digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at dailygalaxy.com

China's Secret Lunar Agenda: Will the US lose the moon race?

dailygalaxy.com — The U.S. was once the leader in space exploration. Now, China plans to map the moon for energy alternatives. Russia plans to deploy a lunar base in 2015. What does the future hold?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Orion1004, on 07/02/2008, -16/+8I hope Obama seizes the initiative back for U.S. leadership in the Space Race! The upside in terms of natural resources and downstream technology resources is huge.
    • seraph582, on 07/02/2008, -4/+24he's cutting NASA funding, dufus. Christ sakes - Obama supporters get dumber by the day!
      • masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4WHAT! Raise taxes and cut funding for NASA? IMO the latter is the only thing that can justify the former. What a bunch of *****.
      • bravo1995, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1NASA takes up one sixth of one percent of the national budget, and gets very strong bipartisan support in Congress. He's not going to cut NASA's funding, because he can't, and because once he's better educated on the subject, he won't want to.
      • chevyorange, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1masterm1nd please provide a link that supports your comment about Obama raising taxes on everyone? My understanding is that middle and lower classes will actually be taxed less with the obscenely wealthy being taxed more.

        If you fail to provide the link I will block your lame ass.
      • masterm1nd, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Uhh, what buddy? I didn't make the claim, I simply responded to one. If you can't figure that out, I will block your illiterate ass. And props to Obama supporters for not burying his claim. Maybe digg really does care more about tech than liberal propaganda.
    • richlizard24, on 07/03/2008, -5/+19Obama finds it more pertinent to increase funding for Bush's faith programs than increase NASA's budget. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think a lot more would come from NASA with a larger budget than faith programs with a larger budget. Money spent on useless faith programs could be given to agencies like NASA or used for a million other different reasons. Separation of church and state my friends. NASA rules!
      • sonnybobiche, on 07/03/2008, -4/+5That faith money goes to programs like alcoholics anonymous, soup kitchens, orphanages, etc. Or did you think they just lined their pockets with it, the way NASA program managers do?
        Don't get me wrong, I'm desperate for America to continue exploring space, but NASA is a tired bureaucratic dog. They need to get their focus back (and, happily, they recently seem to have gotten on the right track.)
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5"Or did you think they just lined their pockets with it..."
        Well...here in NYC there have been several shelters exposed for lining their pockets...
    • Majhem, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Popular trends suggest that you will be dugg (+/-?) with 'Obamaforic' references.
  • AmyVernon, on 07/02/2008, -5/+30it really is a shame the U.S. has fallen so far behind in this. I know there are so many problems down here on earth that need addressing, but i can't help but think that we're losing so much by not exploring our greater surroundings. or maybe i've just read too much sci-fi.
    • BeefBaron, on 07/03/2008, -3/+21Sorry, too busy spending all the taxpayer money on killing people for great profit.
      • sanman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4But now Glorious People's Republic can eject you from the airlock and bill you for the lost oxygen
    • LucasVB, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7Oscar Wilde said it best:

      "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
    • gnotDigger, on 07/03/2008, -4/+4why the ***** do you want to go the moon so bad? we've already been there! Its a ***** worthless rock! mars mission be damned! MINE THE ASTEROIDS
      • darkstar949, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Alright, maybe I just haven't seen the articles, but how do we know that there is enough raw minerals in sufficient quantities to make going out to the asteroid belt worth while? The profit from going going out to the asteroids (just getting there is complicated, then factor in anchoring the asteroid, the mining operation, and then you have to get back to Earth some how) has to be greater than the profit involved with going to the moon to make it a worth while endeavor. At least with them moon close enough to the Earth that you could feasibly use a mass driver [1] to launch goods back to Earth for less than the close of returning a full ship.

