Russia Begins Work On a Lunar Lander (examiner.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Begins Work On a Lunar Lander (examiner.com)

Posted by timothy on Wednesday February 3, 2016 @11:27AM from the voting-for-trump-by-proxy dept.

MarkWhittington writes: Whether and when Russia will try to send cosmonauts to the moon is an open question. The Putin government has heavily slashed spending on the Russian space program, a measure brought on by declining oil and gas revenues. But, as Popular Mechanics reports, Russian engineers have gone ahead and have started to design a lunar lander for the eventual Russian lunar surface effort. When money is going to be forthcoming for such a vehicle is unknown, though Russia could partner with another country with lunar ambitions, such as China or the European Union.

93 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

well by N3wsByt3 · 2016-02-03 11:31 · Score: 2

I, for one, hail our Russian Mooning Overlords!

--
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
1. Re: well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Is the earth flat yet
2. Re:well by mrbcs · 2016-02-03 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Do they have the sound stage yet?
  
  --
  I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
3. Re:well by Required+Snark · 2016-02-03 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  In space, no one can hear your scream.
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
4. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  I for one, don't need that image in my head.
5. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, mooning?
Obama's space policy by amightywind · 2016-02-03 11:33 · Score: -1, Troll

It is all important that the US resume plan put forward by President Bush so that the US can dominate colonization of the moon. Let the other countries realize they are in competition. Aren't you all tired yet of the bed-wetter Obama's space policy?

--
an ill wind that blows no good
1. Re:Obama's space policy by SpaceDave · 2016-02-03 11:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Obama's policy may be uninspiring but that's still an improvement over Bush's plan which was untenable.
  A better option would be to have an inspiring goal (eg return to the Moon or go to Mars) but with a public-private funding model. The age of large-scale government-only space projects such as the Bush proposal are no longer feasible. Meanwhile we have a burgeoning private space industry that can make significant, cost-effective contributions.
2. Re:Obama's space policy by SpaceDave · 2016-02-03 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  I really wish there was a way to edit your comment after you've posted it, just to fix mistakes. Sorry but I'm blind to grammatical errors when I preview. I can only see them after I've posted.
3. Re:Obama's space policy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 11:56 · Score: -1
  
  Do you pay taxes motherfucker?
4. Re:Obama's space policy by amightywind · 2016-02-03 11:59 · Score: -1
  
  Last year I paid $35K in Federal Taxes. For that I get roads...
  
  --
  an ill wind that blows no good
5. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-03 12:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The other option is to not send redundant bags of meat into space. These days it makes just as much sense to send a pineapple or a meerkat as it does to send humans: none of the features of a human are particularly useful in the vacuum of space or near vacuum on Mars. Better to send a robot or bunch of robots specifically designed to achieve whatever the particular aims we have for that mission.
6. Re: Obama's space policy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  Tell the kock bros to pay you more and you will make to clean up when you move from one of them to the other. Blowhard, you are a real fucking idiot when it comes to space. You want us to continue wasting money on lockheed just so that losers like you have a job.
7. Re: Obama's space policy by zenlessyank · 2016-02-03 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Meatbags will provide a sacrificial symbol AND a nice snack for our incoming alien overlords. Stop being selfish.
8. Re: Obama's space policy by Marquis231 · 2016-02-03 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration. I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care. One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
9. Re: Obama's space policy by tringhia1991 · 2016-02-03 18:23 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, I think so. Thanks steel structure and pre-engineered buildings
  
  --
  steel structure and
10. Re: Obama's space policy by thinkwaitfast · 2016-02-03 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  But astronaut will be the only job in the future. Robots will take all of our other jobs here on Earth. Only humans can explore and do science in person. Because it's what we do. Or something.
11. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-03 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  Won't somebody think of the alien overlords?!?
12. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-03 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration.
  Not seeing any evidence that that is true,
  
  I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care.
  I haven't seen a man swallow a pinecone either. Not sure that that creates a compelling reason for anyone to take up pinecone swallowing. From my perspective, I'd rather we went exploring - sent a robotic sub to the oceans of titan, or drilling into icy crust of europa. If I want to see a glorified meat van, I'd bling up the butchers ute.
  
  One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
  Now robots take those leaps on our behalf.
13. Re: Obama's space policy by taylorius · 2016-02-03 22:37 · Score: 2
  
  Humans aren't particularly well suited to the summit of Mount Everest either. Instead of trying to climb it, we should just send an ice climbing robot to reach the summit. It can chemically analyse the ice, and tell us how cold it is - mission accomplished!
14. Re: Obama's space policy by Max_W · 2016-02-03 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is true. However, there should be a development of a technology to live on other planets, otherwise the humanity would be too vulnerable in case of an asteroid impact. What may and will happen sooner or later.
15. Re: Obama's space policy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  Bags of meat? We no of no more remarkable organo-electro-mechanical device in the universe than homo sapiens. And we know of no better specimens of homo sapiens than Americans. Minor environmental requirements are no impediment for going to the moon.
16. Re: Obama's space policy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Humans aren't particularly well suited to the summit of Mount Everest either. Instead of trying to climb it, we should just send an ice climbing robot to reach the summit. It can chemically analyse the ice, and tell us how cold it is - mission accomplished!
  People climbing Mount Everest usually aren't financed by tax money. People can make tasks harder on themselves as much as they like as long as they pay for it themselves. Space missions are funded with tax money, which makes it a legal issue if they spend much more money than they have to in order to accomplish a certain mission. Usually politicians have no problem passing new laws allowing wastefulness in order to gain country scale phall... errr status symbols.
17. Re: Obama's space policy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Mate, I think you miss the point of exploration.
  Not seeing any evidence that that is true,
  
