What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
73 Comments
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39On the contrary, I think it's a great idea to get as many countries involved in the moon base as possible. If we could get the U.S., Russia, the EU, Japan, and even China all involved in one space project, not only could we work towards a common goal to improve our international relationships, but it would also ease the significant budgetary requirements that such a project would entail.
- RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32For all Russia's faults, I'm glad they're one of our chief partners in space exploration. One of the amazing things about Russia's space program is how they can accomplish so much with a relatively limited budget...NASA could learn a thing or two from that.
- ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37Instead of being so competitive and imperialistic, be thankful that the space race has turned into the space coalition.
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33I love the old story about how NASA spent millions developing a space pen that could write reliably in zero gravity. Russia? They just used pencils.
- Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I think Fark nailed it in their headline:
Russia hears NASA is going to the Moon. Asks for ride, offers gas money and snacks for the trip - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Yeah, that's the myth.
Truth is they're not using old & primitive technology out of choice, but out of necessity. They make aircraft and spaceships without computers or support systems not because that's the smart thing to do, but because they're so low on components and cash that they can't do it any other way.
It's a miracle they have a space program at all, but an even greater miracle that so relatively few of their ships blow up. - raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Before people start shouting how great is american spacethechnology, lets remmeber that Russians had MIR spacestation in 1986, before anyone else could even imagine having anything close to it. It stayed up for 15 years, and house astranouts from all over the world. ISS is pretty much US money and Russian technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir
Regarding Shutle which does not even work..Soviet Union had "Buran" in eighties, now russian space agency is making a new generation shutle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper
So crying about someone stealing great american technology is vast overexageration...the whole world is pretty much using russian space agency for puting up satelites, because it is cheaper and they have a far greater succes at it.
Regarding space, there were treates decades ago about using space for peacefull exploration and there is ban on weapons. If i remmember correctly, Bush was the one screaming that US should control the space and the universe..so here is some food for thought... - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17That's just the thing -- when two countries both have men up in space sharing the same walls and having to work together, and both countries have to rely on each other to finish that space project, the chance of them becoming hostile towards each other moves towards zero.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@masamunecyrus: Embezzle it.
- IanPhillips, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Because in the 60's NASA had an almost limitless budget to spend.
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I am just curious as to why they think it will take 13 years to get there, it only took us 7 years to do it in the 60s.
- JDoggqx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A company invested in and produced the space pen for NASA. So NASA didn't even fund it. It turned out so good that not only did NASA adopt it, but so did the Russian space program.
From Wikipedia:
"There exists a common rumor claiming that because a standard ballpoint pen would not work in zero gravity (which is false [1]), NASA spent millions of dollars developing the zero-g capable Space Pen, with the humorous note that the Russian space agency opted to simply use pencils. This has been debunked several times, with reasons such as the danger that a broken-off pencil tip poses in zero gravity and the high flammability of both the graphite and wood present in pencils (especially in a pure oxygen atmosphere). In fact NASA never approached Paul Fisher to develop a pen, nor did Fisher receive any government funding for the pen's development. Fisher himself invented it, and then asked NASA to try it. After the introduction of the AG7 Space Pen, both the American and Soviet (later Russian) space agencies adopted it. (Previously the Russians used grease pencils and plastic slates.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_pen#Cultural_appearances - jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is great, with Russia in the picture, I'm sure I will be able to BUY a seat on the first trip to build a sustained lunar base...and people wonder how they do it with such a small budget.
- eddie72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8So now we go from 14 years to building a base to 18 years with the help of another country. Sweet. Anyone else think they need to quit hiring the lazy contractors? ;p
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@Azur2: ...Touché.
- Spathiinc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The moon would be a strategic staging area. It's a good place to test theories and learn the lessons needed for setting up a base on another planet, like Mars.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@Azur2:
And if they're this resourceful with such a small budget, imagine what they could do with NASA's budget. - warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Well a moon base is a different beast from a landing and they have less money and man power these days for a moon project, going to the moon is not all to hard the landers dont have to be very big, a base would be big and the landers need to be large enough to carry the construction materials.
