Russia To Establish Bases On the Moon

Empty posturing by benjfowler · 2012-05-23 00:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

More posturing by the incompetent gangster blowhards running Russia.

Vladimir Aleksandrovich, bend some metal, or GTFO.

Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, the recent history (failed launches) by the Ruskies suggests they are suffering the same political/bureaucratic decay as NASA. In the early days the techies run the place because the suits haven't yet learned the buzzword to make people believe they understand enuf to run things. Same thing happens in private corporations. Organizations age just like people.
Re:Empty posturing by happy_place · 2012-05-23 01:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would hope we could all work together to create a moonbase, sort of like the international space station. If all the countries who can, race to the moon as individuals, I'd expect there be a turfwar over the few areas that might have more value to a colony (like fighting over polar ice). It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.

--
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:28 · Score: 5, Funny

It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.
Yeah, reserve that for Mars, which is named after a war god and conveniently already is red. :-)
Re:Empty posturing by ch-chuck · 2012-05-23 01:33 · Score: 1

Indeed - the moon would be useful for more capitalist uses, like advertising. Some widespread areas of pigmentation and it'd make a swell Pepsi logo.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Empty posturing by JSC · 2012-05-23 01:44 · Score: 2

Someone's been reading Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon.

--
Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:48 · Score: 0

I would hope we could all work together to create a moonbase, sort of like the international space station. If all the countries who can, race to the moon as individuals, I'd expect there be a turfwar over the few areas that might have more value to a colony (like fighting over polar ice). It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.
Turf war, smurf war -- I already bought my acre of land on the moon, and I've got the certificate to prove it.
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:22 · Score: 1

NASA is still doing outstanding science with amazing teams. Just because the shuttles and ISS are a bit of a debacle hardly means NASA is in 'decay'. Please stop spreading this nonsense.
Current missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html
Future missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html
Look at all that political decay.
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:38 · Score: 0, Insightful

If Obama (for some reason we blame NASA, but put the blame on your hero) didn't cut NASA we could be talking this as well. What I find a shame are those welfare scum who take money away from projects such as these because they refuse to work. The so called poor today are just lazy thugs.
Re:Empty posturing by Sperbels · 2012-05-23 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

If all the countries who can, race to the moon as individuals, I'd expect there be a turfwar over the few areas that might have more value to a colony (like fighting over polar ice). It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.
Doubtful. The moon is a pretty big place. If we did actually establish separate bases up there, it's more likely the groups would cooperate a bit on their own. They're off in the middle of nowhere trying to survive in a place that could kill you in a second. Deliberately damaging anyone's equipment could easily kill off everyone. Turf wars are something you'd expect when there's a lot more infrastructure in place and specialized "security" people present who will obey inane kill orders from their host country.
Re:Empty posturing by amck · 2012-05-23 02:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

NASA is still doing outstanding science with amazing teams. Just because the shuttles and ISS are a bit of a debacle hardly means NASA is in 'decay'. Please stop spreading this nonsense.
Current missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html
Future missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html
Look at all that political decay.
Is this satire? I can't be sure.
Only 4 missions currently planned for the future ...
(Interestingly, where is JWST?)
The current missions looks impressive, until you discount "Hurricanes" and "Ice Bridge", etc. which aren't space missions in themselves, and Juno, which I believe is gone ...

--
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:07 · Score: 1

That's nothing. Back in 1939, during Hitler's 50th birthday, a young rocket scientist was promising Goering to turn the full moon into a giant and permanent swastika (like the central ball of the Nazi flag) for Hitler's 60th birthday in exchange for funding. He got it.
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:10 · Score: 0

The GOP trolls blame Obama for a cloudy day and claim that it's allowing Americans to starve is some sort of business stimulus.
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:19 · Score: 0

I remember reading about some early abandoned colonies in pre-colonial times where due to religious differences, there were those who sabotaged the colony, even though they knew that their lives were forfeit in the process.
So, I'm sure that even if someone knew they would die on the Moon, there would be people who would be more than willing to sabotage equipment just for kicks.
Re:Empty posturing by stjobe · 2012-05-23 03:19 · Score: 1

I've read that book; it ends with them banding together and declaring themselves the sovereign nation of Luna and start chucking rocks at earth until we stop going after them. Then the singularity takes away our interest in going to the moon at all.
Or perhaps that was the different space stations and the nation of LEO/GEO. Either way, there were crustaceans involved somehow. And the singularity.

--
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Re:Empty posturing by EvolutionInAction · 2012-05-23 03:58 · Score: 1

Hmm. I think you're mixing up two different books. Only one of them involved throwing rocks, and the other involved flying lobsters. One is 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,' the other is 'Accelerando.'
Re:Empty posturing by I_am_Jack · 2012-05-23 03:58 · Score: 2, Informative

If Obama (for some reason we blame NASA, but put the blame on your hero) didn't cut NASA we could be talking this as well. What I find a shame are those welfare scum who take money away from projects such as these because they refuse to work. The so called poor today are just lazy thugs.
Try paring down the Defense budget first and see how much money is there for NASA. The poor make a convenient target, especially for those with no compassion or concept of what creates poverty. But if you look at actual entitlements and Keynesian make-work projects, our defense industry tops the list.
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 04:02 · Score: 0

The so called poor today are just lazy thugs.
Yup, there are no exceptions *at all* to that statement and in no way is that a wildly inaccurate statement. My mother who was unemployed for a year due to debilitating cancer treatment and subsequently took welfare and filed for bankruptcy is a lazy goddamn thug. I'm going to go slap her for stopping our Moon base from happening.
Isn't the world so much easier to understand now that it's black and white?
Re:Empty posturing by ironjaw33 · 2012-05-23 04:23 · Score: 2

If all the countries who can, race to the moon as individuals, I'd expect there be a turfwar over the few areas that might have more value to a colony (like fighting over polar ice). It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.
Doubtful. The moon is a pretty big place. If we did actually establish separate bases up there, it's more likely the groups would cooperate a bit on their own. They're off in the middle of nowhere trying to survive in a place that could kill you in a second. Deliberately damaging anyone's equipment could easily kill off everyone. Turf wars are something you'd expect when there's a lot more infrastructure in place and specialized "security" people present who will obey inane kill orders from their host country.
Sounds like Antarctica.
Re:Empty posturing by stjobe · 2012-05-23 04:50 · Score: 1

You're absolutely correct. Only I was trying to be funny. Ah well, perhaps next time.

--
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Re:Empty posturing by cffrost · 2012-05-23 04:50 · Score: 1

What I find a shame are those welfare scum who take money away from projects such as these because they refuse to work.
You really think the blue "giver" states should kick the red state money-pits to the curb? Or, were you talking about corporate welfare, particularly for industries with broken/outdated business models?

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 05:02 · Score: 0

International cooperation would be nice, but not similar to ISS. The costs for ISS have ballooned out of control, now totaling over $150 Billion. And its crew count and capabilities have steadily decreased. $150,000 per pound of station on orbit is crazy.
Re:Empty posturing by Sperbels · 2012-05-23 05:40 · Score: 2

A close analogue. Moon bases would likely be staffed by civilian scientists and engineers. They're not exactly the warrior types. If you phoned down to McMurdo and told them sneak onto the French base and plant some seismic charges on their power generator, I think the response would be something like: Go fuck yourself.
Re:Empty posturing by NotSanguine · 2012-05-23 05:52 · Score: 1

If Obama (for some reason we blame NASA, but put the blame on your hero) didn't cut NASA we could be talking this as well. What I find a shame are those welfare scum who take money away from projects such as these because they refuse to work. The so called poor today are just lazy thugs.
Exactly. Because Dubya was *so* committed to NASA he raised their budget, right? Not so much. In fact, as a pecentage of the total Federal budget, Dubya cut more than Obama has during a similar time frame. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA for details.
N.B. This is *not* an endorsement of the Obama Administrations handling of NASA. I think they've done a crappy job with NASA and its priorities too.
I do so despise trolling partisan AC pricks like you.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Empty posturing by demachina · 2012-05-23 08:09 · Score: 2

One of those "future" missions is just sending another crew to the ISS to spin around in LEO for a while doing not much at a steep price.
One is just Landsat redux also not leaving LEO.
The third one is studying the Van Allen belts which isn't exactly going where no one has gone before.
MAVEN is the only mission that actually involves leaving Earth orbit.

--
@de_machina
Re:Empty posturing by ShadowEFX · 2012-05-23 10:19 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's a big place but I'd bet (not having studied a map in any detail) there are relatively few good places to set up shop. We might end up arguing over those eventually.
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-24 07:08 · Score: 0

ww3 will be fought on hte moon eh?
Re:Empty posturing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-24 07:17 · Score: 0

What I find a shame are those welfare scum who take money away from projects such as these because they refuse to work. The so called poor today are just lazy thugs.
You sir are just an ignorant asshole..

At one time, US used to be the lead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 00:52 · Score: 1

At one time, US used to be the lead in grand endeavors, but laziness, political infighting, and lack of true leadership has paralyzed the American will.