  I for one hope they find the money to fund this effort sooner rather than later, I've not yet seen a man set foot on the moon in my lifetime (born in 1990) and be it the Russians or the Chinese I don't particularly care.
  I haven't seen a man swallow a pinecone either. Not sure that that creates a compelling reason for anyone to take up pinecone swallowing.
  From my perspective, I'd rather we went exploring - sent a robotic sub to the oceans of titan, or drilling into icy crust of europa. If I want to see a glorified meat van, I'd bling up the butchers ute.
  
  One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
  Now robots take those leaps on our behalf.
  Have you hugged your robot lately? OP refers to the thrill of exploration. Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level - thanks evolution! "Fun" I think, is the operative word, although many on both sides of the issue would lift their noses at the very suggestion of such an emotion - how politically incorrect (*sniff)!
18. Re: Obama's space policy by dmaul99 · 2016-02-04 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Spain, 1492 - members of the public argued against organizing and achieving the treacherous and expensive journey filled with monumental and unknown dangers it would take to cross the ocean for unknown payoff. Instead they argued to send pigeons and donkeys because that made much more sense.
  That's exactly what that comment will sound like in 500 years. Congrats!
19. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-04 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Analogy fail.
  A better analogy would be: because exploring had always previously been done on foot, in 1492 funds that would have been put into exploring by boat were instead spent on developing means to extend the distance that could be travelled by foot, including long poles that allowed explorers to cross bodies of water by walking on the bottom. Of course, the scale of the atlantic overwhelmed this mode of travel, so exploring was confined to well known spots that were easily reachable, and had infact already been settled with and traded with by people in boats for thousands of years. Nevertheless the long pole walkists looked down and mocked those who dared suggest that boats may in fact represent a superior technology and the notion of that exploring required one to travel by foot was impractical, dangerous, faintly ridiculous, and meant that no real exploring was even happening.
20. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-04 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  When Mt Everest was first climbed the summit could not be practically approached by any means other than by foot. These days nobody climbs Mt Everest pretending that doing so is somehow on behalf of humanity and serving to advance humanity. It's the personal challenge. Notably, they would refrain from taking a machine most of the way to the summit and then walking the last 10 metres to the top, and then pretend that they (rather than the machine) did all the work.
  If the personal challenge of going to Mars inspires you, all power to you. But for this to be an Everest style challenge, you'll need to walk there. Riding there in a machine is cheating. It's the machine (and the guys who designed, tested and built it) that did all the work, so from a "summit Everest" perspective, it's those guys who get the credit and the kudos.
21. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-04 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Have you hugged your robot lately? OP refers to the thrill of exploration.
  You weren't thrilled when Huygens plunged through the clouds of Titan and landed on the surface? You weren't thrilled by the recent flyby of Pluto? What's wrong with you?
  
  Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level - thanks evolution! "Fun" I think, is the operative word, although many on both sides of the issue would lift their noses at the very suggestion of such an emotion - how politically incorrect (*sniff)!
  You've arbitrarily constrained exploring to requiring the actual explorer to cart along a bag of meat. This constraint is bizarre- why not replace the bag of meat with a pineapple? It's not exploring unless you carry along a pineapple, with a robotic arm to hurl out the pineapple and a recording that says "THERE! Now the pineapple has set foot on this (arbitrarily defined) surface, this planet/moon is EXPLORED!"
  Your constraint means the end of exploration, because exploration will be confined to the places where technology allows robots to carry us bags of meat. This means, in practical terms, we will never explore and further than perhaps Mars or Venus.
22. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-04 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Neither the Mars nor the Moon are actually inhabitable.
  To the extent that if an asteroid impacts the Earth, you are better off on Earth than on Mars or the moon. If a serious asteroid impact were even likely.
23. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-04 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Bags of meat? We no of no more remarkable organo-electro-mechanical device in the universe than homo sapiens.
  On the earth perhaps. In space, they just float about helplessly. If actually exposed to the harsh realities of space or another planetary surface, they die. The most remarkable part of a human (the brain) should tell you that sending humans to space when robots are already better adapted, in every way, is ridiculous.
24. Re: Obama's space policy by Max_W · 2016-02-04 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  It is absolutely possible. Any moment. Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  It was a relatively small meteor, but bigger asteroids repeatedly hit the Earth, and it will happen again. There is no doubt of it, the question is when.
  
  Plants do not need oxygen at all, it is even poisonous for them in a way. In principle, they may turn a planet without oxygen into a habitable planet. But this technology does not exist yet.
25. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-04 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  It is absolutely possible. Any moment. Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  It was a relatively small meteor, but bigger asteroids repeatedly hit the Earth, and it will happen again. There is no doubt of it, the question is when.
  No - the question is, if such an asteroid struck the earth, would the Earth be less habitable than Mars?
  
  Plants do not need oxygen at all, it is even poisonous for them in a way.
  Plants die in a vacuum. Humans also die in a vacuum.
  
