Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

International Effort Could Put First Canadian On the Moon

Posted by timothy on from the mayor-ford-the-obvious-choice dept.

A long-term plan created by 14 cooperating space agencies around the world could mean that a Canadian astronaut may get to visit the moon sometime close to 2030. The International Space Exploration Coordination Group, of which Canada is a part, released last week an updated roadmap laying out intended projects, including a lunar visit. "[CSA space exploration director Jean-Claude Piedboeuf] suggested astronauts could again be moon-bound in about 15 years. It would be the first human visit to the shining orb since 1972, when NASA astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt spent 75 hours there. This time, there could well be Canadian visitors. Their specialty: robotics. 'We're proposing a vision where Canada could have an astronaut, effectively a Canadian who will be in lunar space, either in orbit or on the moon and could operate a Canadian rover in the same way that Canadians operate a Canadarm on the space station,' Piedboeuf said."

114 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. May I suggest Justin Bieber? by Begemot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pleaaaaaaaaase....

    1. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, I do believe that William Shatner deserves to be the first Canadian on the moon. If they can work it out that both can go, well, I'd click that 'Donate' button.

    2. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      There is a severe fuel cost for putting massive objects into orbit, on the order of 100 to 1 for fuel to paypload weight

    3. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Throw celine dion in the mix and I will donate quadruple

      however we can save weight by only shipping their ego's there.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by Megane · · Score: 1

      He can leave his hair at home. I think that will reduce the payload weight considerably.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by lunatix · · Score: 2

      I believe their egos would be disproportionally heavier than their actual body weight.

    6. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by dicobalt · · Score: 1

      In 2030 William Shatner will be 99 years old.

    7. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Celine's house in Florida is up for sale, a paltry $72MM she might be able to contribute to the cause?

    8. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is false. Although there may well be a 100 to 1 fuel mass to payload mass ratio, fuel costs are negligible compared to other costs - fractions of a percent. of the total cost.

    9. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Considering how energetic he seems now at 82, I wouldn't count out seeing him still be around as a centenarian.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    10. Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yes. Expensive fuel tanks holding cheap fuel. Total cost for the Apollo 11 launch: $355 million. Total cost for fuel: $155 thousand, or 0.05% ot the total cost.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. 15 years? by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    from Kennedy's challenge to first man on the moon was 8 years. just from that, I'd say this is mostly not planning to go anywhere in the next 20 years.

    1. Re:15 years? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

      from Kennedy's challenge to first man on the moon was 8 years

      Only because of the years and years of preparatory work already done. Development of the F-1 started in 1956. Much of the design and engineering for the Apollo capsule was already complete (although as a general purpose earth orbiter). The same goes for the engineering and development of the Saturn family of boosters.
       
      One of the reasons Kennedy chose a moon landing as a goal (over the other options considered) in the first place was because so much of the necessary groundwork was already in work.

    2. Re:15 years? by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One would think there is even more groundwork done now than there was in the 60s. The main difference is that between a president making a commitment and a committee making a presentation.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    3. Re:15 years? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Right, and we still have all that ground work and a lot more that has been developed in the mean time. If we put as much effort in to getting to the moon as we did then, like say the fate of the earth depended on it, I'm sure we could go in a year or two.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:15 years? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Crash programs are very expensive and a budget like Apollo's may never happen again.

    5. Re:15 years? by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      Particularly for something as frivolous as yet another moon landing. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Guess what we found out? The moon is made of rocks and dust. Big whoop. Now, put together a heavily-funded crash program to cure aging? That's something a lot more people could get behind.

    6. Re:15 years? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Some of the groundwork has been done - but this project isn't getting the thing that made the real difference... a huge budget. Which wasn't a direct result of Kennedy's commitment - he was actually looking for ways to scale it back. The huge budget came because he died in Dallas and LBJ pushed for the program as a monument to Kennedy.

    7. Re:15 years? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The main difference between then and now being then, us vs them was US vs Russia, whereas now, us vs them is R vs D.