I hope to live long enough to see America return

Re:At one time, US used to be the lead by ThunderBird89 · 2012-05-23 01:00 · Score: 2

The current space exploration roadmap features the Moon as well, but in two different scenarios, one in which it's the first stop after LEO, and one in which we go to the asteroid fields first, then to the Moon. Since the roadmap is spearheaded by NASA, there may actually be a chance of this, provided the next president doesn't axe the budget further, since the roadmap deadlines are approaching (I seem to remember 2020 for a Moon/asteroid base, depending on the path chosen, but I may be wrong).

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Re:At one time, US used to be the lead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:03 · Score: 0

At one time, US used to be the lead in grand endeavors, but laziness, political infighting, and lack of true leadership has paralyzed the American will.
I hope to live long enough to see America return
Chances you'll live past your 150 years of age are so remote that your hopes are hollow.
Re:At one time, US used to be the lead by TC+Wilcox · 2012-05-23 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

At one time, US used to be the lead in grand endeavors, but laziness, political infighting, and lack of true leadership has paralyzed the American will.
I hope to live long enough to see America return
As an American I wish the Russians luck and hope they actually do this and succeed. I hope that if they successfully do this it may motivate the powers-that-be over here to emphasize science a little more than they have been. And even if America doesn't take the hint and start emphasizing science again it would be a freaking moon base! :) That is neat no matter who is doing it.
Re:At one time, US used to be the lead by flirno · 2012-05-23 01:46 · Score: 1

Doesn't seem likely. Nations seem to have a set of glory years and then settle in for the long haul of letting someone else play top dog.
Re:At one time, US used to be the lead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:34 · Score: 0

Ha!
Ha, ha, ha.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA, HA.
Hee, hee. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Ho!
News Item: Russians announce Great Plan.
News Item: US announces Greater Plan with Flag.
News Item: COLD WAR IS OVER. No one cares about the 'gap' between Russia and the US. No one care about anything except money.
Go back to the eighties. Regan is calling.
Re:At one time, US used to be the lead by TC+Wilcox · 2012-05-23 03:30 · Score: 1

News Item: COLD WAR IS OVER. No one cares about the 'gap' between Russia and the US. No one care about anything except money. Go back to the eighties. Regan is calling.
I'm pretty sure (though I wasn't around then so it is hard to be sure) that the attitude in the 80's was more, we-are-going-build-huge-weapons-and-stuff-so-we-are-number-one! The attitude I was trying to advocate was yea-they-are-doing-cool-stuff-maybe-we-should-try-doing-more-cool-stuff-too! The differences are pretty large, though I can see how you'd get confused.....
.... and to be honest *I* care about things besides money so your statement about "no one cares about anything except money" is false.
Re:At one time, US used to be the lead by Muad'Dave · 2012-05-23 06:14 · Score: 1

Go back to the eighties. Regan is calling.
Regan, the girl from "The Exorcist"? Oh, you mean ReAgan.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

First post by Australia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 00:53 · Score: -1

Yes we are here first, g'day mates!

Bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 00:57 · Score: 0

They can't launch in Space even satellites (google for "phobos grunt"), LOL.

Re:Bullsh*t by Kagetsuki · 2012-05-23 01:03 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, you're comparing to who? NASA? Oh yeah, beacause NASA has a super flawless record...
Re:Bullsh*t by ThunderBird89 · 2012-05-23 01:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

That was one affair. Europe also lost spacecraft (Beagle Mars probe), and so did the US (Deep Space 2). Space exploration and rocketry is, by its very nature, a risky and failure-prone endeavour, hence the low and reluctant investment in the field.

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Re:Bullsh*t by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:08 · Score: 2

Well, they're pretty good at launching NASA astronauts. In fact, they're the only ones who even CAN.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:28 · Score: 0

Looking at the comments on the space.com it looks like this isn't just dangerous and risky endeavour but also the next potential candidate for international dick waving contest (that is, "who's got the bigger" nationalism) after football. Really sad... also interesting when completely ignorant people shouting on the internet: "'nuff from science and robotic exploration, let's colonize!" I wish there was more shows and films out there with some educational value. Hollywood's impact how people perceive scientific and technological challenges is astonishing.
Re:Bullsh*t by rvw · 2012-05-23 01:31 · Score: 1

Well, they're pretty good at launching NASA astronauts. In fact, they're the only ones who even CAN.
Not can, but want. The US could just get those space shuttles back from the museum, and get them working again. Takes a year or so, but it is possible, if the willpower is there (a large bucket of money). However, after a year or two, I'm afraid it's a lost option.

Just another tax haven... by vanquished · 2012-05-23 01:00 · Score: 5, Funny

The rich are getting really creative hiding their money from the government now...

It's all well and good until by Lucas123 · 2012-05-23 01:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nuclear waste from Earth stored on the Moon's far side explodes in a catastrophic accident, knocking the Moon out of orbit and sending it and the Moonbase Alpha hurtling uncontrollably into space.

Re:It's all well and good until by stoolpigeon · 2012-05-23 01:03 · Score: 1

one of my favorite shows as a kid

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Re:It's all well and good until by na1led · 2012-05-23 01:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Space 1999, haven't watched that show in years. Guess that really shows our age.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:It's all well and good until by Frederic54 · 2012-05-23 01:24 · Score: 1

I posted the story in September 1999, here, on slashdot :)

--
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
Re:It's all well and good until by imakemusic · 2012-05-23 01:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Surely if the explosion is on the far side the moon would be sent hurtling *towards* earth?

--
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Re:It's all well and good until by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually the proper way to send an orbiting body hurtling towards the parent body is to apply retrograde thrust (i.e. in the opposite direction to the velocity), which means the explosion would have to be in the right place on the edge between the near and far sides. A large explosion on the far side would likely only increase the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit.
Re:It's all well and good until by Peter+Simpson · 2012-05-23 02:04 · Score: 1

They uncover a large black monolith with dimensions of 1:2:4...
Re:It's all well and good until by Rogerborg · 2012-05-23 02:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Don't feel too bad, their writers didn't understand orbital mechanics either.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:It's all well and good until by Mindcontrolled · 2012-05-23 02:29 · Score: 4, Funny

*Cough* *Cough* dimensions of 1:4:9 - the first three integers squared.
Bad monkey, no evolutionary boost for you!

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:It's all well and good until by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:35 · Score: 0

The dimensions of the monolith were the squares of the first three integers, so that should be: 1, 4, 9.
Turn in your geek credentials and we'll leave you alone in the library with a pistol, a cigar and a decanter of brandy.
You know what to do...
Re:It's all well and good until by geoffball · 2012-05-23 02:37 · Score: 2

Or even one that's 1:4:9.
Re:It's all well and good until by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 04:48 · Score: 0

A large explosion on the far side would likely only increase the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit.
Think what that would do to the ocean tides!
Re:It's all well and good until by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-23 08:18 · Score: 1

The dimensions of the monolith were the squares of the first three integers, so that should be: 1, 4, 9.
That would be "first three natural numbers" (assuming the conventional definition of "natural" not including zero). There ain't no such thing as "first integer".
Now, what did you say about geek creds?..
Re:It's all well and good until by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 12:57 · Score: 0

Orbital mechanics were the least of the problems that shows writers had with plausability
Re:It's all well and good until by __aajqwr7439 · 2012-05-23 15:48 · Score: 1

Maya rocked, fool.
Re:It's all well and good until by ultranova · 2012-05-24 07:47 · Score: 1

*Cough* *Cough* dimensions of 1:4:9 - the first three integers squared.

There is no "first integer". Perhaps you meant the first three nonzero natural numbers?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:It's all well and good until by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-25 04:30 · Score: 0

I was going to say that as well.

Their space program is underfunded... by Viol8 · 2012-05-23 01:02 · Score: -1, Flamebait

... error prone and the country as a whole doesn't have the money. This is just posturing more likely to China rather than the West given that the USA no longer has the ability to launch astronauts ( in LEO never mind to the moon. (Nice one Obama).

Re:Their space program is underfunded... by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

error prone
Their space program hasn't lost a single man since the early 70's. Can NASA say that?

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Obama? What's he got to do with it?
NASA's funding situation has been problematic for decades. W and the Republican led Congress flushed nearly $1T down the toilet from 2002 through 2008 in Iraq; NASA's funding is a fraction of that. Imagine what we might have done if that money had been given to NASA instead.
Oh, you're trolling. Never mind. Go crawl back under your bridge.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Methuseus · 2012-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1

You do realize that the space program was already fucked under GWB, right? And that it's been in a bit of trouble since before that? Seriously, Obama has nothing to do with the fact that we have no current launch vehicles. It involves way more than just him. Blame all of Congress if you really want someone to blame.

