Slashdot Mirror
The New Moon Race
An anonymous reader writes "News.com has a pictoral and editorial look at the quickly-heating second race to the moon. A Japanese orbital probe is expected to reach orbit of the satellite sometime today, just one of the dozens of projects now aiming to exploit Earth's orbital partner for scientific and business gains. 'The next lunar visitor may come from China. The Chang'e-1 spacecraft is scheduled to lift off near the end of October. It is slated to study the moon's topography in 3D and also investigate its elements. Chang'e-3 is a soft lunar lander that is scheduled to fly in 2010 ... If all goes as planned, the United States and India will have astronauts on the moon by 2020, China by 2022, and Japan and Russia by 2025.'"
The fact that we're racing to the moon again is a depressing statement about what we've been doing recently, though I guess any progress is better than none.
Does it really take 13 freaking years to dig up the notes from Apollo program, dust off/refresh the equipment and relaunch? Did we take such a big step back?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
This is a dupe, the orginal article is from 1960.
...first post on the moon. ;-)
Did you even read the article?
China is expected to launch its first lunar exploration satellite later this month; India has plans for a moon launch in April 2008; the next U.S. moon mission is slated for 2008; and Russia could be flying private citizens around the moon and back as early as 2009. All of those countries are making plans to land a spacecraft on the moon by 2012--with astronauts and cosmonauts to follow soon after. Reports say Germany is also interested in joining the space community. Meanwhile, Google is offering $30 million to encourage private teams to land a rover on the moon by December 2012.
New energy sources...plain old space exploration progress...a moon base...the possibilities are endless and all you can come up with is "depressing"? Maybe you should consider therapy.
Not to be too cynical, but I've not had too good of luck with the "Made in China" tools and equipment I've used over the years.
Not that I'm saying they couldn't do it, jus tthat they might want to outsource the parts from their regular factories.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
I just want to taste the cheese, and each country will prepare it in their own way. But in all seriousness, these are just stepping stones into further advancement into space exploration. It should also be noted that although the technology today is vastly greater than that of America's alleged first landing (for the conspiracy theorists out there) the same complications still arise and it takes years of planning and development to safely and accurately perform this operation. Plus we all know about the past failures, and loss of life, and that becomes a major slowing factor.
It's more depressing than that.
1957: Soviets launch Sputnik.
1969: Americans land humans on the moon.
2007: Slashdotter reports "If all goes as planned, the United States and India will have astronauts on the moon by 2020, China by 2022, and Japan and Russia by 2025." 2020: Americans return to the moon.
The first time around, it took us 12 years to do it from scratch, with tooling recovered from WW2 V-2 rocket bases, and computers less sophisticated than present-day wristwatches. We're now talking about maybe being able to do it in 13 years.
It's not just a lack of progress. We're going backwards.
And in a couple of hundred years, when China, India and whoever else cares to try is out there galavanting around the solar system, and the US is sitting down there, a second-class power, no doubt someone will look back on your words and go "There's one of those pricks that screwed us."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There's also an article on CNN, I actually think this just makes thing more interesting as it will encourage NASA to catch up or be ridiculed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/10/04/space.race.ap/index.html
Why does the summary assume that the US will be the first to put men on the moon again? The US is bogged down with budget cuts, political infighting, and wars in the Middle East! I believe that least one of the other nations will get their shit together(and put men on the moon) before the US does.
By the way, my catcha is "superior"
heh.
I mean, why? In the past there was the propaganda race for space and the moon. Now, it's pretty much useless to go to the moon.
Moonbase? Big deal, it will be a huge waste of resources. I mean, what can you do on the moon? There's basically a lot of rocks there. Lower gravity? Who cares, we have the ISS for that and even that is a big barrel of pork. The cost to ship everything to maintain a moonbase is huge and the benifits are mostly of the teflon kind. I propose we stay on earth untill we find a way to do something usefull in space. Things like good telescopes and satelites.