      Both R & D work so hard to make sure the "other side" can't claim to done something to get re-elected.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:15 years? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only because of the years and years of preparatory work already done. Development of the F-1 started in 1956.

      The V2 rocket is what really started the space age. It was the first thing humans ever built that reached space. It wasn't easy; the Nazis poured vast resources into that research. And there is a direct lineage from the V2 to the moon program.

    9. Re:15 years? by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      It's sad that going to the moon six times is worth less in preparatory work than what had been done up to 1961. We've lost so much knowledge and experience that we've regressed as a species, at least in terms of human space exploration. Hopefully this time around we never forget how to do it.

    10. Re:15 years? by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. We are so much more capable now in space travel than we were in the 60's that there's just no comparison.

    11. Re:15 years? by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      wrong! even if we take the entire Apollo program which had other purposes before Kennedy's challenge, that was $25.4 billion as reported in 1973. That's 102.3 billion dollars now. Or the cost of the U.S. nuclear arsenal which is two thirds of a trillion dollars every decade. A fraction of cost of a war with no purpose and no results (other than a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi citizens), for example. Space exploration is very cheap.

    12. Re:15 years? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      not relevant at all, since the Apollo program had other goals and missions before the moon challenge. the technology hasn't gone away, we have more prep work now

    13. Re:15 years? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Right, and we still have all that ground work

      We have the knowledge, but not the industrial base. We couldn't build a Saturn V in a year.

      If we put as much effort in to getting to the moon as we did then, like say the fate of the earth depended on it, I'm sure we could go in a year or two.

      But it doesn't. The Apollo program, and most of manned spaceflight in the 1960s, was a bigger dick contest with the USSR with little science content.

      The lower cost and increasing capability of unmanned probes means that there's nothing we can send human beings to do on Luna or beyond that's worth the cost of sending them there. And that will remain true for the foreseeable future.

      "But manned missions to deep space are inspiring!" you say? So is a performance of Beethoven's 5th. Maybe manned space flight should compete for NEA funding. I like gigantic art projects as much as anyone, but when our planet is facing a sustainability crisis we should focus resources on the survival of civilization.

      "But look at all the spin-off technologies! We'd never have had mircocompters without Apollo!" you say If you want advances in practical technologies, it's more efficient to put your resources directly into developing those practical technologies.

      There are reasons why no one has gone beyond LEO in decades.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    14. Re:15 years? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It's sad that going to the moon six times is worth less in preparatory work than what had been done up to 1961.

      It's only "sad" if you're unaware that it's 2013 and that materials, processes, etc... have changed radically in the intervening fifty years and that impacts pretty much every aspect of the project. Not to mention being ignorant enough to not grasp that every major engineering projects requires considerable ground and preparatory work beforehand (roughly proportional to the size of the project), even if it's something done routinely (like building a bridge).
       

      We've lost so much knowledge and experience that we've regressed as a species, at least in terms of human space exploration. Hopefully this time around we never forget how to do it.

      If we lived in a universe where we'd "forgotten" anything, you'd have a point. So, either you live in a different universe than the rest of us or you're just abysmally clueless.

    15. Re:15 years? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Um, care to repeat that in English, or at least in properly phrased English?

    16. Re:15 years? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      In 1962 we took an existing space program and technology and made a new goal of reaching another world. We then reached that goal. We have in 2013 a bigger existing space program and even more technology. There is no reason we couldn't reach another world in less than a decade, for a price that is a tenth or less of a purposeless war or maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal of obscene and uselessly huge size.

  3. The really sad thing... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2
    ...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.

    And I was born years before Gagarin flew.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:The really sad thing... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

      Let go? What do you replace it with?

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:The really sad thing... by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even more sad is that someone your age can't let go of the symbolism of a dead era.