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:46 · Score: 0

Don't bet on that. It seems that the economy of Russia is doing actually much better than the whole European continent all together and have better growth than the USA. If you noticed, Russia is on its way to re-establish her position as dominant power in the world and such a spectacle also comes with great expenditure to spectacular projects (like the previous space race).
On the other hand today there's much more international cooperation, and there's a possibility of a long term +ESA joint programme on quite a few projects, perhaps including this Moon-base project. While the posturing was probably addressed to China in the first place, we have seen the idea of Moon base floating in the American election campaign, which is quite funny because the money spent on space programme looks shrinking due to the crisis and the general lack of interest by the population.
...the nerd inside wonders if I could see a Moon base ever in my life...
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Viol8 · 2012-05-23 01:56 · Score: 0, Troll

"Obama? What's he got to do with it?"
He's in charge - not Bush. It was his call.
"Oh, you're trolling. Never mind. Go crawl back under your bridge."
Ah yes, the standand slashdot "if I don't agree with you you must be a troll" approach to discussion.
Sorry , I'd love to go back under the bridge but it looks like you're already there.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by andydread · 2012-05-23 01:59 · Score: 1

... given that the USA no longer has the ability to launch astronauts ( in LEO never mind to the moon. (Nice one Obama).
I see what you did there. However, this is Slashdot I don't think people here are that gullible to believe that's Obama's fault given that the plan to kill the shuttle program pre-dated Obama. If you wan't to blame Obama for something legitimate blame him for pushing NASA to become more dependent on the private space industry because all this will do is encourage free market competition between private companies in an attempt to make access to space cheaper and faster. Not sure if that's the results your looking for though.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:02 · Score: 0

And he made the right call.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Viol8 · 2012-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

"I don't think people here are that gullible to believe that's Obama's fault given that the plan to kill the shuttle program pre-dated Obama"
So you're saying he didn't have the executive authority to halt that plan? No, sorry, doesn't wash. As far as I'm concerned he's just continued the backwards looking short sighted policies of Bush in this regard.
"If you wan't to blame Obama for something legitimate blame him for pushing NASA to become more dependent on the private space industry"
That too.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by andydread · 2012-05-23 02:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

"I don't think people here are that gullible to believe that's Obama's fault given that the plan to kill the shuttle program pre-dated Obama"
So you're saying he didn't have the executive authority to halt that plan? No, sorry, doesn't wash. As far as I'm concerned he's just continued the backwards looking short sighted policies of Bush in this regard.
"If you wan't to blame Obama for something legitimate blame him for pushing NASA to become more dependent on the private space industry"
That too.
Halt it and do what? The aging shuttle fleet was ridiculously expensive to maintain and the economy was losing millions of jobs per quarter at the time when he came into office. Where is the money supposed to come from? Maybe you could cough up the funds no? The Airforce has their mini shuttle that is doing them well and for everything else the spaceX and others will be a whole lot cheaper and therefore the size of the federal government has been reduced. People have been screaming to reduce the size of the federal gubmint so now the massive scale of the launch program has been reduced and now people bitch that its reduced. just wow.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

Obama? What's he got to do with it?

The man has been in office for 3 years. How long does the honeymoon last? Or are you going to be blaming Bush 20 years from now with the Iraq war? Not to mention the only 2.5 years of that war count against Obama but he's spent more in 3 years than W did in 8... including the wars and the fallout from 9/11. When are you going to wake up? I'm not saying to vote Republican but I am saying that we need a new outlook on accountablity.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Viol8 · 2012-05-23 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Halt it and do what? The aging shuttle fleet was ridiculously expensive to maintain"
Any space system is highly expensive to maintain. With that price came flexibility. Name me any other system that could have brought a satellite DOWN from orbit not to mention allowing on the spot repairs.
"Where is the money supposed to come from?"
Oh I dunno, how about some of the billions still being spent in afghanistan. When is the US going to pull out again?
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Guspaz · 2012-05-23 03:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Imagine what we might have done if that money had been given to NASA instead.
Imagine what we might have done if that money had been given to private companies like SpaceX instead. We'd probably be busy fighting a war with the mars colony for their independence by now. The entire R&D program behind Falcon 9 cost less than a single shuttle launch. You'd still have enough money left over to launch two or three times.
One of the big problems is that NASA can't effectively use what money they do get, because they don't actually build or design anything themselves. Congress, it seems, designs the rockets (the SLS seems to have been, anyhow), and private contractors rip NASA off to build them.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:50 · Score: 0

Officially hasn't lost a single man since the early 70's.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 04:25 · Score: 2

Oh yes, because it's real easy to cover up a Soyuz launch (which sets off every launch detector in the U.S.) and pretend it never happened. Both the Soviet and Russian space programs are well documented at this point, and only a conspiracy theory nutball thinks they somehow killed tons of cosmonauts and then disappeared them not only from all the reams of documentation that became public after the fall of the USSR, but also from the memories of dozens of engineers and cosmonauts who have provided extensive oral histories of the program in subsequent decades.
Of course, there are still nutcases who think that NASA never landed on the moon and are hiding little green men at Groom Lake, so you're in plenty of crazy company.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 04:55 · Score: 0

and NASA rips off private contractors to do so. FTFY
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by jamstar7 · 2012-05-23 04:57 · Score: 1

Nice one indeed. GeeDub announced the successors to Shuttle during his second term and the ned of the Shuttle program as well. He painted this really cool vision of America's future in space.

Then he let his cronies cut NASA's budget to buy votes so they could hang onto their offices.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 05:11 · Score: 0

"Halt it and do what? The aging shuttle fleet was ridiculously expensive to maintain"
Any space system is highly expensive to maintain. With that price came flexibility. Name me any other system that could have brought a satellite DOWN from orbit not to mention allowing on the spot repairs.
"Where is the money supposed to come from?"
Oh I dunno, how about some of the billions still being spent in afghanistan. When is the US going to pull out again?
Still more funding for NASA is a pipe dream, we do have the money in theory, but reducing government spending is too much of a priority for the right wing. Most normal people won't see the need to spring for a Moon Base while cutting education, health care for poor children and etc. In fact that was part of what happened to Newt, claiming that public spending is out of control while asking for a Moon Base makes you look like a Fruit Loop.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-24 02:26 · Score: 0

Or are you going to be blaming Bush 20 years from now with the Iraq war?
Not to be trolling, but there must surely be lots of people blaming Bush and the USA for the Iraq war for at least the coming 50 years. Just so you know. It takes multiple generations for the scars to fade.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... by fritsd · 2012-05-24 02:58 · Score: 1

I don't know.. there's probably loads of research to be done before the actual launch of the actual base.
Russia did recently organize (together with ESA) the Mars 500 experiment. It's not as "sexy" as actually sending a mission to Mars, but I am always impressed when all the more boring preparatory work just gets quietly and calmly worked on.
There's no hurry. If there is no large budget, focus first on life-support systems, on the right worms for regolith agriculture, lubrication of machinery in vacuum and moondust conditions, on how large the solar panels need to be for the miniature solar-panel-baking-oven, how well Calcium works as electricity wire, etc. etc.
They can always team up with their neighbours the Poles (Krakow moon radio station) or their other neighbours the Chinese (Chang'e program).

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?

Oblig: "In Soviet Russia" by stevegee58 · 2012-05-23 01:03 · Score: 1, Funny

Do your worst.

Re:Oblig: "In Soviet Russia" by Kulaid982 · 2012-05-23 01:09 · Score: 5, Funny

In Soviet Russia, base moons you!

--

Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
Re:Oblig: "In Soviet Russia" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:33 · Score: 0

In Soviet Russia, the moon establishes bases on you.
Re:Oblig: "In Soviet Russia" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:29 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, all our moon base are belong to YOU!
Re:Oblig: "In Soviet Russia" by Nova77 · 2012-05-23 04:31 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia... maybe. This Russia? Unlikely.

With World Economies in Decline by na1led · 2012-05-23 01:03 · Score: 1

I seriously doubt going to the moon is on anyone's mind. It's just pointless PR that means nothing.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.

Re:With World Economies in Decline by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:12 · Score: 1

It's just pointless PR that means nothing.
Looks like they've been learning from NASA. Just spout off some shit about going to Mars and the Moon, setting the date far enough into the future that you know neither you nor the current administration will never have to answer for it when it doesn't materialize. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:With World Economies in Decline by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-05-23 04:09 · Score: 2

. . . with the World Economies in Decline . . . the Moon stands out as the next Emerging Market!
. . . invest now! The Moon Economy will soon leave all the World Economies in the dust . . . !

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:With World Economies in Decline by mattib · 2012-05-24 04:43 · Score: 1

A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies!
A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!
Re:With World Economies in Decline by hicksw · 2012-05-24 10:33 · Score: 1

A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies!
One Happy World.
Wrong Dick.
Re:With World Economies in Decline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-25 07:32 · Score: 0

The high ground is meaningful. They can drop rocks down the gravity well at anyone.

Yeah, okay. by tgd · 2012-05-23 01:05 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Russia is a 3rd world country that managed a historic semblance of technology and industry through near slavery of its population, and is in perpetual decline, run by criminals with delusions of grandeur.

This has as much reality behind it as North Korea claiming they're going to settle Venus.