  In principle, they may turn a planet without oxygen into a habitable planet. But this technology does not exist yet.
  The maths is relatively straightforward:
  Now:
  Earth: Habitable
  Mars: Inhabitable
  [Earth gets Struck by an Asteroid]
  Earth: Habitable
  Mars: Inhabitable
26. Re: Obama's space policy by taylorius · 2016-02-04 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, whether Everest is a solo achievement or a team effort, achieved using machines or just muscle power, is not relevant, The point is that the utility of sending robots to Mars, even really good ones, is limited to the scientific information they can transmit back to us. This info could be valuable, but it's value is vanishingly insignificant, compared to the value of our becoming a multi planetary species. We may be fleshy meat bags, but we're the ones that do things, and we do them mostly for ourselves.
  Sending a robot ahead, to prepare the ground, build some infrastructure - now that's a good idea, but it's only a precursor to people making the trip.
27. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-04 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, whether Everest is a solo achievement or a team effort, achieved using machines or just muscle power, is not relevant,
  Strange. First you said that Climbing Everest was analogous to a robot carrying a meat bag to Mars - but now when we have looked a bit closer, it appears that it isn't.
  
  The point is that the utility of sending robots to Mars, even really good ones, is limited to the scientific information they can transmit back to us.
  Which is, to date, the only objective reason anybody has given as to why we (our agents) should go to Mars.
  
  This info could be valuable, but it's value is vanishingly insignificant, compared to the value of our becoming a multi planetary species.
  But "becoming a interplanetary species" has no objective value. You might believe it does, but the value is based on religious belief.
  
  We may be fleshy meat bags, but we're the ones that do things
  Crap.
  Have we ever dived into the Jovian atmosphere? Got inside the orbit of Venus to grab nasty solar particles? Landed on Titan? Snapped pictures of Pluto? Left the solar system?
  We've done none of those things, because in fact it makes no objective sense for us to do them when robots can do them better, and faster, and cheaper, and more reliably. Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing, like suggesting that the only "true" music is accapella, musical instruments are a tool of the devil, or that real farmers dig in the soil with their hands: plowing with steel behind a tractor is not "true" farming. It is just a doctrine with no basis in reality.
  
  Sending a robot ahead, to prepare the ground, build some infrastructure - now that's a good idea, but it's only a precursor to people making the trip.
  Spare us your religious diatribes. You don't decide on our behalf, what constitutes our destiny.
28. Re: Obama's space policy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  "Your constraint means the end of exploration, because exploration will be confined to the places where technology allows robots to carry us bags of meat. This means, in practical terms, we will never explore and further than perhaps Mars or Venus."
  I have no such constraint: "...and I support their ongoing use to be sure". Yes, I was thrilled by Huygens, and as for New Horizons my name is on the onboard disc. To say that I am an unconstrained Star Trek fan would be closer to the truth - which, in fiction launched a LOT of probes. Indeed, I would state: Let's launch even more probes, in reality! And people - it's not an either/or world.
29. Re: Obama's space policy by RockDoctor · 2016-02-04 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's a job for the incoming, meatbag-eating alien overlords.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
30. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-05 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  I have no such constraint: "...and I support their ongoing use to be sure". Yes, I was thrilled by Huygens, and as for New Horizons my name is on the onboard disc.
  But before you implied that robotic exploration was "not really" exploring:
  OP refers to the thrill of exploration. Robot craft are interesting and useful, and I support their ongoing use to be sure - but the explorer's urge is deeply ingrained in (most of) us, at a very personal level
  How does 2 or 3 people going to Mars or the Moon satisfy an urge deeply ingrained in (most of) us ? It seems for the vast, vast majority of the human race the experience is the same regardless of whether warm bodies are present.
31. Re: Obama's space policy by taylorius · 2016-02-06 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  " Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing,"
  That would indeed be embarrassing, however it's not remotely what I'm saying. You seem obsessed with the idea of humans doing things using their own muscles. Once again - that is irrelevant, and nothing to do with my point.
  As you say, we haven't yet dived into the Jovian atmosphere, or landed on Titan. But that's because it's technically easier to send a specially designed robot to those places, than a person. However, given the requisite technical know how, sending a person is highly desirable.
  "Spare us your religious diatribes. You don't decide on our behalf, what constitutes our destiny."
  I can only think that you have utterly misunderstood what I have been saying. You seem unaccountably angry, so tell me this. Do you think that humans becoming a multi planetary species is NOT to be desired?
32. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-06 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  " Insisting that meat bags must, under their own strength travel around space in order for space travel to be valid is faintly embarrassing,"
  That would indeed be embarrassing, however it's not remotely what I'm saying. You seem obsessed with the idea of humans doing things using their own muscles. Once again - that is irrelevant, and nothing to do with my point.
  If humans aren't using their muscles, then there must be a machine doing the work. This immediately raises the question - if the machine is doing the work (propelling forward, changing direction, communicating with Earth etc etc) what exactly is the human doing? If, after years of thinking about it, we can't think of ONE thing that humans do in space that isn't easier and cheaper to do with a machine, why does the machine that goes to space and already performs all the actual functions have to cart a human about?
  