This will be the Ted Stevens of pork, the second race to the moon.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I really hope that the discussion can go on without being taken over by posters that only want to post their hatred of others and stay on the topic of what this could mean to our country if taken seriously and not attacked for political purposes.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
>you would think we would start asking, "why are we doing this",
Pork barrels or to distract from other unsavory realities, I can't quite make up my mind.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Who says the first race ever ended? Just because they are a lot slower to the finish line doesn't mean you can just make up another race. USA still wins!
I was just thinking about Sputnik and thinking how in the 30+ years since the Apollo missions international cooperation couldn't get us back to the moon, but maybe international competition will.
No, people in China and India will be asking, "why did we blow $100bil on this moon base that has no benefit to us, when we could have spent the money on developing technology that benefits us here, or helps us get to Mars, or whatever." Going back to the moon does nothing to help us get to Mars and beyond. We need to be working on non-chemical propulsion technologies if we are serious about doing anything in space. We've already seen the limits of chemical propulsion and chemical energy storage: it can get unmanned missions to various parts of the solar system. It can get small and temporary manned mission to the moon. And that's all.
At the rate things are going you can leave the hundred out - the US is trying as hard as possible to become a second class power as quickly as possible. You guys are going to need somebody who is a real miracle worker after Bush.
Why does the summary assume that the US will be the first to put men on the moon again?
What do you mean "again"?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
has massive implications for technological innovations for the rest of the century.
When you consider how much modern tech was a byproduct of the space race, only good can come of another one, regardless of who "wins".
Imagine if there were an open-source entry for such a project. The implications of an open-source license covering the emerging tech that shapes the next century are astounding. Could it ever happen? Not in the opinion of a hardened capitalistic cynic, but, if it did, it would cause a fundamental shift in our technology paradigm.
All they are asking for right now is a robot to a) get to the moon and b) send data back. This is for every geek who has ever reviewed the tech that they used in the 60's for the Apollo mission and thought, "We could do that today a lot faster with a lot less money."
Do you think that you could do it for $5 million?
Now its just time to buck up and do it. Do it with open source. Now that's a picture I wouldn't mind seeing plastered all over the Associated Press, a picture of a lunar robot with a huge-ass penguin logo on it.
"I do not avoid women, Mandrake . . . but I do deny them my essence." - Gen. Ripper
If the US doesn't get there before the Chinese, they won't be able to install the flag and make all those foot prints that were supposedly left by the visit in 1969. Then everyone will know the US faked the moonshot.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
stay on the topic of what this could mean to our country if taken seriously
Exactly. For example, this could mean political ads on the face of the moon visible from the Earth. A permanent colony on the moon could mean campaign and fundraising trips that would bring up extremely interesting scientific questions, such as: Is it more difficult to kiss babies in low gravity? How about shaking hands? Will spreading rumours about your opponent's alleged illegitimate moon children be an effective campaign strategy?
Truly this is an exciting time for us all.
orbit running. you wont be able to get to moon by any means by 2010. forget it. youre stuck here.
Read radical news here
Seriously, the moon is sterile. It is covered in dangerous, sticky, abrasive, lung-destroying dust. It appears to have no valuable resources,
The same thing was said about earth orbit except about the dust. Go back to your Satelite TV, XM Radio, and enjoy the GPS to get to the store with a really good price on a high def TV. There is more to a trip to the moon other than mining.
The truth shall set you free!
Is that the US would probably have a base on the moon had Apollo never been canned. The space shuttle and ISS set the US space program back 3 decades.
Maybe someone can explain why a proven and highly effective spacecraft like the Saturn V was retired for the space shuttle, which proved to be more dangerous, complicated, and expensive than NASA ever imagined.