        [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver
    • megamod, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2so we're not gonna have a moon anymore =/
  • michaelpinto, on 07/02/2008, -4/+46As a NASA fanboy I hope that the Chinese land on Mars within a few years — it would shock the American public into funding a manned space program once again. As a child some of my earliest memories are of the Apollo program — it's pathetic at this point in the 21st Century that humans aren't walking around on Mars.
    • hiPpymIck, on 07/02/2008, -2/+11i like the way theres good international cooperation..

      yet it can also be a good source of international competition

      win/win
    • richlizard24, on 07/03/2008, -3/+5I blame Nixon. He cut NASA's budget and stuck us with the shuttle. The shuttle has done a great many things for manned space flight, but the shuttle effectively killed any hope for exploring other planets.
      • sanman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2These things are only apparent now. Back at the time, the problems with the Shuttle's reusability weren't quite anticipated
      • hexydes, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I used to hate the shuttle, and while I still think the Constellation program is the right thing to do now, I don't think the shuttle was a bad idea. Yes, it didn't work out as well as proposed, but it brought us a lot of understanding about humans living long-term in space, facilitated lifting a number of large objects into space that were not possible before (we had no real heavy-lifter before the shuttle), and the technology that was built around it (such as the rockets involved) are going to pave the way for some great rockets in our next phase of the space program.

        So yes, the shuttle missed the mark a bit, and it is time for it to gracefully retire, but that doesn't take away from any of the many positives that were born out of the program.
    • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2We have lost a lot of the institutional knowledge and it would take us quite some time to be able to get back on our feet again, IMHO.
  • Jasper710, on 07/02/2008, -21/+5What a waste of money
    • WELLDOITLIVE, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1That's what your mom said when she bought you food.
  • viciouspictures, on 07/02/2008, -9/+16Yeah, sure, "renewable energy."

    China will burn through every pound of coal on the planet before mining the moon- if they have any reason to get Helium 3 it's for a new class of weapons. You can bet the US will get back into that game!
    • tuxerware, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1The US has been pretty good at burning up coal to. And fusion "based weapons", those already exist! So you comment is pretty lame.
    • sanman, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Why would you use exotic Helium-3 in a weapon? Can it even be used in a weapon? It's probably too hard to fuse.

      Everybody's ogling the 3He, without even considering whether practical fusion is possible with it, even just for energy production purposes.
  • richlizard24, on 07/03/2008, -12/+11Hopefully China's push for the moon accelerates the US space program. The sooner we return to the moon, the sooner we land a man on Mars. It would be a very disappointing day, at least to me, to see another country land on Mars before the US.
    • TheOle, on 07/03/2008, -2/+10May I ask why it would be so dissapointing? We're all humans and an achievement that big should make us all proud, no matter what nation did it.
      • sonnybobiche, on 07/03/2008, -7/+4***** that. No country other than America has any reason to be proud of landing men on the moon. It was American money, ingenuity, and lives that made it happen. And Werner Von Braun.
      • Ortheos, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Actually it was American money and Germans that made Apollo a success.
  • Sp0rAdiC, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/02041 ...
    Who bets China does this before the US?
    • CosmicJustice, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1Yeah, no chance of cooking off a couple cities with that thing.
  • cerejota, on 07/03/2008, -4/+20I am tired of this yellow peril ***** jingoism... get over it, other countries will go to space and will explore it too. There is no space race, there is the evolutionaruy human impulse to explore to immensity of the universe!!!
    • sonnybobiche, on 07/03/2008, -4/+11I'm sure China will be more than happy to share the bounty. Cause they're so friendly and all.
    • masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4But... but then who would be the winner then? Seriously though, I think it has to do with with having the greatest technology = power and security.
    • masterm1nd, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Plus the competition is ultimately what drives us there. Would we have been to the moon already if not for previous space race? I don't know, but I do know it would at the very least have taken longer.
    • mediahaze, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5I don't think its right to say that people are worried about Chinese power because their country is mostly composed different race. I would say that its based on fact that most of what we see and hear about China is big military shows of power when leaders meet(reminds me of Nazi Germany and troops and tanks going by) and the fact that democracy's don't war with each other...

      • cerejota, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The united states is engaged in two major wars and one occupation. China has riots in Tibet.

