't see why we should gamble that nuclear or biological war won't wipe out the human race. Your assurances are after all worthless. And even if humanity can survive any such event doesn't mean that all cultures will.

Also, there are other types of human catastrophes. For example, a stagnant global government (particularly something along the lines of a "hydraulic empire" might be stable on geological time scales. Runaway global warming is another potential threat.

Second, for the forseeable future, any Lunar or Martian colonies will be dependent on a healthy Earth to supply them. If Earth gets wiped out, these colonies are all dead within a generation. It will take a great while before we have the technological and financial ability to create truly self-sufficient colonies on Mars and even longer to do so on the Moon. In the meantime, you're wasting your survival money.

As I see it, you seem to think now is not a good time, but some hypothetical future will be a good time. What's the criteria you're using here?

There will be a period of dependency no matter when the colony is started. We don't even know how much gravity a human needs, Mars and the Moon might not be inhabitable by us in our current forms. But we won't know until we try. Therefore, it isn't a good reason to *delay* the creation of a colony. After all, the sooner we get started, the sooner we understand just what is needed, the sooner a colony is established, and the sooner it will become self-reliant.

And once a colony is self-reliant, your whole argument is irrelevant.

Third, any disaster that could threaten an unprotected humanity here on Earth could be better (and much more cheaply) survived by building self-contained shelters/cities here on Earth. If you really want to prevent a calamity from wiping out humanity, it is much easier and cheaper to build Terran colonies than Martian ones.

As I noted before, there are disasters (like stagnant world governments stable on geological time scales) that can only be avoided by not being on Earth.

Here on Earth, a Terran colony would only have to be self-contained until the conditions improved enough to go outside again. Even if that is 50-100 years, it's much better than on Mars or the Moon, where it is never going to get better. A more realistic scenario would have a staged recovery on Earth, with full self-containment only necessary for a short period of time, if at all. Maybe you would only have to be entirely self-contained for 5 years, after which you could start to pull in filtered air and water from the surface while you continue to shelter in the colony. That's not possible anywhere else in the Solar System.

But it doesn't need to be anywhere near as good as Earth on Mars or the Moon. Let me add that an Earth-based self-contained colony has little value outside of disaster insurance while space colonies will be able to provide a considerable supply of scientific data and adaptation to extreme environments even if nothing else. Frankly, I think most industry will end up in space. There's no ecology to destroy there and plenty of mass, energy, and space for making things.

Earth will likely remain a better place for humans to live than anywhere else in the Solar System, but it need not stay that way.

The rest of the Solar System is a very inhospitible place to live, let alone raise children and flourish. Even an Earth ruined by war, global warming, or impact is literally a "hospitable s

Re:Bout Time

[handsome b]

Earth will likely remain a better place for humans to live than anywhere else in the Solar System, but it need not stay that way.

zuh? Will it or won't it? I'm half packed here!

Re:Bout Time

[AGMW]

Life needs to find a way off this gravity well before the next "great extinction".

I wonder if anyother imperitive might be that life needs to find a way off this gravity well whilst we can still afford to do so! The cost now is more than the cost back in the 60s, and yes, this is due to inflation, but "the people" still think it is too much money to just spend, whereas back in the 60s it was (obviously) deemed a worthwhile enteprise.

Let's wind the clock forward :- More starving people, civil unrest, various wars, shortages of land due to rising sea level, shortages of drinking water due to the ever increasing demands of the increasing population. At some point, might we not get to a stage where all the wealth of the Earth is tied up just trying to keep our head above water (figuratively). At this point there won't be any extra funds available to research into getting off the planet without deciding to allow "disasters" to happen. Then it's just too late!

I'd say the time is now and we should just get on with it!

Re:Bout Time

[aadvancedGIR]

On short term humanity safety, I mostly agree with you. When we could get some men for long period on mars or the moon, survival on earth whatever the conditions will be easy.

There is still the risk ov a very very big asteroid/comet that could totally destroy earth surface, but even in that case, preventively blasting or rerouting it will be both easier and more efficient than an exodus.

But human nature is not only about safety, curiosity and expansion are in our genes and I beleive some people will someday live anywhere in the solar system and then beyond.

Re:Bout Time

[KeensMustard]

I don't see why we should gamble that nuclear or biological war won't wipe out the human race. Your assurances are after all worthless.

You obviously didn't think it through. Even in the event of a nuclear war, the Earth will still be more liveable than Mars or the Moon, even supposing a day arises when a colony of humans on those bodies was independent of earth. If it were possible to establish a colony on the moon in order to survive a man made disaster, it would equally be possible and easier to establish a facility on earth to do the same thing. In which case, we ought to do the latter, since morally speaking, we need to preserve ALL life, not just a select few species or individuals in the event of a disaster

And any war on earth will be a war on the Moon/Mars as well, unless you mean the colony to only preserve one lot of ideals and one culture.

And even if humanity can survive any such event doesn't mean that all cultures will.

How will a colony preserve culture? Colonies develop their OWN culture, by definition. Why would a colony of survivors on Mars want to preserve the ideals of a society on earth that failed to protect itself from extinction?

Also, there are other types of human catastrophes. For example, a stagnant global government (particularly something along the lines of a "hydraulic empire" might be stable on geological time scales. Runaway global warming is another potential threat.

If we can't manage our own behaviour and the relatively robust environment on earth well enough to ensure our own survival, then we ought to be extinct - we deserve extinction, if such a moral expression can be inserted into the mechanics of evolution.