The current Administration insists that it is physically impossible to secure the U.S./Mexican border, because the illegal immigrant will find a way to get around any barrier American ingenuity can ever devise. On the other hand, Americans can't figure out how to cross the Earth/Moon border any more, despite having done it 38 years ago. The New Moon Race therefore presents an opportunity to solve, at very little cost, a stunning array of problems. Instead of fences, simply place a few billboards (facing south) on the border advertising, in Spanish, the following: $100 an hour day labor jobs, a no-cost emergency room for every family, instant legal status, and a driver's license handed out to each person on arrival -- on the Moon.
If they could send a person to the moon in 1969 with that technology, why, with today's technology will it take so long? Shouldn't there be some kind of Moore's Law in effect with regard to space travel.
100 years changes pretty much everything given the current and past rates of change and development, but the change is gradual, people forget what things were like 20 years ago. If people are looking back in 100 years and realising that the choices that were made in the past toppled the US as a dominant super power and didn't provide them with all they hoped and dreamed about then they will only be in the same position as the UK or France today. Things change, you have to make those choices now and hope that they stand the test of time. Personally I think that 5 or more independent efforts to get back into and develop space travel and associated technologies are not the ideal solution, much better to have one concentrated use of our combined efforts. Saying that rivalry goes a long way to spur people on, and not engaging in it at all may enable one to reap the benefits without the risks (if others do try). Which is the best option will be clear in 50 years, and will appear to have been obvious in 100.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
The problem, as I see it, is that China is willing to take the risks, just as the US was forty years ago. The US went there, costing lots of money, proving ultimately that the Soviets were years away from duplicating it, came home and that was that. NASA was sent off to waste valuable resources on the shuttle program, which really has been nothing more than a satellite launch and repair service.
China is clearly doing this for nationalistic reasons, just as the US did in its time, but it also knows the spin-off technologies from such a venture are huge. Sure it costs billions to go there, but the funding of research could give China a boost in surprising areas.
This is the problem with the myopic "the Moon is a waste" and "fix problems down on Earth" line. It really does ignore how much value these sorts of massive state experiments, even if the direct benefits are negligible, can add.
There's also the idea of the long-term view, that the national interest of great powers (like China, Russia and the US) or would-be great powers (like India) will not be served by planting themselves firmly on the ground. China is clearly thinking into the future, and hoping it can find itself in a few generations as a leader, and not playing catch-up.
This is the United States' race to lose, and I think only now are folks beginning to catch on to that. Resting your laurels on a space program that ceased to exist a generation ago is not in the national interest.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's only a race if there's more than 1 player, but China seems 2 B the only player in this race. For US, all the 2008 candidates are pledging to shift money back to aeronautics & Earth science after being wrongfully diverted to a moon program. Europe & Japan don't have any human moon mission plans.
I remember - mind you, I was a kid then, that the original space race to the Moon was during the Vietnam War.
From the viewpoint of a child, it worked remarkably well, in that I thought the Vietnam War was some kind of TV show like Rat Patrol, even though a cousin of mine served there, and was totally obsessed with getting Star Trek in color (when I could) and the Lunar Landings.
That said, it looks like we'll be in an unfair race, in that we're going broke over Iraq (and then Iran) while the Chinese and Japanese are making money off of them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The US has fairly credible plans for man-rated lunar launchers in the Ares I and Ares V, spacecraft in the Orion vehicle, and a large lunar lander. It seems to me that if these other nations are to reach the moon in their stated time frames they should be presenting plans for similar very large launchers and space architecture. Yet none are forthcoming. Russia won't get to the moon with a Soyuz or proton. Europe won't get there on an Arianne V. China won't get their with a Long March 4. Japan won't get there with an H2. India will not get there with one of their satellite launchers
an ill wind that blows no good
in a couple of hundred years, when China, India and whoever else cares to try is out there galavanting sic around the solar system,
Space races aren't about "galavanting sic around the solar system," they are about achieving pointless objectives. Once the objectives are achieved, the programs are shelved. China and India will be no different.
Take a look at the hard science that has been possible due to space exploration. The vast majority has been enabled by unmanned exploration (the only exception i can think of was the HST repair). Everything else has been a political show.
