Slashdot Mirror


Russia Has Sights Set On Manned Moon Landing By 2030

New submitter techfun89 writes "Russia plans on sending cosmonauts to the moon as well as unmanned spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter and Venus by 2030. Considering the recent launch failures in Russia, these plans seem very ambitious. From the article: 'These ambitious spaceflight goals are laid out in a strategy document drawn up recently by Russia's Federal Space Agency (known as Roscosmos), the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported Tuesday (March 13). And there's more. Roscosmos wants a new rocket called Angara to become the nation's workhorse launch vehicle by 2020, replacing the venerable Soyuz and Proton rockets that have been carrying the load since the 1960s.'"

207 comments

  1. Wow! by epp_b · · Score: 0

    Only 61 years late! ;)

    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      except that they will actually go; as opposed to faking some film in the desert

    2. Re:Wow! by Megane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they hurry, they can get there before China.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Wow! by symbolset · · Score: 2

      James Cameron could say "I want to film a space opera, on location on the moon" and investors would be lined up around the block to throw billions of dollars at him. Assuming he survives his current cinematic adventure, that is.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll bet all the special effects studios are drooling over the chance for another contract

      Why do you keep spreading this myth around and treating it as if it's a fact? That's the seventh time I've seen you do that.

    5. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet all the special effects studios are drooling over the chance for another contract

      Why do you keep spreading this myth around and treating it as if it's a fact? That's the seventh time I've seen you do that.

      It's not a myth, it's a wager. 200 bitcoins to show, please.

    6. Re:Wow! by El+Torico · · Score: 0

      Oh great, this time it will have kids, ewoks, or Jar Jar Binks in it.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    7. Re:Wow! by f3rret · · Score: 1
      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    8. Re:Wow! by zill · · Score: 2

      as opposed to faking some film in the desert

      You liar, everyone know it was a soundstage on mars.

    9. Re:Wow! by kubusja · · Score: 1

      They have 3 versions of the project: 1. send a man to the Moon 2. send a man to the Moon and the man lives after Moon landing 3. send a man to the Monn and the man returns alive back to Earth Any hints which one they will choose ?

    10. Re:Wow! by lupinstel · · Score: 1

      Meesa takes one small step for gungan......One..giant leaps for gungan-kind.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  2. Good idea! by multiben · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will be good to finally get back to the moon. Can't wait to find out in what ways it's changed since the last time we visited.

    1. Re:Good idea! by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It will be good to finally get back to the moon. Can't wait to find out in what ways it's changed since the last time we visited.

      Actually a lot has changed since we last visited - sort of. When the first moon landings happened, the technology that folks were able to take down to the surface was exceptionally limited. This means that any landings in the future will be able to carry out experiments that could have only been dreamed about in the 60s. SO, while things on the moon itself may not have changed, we are probably still going to learn a vast amount for the first time.

      Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.

      By 2030 SpaceX will probably be running regular tourist flights; they'll be able to wave to the Russians as they land.

    3. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embarrassing? No. It's embarrassing how much money we don't have.

    4. Re:Good idea! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also we've changed. Our understanding of the moon's history and geology has improved dramatically, which means we also know which experiments we need to perform.

      Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.

      I doubt it. The embarrassment of not having a manned space program, being dependent on the Russian Soyuz (which is struggling with reliability), should have resulted in a rush order on the Commercial Crew developers; instead, the House tried to zero the CCDev budget, and the Senate's compromise severely delayed it. But if you touch a dollar of SLS, which won't launch humans until after 2021 (plus delays), Congress calls you a traitor.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    5. Re:Good idea! by poly_pusher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is there any advantage to sending a person? Does that accomplish anything more than just doing it? I'm all for research and exploration I just don't see the point in wasting resources on sustaining a person until we have technology which makes it more practical.

    6. Re:Good idea! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Is there any advantage to sending a person? Does that accomplish anything more than just doing it? I'm all for research and exploration I just don't see the point in wasting resources on sustaining a person until we have technology which makes it more practical.

      Well, given the time frame that they are setting, and the work that they are doing towards manned flight such as the Mars500 there does seem to be some hope for getting a small "colony" working and fairly self reliable. Would it be better if they had a precanned fusion reactor to go with it, ready to accept He3 and provide all the power they could ever use? Sure - although they can still go there without it.

      But who knows what you will find out when you send folks to places that you wouldn't find out by sending a robot.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      America's got looooots of money.
      The embarrassing part should be what you choose to spend it on.

    8. Re:Good idea! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      It's amazing how strongly the cold war could catalyze and realize the Moon project 50 years ago (US side), while the technology was... 50 years behind, without the help of fast computing.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:Good idea! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the first moon landings happened, the technology that folks were able to take down to the surface was exceptionally limited. This means that any landings in the future will be able to carry out experiments that could have only been dreamed about in the 60s.

      Probably the most prominent new capability is that due to advances in computing and robotics, these experiments can now all be carried out remotely without having to send costly meatbags to tend to them.

    10. Re:Good idea! by dwye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there any advantage to sending a person?

      Yes. As they put it during Project Mercury, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the reverse is true, as well.

      Otherwise, why haven't we covered the Moon in rover tracks by now? It is much easier than controlling them on Mars, after all, and probably easier to land them (although no aerobraking might compensate for the lighter gravity). Likewise, they could have dispersed a wide net of sensors around it, instead of depending on the few left from the Apollo landings.

      And, of course, the real expense is getting to High Earth Orbit. After that, as some hard SF writer put it, you are half way to anywhere. At least in delta-V terms.

    11. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, now they'll be able to fake it in HD, which means they'll be able to put the stars in this time!

      The processing power might even allow them to properly anti-alias the shadows!

      And instead of C's, it'll have Q's!

      The flag will also be raytraced with 52 stars...for unknown reasons.

    12. Re:Good idea! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By 2030 SpaceX will probably be running regular tourist flights

      Not at the rate they're going. Their last launch was Dec 2010. Their next is scheduled for April (probably May) this year. And their first commercial payload will be sometime next year.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    13. Re:Good idea! by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Yes. As they put it during Project Mercury, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the reverse is true, as well."

      They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.

      If there is, at the moment, anything a man can perform which a robot cannot, that argues for improved robots rather than sending expensive tourists. We need improved robot tech for all the dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth, and as we are moving to "lights out manufacturing" in advanced industries so we should seek to automate everything else over time.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    14. Re:Good idea! by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      Is there any advantage to sending a person?

      Yes. As they put it during Project Mercury, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the reverse is true, as well.

      It's also nice to have a mechanic onhand to fix minor breakdowns. Sure beats having to send 250,000 miles for parts. We got a lot of mileage out of the Mars rovers. We could have gotten even more from them if there was a mechanic onsite to fix the glitches that showed up right after deployment.

      Otherwise, why haven't we covered the Moon in rover tracks by now? It is much easier than controlling them on Mars, after all, and probably easier to land them (although no aerobraking might compensate for the lighter gravity). Likewise, they could have dispersed a wide net of sensors around it, instead of depending on the few left from the Apollo landings.

      We gave up our high orbital capability with the Shuttle program. Everything else in NASA was pared back to feed the military's white elephant. If you'd ask a scientist at JPL during the Shuttle's heyday if they wanted to send probes to the Moon or to Mars, but not both, they'd tell you, send it someplace other than the Moon, we've already been there, we need probes places we've never been. Thus the Mars Rovers and our chunk of the Cassini mission, et al. It's a question of funding. When the funding comes in dribbles, you prioritize. When the Congresscritters cut your funding back, you cut missions. And the Congresscritters think going back to the Moon is a waste of time.

      And, of course, the real expense is getting to High Earth Orbit. After that, as some hard SF writer put it, you are half way to anywhere. At least in delta-V terms.

      Heinlein.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:Good idea! by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      Indeed. At the rate SpaceX is going, even the glacial Chinese program is likely to lap them.

    16. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like those experiments on moon rocks and dust that they brought back to earth? You mean we could have just done them up there instead and gotten better results?

    17. Re:Good idea! by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It wasn't really all the cold war, you know. Sure, the Toynbee Tile "footballs in space" thing had something to do with it. But it had as much to do with Kennedy's skill as an orator and a desire to build some unifying non-military national mission so we could lay off the killing foreigners thing for a while. Usually for these things I cite the text of the speech, but today I find the recording of Kennedy at Rice University is up on Youtube now.