        I think yellow perillists need a lecture on kettles and pots.
  • uptwolait, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1While we're screwing around and arguing about ANWR and the North Pole, China is preparing to send drill rigs to the moon. It's gonna be the next Dubai, with 5000-floor buildings and gold covered everything inside a glass-domed paradise.

    I say we trump that and head to Titan.
  • boycottsony123, on 07/03/2008, -8/+6I'm not worried, China is only a developing country (or at lease that's what they keep saying...)
  • flogistan, on 07/03/2008, -9/+1Yeah, we're going to lose the space race. They're only fourty years behind us and we can collapse their economy and cause a revolution in their country with banking magic any time we want. Not to mention, we can shoot down anything they send into space anyway. It's a race... we need to spend more money on this all important race we've already won. They should tax us more to achieve this end.
    • tuxerware, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Your ideas != Actual fact.
      • flogistan, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I'm genuinely confused... and don't get it, and yet people here seem to. Is it an emoticon? Some sort of leet thing? or a korn shell programmer joke kind of thing? My guess would be the latter, but I still don't know what it means Anyone want to clue me in?
      • tuxerware, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Sure "!=" i used in C programming to check if is not equal to another value. All the operators at explained here:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C% ...
      • flogistan, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Thank you sir.
  • Julik, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9People argue that it will take years to get any oil out of ANWR, how long do you think it is going to take to get energy off the moon...
    • sonnybobiche, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3There's a fair bit less red tape on the moon. Also, very few environmentalists.
      • gnotDigger, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1also absolutely no useful resources
    • flogistan, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7We could have a thousand gallon space tanker to bring the fuel back to earth using a hundred thousand gallons of rocket fuel. It's the only solution.
    • Sicarius, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1About six hours for the tide to go out...
    • bravo1995, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3Did anyone notice that the article stated that "one Space Shuttle load" of He-3 could power the United States for a year? Do they realize how huge the Space Shuttle is, and that the technology necessary to transport that much cargo to and from the Moon is years and years away? Getting something the size of the Space Shuttle to the Moon requires technology that doesn't exist yet.
      • flogistan, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I hate being so stupid that I can neither agree, nor disagree with you, while being so lazy and incurious, that I will not look into it. I have to admit, what you say sounds true... so I am choosing to believe it.
      • bravo1995, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3@flogistan: I'm not a rocket scientist, but it's my understanding that to accomplish something like that, the return vehicle (or at least its propellant) would have to be generated on the Moon. That's one of the plans in the works for getting people home from Mars (collecting methane as a propellant, and converting CO2 to oxygen for as an oxidizer to fuel the return vehicle).
      • khouros, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The moon has little gravity. Compared to getting from the Earth to the Moon, getting back is like dropping a rock off a cliff.

        For perspective: to get to the moon, the mass of the propellant in the Saturn V rocket was 2000000kg; in the LM, 2000kg (from wikipedia).
      • bravo1995, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3@khouros: You're right, the Moon's gravity is 1/6 that of Earth's. But the lunar module ascent stage from Apollo (including propellant) had a mass of 4,500 kg, while the Saturn V rocket (with payload) had a mass of 3,200,000 kg (also from Wikipedia). So, assuming your numbers are right, the LM ascent stage was 45% propellant, while the Saturn V was 63% propellant. A substantial difference, but not a huge difference.

        The Space Shuttle has a payload capacity of 25,000 kg, so far more propellant would be required to get "one Space Shuttle load" of cargo off the surface of the Moon. Perhaps it's doable with today's propulsion technology (you'd need a rocket considerably more powerful than a Saturn V, which has never been developed), but logistically, it's much more difficult than getting two astronauts in a flimsy LM off the surface of the Moon.
  • majortom1981, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6It depends on what you mean by lose. Remember the US has already been to the moon. China hasn't. We can go to the moon next year if we wanted to but we are trying to do it right. We are also developing a new reusable spacecraft for the new moon missions also thats why its taking so long/. The moon mission from what i understand will also be a test for the shuttle replacement. if we were just interested in getting back to the moon we could do it with the same equipment we used for the apollo missions.