  As you say, we haven't yet dived into the Jovian atmosphere, or landed on Titan. But that's because it's technically easier to send a specially designed robot to those places, than a person. However, given the requisite technical know how, sending a person is highly desirable.
  Why would it be desirable for a human to dive into the Jovian atmosphere? If you were planning a craft that was going to Titan, what is the compelling reason to send a human plus the tons of required food/survival machines instead of just sending tons more machines? What function would the human perform on Titan that is not better served by a machine?
  
  "Spare us your religious diatribes. You don't decide on our behalf, what constitutes our destiny."
  I can only think that you have utterly misunderstood what I have been saying. You seem unaccountably angry, so tell me this. Do you think that humans becoming a multi planetary species is NOT to be desired?
  I've already said:But "becoming a interplanetary species" has no objective value. You might believe it does, but the value is based on religious belief.
33. Re: Obama's space policy by taylorius · 2016-02-09 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  If humans aren't using their muscles, then there must be a machine doing the work. This immediately raises the question - if the machine is doing the work (propelling forward, changing direction, communicating with Earth etc etc) what exactly is the human doing? If, after years of thinking about it, we can't think of ONE thing that humans do in space that isn't easier and cheaper to do with a machine, why does the machine that goes to space and already performs all the actual functions have to cart a human about?
  Unless you've time traveled back from the year 3000, your estimates of the capabilities of robots is WAY too high. Did we send a robot up to repair the Hubble space telescope? No. I grant you that robots can be better suited to survival in space, but they are LIMITED in what they can do, in terms of achieving things once they are there.. In a general problem solving situation they cannot hope to match the flexibility of a person,( and remote tele-operation does not solve this). Now granted, that's using today's technology - but I would argue that developing tech. to send a human to mars will be realised MUCH sooner than tech. to develop a robot capable of matching a human/s dexterity, thinking etc.
  
  What function would the human perform on Titan that is not better served by a machine?
  People are quite robust - not to the environment of outer space, but in the sense that they can think around problems, and repurpose things. If you're remotely operating some device, you're always at the mercy of your sensors, transmitters, and whatever manipulators you put on the thing. It's a really a brittle setup.
  
  I've already said:But "becoming a interplanetary species" has no objective value. You might believe it does, but the value is based on religious belief.
  . Did the Europeans colonising America have "no objective value"? They didn't just send a few robots over to measure some stuff, they went and colonised, and it changed the world. What makes you think that the same wouldn't be the case with another planet (Mars)? Now - you might argue that you could colonise purely with a society of robots - but those are sci-fi robots, nothing like the robots of today. The tech for your fantasy robots is an order of magnitude further away that the tech. for sending a person to Mars. As for your unshakable faith in their performance, well - what was that you were saying about religious belief?
34. Re: Obama's space policy by KeensMustard · 2016-02-09 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you've time traveled back from the year 3000, your estimates of the capabilities of robots is WAY too high.
  My estimate of robot capability is based on what could be achieved if we spent a fraction of what it would cost to send a human.
  
  Did we send a robot up to repair the Hubble space telescope?
  Would we send a robot NOW, rather than a human? Probably.
  
  In a general problem solving situation they cannot hope to match the flexibility of a person,( and remote tele-operation does not solve this). Now granted, that's using today's technology - but I would argue that developing tech. to send a human to mars will be realised MUCH sooner than tech. to develop a robot capable of matching a human/s dexterity, thinking etc.
  Generally speaking, humans need to solve more problems because the systems need to sustain them tend to be far more complex than the systems need to sustain a machine. How many problems does a hammer need to solve - just the one. It doesn't ever have problems with it's life support, or running ut of food, or getting bored.
  
  People are quite robust
  Nope - people are inherently fragile - in body and mind.
  
  Did the Europeans colonising America have "no objective value"?
  The Americas were already colonised - so over all, a net zero value.
Another benefit of low crude pricing by rmdingler · 2016-02-03 11:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's important to Russia to matter. Putin's goal is to continue to advance the self worth of a nation on its heels from the dissolution of a superpower.
This is good, because it opens up opportunities for cooperation with the proud Russian people that might not have existed at 80 Euro oil.
The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by MightyMartian · 2016-02-03 11:53 · Score: -1
  
  Whatever Putin's goals, or the Russian peoples' desires, the fact that the United States seems to view China as a greater long-term strategic challenge says it all about Russia's diminishing place in the upper rungs of geopolitical influence. Yes it has nukes, and when energy prices are high, it has money, though it suffers such extremes of corruption that a goodly amount of that money ends up in Western Europe and North America in the form of property being bought up by the oligarchs to protect themselves from the inevitable collapse of Putin's regime and the Russian economy. Not even they have any confidence in Russia in the long term.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by rtb61 · 2016-02-03 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  With a growing Russia China partnership, you claim seems pretty silly. Now guess why China abandoned the one child policy, hmm, now where can those extra Chinese citizens migrate to, to solidify a particular partnership, where could extra expertise come from to, hmm, spice up the population of China and get it advancing (Americans are such slow and shallow thinkers, multiculturalism produces quite significant social advantages and you quite readily seem to forget that).
  So making public the lander without discussing the launch system (by the way currently the far greater cost), hmm, suggestive of a new launch system which provides a significant advantage over the current system in terms of cost and payload. There is talk of a full fledged moon base and that means shifting tons and tons of material into space and onto the moon.
  Look at the crap state of our planet with people existing in all stages of social development. You have hugely chaotic, destructive and genocidal attempts being taken to advance the entire species, really quite stupid stuff. Want a new world order, the only way to do it is on a new world, trying to do it on an existing one and total collapse is inevitable with endless conflict or species extinction guaranteed. A new world order, requires a new world and you would need to pass a quite comprehensive test in order fly. Just Leave the earth to wallow in primitiveness, a theme park for holidays, for those that can stomach the chaos ;D (they want to be that way, just leave and let them be that way).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
3. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by rmdingler · 2016-02-03 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  I think you're onto something, but the Chinese are going to play and partner with the Americans, and by extension Western Europe.
  Trade with the Australians is virtually guaranteed by the ChAFTA treaty, but the Russians are too crooked even for the Chinese Industrialists. Expansion goes West.
  Nope. The two biggest economies stay that way in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Edward's destination would not be the 1st choice of very many who might be described by the prefix "sino-"
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
4. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by cavreader · 2016-02-03 13:31 · Score: -1
  