      12:15 he anticipates the home PC.

      I watched it again just now. Damn, but it's dusty in here.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    18. Re:Good idea! by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm so tired of this attitude. It's people like you that keep me from having an apartment on the moon.

    19. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, why haven't we covered the Moon in rover tracks by now?

      The Soviets did. What was your point again?

    20. Re:Good idea! by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some Americans have lots of money as do some Chinese and some Russians and at least one Mexican. The rest of us are poor schlubs living hand to mouth like everyone else. Granted there are probably more documented rich in America.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    21. Re:Good idea! by sco08y · · Score: 3, Funny

      But it had as much to do with Kennedy's skill as an orator and a desire to build some unifying non-military national mission so we could lay off the killing foreigners thing for a while.

      Ah, so it was a national direction chosen to redirect the competitive energy of the nation towards an end that elevated national prestige and strategic aerospace technology while avoiding direct militaristic actions that could inflame tensions.

      Clearly, little to do with any cold war.

    22. Re:Good idea! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It will be good to finally get back to the moon. Can't wait to find out in what ways it's changed since the last time we visited.

      Actually a lot has changed since we last visited - sort of. When the first moon landings happened, the technology that folks were able to take down to the surface was exceptionally limited. This means that any landings in the future will be able to carry out experiments that could have only been dreamed about in the 60s. SO, while things on the moon itself may not have changed, we are probably still going to learn a vast amount for the first time.

      Besides, perhaps this is just the embarassment that the US space program needs to get some funding again.

      Are there any lunar surface experiments that are better done by humans than by a robotic lander? Seems like it's an ideal place to run a remotely controlled lander since there's only a few second radio delay making control much easier than the Mars landers. And an unmanned mission would be much cheaper than any manned mission.

      I know the Russians sent up a few unmanned lunar landers, but I think they were only capable of bringing home a sample.

    23. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meatbags are cheap. The gear to keep them alive is expensive to get up there, though.

    24. Re:Good idea! by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      America also has a massive ammount of debt - owned cheifly by China and Japan. Maybe America should start thinking about partnering NASA with JAXA and doing something that actually matters and that people will care about. Collecting soil samples? Meh. Space Station? Ooh. Moon Missions? Warmer! Moon Missions with Future Moon Colony? HELL YEAH!

      And I mean lets be honest - Mars is interesting and dreams of future colonization are great - but if we can't even develop the moon then continued surveys of Mars are realtively meaningless. Let's get things going on the moon and use that as a springboard towards Mars.

    25. Re:Good idea! by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Where did Heinlein say that? I cannot recall and I have read most of his adult fiction and a few of his juvenile novels. Just asking to replace the hole in my memory.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    26. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      face it bro, we're obsolete

    27. Re:Good idea! by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.

      Robots did. There were 21 such robotic missions prior to the first manned mission. Apollo 12 landed near (about 360 meters away) one of those robotic missions, Surveyor 3.

      If there is, at the moment, anything a man can perform which a robot cannot, that argues for improved robots rather than sending expensive tourists.

      There is plenty. Perhaps you ought to watch some Apollo footage sometime to see it. The thing to remember here is that humans are currently the best robots out there for a number of important tasks (such as making decisions, land-based surveying and prospecting, land-based sample collection, etc). Humans have overhead such as supplies and need for radiation protection, but that boils down to mass and power needs just like any robotic payload.

      We need improved robot tech for all the dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth, and as we are moving to "lights out manufacturing" in advanced industries so we should seek to automate everything else over time.

      The problem here is that this approach gets in the way of us doing cool things. Suppose I develop a new industrial process, but the prototype requires considerable human intervention (precisely because a human developed it with limited resources). I don't have the capital for this "lights out" stuff or to make sure that my workers and I are sufficiently out of harms way to fulfill whatever safety levels you're attempting to achieve here.

      I have a better idea. Let's not waste time or effort making the world ridiculously safe.

    28. Re:Good idea! by ncohafmuta · · Score: 0

      20 billion for a spaceport to go see a big ball of rock. Believe us, we've been there. There's not a damn thing there. Why don't they spend their time on something they're good at. Like letting their citizens live in slums, cold and hungry. I'm sure 20 billion for space travel does a lot more good. .

    29. Re:Good idea! by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Informative

      And, of course, the real expense is getting to High Earth Orbit. After that, as some hard SF writer put it, you are half way to anywhere. At least in delta-V terms.

      That was Jerry Pournelle, the SF author and Byte coloumnist. He's said it quite a number of times over the years.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    30. Re:Good idea! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It wasn't really all the cold war, you know. Sure, the Toynbee Tile "footballs in space" thing had something to do with it. But it had as much to do with Kennedy's skill as an orator and a desire to build some unifying non-military national mission so we could lay off the killing foreigners thing for a while.

      And guess why Kennedy was orating and finding a national mission,? (Hint: It's spelled "COLD WAR".) Rather than getting all misty eyed about his speech, pick up some decent space history and study the reasons why Kennedy chose the moon landing as a goal. (Hint: It's spelled "UPSTAGE THE RUSSIANS".)

    31. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing I believe is that the Moon landing did basically only happen because "We absolutely *have* to upstage the Russians, no matter what it cost" Kennedy met "We absolutely *have* to get to the Moon, no matter who can get me the funding" von Braun in the right place in the right time in history.

    32. Re:Good idea! by kermidge · · Score: 1

      I don't remember, either. I seem to recall it from some interview he'd done. Might be nice if'n somebody could pin it down. At any rate, whether or not it's original to Heinlein, it's certainly not an unique view, as it was accepted as something of a truism at the Jerry Pournelle RT on GEnie, or by 'most anyone who's given the matter some thought.

    33. Re:Good idea! by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Is there some intrinsic necessity that it be not both man and machine? Or is it, for example, pettifogging so as to avoid the larger issues by dividing peoples' energies into squabbling over lesser ones?

    34. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you're aware of this, but there's no air on the moon. So can't you just go lock yourself in a small room, and pretend you're on the moon? It's mostly the same experience.

    35. Re:Good idea! by symbolset · · Score: 1

      That was one reason among many. It was important that we do this for national defense, to become preeminent in space - because others were really out to get us at the time and it were better if somebody master space first it were us. Competing in the Space Games was preferable to sending our boys out to fight and die in Afghanistan. It was also important for other reasons outlined there. By having a national mission focused on peaceful space we employed a great many of people, we depleted a great deal of surplus productivity that would otherwise have been focused on aggression on the ground. And we learned some things useful in terrestrial industry that gained us dominance in tech for decades to follow. Only coincidentally (?) the resource depletion of the effort kept us from attempting to police the world.

      It's a shame that we've forgotten most of that. Although we have remarkably more advanced science it would cost us 10x as much for NASA to send a man on an Apollo mission today - or more. The military-industrial complex has infiltrated NASA's sphere and is selling them the $10,000 toilet seats and the $900 hammer. They know they're not capable of progress now and so are pushing for commercial exploitation of space. We've lost our great leader. The whole evolution makes me sad.

      I want to watch the video again and pretend he's still our president. I can't though right now. I was weeping like a baby 4x already the last time through.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    36. Re:Good idea! by H0p313ss · · Score: 0

      I don't know who you are, but get the hell out of my basement!

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    37. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your flesh is a relic: a mere vessel.
      Hand over your flesh and a new world awaits you.

      We demand it.

    38. Re:Good idea! by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I think it's probably TMIAHM. I'd like to say it's because I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Heinlein's books, but in fact that's the book of his that I've read. I really ought to grok Starship Troopers some time.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    39. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They didn't have the remotely-manned tech we do now or robots in quantity would have preceded men.

      You should seriously read something about the space race and the moon landing.

      Robots in quantity did preceed men, but history classes in the U.S. tends to focus on the manned mission since Soviet was first with all other important milestones in the space race incuding unmanned missions to the moon.

      Luna 9 and Luna 13 were the two unmanned Soviet probes that successfully landed on the moon before the American manned landing. The U.S. had some unmanned missions before the manned one but none of them managed to land.
      Luna 16 landed and brought home moon soil, Luna 17 was a Soviet rover that traveled over 10km on the moon.
      Luna 21, Luna 23 and Luna 24 were other successful Soviet missions. (More automated moon traveling and soil gathering.)