    Heck a moon lander from the cancelled apollo missions still exists at the craddle of aviation museum here on long island ( its an actual lander since grumman who helped build them was and still is on long island).
    • Brian48216, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Actually, if we really wanted to go back to the moon for visiting the moon sake, we couldn't.
      The equipment from the Apollo era simply doesn't exist anymore, the companies that made it don't exist anymore, the equipment that services it doesn't exist, and the expertise of the engineers and scientists that worked on the program doesn't exist anymore. All that's left are some blueprints and even those are either incomplete, lost, or need the original designers to tell you what the hell they meant.
    • bravo1995, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Brian's right. I work for NASA, and 99% of the engineers I work with joined NASA during the Shuttle program. It's going to take until 2020 to get back to the Moon because the infrastructure to do so no longer exists. Saturn rockets were basically forgotten the instant the Skylab program ended.
  • racco, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8what are all those idiot that have paid for land on the moon gonna do when China and the US start fighting over it?

    http://www.moonestates.com/shop-moonestates.php
  • 11Christine, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2I wonder how many fuel they would have to spend to deliver 1 ton of Helium?
    • tuxerware, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Not much, launching a payload from the moon consumes much less fuel then on earth. Even on earth one ton isn't that much.
    • eengineer, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Not sure why your dugg down. I thought it was a reasonable question. Of course a ton on the moon or a ton on the earth? Im sure you could figure it out. The escape velocity is a known you know your mass, sort of.
      • 11Christine, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I know about the difference in weight on Earth and on Moon, but still significant amount of fuel needs to be spent to deliver the shuttle to the moon and back. Also, lots of fuel would be needed to operate the excavating machines on Moon's surface.

        But after some research on Wikipedia I found out that the amount of fuel spent is nothing compared to the extracted energy, so the question is resolved now.
  • VideoHost1, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Were back in a race ?
    Maybe we should attempt a Joint Venture this time.
    • hexydes, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Why would we do that? China hasn't done anything; all they've successfully done is gotten a few (I think 1 + 2 so far) people into orbit. They've basically accomplished what we did early on in the Mercury program (early 1960s). If we joined them in a space program, all we would be doing is giving them our technology, they would literally bring nothing to the table.

      Call me when they have a vehicle capable of launching and carrying 3+ people, successfully perform a space walk, successfully link two capsules in space, perform a slingshot maneuver using both the Earth and the Moon, land and return safely home from the Moon, etc.
    • Ortheos, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2China was producing gunpowder and blowing mongolians up with hand thrown grenades 1000 years before the US existed. At the same time they had invented the compass, the printing press, the rudder, paper, the combustion chamber etc, 2000 years before the US existed China built the largest artificial structure on earth, and it's still the largest, the great wall.

      500 years ago china composed 55% of the earths GDP (economic strength), and 50% of it's population. It produced more iron in 1400 than the rest of the earth put together. It had 1 million paid troops when Europe consisted of feudal kingdoms each composed of a few thousand people.

      The last 400 years have been a dark age for china. Now they are back on the rise. I'd be afraid if I were you. Very afraid. They only need 50% of your standard of living in order to have an economy 4 times the size of yours. You will drown in their sheer demographic might when this century is through, that much is assured. Not only that but India will also eclipse you in every area.

      Go back to waving your flag.
  • RandomCommenter, on 07/03/2008, -6/+0fake it...u did last time :-)
  • goph, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3Drilling the earth is one thing, but cmon, don't industrialize the frickin moon
    • BigW, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Why the hell not. It not like there's any endangered species there...
      • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Until we decrease the mass of the moon and our tides slack.
      • nycmac247, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4@noahhoward