Unfortunately, with the current emphasis on returning to the moon, funding for possible Mars missions has been siphoned off (since NASA's budget is definitely not large enough to work toward both goals at once). The Mars mission would also be of great value scientifically, since the rovers currently exploring the planet cannot accomplish as much as a actual human in the same timespan, and being the first country to set foot on another planet would be an event worthy of space history books.
Robert Zubrin and David Baker have already outlined an inexpessive, easy to prepare mission plan, which also minimizes the risk to the astronauts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct]. The plan calls for Earth Return Vehicles (ERVs) to be launched unmanned with rockets no larger than were needed for Apollo, followed by a second with astronauts onboard. The ERVs would then make fuel for the return trip out of the martian atmosphere, saving payload costs from earth. If anything went wrong, we would also only lose the machines, not any astronauts, which should be a major selling point for NASA in light of recent tragedies.
The pricetag: $55 billion for an 18 month stay on the planet, and it would leave one ERV on the planet's surface, enabling a continuous cycling of astronauts to and from Mars, a truly worthwhile investment.
We are made wise not by the collection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future. -George Bernard Shaw
....the best form you can be is a full moon. And then the half moon... he's all right. But the full moon is the famous moon. And then three-quarters, eh, no one gives a shit about him. When does he come, two days in, to the calendar month? He's useless. Full moon. The moon. The main moon.
Now wash your hands.
Do these governments have a common vision of what they'll do in space? Or is this simply a race to claim more territory? What about space terrorism, wars on the moon?
We should all agree and work together before we start inhabiting other bodies. We have enough conflict here on Earth.
Think of the children!
a new moon race? activate the quad laser!
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Of all these nations, only the US and China have announced any plans for going to the Moon. My take is that humanity will be lucky if *anyone* returns to the Moon by 2025. I'm sure someone will get there eventually, but there's plenty of problems to delay the current contenders, such as they are.
Mods: "Informative" doesn't mean "I passionately agree with this person's opinion"
Just saying.
- Alaska Jack
we don't have a JFK to push through it
It wasn't JFK that pushed it through, it was LBJ. Most of Jack's legislation was dead in the Congress, but once Jack died, Lyndon went to work.
Now, Lyndon Johnson wasn't much of a popular guy like Jack. There wasn't an ounce of Camelot in him. But Lyndon had a few advantages, in that, he was a physically big guy, a real bear of a man, and, he was really a lot more connected in with the still important Roosevelt wing of the Democratic Party - much more so than Jack did. He was relentless on the phone, cunning as a lobbyist, could cut deals with the best of them, and if none of that worked, he was a frigging big guy and he could just hover over you and intimidate you.
LBJ was one of the most powerful President, legislatively, that this country has had, until the current President George W Bush. It's a Texas thing. No President between LBJ and W got asserted the executive nearly as much, both utterly dominated their own political parties like no other leader could (Carter comes to mind), and both, well, were very divisive presidents in times of great national consequence.
This is my sig.
Right now, there is no major reason for the States to be going back to the moon. Other than showing we still can (considering we went up there six times forty years ago, it should be pretty obvious we can) there is almost no real point to it.
It would be better to let private corporations, as bad as they are, do it, instead of NASA or the government. Right now, there is just no reason to waste the money going there to find more of the same rocks we found before.
Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
What risks are those? Their manned space program is derived from a Soyuz. Their first flight was in 2003. Their third won't be until 2008. They are flying a lunar mission to NASA's lunar orbiter of the early 1960's. The US has an absolute armada of spacecraft scattered around the solar system. I'd say China's space program is pretty moribund in comparison.
an ill wind that blows no good
There are a lot of Chinese people, and they want their industrialized economy. And, for that matter, so the billion or so people next door in India. That's two good reasons to start looking at whatever kind of mining can be done in space.
I know what I'm about to say is anathema to many geeks, but just hear me out before you open the can of napalm. With our limited budget and socio-political 'attention span', I say that research money is much better spent doing research here on earth.
