Russia To Establish Bases On the Moon 249
ananyo writes "Vladimir Popovkin, the head of Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, has said that Russia will pursue extensive, long-lived operations at the Moon's surface. 'We're not talking about repeating what mankind achieved 40 years ago,' Popovkin said, through a translator at the Global Space Exploration Conference in Washington DC. 'We're talking about establishing permanent bases.' The heads of the space agencies for Europe, Canada and Russia, along with senior representatives from the space agencies of India and Japan were in Washington DC talking about the benefits of international collaboration. JAXA, the Japanese Space Agency, also issued a clear pronouncement about targeting the Moon."
Just another tax haven... (Score:5, Funny)
It's all well and good until (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
one of my favorite shows as a kid
Re:It's all well and good until (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's all well and good until (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's all well and good until (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's all well and good until (Score:5, Funny)
*Cough* *Cough* dimensions of 1:4:9 - the first three integers squared.
Bad monkey, no evolutionary boost for you!
Re: (Score:2)
With World Economies in Decline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just pointless PR that means nothing.
Looks like they've been learning from NASA. Just spout off some shit about going to Mars and the Moon, setting the date far enough into the future that you know neither you nor the current administration will never have to answer for it when it doesn't materialize. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.
Re: (Score:3)
. . . with the World Economies in Decline . . . the Moon stands out as the next Emerging Market!
. . . invest now! The Moon Economy will soon leave all the World Economies in the dust . . . !
In Soviet Russia (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In Russia, rival space program funds you.
That's... (Score:2)
That's no moon...
Re:That's... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, yes it is a moon. But it can definitely be a harsh mistress.
Seen this before (Score:5, Funny)
Popovkin went on to announce that Drax Industries has been awarded the tender for construction of the new shuttle fleet and moon base. He went on to note that Drax's recent announcement of a toxic orchid-farming operation in the Amazon jungle was pure coincidence, and by the way did anyone know of an orthodontist in Washington who knew how to work with steel?
i volunteer to live with no women? (Score:3)
seriously, who's going to volunteer to live in a metal box on a barren rock with no women and no sex and a high risk of cancer due to all the cosmic rays?
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? (Score:5, Funny)
I imagine that situation is not much worse than what most /.ers live with anyway.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? (Score:5, Funny)
Can I still access World of Warcraft?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, imagine how shitty the latency would be from the moon. Stupid slow speed of light!
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I hear Moon of Warcraft is in the pipeline.
Re: (Score:2)
seriously, who's going to volunteer to live in a metal box on a barren rock with no women and no sex and a high risk of cancer due to all the cosmic rays?
Sounds like the computer labs back when I was working on my CS degree. I certainly had questioning moments like that at 2am when things wouldn't compile.
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably, large portions of the lunar base would be underground. They've identified several areas on the moon that look like collapsed lava tunnels, which provide excellent radiation shielding. Also, a rather large amount of time is spent shielded by either the moon or the earth, roughly 50%. There are worse places to be irradiated.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be a plot-line to a movie in a "Total Recall" theme. Exploring those still remaininguncollapsed lava-tube tunnels is going to be the ultimate cave exploration experience.
Re:i volunteer to live with no women? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why wouldn't there be any women?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think there will be no women? There are female astronauts and cosmonauts. There are people at the south pole right now, which is more like the moon than anywhere else on earth; you're stuck in a metal box away from everyone. The only difference is the gravity and lack of atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody.
Unless the box is on THE FUCKING MOON...
"Talking" being the keyword (Score:2)
Yes, you are talking.
3 areas of concern (Score:5, Insightful)
3 areas of concern as seen on the ISS
1) If you go full international everything will take 10 times as long and cost 10 times as much. That does NOT mean you should go isolationist. If the Americans want to drop a lab literally next door, thats OK, even if they want to share power and air thats OK. But you have to be firm about each item being owned and responsible by precisely one nation (or at most a very small group) and you cannot make the whole project or even subprojects depend on that one nation's work. If the Germans want to land a really cool telescope and click it into position next to the base like a lego block, fine. But if you need a full UN treaty to launch some oxygen tanks then you're completely F'd as those guys are utterly ineffective.