The Russian space project was a great example of how humans can do amazing things with fewer resources, they didn't rely on expensive technology, they tried to make everything as simple and cheap as possible and as a bi product they had a successful space project for a very long time and rivalled NASA well with a fraction of the money and resources, NASA could learn allot from the way the Russian engineers think and im sure they would not only help keep costs down but put safety up. Just because something doesn't cost as much doesn't make it any better or worse as long as it does the job its supposed to. The space agencies for a long time have worked will together Russia, the USA and the EU space agencies all have things to bring to the table for further cooperation they are allready all partners in the ISS. Europe has specialised in commercial interests, keep costs down and profits for more R&D up, Nasa has the bold visions, and Russia has the down to earth get it done attitude.
Personally i think there should be a new purely international agency formed based on something like the ESA model of cooperation and sharing the load to benefit mankind. Things like this serve to give hope to people and show what we as a species can achieve when we pull together. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8they are thinking about baby steps, idiot.
- Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -2/+82 warriorscot: Yes, we should form a federation of sorts.... say a "United Federation of Planets" perhaps... and we'll need a flagship... an enterprising flagship...
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@raskalz
"to carry such a radioactive element, you would need a 40 killo lead casing"
Actually, Polonium 210 is an Alpha radiation emitter. Alpha radiation is easily blocked by something as thin as paper.
You wouldnt need a heavy duty, lead lined case for an alpha or beta emitter, but you would for a gamma emitter. - usbserial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5""The country that controls space will control the world. It is time for the US to take control of space"
No, the country that controls space controls just that. Space."
While I don't agree with what he says, its true. Kind of like how now-a-days its "who controls the air controls the battle" (or whatever the actual quote is). Space is taking it 1 step further. If we put military weapons into space, whichever country controls that space-power would be almost untouchable. IE nuke launcher, solar-powered high-power laser, etc.
I hope it never comes to that, though. If that were to happen we'd look back at a simpler time when we had MAD with nukes. - Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The department of homeland security gets 3 times as much as nasa. NASA has a pathetic 15 billion dollar budget. http://www.federalbudget.com/
- Valarauka, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7For crying out loud, if you're going to make one of the most cliched jokes around at least have the decency to get it right!
- CGreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The us funds 22% of the UN, that is not a majority, and the EU member nations fund it MORE.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I hope the US has learned *something* from the ISS flop.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And it would be easier to build ships that are able to go to mars and farther.
- gus2074, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Who knew there would be vast quantities of oil on the moon? Well we'll have to send troops there first to make sure there's no WMDs up there. You never know, there could be moon creatures that sympathize with Al-Queda! They may have had something to do with 911! We must declare war on the moon before our inaction results in a mushroom cloud!!
- raskalz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13@wm2010russ I do not remmeber Russia sponsoring Israel in occupying Palestinian Land, or Russia Starting a war in Vietnam, or Korea, or supporting Bin Laden and Taliban, or giving weapons to Iraq and Iran, or are you as dumb as next hick from Georgia?
- calvmari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@masa
The problem is large budgets is people start introducing "better" technology that looks better on paper, but is very prone to malfunction. Also, when the budget is high when the project doesn't need it, the managers start spending the money on crap they don't need.
A friend who belongs to a government contracted agency has a headache when his division buys 500,000 new parts for no reason because "if we don't use the money it's wasted". - chedabob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Think about it though, a giant orbiting death ray that takes 28 days to align is not much use to anyone.
America: "HAHA take this Russia, here comes a nuke"
Russia: "Oh t3h noes!!111! Plz wait 28 dayz while our death ray turns around, so its fair"
Iran: "We have nukes!!" - maledei, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3why is the ISS a flop?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Less sense of urgency.
EDIT: and what IanPhillips said. - Lord_oftheTrons, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Not to mention that fact that it requires far less energy/fuel/thrust etc. to escape the Moon's gravity than Earth's. That makes navigating to other planets much easier. Do a little slingshot around the Earth and off you go.
- atkinsonline, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Yes, They could.
- Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4A federation of sorts would be cool, but as an American taxpayer, I really wish the other countries would pick up some of the slack as far as funding the international space ventures.