Re:Yeah, okay. by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, their space program is such a joke. All they did was put the first satellite in space, first orbit, first man and woman in space, first space station, first probes on Venus and Mars--in fact, pretty much every space "first" except man on the moon. And they're currently the only country in the world capable of even putting a man in orbit. Ha, ha, what a joke! Let's all laugh at them!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Yeah, okay. by vlm · 2012-05-23 01:20 · Score: 1

... is a 3rd world country that managed a historic semblance of technology and industry through near slavery of its population, and is in perpetual decline, run by criminals with delusions of grandeur.
Oh come on, the US isn't that bad. You just need to vote for the other political party, they'll fix all the problems. Oh wait you tried that and it failed? Well I mean vote for the other, other, party I'm sure they'll fix it all right up. Oh noes, you wrote Russia. Missed that. My bad. Well that goes for Russia too.
Maybe Germans will be the first settlers of Mars. (With a few noteworthy exceptions rapidly nearing a century ago) They're more civilized than the US or the former USSR. Even in their bad times, what's that quote, something like "Its my job to get the rockets up there, where they come down is not my department" Well these wouldn't be coming down, on the earth anyway, so Londoners don't have to worry about it.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Yeah, okay. by vlm · 2012-05-23 01:22 · Score: 1

Well these wouldn't be coming down, on the earth anyway, so Londoners don't have to worry about it.
Oh wait, damit /. get with the 90s and add a edit button. I've got the perfect joke, the Germans can name their moon base "New London". Then when they launch their rockets, they can say "When I launch my rockets, I aim for the moon, but sometimes I hit (New) London"

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:30 · Score: 0

Russia is a 3rd world country...
Just FYI, Russia is by definition part of of the First World.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Hadlock · 2012-05-23 01:38 · Score: 2

Russia has something like 3x more manned spaceflight missions, and at least 3x more space stations than any other country. Hell, the ISS's primary module during it's infancy was quite literally MIR 2. They just had a spare space station lying around and decided to repurpose it.

It's also worth noting, that when China ramped up their manned spaceflight program, they modeled their space capsule after the diving-bell style Soyuz capsule, not the conical Mercury/Gemini/Apollo style that the US uses. There's something to be said for that.

Russia might have one of the worst income gaps in the world, but their space program is world class.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:54 · Score: 0

No, by definition it is second world. At least historically.
Re:Yeah, okay. by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-05-23 01:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Just FYI, Russia is by definition part of of the First World.

By the original, Cold War definition, Russia/USSR was 2nd world.
1st World was US/NATO/allies. 2nd World was USSR/Warsaw Pact nations. 3rd World nations were everyone else.

This has now devolved into 1st world/3rd world, mainly based on economy.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:04 · Score: 0

3rd world country
Actually, Russia belongs to the 2nd world in that categorization. You know in the cold war the 1st world was the USA and it's allies, 2nd world was the USSR with it's allies and the 3rd world is the unaligned countries. But that categorization went away with the end of the Soviet union. You need to upgrade you historical understanding and also should realize that the cold war has ended.

run by criminals
I'm not sure how does that work, but I think by definition those who run a country can not be criminals at the same time. Everybody who is against them, perhaps. But the rulers are never criminals. You mean oligarchs and trusts? This would be as true for almost all countries on this planet, with little or no exception. This is capitalism, baby!

near slavery of its population
Again, I would like to point out, that there are some thick volumes about the capitalist advancement of other, "1st world" countries, engaging basically in the same practices against their population, ranging from institutional terror against the "useless", "vagabond" elements, bully people to leave their properties behind so on. What has been done in the USSR is very similar process to what other European countries and their colonies went through. Arguably, Russia and China went through this process much faster than any others, but the brutality of the capitalist transition (the 70 years of the USSR) was widespread everywhere. During the times of the USSR there was a huge repression of the working class everywhere in the world. USSR wasn't the only one who engaged in widespread terror against the working class.
I don't like Russia. I don't like the USA. In fact, I don't recognize any countries, any borders. But you should get you facts straight before you start to smear a country.
Re:Yeah, okay. by tgd · 2012-05-23 02:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, their space program is such a joke. All they did was put the first satellite in space, first orbit, first man and woman in space, first space station, first probes on Venus and Mars--in fact, pretty much every space "first" except man on the moon. And they're currently the only country in the world capable of even putting a man in orbit. Ha, ha, what a joke! Let's all laugh at them!
And the Italians used to rule most of Europe and the Middle East. Your point?
Russia's space program hasn't done anything but produce small incremental improvements on *Soviet* technology. Technology built by a country under the auspices of its military that *no longer exists*. Technology built using quantities of labor and resources that are no longer available to it.
If you believe for an instant that the current space program in Russia could do something like this, you're completely ignorant of the reality of the existing space program in Russia or its history. (You'd be equally ignorant if you thought NASA could do it either -- it couldn't... not even close. Technical ability has no bearing on the political or economic realities of a program like that.)
Re:Yeah, okay. by SteveFoerster · 2012-05-23 02:23 · Score: 2

To be fair, China also currently can put a human in orbit.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:13 · Score: 0

If you knew what "3rd world country" meant, you would of said 2nd world. The term has nothing to do with economy.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:15 · Score: 0

Exactly. The term has nothing to do with economy.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:40 · Score: 0

Just FYI, the terms '1st world' and '3rd world' are seen as deprecated by many. The replacements are 'developed world' and 'developing world', respectively.
Re:Yeah, okay. by X0563511 · 2012-05-23 04:01 · Score: 1

No, how 'bout no edit button? It's (not) there so you can('t) go back and edit your post after someone has replied.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Yeah, okay. by mcgrew · 2012-05-23 04:03 · Score: 1

Oh wait, damit /. get with the 90s and add a edit button.
There is an edit button. It's marked "preview". Being able to edit already submitted posts would be incredibly stupid, you could make an insightful comment that garnered a 5, then edit it so it was a GNAA troll.
Don't blame slashdot for your failure to proofread. Blame the one responsible -- YOU.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Yeah, okay. by thrich81 · 2012-05-23 04:12 · Score: 4, Informative

The rest of the story: Before the landers, the US had the first successful flyby of Venus with Mariner 3 in 1962 and the first successful flyby of Mars with Mariner 4 in 1964, ahead of the Russians in both cases. As for landers: Luna 9, first soft lander on the moon (Russian) -- landed Feb 3, 1966, operated for 8 hours on the moon, returned 3 series of TV pictures. Surveyor 1, first American soft lander on the moon -- landed June 2, 1966, returning 11,237 photos over 42 days of operations, continued to return engineering data until Jan 7, 1967, over 7months later. Mars 3, first soft lander on Mars (Russian), landed Dec 2, 1971, 14.5 seconds after landing communications from the lander permanently ceased, one partial image was transmitted containing nothing identifiable. Viking 1, first US soft lander on Mars -- landed Jul 20, 1976. Operated for over 6 years until Nov 11, 1982, returning several hundred photos along with life search and other science experiments. The Russians landed first and I commend them for it, but the US missions were vastly more productive; this information should always be included when the statements about who got there first are made.
Re:Yeah, okay. by decsnake · 2012-05-23 04:54 · Score: 2

exactly right, and in fact, the only thing that has kept the soviet, er, russian space program alive thus far was a decision by the Clinton administration in the post cold war era to allow US companies to launch their spacecraft on non US launch vehicles and to make space station Freedom (remember that?) into the ISS with the US paying Russia provide flights to it
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 05:14 · Score: 0

Actually, I suspect the origin of "Third World" was from the sequence "Old World", "New World", "Third World". So, the U.S. is a "Second world" country.
Re:Yeah, okay. by sconeu · 2012-05-23 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

And they're currently the only country in the world capable of even putting a man in orbit.

China says "Hello"

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:Yeah, okay. by jbengt · 2012-05-23 06:30 · Score: 1

"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department" says Werner von Braun.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 06:47 · Score: 0

Just FYI, Russia is by definition part of of the First World. By the original, Cold War definition, Russia/USSR was 2nd world. 1st World was US/NATO/allies. 2nd World was USSR/Warsaw Pact nations. 3rd World nations were everyone else.

you are wrong
First world are the superpowers, Second World are their allies and Third World are the unaligned nations.
Re:Yeah, okay. by vlm · 2012-05-23 07:30 · Score: 1

Can be worked around in the "modern" era of diff and revision control.
My text appears black text on white.
Edited text gets highlighted as red text on white and gets (edit) prefix and suffix.
Karma can take care of abuses. I imagine a stunt like you propose would get savaged. On the other hand my poorly executed joke would probably not get ripped too bad.
That was my 30 second solution. Further research might find a better solution. The solution space appears large.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Yeah, okay. by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-05-23 07:52 · Score: 1

you are wrong [wikipedia.org]
First world are the superpowers, Second World are their allies and Third World are the unaligned nations.