If we can't manage our own behaviour and the relatively robust environment on earth well enough to ensure our own survival, then we could never do so on Mars or on the Moon.

If we CAN manage our own behaviour and the relatively robust environment on earth well enough to ensure our own survival, then your argument for a colony somewhere else is debunked.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Bout Time

[khallow]

Do I look like someone who would know whether humanity will be around in 100 years? Or the Earth be livable in 1000? I'm not saying that extinction is likely, just that it's possible. More likely is the possibility that we keep reseting ourselves below the technology needed to maintain space development.

Re:Bout Time

[khallow]

You obviously didn't think it through. Even in the event of a nuclear war, the Earth will still be more liveable than Mars or the Moon, even supposing a day arises when a colony of humans on those bodies was independent of earth. If it were possible to establish a colony on the moon in order to survive a man made disaster, it would equally be possible and easier to establish a facility on earth to do the same thing. In which case, we ought to do the latter, since morally speaking, we need to preserve ALL life, not just a select few species or individuals in the event of a disaster

Well, we'll need to prioritize. And humanity is on the top of that list. Another reason I don't like Earth-based solutions is because they might become military targets. Note that both the US and Russia can single-handedly destroy most of humanity. But they can't destroy targets on the Moon, Mars, or elsewhere. That capability is even more difficult.

A refuge is a threat since it gives a future advantage to whoever has access to it. That makes it a military target in the event of a total nuclear war. The obvious way out is to make enough that all the nuclear weapons in the world can't take them all out. But that's just another form of diversification, just like space colonies.

And any war on earth will be a war on the Moon/Mars as well, unless you mean the colony to only preserve one lot of ideals and one culture.

Wars on Earth need not involve Lunar or Martian colonies at the same level of intensity as on Earth. Especially if some of the Earth-based parties to the war have no ability to strike targets outside of LEO.

How will a colony preserve culture? Colonies develop their OWN culture, by definition. Why would a colony of survivors on Mars want to preserve the ideals of a society on earth that failed to protect itself from extinction?

That's not the definition of "colony" and the colonists easily value the Earth-based culture. That's assuming that the culture in question didn't move itself into space. Historically, there are a lot of cases of cultures migrating. For example, the Indo-European cultures in prehistoric times, the Hebrews exodus from Egypt, and the Puritans, Quakers, Mennonites, and Huddites in the New World.

If we can't manage our own behaviour and the relatively robust environment on earth well enough to ensure our own survival, then we ought to be extinct - we deserve extinction, if such a moral expression can be inserted into the mechanics of evolution.

That's an unworthy nihilistic response. Somehow it's better to go extinct than to take prudent actions to reduce the likelihood of extinction?

If we can't manage our own behaviour and the relatively robust environment on earth well enough to ensure our own survival, then we could never do so on Mars or on the Moon.

And you base this on what? The Earth is experiencing serious resource competition, has dozens of wars at any given time, and a huge military infrastructure. This is a long term situation. it'd be a long time, if ever before the Moon or Mars experience similar problems.

Another thing we touch on is that civilization setbacks are far more likely. For example, the Dark Ages and a similar period around -1200 BC in the Eastern Mediterranean. The sooner we move on space colonization and infratstructure in space, the further along we will be when setbacks occur.

If we CAN manage our own behaviour and the relatively robust environment on earth well enough to ensure our own survival, then your argument for a colony somewhere else is debunked.

But that's my point. We can't ensure our survival on Earth.

Thanks for playing.

The game is just starting.

Overclocker's wet dream!

[Rifter13]

By putting chips on the outside of the spacecraft, they could launch at 5 ghz, and once they hit the cold of space, they could overclock them to 10ghz or more!!! It would be an Overclocker's wet dream! :-)

Re:Overclocker's wet dream!

[masklinn]

Sadly not, while space is "considered" quite cold the only way to cool is through heat radiation, which is pretty fucking inefficient, especially in near-vacuum. That's why satellites are usually shielded against heat: they can't dissipate it.

Re:Overclocker's wet dream!

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of that, without an atmosphere to reflect/scatter it, direct sunlight is pretty damn intense.

Top Heavy

[QuantumG]

It's just such a depressing demonstration of how little NASA is capable of acheiving these days. In a recent interview, Newt Gingrich said:

I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration.

I think that sums it up perfectly.

Re:Top Heavy

[trout007]

NASA is in a sad state and poor Mike Griffin is doing his best to knock down the establishment but I have a feeling he will lose. It is interesting that NASA has been doing some prizes but the prizes would only cover about 1/10th of what a winner would have to pay to accomplish the goals. Also it probrably cost nasa 2X to do the paperwork for the prize then the actual prize itself.

Re:Top Heavy

[Jim_Callahan]

Um, they're commited to over-engineering and risk avoidance because if the astronauts die or the spacecraft fail, then a bunch of money and lives have just been wasted. The whole point of exploration is that you don't know what conditions are going to be like, exactly, in the places you explore. Over-engineering in such cases isn't even really over-engineering. It's just "not being a complete fucking moron".

That said, NASA is still a government organization (worse, it's now become a sort of international government organization), and as a result it suffers from the $1000000 toilet-seat effect you see in any government organization.

Re:Top Heavy

[geekoid]

You consostantly strip money away from the program, embroil it in politics, then blame the agency as 'aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy'.
The ageny is fine, it just needs to be run by someone with a clue(perferable an experience ENGINEER), and it needs funding.

Nothing in NASA is ever over-engineered.

Re:Top Heavy

[GodfatherofSoul]

Well, now that we have the libertarian opinion...

