Slashdot Mirror


Russia Wants To Establish a Permanent Moon Base

An anonymous reader writes "Having established its presence in the Crimean Peninsula, Russia is now shooting for a bit loftier goal, a permanent Moon base. 'As reported by the Voice of Russia, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told the government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta that establishing a permanent Moon base has become one of the country's top space priorities. "The moon is not an intermediate point in the [space] race, it is a separate, even a self-contained goal," Rogozin reportedly said. "It would hardly be rational to make some ten or twenty flights to the moon, and then wind it all up and fly to the Mars or some asteroids."'"

313 comments

  1. Fine.. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...just don't let them put nuclear waste up there. You don't want it to rip itself out of orbit.

    1. Re:Fine.. by Platinumrat · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's ok, we're already 15 years too late for that to happen.

    2. Re:Fine.. by stox · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what we said about 1984.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    3. Re:Fine.. by khelms · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, darnit. Except for Obama being elected in 2008, we would have had a base on the moon in 1999!

    4. Re:Fine.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm waiting to blame Obama's successor for the lack of a 1999 moonbase.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Fine.. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      that is because of the Obama's administration ineptitude.

      Obama has really turned the tables.

      I think it was wrong to go into Iraq, more so for the reason(s) given. But a show of force is never a bad thing.

      China said it was going to set up a permanent base on the Moon, a week later the U.S. is once again on the lets go to the Moon band wagon. This lasted as long as there was the "money was no object" attitude of the U.S. people.

      With the with problems in Ukraine recently. Obama's weak and harmless "conditions", had Vladimir Putin grinning. You can read Putin in Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin statement of "now lets go to Mars" approach of US. space flight. which I see as Obama being mooned (Grin).

      This is as close as I get to politics.

    6. Re:Fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of a space program we got diversity. Have fun!

    7. Re:Fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not as worried about the Nuclear waste as I am about Nuclear missiles. It would be easy to launch a series nuclear missile from the moon that could detonate over the western globe producing en EMP. They would essentially have a 12 hour window (probably more) every day to launch such an attack. I wonder what kind of counter measures we'd have against something like that.

    8. Re:Fine.. by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

      I'm not as worried about the Nuclear waste as I am about Nuclear missiles. It would be easy to launch a series nuclear missile from the moon that could detonate over the western globe producing en EMP. They would essentially have a 12 hour window (probably more) every day to launch such an attack. I wonder what kind of counter measures we'd have against something like that.

      It's statements like this that make me laugh at the appalling ignorance of the sci fi crowd. You don't have to launch the stupid thing from the moon. An Earthbound rocket could do the same. Although one rocket couldn't do it buy itself. A global EMP is not a trivial thing to set off. It really would take a massive nuclear eschange. And suppose you did such a thing? Do you think that there is anywhere on the Earth or the Moon that you could escape the consequence of the total collapse of Industrial civilization? What are you going to eat or breathe on the Moon when the supply ships stop coming?

      Of course any day, the Sun might just unleash a massive coronal discharge that's actually aimed at the right spot at the right time and make all of this discussion, rather moot when it blows out every transformer on the planet. The Earth was last hit by such a discharge in the 1859 (look up "Solar storm of 1859" in Wikipedia for the curious) There weren't any transformers around to blow at that time however but it was one heck of a light show. It did blow out a lot of telegraph systems, even some of the operator keys were sparking. The real tragedy is that there are ways to protect ourselves, but it's going to take a lot of global coordination, communication, and cooperation than I'm seeing now.

    9. Re:Fine.. by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      If you can get the waste to break orbit why not just point it at the sun. Landing it on the moon seems unnecessary.

    10. Re:Fine.. by jhumkey · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I believed his explaination . . . but try reading:
      https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

      I took it to say . . . "breaking orbit" so it wouldn't fall back into the earth, would just mean it follows (or leads) the earth, in roughly the same orbit. That to get it headed into the sun . . . took a much greater effort on top of "leaving orbit".

      And with chemical rockets (current technology) . . . its not cost effective. Even with something like a "space elevator" . . . I think the article was saying . . . "you can't just "fling it off" at the top . . . and have it travel on into the sun."
      Read for yourself (I can't get to it directly from here at the moment.)

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    11. Re:Fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China said it was going to set up a permanent base on the Moon, a week later the U.S. is once again on the lets go to the Moon band wagon. This lasted as long as there was the "money was no object" attitude of the U.S. people.

      How is this any different from the space race in the 1960s?

    12. Re:Fine.. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      ...just don't let them put nuclear waste up there. You don't want it to rip itself out of orbit.

      Why not just fire nuclear waste @ the sun?

    13. Re:Fine.. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But a show of force is never a bad thing.

      Are you Ukranian, Russian, Afghanistani, Vietnamese, or Korean (either side)?

      Speaking as a geologist, I realise that I have a slightly different meaning of "never" to most people. But I've never heard of "never" being a phrase for "not in the last week".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re:Fine.. by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thank you for the article it was most informative.

  2. So.. by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 3, Funny

    Battlezone?

    1. Re:So.. by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. Putin views things in black and white. Just like his pre-perestroika predecessors. He views this exactly as they viewed the race to the moon in the 60's. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, but as any Russian will tell you - once KGB, always KGB

    2. Re:So.. by LifesABeach · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It would appear that Tea Party Politics are a form of infectious disease, and it's spreading to Russia. Does anyone have the time to tell Capt.PutPut that the USSR, and the Space Race are over?

    3. Re:So.. by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would appear that Tea Party Politics are a form of infectious disease, and it's spreading to Russia. Does anyone have the time to tell Capt.PutPut that the USSR, and the Space Race are over?

      I dunno, from here, it looks like he's attempting a Soviet Reunion.

      Hope he can get the original drummer when he 'gets the badn back together'...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:So.. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      No, just plain old Soviet propaganda without any backing whatsoever. As you may have heard, Putin's popular nickname is Obyeshchalkin, which roughly translates as 'the Promise guy'.

    5. Re:So.. by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have the time to tell Capt.PutPut that the USSR, and the Space Race are over?

      Why would these be over? I mean, I'm all for telling him that just for fun, but he'll just respond "not yet, but soon, mwahahaha", or equivalent thereof.

    6. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You cant imagine how funny it is reading an westerner writing about a russian seeing world black and white :D
      My irony meter just went throug roof :D

    7. Re:So.. by mlk · · Score: 1

      I hope so. That game was amazing!

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    8. Re:So.. by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 1

      Hey, not all Westerners are American :P

    9. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. It's a local meme in Eastern Russia, not popular (if known) even in Moscow.

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

      Battlezone?

      More like BURN zone. I'm surprised no one made a comment on that massive NASA burn he delivered.

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

      It would appear that Tea Party Politics are a form of infectious disease, and it's spreading to Russia.

      Tea Party? I don't see Putin trying reduce the size and scope of Russian government.

    12. Re:So.. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      That's what the Tea Party says, but like Premier khrushchev stated, "don't judge me by my words, judge me by my actions." I haven't seen any news reports that the Tea Party(TP) is in any community helping the needy. I see the TP cost savings actions, costing tax payers billions; and this statement is on public record, ouch.

    13. Re:So.. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Comrad modarater, why so serious?

    14. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would appear that Tea Party Politics are a form of infectious disease, and it's spreading to Russia. Does anyone have the time to tell Capt.PutPut that the USSR, and the Space Race are over?

      What are you talking about? America never made it to the moon! Surely you know that was nothing but a hoax? Putin will continue to put that spineless worm Obama in his place by being the first to plant a flag on the moon!

    15. Re:So.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is a 'local meme' in 'Eastern Russia', 'Eastern Russia' being the part that begins in Vladivostok and Kamchatka and ends on the Taman peninsula.

  3. Shoot for the moon.. by fred911 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Crimea is significantly less costly.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Shoot for the moon.. by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      The Crimea is an income generator.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Shoot for the moon.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what?

      Hosting the Olympics is estimated to have cost Russia $51 billion.
      Building a Moon Colony is estimated to cost $35 billion with an extra cost of $7.35 billion/year to keep it running.
      The cost of annexing Crimea have been estimated to be in the ballpark of $5 billion, and as the statement from Alfa Bank goes “For Russia’s budget this is not a big deal, Even if you spend $5 billion or $10 billion, this is not money that dramatically changes things.”

      Russia has already shown that it is willing to spend the money needed to build a permanent Moon Base on other prestige projects.
      Sure, a moon base is a costly project without clear ROI, but it won't be the worst offender in the Russian economy.

    3. Re:Shoot for the moon.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Living standards in teh Ukraine are significantly below those in Russia, and the Crimean was one of the poorest parts of the Ukraine. Before the referendum, Russia has promised to raise pensions and salaries of state employees to in the Crimean to russin standards. This will cost them billions. With the troubles and embargos, the Crimean will not generate much income: Economically, it relied on tourim and agriculture. Now there are no tourists any more, and the can't sell their Crimean sparkling wine to the world either. And then the EMbargos hurt Russias ecoomy as a whole as well.

      Philipp

    4. Re:Shoot for the moon.. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      That's because Ukraine couldn't afford to develop the natural resources of the region. For Russia, who can afford that, it will be an income generator. It's not about tourists and the 'embargo' is a joke.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Shoot for the moon.. by mrbcs · · Score: 1

      But will America let them on the soundstage?

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    6. Re:Shoot for the moon.. by qwak23 · · Score: 1

      Russian spies smuggled out the blueprints back in the 80's just before the wall fell. Unfortunately, they were unable to get construction on the replica started until now.

  4. There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good luck if the contractors are the ones who built roads and infrastructure for the Sochi Olympics.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Yeah no kidding, did you see that athlete that was locked in a bathroom and punched his way out the door? The door was basically cardboard.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahah there may not be enough rubles in Russia, but there sure are plenty of dummies back in the Good Ol USA.

      Essentially ALL doors made nowadays have a cardboard core.

    3. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Really? That's fascinating. Does cardboard usually look like sawdust too like the doors in my place? And where did all the money go?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    4. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      Well, at least they had the extra money to put two seats in one bathroom stall...

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Essentially ALL doors made nowadays have a cardboard core.

      All doors that poor people buy, that is. Quality is still out there, and as available as it always was, you just have to be willing to pay for it.

    6. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Sochi were the most expensive games in history. I was just amazed at the pitiful quality of the materials.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    7. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Internal doors often are like cardboard. I kicked through a door when I was a weedy ten year old.

    8. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by poity · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Russia does not have, and has never had, a moon capable launch vehicle (inb4 N1 explosion pictures), which means if the US has to pretty much start again from scratch to get people to the moon, the Russians are even further behind.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    9. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Russia does not have, and has never had, a moon capable launch vehicle (inb4 N1 explosion pictures), which means if the US has to pretty much start again from scratch to get people to the moon, the Russians are even further behind.

      They weren't far off the capability of the Saturn V with the Energia launch vehicle. They could conceivably re-develop that and potentially build the proposed heavier versions (Uragan and Vulkan). They probably won't, but it has been mooted before and the existing technology could save them development time.

    10. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      > Essentially ALL doors made nowadays have a cardboard core.

      All doors that poor people buy, that is. Quality is still out there, and as available as it always was, you just have to be willing to pay for it.

      This is an internal door, it's not like it needs to be sturdy. Then I realized: the only time you would need a solid oak door for a bathroom.... is the little boys room at the Vatican. (I'll be here all week folks!)

    11. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by stenvar · · Score: 2

      Actually, even the quality stuff has gotten a lot cheaper over the years. It's just that manufacturers figured out even cheaper ways of making low-end goods, most of which are "good enough". A low end composite interior door is $22, solid core is $199; it's hard to pay much more for an interior door (unless you go for glass).

      And... rich people tend to buy the cheap stuff; that's how they get rich in the first place.