      I wasn't born in that era, but I understand the sentiment completely. During the late 50's through the mid-70's, we experience the pinnacle of technology and humankind has been going down hill since. We had rockets that went to the moon. We had supersonic transport. We built the fastest airplane ever, we built several different airplane models that are still in production and have yet to be surpassed. We invented what eventually became the internet. Since then, we haven't done much of anything except squabble and fight and sue. One might also notice a correlation in the diminishing of funding for education and research to our newfound stunning lack of achievement.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:The really sad thing... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Yep, exploration, dreams, achievement, that's all old hat, gramps! All the cool kids know that breathlessly following the circle jerks of the latest reality show is where it's at!

    4. Re:The really sad thing... by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since then, we haven't done much of anything except squabble and fight and sue. One might also notice a correlation in the diminishing of funding for education and research to our newfound stunning lack of achievement.

      Yeah but the ultra-wealthy can enjoy thousand-horsepower all-wheel-drive supercars and cheap replacement organs from healthy, grass-fed South American kids...

    5. Re:The really sad thing... by geogob · · Score: 1

      ...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.

      You are totally correct and somewhat wrong at the same time.

      To put a man on the Moon, the first step is to wish to put a man on the Moon and to actually try to put a man on the Moon. In other words, those who decide how much money is put in which envelope must want to put a man on the moon. Otherwise it will never happen. As no deciding party actually wants that or sets that as a priority, for whatever reason, you are totally correct in saying we are further away from putting a man on the moon than sometimes back in the past, where this wish was actually share among many deciding parties.

      But I believe you wanted to hint at a technological limit, but it is not case; that the technology was there in the past to do it, but was lost it and that we are far from having this technology again. That might be correct, in light of the first part of my post, but has nothing to do with the state of technology or mankind technological capabilities. It’s simply lack of resources in that envelope. Dedicate the same kind of budget in Lunar and space exploration today as it was in the ’50 and ’60, we could get there in the blink of an eye so to say. The technology is there and the design and development of means to reach the moon could be done within a few years without any problem.

      Another problem is the weight of the administrative machines behind space programs. I fight my way through this very same machine in my every day professional life, and I can assure you that with the state of administration as it is now, you get nowhere near the moon, even in 20 years. But it wasn’t much different in the ’60. This issue is also in the hands of the people deciding where the money. I can assure you, the day a deciding leader tells a space program administration they’ll get 134 billion$ to put people on the moon ASAP, you’ll see the quickest administrative reform of a space program. Ever.

      In tl;dr form. Technology is there. Capability can be there fast. What is missing is will and need (sold at the right persons).

    6. Re:The really sad thing... by Noughmad · · Score: 2

      You all tend to forget that people receiving social aid have faster computers in their pockets than the whole world had during that "pinnacle of technology" time. The transition was from super government projects (flight to the moon, Concorde) to commercial developments, and from "cool stuff" to "convenience".

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    7. Re:The really sad thing... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      With enough money and a few years lead time, I suspect the Falcon-9 could probably get us orbiting the moon, and that there's enough talent in private space to also supply a suitable landing vehicle for a spacewalk.

      The real trick is to plan to do something which gets us enough buy-in that we actually go there, and do something which keeps us in-space as a permanent - and ideally profitable (or break-even) endeavour.

    8. Re:The really sad thing... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      We had rockets that went to the moon.

      And when we got there, we found lots of jagged dust.

      We had supersonic transport.

      Which we already knew was horribly expensive due to (a) the effort required to slice through the air that vast, and (b) the heat generated at such speeds.

      We built the fastest airplane ever,

      And retired it because flying that fast is so fscking expensive!

      we built several different airplane models that are still in production and have yet to be surpassed.

      Because in the real world, there are always engineering trade-offs between physics and economics, and it turns out that the sound "barrier" is in actuality an economics barrier.