Understanding the true nature of the heavens, getting off of our own planet, and traveling to the stars has been a dream of mankind probably since the beginning. But as we learn more about it, we also learn how inhospitable and impractical is it to make a living out there. The cool factor is off the scale, but the idea that we are going to colonize first our solar system, second the galaxy, seems a little bogus to me.
I don't forsee any self-sustaining extra-terrestrial colony in the near future. The moon is dead; Mars is dead; those places have nothing to eat and nothing to breath. Our closest experiment, Biosphere 2, needed imports of oxygen. The vertebrates and pollinating insects died. Any people living out in space would be totally dependent on resources constantly shipped in from the earth. Anything they might mine and ship back would be extremely unprofitable due to costs of launch and shipping. Can you imagine the cost of blasting rocks off of Mars and shipping them to Earth?
We would see a lot of cool things, learn a lot of great things, do some wonderful experiments, understand the solar system better, etc. etc., but with our limited budget, I think we might have more pressing needs.
Here on earth, we are living in a cornucopia of biodiversity. We are living in the midst of a great library of genes, compiled over the past several million years. Sadly, there is a four-alarm blaze in the library, happening right now, and we are doing very little to stop it. We won't be finding any new medicines or genes on Mars. They are already right here on earth, right under our noses, in the rainforests and deserts.
I know we need to get off this rock if we have any hope for long term survival. But I think, as Biosphere 2 showed, we also need to have an understanding of the biosphere in order to have any long-term prospects in space, especially in the case that convoys from Earth are not available. Mars and the moon will always be out there, quietly waiting for us... We are in the middle of an emergency, and those celestial bodies can wait another few centures.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
* the capsules this time will be a much more friendly environment - just like the shuttle your average school teacher will be able to ride in it.
To be honest, after this, I wasn't sure whether your post was going to be a joke. If we're going to bother with flying slightly evolved monkeys around the solar system at all, then we really can't afford to make it safe, too.
Do you think Europeans would ever have taken over the US if they had waited for transportation safe and comfortable enough "for the average school teacher"? Exploration is messy and dangerous business, and we'll get volunteers even if the capsules need to be depressurized and people have to wear diapers. I don't see any reason to pay extra tax dollars to make it comfortable and safe, too. It's not a vacation.
Look at how tough mining is even on earth: low cost labor, frequent accidents, huge production facilities. When a couple of miners get trapped, we fuss for weeks. And that's with huge amounts of water, air, energy, and oxygen available, and a complete infrastructure, hospitals, roads, trucks. I haven't seen any economically feasible proposals for doing anything like it on the moon.
That said, it looks like we'll be in an unfair race, in that we're going broke over Iraq (and then Iran) while the Chinese and Japanese are making money off of them.
What's "unfair" about it? China and Japan told the US: "don't do it, it's stupid, it's expensive, and we're not going to pay for it". The US is doing it anyway and paying the price.
The same thing was said about earth orbit
Yes, and people were right: manned space stations have been a colossal waste of money.
Go back to your Satelite TV, XM Radio, and enjoy the GPS to get to the store with a really good price on a high def TV.
All unmanned technology.
There is more to a trip to the moon other than mining.
Yeah? Like what? Analogies don't make an argument.
Are we going to space to do science for science's sake? If so, robot probes win hands down.
If, however, we're going to space to blaze a trail for future commercial and private ventures, robots are largely useless.
It seems to me that the US designs everything around eliminating any chance for failure no matter how minute. Engineers will spend months testing the tertiary backup pump for the toilet. Everyone else will just seal the damn thing and shit in a bag for a few days...
The US is so encumbered by lawyers that it has become afraid of failure. Most Americans think it's better to not try than to fail. Why?
I think most other places realize that you have to take risks and just do it. Spend a few months designing the best system you can. Create a backup for any *truly* critical system. Then, strap in some people and launch. Meanwhile, the NASA guys and gals are still debating over the environmental impact of the steam created by the water used to cool the tower during launch...