Wrong, only if we use Chairman Mao's definition. Pretty sure we're not going there.
From your link: "The Western theory said that the First World was the United States and its allies, the Second World was the Soviet Union and its allies, and the Third World was the neutral and nonaligned countries."
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 08:01 · Score: 0

Okay, as a writer of SF and a fan of history I'd like to suggest this scenario:
A plucky band of freedom-loving warriors living in a far-flung colony of a vast empire fights and defeats the empire. The empire retreats and the plucky warriors set up their own new world. All of the technology our plucky heroes have is inherited from the empire. They persist in making improvements to this technology until they become so powerful that they dwarf the empire, eventually using their 'borrowed' technology (with improvements) to save the empire from an evil overlord.
That's the US right there. When the ink was dry on the Constitution, there wasn't a single technology the US had that wasn't derived from Brit tech. They made incremental improvements on the tech, that's all. It's true that Russia is NOT the USSR, but all the same they have the know how, they have the equipment, they are making rockets -- and the US is NOT.
Go smoke that.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 08:53 · Score: 0

Space X launched a capsule - that can carry people.
It's not news to everyone but you motherfucker.
Re:Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-24 15:51 · Score: 0

Or just disable editing of a post after someone has replied to it or moderated it. Simple.

In Soviet Russia by ACK!! · 2012-05-23 01:06 · Score: 2, Funny

they still fund their space program? Uh I got nothing.

--
ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i

Re:In Soviet Russia by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:18 · Score: 1

In Russia, rival space program funds you.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

That's... by hantms · 2012-05-23 01:06 · Score: 2

That's no moon...

Re:That's... by dkleinsc · 2012-05-23 02:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, yes it is a moon. But it can definitely be a harsh mistress.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Seen this before by Lev13than · 2012-05-23 01:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Popovkin went on to announce that Drax Industries has been awarded the tender for construction of the new shuttle fleet and moon base. He went on to note that Drax's recent announcement of a toxic orchid-farming operation in the Amazon jungle was pure coincidence, and by the way did anyone know of an orthodontist in Washington who knew how to work with steel?

--
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire

Re:Seen this before by dasherjan · 2012-05-23 01:12 · Score: 1

"Jaws, expel them!"

questions by Morty · 2012-05-23 01:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's perfectly natural for the head of a space agency to want to expand what his agency does.

Follow-up questions:

(1) Has the Russian government actually committed budget to the proposal?

(2) What does Russia expect to accomplish with its moon base?

Note that Russia has been talking about this for a while.

Re:questions by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:19 · Score: 1

I want to ask the same questions of NASA.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:questions by i_ate_god · 2012-05-23 01:25 · Score: 2

1) they've committed some budget to space exploration
2) they expect other countries to do most of the work for them

--
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Re:questions by guttentag · 2012-05-23 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny

What does Russia expect to accomplish with its moon base?
Rumor has it Putin is looking for a new location where his future inaugurations can take place without the distraction of nearby protests.
Re:questions by hendridm · 2012-05-23 02:26 · Score: 1

2) they expect other countries to do most of the work for them
It didn't take long for Russia to follow in the United States' footsteps of outsourcing their space program. It's not surprising for the U.S. to do it because we outsource *everything*, but Russia? How times have changed.
Re:questions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:55 · Score: 0

You want to ask NASA whether Russia has allocated any funds to the proposal and what Russia expects to accomplish with the moon base?
Or do you want to ask NASA how much money it has allocated to Russia's moon base and what it expects Russia to do with the base?
Man, these are some great questions.
You too!
AC
Re:questions by Cajun+Hell · 2012-05-23 04:08 · Score: 1

Seizing the means of production means The People should publically and collectively own .. the contract to exploit the foreign proletariat.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Re:questions by mcneely.mike · 2012-05-23 05:41 · Score: 0

Hi!...... I just wanted your sig and mine to fight it out.

Go my sig! Go my sig! :-)

--
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Re:questions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:15 · Score: 0

The 15 trillions dollar questions - will their tax payers pay for the moon base?

i volunteer to live with no women? by alen · 2012-05-23 01:08 · Score: 2

seriously, who's going to volunteer to live in a metal box on a barren rock with no women and no sex and a high risk of cancer due to all the cosmic rays?

Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:14 · Score: 5, Funny

I imagine that situation is not much worse than what most /.ers live with anyway.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Can I still access World of Warcraft?

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by vlm · 2012-05-23 01:26 · Score: 1

seriously, who's going to volunteer to live in a metal box on a barren rock with no women and no sex and a high risk of cancer due to all the cosmic rays?
Sounds like the computer labs back when I was working on my CS degree. I certainly had questioning moments like that at 2am when things wouldn't compile.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Hadlock · 2012-05-23 01:41 · Score: 2

Presumably, large portions of the lunar base would be underground. They've identified several areas on the moon that look like collapsed lava tunnels, which provide excellent radiation shielding. Also, a rather large amount of time is spent shielded by either the moon or the earth, roughly 50%. There are worse places to be irradiated.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:09 · Score: 0

I bet you, there will be big parties up there for easing the tensions.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:13 · Score: 0

It certainly is possible, but I think the almost 3 second ping time (under perfect conditions) would be a bitch.
It isn't an impossible problem, however; you'd need to have a client that could work in asynchronous mode that would send bulk updates every 15 minutes or so.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:16 · Score: 0

Sure, if you can tolerate ping above 2000 msec.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by ddd0004 · 2012-05-23 02:17 · Score: 1

Don't worry. We'll dress it up like your mom's basement. You won't know the difference. The only real trade off will be cosmic rays instead of radon.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by mikael · 2012-05-23 02:18 · Score: 1

Wouldn't that be a plot-line to a movie in a "Total Recall" theme. Exploring those still remaininguncollapsed lava-tube tunnels is going to be the ultimate cave exploration experience.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by SteveFoerster · 2012-05-23 02:24 · Score: 1

Sorry, imagine how shitty the latency would be from the moon. Stupid slow speed of light!

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Jeremi · 2012-05-23 02:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why wouldn't there be any women?

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Metabolife · 2012-05-23 03:11 · Score: 1

No, but I hear Moon of Warcraft is in the pipeline.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:33 · Score: 1

What does that have to do with anything? Noone is going to live in a metal box. It makes much more sense to send up a large automated excavator that can dig tunnels into the walls of the crater. Many craters already contain water ice. Then you just seal the front of the tunnel and pressure test it to verify there is a seal.
We have single tunnel bore excavators to dig large automobile tunnels. Breaking one up into pieces, sending them up and dropping them off is not too much of a proposal from a technical standpoint. Most of the cost would be in transporting up the weight of the excavator and then more fuel periodically. Then you need to make sure there is enough tunnel area excavated that you grow enough plants to produce enough oxygen for a small number of people. Making sure the tunnel is deep enough would prevent danger from cosmic rays.
Is there some ban on women in space that I have not heard of?
Space tourism (availability of low gravity sex) would easily fund such a project judging by recent events.
Who modded your comment up?
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by mcgrew · 2012-05-23 04:08 · Score: 1

What makes you think there will be no women? There are female astronauts and cosmonauts. There are people at the south pole right now, which is more like the moon than anywhere else on earth; you're stuck in a metal box away from everyone. The only difference is the gravity and lack of atmosphere.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 04:14 · Score: 0

Too many slashdotters.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by jamstar7 · 2012-05-23 05:10 · Score: 1

As opposed to living in their parents' basement with no woemn, no sex, and going blind from all the really AWFUL porn the internet gives you access to?

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by DerekLyons · 2012-05-23 05:24 · Score: 1

Also, a rather large amount of time is spent shielded by either the moon or the earth, roughly 50%.
Nope. Cosmic rays come from all directions, so the moon provides insignificant shielding - just the dose from the visible sky in enough to cause problems. And speaking of the visible sky, the Earth covers something less than a fraction of a percent of it... so no noticeable shielding there either.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Fned · 2012-05-23 06:14 · Score: 2

Nobody.
Unless the box is on THE FUCKING MOON...
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:40 · Score: 0

The latency would be killing!
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by deisama · 2012-05-23 12:07 · Score: 1

I looked this up. On the moon you'd have an average of 1.282 seconds latency (the distance from the earth to the moon in light seconds).
It's interesting because I always though of the speed of light limitation as something that prevented serious space travel. But it looks like there may be some much more practical concerns than I thought.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Hadlock · 2012-05-23 12:53 · Score: 1

So in terms of harmful radiation, how is that split? 60/40 for solar/cosmic radiation? I would have guessed 80/20 or more.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by SteveFoerster · 2012-05-23 14:09 · Score: 1

I meant it -- I once had a web server on one end of a satellite connection and a database connection on the other. We had to change it, the delay was interminable, and that was just going to geosynchronous orbit and back.

--
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 21:59 · Score: 0

Ooh ooh, pick me pick me!!! I already live in a wooden box in a shitty apartment complex in a barren state with no (worthwhile, and available) women, no sex, (for free, or with anyone that you'd want to have sex with) and I have a high risk of cancer due to genetics, plus I smoke! Variety would be awesome! Where do I sign up? Just send up some Evan Williams and Coke and some food every few days and I'll be in heaven! I got 5 bucks that says my liver will fail before the radiation can get me. Who wants to sponsor this experiment?
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-24 16:51 · Score: 0

You can play Old Republic ... wait a second, that's no moon!!!!

"Talking" being the keyword by GbrDead · 2012-05-23 01:10 · Score: 1

Yes, you are talking.