    12. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Teun · · Score: 1

      No, that's how they stay rich.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    13. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      At least there shouldn't be any stray wolf wandering within the Moon base..

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    14. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Russians have the will to go to the moon, then they are miles ahead of us. The American people, and especially the American politicians, lack the will.

      Perhaps you would like to debate the ultimate weapon now?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rich people tend to buy the cheap stuff

      No. We tend to buy the *not a waste of money* stuff. Big fucking difference.

    16. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by temcat · · Score: 2

      The American people, and especially the American politicians, lack the will.

      As a Russian, that's probably good for you. I'd prefer my government not to spend awful lots of money on pointless mega-projects.

    17. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 2

      Or you live with Oscar Pistorius.

    18. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Spad · · Score: 3, Funny

      That explains why the government is always trying to defund them.

    19. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your view, and mine, are diametrically opposed. To me, there can be nothing more important than getting mankind established in places off the face of the earth. We have plenty of evidence of big rocks striking the earth in the past, and we have plenty of evidence of major extinction events. Throughout all of our history, we have kept all of our eggs in one basket. We need to distribute our eggs into as many baskets as we possibly can.

      There are reasons to dislike Russia's government - but this is one great reason to salute and respect Russia's government. I support any and every effort that can possibly result in distributing those eggs.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    20. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by temcat · · Score: 0

      There are things that must be given a higher priority, given that extinction remains very much an improbable event, despite your evidence. Public health, roads, you name it. Heck, every day lots of people here die an extremely painful death from cancer because they cannot afford proper treatment. It's unethical to spend public money on travels to the Moon and other fancy toys like Olympics as long as these problems have not been solved.

    21. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      So, no lunar wolf to domesticate into moon's best friend?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    22. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Russian, that's probably good for you. I'd prefer my government not to spend awful lots of money on pointless mega-projects.

      It is hell of a lot better to spend it on pointless mega-projects than it is to spend it invading Ukraine.
      If a pointless moon-base would be sufficient to compensate for Putins small dick then I wouldn't mind to put my own money towards that goal.

    23. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      In the history of mankind, I've only heard stories of a couple of people who didn't die. In fact, most people die horrible deaths. That fact won't change, no matter how far mankind travels - or doesn't travel. If we manage to cure cancer, and all mankind's other ills, that will be great. But, I don't believe that we ever will. Even if we cured the five most lethal diseases that we know of today, there will be something new to worry about tomorrow. We have been waging biological warfare against nature since the earliest ancestor crawled out of that primordial soup, and nature will continue that war until the last man and woman have died.

      There is no utopian solution to poverty, hunger, and disease. I simply don't believe in such a solution. The past hundred years or so have been remarkable victories for mankind, but there is simply no reason to suspect that we will see no setbacks. Polio has been defeated, mumps, measles, and others have been set back seriously, but we are breeding new superkiller bugs in our hospitals and medical centers right now. Oh - the flu. It mutates and changes rapidly - we could experience another 1918 at any time. What was the number? 21 million dead, around the world, I believe? With our population levels today, the next time around could see those numbers increased by a couple orders of magnitude.

      Life is precarious. If you are a Russian, I would suspect that you are more aware of that fact than I should be.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    24. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also the fact that cultures thrive and expand by exploration. The culture that expands to space and colonizes it will have their language, their customs, their religion, and their way of life as the "standard".

      We can look at the race to colonize the new world as what can happen. Had Spain, Portugal, and England not spent resources on something that initially wasn't profitable, their language and cultures would be nowhere near as prevalent as they are now.

      To put it in WoW terms, the first PvE guilds get immortalized forever with their achievements. The top tier PvP guilds get forgotten, other than the one person who wins the arena ladder.

    25. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Or, go to a building material recycler where you can find solid doors, pre-hung.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    26. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And one day, we will have pefect public health, perfect roads, a world free of cancer, and then a rock will drive us to extinction. I'd prefer to give higher priority to a moon base, keep your perfect world for yourself, thanks.

    27. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by temcat · · Score: 0

      There may be no ultimate solution to these problems. But, as I said already, there are lots of people here today who could be alive or not suffer as horribly as they do now. As long as we do have taxes, it's unethical to spend taxpayer money on moon flights and Olympics instead of this.

    28. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by temcat · · Score: 1

      Well, I personally see invading Ukraine as another pointless mega-project.

    29. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by temcat · · Score: 1

      You should tell it to those who suffer today (and who pay their taxes, too).

    30. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for yourself. But, as at Sochi, if it's for someone else, you buy the lowest crap that isn't illegal.

    31. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Chickenlips · · Score: 1

      I was going to say that I'd rather see my government spend an awful lot of money on a project that would create high tech jobs and further scientific understanding (and expand our human potential) .. rather than funnel that same awful lot of money to Wall Street in the multitude of ways it does now. However, considering today's "global economy", the high tech jobs wouldn't be in the U.S., and a great deal of the money would still end up in Wall Street's pocket. Maybe I should say I'd like to see an international effort with the same goals. That, however, is truly a pipe dream in the world we live in today. Maybe if we ever get past our tribalism and propensity to hoard...

    32. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by cusco · · Score: 1

      Actually they're sold the cheap stuff by contractors, since by and large they don't have the real-world experience to know the difference.

      Of course you could always go the "large company CEO's office" route, which frequently is a steel-cored door weighing several hundred pounds, coupled with Kevlar between the drywall and the wall studs.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    33. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by cusco · · Score: 1

      They don't need a Saturn 5 equivalent for a moon base, and in fact it would probably be counterproductive to build one for that mission. Multiple smaller launches should be staged and assembled in LEO, then boosted onto the Lunar trajectory. That was actually one of the configurations contemplated for the Apollo missions, but was rejected early on because the docking techniques had not yet been developed. If the "end of the decade" deadline had not been looming NASA would probably have gone that route and ended up with a much better mission profile.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    34. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by cusco · · Score: 1

      And people try their best to ignore the two most probable extinction scenarios, a nuclear exchange or an escaped/launched bioweapon.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    35. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not a problem since cosmonauts carry pistols.

      I doubt they will fire in the vacuum though.

    36. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    37. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > a moon capable launch vehicle
      What is that?

    38. Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --I'm with you 99%. The prospect of a new "space race" to the Moon is exciting for me, for the same reasons that you listed. We need to get Mankind into space in a big way.

      --Anyone who hasn't already read "The Moon is a harsh mistress" turn in your geek card - it should be required reading. And if you get a chance, go visit the Saturn V rockets on display in Houston and Cape Canaveral.

      --My greatest fear is that the US will treat this as rhetoric, and fail to get the fire lit under the space program again (that badly needs a cash infusion, as well as buy-in from the general public - hearts and minds help train future astronauts.)

      --There's too many people as it is on this damn f'd up ball of rock+water, and we have a single point of failure. If we expand into space, eventually that will mean less congestion on the roads and in the cities. I may already be too old to live the dream of going into space in my lifetime and staying at the Space Hilton, but dammit I would support it financially for the future of the species.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  5. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wonder is the US or other countries will realize how strategic a moon base would be. Guess not, until the rocks start hurling down...

  6. First infiltrate with masked astronauts by Steve1952 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is plan: 1: First infiltrate with masked astronauts without insignia. 2: Build government offices, and seize them. 3: Have popular vote 4: Profit!

    1. Re:First infiltrate with masked astronauts by Mogster · · Score: 1

      You missed a step...
      3: Have popular vote
      4: ?????
      5: Profit

      There ya go ;-)

      --
      ACK NAK RST
  7. H3 Baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But lets belittle their effort and then panic. You know like we did with the first space race?

    1. Re:H3 Baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What does a cheap version of the Hummer have to do with anything?

    2. Re:H3 Baby! by Megane · · Score: 1

      Well, they've already never been on the moon, might as well double down with nuclear fusion power that nobody has gotten working yet either!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:H3 Baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, idiot:

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

      Still smug now, moron? They beat you again with an automated sample return mission. Why don't you go masturbate some more to your propaganda?

    4. Re:H3 Baby! by Megane · · Score: 1

      They haven't been on moon with humans, you fucking moron. Or maybe you think they're perfectly fine with setting up an all-robot moon base.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:H3 Baby! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because clearly there is exactly no difference between shooting a robot to the moon, and then coming back with a rock or two, and sending multiple humans to the moon, having them explore a bit, and then bringing them back safely.

      Which is exactly what the article is talking about doing.

      Still smug now, moron?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:H3 Baby! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'd be OK with another space race. Even if we lose.

      --
      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...
    7. Re:H3 Baby! by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      They didn't beat the US. The US got a sample back first with a maned mission. However, they would have beat the US had the first Luna probe they send not crashed. Like a lot of things with the space race it was all pretty close. Also, the USSR could have beat the US to the moon had the N1 not failed it's first test launch. They were ahead of the Apollo program in terms of the command module and lunar lander testing. But without a rocket to get to the moon it didn't matter.

  8. Russia by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We can say anything about their government, but we can't say that they are not really ambitious.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    1. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can say anything about their government, but we can't say that they are not really ambitious.

      Bullying a smaller neighbor into handing over their territory isn't exactly ambitious by historical standards, par-for-the-course more like.

    2. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's purely rhetorical. Russia doesn't have the money to pull off all the work it will take for this. Russia can't pay for very much at all actually. But this is the kind of talk that inspires the country and gets them to rally behind Putin as a visionary leader. Putin also recently has said he will defend Christianity and traditional values as well as all Russians everywhere in the world. No one should take these things seriously.

    3. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand it. Whatever international legal precedents and protocols have to say about the matter, the fact remains that it is clear that the majority of the Crimean population was for the Russian union. Even the most cynical adjustment of the numbers still shows a majority. So Russia "liberated" the Crimean people. Somehow that's bad, despite the fact that there's ample evidence that the Crimean people were willing participants.

      There was no evidence that the people of Iraq or Afghanistan wanted to be liberated, yet the world is just peachy with that.

      The Anglo-American Western order is just butt hurt that their century is over.

    4. Re:Russia by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Russia signed a specific agreement with Ukraine (and with Georgia and other FSRs) in order to get them to give their (formerly Soviet) nuclear arsenal back to Russia, that Russia would "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine", etc etc.

      Putin violated that agreement. Every former Soviet republic knows that Russia won't honour any agreements, and that they all boned themselves by giving those nukes back.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    5. Re:Russia by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Afaik Ukraine didn't hand over Crimea. To do that they'd need to have had the power to prevent it in the first place.

    6. Re:Russia by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The legitimately elected pro-Russia government in Ukraine was overthrown in a coup. From Russia's point of view they came in to help those people who had had their democratic government taken away from them by force. Since there is no legitimate Ukrainian government now (elections in May) prior agreements with that government no longer stand.

      I'm not saying I agree completely with all that, but people seem to forget that there was a coup and the people of Crimea asked for Russian assistance. The country was broken before Russia came in.

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

      From Russia's point of view they came in to help those people who had had their democratic government taken away from them by force.

      [Laughs]

      legitimately elected pro-Russia government

      There was a huge amount of corruption and fraud in the previous election. (And in most of the elections. The Crimean "president" got just a few percent of the vote but was appointed by a corrupt Crimean parliament.) That's what started the protests. Same thing happened the last time the Russians rigged an election in the Ukraine. (When they weren't poisoning anti-Russian candidates, and straight up murdering critical journalists.)

      overthrown in a coup

      It wasn't a coup. The Ukrainian military stayed mostly out of it. It was a popular uprising.

      the people of Crimea asked for Russian assistance.

      The Russian-puppet President in Crimea "asked" for Russian "assistance", not "the people of Crimea". And the referendum held after the invasion is hardly a measure of actual popular opinion. Putin gets 95+% in his elections. That's how Russian "democracy" works.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    8. Re:Russia by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      My:

      "There was a huge amount of corruption and fraud in the previous election."