      Yes, it saddens me, but I've moved on from youthful sci-fi dreams.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:The really sad thing... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      people receiving social aid have faster computers in their pockets than the whole world had

      Nothing wrong with a little Chinese prison labor so the plebes can play Angry Birds, eh? ;)

    10. Re:The really sad thing... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Things die for business reasons, not technological reasons. And I'd say rovers that explore Mars on their own is far more advanced than having humans do everything like on Apollo. The Concord died yes, but there are supersonic jets in private ownership (ex-military), it's all a matter of cost. Some things haven't changed much but smart phones, medicine, lots of things have become very much more technologically advanced. It just depends on where you're looking, I'd much rather be in a hospital in 2013 than 1963, thank you very much.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:The really sad thing... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      We now have super-strict IP laws. Back then, when the speech was made people didn't instinctively look at all the science fiction works and sue for infringement (we already had science fiction works about going to the moon after-all).

    12. Re:The really sad thing... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      America probably has more prison labour then China. Those private prison companies need to make money with their guaranteed prison population.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    13. Re:The really sad thing... by lxs · · Score: 1

      the pinnacle of technology and humankind has been going down hill since.

      Huge prestige projects and the accompanying techno optimism may have gone the way of the dinosaur in the US and Europe. They still build crazy megaprojects in the Middle and Far East.
      Humanity has produced many unspectacular improvements in the intervening years that have had a much greater impact on the world than any big rocket or skyscraper ever had. Worldwide, the number of humans living in absolute poverty is at an all time low. Today, obesity is a greater killer than hunger - let that sink in for a moment. Some of the worst diseases are being eradicated. The Internet is slowly but surely bringing knowledge cheaply to everyone who can read (world literacy has never been higher as well) There are less wars than ever before and less people die in them. Switching on the news may make you think otherwise but for the vast majority of us life used to be much much worse.

      So the World is a mess, and the Golden Age of the West may be nearing its end but overall humans are not doing badly compared to those who have gone before.

    14. Re:The really sad thing... by bbsalem · · Score: 1
      > And retired it because flying that fast is so fscking expensive!

      You can tunefs, but can you tune a fish?

  4. This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by Nova+Express · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With the way national governments keep piling up debt, it's unreasonable to assume any of those governments will be funding space exploration in 2030.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The world is already broke. the next big economic collapse will be governments who are massively over extended.(which is nearly all of them)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by rtaylor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Democratic countries only. Most of the communist ones, including those that went through financial difficulties in the 80's/90's are in pretty good shape debt wise.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Informative

      "With the way national governments keep piling up debt"

      That debt is to private banks, you do know that each nation is supposed to have it's own national bank making that kind of debt impossible? The worlds banking cartel launched a coup against most nation states to keep them under their control via national debt.

      Don't think so? Why not look at what even these canadian politicians have to say. Money is political fiction, the national debt exists because private power wants it to exist to prevent progressive social change under the fear mongering of national debt.

      http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/

    4. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That interactive chart is massively misleading. It shows Australia as being in the same category of debt as the USA but Australia has a total debt of 396 billion and a yearly change of 0.5% while the USA has a debt of 12 trillion with a yearly change of +13.1%. Now, I am not an economist but it seems to me that having 17k per person debt with basically no yearly increase does not show a country in massive debt unlike the USA with their ~40k per person debt and the yearly increase of 13.1%... That does not even take into account the fact that the USA's debt is 75% of their GDP while Australia's is 25%.

      Unfortunately though, outside of Australia, most of the other countries in red seem to warrant the high debt label with debts of 50%+ of GPD and a increase of 5%+ with most being 10%+...

    5. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by Raenex · · Score: 1

      http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/

      Too bad the production is so juvenile (sound effects, jokes, etc). I do respect the message and the impressive list of people he managed to interview. Still, it's just a Canadian-focused rehash of similar works, such as "Money As Debt" and "The Money Masters".

    6. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      The difference is, it's interviews with real politicians saying "yes we could do this but...(insinuating the majority of the public is too stupid/can't grasp this)", did you see what May and Layton said? skip to their interviews if you didn't.

      The fact that the politicians know what is possible but they are stuck in a system that would never allow it and because the public is just too fucking stupid / brainwashed.

    7. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Makes sense. Smith and Wessen found a way to make lead into gold too.
      Ayn Rand just did it by living on government benefits and writing books printed via lead type.