2) Permanent as in ongoing perpetual expansion like a stereotypical overseas military base, or permanent as in we've not decided when to abandon ship yet? The danger of not being in perpetual expansion mode is you'll probably end up like the ISS, in construction for 99% of its lifetime and the week after the last bolt is tightened, its time to deorbit and give up. Permanent as in we intend to expand or improve this base to the tune of $1B/yr in perpetuity is a pretty good idea. Project management with a defined yet nebulous end date after which its managerially abandonded is a great idea for making "a" disposable rocket engine. Its a terrible idea for an entire base, or a station, or even a vehicle program.
3) Please don't do the space shuttle and ISS thing of promising everything to everyone for free and instantly, and then scaling back until its a miserable failure compared to its original goals. So the ISS could hold 24 crew. OK, lets build everything to the assumption that the hotel labor load will be 2 people working full time, thats less than 10% of the crew changing air filters and gaskets or unclogging toilets or whatever the hotel load is on a station. Whoops we're imploding the crew size to 6, now a minimum of 1/3 of the on-orbit time is spent maintaining the station. Whoops. Suddenly a station where most of the people do scientific research turns into an aerospace version of "this old house". Whoops.
Re: (Score:2)
Permanent as in ongoing perpetual expansion like a stereotypical overseas military base, or permanent as in we've not decided when to abandon ship yet? The danger of not being in perpetual expansion mode is you'll probably end up like the ISS, in construction for 99% of its lifetime and the week after the last bolt is tightened, its time to deorbit and give up. Permanent as in we intend to expand or improve this base to the tune of $1B/yr in perpetuity is a pretty good idea. Project management with a defined yet nebulous end date after which its managerially abandonded is a great idea for making "a" disposable rocket engine. Its a terrible idea for an entire base, or a station, or even a vehicle program.
Technically, a project has got to have a defined timeframe and goals. If you're going to maintain it indefinitely then you manage it as a product or service.
Re: (Score:3)
They are entirely effective at acheiving what they are really meant to do.
LOL that is true. Self aggrandizement, wasteful spending, gourmet meals, world travel, goofing off too much, banging interns... Unfortunately my lifestyle is not really the ideal role model the UN should have selected.
For all the 3rd world countries (Score:5, Interesting)
It was the devastated by war Soviet Union that launched the first satellite, the first man, the first space station, has the record for longest space presence AND is right now the only country of launching humans into space...
They were the first when they were poor and are the only now they are poor again. Something tells me that having a rich street full of day traders does not have much impact on a nations capacity to venture into space. It really isn't all that expensive either if you don't fluff you budget with pork.
Can Russia do it (again)? No idea, but being a backward 3rd world nation sure didn't stop them before. And the west is currently begging to use that 3rd world nations tech. And it is not Russia that right now is bankrupting itself with insane military spending.
The tech for setting up a moonbase exist, all it takes right now is will power. And in many ways, going into space is a lot easier then fixing the economy, or getting the banks under control etc etc. It is hard but managable task that more or less requires a leader who tells the rocket scientist to do it, and give them food, shelter and materials. Russian scientists are not spoiled, they farm their own food and launch rockets.
Re: (Score:3)
Can Russia do it (again)?
If Sergei Korolev [wikipedia.org] hadn't died in 1966, they probably already would have. I think his death probably hurt the Russian space program more than scarcity of funding, or even the fall of the USSR, ever did.
Re: (Score:3)
And the west is currently begging to use that 3rd world nations tech.
I think "begging" is a little unfair. We're paying a fair price for the launches we need, I believe as of now through 2016. People who beg are asking for favors. While I'm all for expressing disgust with the state of the US space program, I think this characterization is unnecessary.
Russians support a moonbase? (Score:2)
Meanwhile, in the US... (Score:2)
The US Patent office, MPAA an RIAA are collaborating together to find a means of "litigate to mitigate" to keep Russia from developing their space program further. Spokesman from the MPAA has stated their strategy is to tie up the russians in court so they have no time to work on the moonbases.
NASA was unavailable for comment as their phone number has apparently been disconnected. A reply from someone at the "Contact Us" area of the NASA website stated that their phone number is indeed active, but they've
AAAArgh (Score:2)
(too much repetition I'm told) Idiots.
Is Anyone Else Thinking (Score:2)
Just what I want... (Score:2)
A Russian moon base that "accidentally" happens to have offensive moon based warheads, lasers, magnetic rail guns or any other type of threatening technology facing the Earth.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/strategic-forces/156-electro-magnetic-rail-gun-2.html [defenceforumindia.com]
Referncing this article:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/railguns-for-space-launch.html [nextbigfuture.com]
"The source of this post is this 10 page IEEE paper, Launch to Space With an Electromagnetic Railgun by Ian R. McNab, Senior Member, IEEE The cost of electricity
WHY? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would Russia need a permanent moon base? I could understand if Singapore want some more elbow room, but Russia already has more cold, isolated, and desolate real estate than any other country.
