Slashdot Mirror


Japan Plans Moon Base Built By Robots For Robots

An anonymous reader writes "The Japanese space agency, JAXA, has plans to build a base on the Moon by 2020. Not for humans, but for robots — and built by robots, too. A panel authorized by Japan's prime minister has drawn up preliminary plans for how humanoid and rover robots will begin surveying the moon by 2015, and then begin construction of a base near the south pole of the moon. The robots and the base will run on solar power, with total costs about $2.2 billion USD, according to the panel chaired by Waseda University President Katsuhiko Shirai. 'As currently envisioned, the robots that will land on the lunar surface in 2015 will be 660-pound behemoths equipped with rolling tank-like treads, solar panels, seismographs, high-def cameras, and a smattering of scientific instruments. They'll also have human-like arms for collecting rock samples that will be returned to Earth via rocket.'"

253 comments

  1. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome our 660-pound moon-dwelling robot overlords

    1. Re:Obligatory by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Moon Base Built By Robots For Robots

      So these robots are already planning to build a moon base that discriminates against humans? I wonder if that's because they'll be doing secret robot research there into the preliminary SkyNET satellite network? The moon is in the sky, and SkyNET is in the sky ... coincidence? I think not.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They'd only weigh about 100 lb on Earth. Or something.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese robots on the moon....why do I imagine they'll look like this?

    4. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're just lucky it's are not the nazis. Iron Sky

    5. Re:Obligatory by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      I didn't know the Cylon's spoke Japanese!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    6. Re:Obligatory by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Nice but the funniest thing is the +1 Insightful moderation!

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    7. Re:Obligatory by racasper · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember they are Japanese - these robots will probably look like adolescent schoolgirls.

    8. Re:Obligatory by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, Cylons are quite good at catering to foreign shoppers.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Obligatory by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      You were joking? The reverse is true. A 600 ib robot on Earth would weigh 100 lb on the Moon. Same mass, weighs less on the Moon.

    10. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new 660-lb. Japanese adolescent schoolgirl robot overlords...on the moon...

    11. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do I sign up for the special tour?

  2. All Your Base Are Belong To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oh that seems so appropriate right now...

    1. Re:All Your Base Are Belong To Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you for beating me to it! I really hope that in 2020 we will hear Japan's Prime Minister utter these words to the world press...

    2. Re:All Your Base Are Belong To Us by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Note, however, that this project is not going to be under the control of the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Wonder if this will get the US to take the Moon by Vekseid · · Score: 1

    seriously.

    Here's hoping, at least.

    1. Re:Wonder if this will get the US to take the Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me whomever claims the moon's poles will have the best shot at sustaining themselves on/in the moon. The rest of the moon is nice, but the poles are where the action is. If I was building a robot army...er, scientific base, it'd be at the point where the most solar energy could be collected.

  4. optimistic Japanese by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ya I'm not so optimistic about the trust worthiness of robots. This sounds to me like they are practically giving them the perfect rebel base, for when the robot rebellion comes.

    1. Re:optimistic Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look forward to the formal declaration of the moon as the Autonomous Republic of Automata.
      Our next manned moon landing will be marred by the "Humans go home!" graffiti.
      And don't talk to me about kill switches! Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

    2. Re:optimistic Japanese by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what if they rebel? We'll send up our own HERCs and wreck the Prometheus core.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:optimistic Japanese by siddesu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yep, and the biggest optimist is the idiot prime minister. With the Japanese government kinda broke, the "alien" Hatoyama and his cabinet gone in a day or two, and his (well, his master's) party to be thrashed and obliterated in the coming elections, I am not sure this project has a bright future. Which is probably a pity.

  5. The start of the revolution... by Geraden · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's all good, until they start to hurl moon rocks at us, via a robot-built rail gun.

    1. Re:The start of the revolution... by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not very far fetched. Moon rocks (regolth) contains a vast amount of He3, so the idea for building a robotic moon base is probably to send back minerals sooner or later.

      I doubt they will use a railgun for that purpose though. It needs too much energy and the propellant has to have specific physical attributes (has to be conductive?).

      I think they will opt for rockets, or something like that, though the railgun version would be admittedly much cooler.

    2. Re:The start of the revolution... by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The grandparent was referring to "The moon is a harsh mistress" by Robert Heinlein. Worth a read, has held up very well despite it's age IMHO.

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    3. Re:The start of the revolution... by wagnerrp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Moon rocks (regolth) contain a trace amount of He3

      Fixed that for you. The actual quantities are somewhere around 10 parts per billion.

    4. Re:The start of the revolution... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      That's not very far fetched. Moon rocks (regolth) contains a vast amount of He3, so the idea for building a robotic moon base is probably to send back minerals sooner or later.

      They had better seriously study the effect of large changes to the balance of mass between Earth and the Moon before they start doing some shit like that. If the moon ends up crashing into us OR drifting out in space, we're kinda fucked.

    5. Re:The start of the revolution... by TroyM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I keep hearing the He3 meme on Slashdot, but it sounds like just a far fetched attempt to make going to the moon financially worth while. I've read a lot about fusion attempts like ITER and the National Ignition Facility, but have yet to hear of anyone doing fusion using He3. A quick search of the web found this, which says that He3 fusion will be much harder to achieve than fusion using Tritium or Deuterium. I think the main "advantage" of He3 fusion is that it would force us to go back to the moon

    6. Re:The start of the revolution... by durrr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm starting to grow a bit tired of repeating this, but He3 is not the ultimate fusion fuel. It's only because it's an exotic off world resource that it gets all the hype.
      The benefits of He3 is that it's a aneutronic fuel, but it is definitely not the only such fuel, and considerin the shipping cost from the moon it is quite likely that He3 will have a hard time competing with other aneutronic fuels.
      Also, The temperature requried for He3 fusion is higher than for other fuels, so to actually get anything out of He3 fusion we're probably going to wait until second generation commercial fusion reactors pop up, the first ones that will feed our grid and establish the standards for fusion energy are unlikely to be He3 fusion reactors. Probably, we won't bother to ever use He3 fusion on earth, possibly we won't even bother to use it on the moon either.

    7. Re:The start of the revolution... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      large changes to the balance of mass between Earth and the Moon

      I sincerely hope your post was meant as a joke, but if not...

      Removing the top 10 km of the entire lunar surface represents around 10^16 tons of material.

      It also represents less than 2% of the total lunar mass.

      In other words "large changes" isn't even in the timezone of what we're talking about....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:The start of the revolution... by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just put it in a conductive casing, much like a bullet goes in a casing, that could resist the re-entry into our atmosphere? Though that aim better be damn well perfect. Some Japanese citizen's house right next to the target could be in some danger...what a story that would be.

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    9. Re:The start of the revolution... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      I doubt they will use a railgun for that purpose though.

      Actually, if they can do a magnetic launch - perhaps more catapult than disposable sabot - that would be the way to send stuff back from the moon. No soft tissue parts to worry about, so the high G launch would not matter for mineral return. Solar energy is abundant, so creating a magnetic flux and even molding stone return structures would allow for much more frequent returns than using a fuel based return. Only looking at 2.4 km/s to escape the moon's gravity well, vs 11.2 km/s here on earth.

    10. Re:The start of the revolution... by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      Rocks? By the time they have a rail gun they'll have tactical nuke projectiles for it. DUH ;)

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    11. Re:The start of the revolution... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The difference between "vast" and "trace" amount is really all about how valuable the stuff is, now isn't it? And He3 is about $1500 per gram, which is over 120 times that of gold.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:The start of the revolution... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "But Luna has lots of rocks" - Mycroft Holmes

    13. Re:The start of the revolution... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Only looking at 2.4 km/s to escape the moon's gravity well, vs 11.2 km/s here on earth.

      Do you even need that much speed? After all, escape velocity is the speed needed to rise a mass to infinity from Earths/Moons surface, but Moon is within Earth's gravity well, just like Earth is within Moons gravity well, so you only need to rise the mass to the Lagrance point between them. Not only that, but as you near said point, the other body's gravity will cancel more and more of the other's, so moving between these two should require far less initial speed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:The start of the revolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @"The moon is a harsh mistress"

      The moon may well be a harsh mistress, but her fat ass definitely hoggs her side of the bed.

    15. Re:The start of the revolution... by Yergle143 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's a handy link to the University of Wisconsin Fusion website dealing with the advantages/disadvantages of 3He as fuel
      http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/research/dhe3
      A key feature -- even though it requires more energy, burning D+3He yields far less neutrons which would be an important advantage in a commercial reactor.
      Fusion is still a dream but there is a lot of action with "alternative configurations" so we should keep our fingers crossed.
      Me: if fusion can work, why stop at the moon? Betcha there is more 3He to be sucked out of the regolith on Mercury!

    16. Re:The start of the revolution... by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      Unless energy becomes free, or something really valuable or unique is found on the moon, we won't be sending materials back to earth. It's just not financially practical. And once you get past science it's about money. It might be practical to launch materials to orbit for a space station or to build vehicles in space.

      The real value is in robotics and telepresence research. Sure, we can do that on Mars, but once you have a mission ready to launch, how long does it take to get there. Any experimentation on Mars is going to be extremely conservative. Are you more likely to install a software update on the server under your desk or the one in the datacenter on the other side of the country?

      Then there is also the exploration aspect. People say "we've already been there, we know everything we could learn from the moon." We haven't even learned every the Earth could teach us, we've barely scratched the surface on what we can learn from the moon.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    17. Re:The start of the revolution... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      The difference between "vast" and "trace" amount is really all about how valuable the stuff is, now isn't it? And He3 is about $1500 per gram, which is over 120 times that of gold.

      Why is it so expensive now? Hint: it's not because everyone is clamouring to burn the stuff in their Mr. Fusions...

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    18. Re:The start of the revolution... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Moon rocks (regolth) contains a vast amount of He3

      Across the entire surface of the moon, sure there's vast amounts of He3. In any given cubic meter - not so much. You've got mine a whole bunch of cubic meters to obtain any appreciable amount of He3.
       
      Not that we a) know how to build and operate the required mining robots, b) build and operate the required processing equipment, or c) build a reactor that will burn the He3...

    19. Re:The start of the revolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In long term, rockets could get expensive. But they could be used to ship uranium to the moon, for a reactor to power the rail gun. Also using canisters or sabots that are conductive.

      Another solution could be a kinetic ballista, that uses inexpensive nylon cords for energy storage and uses the canisters as bolts. This would allow the material canisters to exit the gravity well, and then they could be controlled by retro rockets directed by GPS satellites.

    20. Re:The start of the revolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think losing 2% of it's mass is a large change? The tidal effects would be significant and noticeable.

  6. What about the sailors? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Should they bite your shiny metal ass?

    1. Re:What about the sailors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the Whalers?!

    2. Re:What about the sailors? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I guess you didn't meant this, but here you have:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailor_Moon

  7. Just $2.2 Billion? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Funding to the Space Shuttle has been around $5 billion per year for most of the last 30 years or so, and just keeping the program on operational life support was quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program">$2.5 billion per year in early 2009.