    8. Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 by Raenex · · Score: 1

      did you see what May and Layton said? skip to their interviews if you didn't.

      Quotes or times, otherwise I'm not going to skim through it searching for it. The two common themes seemed to be that the current system is good (the establishment), or that the system is entrenched (fringe parties).

  5. Wouldn't that be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We're proposing a vision where Canada could have an astronaut, effectively a Canadian

    Wouldn't that be an astronuck?

  6. Don't stop there by hessian · · Score: 4, Funny

    How soon before we can send the rest of them?

    --
    Futurist Traditionalism
  7. Re:May I suggest Justine Bieber? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Funny

    Leave her alone!

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  8. Not only first Canadian. First human on the moon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    No more hollywood fakes. Nothing this time will hide from high definition cameras. Will have proof and can trace every step from the start to the moon. No more lying, no more fake Apollo flights.

  9. Re:Tresspassing by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We claimed it, planted flags there and all.

    Well, since the flags are all white now, I guess we surrendered it all.

    (Truth! The unfiltered solar radiation on the Moon has long since bleached all the flags we left up there pure white.)

  10. And a Tim Horton's by 2035! by DaveyJJ · · Score: 2

    Awesome news. If we can hit the 2030 mark for a Canuck, then we'll certainly have a Timmies on the moon by 2035 or so.

    --
    DaveyJJ
    1. Re:And a Tim Horton's by 2035! by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      That IS great news! If there's a Timmie's, then they'd have to set up regular deliveries from Maidstone.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:And a Tim Horton's by 2035! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm... Tim Bits!

  11. Re:Not only first Canadian. First human on the moo by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Best argument that the Moon landings were real. Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate, how was he to get every nation on Earth to help cover up fake Moon landings? Don't you think a Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden type would have let the cat out of the bag? Don't you think the Soviet Union would have blown the cover? Get real.

  12. Commercial Spaceflight by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    In a rare event, I am going to play the optimist and suggest commercial space endeavors will get us back to the moon before then. How soon? Perhaps between 2020 - 2025. It's easy to scoff at that, but technology is officially advancing at rate such that we already can't guess what things will be like in a mere six and a half to eleven-years from now. Scientific and technological advancement has become like a runaway, and aggressive, chemical reaction - like a wildfire burning intensely in powerful but chaotic winds, heading in directions we can't know until it gets there. Commercial space endeavors might not beat the Canadian effort by much, but the sooner the better by no matter how small a margin.

    Why would commercial spaceflight take us back to the moon? I can't know, but I can guess it would make great practice for traveling longer distance and pulling off complex tasks. Maybe a warm up exercise for an ambitious and profitable mission.

    That was probably not the best analogy, but you get the idea. That and I don't know much about cars.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Commercial Spaceflight by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      This all kind of hinges on the cost to LEO I suspect. Given the prices people pay for space tourism, I have been wondering what sort of improvements might make Lunar orbit tourism a thing instead. It's only a 3-day ride, and I suspect passage around the dark side of the moon would still be an incredible thing given that, what, about 30 people maximum have ever been there?

    2. Re:Commercial Spaceflight by les_91406 · · Score: 1

      Come on folks... You can talk about the "far" side of the moon or the "other" side, but remember that the far side is no darker than the near side.

    3. Re:Commercial Spaceflight by murdocj · · Score: 1

      There was a story about 2 years ago about Space Adventures marketing a possible flight around the moon in a Soyuz. But the price they were quoting was way more than the flight to the ISS. There probably aren't more than another 30 people who could afford it, want to go, and psychologically could deal with being in a small space capsule for 8 or 9 days with a decent chance of dying during the trip.

    4. Re:Commercial Spaceflight by ibwolf · · Score: 1

      I have been wondering what sort of improvements might make Lunar orbit tourism a thing instead. It's only a 3-day ride, and I suspect passage around the dark side of the moon would still be an incredible thing given that, what, about 30 people maximum have ever been there?

      27 to be exact. Apollo 8 and 10 through 17 each sent 3 astronauts into lunar orbit. Apollo 7 and 9 stayed in Earth orbit conducting tests. Apollo 1-6 were unmanned.