"Gentlemen ... (Score:2)
Time For a Crash Space Pogrom! (Score:2)
That way, we'll have ANOTHER 40 years of no progress in space!
What fee is Russia paying to the US landowners? (Score:2)
Since the USA has planted the Flag and owns the moon, I am wondering what fee will be changed for the use of the land for "Moonbase" privileges. I would hate to see the Government have to evict the Russians for squatting and/or not paying rent. Of course, the US must maintain regulatory compliance with Moon renting laws.
Just because a highway, payed for by the Government, does not exist, DOES not mean people have the right to claim land. It may take a boat, a plane, a rocketship to get to the owned terri
Re: (Score:3)
The current space exploration roadmap features the Moon as well, but in two different scenarios, one in which it's the first stop after LEO, and one in which we go to the asteroid fields first, then to the Moon. Since the roadmap is spearheaded by NASA, there may actually be a chance of this, provided the next president doesn't axe the budget further, since the roadmap deadlines are approaching (I seem to remember 2020 for a Moon/asteroid base, depending on the path chosen, but I may be wrong).
Re:At one time, US used to be the lead (Score:5, Insightful)
At one time, US used to be the lead in grand endeavors, but laziness, political infighting, and lack of true leadership has paralyzed the American will.
I hope to live long enough to see America return
As an American I wish the Russians luck and hope they actually do this and succeed. I hope that if they successfully do this it may motivate the powers-that-be over here to emphasize science a little more than they have been. And even if America doesn't take the hint and start emphasizing science again it would be a freaking moon base! :) That is neat no matter who is doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
News Item: COLD WAR IS OVER. No one cares about the 'gap' between Russia and the US. No one care about anything except money. Go back to the eighties. Regan is calling.
I'm pretty sure (though I wasn't around then so it is hard to be sure) that the attitude in the 80's was more, we-are-going-build-huge-weapons-and-stuff-so-we-are-number-one! The attitude I was trying to advocate was yea-they-are-doing-cool-stuff-maybe-we-should-try-doing-more-cool-stuff-too! The differences are pretty large, though I can see how you'd get confused.....
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem likely. Nations seem to have a set of glory years and then settle in for the long haul of letting someone else play top dog.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, the recent history (failed launches) by the Ruskies suggests they are suffering the same political/bureaucratic decay as NASA. In the early days the techies run the place because the suits haven't yet learned the buzzword to make people believe they understand enuf to run things. Same thing happens in private corporations. Organizations age just like people.
Re:Empty posturing (Score:4, Interesting)
NASA is still doing outstanding science with amazing teams. Just because the shuttles and ISS are a bit of a debacle hardly means NASA is in 'decay'. Please stop spreading this nonsense.
Current missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html [nasa.gov]
Future missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html [nasa.gov]
Look at all that political decay.
Is this satire? I can't be sure.
Only 4 missions currently planned for the future ...
(Interestingly, where is JWST?)
The current missions looks impressive, until you discount "Hurricanes" and "Ice Bridge", etc. which aren't space missions in themselves, and Juno, which I believe is gone ...
Re: (Score:3)
One of those "future" missions is just sending another crew to the ISS to spin around in LEO for a while doing not much at a steep price.
One is just Landsat redux also not leaving LEO.
The third one is studying the Van Allen belts which isn't exactly going where no one has gone before.
MAVEN is the only mission that actually involves leaving Earth orbit.
Re:Empty posturing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Empty posturing (Score:5, Funny)
It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.
Yeah, reserve that for Mars, which is named after a war god and conveniently already is red. :-)
Re:Empty posturing (Score:5, Insightful)
If all the countries who can, race to the moon as individuals, I'd expect there be a turfwar over the few areas that might have more value to a colony (like fighting over polar ice). It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.
Doubtful. The moon is a pretty big place. If we did actually establish separate bases up there, it's more likely the groups would cooperate a bit on their own. They're off in the middle of nowhere trying to survive in a place that could kill you in a second. Deliberately damaging anyone's equipment could easily kill off everyone. Turf wars are something you'd expect when there's a lot more infrastructure in place and specialized "security" people present who will obey inane kill orders from their host country.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read that book; it ends with them banding together and declaring themselves the sovereign nation of Luna and start chucking rocks at earth until we stop going after them. Then the singularity takes away our interest in going to the moon at all.
