• Moon Base Alpha: If Not U.S., Then Who?
    83 replies, posted
[Quote]If the U.S. won’t be going to the moon again anytime soon, who is? Forty years ago the U.S. raced to plant the first foot on the moon. Now, as India, Russia, South Korea and China compete to return for further exploration, the U.S has all but dropped out -- and even Buzz Aldrin thinks that may be OK. Aldrin, speaking to FoxNews.com, says the next step for NASA should be to create a long-term plan for more ambitious efforts -- visiting Mars or a nearby asteroid -- aided by robotics and astronauts from other countries. "It's much better to take our experience and aid other countries in conducting their races," says Aldrin. But many argue that letting other countries win the race to return is akin to admitting failure. Beyond inspiring millions with the magnitude of what Americans are capable of, the race to the moon was viewed as essential to proving scientific competition for the country. "We're at a very embarrassing moment," says Jeffrey Manber, the author of "Selling Peace," a book that details Russian-American cooperation in space. "Space policy of the last several decades has been a failure. We'll be dependent on Russia for the next 5 to 7 years to fly to and from the International Space Station. And we got here because we stayed too long with the space shuttle program." A NASA artist's rendering of possible activities during future space exploration missions, at a manned lunar base. NASA had been betting on the Constellation program: the new Orion spacecraft, the Ares rocket and the Altair lunar lander. Testing has already started on Orion at the Plum Brook Station in Ohio. But work over the past 5 to 6 years has come to a standstill, and future space missions are uncertain following news that President Barack Obama is canceling Constellation. (Grey Hautaluoma, a NASA spokesman, told FoxNews.com that the agency cannot comment for this story while it develops an implementation plan for the president's new budget.) It's a cantankerous issue, mostly because after those famous first steps on July 20, 1969, no one expected such little progress in space exploration. The U.S. has visited the moon six times in total, including the first landing where Armstrong famously flubbed his pre-scripted line -- he was supposed to say one small step for a man (meaning himself) but said a small step for man instead. The last visit took place in 1972 with Apollo 17 -- famous for bringing back moon rocks. Competition in Space Americans are divided on the current space race with China, Russia, South Korea and India. Many FoxNews.com readers expressed outrage that the U.S. would abandon its efforts to remain competitive in space exploration, while many believe our tax dollars would be better spent creating new jobs. Jamie Larson, who works for a family insurance business in Fergus Falls, Minn., says he's a sci-fi fan in favor of the U.S. making a return trip to the moon -- but wonders if it's feasible or even practical. "As an American I believe we need to be on the forefront of space exploration, whether it be returning to the Moon or a Mars landing," he told FoxNews.com. "It's important that we are able to keep a country like China from claiming the moon as theirs. If anything, it's all ours." Jon Bacon, a representative for Wilson Electronics, thinks a return trip is too expensive for the return on investment. And some people aren't so sure there even is a space race to the moon. "The race to the Moon is one the United States has already won," says John M. Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute, professor at George Washington University, and a key NASA advisor. "The stated target for Russia to send people to the Moon is 2025 and for China there is no formal target, but 2030 is a reasonable estimate. The United States can, and probably will, be back to the moon before then. Much more likely is a global cooperative effort to explore space beyond low-Earth orbit." Manber disagrees, saying China will likely land on the moon before any other country, for exploration reasons and as a symbolic act. That country, he says, has 200,000 engineers in its space program and long-term goals for space. America, meanwhile, runs what Manber calls "sprints" that are more reactionary and tend to be more about proving our international prowess. Russian plans lie somewhere in between. "The Russians are the leaders in low-Earth-orbit space today," says Manber, explaining that the former Soviet Union continued to provide crew and cargo to the space station after the Challenger disaster. According to Manber, the Russians also have the best transportation infrastructure. Buzz Aldrin is in favor of a concentrated, global effort to reach Mars -- or more