  "With a growing Russia China partnership"
  For Russia to partner with China would require them to become nothing more than a client state who takes what little scraps China is willing to throw their way.
5. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by bobbied · 2016-02-03 13:38 · Score: 2
  
  The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
  There are no life forms from other worlds that we will ever have to directly deal with. We know there is nothing within our solar system that is any danger to us. Interstellar space is too large and too hostile to life to make transport possible for any kind of life to get here or for us to get there, ever. So, your wish will never come to be.... Maybe we can stop hating, but I seriously doubt we are up to that.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
6. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by rmdingler · 2016-02-03 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
  There are no life forms from other worlds that we will ever have to directly deal with. We know there is nothing within our solar system that is any danger to us. Interstellar space is too large and too hostile to life to make transport possible for any kind of life to get here or for us to get there, ever. So, your wish will never come to be.... Maybe we can stop hating, but I seriously doubt we are up to that.
  Come on. We could stop hating instantly.
  We would simply have to give in to our innate sense of fairness and develop the ability to utilize our empathy skillset.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
7. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by rahvin112 · 2016-02-03 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Fortunately you are wrong. Interstellar travel could be possible with current technology, just the investment would be massive and the people picked to travel would likely be on a suicide mission. Don't discount the discovery of future technology. We know barely the basics of physics. Though interstellar travel is certainly difficult it is not impossible.
8. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by rahvin112 · 2016-02-03 14:13 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  They have a Napoleon complex. They want to be big and powerful, but they aren't anymore. When they were with their buddies in the Soviet Union they were big and powerful with a long reach, now they are pretty much landlocked Asian minor country.
  Sure they have some pretty cool weapons and capabilities as that goes but their economy is entirely natural resource based, their governments are corrupt and their private enterprise is non-existent. Destroying the market for their resources destroys their entire economy because they have not bothered to diversify mostly because they are entirely focused on trying to rebuild the status of the former soviet empire. Russia won't fix these problems until all the old KGB bosses are gone. As organized crime is heavily embedded into the culture at this point it would take decades to reduce their influence. Look at how long it's taken Italy to reduce the influence of La Costa Nostra.
  The single greatest threat to Russia is that the resources their entire economy is based on (Oil and Coal) are within 50 years going to be worthless. When that happens it will make the 90's look like a booming economy. But by the time it happens Putin will be dead and his progeny will be in Europe so he really doesn't care.
9. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by drinkypoo · 2016-02-03 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  While you're probably correct, making declarative statements about things you can't possibly know about because of your minuscule sphere of experience is a fool's game.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by Khomar · 2016-02-03 16:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The level of arrogance and ignorance in both your post and the grandparent would be astounding if it wasn't for the fact that it appears to be all-too-common. That "landlocked Asian minor country" has the largest coastline of any nation in the world. They are in the midst of rapid deployment of technologies to exploit the resources and opportunities of the arctic region including many new icebreakers in an effort to open a northern sea route (which may become very viable if the global warming predictions come true). Further, their current military campaign in Syria has proven remarkably effective, especially in contrast to the anemic actions of the United States and our western allies before they entered the conflict. They have demonstrated the capabilities of submarines being able to fire missiles while submerged to the effective use of some of their most modern fighters (as opposed to our failed F-35) and effective long range cruise missiles. They are growing increasingly capable while we appear to be stagnating.
  It should also be noted that Russia has been signing major deals with some of the world's largest nations at the same time that we seem to be alienating our friends here in the United States. Far from being a needy border-line-third-world-nation, Russia seems to be showing us up time and again. Twice now the United States in the past few years, the United States has been forced to back down when Russia asserted their will in Syria, and despite economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine, they have not backed down at all. A lot of talk has been made over how Russia has a shrinking cash reserve and yet everyone seems to forget that _they_actually_have_a_reserve. Further, their foreign debt is currently decreasing at the same time our national debt has just reached $19 trillion. When one considers that our proposed defense budget is as large at the combined total of the next 8 countries and yet we have a fighter that cannot fight and a high-tech destroyer that cannot float, I don't think we have much room at all to speak of Russian corruption (though it almost certainly exists).
  Given current trajectories, it seems to me that our country is more likely to face a future of irrelevancy than the Russians right now. Our press is very selective about what they cover, but reality has a nasty way of asserting itself and often in very painful ways.
  