Or perhaps that was the different space stations and the nation of LEO/GEO. Either way, there were crustaceans involved somehow. And the singularity.
Re: (Score:3)
If all the countries who can, race to the moon as individuals, I'd expect there be a turfwar over the few areas that might have more value to a colony (like fighting over polar ice). It'd be a sad thing to expand the worst of our nature to the moon and make the sands of that distant void red with blood.
Doubtful. The moon is a pretty big place. If we did actually establish separate bases up there, it's more likely the groups would cooperate a bit on their own. They're off in the middle of nowhere trying to survive in a place that could kill you in a second. Deliberately damaging anyone's equipment could easily kill off everyone. Turf wars are something you'd expect when there's a lot more infrastructure in place and specialized "security" people present who will obey inane kill orders from their host country.
Sounds like Antarctica.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If Obama (for some reason we blame NASA, but put the blame on your hero) didn't cut NASA we could be talking this as well. What I find a shame are those welfare scum who take money away from projects such as these because they refuse to work. The so called poor today are just lazy thugs.
Try paring down the Defense budget first and see how much money is there for NASA. The poor make a convenient target, especially for those with no compassion or concept of what creates poverty. But if you look at actual entitlements and Keynesian make-work projects, our defense industry tops the list.
questions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perfectly natural for the head of a space agency to want to expand what his agency does.
Follow-up questions:
(1) Has the Russian government actually committed budget to the proposal?
(2) What does Russia expect to accomplish with its moon base?
Note that Russia has been talking about this for a while [digitaljournal.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I want to ask the same questions of NASA.
Re: (Score:3)
1) they've committed some budget to space exploration
2) they expect other countries to do most of the work for them
Re: (Score:2)
2) they expect other countries to do most of the work for them
It didn't take long for Russia to follow in the United States' footsteps of outsourcing their space program. It's not surprising for the U.S. to do it because we outsource *everything*, but Russia? How times have changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:questions (Score:5, Funny)
What does Russia expect to accomplish with its moon base?
Rumor has it Putin is looking for a new location where his future inaugurations can take place without the distraction of nearby protests [nytimes.com].
Whalers (Score:3)
That's right!
If they were serious they would certainly start by having some whalers on the moon!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, you're comparing to who? NASA? Oh yeah, beacause NASA has a super flawless record...
Re:Bullsh*t (Score:4, Insightful)
That was one affair. Europe also lost spacecraft (Beagle Mars probe), and so did the US (Deep Space 2). Space exploration and rocketry is, by its very nature, a risky and failure-prone endeavour, hence the low and reluctant investment in the field.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they're pretty good at launching NASA astronauts. In fact, they're the only ones who even CAN.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're pretty good at launching NASA astronauts. In fact, they're the only ones who even CAN.
Not can, but want. The US could just get those space shuttles back from the museum, and get them working again. Takes a year or so, but it is possible, if the willpower is there (a large bucket of money). However, after a year or two, I'm afraid it's a lost option.
Shuttles are a complete write-off at this point... (Score:5, Informative)
The decommissioning work done to prepare the shuttles for museum display rendered them beyond any practical ability to return to service. Large parts of the internal structure were chopped out to remove contaminated fuel tanks, etc. It would likely be faster and cheaper to build a new shuttle than to try to fly one of the museum display orbiters again.
Add in the fact that the supply chain for things like external tanks and other shuttle parts was dismantled several years ago, and many of the specialized jigs and fixtures sold off for scrap.
Re:Oblig: "In Soviet Russia" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Their space program is underfunded... (Score:5, Insightful)
error prone
Their space program hasn't lost a single man since the early 70's. Can NASA say that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are 113 launches in below list and 45 of them are since 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_manned_space_missions [wikipedia.org]
BTW. Do you remember that at a specific long period, Mir space station was the only human residence in space?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How many people have the russians put in space since the 1970s compared to NASA? Not many! The shuttle had something like 140 launches and each one could carry up to 7 people. There have been 26 soyuz launches and each capsule takes up to 3.
No idea where you got that 26 figure from but since 1981 there have been 135 shuttle launches and 74 soyuz launches, 2 shuttles lost and 0 soyuz lost...