        You're joking, right? Like maybe we shouldn't have the Olympics because if too many people go to one place then the Earth will get unbalanced and its rotation would be off?!?!?!
      • sanman, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3You only need 25 tons per year, man. How long would it take you to appreciably decrease the mass of the Moon?
    • i4mt3hwin, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2I don't see why not, a lot of industrial processes will be much cheaper in low gravity.
  • JasonCox, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7What does the future hold? With the way NASA's budget is going, they'll be lucky to afford bottle rockets in a few years let alone the Moon or Mars.
    • Enron, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4You're right. Obama will be gutting NASA's manned spaceflight budget in favor of funding federalized preschool programs.
      • bravo1995, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2NASA >> Head Start

        Trust me, I currently work for NASA, and my fiancee got fired from Head Start (federalized preschool) for attempting to teach her students rather than babysit them. Head Start is completely and utterly worthless. It's free daycare for deadbeats who don't care enough about their kids to actually parent them.
  • edebolt, on 07/03/2008, -1/+9The US was once the space leader??? China has gotten a few people into space on minor missions. Let's not get theatrical and carried away.
    • thorseth, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2They have commitment, production capabilities, money to boot, and the space program is the pride of every Chinese ... what do you have?
      • hexydes, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Uhm, a track record of many, many, MANY successful missions, and a space program that has achieved those successes year after year for the past half-century?
      • bravo1995, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Despite the accidents, the Space Shuttle is far more reliable and far more impressive than people give it credit for. The Space Shuttle is the second most powerful rocket that ever existed, and no manned spacecraft is capable of sending as much cargo into space.

        People got bored with the Space Shuttle because it actually made space travel ROUTINE. That's what we have.
      • Ortheos, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2The Russian Soyuz rocket made space travel routine. It is far more reliable, cost effective etc than the space shuttle program. That is why it lifts more cargo into space than all other lifters.
    • mmwilhelm, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Demonstrated ability. Been there, done that. Got the moon rocks.
    • akamurph, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1No sh!t, buried for the title "Will the Us lose the moon race?" Um, lose? We've already been there, already won that race.
      • Ortheos, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1But did you build anything on the moon? Did you stay on it? No. What if china does.
      • akamurph, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1What the F are you gonna build?! A house and claim you won the moon?!
  • birdcity, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8i dont care who wins as long as we humans on earth can benefit from this
  • arjie, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Am I the only person still dreaming for an Arthur C. Clarke future? Too bad the military uses of so much of space technology preclude any joint attempt at the moon. I just hope that if there is ever any such joint venture they'll let India join just because it'll make me feel fuzzy inside.
  • crazy0, on 07/03/2008, -5/+4"The U.S. was once the leader in space exploration"

    The U.S. use to be a leader in a lotta things....hard to maintain when you're out waging trillion dollar wars and slashin social welfare (no not that kind) programs...
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Why do you hate America so much
    • hexydes, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7I think you're very confused about the state of world events.

      P.S. The US still IS the leader in space exploration. Period. The only nation that has even come close to the US is Russia. If you're using a scale of 1 to 10 to measure abilities (current) in space, it would be something like:

      United States - 10
      Russia - 6
      China - 2
      Europe - 1
      Japan - .5
      India - .25
      Everyone Else - N/A

      The fact that you agree with the statement that the United States has lost its position of leader in space shows just how ignorant you are.
  • grizwald, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6MOON WAR!
  • topcat5, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Sure. The USA has outsourced all it's manufacturing to China and we are happy to get the cheap crap from there. So why not Space Exploration too.
  • CarStan, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2i remember the article about stationary solar-energy collectors that transport energy back to earth.
    Using the moon for this is the optimal implemantation of this idea
  • fx666, on 07/03/2008, -5/+3China is doing the right thing -- its scientists are looking for natural resources outside the Earth. NASA, on the other hand, is wasting its money on the hunt for non-existent extra-terrestrial bacteria. NASA scientists are stupid, Chinese scientists are smart. Soon the Earth will be depleted of its natural resources, including the oil, and China will be the only country to do the mining on the Moon.
    • jnoodles, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7Sorry, but that's nonsense
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1So... They're going to mine natural resources from the moon... You are aware that the moon is ~240,000 miles away, right?
      • fx666, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Not right away. They will be doing mining in the next century. But they will be much better prepared than the USA.
  • jsdratm, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2We got there a long time ago, so we already won. Plus, I would rather see a slower schedule produce good results than a quick schedule produce crappy results. Just look at the space shuttle and its design flaws. Plus, we should be focusing on international cooperation like we have with the ISS rather than having a pissing contest.
    • hexydes, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2And if there's on country that is well-known for its international cooperation...it's China.