specifically, one of the moons of Mars where an international delegation would set up a fueling depot. He says Russia, who is planning a Mars mission in the next 20 years, is already ahead of the U.S. in terms of technical know-how. "I doubt Russia would want to send cosmonauts to the moon, it would indicate how far behind they are," says Aldrin. "They are very anxious about being first to Mars as evidenced by their missions to Phobos," one of the two moons surrounding Mars. "In the past, Aldrin has been critical of the space shuttle program and current plans with NASA's Orion and Altair lunar landers, stating to FoxNews.com that NASA should have developed two midsize rockets instead of one small and one large, making them less flexible for missions. Manber agrees with Aldrin that the next step is for the U.S. to move to an international mindset, equating the current model with NASA to a centralist government that mandates every step. With better cooperation, he says, it might be possible to set up lunar colonies or mine for minerals. "The auto industry is international, the aviation industry is international," says Manber, noting that a cross-country flight in the U.S. involves a plane with parts developed in several countries. "Somehow we've come to the notion that the space program is different." Obama: Privatizing Space? It's unclear from recent statements whether President Obama is entirely in favor of privatizing space exploration -- a capitalistic approach that would not match up with other policies. However, he has stated that a visit to an asteroid could provide better scientific findings. "I applaud the Obama administration's policy," says Manber, saying the proper next steps might be to go to an asteroid or beyond our own orbit. "We've been to the moon six times. If we go back, we should do it as Americans -- meaning, in a private-sector way. South Korea's space port and capsules are being designed by the Russians. This is a different time and a different era." Manber says the cold war ended decades ago, so any new space programs should have clear financial and human exploration benefits, not just to prove the trip is still possible. "The only reason to go back to the moon is to exploit more abundant resources like helium-3 (used for nuclear fuel research and rare on earth), make an observatory, or true colonization," says Manber. In the end, economies of scale do make another moon landing an interesting proposition. "China will become the Wal-Mart of space, lowering the cost of space operations," says Manber. "If we try to compete with that, the results will be the same as if we try to compete on basic manufacturing."[/quote] i got this from fox AKA faux news [url]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/moon-base-alpha/[/url]
Canada will do it. Moon poutine. :canada:
[img]http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5996/bransonspace.jpg[/img] He will name it [I]Virgin[/I] Lunar Base.
That's not nice
The moon isn't important anymore. Spend money on ocean exploration instead of short term impact, and for long term plan to do crazy cool shit like fly around to Mars.
[QUOTE=PariahKing;20096286]The moon isn't important anymore. Spend money on ocean exploration instead of short term impact, and for long term plan to do crazy cool shit like fly around to Mars.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/906/richardbransonpicture2.jpg[/img] He's doing that too. Also: [url]http://www.xprize.org/future-x-prizes/exploration[/url]
who is he
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;20096321]who is he[/QUOTE] Richard Motherfucking Branson. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson[/url] Basically everything with [I]Virgin[/I] on it he owns. Virgin Airlines, Virgin Galactic, Virgin Mobile, The list goes on.
[QUOTE=OvB;20096302]He's doing that too. Also: [URL]http://www.xprize.org/future-x-prizes/exploration[/URL][/QUOTE]I am going to mail him a box of gold stars
Oh i thought you were implying he was a virgin
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;20096371]Oh i thought you were implying he was a virgin[/QUOTE] I hope so.
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;20096371]Oh i thought you were implying he was a virgin[/QUOTE] Richard is anything but a virgin. [img]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8484/smallrichard20branson20.jpg[/img] [img]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4791/racrichardbranson3.jpg[/img] [img]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1424/bransonwithchargergirls.jpg[/img] But to get back on topic, Space will probably go more towards private companies. Like Virgin Galactic and that other one.
The future of space exploration lies in privatization.
