NASA To Team Up With Russia For Future Mars Flight 318
xp65 writes "NASA has invited Russia to carry out a joint manned flight to Mars, the head of NASA's Moscow office said on Tuesday. Russia is currently planning to send its own expedition to Mars some time in the future. Marc Bowman told an international aviation and space conference in Moscow that the Mars mission should take advantage of the achievements made by the International Space Station and use a multinational crew."
Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
it also defrays the expense of it all too... (Score:4, Insightful)
It does make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
A multinational expedition is logical (Score:2, Insightful)
share toilets this time (Score:3, Insightful)
Will each nation have to provide their own toilets?
Re:share toilets this time (Score:1, Insightful)
Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the Russian system -- with its corruption and massive budget cuts (afte 1991) in government-funded research and development -- has hampered Russians scientists and engineers in their effort to produce breakthrough technology. NASA's collaboration with the Russian scientific community (and possible NASA funding for it) will help the Russians to achieve what they can not achieve in their own system.
If only President Dmitry Medvedev and Dictator Vladimir Putin created a Western society (with its intellectual freedom and clean government) in Russia and generously funded government research and development, then the Russians would likely dominate the winners of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences and of the Fields Medals in mathematics.
To hell with Mars, at least for now (Score:5, Insightful)
If we really want to do anything with space, we need to start doing things with economic significance. The moon trip should have been about pioneering the way towards moon habitats, moon industry. In that case it would have been money well-spent. All we really did was plant a flag and thumb our noses at the Soviets. Entertaining but of little real use. Sure, there was some spin-off technology but we threw it all away.
Planting a flag on Mars would end up being a similar waste of time, not if we weren't going to follow it up with anything else.
If we were really serious about it, we'd look into moving heavy industry offworld. Prospect our nearby apollo objects, see about mining them. Put manufacturing in Earth orbit. The only thing that comes down to Earth would be finished products in nice, simple, recyclable dropshells.
We might want to look into solar power sats while we're at it.
If nothing else, at least space exploration and living offers us an engineering challenge of figuring out how to live minimally with minimal resources. Our problem in this day and age is that resources are too cheap and there's little incentive to save. If gas were a nickel a gallon, the only selling point for fuel efficiency would be not having to stop for gas as often. Gas costs more than that, of course, but it still doesn't cost enough for us to take conservation and fuel efficiency seriously. And we don't. It's just like the buffet. If you go to one that charges by the pound, you're careful about what you take. If you go to one that doesn't charge by the pound, you take as much as you want and are casually wasteful about what you leave on the plate. Simple human nature.
Re:Understanding (Score:1, Insightful)
I hope this happens in my lifetime. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Understanding (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd much rather a unified nation with no competition
What happens to your civil liberties under a unified global nation? Which model are you going to use? The US model? The EU model? The Chinese one? The Singaporean one? How do you run such a unified nation? One man, one vote? That leads to the tyranny of the majority. Do you adopt a split system like the US Federal Government with an upper-body for each member state and a lower body that represents populations? In that case is it really fair that the Vatican gets the same representation that China or India does?
I'm not jumping up and down at the prospect of a unified planet Earth. I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain. I see plenty that we could lose though.
Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect that you are underestimating the costs involved traveling through Earth's gravity well. I've heard that if a rock of solid gold were orbiting Earth, it would not be economically viable to de-orbit it. Unless we discover something out there that is fantastically valuable, "industry" will not be the motivating factor for space travel.
Having self-sufficient off-world biospheres? That's a worthwhile endeavor simply because survival of the species is important; it's just not valuable to private industry (oh and suck it, libertarians).
Robert H. Goddard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now (Score:2, Insightful)
Virtually all the ROI of the moon landings was from the technology developed for the program, not from going to the moon itself.
I suppose the lesson is to develop the technology to go to Mars, but not actually go
Or go back to the moon; closer, cheaper, quicker.
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Would a global federal republic be that much worse?
It would be for Americans, who would stand to lose our right to keep and bear arms and our right against self-incrimination. Neither of those rights are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nor is the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Then there's the matter that different countries regard free speech differently. In Europe they outlaw "hate speech". In the US it's protected.
So again, which model do you use? The only document that has near-global acceptance fails to protect several rights that Americans already have. Given that those rights aren't regarded as such by most other nations why would I assume that a global government would protect them?
success, but not efficient (Score:4, Insightful)
With one country, wars simply become internalized (Score:1, Insightful)
Look what happened to the soviet union.
When we are ruled by just one government, you will find that large chunks of the world's population are oppressed and heavy handed use of police powers become the norm. While there is competition between states to take the high moral ground, there is also impetus to demonstrate freedom and democracy too. As soon as there is a unified world government you will see the bonds tightened and freedoms brushed aside.