    So if they deliver that entire program whose lifetime costs are only 2.2 Billion, I would be super impressed. In fact I would be impressed if we did it ourselves for 5 times that amount.

    1. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would imagine that the prices drop dramatically once you don't have to worry about sending humans up, keeping them alive, and returning them safely.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      So if they deliver that entire program whose lifetime costs are only 2.2 Billion, I would be super impressed. In fact I would be impressed if we did it ourselves for 5 times that amount.

      Robot labor is much cheaper than human labor ... unless those robots just happen to become members of the 'Robot Union' (not to be confused with Futurama's Robot Mafia).

    3. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I imagine a lot of the cost will hide in the launch vehicle development program. JAXA doesn't strike me as being efficient enough to keep the cost down to private industry levels. But it's worth noting here that NASA typically runs with costs one to two orders of magnitude higher than similar private efforts. This is a combination of poor cost control, much greater project scope (I consider a focused project with limited goals superior on several levels to many of the do-everything projects like the ISS that NASA does), and having higher priorities (like certain levels of employment in certain congressional districts) than space development and exploration.

    4. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It's news to somebody how big of a money sink Shuttle is?... O_o

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by toppavak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The largest gains would be in fuel costs and life support / living space. One way trips cost about half as much because you don't have to carry nearly as much fuel with you, plus without the need for oxygen, manual interfaces, displays, living spaces, seats, etc. the total mission weight can be drastically reduced.

    6. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Launch vehicle for robots isn't particularly unique compared to...those used for everything else (in fact, "everything else" was always robots in case of JAXA, those we call "satellites" or "probes")

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Unless JAXA plans to launch its stuff on supercheap SpaceX and Russian launchers that will come Real Soon Now (TM), they'll need a larger launch vehicle than they currently have.

    8. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, the prices drop - though less than you might think since not only are the robots themselves very expensive, so are the support/operations crew back on Earth. There's also considerable loss in the amount of science and work performed, so the difference in your 'bang for your buck' isn't all that great.

    9. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between Unions and Mafia now? Hunh. I learn something new every day...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would imagine that the prices drop dramatically once you don't have to worry about sending humans up, keeping them alive, and returning them safely.

      The price drop occurs when you limit the scope of your mission to what two robots can do. Yes, a small, relatively simple robotic mission is cheaper than a complex manned mission, but it also does less. I will say that due to the small communication delay with Earth, the argument for a manned presence is far less compelling than it'll be for anything outside of the Earth-Moon system. You really can run complex operations mostly from Earth via teleoperations. That's not an option that works well on Mars, for example.

    11. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by XnR'rn · · Score: 1

      Thats Japanese we're talking about. There was a joke about ships around WW2 (and earlier) era. Where American ship has extra lavatory, Russian has an extra gun. Japanese? Two guns.

    12. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by sznupi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What they currently have can put close to 20 ton payload into LEO; that should be comfortably sufficient for robotic "base", in few shots.

      (and it's in the league of SpaceX anyway; especially if Japan modifies (only) their heaviest launcher even more - it is already a modification of one which could put half the above payload into LEO)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    13. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Gorobei · · Score: 2, Informative

      One-way trips only half as much? More like 1/100th.

      Apollo was on the edge of the possible: everything was maxed out to just get a few hundred pounds of rocks back to earth: huge 3 stage rocket, complex LEM + command module on the far end to hold energy costs down, piles of heat shielding, etc, for a difficult insertion back into the earth's orbit. Plus, as you say, all the junk needed to keep your automation systems (people) alive.

    14. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 4, Informative

      For a better comparison, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers:
      "The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90-Martian-day (sol) primary mission was US$820 million." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover
      The moon is a lot closer than Mars, so it doesn't seem entirely infeasible that they could do things significantly cheaper.

    15. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Gorobei · · Score: 5, Informative

      On running the math a bit more: getting 1kg of payload mass to the moon with a soft landing is more like 1/1000 the cost of the round trip.

      So, $2B for an automated moon-base is pretty reasonable.

      Yes, I am a rocket scientist.

    16. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by fizzup · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, you get less. But, man-oh-man, this seems like very high value. For comparison, here are some expenditures from groups that "can't afford" to go to the moon:

      It's such a small amount of money, I can't even believe it's true.

    17. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      If you dont need to worry about unions...

      The japanese will automate everything as always, operations cost will be minimal :)

    18. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      And the problem with using Russian launchers is what exactly? Recent reliability is way superior to most US projects...

      Whats the Shuttle fail rate again? And what does NASA stand for?

    19. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by chowdahhead · · Score: 1

      I interpreted that figure as the annual operating costs. The rover development alone would probably exceed that--wiki cites the mars rovers costing $820M USD and that was just for two machines. This is a much more ambitious endeavor.

    20. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Like2Byte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OK, here's a question for you then. I understand the moon's surface is made up of a bunch of tiny particulate - "dust" is you will. This dust, as I understand, got into everything during the Apollo Moon Missions. Now, for arguments sake, let's say Japan is able to install a moon base operated wholly (locally) by robots.

      What kinds of effects would the dust have upon the rails, pathways, gears and whatever other machinery is necessary to operate? I imagine that the gust would wear down the machinery and the robots might not have the ability to recognize wear and tear in such an environment - both on themselves and the machinery.

    21. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada will spend half that amount on a meeting of 20 world leaders next month.

      The majority of that sum goes toward security, which illustrates quite well how overpriced Tim Horton doughnuts really are.

    22. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it is a fallacy to continue to believe man can do more than a robot in near-earth space. Anything a human can do could have been by remote control. We've made the space program extremely wasteful by bothering to send humans. Some also believe the nonsense that humans in space help us toward the goal of colonizing space, but the truth is that the means we support humans in space now have nothing to do with how a self-sustaining colony would operate and in fact only degrade human health such that long term existence in space would be impossible. Incredible the tens of billions of dollars we've burned to no purpose.

    23. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Gorobei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, I just do rockets. I can figure the cheapest way to get mass X to position Y with velocity Z.

      Dust? Ask the guys who build targets (I think they are called civil engineers or something)

    24. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      NASA sells regolith surrogate. It's not cheap, but you can try your designs a little closer to home.

    25. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about our politicians, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand here while you insult Tim Horton doughnuts!

    26. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it boils down to this: If we send humans to the Moon, they'll be remarkably like the humans Mark I we sent in 1969, while the most advanced robot we could have sent then was probably a digital watch. In 2050, if we still send humans for a round three they'll still be very similar to the 1969 humans, while if we send robots the next generation is likely to be much, much better than the last one. That means to a country running a space program, which hopefully have a little bit of foresight beyond this one mission, robots are still the way to go.

      Also, I think many people grossly exaggerate the "doing" part of science. We can design the mission down here, we can do the analysis down here, only very rarely does a scientist discover something to change his plans so on the fly that we couldn't tell the robot to go back and do it again tomorrow. If the robot lacks the tools, it's very likely a human would also lack the tools. The execution can be a fairly set of simple menial tasks like collect rocks, photograph every sample, put in processing chamber, wait for analysis - no great intelligence required. It's not like we're going to bring a huge lab of equipment we might use if and only if we found something interesting, humans or not.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    27. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll deal with it the same way we dealt with it on Mars, and Spirit/Pathfinder were still blundering along after 5 years. The reason they stopped was because of dust on their panels and broken wheels, not any issues with dust *inside* their mechanisms. They also had to deal with dust storms - absent on the Moon for obvious reasons.

      I think we'll be fine.

    28. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      What they currently have can put close to 20 ton payload into LEO; that should be comfortably sufficient for robotic "base", in few shots.

      Wikipedia claims 15 tons. Still works for a robotic base, but I imagine they'd want to develop something that has a little larger payload (and maybe a little cheaper to operate).

    29. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      By all means, sit down then. We all need to understand and make provision for the needs of our fellow Slashdotters.

    30. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      And the problem with using Russian launchers is what exactly?

      It's not a Japanese owned rocket.

    31. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it is a fallacy to continue to believe man can do more than a robot in near-earth space. Anything a human can do could have been by remote control.

      No. Repairing complex instruments like the Hubble couldn't have been done by robot.

      We've made the space program extremely wasteful by bothering to send humans. Some also believe the nonsense that humans in space help us toward the goal of colonizing space, but the truth is that the means we support humans in space now have nothing to do with how a self-sustaining colony would operate and in fact only degrade human health such that long term existence in space would be impossible. Incredible the tens of billions of dollars we've burned to no purpose.

      There are various reasons the global space programs are wasteful. The presence of humans is not one of the reasons (unless you think the space programs which have humans should do less than they currently are). It remains that you can't understand how to live in space long term, if you don't have people doing things in space at some point. Finally, far more public money is squandered on other things such as wars, government retirement and health care services, and corruption.

    32. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if only I was talking about H-IIA.

      You managed to miss H-IIB...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    33. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You think that's bad? Wait till you compare $2.2 billion to what some companies spend on advertising.

      Advertising Age estimated global measured advertising expenditure of $2.7bn in 2008, making Coca-Cola the world's #6 advertiser.

      Source.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    34. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Seal the entire things in nice rubber "space-suits" (need not be pressurized obviously). Should be relatively trivial to make sure there are no exposed joints. Knowing Japan, these are all going to be humanoid anyways ;)

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    35. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No. Repairing complex instruments like the Hubble couldn't have been done by robot.

      Of course it could have been done by a robot. In fact, fixing Hubble via a robot would had been easier than by a human, since Hubble is close enough to Earth that direct control is possible, and a robot doesn't need a bulky spacesuit, making it more dexterous.

      It remains that you can't understand how to live in space long term, if you don't have people doing things in space at some point.

      This is true. However, at the present, we have problems building self-sufficient colonies even here on Earth. So, it might be wise to direct the money towards solving this problem first and worrying about making them spaceworthy after it's solved.

      Finally, far more public money is squandered on other things such as wars, government retirement and health care services, and corruption.

      This might surprise you, but in most of the world a government is supposed to provide retirement and health care. Equating them with corruption and wars does nothing except make you seem like a right-wing fundamentalist.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    36. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between Unions and Mafia now?

      Why yes: A Labour Union is a bunch of employees who have joined together to get equivalent negotiating position to employers, while the Mafia is a bunch criminals who have joined together to rob peopel more effectively. They have nothing to do with each other, except in right-wing rethoric where demanding payment for a job is evil since it cuts to the profits of billionaires.

      I learn something new every day...

      If only you right-wing nuts did, the economy wouldn't be in the toilet now. But I guess you can't help your destructive, oppressive and authoritarian nature - after all, if you could, you wouldn't be right-wing.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For a better comparison, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers:
      "The total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90-Martian-day (sol) primary mission was US$820 million." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover
      The moon is a lot closer than Mars, so it doesn't seem entirely infeasible that they could do things significantly cheaper.

      Sorry, but that simply isn't true. For any space mission, a very large chunk of the total cost is the cost of getting the payload into Earth orbit. Once there, you can use high-efficiency low-energy transfer orbits to get to just about anywhere in the solar system, with very little in the way of energy expenditure compared to the trip up to orbit.