    40. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Going solely by your username, I can understand why you would not want to do anything yourself, that a robot could do. However, not all of us are couchslugs. Some of us would go just to say we did it, no other reason. Or because its cool. Hell, I read in an article a while back, that some scientist proposed that a mission to Mars was possible today, if you made it a one way trip only. Within a week, he had hundreds of emails from volunteers willing to go and never come back. Granted, the expense is huge, but if someone with deep pockets is willing to foot the bill, why not? As long as I had some guarantee of supplies for a reasonable amount of time, I'd be camped out in line myself. And I don't wanna hear the tired old "Lets solve all the problems on Earth first" argument. We will NEVER solve all the problems on Earth as long as the human race exists. That argument is a cop out. Its not possible to solve all the problems, because new problems always crop up. Humans ARE the problem. We will never all just get along, we will never have a perfect utopian society, those with more will always withhold from those with less, and a moneyless, Star Trek like society will never work simply because no one will work for free. Or at least a vast majority wouldn't. Posting AC simply because I'm a lurker, and have never bothered to make an account.

      Don

    41. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Lunkokhod, which outshone anything NASA did on the Moon, before landing men there.

      As for "making decisions, land-based surveying and prospecting, land-based sample collection, etc", I disagree - we can do all of those things back on Earth, with high definition video, AND have ten robots running at the same time, which can travel all over the moon, without the need to return to a safe base when they run out of oxygen, like humans do.

      There must be a huge market for high definition ground based video footage of the moon - literally tens of millions of people would be willing to pay a few dollars a month (at least) to be able to download such videos, as several different rovers trundle to various places of interest on the Moon.

    42. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say "only capable of bringing home a sample" as if its one of the easier things to do. I would think its easier to develop something that doesn't have to takeoff and survive twice.

    43. Re:Good idea! by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Going solely by your username, I can understand why you would not want to do anything yourself, that a robot could do. However, not all of us are couchslugs. Some of us would go just to say we did it, no other reason. Or because its cool. Hell, I read in an article a while back, that some scientist proposed that a mission to Mars was possible today, if you made it a one way trip only. Within a week, he had hundreds of emails from volunteers willing to go and never come back. Granted, the expense is huge, but if someone with deep pockets is willing to foot the bill, why not? As long as I had some guarantee of supplies for a reasonable amount of time, I'd be camped out in line myself. And I don't wanna hear the tired old "Lets solve all the problems on Earth first" argument. We will NEVER solve all the problems on Earth as long as the human race exists. That argument is a cop out. Its not possible to solve all the problems, because new problems always crop up. Humans ARE the problem. We will never all just get along, we will never have a perfect utopian society, those with more will always withhold from those with less, and a moneyless, Star Trek like society will never work simply because no one will work for free. Or at least a vast majority wouldn't. Posting AC simply because I'm a lurker, and have never bothered to make an account.

      Don

      This. All of it.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    44. Re:Good idea! by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      The only problem with the 3He is there is hardly any on the moon. Like 2.8ppb. So about 100x less energy dense than coal, and you still need to get the 3He out of the stuff. You would probably end up using more energy getting the 3He than you would get out of it. Now add the fact that if you can burn 3He you can also burn DD, there really is no point at all. The 3He reason to go to the moon was invented my people desperate for a reason to go back.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    45. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limited tech? What? Like ICs, nuclear power generators and electric cars?

      Gimme a break, they can put an electric buggy on the Moon in 1971(??) but GM *still* cannot build a decent electric car?

      Somebodies faking something, and it isn't Neil Armstrong & co....Seeing these guys as disappointed old men is actually quite saddening considering that in 1970 Mr Armstrong told Patrick Moore that he was sure that there would be moon bases in his lifetime and the guy is an aeronautical engineer by trade and not some moon-landing denier with shit for brains.

    46. Re:Good idea! by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      And *heavy*. Don't forget the PR storm when/if they die up there either.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    47. Re:Good idea! by jpapon · · Score: 1

      America also has a massive ammount of debt - owned cheifly by China and Japan.

      This is a misleading statement. The vast majority of American debt is owned by Americans.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    48. Re:Good idea! by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Well, I know humans can still do a few things that robots cannot. Walk for instance. Show me a robot that can scale the mountains in Antarctica, or decide to explore a cave along the way. Furthermore, humans can operate autonomously quite well, which is important at great distances from Earth, or on the far side of the moon. As a corollary of that, while humans can make dumb mistakes, we don't cease working all-together or keep making the same mistakes if confronted with unexpected data.

      The ideal scenario is to use a mixture of both manned and unmanned components on the same mission. As our launch capacity improves, sending humans into space should become nearly trivial compared to the overall complexity of the mission.

    49. Re:Good idea! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that it's easier to build a permanent moon-base than colonize Mars?

      Lifeboats.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    50. Re:Good idea! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      Show me a robot that can scale the mountains in Antarctica...

      I agree with your post, but you have to be careful how you define the goal of a robot. If your goal is to "Show me a robot that can scale the mountains in Antarctica just like a human would", then I agree robots are not the answer. If the goal is "Reach the top of an Antarctic mountain" then autonomous robots are far superior.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    51. Re:Good idea! by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 2

      The U.S. had some unmanned missions before the manned one but none of them managed to land.

      Not true. The Surveyor program had seven missions in 1966-68, of which five landed.

    52. Re:Good idea! by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Well, I picked Antarctica for that reason (and how it's a relatively unknown area with conditions most similar to other worlds). Quadrupedal or beyond doesn't work for traversing boulders and narrow ledges. Flight doesn't reliably work because of the weather conditions and fast winds. Climbing robots are restricted to far more consistent surfaces, at least the last I checked.

      The human body trades raw speed for endurance and versatility. A specialized robot will always work better for what it's designed for, but a human is a far better generalist. Robots can't effectively walk because it's extremely difficult, whereas humans have evolved for it. I'd also imagine a human's path-finding ability exceeds a robot's, despite the variety of sensors put on them. In a few decades, robots may make humans obsolete, but I suspect humans will always be superior in a few regards.

    53. Re:Good idea! by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      While I get the fact that the cost of living is higher, consider the fact that the average income on the planet is $7000. Our poorest working people make over twice that if working a full time job. Those of us that are middle class professionals make more in two months than most people in the world make in a year. America is objectively wealthy, not just a few people, but everyone in the country is comparatively wealthy to many on the planet.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    54. Re:Good idea! by khallow · · Score: 1

      As for "making decisions, land-based surveying and prospecting, land-based sample collection, etc", I disagree - we can do all of those things back on Earth, with high definition video, AND have ten robots running at the same time, which can travel all over the moon, without the need to return to a safe base when they run out of oxygen, like humans do.

      You still have to engineer for lunar night and solar flares. That may require returning to a base for protection, just as with humans.

    55. Re:Good idea! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that we've forgotten most of that.

      "We" can't forget something that's a complete fabrication of your imagination.

    56. Re:Good idea! by khallow · · Score: 1

      There must be a huge market for high definition ground based video footage of the moon - literally tens of millions of people would be willing to pay a few dollars a month (at least) to be able to download such videos, as several different rovers trundle to various places of interest on the Moon.

      "There must be" is not the same as "there is". It's worth noting that people who actually are trying to create rovers for this sort of thing, are trying higher value-adds (such as the ability for the rover to write messages in the lunar regolith that will likely outlast any current human civilization). And yet they still have trouble funding the project. I can't help but imagine that part of the reason is simply that people with money aren't convinced that there is a market that big for that sort of thing.

    57. Re:Good idea! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      As I said, I agree completely that humans are far better at general tasks. I just wanted to point out that those who argue that "robots can't do what people can do" have to carefully consider the goal, not the means to achieve that goal.

      I'm a real cheerleader for manned exploration, but I also realize that I have to temper my enthusiasm with the realization that _for specific tasks_ robots can be a better solution.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    58. Re:Good idea! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Automation is vital to the efficient production and distribution of everything you need to have an apartment on Earth.

      If you have an apartment offworld, it will take even more automation to build and assemble it. If you were to use human labor the cost would be prohibitive.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    59. Re:Good idea! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I have a better idea. Let's not waste time or effort making the world ridiculously safe."