Over-engineering sure didn't help Columbia or Challenger avoid getting ripped to pieces. In fact, it was corporate world, petty interests over the concerns of bureaucratic engineers that caused both shuttle disasters. I have to wonder if you're an engineer, because attention to those little details like figuring exactly what your domain problem is is what makes a good engineer. I'd hate to drive over one of your bridges.

As for NASA crappers, they're expensive because it's hard to take a dump in zero-G without making a mess all over yourself. And, when there are only 5 seats that have ever been built, the R&D costs aren't as distributed over high-volume sales as your nice gravity-control porcelain models.

Oh yeah, and even basket weaver engineering takes more skill than "just not being a complete fucking moron." Watch one of those engineering disasters shows on the Discover channel and you'll see.

H to O?

[siwelwerd]

FTA: Then theres the question of the "H factor" that is, whether or not hydrogen in the form of lunar ice is tucked away within Sun shy areas at the Moons poles. If present and accounted for in such a state, thats a nifty resource to convert to oxygen and fuel.

Turning hydrogen into oxygen would be a nifty trick...

Re:H to O?

[raygundan]

If you weren't just being silly, I would point out that he's talking about getting hydrogen and oxygen from lunar ice, which is in fact made from hydrogen and oxygen, just like all water is. Not getting oxygen from hydrogen.

Re:H to O?

[barefootgenius]

Fusion?

Re:H to O?

[dodobh]

Turning Hydrogen into Oxygen is fairly easy. Just walk out at the dawn, and see the biggest thermonuclear device we have around here in the process of doing that.

See this illustration for an example.

In modern terms, the universe has bigger WMD than the shrub.

Read my lips: History always repeats itself

[Radical Rad]

July 21, 1989: President Bush proposed today that the United States establish a base on the Moon, send an expedition to Mars and begin ''the permanent settlement of space.''

March 14, 1992: Vice President Dan Quayle, who heads the space council, made public a space policy directive approved by President Bush that assigns "major roles" to the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy...

What? President George H. W. Bush got support for a big NASA budget to put men on Mars and then diverted the money to defense and energy contractors? Must've been a fluke. That could never happen again in a million years!

January 15, 2004: President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding

Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.

Them thar terrists cain't beat us, George!

[ystar]

We have to beat the terrorists to the moon!

Re:Them thar terrists cain't beat us, George!

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll beat 'em, we'll build one of them new fangled nucular rockets to get there

Good thing we took out Iraq's WMD's!

[Anonymous Coward]

Weapons of Moon Destruction

understatement of the year

[buddyglass]

"This won't be easy."

Or cheap, or arguably even price competitive when compared to other scientific investments. Which begs the question, why are we going to the moon again?

Re:understatement of the year

[BuddyJesus]

It's because, as many have already said, going to the Moon serves as a sort of beta test for future manned missions to other planets (since it's so close, it's relatively safer) and as a way to possibly discover a new way to send people into space more safely. After all, the Shuttle program needs to get a replacement somehow.

Re:understatement of the year

[buddyglass]

And why do I care about sending people to other planets?

My poing being, if I want the most scientific bang for my buck, sending someone to the moon is not the way to go. Sure, we might learn some more things about space travel. So what. That's of limited utility. I'd rather solve the problems on this planet first, or at least make a dent.

Re:The real reason is military related

[bussdriver]

Don't forget about the military advantage! Control over of the earth-moon gravity well. It takes a lot to "go around" that side. Not to mention a base on the moon is a better platform.

Going back to the moon is considered by many a 1st step to mars, but more importantly, it keeps NASA stuck funding stupid crap instead of other more worthwhile projects; such as earth studies.

I think...

[mseidl]

A lot of this is to just do something "innovative" as they've gotten a lot of bad press lately. With all the billions they spend, it seems they sit on their ass a lot.

I vote budget.

[raygundan]

You can do whatever the hell you want if you do it the way NASA did it in the 1960s-- enough money solves everything. I don't believe NASA can realistically afford to replicate the 1960s effort. Whatever they do will probably have to achieve a massive improvement in cost efficiency while simultaneously guaranteeing no fatalities or the program will be shelved for years.

Questions need to be asked

[BoxSocial]

Does the moon even EXIST anymore?

Lookout moon 'Merica's gonna get ya

[andybarrett]

Why don't we just blow up the moon and forge on to Mars.

"We have the technology. The time is now! Science can wait no longer! Children are our future! America can, should, and must blow up the moon. And we'll due it in a full moon so, we make sure we get it all.

"Let's do this!", -Guy Whitey Corngood

Won't be easy?

[Alchemar]

It's not like it's rocket science!

Re:Won't be easy?

[geekoid]

Rocket science is just trig.

Sponging?!?

[gardyloo]

"sponging off Apollo"

Damn you, Slashdot! Now I'm picturing some strange Greek Hentai stuff. *goes to stab out eyes*

Re:Sponging?!?

[Viadd]

"sponging off Apollo"

Damn you, Slashdot! Now I'm picturing some strange Greek Hentai stuff. *goes to stab out eyes*

Yes, that's what you traditionally do if you're in Greek Hentai. Or hang yourself.

Re:Sponging?!?

[gardyloo]

Yay! A classicist!

Re:Sponging?!?

[Hillgiant]

Its so hard to get the knitting needles into your mind's eye.

Remember When . . .

[Newt-dog]

You have to remember that back in the 1960's....