3 areas of concern by vlm · 2012-05-23 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

3 areas of concern as seen on the ISS

1) If you go full international everything will take 10 times as long and cost 10 times as much. That does NOT mean you should go isolationist. If the Americans want to drop a lab literally next door, thats OK, even if they want to share power and air thats OK. But you have to be firm about each item being owned and responsible by precisely one nation (or at most a very small group) and you cannot make the whole project or even subprojects depend on that one nation's work. If the Germans want to land a really cool telescope and click it into position next to the base like a lego block, fine. But if you need a full UN treaty to launch some oxygen tanks then you're completely F'd as those guys are utterly ineffective.

2) Permanent as in ongoing perpetual expansion like a stereotypical overseas military base, or permanent as in we've not decided when to abandon ship yet? The danger of not being in perpetual expansion mode is you'll probably end up like the ISS, in construction for 99% of its lifetime and the week after the last bolt is tightened, its time to deorbit and give up. Permanent as in we intend to expand or improve this base to the tune of $1B/yr in perpetuity is a pretty good idea. Project management with a defined yet nebulous end date after which its managerially abandonded is a great idea for making "a" disposable rocket engine. Its a terrible idea for an entire base, or a station, or even a vehicle program.

3) Please don't do the space shuttle and ISS thing of promising everything to everyone for free and instantly, and then scaling back until its a miserable failure compared to its original goals. So the ISS could hold 24 crew. OK, lets build everything to the assumption that the hotel labor load will be 2 people working full time, thats less than 10% of the crew changing air filters and gaskets or unclogging toilets or whatever the hotel load is on a station. Whoops we're imploding the crew size to 6, now a minimum of 1/3 of the on-orbit time is spent maintaining the station. Whoops. Suddenly a station where most of the people do scientific research turns into an aerospace version of "this old house". Whoops.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:3 areas of concern by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:32 · Score: 0

But if you need a full UN treaty to launch some oxygen tanks then you're completely F'd as those guys are utterly ineffective.
They are entirely effective at acheiving what they are really meant to do.
Re:3 areas of concern by vlm · 2012-05-23 01:42 · Score: 2

They are entirely effective at acheiving what they are really meant to do.
LOL that is true. Self aggrandizement, wasteful spending, gourmet meals, world travel, goofing off too much, banging interns... Unfortunately my lifestyle is not really the ideal role model the UN should have selected.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:3 areas of concern by dkf · 2012-05-23 02:48 · Score: 1

Permanent as in ongoing perpetual expansion like a stereotypical overseas military base, or permanent as in we've not decided when to abandon ship yet? The danger of not being in perpetual expansion mode is you'll probably end up like the ISS, in construction for 99% of its lifetime and the week after the last bolt is tightened, its time to deorbit and give up. Permanent as in we intend to expand or improve this base to the tune of $1B/yr in perpetuity is a pretty good idea. Project management with a defined yet nebulous end date after which its managerially abandonded is a great idea for making "a" disposable rocket engine. Its a terrible idea for an entire base, or a station, or even a vehicle program.
Technically, a project has got to have a defined timeframe and goals. If you're going to maintain it indefinitely then you manage it as a product or service.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:3 areas of concern by vlm · 2012-05-23 07:41 · Score: 1

Manage it as service, then "the service we provide is standardized habitation on mars"
Imagine how cool it would be if we had a service of "habitation in space" instead of a make-work construction project that we'll deorbit almost immediately after construction completes.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

For all the 3rd world countries by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-05-23 01:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

It was the devastated by war Soviet Union that launched the first satellite, the first man, the first space station, has the record for longest space presence AND is right now the only country of launching humans into space...

They were the first when they were poor and are the only now they are poor again. Something tells me that having a rich street full of day traders does not have much impact on a nations capacity to venture into space. It really isn't all that expensive either if you don't fluff you budget with pork.

Can Russia do it (again)? No idea, but being a backward 3rd world nation sure didn't stop them before. And the west is currently begging to use that 3rd world nations tech. And it is not Russia that right now is bankrupting itself with insane military spending.

The tech for setting up a moonbase exist, all it takes right now is will power. And in many ways, going into space is a lot easier then fixing the economy, or getting the banks under control etc etc. It is hard but managable task that more or less requires a leader who tells the rocket scientist to do it, and give them food, shelter and materials. Russian scientists are not spoiled, they farm their own food and launch rockets.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:For all the 3rd world countries by crazyjj · 2012-05-23 01:26 · Score: 2

Can Russia do it (again)?
If Sergei Korolev hadn't died in 1966, they probably already would have. I think his death probably hurt the Russian space program more than scarcity of funding, or even the fall of the USSR, ever did.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by Woogiemonger · 2012-05-23 02:27 · Score: 2

And the west is currently begging to use that 3rd world nations tech.
I think "begging" is a little unfair. We're paying a fair price for the launches we need, I believe as of now through 2016. People who beg are asking for favors. While I'm all for expressing disgust with the state of the US space program, I think this characterization is unnecessary.
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by sconeu · 2012-05-23 05:28 · Score: 1

I know that Alexei Leonov believes this -- he said as much in Two Sides of the Moon.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:46 · Score: 0

Third-world nation? Apparently you have never been to Russia. That's like saying Norway or China or Brazil are third-world nations. Maybe from the point o view of someone living in a nation with a $140 trillion GDP the rest of the world looks a little shabby but Russia has nuclear power, a space program, nuclear submarines, a vast and privately-run communications network, great roads, fantastic schools, and one thing the US will never have - a history stretching into the Roman period.
Russia is first world.
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-23 08:29 · Score: 1

The problem is that Soviet Union, poor as it was, always had priorities set from above - and the people at the top always understood the importance of at least some science (and especially rocketry). So even when it was still rebuilding from the ruin of WW2, the state funded universities, research labs etc. Not to mention the ever-present communist focus on quality universal education, especially with respect to hard sciences.
These days, Russia doesn't have that focus anymore. Its science spending is meager, and still dropping. Its scientists are paid salaries that are so low, a qualified worker gets more. The labs are under-equipped. The education system is in shambles, and there's talk today - by a guy just appointed as a new Minister of Education, no less - about transitioning to fully paid tertiary education (the legacy of the Soviet system today is that you can still get it for free, even in the best universities the country has, if you're smart and qualified enough to pass the entry exams. As a consequence of all this, many young people with scientific education leave for Western countries where they can earn a decent living and work with decent equipment.
So, no, don't expect Russia to do it again. It may happen if something changes significantly in the country - say, a socialist resurgence might do it, provided that they don't get in bed with religious fundies. But the way things are now? Nah.
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 08:30 · Score: 0

Russia never was a 3rd world country. Remember, 3rd world is 3rd because there's 2nd world in-between 1st and 3rd, not because "the gap is so large we're gonna name them 1st and 3rd". And that 2nd happens exactly to be the communist world, the soviet world. USSR was 2nd world, so apparently is Russia.
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 13:11 · Score: 0

psssst, by the very definition the Soviet Union were second world
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 13:31 · Score: 0

Actually the Soviet Union and Russia have always been second world, not third world.
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 21:23 · Score: 0

Er, the Soviet Union was rather specifically 2nd world, not 3rd world.
That was sort of the point of the whole classification method.
Re:For all the 3rd world countries by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-24 00:02 · Score: 0

It is so sad to see the way people use the term "third world" nowadays. Here is a hint: the USSR cannot, by definition, be considered part of the third world.

Too late suckers! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:15 · Score: 1

Don't the Russians know that there's a US flag on the moon?

The USA is gonna make a fortune collecting "moon tax" from the Russians - in fact it could save the global economy!

USA! USA! USA!

Re:Too late suckers! by ch-chuck · 2012-05-23 01:38 · Score: 3, Funny

that why the USA needs to race back to the moon and build a fort around it maned by space marines.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Too late suckers! by dkleinsc · 2012-05-23 06:00 · Score: 1

You need more than a few marines to protect it - you should really put in a few siege tanks and goliaths.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

One thing is for certain... by amateurhr · 2012-05-23 01:19 · Score: 1

They need to get out of the airplane manufacturing business... although, bases on the moon may require slightly higher precision and quality control.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20120523/173624567.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/remains-45-russian-plane-crash-victims-idd-16392707

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Lokomotiv_Yaroslavl_air_disaster

http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/fsu.htm

All your base, are belong to us.

Re:One thing is for certain... by Bonobo_Unknown · 2012-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1

I only checked out one of those, but it was determined that pilot error was to blame... hardly the fault of the plane.

--
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
Re:One thing is for certain... by TheKidWho · 2012-05-23 04:12 · Score: 1

Their latest jet, the Sukhoi Super Jet 100 just crashed into a mountain in Indonesia while being demonstrated to reporters and potential clients.

Gamers. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:23 · Score: 0

Ask Blizzard how many potential moon dwellers there are.

Russians support a moonbase? by cervesaebraciator · 2012-05-23 01:24 · Score: 1

Putin may now have a challenger. Even after the Russian presidential race has come to an end, Newt Gingrich is now convinced that he can win the presidency with a grassroots, insurgent campaign.

