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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Arthur C. Clarke recently said something to the effect that had it not been for Cold War politics (international pissing contest + good public face on ICBM research) science wouldn't have really gotten to much space exploration until the components had become much cheaper and lighter.
It's not so much that we've had a slow go, it's that we had an artificially false start.
Similarly, Europeans landed on North America sometime around 1000, but it was an accident, and Norse sailing craft, which were the best in the western world, weren't really up to the task of regular trans-atlantic voyages, it would be another 500 years before really practical technology caught up to the mere feasibility.
And it might be 400 years again here. Even though technology (in some ways) progresses faster now than 500 years ago, the challenge of space is more difficult than the challenge of long ocean voyage, not just by an order of magnitude, but along many different *dimensions* of difficulty.
The failure of reality to keep up with science fiction isn't the fault of reality (or of science fiction) it was only a strange confluence of events that allowed the two to look, for a moment, similar.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
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
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
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
Fortunately that isn't an issue. You can, today, remotely verify the existence of the laser retroreflector arrays installed on the moon by the Apollo missions.
DNA just wants to be free...
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 Apollo tech was abandoned because the shuttle tech was supposed to be cheaper, and more reliable. Not only that, but the Air Force was supposed to split the cost. Unfortunately none of these things came to pass. It's easy in hindsight to say we should have stayed with Apollo tech, but we were pretty much all cheering the shuttle until its limitations started glaring through.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
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
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
Shouldn't there be some kind of Moore's Law in effect with regard to space travel.
There is, the cost.
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
Moore's law works because they're not running into fundamental limits, but running into practical limits of manufacturing capability and cooling. Unfortunately, the cost of space travel is a pretty solid barrier based on physics (specific impulse, combustion chemistry, and delta-v), and the Apollo design was pretty well optimized; the main advantage we have now is lighter computers and better comm equipment. We can also do some controls stuff, but that will only help so much.
Significant reductions in cost and capabilities (beyond an order of magnitude, which could be possible with volume, such as SpaceX's plans) really depend on a completely new propulsion technology. All of the current alternatives are promising but still have glaring limits.
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.
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.
You're right, but for the wrong reason. You have progress and motion confused. Going to the moon for the sake of going to the moon is pointless. If you want pointless and exciting, the National Football League, NASCAR, and major league baseball will provide that for you at essentially zero cost to the taxpayers.
Spend many billions on scientific research? I'm in favor of it. There's a payback -- maybe not direct, but it's there. There is a reason that the US leads the world in information technology and that is largely that we spent a lot of money in the second half of the 20th Century learning what works and what doesn't.
So, a few billion for a huge atom smasher -- fine (within limits). billions for unmanned probes to Mars, Mercury, Titan -- sure. Get some rocks back ... Please bring some rocks back. Figure out how to get reliable broadband to rural areas? Pretty good idea.
Many tens of billions for a pointless space station, ill conceived space shuttle, and manned return to the moon. That's nuts for the US. Been there, done that. Got a good reason for going back? Thought not. If China wants to spend billions on a Lunar expedition -- fine. More power to them. I'd rather they spent money on moon landings than on building aircraft carriers.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
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!