It is better to have multiple systems running in parrallel. That way there is always somwhere left to run to.
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain?
Perhaps I should have said that whatever we stand to gain is not enough to offset what we would stand to lose.
If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending
Then what happens when some asshat comes to power in one of the member states and stops following the rule of law?
Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy
But you just said that you agree with me on most of my points. My main point was that we would stand to lose our freedoms. What good do opportunities do you if you aren't free?
or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world
Why do you need a global government to tackle world hunger? Government hasn't even been able to completely solve hunger in individual developed nations. What makes you think it could do so on a global scale?
or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.
Why would a global government keep trade from sabotaging individual countries? It's arguable that this already happens within nations. As a random example, the American South provides tax incentives and employer friendly labor laws to encourage manufacturers to set up shop there instead of in the Northern states.
The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).
I'd say that's a pretty big problem :)
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
And why would we want a unified planet? I mean you can't even get to one p.o.v with all your friends, let alone a whole country, and you expect global lockstep?
There will always be differences and arguments. The point is that we will hopefully be able to solve them without ripping our heads off. But this does not mean we all have to live under the same rules. We can live happily side-by-side with differing view.
The only thing a global unity is absolutely guaranteed to bring, is the lack of any freedom of choice in politics/regime/laws/etc. Imagine the US nation under bush, or how it's in UK now... But global! Now think about this: Where would all those go, who wanted to leave the country?
Well, in the long term, they would go to jail. It's the totalitarian dream. And it will only happen over my dead body, and those of many many other people.
Re:Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet.
There are a lot of things that Santa Claus could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet too... they're about as likely to happen as a 'properly implemented world government'.
You seem to be under the impression that a 'world government' would be something other than a collection of psychopaths desperate to prey on the rest of us.
The odd thing is that I find the people who most promote 'world government' are also normally big promoters of 'diversity', and don't even see the blatant inconsistency between those position.
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
I have always admired the American response to hate speech. "It may be harmful, it may be spiteful and untrue, but you can say whatever the fuck you want to say."*
They've fucked that up in Canada, and it makes me sad.
*except on TV.
Monopolies are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
We've already seen what Globalization does when "the" economy has issues. A housing crisis in the USA doesn't cause issues in China without globalization.
The Free Trade advocates always sold the advantages, which were readily calculable; but ignored the disadvantages which are harder to measure until you actually experience them.
Only now are people beginning to realize something that should have been apparent right from the start: one single, massive economic system is inherently bad. It's like a monopoly. There's no backup.
It's even worse if you take this philosophy and duplicate it outside the financial realm. We already see this with the "war on drugs". Many countries that would like to legalize may not do so, not because of internal resistance; but because they've signed a UN convention.
Now take that, and apply it to ALL the laws. Yuck.
Most people don't like war, but if the alternative is a "one size fits all" solution, there will be times when it doesn't fit, and war becomes the only alternative. They just won't be wars between nation-states anymore. They'll all be civil wars, which are oftentimes far worse.
Also, what about refugees? Tell me, where do the boat people go when everywhere is Cuba?
Re:It does make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
You present the process of kludging together this boondoggle and spreading pork to different political centers as proof of its "success". You neglect to mention that it was so vastly over budget and behind schedule that they canceled most any of the "science" they planned to do on it. The main purpose of its remaining skeleton crew has been to try to keep it from falling out of orbit, as well as a feeble excuse to keep its sister boondoggle, the Space Shuttle, off of the scrap heap. This entire enterprise has achieved little else than to propagate its own existence at huge expense.
Re:Future Conflict? (Score:3, Insightful)
The mutual need for survival would probably cause the astronauts/cosmonauts to cooperate long enough to get back to Earth alive. Where they'd land would be an interesting question, of course.
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?
What good does that do me if my civil liberties are reduced to the lowest common denominator?
Re:Understanding (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe because that whole "keep and bear arms" thing isn't a REAL human right?
The right to defend yourself and your family against aggression is a human right. Humans aren't obligated to turn the other cheek when faced with aggression. If you accept this simple truth then it stands to reason that we have the right to possess tools that enable us effectively exercise our right of self-defense.
What's next, you want to them to sanction your "right" to have a flint spear?
Is there some compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to possess a flint spear?
Re:Understanding (Score:2, Insightful)
The world has more than enough resources to feed everyone. The problem is getting food to hungry and the real world government might be able to solve it.
Your right. It might be able to solve it. So might Bill Gates, Bono or the UN. Saying a World Government might be able to solve world hunger does not sell me on the idea of turning my civil liberties over to a world government.
Besides, how are you going to get dictatorships and corrupt governments to willingly surrender their power? Or do you intend to impose your world government at gunpoint and invade them if necessary? Corruption is the main roadblock to solving world hunger -- you think it's going to go away if you replace ~180 governments of varying size with one massive one?