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Honestly, I think this race is between India, China, and Japan. The US is not in it. We abdicated the moon long ago - and it's foolish of us to try to go and get it back. It's roughly analagous to OJ Simpson, now out on bail, deciding to get back into shape and get back into football to try to keep all these young punks from winning the Heismann trophy. It's really absurd and a little sad.
It's especially sad, because you know damn well that even if we DID make it back to the moon, and even if we did "beat" China/Japan/India, we'd just abandon it again. Because the US has no interest or intent in staying.
There's no oil, no Hooters, and no beer on the Moon.
Though there *is* one hell of a truck. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I have another name for a massive state experiment with negligiable direct benefit - it's a failure.
When I hear people speak of the indirect, intangible benefits that NASA has brought with the space program, it usually boils down to two things, Tang and feel-good. Namely, they point to the variety of spin offs like solar cells, velcro, Tang, etc that supposedly wouldn't have been developed otherwise or the vague sense of national pride that one gets from things like going to the Moon or having a space station in space.
Needless to say, I find those applications to be low value. Things like velcro, solar cells, etc would be developed anyway. And national pride can be built in other ways for nothing. But the real issue I have, is that these huge national projects have almost no economic value. No economic activity in space was created by the Apollo program, Space Shuttle, International Space Station, or the horde of unmanned space probes. By 2010, forty years after Man first landed on the Moon, there will be 6, possibly up to 9 government employees working in space (if China can make it's space station work). I don't see that as an effective use of the hundreds of billions that has been spent by NASA or its government-based competitors.
As I see it, there's a lot of complaints about the fixed nature of NASA's budget. But I see only three ways to increase it. First, if there's some emergency (like an asteroid about to hit the Earth). Second, it can grow as overall GDP and hence tax revenue grows. Three, it can grow as space-based GDP grows. So if NASA were to make a "massive state experiment" that boosted greatly overall private investment in space, then that's investment not another failure. For example, they can do so by using private launch services rather than building a specialized vehicle (say the Ares 1) to duplicate those services. That brings down the overall cost of putting things in orbit.
It's especially sad, because you know damn well that even if we DID make it back to the moon, and even if we did "beat" China/Japan/India, we'd just abandon it again. Because the US has no interest or intent in staying.
The problem here is that as long as there's no reason to stay, then they won't stay. China/Japan/India will have the same problems the US does. Every country is using the same failed approach. A huge government program that plants flags and footprints.
This is particularly disappointing in the case of the US because it's strength has always been economic. NASA should be engaging in projects that build space infrastructure and employing private industry when it can. Not building its own launch vehicles and doing more of the same stuff that we already know leads to failure in the long term.
Kinda reminds me of the "big stone head race" on Easter Island just before they ran out of trees. This planet is having a huge problem with global climate change and most rich countries are getting into a race to the moon... I hope the planet holds for another 60 years, then I quit!
I am an Indian and I believe that there will not be a manned mission to the Moon from my country in the near future. Chandraayan 1 and 2 (the one with the rover) are probably going to be the only moon missions that India will *solely* undertake. These will build our capability to launch robotic space probes and that would be it.
Dont get me wrong, I do not doubt the ability of ISRO to eventually put a man on the moon. But, I doubt its ability to convince our notoriously populist and short-sighted politicos to invest the enormous amount of money and political will required to eventuate a successful, manned Moon landing. Those who disagree can take a look at the antics of the Leftist scum over the US-India nuclear deal. Anyway, what India and ISRO, in particular, have achieved so far is inspite of the politicians and not due to it. But, I digress.
I fervently hope that with the (fingers crossed, touchwood) success of Chandraayan 1 and 2, ISRO will be able to partner with ESA, NASA or JAXA or all of them in an international manned Moon mission designed to result in a Moon base. Also, given the current economic and political conditions in every space-faring country except China, the probability of this happening is quite high. I think the notion of a "space race" at present is inherently silly and that there is a need for humanity to get its act together if we have to extend into space.