  --
  I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
11. Re: Another benefit of low crude pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  Or simply kill all those we don't like. I prefer this option.
12. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  They are growing increasingly capable while we appear to be stagnating.
  said no military expert ever.
  Suggesting Russian military capabilities or tech is anywhere near the level of US or European levels is hilarious. Sure, tech wise they're doing an impressive job on the budget they have, but that's about it.
13. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-04 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's also worth noting that Russia can put humans in space, and the only other country with that capability is China. Chances are the next person to set foot on the moon will be Chinese or Russian, and the best hope the US has of getting to Mars first is Elon Musk.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
14. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  La Costa Nostra.
  Our coast?
15. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by bobbied · 2016-02-04 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't all that hard to understand. The environment of Space is deadly, it kills all life. You have to carry along a little bit of earth to make living in space possible and doing this long term, without resupply from earth is not possible. We may be able to move around in the Solar system and scavenge resources here and there, but interstellar space is generally huge and empty, devoid of all material. Think of it as a huge, bottomless void between solar systems, much like a moat isolated a castle, space isolates us.
  Then consider the distances. It's going to be a LONG way from here to even the closest habitable planet. And unless Einstein is wrong, we are going to be limited to the speed of light in or travels. A trip to and from the nearest neighbor solar system would take more than 20 years, and that was assuming nearly instant acceleration to cruising speed, which we know is never going to be true. Pioneer 1 took how long to get out of the solar system? Everybody on your interstellar craft will die of radiation exposure, the equipment that keeps them alive will fail, all long before the reach their destination.
  Then there is the inevitability of earth's demise. Like it or not, our little home is already slated for destruction and there is nothing we can do about it. Ultimately the solar system will die a "heat death" where entropy has increased all it can, but before that happens, our Sun will expand and fry our home to cinders in a *real* case of global warming. This is only a few million years away... We have until then (well before that our oceans will boil away and life will be extinguished on earth) to get someplace else to survive. I'm not holding out much hope of that, because I'm not sure we will manage to not wipe ourselves out willingly in the relatively near future...
  No, it's pretty clear to me. There is no intelligent life out there that matters to us, we are on our own and that seems unlikely to change.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
16. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by bobbied · 2016-02-04 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Oh it's impossible...
  I suppose Einstein might be wrong and we might discover a way to go faster than light, but until we have even a hint that there are cracks in the theory of relativity any ideas that we might be able to traverse the void of interstellar space and survive even one way is no more than wishful thinking. Even a one way trip will take to long and the environment of space will render the space craft junk and it's contents lifeless before they could possibly get to anyplace that can support life, much less have intelligent life.
  It's not hugely expensive, it's impossible. That it is expensive just makes the impossible all that much harder.
  Also, don't forget that there is a time limit here which is not that long considering. Eventually our Sun is going to grow and Earth will be inside it. The stop watch is ticking down. It may be a few million years, but it's going to put a hard stop on technological development, at least on earth.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
17. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by bobbied · 2016-02-04 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  The sooner we cease petty tribal conflicts here on earth, the sooner we can get on with hating life forms on other worlds.
  There are no life forms from other worlds that we will ever have to directly deal with. We know there is nothing within our solar system that is any danger to us. Interstellar space is too large and too hostile to life to make transport possible for any kind of life to get here or for us to get there, ever. So, your wish will never come to be.... Maybe we can stop hating, but I seriously doubt we are up to that.
  Come on. We could stop hating instantly.
  I don't think the nature of mankind has that capacity and history is chuck full of examples of hate being expressed by mankind. Where I believe that individuals may overcome their propensity to hate and stand as an inspiration to others in this regard, I also recognize that each person is born with the propensity to be selfish, uncaring which is the precursor to hate. It's here to stay.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
18. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  There are no life forms from other worlds that we will ever have to directly deal with. We know there is nothing within our solar system that is any danger to us. Interstellar space is too large and too hostile to life to make transport possible for any kind of life to get here or for us to get there, ever
  Well I guess we can just fire all the scientists. Good thing we've got bobbied here who has all the answers to everything ever.
19. Re:Another benefit of low crude pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  The environment of Space is deadly, it kills all life.
  So does earth.
  "The Surgeon General reminds you that 50% of all smokers will eventually die.
  ...the other 50% will live forever."
doubtful by anzha · 2016-02-03 11:39 · Score: 1

That's interesting, because Russia itself announced they were postponing their lunar ambitions for a long time due to the economic crisis they are facing due to low oil prices, costs of fighting in Syria and Ukraine and the fact they abolished/reformed ROSCOSMOS into a state corporation with an emphasis on profit making. Besides, in aerospace circles, going back to the 1990s, being profiled in PM was considered the 'kiss of death.'

--
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
WTF is slashdot censoring news about Google's 666? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 11:51 · Score: -1

This news was submitted to the firehose and was deleted within minutes, fucking pussies afraid of getting banned by Google ads?.