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yes, because it's real easy to cover up a Soyuz launch (which sets off every launch detector in the U.S.) and pretend it never happened. Both the Soviet and Russian space programs are well documented at this point, and only a conspiracy theory nutball thinks they somehow killed tons of cosmonauts and then disappeared them not only from all the reams of documentation that became public after the fall of the USSR, but also from the memories of dozens of engineers and cosmonauts who have provided extensive
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama? What's he got to do with it?
NASA's funding situation has been problematic for decades. W and the Republican led Congress flushed nearly $1T down the toilet from 2002 through 2008 in Iraq; NASA's funding is a fraction of that. Imagine what we might have done if that money had been given to NASA instead.
Oh, you're trolling. Never mind. Go crawl back under your bridge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine what we might have done if that money had been given to NASA instead.
Imagine what we might have done if that money had been given to private companies like SpaceX instead. We'd probably be busy fighting a war with the mars colony for their independence by now. The entire R&D program behind Falcon 9 cost less than a single shuttle launch. You'd still have enough money left over to launch two or three times.
One of the big problems is that NASA can't effectively use what money they do get, because they don't actually build or design anything themselves. Congress, it seems,
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the space program was already fucked under GWB, right? And that it's been in a bit of trouble since before that? Seriously, Obama has nothing to do with the fact that we have no current launch vehicles. It involves way more than just him. Blame all of Congress if you really want someone to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
... given that the USA no longer has the ability to launch astronauts ( in LEO never mind to the moon. (Nice one Obama).
I see what you did there. However, this is Slashdot I don't think people here are that gullible to believe that's Obama's fault given that the plan to kill the shuttle program pre-dated Obama. If you wan't to blame Obama for something legitimate blame him for pushing NASA to become more dependent on the private space industry because all this will do is encourage free market competition between private companies in an attempt to make access to space cheaper and faster. Not sure if that's the results your
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"I don't think people here are that gullible to believe that's Obama's fault given that the plan to kill the shuttle program pre-dated Obama"
So you're saying he didn't have the executive authority to halt that plan? No, sorry, doesn't wash. As far as I'm concerned he's just continued the backwards looking short sighted policies of Bush in this regard.
"If you wan't to blame Obama for something legitimate blame him for pushing NASA to become more dependent on the private space industry"
That too.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... (Score:4, Insightful)
"I don't think people here are that gullible to believe that's Obama's fault given that the plan to kill the shuttle program pre-dated Obama"
So you're saying he didn't have the executive authority to halt that plan? No, sorry, doesn't wash. As far as I'm concerned he's just continued the backwards looking short sighted policies of Bush in this regard.
"If you wan't to blame Obama for something legitimate blame him for pushing NASA to become more dependent on the private space industry"
That too.
Halt it and do what? The aging shuttle fleet was ridiculously expensive to maintain and the economy was losing millions of jobs per quarter at the time when he came into office. Where is the money supposed to come from? Maybe you could cough up the funds no? The Airforce has their mini shuttle that is doing them well and for everything else the spaceX and others will be a whole lot cheaper and therefore the size of the federal government has been reduced. People have been screaming to reduce the size of the federal gubmint so now the massive scale of the launch program has been reduced and now people bitch that its reduced. just wow.
Re:Their space program is underfunded... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Halt it and do what? The aging shuttle fleet was ridiculously expensive to maintain"
Any space system is highly expensive to maintain. With that price came flexibility. Name me any other system that could have brought a satellite DOWN from orbit not to mention allowing on the spot repairs.
"Where is the money supposed to come from?"
Oh I dunno, how about some of the billions still being spent in afghanistan. When is the US going to pull out again?
Re:Yeah, okay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, their space program is such a joke. All they did was put the first satellite in space, first orbit, first man and woman in space, first space station, first probes on Venus and Mars--in fact, pretty much every space "first" except man on the moon. And they're currently the only country in the world capable of even putting a man in orbit. Ha, ha, what a joke! Let's all laugh at them!
Re:Yeah, okay. (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, their space program is such a joke. All they did was put the first satellite in space, first orbit, first man and woman in space, first space station, first probes on Venus and Mars--in fact, pretty much every space "first" except man on the moon. And they're currently the only country in the world capable of even putting a man in orbit. Ha, ha, what a joke! Let's all laugh at them!
And the Italians used to rule most of Europe and the Middle East. Your point?