You could buy a new car for $2,500.
Most people didn't wear seat belts, and most cars didn't have them.
Most cars didn't come with air conditioning, if at all.
Gas cost around .27 a gallon.
Most people watched the moon walk on a black & white TV.
Calculators were big and expensive ($500.) and did the basic stuff.
The total electric house was the "house of the future".

I don't think that it would be possible to use the old 1960's technology to get to the moon nowdays. It would be like me dropping $45,000 to restore a 1960's car, that originally retailed for $2,500. It can be done, but why? You wouldn't trust it to take a cross-country road trip, would you?

Re:Remember When . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You could buy a new car for $2,500.

And it would have been a Corvair, Nova, Valiant, or Falcon; all bottom of the line economy cars. Adjust that $2500 for inflation and in today's money, you could buy a Cobalt, Focus, or Caliber; all bottom of the line economy cars. So what's changed?

Most people didn't wear seat belts, and most cars didn't have them.

Seatbelts weren't government mandated standard safety equipment until 1966.

Calculators were big and expensive ($500.) and did the basic stuff.

We used to use a pencil, paper and a slide ruler.

The total electric house was the "house of the future".

My house is one of those all electric wonders. It was built in 1968 and yet was very easily retrofitted with solar panels. House of the future indeed.

I don't think that it would be possible to use the old 1960's technology to get to the moon nowdays. It would be like me dropping $45,000 to restore a 1960's car, that originally retailed for $2,500. It can be done, but why? You wouldn't trust it to take a cross-country road trip, would you?

I'll ask again, what has so severely changed from then to now? We know how to build a Saturn V just like we know how to build a '69 Camaro http://yearone.com/Articles/tech3.asp?AID=71&WH=52 5>. Only now, we can fit it with better safety and guidance systems than were available back then. (Or to stay with the car analogy, 4 wheel disc brakes, fuel injection, and electronic ignition.)

Oh, and yes, I do trust my unrestored '67 Chrysler on long road trips. In fact, in the summer time, the family and I prefer it over our minivan.

Re:Remember When . . .

[craXORjack]

Calculators were big and expensive ($500.) and did the basic stuff.

I remember all that other stuff but I don't remember seeing calculators until the mid seventies. They may have been around earlier than that but not in the sixties I don't think. That $500 price sounds about right though.

But all those ancient structures...

[RNEMESiS42]

Maybe NASA doesn't want China to expose all of the ancient ruins on the moon.

(just do ctrl+f and type "moon" to find the good parts right away)

I'll Believe it When It's Done

[runningoutofnickname]

I'm all for space exploration, but I will believe it when it actually happens. Talk, plan, discuss, blah-blah-blah . . . Enought talk already. Just do it.

Obligatory Jackie Gleason Cue in

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these days Alice "Pow" Right to the moon"

Re:The real reason Bush wants to go back to the mo

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I'm not! Water is the new oil!: http://www.neofuel.com/

(Actually there does seem to be carbon in the asteroid belt as well.)

And when we get bored with the moon...

[Anonymous Coward]

...we can build a crappy space plane to carry astronauts into low earth orbit, and when people get bored with orbiting the earth for the 90 millionth time, we can build a useless space station for the plane to dock to, and then when the idiots realize we know everything there is to know about the effects of weightlessnes on tiny screws, we can go back to the moon! (just to make sure no defense contractor is left behind).

Re:PPC

[vertinox]

Or some other strange chip.

Maybe they use Alpha on the ships.

Last I heard they'd only use 486s. But this was in 2000.

Re:The real reason Bush wants to go back to the mo

[Ruie]

You guys are COMPLETELY forgetting about space oil!

You mean space gas - there is lots and lots of methane here - on Jupiter moons, comets, etc. You could try to convert it to oil by flying a container close to a Sun so it heat up, though a catalyst will also help.

The one thing they never expected

[techno-vampire]

I've read quite a few stories and books from the '30s, '40s and '50s about first trips to the Moon. Some of them are well thought out and tried to get everything right. All of them had their own take on it and tried to predict something nobody had ever mentioned before. The one thing they never predicted is that after a handful of trips we'd turn our back on the Moon for over forty years, but that's what actually happened.

Jerry Pournelle likes to say that he always hoped he'd live to see the first trip to the Moon, but he never expected to see the last one. It's about time we started exploring the Universe again!

Political or Scientific Objectives?

[obnoxiousbastard]

While I generally support space exploration wholeheartedly because it pushes technology and scientific understanding, I'm not convinced that a trip back to the moon is the best way to proceed. Sure, it sounds exciting, but manned missions are very expensive and is it the best use of the money?

Many science & tech people question manned exploration and the expense involved when compared to robotic exploration. ESA has taken that path and seems to be doing very well with it despite having a budget a mere fraction of NASAs.

True- at this point a man can do in space things that you couldn't expect a robot to do. If we develop smarter and more capable robots, what will they be capable of in 10 or 20 years? If we put some effort and R&D into developing smarter and more capable control software(AI?), self-repairing machines, better sensors- we have many, many earth based applications for that technology.

From a planning standpoint, we've got to look at several things. How do we get the biggest technology return for the money AND the biggest science return for the money? At this point, it looks like robotic exploration of space is the best way to go for the next couple of decades.

Re:The real reason Bush wants to go back to the mo

[Duhavid]

I dont know....

Microwave cheese and you get oily stuff.....