      The only real difference between having the Moon as a target as opposed to Mars is that the Mars mission will have a transit time measured in years, as opposed to days for the the Moon mission. For manned missions, those transit times are very significant (life support requirements), but for unmanned missions they don't add substantially to the cost.

      Costs do increase with distance (you have to pay ground controllers to monitor things during those longer transits), but the the difference isn't as great as you appear to believe.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    38. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fixing Hubble via a robot would had been easier than by a human, since Hubble is close enough to Earth that direct control is possible, and a robot doesn't need a bulky spacesuit, making it more dexterous.

      The principle you outline is often correct, but in this case, no: watch the Hubble repair documentary.

      If a robot had been sent to fix Hubble, the mission would have failed.

      Teleoperated Robot: "~twist~ Force required to turn last screw exceeds safe limit. Awaiting further instructions. Torque limit overridden by ground control. ~twistharder~ Screw not moving, but force required has dropped to near zero. Screw is now stripped. Entering safe mode."

      Human: "~twist~ Screw's stuck. ~twistharder~ Crap, Screw's stripped. Look, the objective isn't to remove the screws, it's to get the handrail out of the way, so how 'bout we wrap some tape around the end of the handrail to catch any debris and just http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts125/090517fd7/index4.html">bend the handrail until it tears off?"

      Robots are more durable than humans, but humans are more flexible.

    39. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      Last time we talked about rocketry the +5 people said LEO and geostationary are different beasts. The moon is ~10x higher up.

      Mebbe Chinese spies have found those old Saturn V blueprints the US misplaced. Give them a call? Just refurbish the old tech with some new magnets, alloys and microchips and presto it's ultra-modern. Thermodynamics don't change.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    40. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      it is a fallacy to continue to believe man can do more than a robot in near-earth space. Anything a human can do could have been by remote control.

      No. Repairing complex instruments like the Hubble couldn't have been done by robot.

      Isolated speaking, I have no doubt the Hubble missions were done cheaper and better by men. But we have also put a huge, huge cost in developing and sustaining the space shuttle program. If we didn't have the space shuttles, could we have developed those robotics? Launched another Hubble to take its place? The Shuttle has cost about 1.3 billion dollars on average for each launch, the build costs for Hubble was at the best source I could find about 2.5 billion dollars. None of which really give us the marginal costs of another shuttle launch or another Hubble, but going with what I got for every two service missions we could have sent up a new one. A billion is more than the whole total of the Mars rovers including all the mission extensions. Even if the shuttle can do some things humans can't, it's still a very expensive way to solve a problem.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    41. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Many unions are mafia-controlled, especially in the northeast. It's a sad fact of life. Deal with it.

      Funny, from my diverse perspective, destruction, oppression, and authoritarianism are left-wing ideals. What is the leftist position on the creativity allowed by free enterprise?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    42. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Robots are more durable than humans, but humans are more flexible.

      I re-iterate: Hubble is close enough to Earth that you can directly control a repair robot. By direct control I mean you can have someone put on a force feedback glove on the surface and control every last motion made by the robot directly.

      In other words, you get the best of both worlds: the flexibility of human minds and the durability of robot bodies.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    43. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      "Height" doesn't translate as directly as you would think...

      Saturn V had 119 tons to LEO and 45 tons to the Moon. The heaviest Japanese rocket right now, without further modifications, has 19t to LEO and...8t to GTO (so even less to GEO, quite possibly a rather noticeably smaller proportion of total payload than what you can get with "simple" escape trajectory)

      Plus - you're in no real hurry when you do a robotic mission to the Moon; lower energy transfer paths become available.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    44. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Many unions are mafia-controlled, especially in the northeast. It's a sad fact of life. Deal with it.

      Many unions are not Mafia-controlled, especially anywhere but the northeast of the USA. It's a sad fact of life for the right-wing zealots who dislike serfs getting uppity. Deal with it.

      Funny, from my diverse perspective, destruction, oppression, and authoritarianism are left-wing ideals. What is the leftist position on the creativity allowed by free enterprise?

      Leftist position summarized: human life, dignity and freedom are more important than corporate profits.

      "Free enterprise" is a fine ideal, but it inevitably leads to monopolies that prey on people. Government regulation is needed both to keep corporations from growing into such monopolies, and to allow people options besides starvation and slavery. A megacorporation is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a government agency - yes, even in the "use of force" department: after all, a rich enough person or corporation can easily bribe the government to do its bidding.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    45. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Rubber won't work. The components needed to keep it flexible tend to vaporize in vacuum.

      OTOH, you can probably come up with something made from silicone that will do the job. It just can't have any volatile ingredients.

      I'm sure this has been a problem, but it believe that it's already been solved. (I just don't happen to know what the answer was.)

      OTOH, we're talking about wanting a long lifetime. Maybe they'll use hermetic seals...only thing is, I think Mercury is also volatile. But there's probably a silicone compound that you could substitute, and which isn't volatile. That means you lose flexibility in your external joint.

      The alternative is if you can come up with a tough flexible outer layer that can be patched, and which can overlay the ENTIRE vehicle. Unlikely if you're using treads.

      Other solutions that occur to me would be practical only after the base were built, and would essentially involve a sealed chamber that the robots walked into to be "washed off". Maybe someday, but not now.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    46. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, I just do rockets.

      This may be the first time I've seen someone seriously say, in effect, "I'm just a rocket scientist, how am I supposed to know?".

    47. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I was just giving an example of something that couldn't currently or in the near future be done by robots. While I believe the Hubble could have been better done as a series of spacecraft with no repair capability nor a dependence on the Shuttle, it remains that this is an example of something being repaired in space.

    48. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Damn scientists! Always leaving the hard stuff to the engineers! :P

      Still, more money in it though...

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    49. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Of course it could have been done by a robot. In fact, fixing Hubble via a robot would had been easier than by a human, since Hubble is close enough to Earth that direct control is possible, and a robot doesn't need a bulky spacesuit, making it more dexterous.

      If presence of a spacesuit was the only criteria for being better at a job, you'd be right. It isn't.

      This is true. However, at the present, we have problems building self-sufficient colonies even here on Earth. So, it might be wise to direct the money towards solving this problem first and worrying about making them spaceworthy after it's solved.

      Why do you think that would work? We can do multiple things at once. Further, these unspecified problems with self-sufficient colonies probably have nothing to do with the technical side of setting up a colony and everything to do with the organization managing the effort. Further, I think to decide as you've outlined above would be counterproductive. IMHO it's likely that contrary to your assertion, a space colony would provide considerable knowledge applicable to Earth-side living.

      This might surprise you, but in most of the world a government is supposed to provide retirement and health care. Equating them with corruption and wars does nothing except make you seem like a right-wing fundamentalist.

      In most parts of the world, the government is supposed to provide the wars and corruption too. I really don't care what you think this observation makes me "seem like".

    50. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      We've made the space program extremely wasteful by bothering to send humans.

      The only useful purpose of 'the space program' is to send humans into space to figure out colonization.

      See, depending on perspective, this robotic exploration of the solar system is a complete waste of time and money. Who cares what Neptune is made of?

      Getting humans a backup for Earth and understanding how to use space for military defense are the only plausible purposes for government-funded spaceflight. All the rest should be done by private charities as it's simply optional knowledge for the race.

      What if all of that money burned exploring planets that humans can never land on was spent on figuring out earth-based long-term habitats? We'd be much closer to putting a human on Mars.

      (see, the point can be argued both ways, it's all about base assumptions)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    51. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Funding to the Space Shuttle has been around $5 billion per year for most of the last 30 years or so, and just keeping the program on operational life support was quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program">$2.5 billion per year in early 2009.

      So if they deliver that entire program whose lifetime costs are only 2.2 Billion, I would be super impressed. In fact I would be impressed if we did it ourselves for 5 times that amount.

      Obviously they are low balling the bid so they can charge more for cost overruns after they have the contract.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    52. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are JAPANESE robots, these things would probably go hardcore on the dust and use it to lubricate their gears

    53. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Convector · · Score: 1

      That's in the cost range ($2 billion to $3 billion) of a NASA Flagship class mission for solar system exploration.

    54. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      if its that cheap and the pentagon loses, cant account of trillions of dollars over the decade, then its reasonable to assume, and you have to think that it is 100% certain, that the usa govt has done this already, 20 years ago, but on the far side of the moon or perhaps on the southpole.

      And yes they are good at keeping secrets, especially if treason and death is a penalty for leaks.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    55. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And since, if you read TFA, the whole purpose of this base is to return samples - your point would be what?

    56. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
      That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    57. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      What kinds of effects would the dust have...

      No problem

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    58. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I suppose for now you can be glad they didn't spend that money to paint their logo on the earth facing side of the moon.

    59. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the robots and the base will be very, very small :)

    60. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you launch a new Hubble, which is cheaper and better. That's what the CIA does with Keyhole satellites.

    61. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's kind of like Oregon Trail.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    62. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, you launch a new Hubble, which is cheaper and better. That's what the CIA does with Keyhole satellites.

      I agree with this sentiment. The economics of repair for Hubble didn't make sense at the time simply because one had to use the Shuttle to get to the Hubble.

    63. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other robots that handle the cleaning chores? Perhaps a cleaning station that the wandering robots check into each day...

    64. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by khallow · · Score: 1

      If we send humans to the Moon, they'll be remarkably like the humans Mark I we sent in 1969, while the most advanced robot we could have sent then was probably a digital watch.

      I disagree. Silicon hasn't changed a wit in the past 40 years (or for that matter ever) yet we can do a lot more with it today than we could in 1969. Just because the human hasn't changed much doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to do more now than they could then.

      Also, I think many people grossly exaggerate the "doing" part of science. We can design the mission down here, we can do the analysis down here, only very rarely does a scientist discover something to change his plans so on the fly that we couldn't tell the robot to go back and do it again tomorrow. If the robot lacks the tools, it's very likely a human would also lack the tools. The execution can be a fairly set of simple menial tasks like collect rocks, photograph every sample, put in processing chamber, wait for analysis - no great intelligence required. It's not like we're going to bring a huge lab of equipment we might use if and only if we found something interesting, humans or not.

      Again I disagree. I actually watched some of the film of the Apollo astronauts at work (look for "orange soil" on You Tube for an interesting example). They dealt with a number of problems on the fly (for example, juryrigging a fender on the Apollo 17 rover or discussing whether to take a sample from a particular location). They also were surprisingly maneuverable given the physical and time constraints/ You also ignore the value of having the scientist on site. I grant that teleoperations probably will get good enough that someone close by could act as if they were there (guess that level is called "telepresence"). But it requires a low communication delay. Even the Moon has a bit over two second round trip delays. Something much further away (such as Mars) simply can't be done in a straightforward way, unless you have people there or nearby.

    65. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Dust is only a problem in an atmosfere.. In a vacuum it just drops on the ground just as fast an any rock.

    66. Re:Just $2.2 Billion? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      PS. And that NASA "misplaced" the blueprints is just a myth...

      While thermodynamics doesn't change, new tech would allow operating conditions requiring huge modifications anyway, if you want to exploit that new tech. Plus Chinese rockets aren't very similar to Saturn...if anything, they might be similar to von Braun designs by way of German engineers who ended up not in the US, but USSR.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  8. and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would you want the US to "take the Moon"?