      Don't presume "safety" is my main interest. That's not my goal. If .men were cheap I'd be fine with the "wooden ships and iron men" approach which worked well on Earth. We could afford to throw away both and we did. Men are now a burden. One has to ship them back and they can't be left in space until they die. Robots can be used, expended, and left in place. Their materials and parts may be used in the future.

      Robots are required on earth and space, and a "robots first" policy benefits more humans than a "tourists first" policy which doesn't further robot development. Given that we have limitless time to send meat, there is every reason to perfect and send machines first

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    60. Re:Good idea! by khallow · · Score: 1

      As for "making decisions, land-based surveying and prospecting, land-based sample collection, etc", I disagree - we can do all of those things back on Earth, with high definition video, AND have ten robots running at the same time, which can travel all over the moon, without the need to return to a safe base when they run out of oxygen, like humans do.

      While I have my teeth sunk into this argument, I must admit that this is a very good point. The Moon is different from virtually all other bodies in the Solar System for precisely this reason. There are numerous advantages to doing this even with a focus on manned activities.

      For example, the same trick can be done for a manned trip elsewhere. That is, send a large number of teleoperated tools and robots along with a core human crew which controls the robots. By doing it on the easy case of the Moon, then you can work out the technologies, such as, developing good platforms, human interfaces, and control schemes.

      And there will probably be someone who wants to do some sort of economic activity in distant space, but doesn't have the ROI to justify a human presence. They can always start with a robotics system that due to the communication delay with Earth is slow, but works. Their robotics system could be developed or tested in a lunar environment.

    61. Re:Good idea! by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      I just looked it up - 47% of American debt is owned by foreign entities so you are technically correct in pointing out that the majority of American debt is in fact owned by Americans... though I certainly wouldn't call 3% a vast gap. I also wonder how much is owned by US subsidiaries of foreign corporations or purchased through American investment firms in conglomerate packages partially owned by foreign enteties.

      Reguardless, that 47% is $4.45 trillion. You don't even have a net positive income! Look at this: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm . The only thing keeping the US Dollar alive right now is foreigners purchasing that debt. There is absolutely no way you'll be able to pay that off without cutting a lot of big international deals and if you are talking about cutting billion dollar deals I'd say space exlporation and development is a kick ass venue.

    62. Re:Good idea! by slashtivus · · Score: 1
      Wow, way to move the goal posts!
      Your original comment was:

      owned cheifly by China and Japan

      Now you claim 47% of ALL debt is

      owned by foreign entities

      While ignoring UK, Brazil and about 30 other countries!
      Whee! you got called on the carpet and keep shifting around what you said to keep your own piece of mind!

      This is fun!

    63. Re:Good idea! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Don't presume "safety" is my main interest. That's not my goal. If .men were cheap I'd be fine with the "wooden ships and iron men" approach which worked well on Earth. We could afford to throw away both and we did. Men are now a burden. One has to ship them back and they can't be left in space until they die. Robots can be used, expended, and left in place. Their materials and parts may be used in the future.

      I'm still making that assumption! And you have yet to explain your comment which I quoted:

      We need improved robot tech for all the dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth, and as we are moving to "lights out manufacturing" in advanced industries so we should seek to automate everything else over time.

      If you really didn't treat safety first, then yes, we could continue to use humans for dull/dirty/dangerous jobs on Earth. It has worked great so far. And there'd be no "should" in that last paragraph. There's no reason to automate everything else over time. It's costly, causes massive social disruption, and there's not much point to it.

    64. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By 2030 SpaceX will probably be running regular tourist flights

      Not at the rate they're going. Their last launch was Dec 2010. Their next is scheduled for April (probably May) this year. And their first commercial payload will be sometime next year.

      With man rated deliveries the year after that and heavy lift capabilities scheduled before 2020.

      Your post implies that SpaceX is somehow not doing extremely well while all indications are they will have the necessary infrastructure in place for tourist operations a decade ahead of when the grandparent's post implied.

      Do you work for ATK?

    65. Re:Good idea! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Kennedy actually had a good relationship with his Soviet counterpart and they seriously considered doing a joint moon mission, but his assassination put an end to all that.

      Damn shame, so much effort was duplicated.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    66. Re:Good idea! by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      The only point I was trying to make was that China and Japan own a fuck of a lot of US debt and that whoring out NASA to one of them could be an extremely productive measure.

      And the US debt held by foreign nations IS chiefly heald by China and Japan.

    67. Re:Good idea! by dwye · · Score: 1

      And, of course, the real expense is getting to High Earth Orbit. After that, as some hard SF writer put it, you are half way to anywhere. At least in delta-V terms.

      I just checked my bookshelves. It was said by Robert Heinlein, and quoted by Jerry Pournelle, first in a column in Galaxy magazine in 1973, then in A Step Farther Out which was published in 1979.

      Except that it was just Earth orbit, not high or low or geosynchronous. Even better, for the argument.

    68. Re:Good idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that SpaceX is part of the Russian plan.

    69. Re:Good idea! by vandamme · · Score: 1

      It's got a nice view, but no atmosphere.

    70. Re:Good idea! by symbolset · · Score: 1

      "That" constitutes reams of patents so whether or not I've imagined the why of it it "that" will influence innovation for decades to come. That "that" is a lot of work to put on the word that the White Book says is an easy drop.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  3. I think they have this wrong... by idbeholda · · Score: 5, Funny

    The manned moon has its sights on landing in Russia by 2030.

    1. Re:I think they have this wrong... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      You're thinking Mars. Mars is the one with the active defense forces.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:I think they have this wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And besides, everyone knows that we can't send a whole man to Mars, just his ass.

    3. Re:I think they have this wrong... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought of this story as laudable goal, wrong country. Right country to do it is one of the overpopulated countries, like China or India, to start this w/ the goal of establishing manned colonies on the moon, and long term, reducing their population burdens. Russia has the opposite problem - an acute population shortage. Their going to the moon will have minimal benefits, but the Chinese & Indians going there will be good for both countries, as well as the world.

  4. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Moon lands on you!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by Roachie · · Score: 0

      Moon lander puts sights on YOU!

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    2. Re:In Soviet Russia by siddesu · · Score: 2

      Actually, Putin's Russia is nothing like Soviet Russia. In Putin's Russia you only get a lot of promises about the Moon landing on you.

  5. Time spent perfecting their power source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It took the Roosskies that long to perfect "Cobalt Thorium G"

    1. Re:Time spent perfecting their power source by siddesu · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't Cobalt Thorium G, they perfected the Gravitzapa and the Pepelatz.

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

    many Russian aircraft don't get where they're going. Perhaps they should concentrate on these first.

  7. Risk to human life by gadzook33 · · Score: 3, Funny

    never stopped Russia before

    1. Re:Risk to human life by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Nor should it now. We ALL die. We die by the millions. We die in cars, in hospital beds, and everywhere else.

      You can safely fly in modern aircraft thanks to generations of test pilots including many who died "pushing the (flight) enevelope" for the sake of knowledge. It was well worth the sacrifice.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Risk to human life by alienzed · · Score: 0, Troll

      Human life is greatly overrated.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    3. Re:Risk to human life by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 0

      Great attitude comrade! We have just the place for you in the Russian space program

    4. Re:Risk to human life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nor america for that matter.

    5. Re:Risk to human life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for me it's the only way to get into space for free.
      Where to send application?

    6. Re:Risk to human life by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      That doesn't mean it should keep happening that way. These days, we have computers that can serve as test pilots. There's no longer a need to put human lives at risk until after the technology makes successful flights a reasonable certainty.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Risk to human life by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2

      If you told me there was a near 100% chance I'd die, I'd still volunteer to go into space just for the chance to do it. If I could die knowing I was contributing something useful to science, even better.

      There'll always be people like me.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    8. Re:Risk to human life by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      If you told me there was a near 100% chance I'd die, I'd still volunteer to go into space just for the chance to do it. If I could die knowing I was contributing something useful to science, even better.

      There'll always be people like me.

      uh, I like your sentiment, but natural selection is a bitch. Your final assertion should read: There'll always be poeple like me if they reproduce before they volunteer to go into space. People who voluntarily cut their reproductive probablilites to near zero will have legends, not descendants.