Doubt it

[p51d007]

As someone who's in his late 40's, I grew up with the space program. Sadly, I cannot say that I am a fan of NASA....as with ANY government agency, it is bloated, without foresight, overstaffed with "upper management" who has NO idea what is going on. The old "can't see the forest because of the trees" comes to mind. When there is a safety issue that comes up, NASA has "go fever" and launches anyway. When safety bumps into political correctness (think foam on the ET) PC wins out. I think the future of space flight is going to be with PRIVATE industry. Government only knows how to spend money...and not very well at that!

Re:Why Then Not Now? - RTFA

[groovy.ambuj]

very motivating list.. i really wish that was true. here is what the article reports

"We proactively made decisions that caused those capabilities to go away," noted NASA chief, Michael Griffin "We have a decade's worth of workto be able to get back to where we were"

Note "to go back to where we were" :-)

Seems unnecessary ... or is it?

[dRon3]

I really want to be enthusiastic about this so, please, someone help me see the justification here. If this is a step toward Mars and/or permanent presence then why wouldn't a platform at one of the lagrange points, or other stable but high orbit be a more worthwhile effort than (literally) sinking resources into another gravity well albeit 1/6th of Earth's? It may not be a space race but still seems like grandstanding to me.

Re:Seems unnecessary ... or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Advantage I see of putting a station on the moon, Assuming the technology is available, we could process on the moon. The moon contains most of the elements required for development of 'space devices'. There will be no moon environmental concerns (not imediately anyway). And you get the added advantage of 1/6gfor launching. You could imagine a time when all products were processed on the moon to 'save' the earth. Think, a giant nuclear waste dump.
Though I personally would not condone this activity, it would be better than earth being the giant nuclear waste dump.

The other thing they didn't expect

[jfengel]

I read those stories too, years ago, and another common feature of them was that they all expected it wouldn't cost as much as it did. Heinlein, for example, expected one incredibly rich guy to bankrupt himself to do it. Others seemed to think that it would be knocked up in the back yard by some really smart mechanically-inclined boy not at all unlike the average reader of Astounding magazine.

According to another post in this thread, the total cost in 2006 dollars was $125 billion. That's about four times Bill Gates' net worth if he sold every single thing he had (though only about 50% more than his peak net worth). And it's 40 times the net worth of a random member of the Forbes 500.

Presumably, there turned out to be great numbers of unexpected problems, each of which required new equipment to be added. More equipment meant more weight which meant bigger rockets which add new layers of technological problems to handle, which means more manpower and time and therefore more money.

I like to think that we could do it cheaper today, what with readily-available computers both on board and in design, and 40 years advances in metallurgy and engineering technique. Assuming we wanted to do the same thing we did before, that is: put two guys on the moon and bring 'em right back. If you want to preserve the human race or mine the moon for treasure or whatever your reason is for wanting to go back, you'll have to spend more.

The real question

[azakem]

Will the moon people be nice, or scary?

Easy, Cheap, and Safe, but you only get to choose

[tsmithnj]

2 of the 3....

Re:PPC

[mrhartwig]

Last I heard they'd only use 486s. But this was in 2000.

No, not 486s. The CPUs in the 5 shuttle computers are AP-101S, which are upgrades from the AP-101B. iirc, the upgrades were circa 1991.

This CPU has its lineage in IBM 360 mainframes. See http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computer s/Ch4-3.html or http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shut ref/orbiter/avionics/dps/gpc.html or even

finance and exploration

[Anonymous Coward]

Private concerns initiated and developed the automotive transportation industries, distributed energy (electrical and otherwise), and telecommunications, any *one* of which is historically larger than the combined space programs of all nations to date. Granted, various governments got involved-after the fact, once they recognized the huge cash cows they could milk and regulate. You want more?? Pharmaceuticals. Ship building. Rail. Mass vertically integrated retailing. Mining. Agriculture. A to Z in other words, "space" falls under S and was hijacked immediately by governments and given a near monopoly-by law, we are just now getting "approval" for "private spaceports", because of their acknowledgement of the military potential, and NASA was ALWAYS a stealth military government branch. Want some proof? The air force had veto powers over the size and configuration of the shuttle, it had to be large enough to carry blackops satellites or it was not going to be built,endstop. Unfortunately, that left them scrambling to do anything affordable and practical with it, a PR and engineering nightmare.. If it was purely for civilian and research and exploration purposes, it would have never been built in that config and we'd already *be* to Mars following logical design evolution from Apollo, i.e. small capsules on top of big rockets, which is about as close to a successful industry standard as they have been able to come up with.

Today-no idea if that sort of money could be garnered from private industry, but a few concerns are giving it a whack irregardless of outcome, so there's some billions and some interest in it. I think the larger breakthroughs will come from "gearing", lifting various parts of a moon or mars project into orbit, assembling them there, then going forward from that point. I think it would be too expensive with one rocket lifting one shielded capsule, but in pieces-modularized-I think it's possible using tech we have right now, and because of that concept, every step could be financed and learned from, and the profits might come from there. A few commercial launches, make some money, put some into the long term project, lather, rinse, repeat.. Long term it's a gamble if there's any money in it, but who knows, people buy 30 year bonds, maybe some folks might be interested in 30 year + high stakes risks that might go with the particulars of a unique IPO offering. a lot of folks might not dropping ten bucks a paycheck in their 401k towards that, just "because" it's so dang cool.

Re:finance and exploration

[Grishnakh]

This is retarded.

Private interests were able to fund and develop cars, electrical power, and telecommunications because the advances there had immediate and obvious commercial benefits. People were all too happy to buy Model Ts and stop riding horses, and they were happy to have electric lights. Telecom's a little different: a lot of the development of infrastructure for telecoms has been government subsidized because of the enormous capital expense.