Meanwhile, in the US... by sl4shd0rk · 2012-05-23 01:28 · Score: 1

The US Patent office, MPAA an RIAA are collaborating together to find a means of "litigate to mitigate" to keep Russia from developing their space program further. Spokesman from the MPAA has stated their strategy is to tie up the russians in court so they have no time to work on the moonbases.

NASA was unavailable for comment as their phone number has apparently been disconnected. A reply from someone at the "Contact Us" area of the NASA website stated that their phone number is indeed active, but they've been removing all the phone wire from the walls in order to subsidize funding for the Curiosity mission.

In other news, the Deptartment of Defense has posted a record $707.5 billion 2012 budget citing the need for more ways to cleverly kill people without anyone knowing.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Appropriate Here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:33 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, all our base are belong to us!

Whalers by Ecuador · 2012-05-23 01:49 · Score: 2

That's right!
If they were serious they would certainly start by having some whalers on the moon!

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS

Shuttles are a complete write-off at this point... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2012-05-23 02:00 · Score: 5, Informative

The decommissioning work done to prepare the shuttles for museum display rendered them beyond any practical ability to return to service. Large parts of the internal structure were chopped out to remove contaminated fuel tanks, etc. It would likely be faster and cheaper to build a new shuttle than to try to fly one of the museum display orbiters again.

Add in the fact that the supply chain for things like external tanks and other shuttle parts was dismantled several years ago, and many of the specialized jigs and fixtures sold off for scrap.

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org

No , but NASA has launched a damn site more by Viol8 · 2012-05-23 02:02 · Score: 0

How many people have the russians put in space since the 1970s compared to NASA? Not many! The shuttle had something like 140 launches and each one could carry up to 7 people. There have been 26 soyuz launches and each capsule takes up to 3.

Re:No , but NASA has launched a damn site more by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:15 · Score: 3, Informative

There are 113 launches in below list and 45 of them are since 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_manned_space_missions
BTW. Do you remember that at a specific long period, Mir space station was the only human residence in space?
Re:No , but NASA has launched a damn site more by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:32 · Score: 2, Informative

How many people have the russians put in space since the 1970s compared to NASA? Not many! The shuttle had something like 140 launches and each one could carry up to 7 people. There have been 26 soyuz launches and each capsule takes up to 3.
No idea where you got that 26 figure from but since 1981 there have been 135 shuttle launches and 74 soyuz launches, 2 shuttles lost and 0 soyuz lost...
Re:No , but NASA has launched a damn site more by dave87656 · 2012-05-24 18:12 · Score: 1

I think the space shuttle was a far greater achievement than we realize and one that no other country has been able to match. It could carry heavy payloads and 7 crew members. It had a cargo bay for other research as well. Still, I think the Russian approach had the advantage of being cost effective.
You don't necessarily need to put 7 people into space for many applications and they have their Proton rocket for heavy loads. If we had that model, we'd still probably be in space, simply because it doesn't cost much. And the other advantage I see with the Russian approach is that they have all the bugs worked out.

AAAArgh by Max+Littlemore · 2012-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1

Cold war commie thing again?

(too much repetition I'm told) Idiots.

--
I don't therefore I'm not.

Is Anyone Else Thinking by rsmith84 · 2012-05-23 02:08 · Score: 2

That the Germans have outsourced the job to Russia to complete Operation Iron Sky?

Just what I want... by ekimminau · 2012-05-23 02:11 · Score: 1

A Russian moon base that "accidentally" happens to have offensive moon based warheads, lasers, magnetic rail guns or any other type of threatening technology facing the Earth.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/strategic-forces/156-electro-magnetic-rail-gun-2.html

Referncing this article:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/railguns-for-space-launch.html

"The source of this post is this 10 page IEEE paper, Launch to Space With an Electromagnetic Railgun by Ian R. McNab, Senior Member, IEEE The cost of electricity for a launch will be negligible, as shown below. Barrel life is central to the successful economics for this system. A system might cost $1.3 billion and launch for $500/kg. Recent tests fired 7 pound projectiles at 5637 mph. Lunar escape velocity is 5,324 mph. So the truck sized system is already good enough to launch from the surface of the moon. Classic science fiction "the Moon is Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein could become reality."

--
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N

Re:Just what I want... by careysub · 2012-05-23 07:28 · Score: 1

Lets see - the lunar railgun design launches a 1 tonne payload, at a cost of half a million dollars, and delivers 14 ton HE equivalent in kinetic energy to the Earth's upper atmosphere. Since the energy has to get to the ground to be destructive, we are looking a narrow dense penetrator, that will punch a (narrow) hole through anything it encounters, but does not really explode until it is buried in something massive. Basically a double-sized version of the Grand Slam "earthquake bomb" from WWII. Not exactly an Armageddon weapon.
The system is designed to last 10,000 launches before needing refurbishment. If those launch capacitors can cycle once an hour, sustained use, then it would be capable of a very slow and drawn out bombing campaign lasting 15 months, delivering about as much bomb tonnage as the 11-day Operation Linebacker II bombing campaign over Hanoi. Or until someone decides to crash a booster stage on to the launcher, which would probably not take very long to happen.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Just what I want... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:43 · Score: 0

Unless the warhead was something other than static.

Any specific locations on the moon mentioned? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:15 · Score: 0

Gotta rush over and buy up that property and maybe put a couple houses and hotels on it. The deeds are available in color coded lots of three, right?

Great, get in there before Moonbase Allah by Rogerborg · 2012-05-23 02:17 · Score: 0

No joking around now, the collective Muslim Ummah is perfectly capable of claiming the whole lot and instigating a jizyah infidel tax.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

... but when will they start throwing rice? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:23 · Score: 0

The headlines will read: "The loonies threaten to throw rice".

WHY? by Sentrion · 2012-05-23 03:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why would Russia need a permanent moon base? I could understand if Singapore want some more elbow room, but Russia already has more cold, isolated, and desolate real estate than any other country.

Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:58 · Score: 0

Moon big like Russian tractor?
Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 04:26 · Score: 0

Long term, it probably makes more sense to mine Iron ore on the moon and construct larger ships on the moon than ship all of the ore from the earth into orbit.
Even longer term, once you have a couple of massive ships you would mine the Iron ore in the asteroid belt because the gravity well of the moon will be the limiting cost.
Once you're sustainably in deep space it is "relatively" easy... its just getting out of the frikken gravity well.
Re:WHY? by EvilBudMan · 2012-05-23 08:48 · Score: 1

Hellium3 production.
Re:WHY? by LifesABeach · 2012-05-23 09:34 · Score: 1

Where else can one pick up a bucket of the stuff?
Re:WHY? by vux984 · 2012-05-23 09:59 · Score: 1

On the other hand, most of the residents won't even really miss being home ... ;)
Re:WHY? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-05-23 10:23 · Score: 1

Why would Russia need a permanent moon base?
Gives the space program something to do. SpaceX is on-course to take over all the ISS ferry missions.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:WHY? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 13:34 · Score: 0

That also means they have the most experience with how to use it. Plus there's the whole '16.54% as much gravity' thing.

"Gentlemen ... by rufus+t+firefly · 2012-05-23 03:33 · Score: 1

... we must not have a moon base gap."

--
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup

Time For a Crash Space Pogrom! by Baldrson · 2012-05-23 03:43 · Score: 1

Obviously, what is needed is a unified National Space Pogrom to assimilate all independent US space entrepreneurs into a Monster Bureaucracy.

That way, we'll have ANOTHER 40 years of no progress in space!

--
Seastead this.

Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 04:11 · Score: 0

Russians heading moonward was what started our space program in the first place. Ra ra ra for Russia! Start heading for the moon, guys, then we'll have to, just so that we don't have to "go to sleep by the light of a communist moon". (Remember that one?)

This is great and exciting news, and I wish them all the best. Now, America, hey!!! The Russians are going to build bases on the moon!!! Are we going to let them beat us at something we're not yet good at? Hell no!!!

If you need further motivation, imagine living on the moon. Imagine girls at 1/6 gravity... bra's can be left on earth, they're not needed! Boobies can stand up all by themselves there! If you need further motivation, consider that if you can, with wings attached to your arms, generate thrust equivalent to 1/6 your weight (on Earth), you can FLY on the moon, all you need is pressurized space big enough... do we still need more reasons to go?

What fee is Russia paying to the US landowners? by lordmage · 2012-05-23 04:28 · Score: 1

Since the USA has planted the Flag and owns the moon, I am wondering what fee will be changed for the use of the land for "Moonbase" privileges. I would hate to see the Government have to evict the Russians for squatting and/or not paying rent. Of course, the US must maintain regulatory compliance with Moon renting laws.

Just because a highway, payed for by the Government, does not exist, DOES not mean people have the right to claim land. It may take a boat, a plane, a rocketship to get to the owned territory but it is still the owners.

--
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!

Re:What fee is Russia paying to the US landowners? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 08:04 · Score: 0

How is the US going to deliver the eviction notice?
Re:What fee is Russia paying to the US landowners? by lordmage · 2012-05-23 09:20 · Score: 1

Using the new SPACE-X Delivery Service. How else is Space-X gonna make money?