      .......
  • BECoole, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2EARTH FIRST!!!!!

    Strip mine the Moon later.
  • BECoole, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5The "space race" isn't won by being there first. It is won by being there and staying there. You've got to have some economic activity going on in order to make a defensible claim.

    To all you "i dont care who wins as long as we humans on earth can benefit" people, China is going to use their position to benefit everyone. Yeah, right.
    Space is the ultimate high ground. It WILL be used as a platform for dominance.
  • Sirmittenz, on 07/03/2008, -4/+3Yes!!! china is actually working on a secret time machine to travel back to 1969 and beat the US to the moon.

    but seriously, let china spend all it's money trying to get to the moon, maybe they'll fail and we'll be able to continue using their cheap child labor.
  • sproket, on 07/03/2008, -4/+3Yes because the US is circling the drain thanks to the Neo-cons.
  • justcool007, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1We should have explored the moon more and better as well as created a moon base instead of wasting so much time effort energy and money on going to mars and wondering if it has ice with a dinky robot. We were the first to the moon and should have been first to create a base there for extended stays and reasearch. not to mention it would have been way easier and cheaper...
  • rald84, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8"Will the US lose the moon race?"

    BREAKING: neil armstrong landed on the moon in 1969
    • Ortheos, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The dutch landed in australia 100 years before the british, yet why am I speaking english? Oh thats right the dutch just landed then pissed off. The brits actually stayed. Which is why barely anyone knows that australia used to be called new holland, that new york used to be called new amsterdam etc. The duth just came and gave up. They were happy to have been.

      You have to capitalise on being first, not just show up then leave. You will be forgotten fast.
  • JoeVerrone, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1Can someone please explain why we still spend money on these ridiculous space missions? I understand launching satellites and doing tests up in space but revisiting the moon and even Mars seems like a complete waste of money. Our current level of technology just isn't where it needs to be to make any major space missions worth anything. Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to send a probe to Mars we should be spending that money on better technology that might actually improve space exploration.

    But so far we just spend millions of dollars to verify that Mars is in fact a wasteland. Thumbs up.
    • hendrixiloveyou, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1we must only do things if we know they are profitable!!11
      • JoeVerrone, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1And you think it is wise to waste hundreds of millions of dollars just to send someone back to the moon?
  • ManoWar, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1The Moon will fight for independents once it is self-sufficient. If you ruled the moon would you listen to the USA or the UN?
  • MikeFallopian, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0The problem with using the moon as a source of He-3 is that the stuff exists as part of the lunar surface at very low concentrations - 0.01 ppm according to wikipedia. To extract any meaningful amount of He-3 would require a truly massive lunar processing facility, which I don't see happening anytime soon. The upside of He-3 for fusion is significant, but I think other more readily available fuels will win out.
  • Perleeeze, on 07/03/2008, -1/+0Best go nuke'em with a pre-emptive strike before they invade the moon.
  • mk3k, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1We played catch up for almost all of the space race with Russia.
    I think the only thing we did first was make it to the moon.
  • hexydes, on 07/03/2008, -1/+9This article is so stupid. It approaches this subject like all of these nations now have these successful programs, and the United States no longer has a program.

    Please name one other nation that can launch seven people into space, along with tons of cargo to build a floating space station. Please also include in this list those nations who have successfully sent people to the Moon.

    Everything China does, they do under a veil of secrecy. They only publicize what they want you to see. This is exactly what the Soviet Union did with their program. Then 30 years later the books are opened up and what we thought was a neck-and-neck space race was really the Russians sh*tting the bed trying to keep up with the US after about 1965.