Where's the commercial benefit to space exploration? Especially in the 1950s-1970s when it was at its peak? If you really think private interests could have had a man on the moon in 1969 you're a complete fool. Even today, private interests (which are only funded by 1) wealthy individuals like John Carmack, and 2) the incentive of big prizes from government money) haven't managed to get a man out of the atmosphere.

In today's economic environment, if there's no profit to be gained by something within 5 years, it's simply not going to be done.

I'm sorry if the reality of the necessity of government-funded research goes against your Randian ideals, but that's reality.

Re:finance and exploration

[Kouroth]

Not necessarily so. http://www.liftport.com/

Re:finance and exploration

[Grishnakh]

While that's definitely a worthy endeavor, I still wonder where they're going to get the funding for the whole thing. Perhaps there's enough investors out there who see the potential profit from greatly reduced lifting capacity.

However, as I said in another post just now in this same thread, without all the government research and activity since the 50s, there's no way we'd be at the same point in technology and scientific understanding that we are now, that companies like Liftport could even hope to pursue a private effort like this.

Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Ex-MislTech]

Helium-3 is a good reason to return to the moon .

It is theorized that there are over 1 million cubic tons,
with oil over $50 a barrel, and helium-3 then being worth
about 8 billion USD a ton, the total worth equalling 8,000 trillion USD .

It could smash the US deficit with 7,991 trillion USD to spare .

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Also keep in mind most of the "other" moons have this as well .

Here are some photos of the reactor at the University of Wisconsin :

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPics.htm

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPicsII.htm

25 tons could power the US electrical needs for a year :

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0006 30.html

I don't need to tell anyone that the US is the largest user of electricity on
the planet at present, and slated for massive growth .

The current immmigration bill sets aside for 100 - 200 million new citizens .

Kulcinski adds that, if it sold for $4 billion a metric ton, helium-3 would still be a
good energy value: "That's the equivalent of paying $28 a barrel for oil."

It will be a cold day in hell before we see oil at $28 a barrel again .....

So adjust the math accordingly ...

It becomes more viable with every passing day .

If we can make solar mining robots for the moon to process the soil, and
then use a mass driver to fling a projectile canister into lunar orbit for pick up.
Then a lunar orbit robotic satellite mass driver to fire it into earth geo-sync orbit .

Then have either a new space station, shuttle, or satellite prep it for re-entry
into the ocean for pick up much like the apollo capsules .

The robotic equipment could be tested here on earth prior to deployment on the moon .

It might be possible to make robots that could build it all via remote control, but
most likely we would initially need ppl to go to the moon to build the mass driver
and support facilities .

Building some or all of the support facilities underground would protect it to some
degree versus leaving it exposed on the surface .

At some future point 3HE+3HE fusion will be achieved and it will have zero nuetron emissions
and thus be truly clean as per the following link .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Criter ia_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions

Hope for the future ...

Ex-MislTech

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

You are going to trust a bunch of scientists that run Windows? I can't believe anyone actually stays in the room when that reactor is plugged in. Or the laptop.

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh jeez, my mistake. It's a desktop. Now that I think about it... I'm a Windows user, too. :(

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[rbanffy]

Do you have any idea of how much regolith you would have to process in order to get a ton of He3?

And by "process" I mean "extract it, transport it to H3 extraction facilities, grind it, bake it and get rid of the waste". Those facilities will need to be huge (because they have to process a huge amount of rock), built there with local materials (which, in turn, will have to be made there in factories built here), supplied with power, and, unless we advance robotics substantially, manned.

All that assuming we can do He3 fusion on industrial scale at all.

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[albanac]

It should be considered that there are fringe benefits here: systematically strip-mining the moon will have a significantly lower risk of causing indigenous inhabitants to murder thousands of Americans than doing the same to any of the other places available at the moment.

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

Helium-3 is a good reason to return to the moon .
It is theorized that there are over 1 million cubic tons

Is a cubic ton heavier or lighter than a non-cubic ton?

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[uniqueUser]

Helium-3 is a good reason to return to the moon .

It is theorized that there are over 1 million cubic tons, with oil over $50 a barrel, and helium-3 then being worth about 8 billion USD a ton, the total worth equalling 8,000 trillion USD

Helium-3 may not be the answer to our prayers just yet. It takes more energy to use it than it gives back.

From Wikipedia:
The temperature required for helium-3 fusion is ten times higher than conventional D-T fusion, which itself has yet to be achieved at the break-even point (to clarify, fusion experiments have produced Q values >1, ie where energy output exceeded energy input; however break-even here probably refers to ignition of the plasma, otherwise known as a 'burning plasma') . Accordingly, helium-3 seems less likely than other reactants for use in fusion power generation, though it cannot be ruled out completely.

Check out the article

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Fred_A]

Do you have any idea of how much regolith you would have to process in order to get a ton of He3? [ ... ] Those facilities will need to be huge (because they have to process a huge amount of rock), built there with local materials (which, in turn, will have to be made there in factories built here), supplied with power, and, unless we advance robotics substantially, manned.

Since the further you outsource the cheaper labour gets, wages on the moon ought to be fairly low. Besides those Selenites are probably foreign heathens anyway.

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[MBGMorden]

Perhaps you should consider supply and demand. If we get anything on the moon to process He3, then the supply is going to jump astronomically. In correlation, price will plummet. It'll be worth a lot less once we get there than it's worth sitting up there inaccessible.

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

but without the helium, the moon willcease floating over the earth and come crashing down on us!!!!