    5. Re:Commercial Spaceflight by ibwolf · · Score: 1

      27 to be exact

      Bleh, scratch that. The real number is 24.

      James Lowell flew on Apollo 8 and 13.
      John Young flew on Apollo 10 and 16.
      Eugene Cernan flew on Apollo 10 and 17.

      So in total, 27 trips have been taken around the moon, by 24 men.

  13. Canadian Article by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    14 cooperating space agencies around the world could mean that a Canadian astronaut.... The International Space Exploration Coordination Group, of which Canada is a part/quote

    So what about the other 13 space agencies? I mean, it could be Canadian, but couldn't it just as well be one of the other countries? I just skimmed the article, but I didn't say where it listed what countries the other agencies were from.

  14. Re:Tresspassing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Naw, just ain't put a new one up yet. Still got our old truck, satellite dish, and a couple pieces of junk on the front lawn, proof that it's ours and all. Might even find a couple old beer cans lying around.

  15. Re:Not only first Canadian. First human on the moo by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look, the moon landings were faked. Just not the way you think.

    They were filmed on a sound stage on the moon. We've had a base on the dark side since the 50's.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  16. Re:FIRST POST by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    FIRST CANADIEN!

    He's pretty old now - but there's no stopping his "going to the moon" business.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  17. Seriously? by Ed+The+Meek · · Score: 1

    Why? I love my Canadian friends, but with all the real problems awaiting solutions - why are we concerned with putting Canadians on the Moon? Scratching my head again...

    1. Re:Seriously? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      tell them that country is Canada

      Canada is a country? Then how come their queen lives in the mother country?

    2. Re:Seriously? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Well, she is also head of the Commonwealth, so we allow her to live near the Commonwealth Headquarters. At her age, commuting from Ottawa would be taxing.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  18. Do it! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Ideal candidates!

    - Used to vast expanses of arid, lifeless land
    - Experienced with months-long stretches of perpetual night and perpetual day
    - Can handle the zing against the tongue of funky 'tang

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. International error? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    I've read it first as "international error". It turns out that this is a very easy mistake to make.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  20. A human Canadian? by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

    Are they going to send a human Canadian? Ho-hum. Humans on the moon is a been-there-done-that kind of thing. Now, the first moose on the moon, that would be be cool!

  21. International Effort Could could put me... by fredan · · Score: 1

    ...on the moon aswell.

    just saying.

  22. So who is going to direct... by k31bang · · Score: 1

    So who is going to direct this fake moon landing? It's a proven factoid that Kubrick directed the first (which is how he got access to those Carl Zeiss Planar f/0.7 lenses he used in Barry Lyndon). I think Ridley Scott will direct, though if lens flares are needed...

    --
    -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    1. Re:So who is going to direct... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      There's only man for the job - Michael Bay.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  23. Re:Not only first Canadian. First human on the moo by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Fakery is much more advanced now than in the 60's. It would be MUCH easier to fake a flight to moon today.

  24. Re:Tresspassing by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    Stupid Canadians... Don't they know the Moon is American property! We claimed it, planted flags there and all. Even left a couple old trucks parked out on the front lawn. Sign says "No Tresspassing", can't y'all read?

    Don't make me laugh, eh? Hosehead.

  25. If Canadians are on the Moon... by glenebob · · Score: 1

    ...does that make the Moon Earth's toque?

  26. All well and good but... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    International Effort Could Put First Canadian On the Moon

    Do the Canadians in general (and the one in particular) have any say in this, or are they just expendable?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  27. Well, all I can say is.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    It's aboot time!

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  28. Correction by tlambert · · Score: 1

    America probably has more prison labour then China. Those private prison companies need to make money with their guaranteed prison population.

    Correction: America has more prisoners. It does not have more prison labor.