    Fuck Empire. Everywhere, always. Don't take that bullshit to space, kthx.

    1. Re:and why, exactly? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your UID sounds un-American. All your bases will be belong to US.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    2. Re:and why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the grandparent means "take the moon seriously" (concatenate the title and the text).

    3. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because I'm German and when it comes to the things you jokingly brag about, America is nothing but a shitty noob compared to stuff which sadly is much closer to my home. (I guess any European could say that: America is a kid still utterly fascinated by things the adolescents are growing tired of...)

      As such I'm very much aware of the following hierarchy (just an example):

      [people who own America]
      [people who own third world countries like Germany]
      ["Americans"]
      ["Germans"]

      So when such a patriot says "we pwn you", it just means "the people that pwn me also pwn you." Another example is "we (sic!) have the nukes": nope, your owners do, they also own the bunkers, and they definitely lack a healthy lack of concern for you or anyone you care about.

      It's true, too, and that's why all the flag/dick waving is utterly ridiculous unless you're a billionaire. You're basically waving someone elses dick.

      Which is an icky thing to do.

      Fuck Empire.

    4. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      they definitely lack a healthy lack of concern"

      meh, that was supposed to read "they definitely own a healthy lack of concern"

    5. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1, Funny

      uh... yeah, that makes a LOT more sense than "take the moon" haha... oh well, thanks for the opportunity to rant anyway huh ^^

    6. Re:and why, exactly? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I think that more wise moontakeover policy for US would be to wait until Japanese build the infrastructure and then "take over" it.

      Mwahaha. Mwahahahaha.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:and why, exactly? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess I'm from the 1st category "people who own America" according to your hierarchy. I'm Chinese.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    8. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      unless you're very, very rich, that'd make you "Chinese" though, not "people who own China" or "people who own America". that's the whole point! a pawn is a pawn is a pawn, and it's better to not own anybody or anything and not be a pawn, than to be super mostest world leader of #1 acclaim and, well, be a pawn.

      pawn. pawn pawn pawn. :D

    9. Re:and why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to say that it would be wise to sit around on earth and do nothing until the japs realign themself with the axis forces and bomb pearl harbour, from the moon.

    10. Re:and why, exactly? by Loupis · · Score: 1

      I believe you meant, "All your base are belong to us."

    11. Re:and why, exactly? by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For what it's worth, I hate it when people use the title to start their post; it's meant to be the subject, not the first part of the first sentence...

    12. Re:and why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fuck Empire.

      Look at me guys, I'm against nationalism! Am I cool yet?

    13. Re:and why, exactly? by Shulai · · Score: 1

      I guess you are anarchist, aren't you?

    14. Re:and why, exactly? by underqualified · · Score: 1

      everything's made in china. you own the whole damn planet.

    15. Re:and why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worse than that. he's german.

    16. Re:and why, exactly? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      This is correct, the empire ppl get ideas like this...

      http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

      1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

      Rule #1 is my main issue while most of the rest make sense.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    17. Re:and why, exactly? by FranklinWebber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hello Johann Lau,

      I think you are responding seriously to a post that was not meant to be taken seriously. In case you are not familiar with the phrase, see

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

      for the reference behind the GP's humor.

    18. Re:and why, exactly? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Why would you want the US to "take the Moon"?

      Because if we the humanity stay limited on a single world, we're dead as soon as the next killer asteroid, megavolcano, or superplague comes along. We have to expand to space.

      It's not about nations. It's not about ideology. It's about survival: if we the humanity want to have a future, we must take space. For hope's sake, someone take the fucking moon already!

      Fuck Empire. Everywhere, always. Don't take that bullshit to space, kthx.

      If it takes imperialistic pride to do what has to be done, then so be it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:and why, exactly? by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      I think he's recently had his eyes opened about the empire and is still in shock.
      He's also absolutely right. 99.9% of us are just pawns.

    20. Re:and why, exactly? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Fuck Empire.

      Look at me guys, I'm against nationalism! Am I cool yet?

      Can't wait to see "Empire Fucks Back"...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re:and why, exactly? by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      If you work for the govt you are slightly less of a pawn, but the ideal would be to own robots that do work for you. So returning to the topic, go go Super Transforming JAXA!

      If your multi-purpose robots can build robots that build multi-purpose robots you can enable your fellow man provided you get your elements free of charge. Known to be on the moon is Si, Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, Ti, and Na which to work with, but perhaps a hight-temp superconductor can be concocted to substitute copper wire. Unfortunately, patents. The dream is still many decades away.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    22. Re:and why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember: When you owe a guy ten thousand dollars and can't pay, you have a problem; when you owe a guy a trillion dollars and can't pay, he has a problem.

    23. Re:and why, exactly? by Golias · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he's from the country that the "pawns" played Chess with for over half a century.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    24. Re:and why, exactly? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Bomb? They're planning a ROBOT moon base, if they launch an attack from there you'll get swarmed by mechas.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    25. Re:and why, exactly? by SakuraDreams · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for America you'd be waving the Swastika right now.

    26. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      no shit sherlock. but then again, if *anything* in the past would have been different, *anything* could be reality right now. let's say, Columbus never liked boats or something - we might all be waving swiss cheese right now. who knows? it's a silly "argument" in any case, but to reply to my statement of "fuck empire" with something like that is just idiotic.

      if you have anything to argue against what I posted, do that, but save me your strawmen and ad-hominems. I simply misread "take the moon (seriously)" as "take the moon" and made some utterly random, yet true observations. bam! come the monkeys.

      off-topic? yeah. flamebait? you wish. well, whatever.

      people who identify with their "countries" inevitably get fucked over, starting with the fact that they can't make a fucking straightforward reply to a single statement they don't like. fact! cheers :P

    27. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      besides, you say this as if you would NOT be waving swastikas, and more importantly, as if swastikas were the issue. millenia of buddhists would probably disagree here, so I guess you don't mean the symbol. is it the jews? nah, stalin wasn't so great either. so hmm, maybe it's the whole "with empire comes horrible bullshit" thing? oh wait, wasn't that my original point?

      and just like in the nazi empire it was absolutely ridiculous to consider Germany as anything but a victim and the bearer of light and peace, so it is now in hearing range of the minds that belong to the American empire.

      therefore all the bullshit replies I guess. you don't even blink. you think you really showed me uhh. *groans*

      again, if anyone is able to address a point I raised, I'm kinda still waiting for that (if anything, it's off-topic after all.. but I'm not going to dignify that load of crap with individual answers haha)

    28. Re:and why, exactly? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Careful! He's German - this sort of humour might give him an aneurysm.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    29. Re:and why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment as a whole was interesting and worth the moderation it received.

      America is nothing but a shitty noob compared to stuff which sadly is much closer to my home. (I guess any European could say that: America is a kid still utterly fascinated by things the adolescents are growing tired of...)

      However, I grow tired of seeing this ridiculous analogy being regurgitated ad nauseum. America is not a kid or like a kid nor any European nation an adolescent or like and adolescent. We are all human and we all share a common human history.

    30. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      I replied to someone whom I (mistakenly) believed had said they wish the US would "take the moon". that's obviously not thinking beyond national borders, so I replied in within that framework, and while the wording was bleh, I stand by the content, or rather, intention of wanting to say "you think having the biggest stick is so great, but let me tell you, there is a horrible, horrible hangover".

      But yeah, it's not like all Americans don't know that and Europeans magically do, so good call ^^

    31. Re:and why, exactly? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      no shit sherlock. but then again, if *anything* in the past would have been different, *anything* could be reality right now. let's say, Columbus never liked boats or something - we might all be waving swiss cheese right now. who knows? it's a silly "argument" in any case, but to reply to my statement of "fuck empire" with something like that is just idiotic.

      Not really. Thinking in terms of empires and national power may seem outdated to Germans who now live in a post nationalist world, but the only reason Germans have that luxury is because the US stopped the Nazis and deterred the Communists.

      As Robert Kagan pithily put it "Europe’s new Kantian order could flourish only under the umbrella of American power exercised according to the rules of the old Hobbesian order"

      http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-20020520.htm

      Americans who came of age during the Cold War have always thought of Europe almost exclusively in Achesonian terms — as the essential bulwark of freedom in the struggle against Soviet tyranny. But Americans of Roosevelt’s era had a different view. In the late 1930s the common conviction of Americans was that “the European system was basically rotten, that war was endemic on that continent, and the Europeans had only themselves to blame for their plight.” By the early 1940s Europe appeared to be nothing more than the overheated incubator of world wars that cost America dearly. During World War II Americans like Roosevelt, looking backward rather than forward, believed no greater service could be performed than to take Europe out of the global strategic picture once and for all. “After Germany is disarmed,” FDR pointedly asked, “what is the reason for France having a big military establishment?” Charles DeGaulle found such questions “disquieting for Europe and for France.” Even though the United States pursued Acheson’s vision during the Cold War, there was always a part of American policy that reflected Roosevelt’s vision, too. Eisenhower undermining Britain and France at Suez was only the most blatant of many American efforts to cut Europe down to size and reduce its already weakened global influence.

      But the more important American contribution to Europe’s current world-apart status stemmed not from anti-European but from pro-European impulses. It was a commitment to Europe, not hostility to Europe, that led the United States in the immediate postwar years to keep troops on the continent and to create NATO. The presence of American forces as a security guarantee in Europe was, as it was intended to be, the critical ingredient to begin the process of European integration.

      Europe’s evolution to its present state occurred under the mantle of the U.S. security guarantee and could not have occurred without it. Not only did the United States for almost half a century supply a shield against such external threats as the Soviet Union and such internal threats as may have been posed by ethnic conflict in places like the Balkans. More important, the United States was the key to the solution of the German problem and perhaps still is. Germany’s Fischer, in the Humboldt University speech, noted two “historic decisions” that made the new Europe possible: “the usa’s decision to stay in Europe” and “France’s and Germany’s commitment to the principle of integration, beginning with economic links.” But of course the latter could never have occurred without the former. France’s willingness to risk the reintegration of Germany into Europe — and France was, to say the least, highly dubious — depended on the promise of continued American involvement in Europe as a guarantee against any resurgence of German militarism. Nor were postwar Germans unaware that their own future in Europe depended on the calming prese

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    32. Re:and why, exactly? by daemonenwind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess you have not yet realized that all the people with the genetic makeup to make something of themselves left the Fatherland in the political unrest of the late 19th century. (For us, 1848) Most went to the US.

      This means that what was left in Europe is all the adolescent attitude and garbage. The US is, in fact, the proper maturation of Western thought after Europe went to nothing in the course of it's wars.

      In fact, the longest peace Europe has known (1945-now) exists because it is occupied by these people you call children. Before 1946, the history of Europe is of some tribes of barbarians wandering in and spending the next 1500 years fighting amongst themselves.

      You do speak properly when you refer to yourself as an adolescent, though. This sort of arrogant, self-righteous attitude is seen primarily in adolescents and in Europeans. We Germans are particularly bad about it. Perhaps if we could even decide amongst ourselves if Greece is worth saving, we could tell the Americans how to use their power. We have forgotten how to be the European Gleichgewicht.