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[nasor]

You hear this sort of talk a lot among space enthusiasts, but unfortunately it is very unlikely that anyone will ever want to build a reactor that runs off of helium-3. Yes, you can make a reactor that burns helium-3, but it is much less technically challenging to build a reactor that runs off hydrogen and deuterium. Since there is an essentially unlimited supply of deuterium in the earth's oceans, it seems unlikely that anyone would want to build a reactor that's both more difficult to construct and requires fuel from the moon.

It should also be pointed out that you can make helium-3 in a conventional fusion reactor. Since building a helium-3 reactor is far more difficult than a deuterium or tritium fueled reactor, by the time you actually need helium-3 you will by necessity already have the technology to make it yourself.

it is theorized that there are over 1 million cubic tons, with oil over $50 a barrel, and helium-3 then being worth about 8 billion USD a ton, the total worth equalling 8,000 trillion USD.

People like to throw these sorts of numbers around when talking about the value of helium-3, but they always ignore one inconvenient fact: there's already helium-3 available on earth, and it's not selling for billions of dollars. You can order a cylinder off the internet to use in your physics research - but don't expect to cure the national debt with it.

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I have what you're smoking? The Farnsworth Hirsch fusor has been around for 40+ years, and can not, EVER, generate more power than it consumes. It produces fusion reactions, yes, but that's it.

Please note we are nowhere NEAR actually turning the energy of these reactions into usable electricity!

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[hawkfish]

Snort!

(/me goes looking for a towel to clean up my desk with...)

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Ex-MislTech]

Yes, your right, helium-3 is not viable as a power source right "now" .

It most likely will be in 50 years or less according to the Phd's on the project .

Building the infrastructure to make a moon mining operation happen will
take that long or longer just due to "Bureaucracy" .

It would take several years just to get it all thru the house and senate .

This is not a "right now" project, it is a project for our children .

The world's population is going to go up, and more countries are going
to industrialize and become somewhat like the EU and US .

That is going to require a LOT of energy, and fossil fuel production is not
growing at the same rate .

So we need to consider options, and this is one of many .

Others are:

Algae grown bio-diesel, Solar chimneys, large wind farms, undersea current turbines,
geo thermal, Next Generation photvoltaics, thermal depolyerazation of waste,
and several other approaches to fusion .

The bay of fundy alone with the largest tidal shifts in the world could power all
of eastern north america if it could be done in a sustainable manner without using
a dam type mechanism .

Ex-MislTech

Re:Some monetary reasons to return to the moon

[Bing Tsher E]

There is also approx. 1 ton of gold in each cubic mile of sea water.

Similiar issues of 'extraction' to get the value from said gold exist.

And you don't even have to go to the moon to extract the gold.

Maybe you need to get an evaporating pan and go light a campfire on a beach somewhere.

VAN ALLEN BELT, you fools!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the Van Allen Belt, then you tell me how we can get off this planet. I hope someone can post facts about this for the /. community, as I don't have the time to right now...

Bolide Impacts

[Ex-MislTech]

Over the past many years, over 170+ "known" bolide impacts have occured .

Some others unknown have been hidden due to plate tectonics .

http://www.thinklemon.com/pages/ge/

On average 30 to 40 Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) - asteroids or comets moving close to Earth -
are found "each" month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_irelan d/3960955.stm

So maybe we have just been very lucky, part of it is jupiter picking up a lot of them,
as well as the sun .

Keep in mind Tunguska happened less than a 100 years ago :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

There are more on the way, and they easily could be bigger .

The NEAR project wasn't started out of fear mongering, Shoemaker-levy-9 was a wake up call .

I agree of all the places in this solar system, Earth is probably our best bet
with a hardened survival shelter deep underground .

All this is not even considering extinction by a large GRB source .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_burst#Mass_ extinction_on_Earth

Ex-MislTech

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nuke the Moon!!

[cheap_tibet]

Blowing up the moon is actually a great idea - click on and see.

Nuke the moon!!

it won't happen

[Truekaiser]

because bush has been cuting nasa's budget year after year.

The real reason we don't use Apollo Hardware

[EachLennyAPenny]

We don't use Apollo hardware because Apollo Computers is currently sued by Apollo Records. We need to wait how this comes out.

MOON LANDING HOAX

[CranberryKing]

Why the funding? Alternative 3 right on schedule..

Believe it.

More long term problems

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

I agree. There are more problems with human civilizations living for geological timescales though.
I recon evolution "has a lot of pressure on it" at this time since we are living in such different circumstances, then we did earlier.
Over longer timescales humans are going to change psychologically and physically. There is a danger we go dependend on medical/food technologies, increasing our vunerability.
This leaves us to choose between (1) not using some medical technologies, (2) becoming part of the technology, or (3) simply screwing up the genepool and being sad little critters dependend on medical stuff. (3 sucks, with 2 i really mean becoming part of the technology, don't think technology is near up to it though, but it probably will considering the timescales i am thinking about)

Take invitro fertilisation is an obvious case of technology screwing up the gene pool, you definitely dont want to proliferate inability to procreate without technology. At least if you choose (1). Also there are a lot of "curable" genetic diseases which could make people reliant on medical tech.
A solution could be just to artificially take out the gene that causes the disease, ofcourse humans may not be able to oversee the consequences of this. Also, this solution is a step towards choice (2). Another solution is to not allow people that have used certain medical technologies/for certain reasons, to procreate. Ofcourse this gives you the problem when to do this. What diseases are genetic? Some may have genetic aspects, but seem like chance. (like being reckless and being hurt in a car-crash) You could be drastic and say any serious medical treatment should cause a "no procreate-ticket".