    The US had the best space program. The US HAS the best space program. And until I see some actual progressions past what the US has already done, then the US will continue to have the best space program in the future.
    • nihility, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2To be fair Russia was instrumental in building the space station and continues to be a major part of that. But yeah they never put people on the moon and China still hasn't proven anything. Has the US fallen off the top? No, but with constant funding we could've been on Mars by now. Go Constellation!
  • battleangel7, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5I thought the US won the race to the moon in 1969.
  • Synge, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4YOU GO MOON NOW!
  • CriX, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Oh stop it with the He3 BS. We don't have fusion plants!!! China is a far distant 3rd place. Read the specs on this badass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V 130MT to LEO, thank you very much!
  • shaw76, on 07/03/2008, -1/+0I don't care which country explores the moon first as long as it gets done.

    If there are civilizations elsewhere in the universe, their eventual choice, as ours, is spaceflight or extinction.
    Carl Sagan

    The goal of the human spaceflight program should be to increase our survival prospects by colonizing space.
    J. Richard Gott
  • l034me, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Any one else picturing the moon breaking into pieces from excavating there? Like in that movie, The Time Machine
  • caif, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1The United States NEEDS a Moon base Now. I'm over 50, fit, and an engineer with construction and industrial experience.

    IF NASA asked for volunteers to construct a Moon Base, knowing that it was a ONE-WAY Trip and that your life expectancy is sure to be drastically shortened - WOULD YOU VOLUNTEER?!

    This is the kind of determination it would take to re-conquer space. Old guys like me with experience need to start the process so that the younger ones to follow have a safer environment in which to continue the process.

    I Volunteer.
    • starmanjones, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2i'm with ya. i have the same thoughts. there is another advantage. experience. experience in walking into a board room and making a buisness case for funding it. experince in understanding the logistical process and how to keep it moving. thats before you leave.

      then comes experience in bad situations. i would not sign on to a one way suicide mission. but i would sign on to a mission that was dangerous and i lived or died by my own wits with no abort to earth plan. i know i could die in an accident. thats the risk.

      in general i think the risk is over stated. if all the equipment got there and the crew arrives intact then i think most dangerous part is done.

      we have submarines that go for months submerged. they have a leak they fix it or die. its a lot bigger job to hold back extreme pressure than lack of pressure. we pressurize airliners by the hundreds every day. its routine.

      mir tells me that i do have a chance when catastrophe strikes. they beat emergency you'd never want to happen.

      this is doable right now. all it takes is the word. a few months to assemble the equipment.
      • caif, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1I admit that I am painting a grim picture. I too, believe that it is way safer than I portrayed. Just wanted to show that even with the one-way scenario, the appeal of doing the near impossible would still be worth it.

        I prefer facing void and vacuum rather than my Board Room Panel of collective wit any day - LOL. Ok, shipmate, that makes two of us.
  • jacekpoplawski, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2US is busy fighting with real problems, like terrorism, which killed almost 4000 people in 2001. Is there any oil in space? No! So who cares.
  • ChinezePanda, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4There WAS a space race. It was in the 60's WE WON IT.

    There is no losing the moon race... since.. we already went there... first... about 40 years ago.... soooooo.....

    And mind you.. that was with primitive technology that had to literally be invented on the spot.

    ***** China.

    So what did we learn from this?

    There is nothing on the Moon.. besides helium 3 in the soil.

    We ALREADY WENT to the moon... Won the space/moon race 40 years ago.

    and... ***** China.


    Oh and by the way.. The Saturn V.. was and still is the most powerful piece of machinery man has ever built.

    The Ares V. is modeled after the Saturn V... Set to travel at 9 times the speed of sound... Holy ***** I want on that ride!

    There was a 50 mile quarantine surrounding the launch pad of the saturn V.. why? Cause if it blew it was the equivalent of a 3 Kilo Ton nuclear blast.

    Word
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5Didn't we... already... you know... go to the moon? I wasn't alive then, but I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
  • gryphon50, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I know, let's borrow even more money from China to go back to the moon again. That will show 'em who's boss.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.