      Similar thing just happened in Hungary. Ruling part got 47% of the vote, but is claiming 2/3rds "supermajority" of the seats. Allowing it to pretty much make any legislative and constitutional changes it wants. All thanks to corrupt rule changes and probably election fraud. Expect protests.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    9. Re:Russia by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0

      There was a huge amount of corruption and fraud in the previous election.

      Sorry for quoting Wikipedia, but
      "According to all international organizations observing the election, allegations of electoral fraud in relation to the first round ballot were unfounded, they declared that the conduct of the elections was within internationally recognized democratic standards and a testament to the will of the people of Ukraine"

      It wasn't a coup. The Ukrainian military stayed mostly out of it. It was a popular uprising.

      Yes it was a coup d'etat. A coup does not have to be a military one. Every illegal usurpation of the government is a coup.

      Putin gets 95+% in his elections. That's how Russian "democracy" works.

      No. Even in the most fraudulent vote outcome (Rostov region) Putin has received 58.99% of the votes.

      It is stupid to hate people, but you are free to do it. Just get your facts straight, before you spill that hate, ok?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:Russia by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Yes it was a coup d'etat. A coup does not have to be a military one. Every illegal usurpation of the government is a coup.

      If you are going to quote wikipedia, then quote it:

      "A coup d'état typically [...] consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." The armed forces, whether military or paramilitary, can be a defining factor of a coup d'état."

      A coup d'etat comes from within. It refers to a specific type of overthrow, it is not just a generic term for an overthrow. (Usually military overthrowing the civilian government. But could also be a political deputy overthrowing the President, or a rebellion by minsters, etc. It does not, however, ever refer to a popular uprising coming from outside the existing structure.)

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    11. Re:Russia by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You have missed the word "typically". Besides, the actual coup was, in fact, executed by a small group of armed neo-Nazis, who acted after they have seen that Yanukovich has agreed to a snap election and other compromises. For that coup these neo-Nazis have received quite a lot of gratitude from the current regime - a post of vice prime minister, general prosecutor, and so on. The current regime also made this unofficial paramilitary group official by forming the core of the new national guard out of them.

      Now look. It is a coup after all. One that has used a popular uprising by useful Galician idiots to seize power and made that unfortunate Situation in Crimea and Donbass possible.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    12. Re:Russia by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Pishhh, they're just ripping of Newt Gingrich. He was the first to come up with the idea for a permanent moon base 3 years ago! The USA's diarrhea of the mouth is just as ambitious as Russia's.

    13. Re:Russia by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Even the most cynical adjustment of the numbers still shows a majority."

      Your fault is assuming the numbers were in any way legitimate in the first place, which given objective polls from only a few weeks before gave only 41% support for joining Russia there's a pretty strong suggestion it is not the case.

      I just held a poll of all Crimeans and they actually said 100% that they don't want to be part of Russia, even if you adjust for a bit of normal statistical error there you can't manipulate it far enough to say I'm wrong.

      See how that works? That's basically what Putin did in reverse, so congratulations on being one of his useful idiots. The simple fact is that there was supposedly an 82% turn out, despite the fact that at least 30% weren't even ethnic Russian and had no interest in Russia. The results Russia spat out just were not credible in the slightest, and that's before you factor in the 120%+ election turnout in Sevastapol where Russian troops who weren't even Ukrainian nationals voted. Yes, you read that right.

      "There was no evidence that the people of Iraq or Afghanistan wanted to be liberated, yet the world is just peachy with that."

      Amusingly, whilst I disagree with the Iraq war, that's simply not true. The people were extremely grateful for liberation in the aftermath, it was the failure to plan to build a working nation state that resulted in all the case. There was actually massive popular support for Saddam's rival, the UK/US just completely failed to fill the vacuum left by his departure leading to a brutal power struggle, that's what went wrong there. The same has happened in Libya and Egypt - the vast majority wanted liberation from their respective dictators, the problem is they also didn't want the chaos that followed but eventually did because they didn't plan for what happens afterwards.

      Look, the whole Iraq war was wrong, and that's fine, I get it, you hate America and the UK and whoever else for what they did. But that doesn't magically make Russia not as bad, Russia is still just as bad, arguably worse - at least the UK and US always planned to pull out and eventually did, Russia just annexed the place and declared it there own. You cannot honestly criticise the West for what they did and then defence Russia's actions, that just makes you the worst kind of hypocrit. That just tells us you've no interest in the truth, or the facts, you just want an excuse to slag off the West and big up Russia and if that's what you want then fine, just at least have the fucking courage to say what you mean and believe - that you're pro-Russian, agree with Putin and hate the West. At least have the courtesy to cut the bullshit.

      Cards on the table, I'm embarrassed by what my country did, I'm disgusted by what the US did, but I'm also appalled by what Russia is doing. The UK and US' stupidity doesn't make Russia an angel, it just makes it another asshole nation as well in carrying out actions equally as unacceptable as the 2003 Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation.

    14. Re:Russia by Xest · · Score: 1

      "The legitimately elected pro-Russia government in Ukraine was overthrown in a coup."

      Where do you get this shit from? The legitimately elected government wasn't just pulled out of office physically or anything. They are the ones who voted with a majority of 73% to oust Yanukovych, and allow a new round of elections. If responding to your constituents is a coup then I hope the fuck you permanently stay away from politics as I don't like the sound of your type of dictatorship where democracy is defined as doing what another nation (Russia) wants and ignoring the demands of your constituents. The healthier the democracy, the easier it is to recall representatives who no longer have popular support - the very fact the Ukraine did it this way is a sign of a healthy democratic action. Far better than the likes of Gordon Brown taking power and sitting there for over a year after his approval rating had sunk as low as 15%.

      You're parroting Putins propaganda and ignoring that Yanukovych's ousting was a wholly democratic impeachment by an elected parliament. There was no coup in the Ukraine, that's just Putin's line, a coup is, by definition, a violent, illegal, seizure of power. The only violence was from Yanukovych's pro-Russian Berkut puppets who shot police and protesters alike to try and stir violent confrontation between the two. It was entirely a legitimate democratic action.

      If you don't understand what happened it's probably best not to comment, parroting Putin's line is the worst form of idiocy and is akin to the muppets who were parroting Blair's 45 minute WMD claim to justify their support for the war in Iraq. Don't do it, you're better than that.

      "I'm not saying I agree completely with all that, but people seem to forget that there was a coup and the people of Crimea asked for Russian assistance."

      The majority of Ukrainians are pro-Western, that's why this happened in the first place. The pro-Russians are a minority. Given that the pro-Western grouping have asked for NATO assistance is your view then that we should send British, America, and other NATO troops into the Ukraine to kill the Russians that annexed Crimea? That's the logical conclusion of your thought process - that if a group of people ask for support then the nation(s) being asked have an obligation to give that support.

    15. Re:Russia by Xest · · Score: 2

      "Yes it was a coup d'etat. A coup does not have to be a military one. Every illegal usurpation of the government is a coup."

      Yes you're right, but there was nothing illegal here. The democratically elected parliament voted for early elections and to impeach the president after deciding to support the will of their constituents (the Ukrainian people). That's not illegal by any measure, therefore, it wasn't a coup.

      It was more akin to the parliament voting to impeach the president and then resigning themselves. Unless you're saying parliaments shouldn't be able to bring down a president that has lost popular support, or unless you're saying parliamentarians shouldn't be able to resign and force early elections, then there's no reasonable way this can possibly be described as a coup.

      "No. Even in the most fraudulent vote outcome (Rostov region) Putin has received 58.99% of the votes."

      I think his comment was largely hyperbole, but really, he's right. Putin has a long history of rigged polls. If there was anything legitimate about the view of the Crimean people in the referendum then why did Putin have to deny international observers, limit all propaganda to pro-Russian propaganda, shut down all communication in and out of Crimea prior to the referendum? Surely if it's what the people wanted then a verifiably free and fair referendum would've been far easier and far easier for him to claim victory for a more legitimate annexation? It's hard to see how an election can ever be called fair when the ballot counting isn't independently verified by objective observers and when it takes place under the barrel of the guns of only one side of the debate. That's before you consider the ballot options - independence and closer ties to Russia, or join Russia. Where was the "Fuck off Russia" option? Surely you can't honestly believe that was a legitimate referendum even putting aside arguments about what the people supposedly did or didn't want?

      Scotland is holding an independence referendum later this year, would you believe it legitimate if English soldiers turned up outside every polling station with guns, tore down all the independence campaign posters and replaced them with "Alex Salmond and the SNP are Nazis", took over the television and radio airwaves to broadcast pro-union propaganda, shut down the cell phone towers to lock down communications, and took away all the ballots to be counted at David Cameron's house? That's what Putin did in Crimea.

    16. Re:Russia by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Yes you're right, but there was nothing illegal here. The democratically elected parliament voted for early elections and to impeach the president after deciding to support the will of their constituents (the Ukrainian people). That's not illegal by any measure, therefore, it wasn't a coup.

      Sure it was a coup and the vote for impeachment happened after the coup. Even better, the vote has actually failed and was unconstitutional at the same time (the case was not reviewed by the constitutional court and the vote also failed to achieve the required 3/4 majority).

      It was more akin to the parliament voting to impeach the president and then resigning themselves.

      Not really. The parliament has not resigned themselves, they have built a provisonal government that acts like it was a permanent one. A provisional government has only two responsibilities: prepairing for an upcoming election and keeping the population safe. Changes to the constitution, quick and dirty creations of controversal laws and so on are not responsibilities of a provisional government. But if you consider what happened as a coup, then it all starts making sense.

      I think his comment was largely hyperbole, but really, he's right. Putin has a long history of rigged polls. If there was anything legitimate about the view of the Crimean people in the referendum then why did Putin have to deny international observers, limit all propaganda to pro-Russian propaganda, shut down all communication in and out of Crimea prior to the referendum?

      I am not saying that the situation on Crimea wasn't a sham. There was no need to rig that vote really, the majority would have voted for an annexation anyway. Just told GP to keep his feet on the ground in his hate of Russia, that is all.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re:Russia by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      We can say anything about their government, but we can't say that they are not really ambitious.

      Bullying a smaller neighbor into handing over their territory isn't exactly ambitious by historical standards, par-for-the-course more like.

      Do you mean like Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Texas?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    18. Re:Russia by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Sure it was a coup and the vote for impeachment happened after the coup."

      That doesn't even make sense, how can you have a coup if the leadership is not yet deposed? Changing will of parliament is not a coup, not under any circumstances. That's democracy in action. If the leader is still in power then by definition, no coup can have happened. To follow the constitutional process a committee to investigate the offence had to be formed, but Yanukovych resigned before that happened (then rescinded his resignation when he got to Russia which IS unconstitutional). Let's be clear - Yanukovych ran before he was pushed because he saw the tide had turned against him, there was a 73% majority in favour of impeachment which was enough to trigger the required investigation which he resigned before could happen.

      "But if you consider what happened as a coup, then it all starts making sense."

      Yes, I suspect if you view most things with a predetermined bias then they make sense to you, but that's no reflection on what actually happened.

      The only changes that have occurred other than preparing for elections and acting in a security capacity are those to revert the constitution and a couple of other things that were already agreed by Yanukovych and the existing parliament before the interim leadership came into play. You seem to be implying this interim government plans to stay permanently but where is your evidence for this? the election date is set and there's not the slightest shred of evidence they're going to cancel this - in fact, despite the fact Russia has started now to send Spetsnatz units into Eastern Ukraine the leadership has explicitly not called a state of emergency because by law that would mean they would have to cancel the elections.

      "I am not saying that the situation on Crimea wasn't a sham. There was no need to rig that vote really, the majority would have voted for an annexation anyway."