Privatizing space is a good move. NASA got their budget gutted by Nixon because it was perceived as nothing more than a one-off stunt that had accomplished the mission of beating the Russians. For most people, there is no tangible benefit to space exploration, it's just "For the hell of it." The government isn't going to keep footing the bill to do something just for the sake of doing it, there has to be material benefit or impact. Private industry can do that. I'm not a rampant "Fuck the poor and take their oil" capitalist, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the only things capable of truly pushing people into space are the promise of insane profits, or desire to flee the barren hellscape the world will eventually become. [editline]12:55AM[/editline] Also, Virgin isn't "exploring space". They're just trying to loft people high enough that the air is just thin enough to pretend you're in space. SpaceX are the guys actually trying to take cargo and soon people into orbit.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20096441]Privatizing space is a good move. NASA got their budget gutted by Nixon because it was perceived as nothing more than a one-off stunt that had accomplished the mission of beating the Russians. For most people, there is no tangible benefit to space exploration, it's just "For the hell of it." The government isn't going to keep footing the bill to do something just for the sake of doing it, there has to be material benefit or impact. Private industry can do that. I'm not a rampant "Fuck the poor and take their oil" capitalist, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the only things capable of truly pushing people into space are the promise of insane profits, or desire to flee the barren hellscape the world will eventually become. [editline]12:55AM[/editline] Also, Virgin isn't "exploring space". They're just trying to loft people high enough that the air is just thin enough to pretend you're in space. SpaceX are the guys actually trying to take cargo and soon people into orbit.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the more companies going to "Space" the better I see it. It's let entrepreneurs see that being an astronaut isn't as hard as it was 20 years ago.
Peru up in that motherfucker
[QUOTE=Hmn30;20096487]Peru up in that motherfucker[/QUOTE] Send llamas to space!
Is it wrong I sincerely hope for a tech cache that will help us explore the galaxy on Mars, ala Mass Effect :saddowns: It sucks having to be a flicker of light on a floating rock in space. I want to meet other rocks!
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20096505]Send llamas to space![/QUOTE] [img]http://bigbert.vfs.com/~dd10emily/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/llama-in-space.png[/img] better then monkeys in space [editline]10:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Peacekid;20096531]Is it wrong I sincerely hope for a tech cache that will help us explore the galaxy on Mars, ala Mass Effect :saddowns: It sucks having to be a flicker of light on a floating rock in space. I want to meet other rocks![/QUOTE] there is a free space simulator called Orbiter which lets you land on mars
Alien moon base. Watch the video [url]http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_5816.shtml[/url]
[QUOTE=Peacekid;20096531]Is it wrong I sincerely hope for a tech cache that will help us explore the galaxy on Mars, ala Mass Effect :saddowns: It sucks having to be a flicker of light on a floating rock in space. I want to meet other rocks![/QUOTE] We have to get to Mars first...
It's because the aliens told the U.S. not to come back or they would kill them, so the U.S. is telling other countries to go there so they can die. But really, this is kind of smart of the U.S., in my opinion. They should focus on the ocean, and make awesome discoveries down there.
Governments in the world are too lazy to start a space race, and think about less important things. Like solving global hunger and energy needs and climate change and bullshit people totally don't care about.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20096505]Send llamas to space![/QUOTE] That...would be awesome actually.
[quote]aldrin, speaking to foxnews.com, says the next step for nasa should be to create a long-term plan for more ambitious efforts -- visiting mars or a nearby asteroid -- aided by robotics and astronauts from other countries. "it's much better to take our experience and aid other countries in conducting their races," says aldrin.[/quote] why will no one listen to this man aaaaagh
Oh for fuck's sake, you lazy bastards. [I]I'll[/I] do it, shall I? Frederick, get my welding gloves.
As much as I hate to say it, we'll never truly venture into the cosmic ocean until the earth as a whole is ready and we're definitely not at that point yet. We're getting there, but it's going to be very slow going if mankind's political bullshit throws a stick in the spokes at every turn.
Too bad, we already own it. :smug:
[QUOTE=Zeke129;20096266]Canada will do it. Moon poutine. :canada:[/QUOTE] mountine
Poland cannot into space =[
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.