      Thankfully the US has taken up the cause. And for this, you call them Empire. You don't know what Empire is.

    33. Re:and why, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians won World War II, not the Americans.

    34. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      well, thanks for the laughs :D

    35. Re:and why, exactly? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Don't take that bullshit to space, kthx.

      You're naive. It will happen; mankind will venture into space and bring his military with him. If we don't, someone else will. Do you really want China or Russia having comfortable control over what is the ultimate upper ground? It would be possibly with today's technology to build a spacecraft that could sortie into orbit, drop bombs on enemy cities from LEO, then return to home base. How would you defend against that?? Would you prefer we take steps to develop those kinds of technologies, or should we hide our heads in the sand and let someone else get the drop on us?

    36. Re:and why, exactly? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      You're naive. It will happen

      How is basically saying "please don't do it, it's lame" naive? I'm not expecting every single human to wise up anytime soon. I'm just saying it's utterly retarded and useless, which is correct.. and don't think I'm just saying that to an American, instead of to everybody.

      It's been bullshit on Earth, it will be bullshit in space. No conqueror, no Empire ever had anything of worth. Kind acts and honesty last, power doesn't. History gets forced to praise the winnars for a few centuries, and then most of what seemed shiny becomes dull and ugly and gets swept under the rug.

      To be unaware of that, to be so distracted, that is naive.

      What you said kinda reminded me of the Cold War and Dr. Strangelove, and isn't it funny how after the Soviet Block collapsed, the weapons industry kept right on chugging? Hardly anyone even blinks. Because "the world is still a dangerous place"... ... war is a racket, and always has been.

    37. Re:and why, exactly? by Issarlk · · Score: 2, Informative

      African countries actually build rockets and plan to put satelittes into space. As can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR97o_FuX-c

  9. Yay and nay by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Yay for building this base thanks to robots
    Nay for building it with humanoid robots

    My bet is that they'll get their funds by showing nice pictures of Asimo wielding a pickaxe but when it will come to design their robots will look more like vehicles than to Johnny 5

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Yay and nay by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Even from TFS, it's clear that at least large part of them will be "vehicles", just with arms added. Probably attached to a "torso" of vaguedly human proportions, with cameras of top.

      No, it isn't pointless, not for teleoperation - and Moon is just close enough to at least consider it with skilled human operators.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Yay and nay by cunniff · · Score: 1

      Close - I bet they get their funds by broadcasting the humanoids as they wear / hold / use various retail items. For a fee.

    3. Re:Yay and nay by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it isn't pointless, not for teleoperation - and Moon is just close enough to at least consider it with skilled human operators.

      And the longer they're up there for, the cheaper this becomes, in comparison to humans. Even ignoring the costs of getting food and oxygen there and maintaining life support systems, humans need to be brought back periodically. You need to rotate the crew, and sending a couple of people to the moon and back, even once per year, quickly gets expensive. With robots up there, you can put different experts in the control center every week for a comparatively tiny cost.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Yay and nay by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Not only rotation - with the whole setup of such Moon explorers being driven also by multitude of sensors and image streams (and not around keeping humans alive and sane), I would expect a small army of researchers observing everything that happens around those robots.

      Hm, that could be interesting via public "wetware distributed computing" in the style of Stardust@home or Galaxy@home...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  10. Great - another niche brand by skelterjohn · · Score: 1

    Just wait until all those humans start wearing the trademarked FRBR apparel.

  11. This is sure to be a good thing for Toyota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can't get any worse, now, can it.

    How are they going to land when the thing is running wild?

  12. JAXA beating NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently JAXA has been working on really cool and affordable (nation scale) projects, guess its time to pass the torch NASA.

    Over time they will also turn into similar behemoth like the current NASA but by then we will actually be looking at making profit from going to space so it just won't matter, private industry will be all over that.

  13. Foolish Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The robots and the base will run on solar power

    They won't get much solar power on the moon since it's only out at night. We should copy their idea but build our base on the sun.

  14. Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by bradbury · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All I can say is "Its about time." The human body is not designed to operate in space, indeed almost all biological systems on Earth that reside under nice "shields" including the magnetic field, the atmosphere, the ozone layer or even the oceans and they were not designed (evolved) to withstand the hazards of space. Ignoring minor topics like micrometeorites and the lack of atmosphere one has the ongoing problem of radiation exposure. Humans for example have 150-200 genes in the genome (~1%) whose purpose is to repair DNA damage. It does not do so reliably (so radiation causes gradual genome decay). And although one may develop "shields" this makes activities by humans in space inherently more expensive than using the right "organism" [1]. Anyone aware of robotics research knows that the Japanese are pushing this forward at a very rapid pace. Presumably much faster than one can push forward human "evolution" [2].

    Yes humans can engineer suits, habitats, shields, rovers, etc. which would allow humans to operate in such alien environments. But *why* do this? One has to remember that the "moon rocks" were brought back to Earth for analysis. We have to develop the remote robotics operations capabilities for exploration anyway [3]. Lets do it for the moon first.

    If people want to go places to say "I have been there", then fine let them pay for it (as private citizens or organizations) -- just don't expect all the rest of us to pay for your expensive vacation. The robotic development of the moon could serve as a prelude for human colonies there (to preserve humanity from terrestrial impacts) or taking vacations there. The moon is close enough that round trip radio can be used to control or reprogram robots in the event of complex/unforseen situations (remember we reprogrammed the Galileo mission when it proved necessary). The "nightmare" scenario of robots evolving into autonomous entities (a new robotic species) only arises when one is dealing with situations where remote control and/or reprogramming are not possible and one has designed the robots both self-reproduction and intelligence enhancement capabilities -- and I think we are still quite some distance from those achievements.

    1. References to using a hammer as a screwdriver apply when using humans in space. Astronauts require additional tools and training to work in space. Instead design the systems to be easily maintained and repaired by robots in space.
    2. Ideally if one wanted humans to live in space one would use genetic engineering to produce humans which were radiation tolerant. This not only has benefits from a space exploration standpoint -- such humans would likely have reduced cancer rates as well. But such developments are at least a generation away.
    3. I have yet to see a single proposal for a single human "submarine" or a human colony to explore the oceans of Europa to search for life or provide a humanity "safe room".

    1. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by khallow · · Score: 1

      There are several things to note here. First, humans are the most advanced, intelligent, and flexible robot we have. They're also pretty cheap to make and replace (on the order of ten million dollars currently). There's also a vast Earth-side infrastructure based around the human. Just because the human isn't perfectly adapted to a space environment, doesn't mean that it isn't well suited to a variety of operations in space.

      Having said that, the Moon is an ideal place to develop space robotics. There's a low communication delay with Earth, which has a vast supply of human robots.

    2. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The human body is not designed to operate in space,

      No shit Sherlock! It's also not designed to withstand a lot of the extreme weather present in various locations of the earth, say, the Antarctica, Mt. Everest (and many other very high mountains), free diving 100m deep in the ocean, and the list goes on. But that hasn't stopped exploration and dreaming, and just pure adventurism. The human mind is a curious little thing, that finds joy in achieving things that have very little actual purpose. In all honesty, space exploration is just about as meaningless in any tangible, logical way, as free diving. But we find immaterial tangibility and reason to do so, simply because we're curious and adventurous, in ways only our minds can understand. Any other life form on earth, if they could speak, would probably say "hell no I don't wanna go there! Take me somewhere a bit more comfortable thank you very much!"

      So what I'm saying is that just because we're not built to do it, doesn't mean we shouldn't, or don't want to. At the moment, I think we can achieve more by sending robots to work a few more things out first. But in the long run, that is just a preliminary step to figuring out ways we can do it ourselves. Expect plenty of excuses along the way as to why it needs to be human. But in the end, it is the desire to just be there and do that. That curiosity is what propels us to advance though, so don't be so fast to discount it.

    3. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by chowdahhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      The amount of exposure in REMs during the Apollo missions was extraordinarily low in contrast to the common misconception that it wasn't. There are many reasons for manned colonization and exploration being less practical than robotic missions, but radiation exposure shouldn't be one of them. In fact, in terms of technical hurdles, it should be one of the easier to overcome. I think one of the arguments in favor of manned space flight is adaptability. Robotics are limited to what their design specifications allow them to do. For example, the Spirit rover is a wonderful machine, but it can't repair itself or free its wheels. Humans can react instantaneously to unanticipated and catastrophic circumstances and succeed.

    4. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The moon is close enough that round trip radio can be used to control or reprogram robots in the event of complex/unforseen situations (remember we reprogrammed the Galileo mission when it proved necessary).

      That's why this endeavor is wholly useless for the operation in far-away places such as Mars, Europa (the Jovian moon), Titan, etc. By dicking around with remote controlled robots, we will learn next to nothing useful for colonizing the more hospitable planets of the solar system. The 40 minute (that would be the shortest) rount-trip of command-feedback loop to Mars, makes it necessary to basically give the commands to the martian rovers one day and wait till the next to see what happened. That slows down their effectiveness/productivity millions of times.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by cynyr · · Score: 1

      the cost is good, but look at the leadtime, and it's 10mil per, get some general probe onto a robotic assembly line, and i bet the cost per unit is waaaay under that at 30mil units.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    6. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people want to go places to say "I have been there", then fine let them pay for it (as private citizens or organizations) -- just don't expect all the rest of us to pay for your expensive vacation.
      Yeah, you want science to solve only your problems. You assume that everybody thinks this way. Don't expect all the rest of us to pay?? How do you know how many people are interested or are not interested in advancing rocket science? If you have any knowledge about the history of innovation, then you will know that an invention has roots in other inventions. You cannot just say that if you want to solve problem X, then I will only fund for solving problem X and not any other related problem.

    7. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by kumanopuusan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft - and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. - Wernher von Braun

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    8. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by khallow · · Score: 1

      the cost is good, but look at the leadtime, and it's 10mil per, get some general probe onto a robotic assembly line, and i bet the cost per unit is waaaay under that at 30mil units.

      Almost all of that overhead is paid whether or not we put people into space. And globally we're generating something like 120-150 million new people each year. While many of those are in places that don't have the infrastructure to train them, it's still a huge production rate.

    9. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by bradbury · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not talking about REM sleep. I'm talking about physical damage to DNA caused by ionizing radiation (gamma-rays & X-rays where the photons have enough energy to split water molecules) which produces hydroxyl radicals in the nucleus that attack the DNA. Similar but more extensive damage is caused by heavy ions (charged Fe, C, O, etc. that stream through space -- and ultimately contribute to cosmic ray showers). The only way to shield from the high energy photons is a lot of mass (e.g. lead or an equivalent mass of liquid/solid H) [what one wants is "nucleus" density). In a pinch one could get by with a lot of water/ice which has other uses and probably has to be carried along unless you have a completely closed recycling environmental system with zero losses.

      I was quite surprised that current NASA policy limits total space time of astronauts so as to *only* increase their lifetime cancer risk by something like 4-6% -- and that is for non-lunar flights within the magnetosphere (which does a lot of the shielding for us). Presumably if one is willing to sit on top of tons of rocket fuel one can view future cancer risk as acceptable. But that wasn't considering months or years of total time in space.