      This doesn't make sense, if they would've voted for it anyway (polls prior to the Russian invasion suggest they wouldn't) then why go through such extraordinary effort to rig the vote including all the things I mentioned previously on top of installing an unelected puppet leadership in Crimea that called the referendum (again, things that most definitely were unconstitutional).

    19. Re:Russia by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      It's pretty ambitious when the country you are taking territory from has specifically signed a treaty with you in the past where you agreed to respect it's boarders if they disarmed all their nuclear weapons. Then to top it off the only other large nuclear power signed on the treaty backing the move. Yeah that's pretty ballsy. Source I don't think any other country will be dumb enough to give up there nukes any time soon.

  9. Let'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And let Russians and Ukrainians eat cake.

  10. Talk is cheap by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every few years, one of the Russian aerospace companies presents a new "plan" to go to Mars, colonize the moon, teleport to the Sun (at night, of course), etc. All they need is a few billion or so to get it going. It's slightly more credible that that letter you got from the Nigerian prince.

            I expect that given many tens of billions of dollars, and a few decades, the Russians could manage to do most of these proposals, but there is no intent to actually do any of them aside from a neat-looking study.

    1. Re:Talk is cheap by stoploss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I expect that given many tens of billions of dollars, and a few decades, the Russians could manage to do most of these proposals, but there is no intent to actually do any of them aside from a neat-looking study.

      Okay, let's say you're correct and that the Russian space program is a sham with overly inflated goals. Where does that leave the US space program, given that we have no way to even get to LEO without begging for a ride from the Russians?

      I have given up on NASA and their "designed by committee, for maximum pork" launch systems that cost $1+ billion per launch. Maybe SpaceX will make something man-rated soon and then our country's space program won't be such a joke anymore.

      tl;dr: I'd rather we had the Russian program than NASA because at least the Russians can get people into space. We're back to where we were in the 1950's...

    2. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. This is just to keep up the patriotic momentum. Gives the Russkies that warm and fuzzy feeling that Putin knows what he's doing...

      It's also far enough in the future that nobody is going to question this.

      Perfect piece of propaganda.

    3. Re:Talk is cheap by ScudBee · · Score: 0

      Current Russian space program is just a tool to steal budget money.

    4. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does that leave the US space program

      In the care of Obama and funded by a decrepit has-been nation of subjects voting themselves more bennies while printing away their debts.

      If our species manages to establish anything permanent on the moon or elsewhere, it will be the Chinese or Indians or some such. The US and Sov^HRussia are both in permanent decline.

    5. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Okay, let's say you're correct and that the Russian space program is a sham with overly inflated goals. Where does that leave the US space program, given that we have no way to even get to LEO without begging for a ride from the Russians?"

      Uhhh... When did you ever get the idea the USA couldn't go into LEO? The USA sends craft into LEO dozens of times per year.... Not sure how this gibberish gets modded +5 insightful on slashdot these days...

    6. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mistaken. The Japanese are the ones that do that. I've lost count of how many times I read about some Japanese company building a hotel on the moon.

    7. Re:Talk is cheap by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Craft but not people.

    8. Re:Talk is cheap by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's say you're correct and that the Russian space program is a sham with overly inflated goals.

      I don't think he said that, I think he said one particular part of the Russian space program is like that.

      Which is a lot like the US space program.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Talk is cheap by thoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All these problems you attribute to NASA are actually congressional problems. NASA budgets are are the chopping block every year. The only way they get stuff passed is by distributing the work to every Congress member's districts. That's fucked up as you would expect, but we're a country that doesn't give a shit about funding science, paying scientists very well, or even listening to scientists. In fact there's a whole industry around discrediting climate scientists, since that threatens corporate profits, and a huge number of adults Americans don't believe in evolution. Entertainment and sports are the heroes and finance is where the big bucks are.

    10. Re:Talk is cheap by dbIII · · Score: 1

      All these problems you attribute to NASA are actually congressional problems

      That's been obvious since Feynman threw a spanner in the works of a whitewash that tried to hide that, yet those problems have worsened. So far the current low point was some twenty something catamite of a powerful Republican being rewarded for his services by getting put in charge of a major part of NASA and forbidding any publications about climate change.

    11. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr: I'd rather we had the Russian program than NASA because at least the Russians can get people into space. We're back to where we were in the 1950's...

      What Russian program?

    12. Re:Talk is cheap by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      The companies with these proposals need to send some of their men to the United States so that they may learn how to lobby a government.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    13. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the plans for the Saturn V were in the public domain!

    14. Re:Talk is cheap by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      While true, that statement isn't particularly useful since it's also true of pretty much every government program everywhere.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod up
      that this patently silly idea is being taken seriously gives us, what we didn't need, that most slashdotters are pre teen boys, aching for a real raygun.

    16. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And every private enterprise.

    17. Re:Talk is cheap by Arker · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's what you get when you let the government get involved.

      We should have never created NASA to start with, we'd be at least 50 years ahead with a real (commercial) moonbase by now if we'd just let idiot millionaires shoot for the moon in peace.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    18. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many private enterprises are shams, but people stop giving them money when they don't deliver.

      The problem with government programs is that we can't stop giving them money, we are forced at gunpoint to pay for them.

    19. Re:Talk is cheap by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      We're back to where we were in the 1950's

      ... and honestly nothing of value was lost. Sending people to LEO is about as worthless a goal as sending them to Mars in some flag-planting stunt. Human beings just aren't built for space travel as it currently exists. We should be putting 100% of our efforts into robotics and AI so that radiation-hardened machines can do whatever it is that's still worthwhile to do in space. Then we don't have to waste money on man-rated launchers, waste space and weight for human sustenance and habitation, or waste time and effort designing missions to bring people back alive and sane.

    20. Re:Talk is cheap by Megane · · Score: 2

      The state of the US space program is about the only thing I won't blame Obama for. The blame for that lies squarely in the halls of Congress trying to keep Shuttle-era pork alive and cutting anything else NASA-related.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    21. Re:Talk is cheap by careysub · · Score: 1

      This is a Poe's Law post if every there was one.

      Is this guy serious or being over-the-top satirical?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    22. Re:Talk is cheap by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First we had an omnipotent Bush who took blame for things that happened long before he became president. Now, we have a super-omnipotent Obama.

      Obama was a young punk, still wet behind the ears, when the United States decided to scrap all it's moon and deeper space capabilities in favor of a dumb ass space plane concept. A shuttle was a pretty cool idea - as a means to an end. The shuttles should have been there to service the REAL exploration efforts. But, instead, the shuttle program became an end, in and of itself, and the larger programs were simply ignored, and filed in the circular file.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    23. Re:Talk is cheap by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 2

      We're back to where we were

      Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your post I'm still in shock at seeing the above (grammatically correct) sentence on slashdot, apostrophes and all! =)

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    24. Re:Talk is cheap by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

      ?? Is there a particular reason to lob bags of meat into space?

    25. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oooooh, yeah but that flies in the face of decades of sci-fi with strapping heroes flying all over the universe to boldly "explore" aliens and getting the women. You know, stuff nerds can't do on Earth. You're cutting off their only fantasy! Besides, they also honestly think that sending test pilots into LEO brings all kinds of technological benefits and spin offs!

      Even though the country that scored most of the space firsts back then sure doesn't seem to have benefited much for all its trouble. But let's just sweep that under the loony bin rug.

    26. Re:Talk is cheap by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Exactly! just like how we bailed out the banks... /facepalm

    27. Re:Talk is cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      So Russia is pretty much the same as the US then, that has been going back to the Moon and then on to Mars since the mid 70s.

      Russia managed to commercialize space far earlier than the US did, which is kinda ironic. It's a shame because the US has the money and the skill to do so much, but does so little and uses the whole thing as a political football. Back in the 70s it managed to hook up with the Russians in orbit, now it won't even let the Chinese join the ISS project.

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

      Oh no, they keep giving them more money. Especially the government programs when it comes to their contractors.

    29. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Craft but not people.

      The US lack of a man ratted vehicle is mostly due to lack of demand. The shuttles have been retired and no one saw fit to make a replacement because quite frankly the space station isn't that interesting anymore (it's uses were mainly a "look how internationally cooperative we are!" political stunt, and the remaining engineering value is mostly as a test bed for future manned missions none of which are planned.) The Russians are happy to sell access to their proven Soyuz capsules. And the US doesn't have any real need to maintain the manufacturing capability for our own capsules just to have another way to have an american flag on the side.

      The remaining factor is that since Space-X isn't NASA they can't rubber stamp their own capsule as "man ratted" so the red tape is taking a while to clear out (again mostly because NASA doesn't actually need a man rated capsule so theirs no incentive for them to hurry up).

    30. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the risk of feeding a troll.

      At no point has anyone prevented a US company from making a "moon shot". What's been the hold up is that while basic rocket science is well understood and not all thet complex, the actual engineering of building a functional rocket requires significant R&D, and there isn't any economic benefit to the people on Earth to having trans orbital capability (no way for the investors to make back their investment unless the go along themselves).

      As such private firms are slow to get involved.

      The benefits to our progeny will eventually get us into space, but in the long run leaving Earth will probably be a lot like when we "came down from the trees" as it's largely going to be a leave and never come back event that will lead to speciation. It's not likely to be a "mine the moon for the betterment of Earth-bound industry" deal.

    31. Re:Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the US has roasted 14 bags of meat in the last 30 years or so as opposed to 0 by part of the Russians.

    32. Re: Talk is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe SpaceX will make something man-rated soon and then our country's space program won't be such a joke anymore."

      Who do you think is "man rating" the launch system and regulating it? NASA is. Hopefully the news that NASA and Russia are no longer playing nice will get the regulators to ease the double standards they are using to prevent commercial launch from developing human launch capacity. The double standard I'm mentioning is the fact that the rules they are using for man rating a launch vehicle would prevent any of NASA's human launch capabilities from every carrying people to space even their SLS, but since they are not applied the same way to NASA's vehicles they get a pass despite safety concerns.

      SpaceX has already completed the engineering for the Man Rated Dragon they are just jumping through the hoops regulators created to slow the process down. Among them the Dragon capsule has to have a certain number of successful flights before review for man rating can begin.

    33. Re:Talk is cheap by cusco · · Score: 1

      putting 100% of our efforts into robotics and AI so that radiation-hardened machines can do whatever it is that's still worthwhile to do in space.

      Robots can't colonize an asteroid or moon, and that's one of the truly worthwhile things to do in space. They can prepare the site to a certain extent, but it's not really a colony until Earth life is resident. You're right that sending people to LEO is pretty much worthless, but that's NOT where we should be limiting ourselves to. To our knowledge, the universe is ours for the taking, and only the shortsightness of politicians and businessmen is keeping it from us.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    34. Re:Talk is cheap by cusco · · Score: 1

      The morons in Congress almost didn't let the Russians be part of the project, even though they were the only country in the world that actually had experience building and maintaining a space station.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    35. Re:Talk is cheap by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      This is one of the few times I think that there might actually be a justification for a national security classification. Just because I don't think we should give what is arguably one of the longest range missiles ever proven to work to every country that can hire an engineer who can read English. I mean do you really want to give Iran the the ability to nuke the moon.

  11. so there are oppressed Russian citizens by umghhh · · Score: 1

    on the moon?

    1. Re:so there are oppressed Russian citizens by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      on the moon?

      Actually, Putin has been watching western propaganda films, and has other intentions there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:so there are oppressed Russian citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so funny! Now go back to your CNN or BBC propaganda.

    3. Re:so there are oppressed Russian citizens by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Russian population has been shrinking. What they should do is send their various minorities - Chechens, Tatars, et al to the moon. Then Russia wouldn't risk Russians becoming a minority in their own country. At some point, Russia can sign a population exchange progam w/ India - move all Indians to Russia, and all Russians to India. There will be enough land for all.

    4. Re:so there are oppressed Russian citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's actually going there to fight off the Nazis (and claim all the He3 for himself as a bonus).