Right now the US funds the majority of the UN and the international space station. The EU and China are gearing up to compete with the US for superpower status. However, they pay a fraction of what we do for the UN, ISS, any any peacekeeping or humanitarian efforts. I'm all for cooperating with other nations, but if you wanna play with the big boys, you need to have something more to offer than a pretty face. - gus2074, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Just like with ISS (and countless other endeavors for that matter), the U.S. will build the moonbase and then abandon it for someone else to reap the full benefits. The U.S. is the ultimate "Good Time Charlie".
- 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What? Do we need Polonium 120 on the moon?
Yeah I'm bitter... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because it's a propaganda project. It costs ungodly amounts of money, and doesn't produce anything - no science worth the name. The speculation right now is that it'll be scuttled immediately the construction is finished. Why wait, I ask?
The best that can be said for it is that it's helped develop methods for building structures in space, and that's pretty lame for something that'll have cost NASA better than 30 billion dollars.
For comparison, that could have got us 15 new Hubble telescopes, or 30 times the cost for building and sending and operating the two Mars rovers. - kevinarth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's the kind of crap that kept the cold war going for so long. Lets get over it and start pooling our resources, human and otherwise.
- Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1okay, sorry, not a majority. I looked it up, and 22% is actually a contribution ceiling the UN has set for member states.
http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.asp?id=150
scroll down about 2/3 of the way for a breakdown
My point was not to be condescending to the EU or anyone else. It would be great if the US, EU, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, and anyone else who wants to participate could all work together and do something really amazing up there. All I'm saying is that it would suck to get stuck with the entire cost, yet have everyone else saying they owned a part of it too because it was their idea to use 28 inch tires. - AllenHSmilden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That would imply that there was life once on the moon, since oil is a fossil fuel. You think fossil meant something else?
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Because they had the right stuff.
- rocketryguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Um, you could recharge them in space even more easily. However providing other consumables via mass-driver is viable, easy even. It takes very little power to chuck something off the moon.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Space is an instrument of national power and prestige. You will notice that the entire Project Constellation, the new moon effort, will rely on boosters and spacecraft built entirely by the US. Why? Because the US government considers the capability to be strategically important. It will be much easier to influence how the moon is administered in the future by being there. The Russians and Chinese are groveling for participation because they fear the US lead in space becoming insurmountable. The US can use cooperation as a carrot as a reward for civilized behavior.
- elwood43, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3They are offering their expertise. What expertise do the Russians have in going to the moon?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the russian have much better next generation spacecraft then the americans.
Other issues nasa needs to get away from the stick it's simply an awful idea.
One it's performance margins are just too narrow for the payload it must lift.
If there is one constant in aerospace engineeering things allways end up a little heavier then the inital study.
If they say something will have a GLOW of 24 tons what ends up flying ends up weighing 28 tons.
One example was the apollo LEM which was to only weigh 24,000lbs but even with some very extreme weight saving mesures the final design ended up weighing 34,000lbs.
Fortunetly the saturn V was designed oversized and was able to handle the extra weight.
The stick also is somewhat dangerous more so then the existing shuttle stack which at least has it's center of mass ahead of it's center of drag.
This is the launcher nasa really needs http://www.directlauncher.com/ - domusvita, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Hmmmm...something bigger you say. How about Uranus? GET IT? UR-ANUS???? I'd digg myself down if I could.
- Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Being able to work on a small budget is great, but they don't wanna pay for any of it...
FTA: "We want the agreement to reflect Russia's status as a great space power," he told The Associated Press, adding that Russia plans to contribute technology rather than money to NASA's project.
They estimated that the cost of the project would be a little over $100 billion, the same as the space station. Right now we fund about 80% of the ISS, I forsee the same situation occuring with the ILS (international lunar station)
We can figure out the technology, we want your help to pay for the damn thing! - rocketryguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Our lead in space is not insurmountable, it's actually becoming less and less of a lead these days. The chinese are quite close on our heels, and could leapfrog us if they manage to avoid economic implosion in the coming decades.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is