  8. Ambitious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I like how the summary goes on about how ambitious it is for Russia to get to the moon in almost two decades. It took just a little over 8 years for the US to go from basically nada (hadn't even gotten into orbit yet) to landing on the moon. There is better technology out there today, plus it has now of course been done before; I would think there is some advantage in being able to look at the data from the Apollo missions (assuming NASA is willing to share it?) If anything, getting there by 2030 seems a rather conservative goal, even taking into account their recent issues.

    1. Re:Ambitious? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like how the summary goes on about how ambitious it is for Russia to get to the moon in almost two decades. It took just a little over 8 years for the US to go from basically nada (hadn't even gotten into orbit yet) to landing on the moon.

      That's the popular version - and it's also very, very, wrong.
       
      F1 engine development started in 1856 for example. At the time of Kennedy's speech, both the Apollo CSM and what would eventually become the Saturn V were already being developed as well. This is why he chose the Lunar Landing as a goal in the first place - it was a reachable scientific and engineering goal that was already quietly underway.
       

      If anything, getting there by 2030 seems a rather conservative goal, even taking into account their recent issues.

      In 1995, their goal was the Moon by 2000, and Mars by 2015. In 2000, their goal was the Moon by 2010 and Mars by 2020. In 2010 their goal was the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030.... The Russians have a long history of bold powerpoint plans, and basically have never accomplished any of them.

    2. Re:Ambitious? by symbolset · · Score: 2

      From my compendium of odd facts: If you carry a top-end smartphone in your pocket every day your personal compute capacity exceeds that of the entire US lunar space program (both flight and ground, not just mission control but engineering too) - even in the car.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:Ambitious? by rachit · · Score: 1

      F1 engine development started in 1856 for example.

      Now that's what I call planning ahead.

    4. Re:Ambitious? by bronney · · Score: 0

      and yet all we do is angry birds! :D

    5. Re:Ambitious? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      In 1995 our economy was in ruins after collapse of the USSR just 4 years prior. Scientists and engineers fled the country, any talk of Mars launches back then was a bad joke. Putin may be an authoritarian but a scientists with some experience now earns as much as an IT professional in a private company, new grads are staying. Engineering experience has been lost, indicated by recent failures but there is hope and cautious optimism.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  9. Not a chance by melted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not a coincidence that newer Russian designs don't work. The "old guard" has retired. The new — immgirated. Just the other day international rankings came out for higher education. Not a single Russian school is on the list. That's what happens when you don't even pay starvation wages to your professors. Sooner or later they throw in the towel. It's a miracle things held together this long.

    Given the scarcity of talented engineers, and the pitiful salaries Roscosmos pays to its staff, I'm kind of wondering how they expect to pull this off. They couldn't even do it when they had some of the best schools in the world (which regularly minted Nobel laureates), during the Soviet times, with essentially unlimited budget and manpower. Nowadays they can only build 20 year old rockets, and make minor improvements here and there. Put simply, after neglecting higher education for about a decade and a half, they've pissed away their technical capability to do anything they haven't already done before.

    1. Re:Not a chance by Zaelath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The supply of ex-nazi rocket scientists has also dried up since we last went to the moon.

    2. Re:Not a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can only build 20 year old rockets, and make minor improvements here and there?

      Well in that case they're ahead of the game.

    3. Re:Not a chance by Bomazi · · Score: 1

      Not to mention their idiot president threatening to punish the engineers involved in recent failures. That's a great way to stop the brain drain.

    4. Re:Not a chance by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      There are people besides Nazis who can build rockets.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Not a chance by dwye · · Score: 2

      The supply of ex-nazi rocket scientists has also dried up since we last went to the moon.

      Yeah, but the Soviets did not use ex-Nazis much. Their designs, perhaps as starting points, but they tried to work on home-grown talent, after they drained their captured Germans of everything that they knew. Post WWII, the Russians didn't like the Germans enough to let them around anything as dangerous as a MIG, let alone repurposed intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    6. Re:Not a chance by Formalin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nowadays they can only build 20 year old rockets, and make minor improvements here and there.

      20 years? Soyuz is from 1966, and has heritage from the R-7 (designed starting in 1953, a derivative launched sputnik in '57).

      So by my count, that's 55 years, with modifications along the way, but the major ones done in the first decade or two.

      Russia's fall in engineering and science is rather tragic.

    7. Re:Not a chance by Frangible · · Score: 2

      And the old guard in the US is gone as well. And not just retired. You cannot replace people like Werner von Braun, Walter Doringer, Kelly Johnson, and Sergei Korolev. Russia may be using 20 year old designs, but here's the thing: we're begging to ride on those 20 year designs.

      When you don't have a car, you can't bitch about the year of your friend's car who's giving you a ride.

      Over 25,000 Americans lost their jobs when the Space Shuttle program ended. And you complain Russia isn't paying its people? Looks like it's not exactly a rewarding profession met with gratitude no matter which side of the pond you're on.
      ,br> Yes, I'm sure Russia's schools didn't meet whatever arbitrary meaningless criteria was used in those unscientific rankings. ("low diversity! Minus 300 points. There are mostly Russians in Russia! Who knew?", "Lack of a women's studies department, minus 20 points.", "Did not emphasize liberal arts enough to engineering majors, minus 50 points", "No sports teams or athletic scholarships, minus 1000 points")

    8. Re:Not a chance by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      They couldn't even do it when they had some of the best schools in the world (which regularly minted Nobel laureates), during the Soviet times, with essentially unlimited budget and manpower.

      Except - they didn't have either. They had a limited budget, limited manpower, and they started years late because they didn't actually believe the US meant it. (If Kennedy hadn't visited Dallas, and Apollo subsequently pushed as his memorial - there's a non trivial change it would have vanished like so many other brave plans.) Then, on top of that, the chief designer and political string-puller of the project died after minor surgery...
       
      And despite that they still came quite close to pulling it off.

    9. Re:Not a chance by symbolset · · Score: 1

      The grandparent is referring to the US use of ex-Nazi rocket scientists, notably Wernher Von Braun - chief architect of the Saturn V and previously designer of the Nazi V2 buzzbombs.

      But then we're skirting perilously close to Godwin here.

      Today I learned: more people were killed at forced labor producing the V2 rockets than were killed by the V2 rockets.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    10. Re:Not a chance by turing_m · · Score: 0

      Their designs, perhaps as starting points, but they tried to work on home-grown talent, after they drained their captured Germans of everything that they knew.

      The USA's Germans were also better.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    11. Re:Not a chance by khallow · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem to have hurt SpaceX.

    12. Re:Not a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mentioning Nazis isn't a Godwin, dammit. You have to make a comparison to Nazis.

    13. Re:Not a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how many manned flight into actual space have they done so far? Moonlandings?

    14. Re:Not a chance by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Only the Ubermensch can build good rockets?

      (/sarcasm)

    15. Re:Not a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not get confused, Soyuz is reliable and very cheap at what it's doing, using kerosene as fuel, so why replace it.

      For stronger rockets, capable of delivering 100+ tonns to the low orbit, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia .

    16. Re:Not a chance by khallow · · Score: 1

      None so far and SpaceX may well never get into lunar landings. But that misses the point. SpaceX has the potential for the best launch platform since the start of the space age. Cost per kilogram of payload is really the defining metric.

    17. Re:Not a chance by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And most ppl miss the fact that Von Braun got his architecture from an American: robert Goddard

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re:Not a chance by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Mentioning Nazis isn't a Godwin, dammit. You have to make a comparison to Nazis.

      And there we go, pop-culture law-nazi....

    19. Re:Not a chance by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I agree with you somewhat, I myswlf was trained as a scientist, but when upon graduation in the 90s I was offered a salary that would not buy me a pair of winter boots I went into IT instead. Now a scientist with some experience (aka Russian equivalent of a Masters) now makes as much as an IT professional. New grads are not immediately fleeing abroad or going into private business. I see this first hand as I live in one of the Russian research centers near Novosibirsk. The international college rating is mostly PR I think. The Soviet higher education system was always different, it's very rigorous and things which partially determine make into rating, like students comforts, campus quality and athletic opportunities are lacking. Personally, I think there are reason for optimism.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  10. Venera Landers by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

    I hope they do another lander--or better yet a rover.