  12. Coca-Cola rejoices! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    They'll finally get a suitable billboard! It's been forty years overdue already.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  13. The guy is demented... by ScudBee · · Score: 1

    Just a few hours ago he said that by 2020 Russian army will be one of the most hi-tech and powerful armies in the world. Yeah. Not as crazy as colonization of the Moon, Mars and asteroids, but out of touch with reality nevertheless.

    1. Re:The guy is demented... by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bold, public, optimistic predictions are an historically cheaper way to fund nationalistic fervor than actual deeds and accomplishments.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:The guy is demented... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Just a few hours ago he said that by 2020 Russian army will be one of the most hi-tech and powerful armies in the world

      If the US economy crashes again all he has to do is wait and that will come true.

  14. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Oh get off your paranoid, childish sci-fi melodrama. Never mind the fact that a Moon base with enough resources to pull that off will never exist, it doesn't even make sense in the first place. You're just channeling your inner monkey fantasizing about the biggest tree house you can think of... to throw rocks on other monkeys.

    Grow up.

  15. Looks like they're taking the high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Putin read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and decided that strategically positioning himself in the Gravity Well would provide significant economic advantages in negotiating Natural Gas prices. Remember the lesson of Saddam Hussein: it's not the types of WMD that determine the price(or currency) or a barrel of oil: it's the delivery vehicle or weapons platform that decides bargaining advantage.

    This is Russia's "Pencil" to counter DARPA's "Pen":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-72
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project

    While we're rolling in the mud with the typical MBA mindset of "Return On Risk-Adjusted Capital"(RORAC), Russia & China are willing to take bigger risks to upset the balance of power. It's called "Short Stack Strategy" in Poker.

    1. Re:Looks like they're taking the high ground by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The navy's new railgun should be able to fire out of the moon's gravity well. Could hit the Earth, or Mars from there. It would be interesting to test acuracy of a 390,000 km shot.

    2. Re:Looks like they're taking the high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll still need Mike, that is Adam Selene to plan the Lunar Revolution.

    3. Re:Looks like they're taking the high ground by ixuzus · · Score: 1

      My back of the envelope calculations suggest that even for a straight line shot from the moon with no other forces in play a one degree change in any direction would result in you missing the earth entirely. Now when you take into account gravity from at least three bodies, what atmospheric conditions will be like in X time when your shot actually reaches earth (keep in mind that for most shots you'll likely be going through atmosphere on an angle), I'd be very impressed if you landed your shot in the right country.

      In addition your shell has to not burn up in the atmosphere. Even if you get all that right there's going to be a significant time lag between when you fire your shot and when it arrives so you're only good against very stationary targets. Even if you fire at Mach 10 a competing bomber crew is probably going to have taken off, destroyed the target with an accurate, guided solution, and be home in bed by the time your shot arrives.

      In short, an interesting exercise but there are probably quicker, cheaper, and more reliable ways to hit stationary targets.

    4. Re:Looks like they're taking the high ground by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It took Apollo flights 3 days to get to the Moon going Mach 32, and they had the ability to do course correction burns while in trans-lunar flight.

      You could probably figure out how to get something from there to here at the lower speed of that railgun; it sure would not be easier, faster, nor cheaper than just launching a 1950s bomber from New Jersey.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Looks like they're taking the high ground by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In addition your shell has to not burn up in the atmosphere.

      Someone else posted that for a 100 mile shot, it would exit the atmosphere (and thus have to re-enter anyway). So I expect it would be able to handle a re-entry.

      Even if you fire at Mach 10 a competing bomber crew is probably going to have taken off, destroyed the target with an accurate, guided solution, and be home in bed by the time your shot arrives.

      Yea, but they don't have the range to hit my secret base on the moon. The trick is how to build the gun on the dark side of the moon so that it can hit the Earth. That way the Earth couldn't see it and certainly couldn't shoot back with lasers or such.

  16. Room for enough of them? by dogandpants · · Score: 1

    .. I think so.

  17. Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm all for the U.S. going back to the moon, on to Mars, etc and having the Russians or the Chinese breathing down our necks would possibly be the kick our government needs to get serious....... buuuuuuut...... this just aint it.

    The Russian govt and/or Russian rocket people routinely claim they are building new manned space vehicles (anybody remember any of the many Klipper mockups and illustrations?), new launch vehicles, planning moon bases, planning Mars expeditions, etc. They have some very good and competent people, good experience, the aerospace manufacturing capability, and a proven track record, BUT the thing they never get is MONEY and an actual commitment from their nation's leaders. I'm somewhat surprised that they've actually been allowed to build their new launch complex in eastern Russia but that, plus their new model of Soyuz launcher, are probably consuming a large portion of their funds for new manned space activities

    1. Re:Nothing new here by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The launch complex is being built because Kazakhstan keeps asking for more and more concessions in order to continue using Baikonur. Eventually it becomes cheaper to build a new base in Russia itself. Especially considering that they will probably have to build new launch pads to launch Angara.

  18. Annex? by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    Russia has no plans to annex the Moon. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes this legally impossible, and common sense shows that it could never (or, at least, not for a good long while) be enforced.

    1. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell that to the Crimean

    2. Re:Annex? by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd put a lot more reliance in the difficulty and expense of the enterprise than I'd put in the Russians honoring treaties...

    3. Re:Annex? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah... you know, back when Ukraine broke off from Russia, they made a deal with Russia over Ukraine's nukes. Basically, when Ukraine declared independence, they had what amounted to the third largest nuclear stockpile in the world.

      In exchange for turning over all their nukes to Russia, Russia agreed not to interfere with Ukraine's territorial integrity. (Translation: If you voluntarily turn over your nukes, we won't mess with your new country.)

      Fast forward from then (1994) to now, and oh look, Russia ignored that treaty in seizing the Crimea region. So color me particular unwilling to believe that if Russia gets a moon base that they won't try and ignore that treaty if it suits them.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    4. Re:Annex? by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

      Since when has "being illegal" stopped Russia from doing what it wants?

    5. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has "being illegal" stopped Russia from doing what it wants?

      Since when has "being illegal" stopped the USA (or any other country) from doing what it wants?

    6. Re:Annex? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Russia also signed a treaty pledging to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and existing borders. We've seen how well that turned out.

    7. Re:Annex? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes this legally impossible, and common sense shows that it could never (or, at least, not for a good long while) be enforced.

      If they put a base there, and noone else can even go there, then they pretty much de facto own the moon.

      It's not, after all, like anyone can do anything to stop them from doing whatever they like up there - noone else can even get to LEO reliably***.

      ***: the Chinese can get up there (once every couple years or so). And SpaceX Dragon is going to be undergoing man-rating tests later this year (proving that the escape mechanism works, among other things) and next year so that it can be man-rated. Once that happens, NASA won't be dependent on the Russians, they'll be dependent on SpaceX....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes this legally impossible

      You seem to think that international law is something more than just a mutually beneficial agreement. That's cute.

    9. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the Crimean

      Sure, because trampling over a neighbor's backyard is the same as going to the fucking moon.

    10. Re:Annex? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Tell that to the Crimean

      Sure, because trampling over a neighbor's backyard is the same as going to the fucking moon.

      Point being made is, it was 'illegal' for Putin to annex Crimea.

      He did it anyway.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    11. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "back when Ukraine broke off from Russia"

      Was this before or after Ukraine broke off from the USSR?

    12. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they will be dependent on a friendly company for about a year. Then they will have 2-3 companies that they can use.
      in addition, NASA will have access to the cheapest launch vehicles, as well as the biggest, in the world.
      And to take it one more step, SpaceX is working on MCT, which will be ready BEFORE 2020.

      Offhand, I think NASA is in much better shape, as long as you discount US congress.

    13. Re:Annex? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Yeah...American Exceptionalists. It takes some serious chutzpah/willful ignorance to accuse Russia of violating Ukraine's sovereignty while ignoring the long term efforts of the west to subvert Ukraine's democracy and install a sufficiently capitalist regime, all of which predated any moves from Putin.

      U.S. officials met with the junta before they seized power, are on tape picking Ukraine's leaders, and braged about spending $5 billion to give the country "the future it deserves" - in front of banners for Chevron and Exxon - and immediately pledging a billion dollars to support the junta before the next set of elections. And of course there's the Fox News Bush-kept-us-save-from-terrorists style brazenness to pretend an illegal coup less than six months before the next set of elections has legitimacy, but ignore the fact that the people of Crimea - including the Tartars - overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.

      Now, this is the point where the American Excpetionalist starts projecting with cries of "propaganda", without bothering to find counterexamples of Putin spending $5 billion of Russian taxpayer money to subvert a pro-west democracy.

    14. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it before or after the Nazi coup d'état ?

    15. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its somehow sad that GP is moded 5 informative, while parroting propaganda and parent who nails the nail on the head is not even over visible threshold :/

    16. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes some serious chutzpah/willful ignorance to accuse Russia of violating Ukraine's sovereignty while ignoring the long term efforts of the west to subvert Ukraine's democracy and install a sufficiently capitalist regime, all of which predated any moves from Putin.

      It takes a willful ignorance to ignore long term efforts of Russia to take over Ukraine and install pro-Russian regime... scratch that, not efforts, they actually have installed that regime. Or do you think that Yanukovych was impartial president, having only best of Ukraine in mind?

      This is game of politics. Russians install puppet government, West helps opposition to voice their dissent. Thats one level of the game. There were probably 'consultants' from both parties behind the shadows.

      Getting unmarked soldiers into foreign country, executing officers and seizing military property is upping the ante. Russia lost on pure politics/manipulation game, so they took the guns out. They are losing the face here.

      It is like two boys shouting on each other. Ivan calls Sam bad names, Sam calls him bad names in return. Other people cheer for both of them, but Sam is more imaginative and managed to win the word battle. Ivan hits Sam with a fist to the face. Defending Ivan by stating that Sam was calling him names is really not smart.
      a) Ivan started shouting names first
      b) Ivan escalated the shouting match into violence

      Of course, if Ivan's father is a big guy who is not afraid of the teachers and police, Ivan can probably keep hitting Sam in the face. Worst which can happen is that other children will stop talking to Ivan. Of course, Ivan's father told then if other children will not talk to Ivan, he will cut the electricity cables coming to their homes (he happens to be electrician by trade).
      In meantime, Ivan already started kicking Sam in the kidneys and prepares to start hitting him with baseball bat. At same time, he start insulting few other weak kids. If it worked with Sam, it will work with others.

      Finally, other parents will decide that they can miss the next episode of Game of the Thrones and survive without electricity for few weeks, before new electrician can arrive from other town. Too bad that in meantime, Ivan has turned few children into bloody pulp with huge sledgehammer... and keeps few other hostage, just in case somebody would feel like retaliating.

    17. Re:Annex? by psychonaut · · Score: 1

      Must have been before. Except for Crimea, Ukraine hadn't been part of Russia since 1917. And back then their nuclear stockpile was just as big as every other country's, given that nuclear weapons hadn't been invented yet.

    18. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Crimean

      If Moon sitizens vote to be with Russia- ok.Let it be:)

    19. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia respected them. Crimea voted out of Ukraine, and wanted into Russia, who then accepted them back into the fold.

    20. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting how Kierthos and Uberbah can both be American exceptionalists when they didn't say anything about America at all.

    21. Re:Annex? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because the current government in Moscow gives a shit about what's legal?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    22. Re:Annex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for self-determination, but to pretend that what is happening in Ukraine right now isn't being severely influenced by the Kremlin is completely asinine. Also, pretending that the government that was sitting in Kiev at this time last year wasn't in the running for "Most Corrupt Government of the Year" awards is similarly idiotic.

  19. There are no Earthlings by RevWaldo · · Score: 2

    Just temporarily embarrassed space explorers.