Russia's space program hasn't done anything but produce small incremental improvements on *Soviet* technology. Technology built by a country under the auspices of its military that *no longer exists*. Technology built using quantities of labor and resources that are no longer available to it.
If you believe for an instant that the current space program in Russia could do something like this, you're completely ignorant of the reality of the existing space program in Russia or its history. (You'd be equally ignorant if you thought NASA could do it either -- it couldn't... not even close. Technical ability has no bearing on the political or economic realities of a program like that.)
Re: (Score:3)
exactly right, and in fact, the only thing that has kept the soviet, er, russian space program alive thus far was a decision by the Clinton administration in the post cold war era to allow US companies to launch their spacecraft on non US launch vehicles and to make space station Freedom (remember that?) into the ISS with the US paying Russia provide flights to it
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, China also currently can put a human in orbit.
Re:Yeah, okay. (Score:5, Informative)
The rest of the story: Before the landers, the US had the first successful flyby of Venus with Mariner 3 in 1962 and the first successful flyby of Mars with Mariner 4 in 1964, ahead of the Russians in both cases. As for landers: Luna 9, first soft lander on the moon (Russian) -- landed Feb 3, 1966, operated for 8 hours on the moon, returned 3 series of TV pictures. Surveyor 1, first American soft lander on the moon -- landed June 2, 1966, returning 11,237 photos over 42 days of operations, continued to return engineering data until Jan 7, 1967, over 7months later. Mars 3, first soft lander on Mars (Russian), landed Dec 2, 1971, 14.5 seconds after landing communications from the lander permanently ceased, one partial image was transmitted containing nothing identifiable. Viking 1, first US soft lander on Mars -- landed Jul 20, 1976. Operated for over 6 years until Nov 11, 1982, returning several hundred photos along with life search and other science experiments. The Russians landed first and I commend them for it, but the US missions were vastly more productive; this information should always be included when the statements about who got there first are made.
Re:Yeah, okay. (Score:4, Informative)
And they're currently the only country in the world capable of even putting a man in orbit.
China says "Hello"
Re: (Score:2)
... is a 3rd world country that managed a historic semblance of technology and industry through near slavery of its population, and is in perpetual decline, run by criminals with delusions of grandeur.
Oh come on, the US isn't that bad. You just need to vote for the other political party, they'll fix all the problems. Oh wait you tried that and it failed? Well I mean vote for the other, other, party I'm sure they'll fix it all right up. Oh noes, you wrote Russia. Missed that. My bad. Well that goes for Russia too.
Maybe Germans will be the first settlers of Mars. (With a few noteworthy exceptions rapidly nearing a century ago) They're more civilized than the US or the former USSR. Even in their b
Re: (Score:2)
Well these wouldn't be coming down, on the earth anyway, so Londoners don't have to worry about it.
Oh wait, damit /. get with the 90s and add a edit button. I've got the perfect joke, the Germans can name their moon base "New London". Then when they launch their rockets, they can say "When I launch my rockets, I aim for the moon, but sometimes I hit (New) London"
Re: (Score:2)
No, how 'bout no edit button? It's (not) there so you can('t) go back and edit your post after someone has replied.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, damit /. get with the 90s and add a edit button.
There is an edit button. It's marked "preview". Being able to edit already submitted posts would be incredibly stupid, you could make an insightful comment that garnered a 5, then edit it so it was a GNAA troll.
Don't blame slashdot for your failure to proofread. Blame the one responsible -- YOU.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia has something like 3x more manned spaceflight missions, and at least 3x more space stations than any other country. Hell, the ISS's primary module during it's infancy was quite literally MIR 2. They just had a spare space station lying around and decided to repurpose it.
It's also worth noting, that when China ramped up their manned spaceflight program, they modeled their space capsule after the diving-bell style Soyuz capsule, not the conical Mercury/Gemini/Apollo style that the US uses. Ther
Re:Yeah, okay. (Score:5, Informative)
By the original, Cold War definition, Russia/USSR was 2nd world.
1st World was US/NATO/allies. 2nd World was USSR/Warsaw Pact nations. 3rd World nations were everyone else.
This has now devolved into 1st world/3rd world, mainly based on economy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
that why the USA needs to race back to the moon and build a fort around it maned by space marines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their latest jet, the Sukhoi Super Jet 100 just crashed into a mountain in Indonesia while being demonstrated to reporters and potential clients.