    1. Re:Venera Landers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen dash cam video from Russian drivers?

    2. Re:Venera Landers by alienzed · · Score: 1

      Roll over red rover!

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    3. Re:Venera Landers by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Heh. Moscow drivers have nothing on Cleveland drivers. Their cars are probably in better shape as well.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  11. Launch failures by Formalin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >Considering the recent launch failures in Russia, these plans seem very ambitious.

    Not sure I see the relevance, seeing as:
    Recent failures are a blip in a long run of reliability, and
    They're going to be flying different rigs by 2030, anyway, which may be invincible, or every one may fail...

    Not sure I see much point to it, though. Maybe Putin is working on national morale, or make-work, or kickbacks to someone.

    1. Re:Launch failures by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Considering the recent launch failures in Russia, these plans seem very ambitious.

      Not sure I see the relevance, seeing as: Recent failures are a blip in a long run of reliability

      What long run of reliability? The Russian boosters are no worse or no better than anyone else's. They've suffered a steady string of failures and problems across they years, and *then* comes the recent 'blip'. (Not so recent really, if you count the run of Soyuz problems running back to the turn of the century.)

    2. Re:Launch failures by Formalin · · Score: 1

      I'd call 95%+ success on rockets reliable, no? Less than 2% fatality rate? It's not quite commercial aircraft level of safety, but, well, it is space travel, right?

      That said, I can't see them abandoning Soyuz by 2030. I'm sure they'll be running it until at least the apocalypse, and possibly after, at this rate. Kind of like Americans and B-52s.

    3. Re:Launch failures by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      A less than 2% fatality rate puts it on par with the shuttle (2/135). Not exactly a glowing endorsement....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Launch failures by khallow · · Score: 1

      The real problem here isn't Russia's launch abilities, but rather that it's space program has made a series of unexecuted plans and promises over recent years that have turned out to be completely irrelevant. Maybe they're planning to go to the Moon, but maybe, as they've done many times before, they're just saying that they're planning to go to the Moon.

    5. Re:Launch failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fatality rate refers to fatalities...14 people died on the piece of shit that was the space shuttle...but then astronauting is a high risk profession

    6. Re:Launch failures by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I would interpret a 2% fatality rate to mean that 2% of flights resulted in fatalities. Feel free to redefine that based on the percentage of people who died, but that makes it a nearly useless metric that is almost entirely indicative of how many people are involved in the program rather than its actual safety.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  12. PR Curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In other news, the Kremlin has finally allowed a display of the "degenerate" art of Henry Moore.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17365978

    It's the PR Curtain. Putin needs progressive items in the headlines to counterbalance the protests. Russians on the moon and Henry Moore in the Kremlin are hollow trivialities. There is nothing good to actually report to Russians, even with only state-controlled media left standing.

    Even the traditionally-safe winter's fair of hosting the Olympics looks like it's going to be a PR fiasco for Putin's clique. So heck yeah, "We're going to the Moon!" has been trotted out. They're desperate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Winter_Olympics#Concerns_and_controversies

  13. and others by happyhamster · · Score: 1

    Neither did it stop the U.S., or any other country for that matter.

    1. Re:and others by gadzook33 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I take some exception to that. The U.S. space program proved that no matter how dangerous the mission, there would always be volunteers. However, NASA (as far as we know) never forced men into capsules that they knew were doomed.

    2. Re:and others by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Informative

      I recall seeing a show on the space race where the US boys were scheduled to have become the first men in space, but the launch was postponed for a week or so over safety concerns. In that time the Russians launched their own ship and beat the US to a man in space.

      The United States called their space travelers astronauts ("star sailors" from the Greek), and it was 3 weeks later, on 5 May 1961, when Alan Shepard became the first one in space, launched on a suborbital mission Mercury-Redstone 3, in a spacecraft named Freedom 7.

      From The Space Race.

      While there are always volunteers to do things, they have a pretty decent record of only letting them do it if they feel it is safe enough.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:and others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After Iraq war and everything, haven't you learned to double-check the information in the Western media?

      Also, whenever I read confessions by "former KGB agents" I think "fishy".

    4. Re:and others by peppepz · · Score: 2
      I don't believe that article. It says that the Russians sent the cosmonaut to die because:

      USSR leader Leonid Brezhnev decided it would be a nifty idea to show those Americans how space flight is done by staging a mid-space rendezvous between two Soviet spaceships

      Except that the death of a cosmonaut would go in the opposite direction: cast doubts upon the russian space program and lower the morale of future cosmonauts. So either the premise of the article is bullshit (the Russians didn't know that he would die) or the Russians were incredibly stupid (they thought that killing a person would improve their image).

      Now, as we've read here on /. recently, before the Challenger disaster, some engineers warned the NASA management about the possibility of the accident, and tried to stop the launch. The management ignored them, and the disaster happened. Would you write an article saying that

      USA leader Ronald Reagan decided it would be a nifty idea to show those Russians how space flight is done by sending a teacher in space

      and that the Challenger was a suicide mission, going on to describe the physical appearance of the charred remains of those who died? That would be exceptionally naive and disrespectful. Which is what I think of the discovery.com article.

    5. Re:and others by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Russian's put a man in orbit first time though, while the US just managed a sub-orbital flight. The USSR was a long away ahead back then, which is why Kennedy set such a lofty goal for NASA.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:and others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the death of a cosmonaut would go in the opposite direction

      The point of the article was that Brezhev didn't know. If you take the article at face value:
      The engineers knew with a high degree of certainty that the pilot would die
      The upper-managers refused to pass on the message, jailing the people who tried to pass on the message
      Brezhev presumably thought it was reasonably safe

      It's similar to the Challenger debacle. But one key difference is that sending a teacher isn't inherently more dangerous than sending anyone else. A new maneuver is inherently dangerous and requires more analysis, testing, and listening to engineers.

    7. Re:and others by peppepz · · Score: 1
      Oh come on, the article even envisages the hypothesis that the whole program was a deliberate attempt to kill Gagarin because he had become too popular. It's based on a blog post which was in its turn based on the account of a single person (a KGB agent). And the author of that post himself published another blog post questioning the validity of those claims (link).

      And even if we assume that the ex KGB officer says the truth, the story is different from someone "forcing people into capsules they knew were doomed" as was said here.

      But one key difference is that sending a teacher isn't inherently more dangerous than sending anyone else. A new maneuver is inherently dangerous and requires more analysis, testing, and listening to engineers.

      But the accident had nothing to do with the difficulties of the maneuver. In fact, the second craft was never launched after the first one experienced problems. So the stupidity of Breznev didn't directly casuse the accident, contrary to what the journalist wants to make us think.

  14. Boring by mtm_king · · Score: 1

    Sciencewise (yes, that is a word if I say it is) the moon is the most boring thing in our solar system. There is nothing to learn from putting humans on it again. I do not mind spending money (our money or the Russians) on science, but let's set our sights higher (higher than the moon, get it).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:Boring by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree. The most boring thing in our solar system is what we're doing now - nothing and going anywhere.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:Boring by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sciencewise (yes, that is a word if I say it is) the moon is the most boring thing in our solar system. There is nothing to learn from putting humans on it again. I do not mind spending money (our money or the Russians) on science, but let's set our sights higher (higher than the moon, get it).

      That's a bizarre attitude to have. Since we supposedly have all the answers to stuff on the Moon, what is the structure of a Mare? What sort of volatiles, if any, exist underground? I've seen a paper which predicts a rather bizarre fluorine based chemistry. There might be, for example, naturally occurring CFCs and uranium hexofluoride.

      The Moon also has the nearest record of asteroid impacts to Earth. And due to its proximity, it's record is mostly likely a near identical reflection of what has impacted Earth.

      My take is that the US and other countries haven't done much robotics on the moon since the Apollo program merely because the fad had passed and Mars was sexier, not because the Moon was drained of all scientific content.

  15. They will go back before that by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    The reason is that once private space is properly funded, then it will go to the moon around 2020. That will push Russia to join them. It will be as another ship (probable) or as a buyer of service (not at 100%), or more likely, a combination of these. I suspect that once bigelow puts a base on the moon, then every nation will want to go there, even if it means contracting to bigelow/IDC Dover for lunar base, and one of several up/down services (armadillo, masten, blue origin, etc). Once you are on the lunar surface, then you can set up your own base. IOW, contract with these companies to create your own services.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:They will go back before that by Lotana · · Score: 1

      The reason is that once private space is properly funded, then it will go to the moon around 2020.