    .

  20. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which part are you disagreeing with and why?

  21. Common distraction? by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    Didn't Newt Gingrich also want to estabilish a moon base? It sounds cool, and we should do it, but it's fast becoming the thing to say when you want to sound lofty and forward-thinking but put no real effort behind it.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:Common distraction? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      The question is what would they do for air? Remember producing enough breathabler air was a flop for Biosphere2.

    2. Re:Common distraction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could include a politician in the settler team.

  22. Angara by benjfowler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They can't even launch Proton reliably, and it's taken them 20 years of R&D to get Angara to the point where they can (nearly) launch it.

    As it is, the Russian space programme has gone from world-beater, to being a bad parody of Kerbal Space Program.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Talk is cheap. I'll believe they can build a Moon base, when I see it.

    1. Re:Angara by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Boeing Delta III? Failure. Delta IV Heavy? Lots of 'partial failures' which put the payload in the wrong orbit. Lockheed Martin Altas V? Powered by Russian RD-180 engines and no launch failures so far.

      Launch failures happen. Some guy installed a part upside down in that Proton and the control systems thought the rocket was pointing the other way around.

      You might argue that this was also a design error. They could have designed it so it would not fit but in the proper way. However Angara is supposed to replace Proton so it is not like I can blame them for not investing much more on it.

  23. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by NEDHead · · Score: 2

    I can't be sure what the previous poster was disagreeable about, but every one knows monkeys throw poo, not rocks

  24. Sensationalism by quantaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Russia doesn't want to establish a moon base, but they're obligated to step up and protect all the Russian speakers on the moon. Moreover the moon is historically Russian, not only did a recent referendum establish that 98.3% of the moon wants to join Russia, but the moon is so close that on a clear night you can actually see it from Moscow!!

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Sensationalism by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      but the moon is so close that on a clear night you can actually see it from Moscow!!

      No, that's Sarah Palin's ass. She forgets to close the blinds.

  25. Step One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turn eastern Ukraine into a moonscape

  26. better than wasting trillions on pointless wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What did US achieve with all that money and lives. It alienated us in the world stage and achieved nothing of value in the end. Ike was right:

    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

    1. Re:better than wasting trillions on pointless wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we're on the diversion train of "at least X isn't Y", let's talk about how at least the Iraq war killed fewer people than the Soviet Afghan war.

      Oh wait did I suddenly just take this thread off topic?

    2. Re:better than wasting trillions on pointless wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh god, you really don't understand who incited the afghans.

    3. Re:better than wasting trillions on pointless wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol 'incitement' is worse than the act invading and killing. are you brain dead?

    4. Re:better than wasting trillions on pointless wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least the Iraq war killed fewer people than the Soviet Afghan war

      Perhaps in terms of direct casualties of war. Nowadays we write off the majority of war victims as "collateral damage" or simple define them away.
      I.e., do stillborn children in Falluja that result from DUP shells count as victims of war in any statistics? What about families that starve to death due to the economy being totally shattered (except for the infrastructure needed to pump oil out, that is)?

      Oh but wait. At least the starving, displaced wandering survivors have freedom.

    5. Re:better than wasting trillions on pointless wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just added more stupidity.

  27. Russia wants a lot of things. by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Russia's manned space program basically consists of announcing plans to do amazing things, which come to nothing as they keeping on doing the same stuff they were doing in the 1980s. As opposed to the U.S. manned space program, which consists of making plans to get back to the stuff they were doing in the 1980s, which come to nothing.

    (Unmanned is another story.)

    1. Re:Russia wants a lot of things. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Russia's manned space program basically consists of announcing plans to do amazing things

      Like Bush's Mars announcement followed by cuts?
      OK then, almost nobody took that seriously but that idiocy did happen. Maybe it's the same story in Russia with this, an empty statement setting a goal for somebody else to do the hard work if it ever happens.

    2. Re:Russia wants a lot of things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia's manned space program basically consists of announcing plans to do amazing things, which come to nothing as they keeping on doing the same stuff they were doing in the 1980s. As opposed to the U.S. manned space program, which consists of making plans to get back to the stuff they were doing in the 1980s, which come to nothing.

      (Unmanned is another story.)

      So, it is pretty much like the US space program, which has done essentially *nothing* in the last twenty years other than start to develop launch systems, burn a ton of cash on paper studies, and then cancel said launch systems. Other than the odd probe, the US has done nothing of note in the space area other than talk. Not much different than Russia.

    3. Re:Russia wants a lot of things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia's manned space program basically consists of announcing plans to do amazing things

      Like Bush's Mars announcement followed by cuts?
      OK then, almost nobody took that seriously but that idiocy did happen. Maybe it's the same story in Russia with this, an empty statement setting a goal for somebody else to do the hard work if it ever happens.

      Yeah, just like the second half of the GP post already pointed out. I know it's Slashdot, but you could at least read the full post before responding.

    4. Re:Russia wants a lot of things. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Like Bush's Mars announcement followed by cuts?

      I know it's Slashdot, but you could at least read the full post before responding.

      You first. Parent said:

      As opposed to the U.S. manned space program, which consists of making plans to get back to the stuff they were doing in the 1980s, which come to nothing.

      The U.S. did not have a mission to Mars program in the 1980's. I know it's Slashdot, but you could at least read the post before trying to scold someone for not reading it.

    5. Re:Russia wants a lot of things. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Here's how you fix NASA:

      1. Tell Congress to fuck off, and that they should get back to passing laws, and get out of rocket and spacecraft design. You don't need to build rocket parts in 47 states in order to go to the Moon or Mars.

      2. Every President that steps into the Oval Office needs to get it through their thick politician asshat that they don't "need to make their impression upon the space agency". How is NASA supposed to finish any 10-year projects when their priorities get changed every 5 years?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Russia wants a lot of things. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      He was probably talking about the Shuttle and manned space flight.

  28. Better be a co-ed base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Nuff said.

  29. Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has the Sci fi story been written wherein the great nations of earth inevetibaly go to war to unceremoniously control the moon?

    1. Re:Anyone know... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Has the Sci fi story been written wherein the great nations of earth inevetibaly go to war to unceremoniously control the moon?

      John E. Stiers' 'Lunar Republic' series.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  30. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unless they were eating rocks.

  31. Isn't the point of going to the moon... by acoustix · · Score: 1

    ...to eventually launch a vehicle from the moon to get to Mars? With less gravity on the Moon it would take less fuel to launch and escape gravity, right?

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's one point. Another is we know buggerall about the moon and have only sent one geologist for a few days.

    2. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, no. The fact is, that you would have to develop a large base with loads of support to be able to get anything off the moon. And that will not happen for another 20 years after we have landed on the moon.

      Instead, it is far far cheaper for us to go to mars from earth. What is really needed is to have a true SHLV, such as MCT, that launches every 3-4 months, to put goods in space for the moon. And with SpaceX's FH and hopefully, MCT, combined with Bigelow, we will likely be on the moon around 2020-2022.

    3. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      Landing on the moon and taking off again adds 4km/s delta-v to the energy cost of going to Mars.

      Plus launching from lunar orbit into Mars transfer orbit is less efficient than launching from LEO directly into MTO, due to Oberth inefficiencies.

      The net effect is that there's no benefit from using the moon as an intermediate step, unless the cost of manufacturing fuel on the moon is vastly less than the cost of launching it from Earth into LEO. However, the equipment cost for mining, purifying, and electrolysing polar ice into hydrogen/oxygen, then liquefying the cryo-gases into fuel tanks and launching those tanks back into Lunar orbit (using yet more lunar fuel) is likely to be ridiculously high.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    4. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why enter another gravity well (Moon) when you've gone to all that trouble to exit the original one? (Earth) Once you are in orbit simply burning straight to mars costs less dV and fuel than a trip to the moon and then to mars.

      The only reason a moonbase for launching vehicles would remotely make sense is in one of these situations:
      1. The moonbase somehow produces fuel/energy and vehicles can refuel there, which means a lower launch mass is needed on earth, hence cheaper. (Doubtful, as the moon is mostly rock)
      2. The vehicle is carrying supplies or people for the moon, before proceeding on the rest of its journey.
      3. The vehicle is too big to launch from earth due to atmosphere. (in this case why bother with landing stuff and assembly on the moon instead of assembly in orbit?)

      Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a moonbase, but for this purpose it just doesn't make sense.

    5. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but if we could set up a rail gun launcher on the Moon, we could launch crafts without resorting to reactive propulsion, using photovoltaics

    6. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Landing on the moon and taking off again adds 4km/s delta-v to the energy cost of going to Mars.

      On the other hand, refueling on the moon with fuel manufactured on the moon reduces the payload you need to boost off Earth considerably.

      Plus launching from lunar orbit into Mars transfer orbit is less efficient than launching from LEO directly into MTO, due to Oberth inefficiencies.

      Launch from lunar orbit into a transition orbit that goes down to LEO, make a burn at perigee that puts you into an Earth-Mars transition orbit.

      This requires slightly more delta-V than going directly from LEO, but, again, if the reaction mass comes from the moon, instead of Earth, the savings can be considerable.

      Yes, this does require some industrial infrastructure on the moon, which will require moving a lot of mass from Earth to the moon. This is a bad thing only if your idea about Mars missions is similar to the Apollo program - go to Mars, take a few pictures, go home, never go back.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "On the other hand, refueling on the moon with fuel manufactured on the moon reduces the payload you need to boost off Earth considerably. "

      On the other hand, this increases the payload of the manufacturing plant you need to launch from Earth in the first place. You know, that magical automated machinery that can make cryogenic rocket fuel from a dead rock? The machinery we have no clue how to build?

      Why do you space fanbois reason like pre-teens playing with action figures?

    8. Re:Isn't the point of going to the moon... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      refueling on the moon with fuel manufactured on the moon reduces the payload you need to boost off Earth considerably.
      [...] if the reaction mass comes from the moon, instead of Earth, the savings can be considerable.

      It's not just launch payload, it's cost. SpaceX is pre-selling FH launches at $125m each. Even if it cost $200m to launch 50 tonnes to LEO, it only benefits you to have a lunar fuel production facility if the cost of operating the facility works out at less than $4m/tonne of fuel. So, for example, if it cost you $1b/yr to maintain the lunar facility (which is optimistic), then you'd need to be supplying 250 tonnes of fuel to Mars missions every year to justify its existence. That seems unlikely.

      [Actually more than 250 tonnes, to cover the delta-v loss.]

      However, IMO, this is all part of the same mindset that infests most of what NASA does. The idea of picking a destination (Moon/Mars/space-station) as an Apollo-style "goal" or "vision", (even if you intend to build a long-term "base"). The goal of the space program should be to create a commercial eco-system of overlapping capabilities. Other than some unmanned science missions, NASA shouldn't have a "space program", especially a "manned space program". It should have an enabling-technology research program.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  32. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, so you're a Space Nutter that holds a grudge? Good, to prove me wrong all you need to do is : do it. Go ahead. Build these dreams you've accepted uncritically. You're asleep. You just get off your anti-psychotics to mod me down, but then people more anchored in reality mod me "insightful", it must hurt, eh?

  33. Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Von Braun's body is a mouldering in the ground so you aint got the moon no more.
    The USA had their chance and is not showing any sign of taking another one. There's no point being a sore loser when the game has been given up on. The Russians are at least still trying even though they've had more economic problems to slow them down than the US had when Nixon sidetracked NASA into being a pork factory that could only get anywhere via skunkworks hiding between the slabs of pork.

    Instead of bitching about others why not get off your arse, make some noise and make NASA funding an issue worth votes?

    1. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA budget: around $17bn

      ESA budget: around $4.7bn

      Russian Space Agency budget: $5.6bn

      Current interplanetary space missions are dominated by the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      In addition to NASA, of course, the US also has a private space industry.