      And while yes, the human body is capable of a lot of self-repair and most robots are not but that doesn't mean that they cannot be designed with sufficient redundancy (4 antennas instead of 2, 8 wheels instead of 6, etc.) or have "spares" available, etc. In case you haven't noticed a *lot* of what has been going up in the Space Shuttle recently has been spare parts to extend the lifetime of the space station. A properly designed robotic colony would have a robot replacement part warehouse just like any factory on Earth which requires 24/7 operation. And you might notice that on the Apollo missions I don't think there was a physician on the crew manifest nor was there an operating room available for serious injuries. So the repair capabilities for humans in space are somewhat limited compared to what they are in developed societies here on Earth. No holographic doctors at the Moon Colony.

    10. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by bradbury · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The satellites and the Mars rovers are not wholly "remote controlled" -- they are running "limited intelligence" programs that allow them significant amounts of autonomous operation. I'd put them as comparable to perhaps 4-8 year old humans in terms of "autonomous" operation. They needed external management and contributions from time to time. And as I recall Apollo 13 would fall into a similar category even though it had adult *human* operators.

      As far as "colonizing" goes -- there isn't a "hospitable planet" in the solar system. In order to make Mars hospitable you need to terraform it. In order to terraform it you need molecular nanotechnology. If you have molecular nanotechnology you might as well disassemble it and contribute its mass to the Matrioshka Brain. If you really want to colonize someplace alien but hospitable there are places like Antarctica, 1+ mile deep in the ocean, the cone of an active volcano, a lot of mountain peaks. Some of those have been colonized but not *really* since they have access to regular support on pretty much an "as needed" basis. If you want to *really* colonize some of those places simply send a team of humans there and don't provide them with any external support unless there is a life or death situation (and even then you are probably breaking the game rules). One could easily make up situations here on Earth that look like Moon, Mars or even Europa colonization efforts *WITHOUT* the expense of having to design new rockets, haul mass out of the Earth's gravity well, insert it safely into foreign gravity wells, etc. The "colonization" part is one aspect of the problem. What resources you do it with can be artificially constrained if you know enough about where you are starting from and where you are going to end up. If there is no ice on the South Pole at the moon then human colonization becomes an much different exercise than if there is. But we could fairly easily play out both scenarios here on Earth.

      If on the other hand, colonization which is extremely difficult is your cup of tea, might I suggest a colony on the surface of Jupiter.

    11. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get into a semantics argument. Point is, the rovers can barely dislodge themselves from a rut, or go 20 m per day. That's a problem sphere caused by highly-delayed remote control. I would be very surprised if you disagreed with this point. But hey, you just might.

      I won't get into your next paragraph - I don't believe in terraforming. And for the record, I am a researcher in nanotechnology.

      Your third paragraph sends your whole post straight into the trashbin.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    12. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      That's why this endeavor is wholly useless for the operation in far-away places such as Mars, Europa (the Jovian moon), Titan, etc. By dicking around with remote controlled robots, we will learn next to nothing useful for colonizing the more hospitable planets of the solar system.

      It's unlikely that robots on the moon would be remotely operated, although it would be an option in certain cases. They'll be programmed to do their tasks and controllers will move on to other things. But when you're on Mars and you need to change something it takes hours to do it and confirm that it worked. And years to send a replacement if you screw it up. How long would it have taken controllers to figure out what method will get a rover unstuck on the moon vs Mars? On Mars if you get the rover free you continue on being very careful where you drive. On the moon you might choose to get it stuck again and test which procedure works best.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    13. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by chowdahhead · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about REM sleep either. I'm talking about REM as a unit of radiation exposure. Last year, there was some interesting information written about the Apollo program, coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. You can Google for the exact numbers but the total radiation exposure for each Apollo mission was approximately equivalent to a CT scan. The command module was designed to protect the crews to within a narrow range of exposure and data has shown it to be successful at that. A moon base would require more shielding, but again, radiation shouldn't be a logistical problem to the degree that resource management would be. Getting back to robotics, it certainly makes sense for deep space probes and short-term data gathering rovers, but for a nearby space base, the manned-space mission advocates have a point. It isn't a much different situation than if we built the ISS and decided to staff it only with robots. It could still depend on the type of research done there, but robots can only do what they were designed to do, and I'm not only thinking of self-repair but as a broad limitation overall.

    14. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by bradbury · · Score: 1

      Astronauts are not "mass produced". They are a rather select group of highly trained individuals. The people who train them are not "unskilled". They require the support of a *lot* of computers to both design their spacecraft, build them and operate them. And to a large extent computers are now built by computers at the design, chip making and testing phases.

      In case you haven't priced it out recently the cost of a whole rack of microprocessors, i.e. a supercomputer, is a heck of a lot cheaper than a highly trained human astronaut.

      I suspect when Wernher made that statement he had no idea the extent to which modern society and indeed space development and exploration would become dependent on mass-produced non-human computers. (A close friend of my fathers was one of the people who worked on the design of some of the first integrated circuits which would eventually be used in some of the Apollo electronics.) The first mass produced microprocessor, the 4004, was released in 1971 when Wernher was 59. Wernher von Braun was dead before the 8086 was released which lead to the PC era). Opinions when may be correct in some contexts may not be correct in others.

    15. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Astronauts are not "mass produced". They are a rather select group of highly trained individuals. The people who train them are not "unskilled". They require the support of a *lot* of computers to both design their spacecraft, build them and operate them. And to a large extent computers are now built by computers at the design, chip making and testing phases.

      It remains that there is a great supply of individuals to chose from (for example, NASA typically receives a thousand applicants for a prospective astronaut job) and that the training for these individuals is not that expensive compared to other costs of space activities.

      In case you haven't priced it out recently the cost of a whole rack of microprocessors, i.e. a supercomputer, is a heck of a lot cheaper than a highly trained human astronaut.

      And it is well known that there are many tasks that humans can perform which the rack of microprocessors can't. I wouldn't bring up humans from Earth to do the job of a rack of microprocessors, but it's worth noting that adding humans to current space flight plans does add considerable flexibility that you wouldn't otherwise have.

      I suspect when Wernher made that statement he had no idea the extent to which modern society and indeed space development and exploration would become dependent on mass-produced non-human computers. (A close friend of my fathers was one of the people who worked on the design of some of the first integrated circuits which would eventually be used in some of the Apollo electronics.) The first mass produced microprocessor, the 4004, was released in 1971 when Wernher was 59. Wernher von Braun was dead before the 8086 was released which lead to the PC era). Opinions when may be correct in some contexts may not be correct in others.

      One thing to remember here is that space development and exploration is highly dependent on mass produced computers at the design and manufacture stage, but not usually at deployment. The environment of space is not friendly to cutting edge electronics and it is typical to have electronics, which lags by decades, of far lower power and complexity than that which is found on Earth. Part of what makes space activities so difficult currently is that the most significant problems really haven't changed since the time of von Braun.

      So what are these problems?

      • Doing things in space is expensive.
      • It is hard to make money in space, that is, there isn't a lot of revenue possible currently from space activities.
      • Everything has to be controlled from Earth.
      • The space environment imposes harsh restrictions on your equipment and human participants in space.

      Technology really only helps to a degree with the last two items. The first two, which I consider the most important two, are almost pure economic obstacles that we have slowly been chipping away at ever since the 60s.

    16. Re:Look to see human exploration fans squirm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone aware of robotics research knows that the Japanese are pushing this forward at a very rapid pace. Presumably much faster than one can push forward human "evolution" [2].

      Actuall20-armed humans astronauts are being developed in Japan. I think the project is called Tentacle Rape.

  15. Go go Grendizer! by XnR'rn · · Score: 2, Funny

    They were culturally indoctrinated for years for stuff like this (random link to random giant robot anime ommited). I am not surprised.

    1. Re:Go go Grendizer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse than that... a new space race is starting, even as prototypes are being tested. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDEpGk5GJ0I

      Scary! (look the last scene...)

  16. Ohhhhhhhhh by dreemernj · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're whalers on the Moon, we carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tune.

    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
  17. Obligatory mission anthem by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    And knowing the Japanese it probably will be the mission anthem.

    There you go, Astro Boy
    On your flight into space
    Rocket high, through the sky
    For adventures soon you will face!

    Astro Boy bombs away
    On your mission today
    Here's the countdown
    And the blastoff
    Everything is go Astro Boy!

    Astro Boy, as you fly
    Strange new worlds you will spy
    Atom celled, jet propelled
    Fighting monsters high in the sky!

    Astro Boy, there you go
    Will you find friend or foe?
    Cosmic Ranger, laugh at danger
    Everything is go Astro Boy!

    Crowds will cheer you, you're a hero
    As you go go go Astro Boy!


    .

    1. Re:Obligatory mission anthem by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod. Now that stupid song is going to be rattling around my brain all day. Why did you have to go and do that?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  18. application for 3D printers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I was in charge of the mission, I'd be tempted to send up a 3D printer and a collection of parts that were hard to print so that I could build new tools on the fly as the need came up. Have at least one robot whose purpose was to build new robots and repair old ones. It's much cheaper to send information/programs than physical objects.

    1. Re:application for 3D printers by pyalot · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! Moon dust is an excellent building material, especially if you combine it with oxygen (cooked out of silica) you combine with hydrogen (as found on the pole), which gives you water, that you mix with lime (which is abundant on the moon) to concrete.

    2. Re:application for 3D printers by symbolset · · Score: 1

      South pole location is likely because LCROSS found water there last November. Much easier to dig it out of a dark crater than bake hydrogen and oxygen out of rock. Although the robots might base there, they could use a precision catapult to deliver ice anywhere on the moon.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  19. dont be storing nuclear waste there now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know what happened to MOON base alpha
    guess this will be the beta version

  20. threat to the dairy industry? by AffidavitDonda · · Score: 1

    Will those robots be able to harvest cheese?

  21. Obligatory "that's not a moon-" by schn · · Score: 1

    -it's a Death Star. At least, that's what it will be in a little while. Complete with robot Vader. Batteries somewhat included.

  22. Yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They build stuff in Africa, just most stays there, their internal consumption takes most of it. Overview:

    http://www.mbendi.com/indy/mnfc/af/index.htm

  23. Can you smell it? by Majestix · · Score: 1

    That smells like....like.....space race on the wind. Mmmmm....savor the aroma...

    Then again, i wonder if we are up to it. I'd LIKE to think we are.

    --
    --- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
    1. Re:Can you smell it? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 1

      I think you're just smelling progress in other parts of the world. We here in the USA have too many other things going on to be worrying about a space race right now. It's not on the forefront of the mind of anyone who matters.

    2. Re:Can you smell it? by Majestix · · Score: 1

      Mmmm...could be, could be.

      So i'll have to get my Space Exploration thrills vicariously...sigh.

      But has it ever been? Give us a moment to actually notice (snicker) and see some progress on the Japanese side and i'd like to think that might kickstart something. Eh, we'll see.