      Private enterprise operate for only a single purpose: profit. What profit is there in getting anything (Be it human or probe) to the moon?

      At least some governments need to demonstrate that their dicks are the biggest in the world and use blind nationalism to motivate people to work on these profitless ventures. Paying a private company to get them there will not count, since there isn't much pride in paying someone to do it for you. My prediction is that the next person on another planet/moon will be delivered by government agency, will plant a flag and won't be followed on until another nation decides to prove its engineering superiority to the neighbours.

    2. Re:They will go back before that by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The reason is that once private space is properly funded, then it will go to the moon around 2020.

      Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some please. Just don't cross any border checkpoints with it, because something that powerfully hallucinogenic is almost certainly illegal.

    3. Re:They will go back before that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What reason was there to go to the Wild Wild West?
      What reason was there to go to the New World?
      What reason was there to leave Africa?

      You're right. We should've just stayed exactly where we evolved and never done anything new or different.

      It is attitudes like this that hold our civilization back.

    4. Re:They will go back before that by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      There will be a land grab on the moon. And yes, there are VERY desirable places there, with the majority NOT being so. Point is, that once private space has a station in LEO, then there will be a push for the moon. Upon the first landing every nation with money will want to go there to build a base. That will mean at the poles. The closer that you are to the poles, the more sun that you get. The more sun, the more cheap cheap energy.

      Make no mistake about it. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Australia, Canada, Swede, etc. will want a base there.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:They will go back before that by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I will ignore your insult and tell you just one word: Antarctica.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:They will go back before that by Lotana · · Score: 1

      And yes, there are VERY desirable places there, with the majority NOT being so.

      Could you please elaborate on this point further. What is it on the moon that is so desirable to spend extraordinary amount of effort in order to acquire it?

      It can't be resources, since our planet got everything the Moon have in much higher amount and vastly easier to access even if you have to synthesize it. It can't be microgravity since LEO can provide that much cheaper. It can't be energy as you mentioned in your further sentence since it is meaningless to transfer it to Earth (May as well go with massive solar panels in LEO and beam it down somehow). It can't be for living space, since we are completely unadapted to such an environment and it would be far easier to populate deserts or bottom of the ocean on Earth. It could potentially be a strategic position (The ultimate higher ground), but there is simply no need for such an expensive spending when greater numbers of nuclear weapons already give you dominance over other nations.

      Really the only thing space has ever been used for is a symbolic arena.

    7. Re:They will go back before that by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      nearly EVERYTHING that you put down there, could be said of antarctica. Yet, today, there is a rush going on for it. Why? Because nations have realized that they were short sighted. So, now, nations are desperate to change boundaries and get their own piece of the pie. In particular, China is trying hard to muscle in, even though they just went only in recent history. But their reason for going there is to mine, pillage the oceans, etc.
      Now, as to the moon, when putting up a base, the idea situation is to locate a base undergound where it will not get so much radiation, get hit by micrometories, and has a fairly constant temp. In addition, you want access to CHEAP energy. The easiest is the near 100% energy from the sun. Only a few places have them. Likewise, the other biggy is being close to water. Yes, the moon has water. And interestingly, it is actually CHEAPER to send water to LEO from the moon then from earth. The reason is 1/6 G and no atmosphere. The hard part is mining it. But it appears that there is a number of ice places there.

      Multiple companies are looking to mine the moon for water. According to the new numbers, this is profitable. Any other element, mineral is just pure gravy. That includes U, Pu, Th, He3, Steel, Al, Ti, etc.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:They will go back before that by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      BTW Derek, with Masten hard at work on Xeus and backed by NASA, it is a certainty that all of this is targeting the moon and mars. Xeus is a cargo VTVL. Once this is flown and tested here on earth, then it will be able to work on the moon.
      Basically, the parts are flowing together, regardless of what CONgress does.
      And I will stick with it. By 2020, if not sooner.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:They will go back before that by eriqk · · Score: 1

      What reason was there to go to the Wild Wild West? What reason was there to go to the New World? What reason was there to leave Africa?

      In the Wild, Wild West, the New World and other places than Arfrica, there was air to breathe, food to eat and water to drink. In space, not so much: you have to take it with you and it will run out.

  16. If I had a nickel by tsotha · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I had a nickel for every time the Russians announced some ambitious program I could run my own space program. Let's see if any money actually gets allocated.

  17. The races is on by ben4528 · · Score: 1

    The race to man the moon between Russia and China is under way. They are both loaded with cash to burn on projects like this.

    1. Re:The races is on by Lotana · · Score: 0, Troll

      Russia loaded with cash?! Only because of high oil/natural gas prices and only a small percentage of the population pocketing the proceeds. I have doubts that oligarches are interested in the space race. As soon as the commodities crash again, Russia will go back to being dirt-poor once more anyway.

      Poor Russia just can't get a break. Their history since the Mongol invasion can be summarised in five words: "It just kept getting worse". At least they haven't had another bloody revolution in quite a while (Fall of Soviet Union was surprisingly peaceful), though seeing how things currently are: it is comming eventually. It will most probably follow the same old pattern: brutal, followed up even worse regime.

    2. Re:The races is on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the US government going over budget by 1 trillion at a time, you can bet your sweet ass commodities are never coming back down. At least not for americans. The dollar is sinking my friend. Hope you have yourself some gold.

    3. Re:The races is on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At least they haven't had another bloody revolution in quite a while (Fall of Soviet Union was surprisingly peaceful), though seeing how things currently are: it is comming eventually. It will most probably follow the same old pattern: brutal, followed up even worse regime."

      And you are desperate to see it coming; that's why the U.S. State Dept allocates hundreds million dollars to Russia's NGOs, correct?

      http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-08/europe/30489537_1_ring-scandal-opposition-groups-emails

    4. Re:The races is on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here it is:

      "Gordon said the United States provides financial support to Russian civil society.
      'Since 2009, the U.S. government has given approximately $160 million in assistance to support programs on human rights, rule of law, anti-corruption, civil society, independent media, good governance, and democratic political processes,' he said."
      http://en.rian.ru/society/20111215/170257975.html

      Why aren't you ashamed of the actions of your Government, which pays for a would-be Russian revolution?!

    5. Re:The races is on by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Since I don't know much about the functioning of the global economy, could you explain how the fall of the United States economy and influence will affect Russian situation? As far as I am aware, Russian exports are directed at Europe and Asia.

      I also find your statement "commodities are never coming back down." to be absurd! This is similar to the "housing prices will always goes up" delusions from the very recent past. No matter what the market, prices will always fluctuate.

      Lastly I would like to state for the record that I am not an american and the currency of my country is not a dollar.

    6. Re:The races is on by Lotana · · Score: 2

      Why aren't you ashamed of the actions of your Government, which pays for a would-be Russian revolution?!

      This is the very definition of a strawman troll. I am curious: What is it in my post makes you think that I am from the United States?

    7. Re:The races is on by Lotana · · Score: 2

      And you are desperate to see it coming;

      Despite my cynisizm towards the future of Russia I honestly don't harbour any ill will towards that nation or its people. I find it regretable to see a country of such vast potential and hard-working ethics being stuck in a perpetual state of corruption and authoritarianism with no end to it in sight.

      Though Russian people are hopeless at establishing and maintaining a free and effective system of government, they will get it right eventually. Their perseverence and endurance are nothing short of amazing and will see them through to the end. After all the turmoil Russia will earn its way back to greatness with only question being how long it will take.

  18. Gingrinovich by cactopus · · Score: 1

    Quick... someone send Newt to Russia.

  19. The right approach ... by MacTO · · Score: 2

    We shouln't settle for landing a man on the Moon. We should be trying to land a man on the Moon and doing it better. This is because a new approach will advance science and engineering. Those advances will have applications on Earth. Those applications may create a new economic boom that may feed back on itself by providing real career opportunities for scientists and engineers, for both space/aerospace and terrestial industries. Recreating Apollo era technology to do science on the Moon and achieve political objectives will create a short boom/bust cycle. And maybe it will give Russia the boost that it needs over the next few years, but they (and China and India and us) should be looking towards a longerterm terrestial payoff - not just Moon rocks and nationalist pretige.