Google uses PO Box 666 in Bermuda to save billions in taxes every year
A small metal box numbered 666 in the post office of Bermuda's capital, is the official address of "Google Bermuda Unlimited", which "Don't be Evil" Google quietly funnels its entire global earnings (minus the US) every year to avoid paying billions in taxes.
America, otoh, has 4 companies working by WindBourne · 2016-02-03 12:12 · Score: 2

On it. And while Russia uses disposable, America's will be reusable. Sadly mark Whittington is all about BS and never about facts.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:America, otoh, has 4 companies working by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Reusable like the space shuttle?
  LOL
2. Re:America, otoh, has 4 companies working by WindBourne · 2016-02-04 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that the shuttle was re-usable, well, that is your problem.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Colonization of the moon by Etherwalk · 2016-02-03 12:17 · Score: 1

It is all important that the US resume plan put forward by President Bush so that the US can dominate colonization of the moon. Let the other countries realize they are in competition. Aren't you all tired yet of the bed-wetter Obama's space policy?
It doesn't work that way. The moon is not sovereign territory under international law, and may not be claimed as such.
"We came in peace for all mankind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1. Re: Colonization of the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  It will stay that way as long as no government is interested in using the Moon for anything. Which probably means for quite a long time still. But hypothetically, if having a claim on the surface of the Moon became useful, we'd consider it sovereign territory a minute or two later.
/. Poll opportunity by Michael+Woodhams · 2016-02-03 12:19 · Score: 2

Poll 1: Which nation/organization do you think will be next to land people on the moon?
* China (CNSA)
* USA (NASA)
* Japan (JAXA)
* Europe (ESA)
* India (ISRO)
* Russia (RFSA)
* North Korea (KCST)
* Privately funded (e.g. SpaceX, Blue Origin or Cowboy Neal without direct state support) (ETLA)
Poll 2: Which nation/organization do you want be next to land people on the moon?
(same options)

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
1. Re:/. Poll opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  Which country fill be the first to land people on the moon?
  FTFY.
  Humans have never been to the moon. Thanks, Mr. Kubrick!
2. Re:/. Poll opportunity by WindBourne · 2016-02-04 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  new private space will be next. They will be there around 2020-2022.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:WTF is slashdot censoring news about Google's 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 12:40 · Score: -1

Fuck off, libtard
Re:WTF is slashdot censoring news about Google's 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 12:41 · Score: -1

This news was submitted to the firehose and was deleted within minutes, fucking pussies afraid of getting banned by Google ads?.

Google uses PO Box 666 in Bermuda to save billions in taxes every year
A small metal box numbered 666 in the post office of Bermuda's capital, is the official address of "Google Bermuda Unlimited", which "Don't be Evil" Google quietly funnels its entire global earnings (minus the US) every year to avoid paying billions in taxes.
Three obvious possibilities that don't require fear of losing their major revenue stream, which, btw, is a fair thing to be afraid of:
(1) You asked that question in the Firehose while posting it and they responded "Fuck this asshole."
(2) They know they're pretty safe but are still new to this and are a little concerned about defamation law, so they're being careful when dealing with big accusations against a company that could sue them out of existence with as much difficulty as you might swat a fly.
(3) They want to post it but their *lawyers* are still new to this.
Predicted it years ago by Maury+Markowitz · 2016-02-03 13:33 · Score: 1

It's a box full of monkeys with the words "peekaboo perfect space explore!" written on the side.
In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 13:51 · Score: 0

Moon lands on you!
Re:WTF is slashdot censoring news about Google's 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 14:58 · Score: 0

Google has been doing it for year: Google's Tax Tricks: 'Double Irish' And 'Dutch Sandwich' Published October 21, 2010
Arstechnica had the balls to report it in 2013, it is also a tech site.
Slashdot is run by pussies, whoever the new owner is.

Google is moving even more money through a shell corporation in Bermudaâ"reaching a total of â8.8 billion ($11.91 billion) in 2012, 25 percent more than it did in 2011. By employing a legal yet ethically questionable practice, Google is saving itself billions in taxes worldwide.
The new figures were first reported by the Financial Times on Friday, citing âoe[recent] filings by one of Googleâ(TM)s Dutch subsidiaries.â This widespread strategy of moving money around involves two specific tactics known as the âoeDutch Sandwichâ and the âoeDouble Irish.â (Ars obtained a copy of this filing, dated September 27, 2013, from an anonymous source.)
As the Times concluded, these disclosures mean âoethat royalty payments made to Bermudaâ"where the company holds its non-US intellectual propertyâ"have doubled over the past three years. This increase reflects the rapid growth of Googleâ(TM)s global business.â
The British newspaper cited filings from Google Netherlands Holdings, which represents the âoeDutch Sandwichâ part of the equation.
Bermuda triangle of taxation
As Ars has reported before, hereâ(TM)s how the Double Irish works. Bloomberg first described the process in 2010: a company sells or licenses its foreign rights to intellectual property developed in the United States to a subsidiary in a country with lower tax rates. The result? Foreign profits that come from that techâ"like the rights to Googleâ(TM)s search and advertising technology, effectively the keys to the kingdomâ"are now attributed to that offshore subsidiary rather than the Mountain View, California headquarters. The subsidiaries have to pay âoearmâ(TM)s lengthâ prices for those rights, just like an outside company would.
and /. Starts Work On News by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 15:02 · Score: 0

Because we need to work on making news
Because lawd knows there isn't enough of it until we make some... er, more...
European Union by manu0601 · 2016-02-03 15:12 · Score: 1