      --
      --- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
  24. Off World will be a refuge for the robots... by Go_Ask_Alex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Japanese robot moon base is a spectacular announcement. It provides the ability to perform all kind of work and activity on the moon without the burden of human life support, or risk to humans considering cosmic radiation cancer risk, silica moon dust hazards, etc.

    But here on Slashdot, many respond with nationalistic bickering and insults. Shouldn't this tech-savvy bunch be smarter and above this?

    Maybe humans in their present physical and psychological state aren't meant for really space? Off World will end up being a refuge for the robots and replicants.

  25. Not 660 lbs, 300kg. by KeithIrwin · · Score: 4, Informative

    See, this is one of those places where we should discuss mass, not weight. Because it's not clear whether we're talking about robots which would weigh 660 pounds on earth or 660 pounds on the moon (which would be about 3960 pounds on Earth, quite a difference). The C-Net article (on which the PopSci article is based) took the information from a blog post from a Japanese Blog called Node. In that blog post, it says 300kg. The author of the C-Net article (Tim Hornyak) did the sloppy thing and just converted it to pounds without giving context. If you really want it in imperial units, the correct unit of mass is slugs. So the robots can be correctly described as being 300 kg, 20.56 slugs, or 660 pounds on Earth at sea-level.

    1. Re:Not 660 lbs, 300kg. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you're being a little too pedantic here. Mass or weight is *always* given in Earth terms unless explicitly stated otherwise.

    2. Re:Not 660 lbs, 300kg. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Pounds is also a unit of mass.

    3. Re:Not 660 lbs, 300kg. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No, the poundal is the unit of mass. I think pound is a unit of force.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Not 660 lbs, 300kg. by tighr · · Score: 1

      Pound-mass is a unit of mass. lb is a unit of weight that is equivalent to the lbm on Earth.

      1 lbm = 1 lb on Earth at sea level. In either event, I agree with the GP that the GGP is being pedantic.

  26. remote control by strack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the interesting thing is the moon is close enough for near real time control of the robots. your looking at a 2-3 second delay between the command and the visual feedback, but id say thats enough for a remote control type situation. give them a way to melt rocks on the moon, and a way to do some robot cnc tool actions, and i bet you can make damn near anything.

  27. I completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    agree with you.

  28. As Roger Waters said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll see you in The South Pole Of The Moon

  29. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you racist?

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, it didn't take long for that old canard to come up...

      What do you mean by "racist"?
      Do you mean "I don't want my white children growing up in a third world country"???

      I see you have no rational reply to anything I wrote, just the typical asshole reaction "Racist" "Racist" "Racist"...

      Try telling that to your children when their country has been destroyed.

      Never heard of South Africa? Zimbabwe? DETROIT?

  30. Best sci-fi fodder in ages by jessevondoom · · Score: 1

    Finally we know that our future robot overlords will have a nice, cozy home. Michael Bay and company are jumping for joy and furiously writing ominous lines like "we thought they were just collecting rocks" and "the robots swept down from their moon base before anyone could stop them..."

  31. What do they need a base for? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Why would robots require some sort of lunar base? They don't need to breathe, they wouldn't need to grow plants or anything for food, and they don't require any sort of protection that couldn't be built-in to themselves, so why would they need a base?

    1. Re:What do they need a base for? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Why would robots require some sort of lunar base?

      They need a powered USB hub to recharge.

    2. Re:What do they need a base for? by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 1

      Centralized communications base, perhaps? Rather than beaming commands to a bunch of scattered robots, they beam to the stationary comm base, which then can use other (perhaps more suitable/robust) transmission protocols/wavelengths to the robots.

    3. Re:What do they need a base for? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      And where does the base get it's power from?

      What sort of facilities could be in a stationary base that it would not be more practical to build into a mobile machine that's going to need access to those facilities regularly anyways?

  32. You wouldn't, unless... by pyalot · · Score: 1

    you want to do more on the moon then drive around a couple robots that eventually break down. Like say, repair those robots, extract minerals, produce rocket fuel, build other robots, satellites and rockets, and just generally set yourself up to be relevant in space in the forseeable future (unlike say, current US strategy, which sets itself up for irrelevancy).

    Obviously the Japanese have more in mind then some tourist visit and PR stunt. http://codeflow.org/articles/why-to-the-moon.html

    1. Re:You wouldn't, unless... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But you don't need a base to do all that... not for robots. Rather than building a base, it would seem much more practical for construction to be focused on building more robots to increase the redundancy of the workforce rather than some sort of central facility... if repairs are needed, the robots should be able to either repair themselves or repair others right out "in the field". Robots aren't people, they don't have anywhere even close to the same sorts of needs as we do, and the only reason I can think of to remotely justify any notion of a centralized base for them would be that it's simply something that we, as humans, can identify with and relate to.... but I really can't see it being economically practical to actually do for robots on the moon (an environment, I might point out, that is essentially free of any sort of hazards that might be harmful to a machine other than probably meteor strikes).

    2. Re:You wouldn't, unless... by pyalot · · Score: 1

      I think you'll need a base if you want to have a smelter for ores, a solar oven and a production line for parts.

    3. Re:You wouldn't, unless... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Most of those things could be "outside", located anywhere that is convenient for each. As for a production line for parts, the resources in building that factory would likely be better spent building more robots.

    4. Re:You wouldn't, unless... by pyalot · · Score: 1

      sure you can get a lot more robots for the resources you need to build a smelter and production line. But every one of your hundreds of robots is going to break down sooner or later, and you're left with nothing of value. If you want to make this a value proposition, you need to have a chance of return of investment, and you only have that if you can avoid shipping everything you'll ever need in the future to the moon.

    5. Re:You wouldn't, unless... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It should be no more difficult to make robots that are capable of repairing other robots than it should be to make robots that can build facilities in which robots are supposed to be repaired, and it should be a whole lot cheaper.

  33. R4R forever! by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    What I said.

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  34. Japan needs to spend money on anything by Simonetta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We should not forget that Japan has never recovered from their 'lost decade' after their stock market, real estate, and banking system collapsed in early 1990s.

      By standard accounting practices, their entire country is bankrupt. What keeps them going is a collective refusal to balance accounts; a cultural need to 'save face' at any cost; brutal suppression of minorities, the elderly, and the disabled; and massive government spending on dubious public-works projects.

      They are the world's masters at 'bridge-to-nowhere' projects. Where other countries would waste public funds on unwinnable foreign wars and dubious public 'wars-on-drugs', 'wars-on-poverty', 'wars-on-discrimination', the Japanese don't fight insane wars, don't get high, don't keep troublesome minorities around, and don't feel any need to be embarrassed by their discrimination against inferior humans.

      Therefore a propensity towards ridiculous 'feel-good' but meaningless public works projects like moon exploration.

      The only people who need to take the Japanese seriously are the people who live in Japan. The rest of us are only obliged (the root of the word 'abrigato') to be courteous, polite, and respectful in our personal dealing with the Japanese, and fair in our business dealings. But we are under no obligation to take anything that they do seriously.

    1. Re:Japan needs to spend money on anything by pyalot · · Score: 1

      You know the trouble is, this "bridge to nowhere" could very well turn out to be the "the bridge to everywhere". And it doesn't really matter if you do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, and even a blind chicken finds some kernel of corn. If the Japanese manage to install an industrial complex on the moon, we'll all look pretty stupid having made fun of it, because then they will simply drive space services prices down for rock bottom for anybody attempting to launch anything off earths gravity well.

  35. I am ready. by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  36. Software behind JAXA? by PatPending · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the software used by the Japanese space agency, JAXA, is AJAX?

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  37. install an industrial complex on the moon by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    Installing an industrial complex on the moon is insane for anyone. Industrial complexes make things that other people buy. Things are only made when they can be sold. The transportation costs and the capital costs of building any form of industrial complex on the moon would make it impossible to make any profit from anything made on the moon.

        In twenty years, it's going to nearly impossible to ship manufactured goods around the world, never mind shipping things between the earth and the moon. ...then they will simply drive space services prices down for rock bottom for anybody attempting to launch anything off -sic- earths gravity well

        I fail to understand how wasting billions of dollars of Japanese taxpayer's money will do anything to make it easier to get material from the earth's surface to outer space. As peak-oil manifests itself over the next 20 years, it will become more transparently absurd to fill a 35-story-high tube full of $10_a_gallon rocket fuel to put anything in space. Robots, satellites, humans, bombs, international space stations,...anything.

        Space exploration was a 20th-century phenomenon, like the Beatles or 15-foot automobiles with dorsal fins. That era is nearly over; it's not just beginning. Sorry to puncture your bubble and fantasies, but truth is truth.

    1. Re:install an industrial complex on the moon by pyalot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'll have to excuse my [sigh], but you're falling into the same trap as most, but you're so close to realizing it, yet fail to make the leap.

      Launching things off earth is not very economical. Why do we do it? We do it because there are good reasons to do it (satellite industry and scientific endeavors). If you combine all commercially rendered space services, and then also add all the funding scientific missions get, you're at a multi trillion market a year.

      Building an industrial complex on the moon doesn't help you lift things off earth. What it does do is let you launch things off the moon, into earth orbit and elsewhere, quite easily.

      If you can build and launch things off the moon, you can suddenly offer a service that is worth trillions a year in Earth dollars, at a marginal cost. Yes, there is an up-front investment to make it happen. Yes that investment is rather large. But how long do you think you'll need to recover say a 500 billion investment if you can serve a multi trillion a year market and be able to underbid anybody else?

  38. re: The Moon is a harsh mistress by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    Its been on my to-read list but damnit, now I'm compelled to move it up the list. I still have yet to read "Friday", "Starship Troopers" and "Time Enough for Love" + books from several other authors. I've already read "Stranger in a Strange Land".

  39. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you thick?

  40. So I guess they watched and liked 'Moon' then by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    This 'idea' is stolen from the film 'Moon', guess they enjoyed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_(film)

  41. More please by virtualonliner · · Score: 1

    Can't wait for the TV show of this! Those Japanese have crazy shows.

  42. Space Exploration obsession is a mental disease by Simonetta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You'll have to excuse my [sigh],

        Please excuse my {sigh} at the infinite inability of spacefaring Slashdaughters to understand contemporary political and economic reality.

        If you combine all commercially rendered space services, and then also add all the funding scientific missions get, you're at a multi trillion market a year.

        There is no market. Space funding is a government expense. It doesn't follow any of the economic rules that compose markets. It's all liabilities with no assets. It's not an investment with a reasonable expected rate of return. Governments fund space exploration because no business will do it. Governments do it for 'national prestige', military advantage, or old-fashioned corruption. There is no multi-trillion market in space, there is no market at all. There never has been and there never will be a commercially-successful business venture (that is, one that is not government subsided) in space.

    Building an industrial complex on the moon doesn't help you lift things off earth. What it does do is let you launch things off the moon, into earth orbit and elsewhere, quite easily.
      The cost of getting manufactured items and industrial complexes to the moon in the first place far exceeds any reduced cost of getting things from the moon to earth orbit.