While many people ask why anyone should want to go to the moon and just as many answer that the moon is a worthy goal because, uhm, yes, uhm, other nations are going there, there are many real benefits to landing on and having a permanent manned presence on the moon.
Firstly, and most importantly, the massive national prestige for any nation that does this can not be emphasised enough. Even if the US were going there with no apparent competitors, the fact that the US can do this would do more for gaining respect, no matter how unwillingly, than any number of curious American foreign policy actions. As it stands today, the international respect for the US is probably at its lowest its been in any time since the US became a superpower after WWII. This is regardless of how competitive the US economy or business are, because, like a weakened body, once the illness gets a foothold, it becomes a fast target for numerous smaller ills, and you have, for example, Europeans rightly pointing out the huge poverty rate in the US, lack of proper healthcare, poor education system etc. You get the Russians reasserting themselves, but in a far smarter way than in Soviet times, with the US's only response a provocation along the lines of missile deployment on Russia's borders. You get the Chinese being able to launch a, up to now, flawless and modern manned space programme (and spare me the comments on how its copied Russian technology. It's not). You get South American machos being able to insult and provoke the US with impunity, and you get Iranian crackpots being able to defy the US because of the bloody mess that the US perpetrated next door.
A manned permanent US presence on the moo would do an enormous amount for American self confidence. Bragging rights should not be discounted so easily.
However, the same goes for any other nation that has the moon as a goal. The main reason that other nations are setting goals for a manned presence on the moon behind that of the US is because they're know what the whole operation costs. There is a very good reason why the Europeans, in the form of ESA, has no manned space launch vehicles. They did build a module on the ISS, which despite the derision that the ISS gets here on slashdot, gave them valuable experience in building long term manned space vehicles, and they have the ATV, which gives them experience in powered automated space transport. They have been world market leaders in commercial satellite launches for quite a while now, although that may of course change in the future, but they scrapped plans for the Hermes mini shuttle a long time ago, because: It was seen as costly goal with no commercial return.
The European space effort is funded by European member countries and has far better financial oversight than NASA does, as no member country will be able to set up huge and costly goals in the face of middle class European tax payer opposition. This is why the Europeans do things in tiny, agonisingly slow steps, and, where possible, in partnership with other space faring nations. Opposition from member countries recently stalled the European goal of launching a manned Mars mission in 2030.
BUT, the fact that the US Orion is only for Americans and American companies has forced the Europeans into finally starting their own manned programme in partnership with the Russians. The future CSTS seems to becoming a hybrid of the European ATV as powered service module, a bigger re-engineered Russian Soyuz rentry vehicle, and European habitation vehicle based on the Columbus ISS module.
But no one has said anything about landing on the moon yet. The reason is because, apart from the US no one has actually been there or has any experience in lunar landing engineering. The Russians, with enough money, could probably be in Lunar orbit in a year. They certainly have the technology. But the current Russian politicians under Putin are no fools and they will in no way spend uncounted billions on Lunar landing technology in a mad race to the moon like the Soviets
Maybe if this probe can zoom in on the areas where the moon landings took place, and can show the moon rover for example, it'll stop the conspiracy theorists?
Ready, steady.... GO!
Even "developing" countries are wealthier than the US was in the 1960s, so many mroe should be able to afford space exploration.
We need more vespine gas!
its good were actually going there for real this time
Conspiracy nuts always expand the conspiracy to support their preconceived notions. Even evidence to counter their theory will be twisted as supporting their moronic theory.
These are the type of people, that when a science magazines mention there name in a negative context will then say that they were 'published' in said paper. Misleading people into thinking they have a shred of credibility or two brain cells to rub together.
I highly suggest subscribing to the skeptics guide to the universe podcast.
Site:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/index2.asp
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wake me up when they figure out cold fusion, because there's enough He-3 on earth to run experiments with.