    You can't force American prisoners to work, you can just make it mind-numbingly dull to not work at some mind-numbingly dull prison job. If you work at the mind-numbingly dull prison job instead, you get machine shop, telemarking, or other skills to use on the outside, assuming you stop shanking people long enough that your sentence doesn't get extended past your release date again,

    PS: If their non-numb minds got them into prison in the first place, a bit of mind-numbing can't hurt to fit them back into society with the rest of the mind-numbed cable TV subscribers out there.

    1. Re:Correction by dryeo · · Score: 2

      American prisons use torture (long term solitary confinement) to force the issue and some States such as Arizona do have laws requiring every able bodied prisoner to work with wages of 10 to 50 cents an hour. Googling "American prison labour" shows much horrible stuff, perhaps not as bad as China but the big difference is America pretends to be free as they get less free constantly whereas China does not claim to be free and things are generally improving over there.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  29. Bart Sibrel, is that you? by tlambert · · Score: 2

    Bart Sibrel, is that you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel

    No more hollywood fakes. Nothing this time will hide from high definition cameras. Will have proof and can trace every step from the start to the moon. No more lying, no more fake Apollo flights.

    Add to your list: No more getting punched in the mouth by Buzz Aldrin for being an asshole.

  30. nope - the real truth by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    The flags were ordinary nylon ones picked up in a hurry from a local Sears (department store chain), which were modified with a wire to make them stand unfurled. They have disintegrated in the 40 years since by the very harsh thermal and UV environment of the moon, there is nothing but ash.

    1. Re:nope - the real truth by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      back then the cheap crap was made in japan, but not flags

  31. Why bother? It's the same moon isn't it? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Seriously no one cares about the second or third place anything and the moon's already been done. Who cares?

  32. Politics not economics by dbIII · · Score: 1

    And when we got there, we found lots of jagged dust.

    Because we only had time to send one geologist before Nixon axed it and scrapped a rocket that was so close to launch that the fuel had been delivered. That's not economics. That's a political stunt.

    1. Re:Politics not economics by Nutria · · Score: 1

      That's a political stunt.

      Political stunts require political justifications. In this case, it was that enough people wanted the money spent on something else.

      And that's economics.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  33. You've missed one very big thing by dbIII · · Score: 1

    In the USA it's almost always been commercial spaceflight but the government has been the main customer. For the last couple of decades there's been plenty of other customers for satellites for example.
    What is it that you think will change to make someone other than a government pay for a trip to the moon?

    1. Re:You've missed one very big thing by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      What do I think will change? That's just it, I don't know. Other than the possibility that landing on the moon could prove to be an exercise for greater missions that would profit. My point is: all of scientific and technological achievement going into even the near term future has become by far and away a greater wild card than it has ever been before, and we have only just achieved that level of mystery. I'm just saying, don't put anything past the near and long term future. We can't know anything other than continued accelerating change will take us to unknown places. The old paradigm you speak of is shifting faster then we can understand.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    2. Re:You've missed one very big thing by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to get that the "new paradigm" is still the same as the old one only with some different contractors. More people may be selling but it's the same bunch buying and saying what the stuff will be used for. I'd like it to be different. I'd like to see industrial efforts on captured near earth objects, but nobody is even talking about the sort of stuff apart from governments.

  34. this could be bad by mikey177 · · Score: 1

    we all know how our Canadian friends of the north are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J2pJz_baD8

  35. Already paid for - thus not economics by dbIII · · Score: 1

    In the case of that Apollo launch the money had been spent, the rocket built and the fuel delivered. Giving up at that point is not "economics". That's deciding not to use the thing you've already paid for due to political reasons.

    Did I spell it out clearly enough for you this time?

    1. Re:Already paid for - thus not economics by Nutria · · Score: 1

      rocket built and the fuel delivered.

      That strongly implies the rocket was assembled and sitting on the launch pad when canceled.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Already paid for - thus not economics by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes it does doesn't it? It wasn't quite the case though since it was still in the assembly building but was just about to be shipped to the pad ready for a launch within a few weeks. That Saturn V and the lander that had been put in it (then later removed) are on display.