--
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Re:What fee is Russia paying to the US landowners? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-05-23 09:43 · Score: 1

You do realize that under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, no sovereign nation may claim extraterrestrial territories, right? This includes the Moon, asteroids, and other celestial bodies. The whole of outer space is considered the "common domain of mankind", and therefore must be used for the common good and betterment of humanity.
So no, the US won't be charging anything or evicting anyone...

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
Re:What fee is Russia paying to the US landowners? by lordmage · 2012-05-23 09:52 · Score: 1

Satire and Comedy meet.
We will eventually be removing that Outer Space Treaty due to practice and Science Fiction reasons. Also how many new "Countries" did not sign it? I mean the Dictator could probably just say he owns MARS.

--
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Re:What fee is Russia paying to the US landowners? by ThunderBird89 · 2012-05-23 10:22 · Score: 1

Yes, he could. But it wouldn't mean anything, since the Outer Space Treaty has been observed so long (even if only out of lack of interest) that it has passed into customary law, and as a UN-treaty, it enjoys supremacy over domestic law of UN members. Now, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know where the Dictator reigns, but if it's a UN country, it will observe the treaty or face the sanctions (and wrath) of the Assembly and the Security Council, and if it isn't, he won't be able to do jack shit without might, and the UNSC will have a few words to say about that.

--
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!

Way... Way Out by k6mfw · 2012-05-23 04:42 · Score: 1

Reading this article abstract I immediately thought of the 1966 movie starring Anita Ekberg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcx9qfNbu64 with the nice figure and beautiful hairstyle, however, I cannot see will have this in any future moon bases. And I don't think there ever will be any moon bases. Russia and US are both broke and have lost much of their industrial base, Europeans have more important matters to deal with, Japanese? they seem to be quiet about their space accomplishments, Chinese: they're ready to go, they haven't done anything yet.
From IMDB:

The Americans and the Russians each have a two-person base on the moon. The Americans have had to keep replacing their astronaut teams because they quickly go crazy; they have been using only male astronauts on the unspoken assumption that this would avoid any possibility of impropriety. The Russians, as godless Communists, are under no such constraints, and their male-female team has remained well-adjusted. At the start of the film, a male and female American astronaut team is sent up to replace the sex-starved all-male team. The government insists on them being married first to preserve morality. Most of the story revolves around the eventual consummation of this marriage of convenience, and around their relationship with their Russian neighbors, who keep casually dropping by.

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Re:Way... Way Out by LifesABeach · 2012-05-23 09:32 · Score: 1

Spoiler Alert?

Not holding my breath... by KendyForTheState · 2012-05-23 05:28 · Score: 1

Russia still hasn't managed to do what the US did in 1969 (43 years ago). When they actually land a human on another celestial body then they will have cred.

--
...I just came for the free beer.

Re:Not holding my breath... by jerryjnormandin · 2012-05-23 05:36 · Score: 1

Yeah but the Russians were the first to get a probe to land on venus and transmit photos and data back. That's a feat in itself. Venus is damn hot.
Re:Not holding my breath... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-23 11:56 · Score: 1

That's precisely the problem with American attitude re: space. Just because you happened to have the last achievement in the list of "firsts", you feel like it makes everyone else unimportant, and meanwhile you can rest on your laurels doing nothing.
The Soviet space program also did a bunch of important "firsts", including some stuff that no-one had repeated, either - such as surface Venus probes. But, frankly, who did it first doesn't matter. Both countries could achieve all major milestones in the Space Race within comparable time periods; the difference were largely due to year-to-year differences in funding, and lucky breakthroughs and unlucky setbacks. What matters is that all that was done.
Now, instead of discussing whose dick is longer, how about a US moon base plan to complement the Russian one? And wasn't China on that bandwagon, as well? Who fucking cares who gets there first; what matters is that someone does that.

India? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 05:31 · Score: 0

Shouldn't Delhi be trying to establish some indoor toilets in the Capital first before looking further afield?

A giant cash sink, but... by Radical+Moderate · 2012-05-23 05:33 · Score: 1

I'd rather blow billions on a few moon bases than the billions the US blows maintaining 1000+ military bases around the world, most of which serve no purpose except to funnel our tax dollars out of the country. At least moon bases have potential for R&D. And they're cool.

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.

Re:A giant cash sink, but... by jerryjnormandin · 2012-05-23 05:39 · Score: 1

Uhm we need military bases. How else are we going to protect ourselves from the Middle Easterm Mutant Zombie Apocalypse ?
Re:A giant cash sink, but... by dkleinsc · 2012-05-23 06:26 · Score: 1

We also can't forget the important goal of protecting West Germany from the USSR. Because that's obviously a very relevant goal 20 years after neither of those countries exist.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:A giant cash sink, but... by volmtech · 2012-05-23 06:33 · Score: 1

Who profits from military spending? Who will profit from increased space spending? If it's the same people we can go back into space, other wise ,no.
Re:A giant cash sink, but... by LifesABeach · 2012-05-23 09:22 · Score: 1

I don't know why this Moon Base stuff isn't taken more seriously. Basic stress on the body would be less, and that means a longer life span.

The USA needs a Cold War style competition! by jerryjnormandin · 2012-05-23 05:35 · Score: 1

This is good news. The USA needs a good old Cold War Style competition to revive the sleeping giant! Hopefully the next president will have their priorities straight. Remember the booming 80's when the economy just grew? Well the spending done to grow the technology and build the hardware to make such a lunar mission possible will bail both countries out of their financial demise.

Re:The USA needs a Cold War style competition! by LifesABeach · 2012-05-23 09:18 · Score: 1

I was thinking the of the 1960's. In the 1980's interest rates on 2nd TD's was that of Credit Cards. As for the "Sleeping Giant", the new term is, "Super Size That For You?"

This is posturing by Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 05:59 · Score: 0

In the next couple of years, America and the west are about to have multiple launchers of various sizes that will be able to go to the Moon and Mars. Once America has multiple human-rated launchers AND the FH, it will make it easy for private space to get to LEO and to the moon. In fact, If the republicans will quit trying to kill off private space, we will see multiple space stations in orbit, and a base on the moon before 2020. The question becomes, what nations are going to join in?

Windbourne (modding)

Er... by argStyopa · 2012-05-23 06:25 · Score: 1

...don't you have to land a person there first, to have a "base".

Perhaps the title should have been "Russia PLANS to have moon base"?

In other news, the US "plans" to
- go metric
- be energy self-sufficient
- 'win' the war(s) on terrorism, drugs, poverty, child abuse, crime, and whatever else we're in a "war" with. ...after which I suppose we can all ride our unicorns across the rainbow bridge and have tea with the Easter Bunny, Santa, and ethical politicians.

--
-Styopa

Re:Er... by LifesABeach · 2012-05-23 09:16 · Score: 1

details, details.

Wake me up by tokul · 2012-05-23 06:30 · Score: 1

Wake me up when it is more than talks and cartoons. Russians might be using their Paroms and Klipers by then.

Google Translate returned no results. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 06:39 · Score: 0

The rich are getting really creative hiding their money from the government now...

I think "Vladimir Popovkin" means "Newt Gringrich" in Russian...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-pledges-moon-base-by-second-term-112319.html

In soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 06:46 · Score: 0

moon lands on you.

Moonbase Alpha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:12 · Score: 0

So what is the purpose of a base on the moon?

Re:Moonbase Alpha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-25 08:52 · Score: 0

To hold the high ground. Drop easy to aim boulders down the gravity anywhere you want to.

Re:Shuttles are a complete write-off at this point by Roachie · 2012-05-23 07:57 · Score: 1

I smell a movie plot.

"Dammit! theres no time... we got to get the 'old ladies' flyin again!!! "

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.

This is more like Antarctica, not the ISS. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 08:11 · Score: 0

Also, respectfully, I believe you're exaggerating quite a bit.

Poo Poo by EvilBudMan · 2012-05-23 08:19 · Score: 1

I would believe anyone with a name Poopoo vee kin. That doesn't even sound right for a Russian?

Re:Poo Poo by LifesABeach · 2012-05-23 09:03 · Score: 1

Only if one asks, "Did you go Poopoo?"

Care For Your Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 08:26 · Score: 0

- Please Do Not Feed The Trolls -

I Can Hear Ronald Regan Saying Out Loud, by LifesABeach · 2012-05-23 09:02 · Score: 1

"Put that Base, uh, where?"

Lunar Missile Crisis by AlexReidy · 2012-05-23 10:56 · Score: 1

Brace yourselves for the Lunar Missile Crisis of 2015

Too Late... by hackus · 2012-05-23 11:34 · Score: 1

_THEY_ are already there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2cS8wvQHI

-Hack

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.

what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 12:46 · Score: 0

might as well just burn that money.

Re:Shuttles are a complete write-off at this point by __aajqwr7439 · 2012-05-23 15:16 · Score: 1

Fallen Angels!

Why ? by ToddInSF · 2012-05-24 13:59 · Score: 1

I mean, seriously, for what purpose ?

Slashdot Mirror

Russia To Establish Bases On the Moon

249 comments