      But, heck don't let facts get in the way of your blind Eurocentrism. You're such a stupid nationalist that you think even the empty promises of a Russian dictator to build a useless moon base represent some kind of superior technological achievement.

    2. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Did you read my post at all? There's the word "pork" in there a few times that you should have noticed, and as for getting "nationalist" out of it - please pay attention before posting guys.

    3. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you have a look at the missions? Almost all American. How is NASA a loser? And where does the combined $10bn of European and Russian space agency funding go? They sure aren't going into space missions, so whatever pork there is in NASA's budget, there obviously is more in theirs.

      Blind attacks on other nations without basis in fact or reality define nationalism. You're a bigot and a nationalist.

    4. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say intentionally misconstruing someone else's observation and opinion as an attack on you and your country is closer to nationalism than the GP's post. And quite frankly, it's xenophobic too.

    5. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      They sure aren't going into space missions

      So who has the launcher and is capable of manned missions then? Not NASA is it? Instead of cheering for something broken why not hassle elected officials to stop breaking it.
      Your "nationalist" shit is way off the mark because I'm not European and NASA paid for part of my engineering degree back in the 1980s - I really want to see them succeed but political corruption has reduced them to a few skunkworks projects hiding between slabs of pork. The effort to produce a launcher for manned missions is a prime example of a project made utterly useless and abandoned because pork was the primary objective.

    6. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by RoLi · · Score: 1

      NASA budget: around $17bn

      Russian Space Agency budget: $5.6bn

      Yeah, but Russia is not burdened by affirmative action, so that makes it about even.

    7. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It is always a bit naive to compare the size of programs like this. What actually gets done depends a lot more on PPP than GDP. If the salaries in that nation are a lot lower they can hire more people with the same money and get more results that way.

    8. Re:Anga and rah rah rah flag waving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manned missions are a waste of money. It's the kind of project idiots like you like. Go worship Putin.

  34. that's funny by superwiz · · Score: 1

    I saw a post last week by someone saying they wouldn't think that Putin was going overboard until Putin decided to invade the moon. Obviously the guy was trolling for Russia... little did he know.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  35. Kill ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Russia pulls out of ISS then ISS is FUCKED.

    And that card is now about to be laid on the table in front of Obama and with NASA looking over Obama shoulder.

    By By Birdie

    Ha ha ! FU

    1. Re:Kill ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, Russia can not support their half of the ISS on their own. They do not have the energy or thermal control available to it.
      In addition, America can right now, launch a passenger vehicle to the ISS to bring down the western crew. As it is, the capsule is already for doing that. In fact, I would not be surprised to see NASA suggest that a western lifeboat be attached to the ISS, which SpaceX could do by mid-summer without much effort.
      And within 12 months, SpaceX WILL launch humans in dragon rider. If Putin was to pull anything like you suggest, within 3, possibly 2, months, spaceX could launch humans to the ISS.

      So, hope all you want. The fact is, that SpaceX, and NASA, are ready to handle this. All that Russia will do is hurt themselves.

    2. Re:Kill ISS by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      Russia isn't pulling out of ISS. They're in it for the long haul, and they haven't been shy about making that unambiguously known. When NASA announced a tentative schedule to deorbit the ISS at the end of its planned service life, Russia IMMEDIATELY said it would regard any attempt to deorbit the ISS as an act of war. The Russian modules were built (at higher cost) to be serviced and refurbished indefinitely in space, and they fully intend to keep it up there until they literally don't have the ability to keep it in orbit.

      Russia's new plan is to launch additional modules to make its half of the ISS capable of existing on its own, but leave it connected to the rest of the ISS as long as NASA's side remains in space. They might reserve the right to close interior doors, have alcohol on board (if they don't already), and tell their American neighbors that there are rooms they aren't allowed to go into, but they recognize that even if the US and Russian sides were functionally independent, having them docked together profoundly improves the likelihood of both crews surviving a disaster.

      If NASA were to officially decide to deorbit its half of the ISS on a specific date, I'd be shocked if the Russians DIDN'T politely (but firmly) inform the Americans on board a few days before the separation that they were going to be going home ahead of schedule & would NOT be deorbiting NASA's half as officially planned. There's no way in HELL Russia will voluntarily allow the American half to be deorbited if it has any meaningful value to them in space, even as scrap.

      Of course the US would scream, and Washington would claim it was an act of war/piracy, but as long as the American crew members got home safely & smiling, I'm sure the Russians would negotiate the American side's purchase as scrap, and lease-back agreement that would allow the US to continue using it as long as it remained habitable.

    3. Re:Kill ISS by cusco · · Score: 1

      I was enormously disappointed when Mir was deorbited. I always thought that it should have been boosted into a higher orbit and left as a museum, but I suspect that the Kremlin had more say in its ultimate fate than Baikonur did.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  36. Just tell them.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    ...that Ukraine is there already!

  37. Note the 'Wants to ..." by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Also in the news, "Kittenman wants to win the lottery".

    "Wants to ..." and "had definite plans on how to ..." are worlds apart.

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  38. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, and miss the fun of watching you nutcases wake up, one by one, to the harsh reality of engineering limits? Nah, I'll stick around to watch each one of you lunatics admit that no one is going anywhere, ever.

  39. Propaganda much? by Arker · · Score: 1

    ""Having established its presence in the Crimean Peninsula"

    Like this was recent.

    Crimea has been Russian since 1783.

    For my fellow Murricans, that was 7 years after our Declaration of Independence, 4 years before our Constitutional Convention, and 17 years before we moved the Federal Capital from Philadelphia to Washington.

    Just so you know.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    1. Re:Propaganda much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friends don't let friends abuse HTML tags just because they think it makes them look clever whereas all it does is irritate people and cause them to think you're a bit of an asshole.

    2. Re:Propaganda much? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ethnically, it wasn't Russian until the 1940's when Stalin deported (and murdered) a shitload of locals and trucked in Russian-speaking replacements.

      Before that, it was no more Russian than India was "English".

      Putin apologists are weird. Russia signed an explicitly unambigious agreement to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and existing borders. Putin violated that agreement. It's not complicated.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    3. Re:Propaganda much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the United States was always ethnically "American". I'm sure they would never murder a shitload of locals and truck in English-speaking replacements...

    4. Re:Propaganda much? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 0

      The American genocide was worse than Stalin's. About 90% of the native population was killed by disease. Before colonisation, explorers sailing up the east cost of North America reported it to be thick with native settlements, grey with smoke from cooking fires for the entire length of the coast. By the time English settlers arrived, it was almost empty. Disease from southern (Spanish) conquest swept up the coast in waves, killing off millions.

      That doesn't make Stalin's genocide any less. Nor the invasion of Ukraine any less of an invasion. Nor the violation of the Budapest Memorandum any less of a violation.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    5. Re:Propaganda much? by Arker · · Score: 1

      I wasnt there and and I dont believe you were either. Standard sources seem to disagree with you a bit. The Tatars were more widespread before the Communist terror, but Crimea was still significantly ethnically Russian long before that.

      And I have no need to apologize for Putin. He's a brutal criminal. But he's a brutal criminal that at least seems to have a good idea of his own nations interests and pursues that and for the most part avoids working directly counter to it. It would be nice if our own 'leaders' could do that as well.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:Propaganda much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points. I really do.

    7. Re:Propaganda much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know history. Guess you must be American.

      Have you heard of the Crimean war? Russia fought over Crimea against the British, French and Ottoman Empire in the 1800s.

      They have owned it ever since until it was given to Ukraine when Ukraine was part of the USSR.

  40. Stupid is as stupid does.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Going to the moon is expensive AND pointless. You have to do everything you do in Earth orbit, but it has to happen farther away from safety and at the bottom of a gravity well. There's absolutely nothing of value on the moon that couldn't be gotten cheaper by snagging bits off of a water bearing comet, or bringing that same water or up from Earth, for that matter, or mining a few local asteroids in-situ.

    Look, gravity is *bad* and expensive. You don't go looking for it. You simulate it a bit with centrifugal force when necessary, but that's all.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, there's nothing in space that doesn't already exist on Earth. You started off strong with "going to the Moon is pointless", but then you went off into la-la land with the comet nonsense. Psst, 75% of the surface of the Earth is water! And it's DEEP!

    2. Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Going to the moon is expensive AND pointless. You have to do everything you do in Earth orbit, but it has to happen farther away from safety and at the bottom of a gravity well. There's absolutely nothing of value on the moon that couldn't be gotten cheaper by snagging bits off of a water bearing comet, or bringing that same water or up from Earth, for that matter, or mining a few local asteroids in-situ.

      Look, gravity is *bad* and expensive. You don't go looking for it. You simulate it a bit with centrifugal force when necessary, but that's all.

      Keep in mind that all the exploration of the Moon so far is like taking a detailed analysis of a single grain of sand from a beach and declaring that 'nothing of value is on Earth.' We haven't come close to any statistically meaningful samples yet.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Helium 3 is up there. I think that's the isotope that's supposed to be good for fusion.

      Besides that, all the talk of going to Mars IMO is a silly and dangerous technological leap. Right now, the most isolated humans who've ever lived (not traveled) in space are a day away from rescue. Lets deal with the challenges of setting up shop somewhere slightly more remote before building a Pluto base (kidding). It's far more feasible to pull off and would probably lead to permanent settlements. As it is, going to Mars would equate to the "pride rides" the Apollo shots were.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Helium 3 is up there. I think that's the isotope that's supposed to be good for fusion.

      Helium-3 fusion is more difficult than deuterium fusion, so we'll likely have deuterium fusion first. One of the waste products of deuterium fusion is He3; and you can increase production artificially by adding lithium linings to deuterium fusion reactors. OTOH, the amount of He3 in the lunar soil is infinitesimal. It will always be vastly cheaper to produce it artificially on Earth. Hell, it's probably cheaper to produce it artificially in deuterium reactors on the moon, than it would be to mining it from lunar regolith.

      Moreso, once we have any kind of fusion, the whole economics of space development could change. For example, we have no idea if the same fusion technology would allow cheap fusion rockets, etc. So trying to justify a development today by predicting a development in 20 or 50 years, is foolish.

      Helium-3 mining is a stupid reason to go to the moon, it just makes space-advocates look like idiots.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    5. Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because going after a comet that (if you're lucky) traverses the entire solar system is definitely safer than going to something that stays a very predictable distance from home, which we were able to model and complete with 1960s computing resources that now fit in a wrist watch.

    6. Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... by Sciath · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't put anything beyond serious Russian considerations. Mastering the resource of space means more to some countries other than purely costs. The U.S. wasn't overly concerned about cost when the threat of Russian strategy became apparent with Sputnik and the subsequent launching of the first animal (dog) and human into orbit. LEO, LaGrange points and the moon all have strategic value depending upon one's purposes. We should remember that Russia (and China) have languished in the technological shadow if the West for decades and have an axe to grind. The Russians want to recapture their perceived and deserved Russian "glories" that would ultimately demonstrate they are THE superior global power. And with their growing (although corrupt) economy and military strength they would love nothing more than to show the world again they can be a technological (and dominant) power. And what better way than to establish a permanent presence on the moon? China won't be far behind with their financial resources. The irony of a previously (and still) communist country, Russia (China) to take the "leaders of the free world" into orbit is something they relish. Some things are worth more than money. And the Russians (and China) are now in a position to afford such extravagances. Thanks of course to our patriotic free-market (originally) western based enterprises that no longer hold any allegiances to anything but profit.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    7. Re:Stupid is as stupid does.... by cusco · · Score: 1

      All the astronauts combined managed to cover an area smaller than Manhattan Island. For anyone to declare that we know all about the moon is absurd, but that won't stop the anti-space nutters. They're convinced that we'll never get off this planet because there is absolutely nothing else in the entire Universe that could possible be of interest. I suspect that my ancestors' neighbors said something similar when they left the farm in Cornwall for the wilds of the Vermont frontier.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  41. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    Posting in order to undo 'insightful' mod.