Ofcourse banning people from procreating is harsh. (leading to people ignoring it) Very importantly it also may be subject to discrimination. History has examples of this, (prolly)worst of all the concentration camps of the nazi's.(for which the "reason" was the claimed superiority of the Arian race, also genetic) (though i am only talking about banning procreation, and they killed people)

For these reasons i am personally all for choosing (2) whole heartedly.
Ofcourse choice 2 also has a whole range of problems I wouldn't want to use any DRM-like or big brother-like technology that cant get rid of/am dependend of. Also you don't want to be dependend on technology that is fragile in some sense. I mean with this the technology shouldn't be easily lost by destruction of a single or a few industrial complexes or, death of people who understand the tech. And the technology must not be posibly unavailable because some bastard has taken control of it via politics.

Btw this subject is a bit beyond a single slashdot comment written in an hour, i consider this comment "think out loud", with some readability added. Also I am thinking about such long timescales (1000 yr order size, probably) relative to how long we have more serious technology (lets say 100yr tops, -?yr at worst :D ) this discussion may not even be relevant yet.
I seem to have assumed that in the long term future we have the ability to give nearly everyone who needs it medical attention. (which is rather optimistic)

Here we go again!

[Simonetta]

Every time one of these back-to-space stories comes up on Slashdot, I'm forced, forced by civic duty to point out that (one) there is nothing on the moon to justify the billions of dollars to be spent going there, (two) space programs are just welfare cadillacs for unemployed aerospace engineers, and (three) spending limited government resources on space jaunts instead of serious R&D on other more urgent problems is a criminal misallocation of government funds and lack of vision on the part of the elected leaders.

    There; I've said it...again.

    Why? Because it needs to be said. Every time that this topic comes up.

    No you can troll me and send absurd replies about how much positive results come from the research into space development, how this and that common household thing was originally developed to be used by astronauts. Hell, why not give me a shot of 'Man's Destiny To Explore' while you're at it? I've heard it all before from the Slashdot's Moonbeams. It's all bullshit, and you know it. It all just gets used to make Islam stonger among the billions of young people around the world who know intutively from their daily lives that wasting money on space is nothing more than a corrupt Western-American imperialist fantasy. Seriously, all this stuff gets used against us without our being aware of it.

    Leave space exploration to Hollywood where it belongs.

    Thank you,

Re:Here we go again!

[plunge]

I don't understand the digression into Islam, but you're right about everything else.

The fact that we cutting out REAL space science exploration just so that the "we have to have a shuttle in order to get the space station!" "we have to have a space station in order for the shuttle to have somewhere to go" clusterfuck can continue is TRAGIC. Lander missions are FAR more valuable for FAR less money.

People whine about how sending humans to Mars would be much more productive than robots. What they forget is that robot missions have a much much much more restricted payload size than human missions. If we could send a robot mission with a payload of the size necessary to transport humans, their food, their air, their waste, their pure empty space for exercise, their beds, and so on, then that robot mission could STILL be way more productive and STILL cost less.

the police

[the dark hero]

giant steps AARRRRRE what you make

walking on the moon

Re:The real reason Bush wants to go back to the mo

[Zaatxe]

And also to bring freedom and democracy to the Moon, before the terrorists get there. Unfortunatelly, no mexicans will be allowed there. Sorry!

no safety and much less weight

[rubycodez]

We should just start with purely robotic / remote controlled missions, then don't need to waste money on safety and all the extra weight a human needs. We'd get three times or more bang for the buck this way.

nononono...

[airdrummer]

the only way we'll go back 2 the moon is if the democrats realize that the _only_ name at the top of _every_ LDM plaque is none other than RMNixon...can't have that eternal monument;-)

oops, he saw his shadow, six more years of war...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the guest quarters at Cheney's "undisclosed location"...

Nuclear Rockets!

[serutan]

Good time to slip in a plug for Gaseous Core Nuclear Reactor rockets, especially the clean-burning "nuclear lightbulb" type. Basically it is a quartz bulb containing a cloud of uranium hexafluoride gas, confined in the center by a swirling cloud of a lighter buffer gas, which insulates it from the quartz and controls criticality. The uranium gas heats up to 25000C and emits intense ultraviolet through the quartz. Liquid hydrogen pumped over the outer surface of the bulb absorbs the UV, vaporizes and shoots out of the rocket nozzle. The nuclides are sealed in the bulb and the hydrogen exhaust is not radioactive. An engine of this type would have many times the lifting capability of any chemical engine possible.

Here is an article that discusses a hypothetical design for a fully reusable GCNR rocket based on the Saturn V form factor, that could lift 1000 tons of payload into Earth orbit (compared to the shuttle's 32-ton capacity) and return an equal amount of cargo to a powered landing. Nuclear rockets like this could make significant manned missions to Mars possible, drastically reducing the travel time and carrying huge amounts of supplies, equipment and radiation shielding.

Re:PPC

[dyslexicbunny]

One of the biggest problems with computer hardware in space is that it hasn't been tested for durability with exposure to radiation. This is why NASA still uses old, proven hardware.

One option is to bring some machines to ISS and let them run and see how space affects them but I don't know where that is on their priority list.

Million dollar crapper

[SonicSpike]

Hey - a friend of mine (no kidding) designed and constructed the crapper and the emergency escape lock on the ISS. I guess you could call him the overlord of orbital evacuations!