    3. Re:Already paid for - thus not economics by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Which mission?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Already paid for - thus not economics by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It was supposed to be Apollo 18 but the lunar module and rover were removed and it later flew as one of the Skylab missions. After the Saturn fives were used up we were stuck with Nixon's suggestion of the far more limited space shuttle in the hope that it would be a lot cheaper.
      My main point is that only one geologist has been on the moon so we've had nothing but a quick look and whatever random samples happened to be near the landers and whatever has happened to fall down here from bits that have been knocked off the moon. Three more missions with a long stay and rovers had been planned (18-20) with almost all hardware built and some more Saturn fives for later missions. Those Saturn fives in museums and the one lying on the ground in Florida are the real thing worth millions and not just shells.

  36. Kitties in Space by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

    Have you all forgotten about our attempt to put Bubbles into space?

    Shit, Bubz, can you land on Juniper and bring back some space weed, over?

  37. Er, what Canada? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    OK, I am Canadian so I think it would be cool to have one of us on the Moon and all however their rational makes about zero sense.

    So a a Canadian robotics expert to drive a rover? Why can this not be done from the comfort of a couch whilst eating a poutine? I mean the whole point of a "rover" is the "remote" operation... I mean, yeah I get it if it were Mars and you have crazy time lag between commands because of the distances involved, but the moon?

    I mean if they were to say it was to do repairs or something, then maybe (which is a bit much also as I doubt they would have the facilities to do so anyway).

    That said I want to see the first slap shot on the Moon, and you know that is gonna happen if a Canadian goes... (and the Canadian flag tied to the planted hockey stick!)

  38. can't be done by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    I believe the Canadian health plan only gives you coverage for a couple of weeks outside the country.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  39. Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by dbIII · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions
    Scroll down to "surplus hardware" to see how much stuff was left over after the sudden decision to make a political point.

    1. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The political point that NASA's budgets were already shrinking even before Apollo 11?

      I think you're missing the fact that missions cost is more than just building a rocket.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the fact that the cost is in setting up the missions and when you've only got a week to go all the staff are there, trained, the hardware is in place and the consumables delivered. If you decide not to press the button and send everyone home for a week very little or nothing is saved.

    3. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Nowhere have I seen evidence that Apollo 18 was in the VAB when it was canceled.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It was a news item at the time and mentioned in documentaries so it's bound to be somewhere. When I went looking for it the best I could find in two minutes was the above link. Maybe if you spend five minutes :)
      I didn't bother myself since the list of left over hardware makes my original point above VERY CLEARLY. Huge amounts of waste purely due to a quick political change of plan - thus a very bad economic outcome so very obviously not done for economic reasons.
      Do you get it yet, or did you get it long ago and you are just playing some sort of high school mass debating game where the actual subject matter is of zero importance?

    5. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by Nutria · · Score: 1

      It was a news item at the time and mentioned in documentaries

      So what you have is hazy memory.

      When I went looking for it the best I could find in two minutes was the above link.

      Which you can't corroborate.

      Maybe if you spend five minutes :)

      I spent 20 minutes reading through 8 links.

      just playing some sort of high school mass debating game

      No, I'm not. But which is worse? H.S. debate or hazily-remembered undocumented claims.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You didn't do very well then did you? Besides the link I've provided is more than enough to make the point as I just wrote directly above, so why are you still bothering me? Am I merely a source of entertainment for some childish mass debating game? Are you getting some sort of kick about finding something wrong with casual anecdotes by strangers that have been made merely to illustrate a point?

    7. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Besides the link I've provided is more than enough to make the point

      No, you didn't.

      why are you still bothering me?

      Jesus F'ing Christ. Where's the gun pointed at your head threatening to evacuate your skull if you don't respond to me?

      Oh, wait. There isn't one. You're replying because you want to!

      Thus, not only are your "facts" uncorroborated, but your rationale is questionable.

      casual anecdotes by strangers

      /. isn't a cocktail party.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    8. Re:Scroll down to "surplus hardware" for details by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How childish. Play your "troll" game with someone else.