      If you can build and launch things off the moon, you can suddenly offer a service that is worth trillions a year in Earth dollars, at a marginal cost.
      What, precisely, is that service? There is nothing on the moon. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars to put things on the moon is not going to turn into trillions of value by sending them back, regardless of marginal cost.

      Yes, there is an up-front investment to make it happen. Yes that investment is rather large.
      I'm going to assume that there is an American on the other end of this conversation. 20th-century Americans are prone to economic fantasy because they have lived their whole lives inside one. What they don't realize is that their country and their government is broke. There is no trillion dollars for space explorations. There is no trillion dollars for anything. There is no trillion dollars left anywhere in the USA.
      There WAS a trillion dollars spent on a Iraq-Afghanistan war that accomplished nothing. There was a trillion dollars spent on maintaining the fantasy that some Wall Street banks and investment firms are too big to fail. There was a trillion dollars spent giving $600,000 mortgages to janitors. There was a trillion dollars spent on federal government budget deficits. Money is not a physical good. Money can be created out of nothing and can disappear back to nothing. Technical people never understand this. They don't study economics, and they don't understand economics.
      There was trillions of dollars unwisely spent...and 'there was' means the past. America was rich, now it's not. There was money in the past but there isn't going to be in the future. The trillions of dollars that 20th-century American space enthusiasts believe could and should be spent on the glorious future in space and it's endless possiblities for the betterment of humanity doesn't exist. It's spent-- it's gone. The Burger Kings and endless suburban strip malls is what you got for it. It's all that you're going to get. This is the great tragedy that is America and what it could have been, but isn't and now never will be.

      Space Exploration is a 20th century American quasi-religion that is beginning to manifest itself as a mental disease among those people who believed it too strongly.
     

    1. Re:Space Exploration obsession is a mental disease by pyalot · · Score: 1

      You're delusional. There is a space industry, it's doing well, offsetting about a trillion dollars a year rendering space services to build and maintain an ever growing fleet of commercial satellites. Government spending on space programs is still a market, despite what you might think, somebody is selling the government what they need to do it (currently mostly the russians and the ESA).

      There is the whole moon, on the moon, chockfull of building material you might need, and even hydrogen for fuel. Ohyeah, and no environmental laws about anything, either.

      Now spending trillions of dollars a year to maintain a service we could render at a fraction of the cost from the moon, *that* is true lunacy. For the budget of half a year of global space spending, we could install an industrial complex on the moon that could render better, cheaper and more reliable services we are currently providing from earth with exorbitant cost, risk and restrictions.

  43. Incoming...! by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    COLONY DROP! AAAAH!

  44. robots rule! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Hubble was not designed for robot maintenance in mind. If we went towards robotics over silly humans our robotics would have advanced quicker than it has and the impact on the whole culture of space technology would be such that Hubble would have unintentionally been altered to be more serviceable. Again, the robotics would have been further than they are today had the money and brain power focused upon that.

    The Olympics is FAR FAR more important than advancements in robotics technology! What do you think is funding those next gen performance enhancement drugs? Or those great new shoes ... that make me feel like I can play better? Think of all those consumers who eat Wheaties instead of lesser foods because of the Olympians on the box! Plus we just knocked Canada into another 30+ year debt so they are even less ahead of the USA than they already are... ;-) Furthermore, they didn't put that money into technologies that would replace the need for all that tar extraction they are doing up there! Why think when you can just pollute?

    1. Re:robots rule! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hubble was not designed for robot maintenance in mind.

      I see you agree with me.

      If we went towards robotics over silly humans our robotics would have advanced quicker than it has and the impact on the whole culture of space technology would be such that Hubble would have unintentionally been altered to be more serviceable. Again, the robotics would have been further than they are today had the money and brain power focused upon that.

      Show me the repair capability first. The only high profile example I can think of currently is the use of teleoperated robots to staunch the well rupture in the Gulf of Mexico.

      The Olympics is FAR FAR more important than advancements in robotics technology! What do you think is funding those next gen performance enhancement drugs? Or those great new shoes ... that make me feel like I can play better? Think of all those consumers who eat Wheaties instead of lesser foods because of the Olympians on the box! Plus we just knocked Canada into another 30+ year debt so they are even less ahead of the USA than they already are... ;-) Furthermore, they didn't put that money into technologies that would replace the need for all that tar extraction they are doing up there! Why think when you can just pollute?

      This brain noise doesn't convince me that you have a clue about the differences in capabilities of robots and humans in space.

  45. Mod Parent UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up!

  46. Re: The Moon is a harsh mistress by HiThere · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    OK.
    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is important.
    Starship Troopers has mainly had it's innovative elements incorporated into popular culture, but it's a good read with a few important ideas about responsibility. (Don't know if I agree, but they're important anyway.)
    Time Enough for Love should be read in the context of the rest of the Future History series, esp. Methuselah's Children. In that context it's good.
    Friday is entertaining, but trivial.

    And, to give you context, Stranger in a Strange Land was important in it's time, but people took it too seriously in ways it was never intended to be taken. It played an important part in the reassessing of sexual morality that took place during the 1960's-70's, but it isn't currently significant. (Much less significant than "If this goes on..." from the Future History series.

    Only problem is, the Future History series is sadly dated. Things didn't work out that way, so the earlier stories in the series are difficult to read now. (Too depressing...still, there are also calamities that have been avoided. "Blowups Happen" didn't happen.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  47. Test run... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Just because they are sending robots there NOW, doesn't mean that one day (relatively) soon they won't be sending humans up there too.
    Having robots build a base for robots is just a step in the process of robots building bases for humans.
    On the Moon and at other places.

    Also, once Lunar construction permits start being handed out they will be in advantage over everyone else.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  48. There... Fixed that for you... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Industrial complexes make things that other people need.

    There are plenty of raw materials on the Moon valuable enough to be catapulted back to Earth.
    Not to mention how much easier it would be to launch satellites and orbital bases from the Moon into Earth's orbit than from the surface of the Earth.
    Heck, energy beaming satellites could become a reality pretty soon once you have the resources to build them on the Lunar surface.

    Perhaps even just in time to coincide with that peak oil manifestation you mention.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by pyalot · · Score: 1

      The amazing thing about people like Simonetta is that even tough they bemoan the exorbitant cost of space activities from earth, they don't consider that we could do it a lot cheaper (and environmentally friendlier) if we had the will for some up-front investment to do it right.

      And somehow they also always go for the fallacy that there's "nothing on the moon". It's such a patently absurd statement, like the moon was made of nothing, a shiny disk made of cardboard, or what have you. The moon's rich in oxygen, iron, titanium, helium, hydrogen, natrium, calcium and magnesium and silicium. But somehow that is "nothing", yeah right, "nothing" indeed.

      The next fallacy they inevitably go for is that whatever you do there, it cannot be possibly of value to earth. Like the whole commercial satellite industry had no value, or like that's just a phase, and the thousands of active satellites orbiting earth where some kind of statistical fluke.

    2. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Even if it was made of "nothing", not going to the Moon is kind of like leaving one room in your apartment locked up and empty "because there is nothing there".

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  49. Re: The Moon is a harsh mistress by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I forgot to add The PuppetMasters to my list. Anyway, yeah I know SinSL was taken too seriously as its impact on the '60 and '70s. A whole real life "All World" religion was created, based on the novel. I don't read sci-fi just for its relevance to current real world situations. I read it for entertainment, concept, as well as for its cultural affect on past/present. (ex: did you know the cover art for Led Zepplin's "Houses of the Holy" comes from Childhood's End? the word "Grok" was first termed in SiaSL? the definition of "Avatar" was first described in SnowCrash?) Thanks for the tip about the Future History series...Your not the first to suggest I should read Methuselah's Children before TEfL.

  50. Helium-3 by denzacar · · Score: 1

    What, precisely, is that service? There is nothing on the moon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon#Exporting_material_to_Earth

    Exporting material to Earth in trade from the Moon is more problematic due to the cost of transportation which will vary greatly if the Moon is industrially developed (see above).
    One suggested candidate is Helium-3 from the solar wind, which has accumulated on the Moon's surface over billions of years, and which is rare on Earth.
    Helium is present in the lunar regolith in quantities of ten to a hundred (weight) parts per million, and 0.003 to 1 percent of this amount (depending on soil).
    2006 market price for He-3 was about $46,500 per troy ounce ($1500/gram, $1.5M/kg), more than 120 times the value per unit weight of Gold and over eight times the value of Rhodium.

    In the long term future He-3 may prove to be a desirable fuel in thermonuclear fusion reactors.

    $1.5 million per kilo sounds a bit pricey for a lot of "nothing".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  51. aneutronic fusion and propulsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its interest is not for earth-based power generation, but for fusion propulsion. Being aneutronic is quite important for a fusion engine, because you cannot use neutrons for propulsion - you cannot direct their flow by magnets. So 80% of D-T energy is not usable for propulsion. With D-D, this drops to 40% , and Deuterium is quite abundant.
    This so Project Daedalus and afaik other fusion propulsion designs used D-He3 fuel.

    Have no idea if Moon is a good place to collect it though, rather than say Jupiter; Daedalus would use the latter, but today He3 is thought to be much more available on the Moon then what was the assumption in the 70s. Boron fusion might conceivably work, but it is much more speculative a suggestion, so He3 is the most plausable way, currently at least.

    Current fusion propulsion design project, Icarus, will consider whether mining the Moon is a good option, so its not a ridiculous approach.

  52. I better get a headstart then... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Better corner the market on signs that say "ROBOTS ONLY--no carbon-based units
    allowed. This means YOU!" How many doors on that moonbase again?

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  53. Re:because if we don't go by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    -1 Dumb Argument.

    Until we've created another Earth-like environment that is *completely* independent of Earth for supplies, then we're just wasting time up there. We need to start sending the robots for research now, so we can send more to terraform for us. Once they (and other helpers such as synthetic or genetically engineered bacteria) have terraformed an off-planet living space for us (Mars is the likely candidate), *then* we'll get some of our fragile human bodies out into an off-site backup.

  54. US Cost of Gulf War vs space travel144 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I often wonder what the US could of done for space travel with the money they've spent on Iraq (with little return). Something in the range of 1 Trillion?

  55. Just a New Shit Pile for Tokyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japanese politicians were mesmerized by the Disney/Pixar film WALL-E.

    So entranced were they, that they have set about as national policy to build shit-piles, like those seen in the film WALL-E, on the moon.

    To them, it is the next logical step in home gardening and to avoid a decision on the contentious Futenma issue.

  56. This is how you win the Robot Election by mhwombat · · Score: 1

    A moon base built by robots, for robots!

  57. Short Circut by nycheetah · · Score: 1

    Jonny 5 Alive!

  58. Arms Race? by Alexvthooft · · Score: 1
    Does no one here see the possibility of a new Arms Race?

    Or even the potential for a new world war?

    It still hasn't been established what to do with the moon when it comes to 'ownership'. Okay I have a patent pending on it, but hey, what are you going to do about it ;)

    No seriously, if the Chinese want the moon you can bet your ass that the US wants it too.

    I for one are slightly worried about this!

    --
    Be yourself and aim high!
  59. That's no moon! by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    and Greedo schoots first................. hmm that sounds odd somehow........