Re:Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Because not everyone is strong enough to defeat a determined aggressor in hand to hand combat? Because aggressors will always be able to get their hands on weapons despite the numerous laws saying they can't have them? Because a gun is the most effective tool currently available for defending yourself against aggression?
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be formed willingly one day.
History suggests otherwise. If we ever find a way to get off this rock it's more probable that you'll see oppressed people leaving to start a new life than it is that you'll see us all come together to sing kumbaya around the camp fire.
And probably by that time Americans will stop clinging to their toy guns...
How many more genocides of unarmed populations will we have to see before you people stop looking down on those who want the ability to protect themselves from those who don't share your enlightened morality?
Re:Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
In a speech [youtube.com] to the UN, Reagan once said:
"I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held, if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences we've had between our countries and we'd find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."
Re:Connect Four is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
That's nice. But what about non-intensive purposes?
DO NOT QUESTION the almighty misquoted idiom!
If The Average Idiot has decided that it is "for all intensive purposes" from now on, then THAT'S WHAT IT IS, because language evolves to fit the speaker! Those of us who do not accept this change are simply living in the past! Thus, there is no such thing as "correct" speech or writing!
Re:Understanding (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhmm.... So France and Germany can NEVER live together and European Union is impossible, right?
Nice strawman. Mind quoting the portion of my post where I said that?
Have you ever been in a war area or close to one?
How is that remotely relevant to the point I was making? Are you trying to say "It can't happen here" or are you just going for a one line rebuttal? I think you are smart enough to realize that it can happen here because it already has.
Take a look at the history of lynching in the American south and ask yourself if it would have occurred as often if the targeted population had been well armed. Did you know that many of the earliest examples of gun control in the United States were specifically aimed at keeping "undesirables" from obtaining arms? We wouldn't want those pesky minorities to have the means to defend themselves, now would we? They might get uppity or something.
Want a more recent example? Consider the Rwandan Genocide. It was largely carried out by militia's armed with little more than assault rifles. Think they could have carried it out if the victims had been similarly armed and able to resist?
How about you tell me what it is about the prospect of private ownership of weapons that offends you so much?
Re:Understanding (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with you including good ole Fidel in that list. I don't take any issue with him for fighting to free his people from the Batista's. I do think it's fair to take issue with him for the manner in which he choose to run his country though. Washington willingly surrendered power and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer thereof. Fidel has clutched to it for the better part of half a century and "surrendered" it to his brother once he became too old and feeble to run the country.
I would point out that Ceaser probably doesn't deserve to be in your list. My reading of history suggests that it was never his intention to take over the known world. His conquests seem to have been driven by the motivation for personal enrichment/political prestige back home and the desire to defeat his enemies within the Roman state. Alexander the Great is a better example. He would have kept going all the way to China if his troops had let him.
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. I'm talking about how USELESS are handguns in a REAL warfare or civil war. And I'd lived quite close (less than 100km at one point, we've heard explosions in our home) to one.
So now you are making more assumptions about what I wrote, unsupported by the actual text of my comments? Please point out the post of mine in this thread where I used the word "handgun".
I'd like to see you going out with your handgun against a gang of AK-74-wielding thugs. And don't think that they'll run if you shoot one of them.
I don't have to use my handgun. I've got a Mini-14 and M-1 Garand for that scenario. The handgun is primarily useful against thugs of the more mundane (criminal) variety and as a last resort in a pitched battle. The only advantage to the handgun is that it's easy to carry around with you. Rather hard to conceal the AK for the trip to the grocery store.
Join army/militia - you'll be armed there at no cost with _real_ weapons, not toys.
As an American male between the age of 17 and 45 I'm already a member of the militia :)
Re:Connect Four is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
personal training tasers, and chemical sprays are for personal defense.
Tasers only give you one shot and are rendered useless if you miss or get attacked by more than one person. They are also illegal in many US jurisdictions. Chemical sprays are useless if your assailant is upwind. Both are of questionable value if you run across someone hopped up on drugs.
Re:Ah those crazy Russians! (Score:3, Insightful)
Alternatively one could leave out the men from the mission. Women tend to weigh less than men, so you'll have room for more cargo. As they weigh less, they also eat less, which again allows you to either carry more cargo or have the food last longer.
In an environment where you either experience micro gravity or 1/3rd gravity you don't need the "big strong" physique that people tend to think is necessary for exploration. And women are generally better at multitasking than men, which is definitely an advantage in that kind of environment.
An as for the "but ten women locked up together for years will be useless for five days a month", that could be solved fairly easily with either medication or pre-flight surgery.
And let's not forget - who would you rather watch on pay-per-view? 10 guys [spacefeelings.com] locked up together for years or 10 women [wordpress.com] locked up together for years?