Just to be precise: the European Space Agency (ESA) is not part of the European Union.
The former is about science and the later about forcing neoliberalism through unwilling People's throats. Current EU rules would probably forbid the creation of a ESA-like thing today.
But to be fair, EU also contribute to ESA budget.
Lander is all they need. They have the other parts by Robotbeat · 2016-02-03 16:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Honestly, Russia is in the enviable position of already having the critical parts needed for a crewed lunar mission.
They have Soyuz for crewed launches, Proton for heavy uncrewed, plus Angara coming on line to replace the troublesome Proton. Soyuz was originally designed for lunar missions, and could be fairly simply modified for lunar return. Russia also regularly does propellant transfer and autonomous docking and have a large array of storable-propellant upper stages to use, so they could launch the lander partially filled using Proton into a distant lunar orbit and refuel and/or reposition using a Progress vehicle (perhaps tweaked to allow bigger propellant tanks).
Soyuz could dock with a couple of full Briz-M stages in LEO, push out a lunar orbit and meet with the pre-place lander. ...I suspect Russia will not build a mega-rocket like SLS. They don't need to, since they're very good at docking and propellant transfer (something they do regularly on ISS). Which is good because they don't exactly have a lot of money right now.
Mr. Putin, President Trump is on the line... by Snufu · 2016-02-03 17:08 · Score: 0

"Yes?"
"The race to put a man on the moon is over. You lost. Loser!"
crummy coastline by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 17:32 · Score: 0

The countries with a good coastline situation: USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia
Not too bad: Spain, France, Ireland, United Kingdom, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, China, and... Russia.
I'm only willing to say "not too bad" for Russia because of the Black Sea. That arctic stuff is slightly better than worthless. The combination of Vladivostok and St. Petersburg might have put Russia in the "good" category except for the fact that Russian life revolves around Moscow. Vladivostok isn't well-connected.
Landing is easy. Now build one that re-launches... by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2016-02-03 17:53 · Score: 1

>> Russia Begins Work On a Lunar Lander
Landing is easy. Now try building something that can re-launch itself back OFF the moon and I'll be impressed.
Miscellaneous. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 21:05 · Score: 0

The russian cosmonauts will land and start moonshining vodka.
Immediately after the landing, the Russian Duma has voted to annex the Moon and renamed it Novo-Crimea. This resulted in a diplomatic row with China and Japan, becase the russians began deporting the lunar rabbit population to Siberia...
A joint CIA-Mossad effort managed to steal various parts of the russian lunar lander from the factory line. When assembled they always ended up with a battle tank...
- Mr. President, Mr. President, the Russians have landed on the Moon and painted it all red!
- Where's the problem, just send our guys and write Coca-Cola on it!
The EU is not a country... by pr100 · 2016-02-03 21:50 · Score: 1

... despite the aspirations of some politicians.
1. Re:The EU is not a country... by cyberthanasis12 · 2016-02-04 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  We, the people, will make it be, despite your aspirations.
Why mess with the classics? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-03 23:41 · Score: 0

Why a new Lunar Lander when we have http://my.ign.com/atari/lunar-... ?
Re:Lander is all they need. They have the other pa by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:22 · Score: 0

I do not think they would need anything else but Proton since last Zond-Proton flights were successful. Proton can now carry more and have new lighter materials, and all that is needed are minor changes to Zond and LK lander in terms of materials and guidance. They could fit both Zond and LK lander in one single launch. On the other hand, in USA there really are no technical barriers, you can pretty much choose whatever launch vehicle you want, it is just that there is almost no sense to send a human in its current complicated biological life form with all this protective clothing and shields, capsules etc. just to show he can walk on Moon or Mars surface, so no money for that, except as publicity stunt for some company.
Why has nobody gone back yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 00:30 · Score: 0

Surely the computer technology involved must be incredibly cheap compared to what it cost in the 60s? So why haven't we gone back? Why aren't there scores of robotic rovers with 4k cameras sending back live video from the Moon, right now?
Popular Mechanics? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 01:04 · Score: 0

"...as Popular Mechanics reports..."
Popular mechanics lost all credibility when it attempted to explain the collapse of the WTC as a "pancake collapse". They even omitted the 47 structural steel beams that re-forced the core of the building. Unbelievable.
Lets see their Saturn V equivalent first by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 06:40 · Score: 0

Original Soviet moon plans failed because they never got their rocket launch vehicle N1 working.
"No, it's pretty clear to me." by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-04 07:39 · Score: 0

That is what he said: you're talking about things you can't possibly know. This isn't all that hard to understand.
1. Re:"No, it's pretty clear to me." by bobbied · 2016-02-04 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  BUT I can possibly know and be confident of my projection.
  Yea I cannot predict the future, but there are some things I can figure out before they happen if I'm a careful observer.
  For instance, if you jump off a 20 story building onto the ground level parking lot in nothing but street clothes, I can be confident that you are going to die long before you hit the ground and prove me right. You may want to claim "it's possible" not to die, and I suppose one could imagine ways that might happen, a sudden updraft just before you reach the ground, a gravitational anomaly caused by some cosmic event that slowly lets you down or even some cowboy on the 15th floor who is able to lasso you as you go past with a bungee cord just long enough to keep you from hitting the ground. But in the end, you are going to land with a sickening thud and die from internal injures.
  It's obvious, we are not leaving this solar system and successfully making a trip to even our nearest neighbor planets. All the wishing and "it's possible" claims won't make that change.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Written by an American? by GNious · 2016-02-04 19:22 · Score: 1

No, the European Union is not a country.