  42. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coward. Did you get a call from Space Nutter central or something? "Oh no, someone is making fun of our religion!"

  43. Fine by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    As long as the commander is named Koenig...

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  44. Old news? by jonyen · · Score: 1

    Looks like Russia's been thinking about a moon base for a couple of years now: http://www.wired.com/2012/03/r...

  45. In Russia, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin moons you!

  46. A human base on the moon by Dollyknot · · Score: 2
    Perhaps they have read my work. From http://dollyknot.com/nonlinear...
    How do we get the whole thing off the ground?

    I read of a beautiful idea in a scientific magazine called Omni. It suggested the use of virtual reality systems to control robots on the moon. This would enable us to build the first colony more efficiently because robots need only raw energy. We send a rocket to the moon, on the rocket we put machine tools and intelligent systems, with which can build both more machinery and the necessary superstructure to house a biosphere. We now have the ability to use our hands at a distance.

    The high cost to the human race's colonisation of space, is caused by the complexity and danger of reaching and leaving escape velocity within the earth's atmosphere whilst carrying the fuel up from the earth's surface with which to do so.

    The Space Shuttle turned out to be an expensive dangerous white elephant, the reason the Shuttle was so expensive is, because of its complexity with millions of different manufactured parts. There is another route, we can reach the edge of space no problem Burt Rutan proved this with Space Ship one, when he won the 'X' prize by reaching over 100 km twice in one week. Yes the Shuttle was 'reusable' but in name only. They could not have turned that around in a week. One idea could be to create rocket fuel on the moon, there is lots of water on the moon, use solar energy to split the moon's water into hydrogen and oxygen which makes very good rocket fuel. Use the rocket fuel to fuel a space tug, use the space tug to accelerate and decelerate Space Ship One, to and from escape velocity in the safety of a vacuum.

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  47. The Second Moon Race? by macson_g · · Score: 1

    With the CWII (Cold War 2) approaching, we may as well see a second moon race.

  48. Why the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard, many years ago, some person from NASA talk on a radio show. He was talking about making a trip to Mars.

    He noted that some people ask why they focus on Mars rather than the moon. He said that Mars had some resources. Its atmosphere helps to protect the surface, and some smart people may figure out how to create useful chemical reactions (that might create oceans worth of water, or to start harvesting energy that can be useful for a later trip, etc.)

    The moon, on the other hand, is just a big rock. It doesn't even have an atmosphere (useful on Earth for breathing, but even other planets benefit from being able to burn up meteors). There weren't any substantial resources that made a moon base desirable. In fact, the moon had gravity, which would attract more meteors. So, the moon base would need to defend itself from space junk, or the base would need to move out of the way.

    In contrast, the International Space Station is much lighter weight, so it doesn't attract asteroids as much as the moon (or Earth), and if there was an incoming threat, then moving the Space Station out of the way (of whatever is coming at it) requires less effort/energy.

    So, if we want to build more in space, we could build more (space stations). However, there just wasn't much compelling case to make those space stations lunar (placed on the moon).

    So, uh, why are the Russians now suggesting that they want to invest in creating space stations that are located.... on the moon? Did further years of research suggest this NASA guy was on crack (or maybe my vague memory's recollection is), or is it just that Russia Federal Space Agency thinks their way of doing things is just smarter than America's NASA?

  49. Can't Build a Moonbase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without a Death Star.

  50. Putin's cover is officially blown... by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

    It's becomming more and more clear that he's an actual supervillan. Does he have a white cat?

  51. Does not Computin... by fey000 · · Score: 2

    In communist Russia, base moons you!

  52. Just what is needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good old-fashioned cold-war era space race to kick us in the butt and get our space program working again! I'm all for it!

  53. Cheap snipe at Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cheap snipe at Russia is rather pathetic, since it is not what the article is about. At least, unlike in Kosovo, the Russians actually bothered to have a referendum - even though it was pretty obvious what a majority Russian speaking population was going to decide, when all of their street signs have been switched to Ukrainian, nazi factions who killed so many Russians during WW2 have unconstitutionally seized power, and Russian speaking TV has been shut down.
    If this happened in your country, would you not be pretty irritated about a belligerent totalitarian regime, like the United States supporting a coup.

  54. new moon republic - part of soviet union :) by geroy · · Score: 1

    Putin just wait moon people to declare independance and he will deploy russian agents on the moon :)

  55. Hardly by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    They had no choice economically. None of the former states could have afforded to maintain them - then what?

    Besides, while most of those former states are stable , Georgia and now Ukraine no longer are. Can you imagine nuclear weapons being added to the mix? The fewer countries that have them the better , and if thats unfair thats just tough luck. The future of humanity trumps individual nations pissing contests.

    1. Re:Hardly by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Neither Georgia nor Ukraine were stable in first place. In fact, except for Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus and maybe Kazakhstan and Russia. All the other former Soviet republics are unstable.

      Ukraine was divided and restless since 1991 and has been a failed state for years. Georgia had a civil war in early nineties and all the war in 2008 was basically a continuation of it. Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other's guts for many reasons, Uzbekistan had the Andijan massacre, Tajikistan had a civil war for years, Kyrgyzstan had a revolution four years ago, Turkmenistan is like North Korea except for natural gas, and Moldova is divided between lesser Romania and Transnistria after the civil war in the nineties.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  56. Costs And Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For the cost of the US Iraq War (Part II) alone, NASA could have sent a manned mission to mars. Four times.

    If Russia can avoid a trillion dollar boondoggle in Ukraine, they might just be able to afford it, given the relative cost differential between lunar and martian missions.

    Just saying.

  57. Personnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, can we look forward to the moon base being staffed by more of Putin's ski-mask-wearing goon-thugs, like eastern Ukraine?

    1. Re:Personnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would that be a moon base any other way ? :)

  58. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Engineering limits, like it being impossible for man to fly? Like it being impossible to travel faster than sound? Like it being impossible to exit the atmosphere and orbit? Like it being impossible to live through long-duration spaceflight?

    The instant you say "impossible" or "never" you are wrong.

  59. Re:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress comes to reality.. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Just because he thinks you're an idiot doesn't necessarily mean he disagrees with what you said. Even a broken clock is right once a day, maybe he thinks you were just an idiot who happened to be right?

    --
    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...
  60. Resist! Join the protest! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

    To demonstrate opposition to this scheme, the moon will go dark tonight (Monday) for a few hours around midnight. Get out and show your solidarity by staring at the dark of the moon!

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  61. They can't afford it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the same Russia with a GDP slightly higher than Canada and a GDP per capita slightly higher than Mexico? Just checking.

  62. Oh I see, portyanki are modding today by temcat · · Score: 1

    And no, there's no "-1 Disagree" mod option.

    1. Re:Oh I see, portyanki are modding today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? No, you are just stupid, that's why.

    2. Re:Oh I see, portyanki are modding today by temcat · · Score: 1

      No such option either, you asshole.

  63. Good. by azav · · Score: 1

    Let them spend the money.

    Neil Armstrong feels the same way.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  64. Russky moon base by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    It's better they take over the moon than even one more country!

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  65. Sell to North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My country almost got the deal to sell nuclear waste to NK. It'd have succeeded and solved all waste problem, had you idiots not blocked it.

    But we're a small country. If US starts doing this I'm sure everyone would applaud and follow.

    Nuclear waste for food!

  66. Lunokhod looks awesome by Boronx · · Score: 1

    Please, Russia, keep the style of this lunar rover.

  67. Russian lies and excuses by gay358 · · Score: 1

    I think it was treaty between countries instead of cabinets. Even if the cabinet changes, that should not affect the treaty in any way. And even if there wouldn't be that treaty, annexing parts of other country like that, is illegal.

    Almost anything that you heard from Putin or his followers is a outright lie, bad excuse or distortion. Like the lie that it is not his soldiers operating in unmarked uniforms in Crimea or that they have reduced the the number of soldiers on border, waiting to attack Ukraine.

    And there was very little threat against Russians speakers in Ukraine. Protecting them was just another excuse. And now Putin is on purpose causing those troubles in eastern parts of Ukraine. Russia is instruction Russian citizens how to go eastern Ukraine an without causing suspicions and then how to get a weapon there, uniform etc.

  68. The universe does not need us.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ....so what's the point of making huge investments to ensure that mankind continues on some other planet? On the flip side, billions of humans on earth need food, shelter, clean water, and education right fucking now. Once we get our house in order I could see wasting a few trillion dollars on a cosmic vanity project, but not until then.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:The universe does not need us.... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > On the flip side, billions of humans on earth need food, shelter, clean water, and education right fucking now. Once we get our house in order I could see wasting a few trillion dollars on a cosmic vanity project, but not until then.

      --The thing is though, we have had THOUSANDS OF YEARS to "get our house in order", and things are as bad (or worse) as they have ever been. We deserve a chance to start over in a new territory at this point. Charles Sheffield has some good stories that illustrate why doing this is a Good Idea, if you're interested.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    2. Re:The universe does not need us.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      Have not heard of Sheffield, will check him out. I'm not sure I buy the "fresh start" framing. No matter how far we travel, I expect a lot of cultural baggage will come with us, and a lot of our irrational behavior is hard-wired into our brains. But I'm kinda cynical.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    3. Re:The universe does not need us.... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Good on ya. Try Sheffield's " Between The Strokes of Night " to start with. I do tend to agree with you to a certain extent on the cultural baggage, but hopefully that can be mitigated with determination and education.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    4. Re:The universe does not need us.... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "No matter how far we travel, I expect a lot of cultural baggage will come with us, and a lot of our irrational behavior is hard-wired into our brains."

      Futuristic combat story tellers would agree with you. You might try David Drake. His own story is interesting, and his Hammer's Slammers stories were written as a sort of rehabilitation. There are a lot of Slammer's stories - you might like to start with Redliners.

      http://david-drake.com/tag/red...

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  69. What will force the U.S. to admit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That they have had a moon base in operation since the late 1980's. If Russia or China actually make it to the moon and try to create a permanent base the U.S. will, at some point, have to admit that they have been there for quite some time and do not welcome neighbors.

  70. In the Ukraine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, given Russia's resurgent ambitions of Empire, who thinks that this is a good idea?

  71. US economy sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US economy crashes and comes back again and again. It really sucks.

  72. Crimea, Kosovo & Srpska by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Or better example - Kosovo. There was no vote there either - Albanians just moved in & possessed it, and the US supported them & bombed Serbia over Kosovo, and finally recognized its independence. What Russia did in Crimea was a lot more legit than what the West supported in Kosovo.

    At the same time, 'self-determination', which is so important for the Albanians, doesn't apply to Bosnian Serbs in Srpska.

  73. wtf dice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Submission: Russia Wants To establishing a permanent Moon base

    Is English your second language?

    Or have you outsourced editing submission headlines to Asia?

  74. a chance by Marquis231 · · Score: 1

    This is an opportunity for Russia to develop improved rocket technology, I would love to see them using a hydrogen-nuclear engine or even something like project Orion to achieve this. That would really blow smoke in the yanks faces.

  75. Ultima by Marquis231 · · Score: 1

    Also if the Russians want the moon they're going to have to barter for it back off Lord British :) Lunokhod 2

  76. Obligatory Gerry Anderson reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There could be a Commander Gorsky after all, but he may not look like the late Phil Madoc in the day. It will appear more like the COBATEK operation where the moontruck operators act drunk while their vehicle approaches yet another moonbase.

    UFO and Space:1999 references in one shot.

  77. It was the best of times,it was the worst of times by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    "I read in Lunaya Pravda today that Luna City Council passed on first reading measure to license, regulate -- and tax -- food vendors operating inside municipal pressure." That from memory. How'd I do?

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.