  20. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Hope they realize that they'd actually be the first to land on the moon

  21. With one black stripe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For fair Virginia.

    May we mourn her loss forever.

  22. Passport? by Zamphatta · · Score: 2

    Hey, isn't there a US flag on the moon? That being the case, will the Russian astronauts need passports when they get there? I hope they thought this through. I'd hate to see them get deported from the moon for being illegals.

    1. Re:Passport? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      they'll have to take their space-boots off.

    2. Re:Passport? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That being the case, will the Russian astronauts need passports when they get there?

      Possession is 90% of the law. If the US isn't there to keep them out, no passports will be needed. If they can establish a permanent base, they can even claim for their own.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Passport? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      No one owns the Moon, or has any sovereign rights to it. The things that are on the Moon are still the property of where they originated. So while from a legal standpoint the Russians can go traipsing around in Neil Armstrong's footprints, literally, the moment they set foot on the Apollo 11 descent stage, they're busted. Of course, it is like the old Zen koan: if a Russian steps on a lander and no one is there to see him, does he get busted?

      There have been some rumblings of a new lunar treaty that would make the landing sites off limits to new visitors as a matter of historical preservation. This would apply not only to nations, but private enterprises within those nations (I'm looking at you Google!)

  23. One of these times... by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 1

    One of these time Russia will have a successful mission to Mars. Nineteenth time's a charm! (All joking aside, I would like to see these missions become a success.)

  24. They can bring back souvenirs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder what Americans would do if they landed at the apollo 11 site, rolled up the US flag, and brought it back to a russian museum. Doing this while planting the Russian flag in its place.

    1. Re:They can bring back souvenirs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buzz Aldrin would go over there and punch them in the face, then buy them a drink.

  25. null by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    for fuck sake, at least somebody is doing something... i want us back to the moon so bad...

  26. Telepresence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With UAV's becoming ubiquitous and having less then a half dozen humans parked in a trailer monitoring sensor data from halfway across the planet looking for campfires. I wonder if the same type of technology could be utilized by building humanoid robots that could sent up to the moon and controlled from earth. The robots could construct human habitats and or facilities for power generation and food. Since the robots would be humanoid any vehicles or tools could be used by humans later on. Would the lag time for the control signal be too much to do any real practical work in real-time?

    1. Re:Telepresence by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      1. set up lunar microbrewery
      2. ???
      3. profit!

  27. Who gives a shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been there and done it... nuke the fuckers already!

  28. not going to happen. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    This is not going to happen given the political and economic situation in the country.

    The economic situation follows the political one, and there is NO NEW CATEGORIES OF WEALTH created in Russia. It's all the same thing: pump oil and gas and cut some logs and mine some metals and then sell all this stuff, but it really does not require that many people working compared to the entire population.

    The political situation is such that the old categories of wealth are plenty enough to keep a gigantic bureaucratic apparatus going, feeding off those pipes and shipping routes and containers, etc.

    The people in Russia who are not politicians and are not connected (the majority) cannot really run their own independent businesses without getting clobbered, all of the real investment money goes ONLY towards big national and quasi national corporations to do the same thing - move energy and raw materials out of the grounds and sell it.

    The manufacturing numbers are falling.

    The overall wealth of individuals is falling.

    The inflation is rampant (10 and more % per year) and this reflects in prices fairly consistently.

    The lack of manufacturing and huge inflation leads to stagnation, underproduction, lack of savings, lack of investment into private independent businesses. This leads to decrease of standard of living of individuals.

    The ONLY way to 'fund' this insane project is to divert a stream of gas or a stream of oil or something similar towards it, and then what else? Taxes. Raise more taxes on already overtaxed businesses.

    In USA the taxes for businesses start at 50% and go up to 95% (all real actual compound aggregate taxes), all while the political class is using class warfare tactics to diver attention from its own behaviour that destroys individual rights and liberties and the economy.

    In Russia there are no individual rights and liberties anyway, the political class is a simple minded Mafia structure, WHY would it do any of this stuff that it promises during elections?

    Why? Well, it's simple - try to raise some sort of national idea, it is a diversion. There will be no Russian moon station with people by 2030 nor by 2070.

    1. Re:not going to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Russia there are no individual rights and liberties anyway

      Nah, Russia just capitalized them. Those who have wealth can buy rights and liberties.

      The majority who couldn't? Their own fault for not being productive. If they were more productive they could trade their productive work for stuff they want/need, and build up their wealth, but since they can't, clearly it's because they're not working hard enough. If they complain, they're obviously lazy commies asking for handouts and should be promptly ignored, if not outright suppressed as communism is evil

    2. Re:not going to happen. by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      You should try writing articles for gazeta.ru, really. Their audience just lives such self-hating crap. And I will continue working for an IT company with hundreds of millions in revenue, thank you.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    3. Re:not going to happen. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Their audience just lives such self-hating crap.

      - there isn't anything 'self-hating' there at all, it's an objective observation of fact. Of-course between 1992 and 2009 I observed this fact from a very large distance (also working and later contracting for various employers, and some of them had billions of dollars of revenue). Since I decided to build up my own line of products and gotten myself at least one client back in that country, it became possible to form a much more precise opinion based on much more specific and more in-depth knowledge.

  29. oh yeah? by TCaM · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can recover one of the lunokhod rovers, or at least some trinket from it?

  30. but...but....the US did already right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    right, so the russians are so dumb they need 60+ more years to do the same the US (supposedly) did in 69?
    for the few that can read between this moon landing crap, I'd say thank you Kubrick for the Apollo shows!

    still amazed me the conformism of so called critical people... damn sheeps get what they deserved!

  31. yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pr00f by computer != pr00f 0f anything

    1. Re:yay by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about simulation? I'm talking about fly-by-wire and/or fly-by-autopilot. The shuttle could be launched and landed almost entirely by computer, and that's a thirty-odd-year-old design. Most newer airplanes have autoland capabilities, and there are a few that can even automatically take off. There's simply no reason for experimental flights to have humans on board. Take it out in the middle of the desert somewhere, let the computer take it out and bring it back in, and if it crashes, odds are astronomically good that it won't hit anything of value.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  32. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    moon lands on you!!

  33. Party time by docilespelunker · · Score: 1

    If the Russians go to the moon, there' bound to be vodka. If we can get the Jamacans, Columbians and Spearmint Rhino staff to send a crew each, it'll be a party moon!

  34. One way by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    LOL, maybe they will be one way missions? God knows the USA couldn't land on the moon anymore. It takes them months just to figure out what color to paint the stupid things! Too many suits screwed up NASA.

  35. Required Documentation by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Remember to get your Chinese Tourist Visa first and take along your passport.

  36. In Soviet Russia... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    ...moon lands on you!

  37. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moon lands on you.

  38. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you?
     
     

    The manufacturing numbers are falling.

    The overall wealth of individuals is falling.

    in case you didn't notice, the rest of the fucking world is seeing the same thing happening. you can't study the russian - or any other - economy in a vacuum.
     
     

    The lack of manufacturing and huge inflation leads to stagnation, underproduction, lack of savings, lack of investment into private independent businesses. This leads to decrease of standard of living of individuals.

    and what does a space program do? it increases manufacturing. no company is going to fund a moon landing on their own, or even in a conglomeration with other companies. only a government can afford it.
     
     

    In USA the taxes for businesses start at 50% and go up to 95% (all real actual compound aggregate taxes

    that is a flat-out lie. you pulled that number out of your ass and it has no reflection on reality whatsoever. of course, the same can be said for most of what you write here.
     
     

    all while the political class is using class warfare tactics to diver attention from its own behaviour

    what do divers have to do with this?
     
     

    that destroys individual rights and liberties and the economy.

    you have demonstrated time and again that you are an expert on none of those subjects.
     
     

    There will be no Russian moon station with people by 2030 nor by 2070.

    if you even bothered to read the summary - fuck, even just the damned headline - you would know they weren't talking about a "moon station" by 2030, they were talking about a moon landing. put down the kool aid and try reading some time before you hit reply and stuff your foot in your mouth. you make your fellow cult members look bad when you run around spouting off nonsense like that.

  39. LOLWUT Its mindboggling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a weak timeframe. Unless America didn't really go to the moon...
    Just sayin