Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Moon Canada

International Effort Could Put First Canadian On the Moon 152

Posted by timothy
from the mayor-ford-the-obvious-choice dept.
A long-term plan created by 14 cooperating space agencies around the world could mean that a Canadian astronaut may get to visit the moon sometime close to 2030. The International Space Exploration Coordination Group, of which Canada is a part, released last week an updated roadmap laying out intended projects, including a lunar visit. "[CSA space exploration director Jean-Claude Piedboeuf] suggested astronauts could again be moon-bound in about 15 years. It would be the first human visit to the shining orb since 1972, when NASA astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt spent 75 hours there. This time, there could well be Canadian visitors. Their specialty: robotics. 'We're proposing a vision where Canada could have an astronaut, effectively a Canadian who will be in lunar space, either in orbit or on the moon and could operate a Canadian rover in the same way that Canadians operate a Canadarm on the space station,' Piedboeuf said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

International Effort Could Put First Canadian On the Moon

Comments Filter:
  • by Begemot (38841) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @09:33AM (#44668939) Homepage

    Pleaaaaaaaaase....

  • 15 years? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rubycodez (864176) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @09:35AM (#44668951)

    from Kennedy's challenge to first man on the moon was 8 years. just from that, I'd say this is mostly not planning to go anywhere in the next 20 years.

    • Re:15 years? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday August 25, 2013 @11:15AM (#44669393) Homepage

      from Kennedy's challenge to first man on the moon was 8 years

      Only because of the years and years of preparatory work already done. Development of the F-1 started in 1956. Much of the design and engineering for the Apollo capsule was already complete (although as a general purpose earth orbiter). The same goes for the engineering and development of the Saturn family of boosters.
       
      One of the reasons Kennedy chose a moon landing as a goal (over the other options considered) in the first place was because so much of the necessary groundwork was already in work.

      • Re:15 years? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Noughmad (1044096) <miha.cancula@gmail.com> on Sunday August 25, 2013 @11:36AM (#44669499) Homepage

        One would think there is even more groundwork done now than there was in the 60s. The main difference is that between a president making a commitment and a committee making a presentation.

        • Some of the groundwork has been done - but this project isn't getting the thing that made the real difference... a huge budget. Which wasn't a direct result of Kennedy's commitment - he was actually looking for ways to scale it back. The huge budget came because he died in Dallas and LBJ pushed for the program as a monument to Kennedy.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        Right, and we still have all that ground work and a lot more that has been developed in the mean time. If we put as much effort in to getting to the moon as we did then, like say the fate of the earth depended on it, I'm sure we could go in a year or two.

      • Re:15 years? (Score:5, Informative)

        by timeOday (582209) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @01:48PM (#44670435)

        Only because of the years and years of preparatory work already done. Development of the F-1 started in 1956.

        The V2 rocket is what really started the space age. It was the first thing humans ever built that reached space. It wasn't easy; the Nazis poured vast resources into that research. And there is a direct lineage from the V2 to the moon program.

      • by afgam28 (48611)

        It's sad that going to the moon six times is worth less in preparatory work than what had been done up to 1961. We've lost so much knowledge and experience that we've regressed as a species, at least in terms of human space exploration. Hopefully this time around we never forget how to do it.

        • by murdocj (543661)

          Nonsense. We are so much more capable now in space travel than we were in the 60's that there's just no comparison.

        • It's sad that going to the moon six times is worth less in preparatory work than what had been done up to 1961.

          It's only "sad" if you're unaware that it's 2013 and that materials, processes, etc... have changed radically in the intervening fifty years and that impacts pretty much every aspect of the project. Not to mention being ignorant enough to not grasp that every major engineering projects requires considerable ground and preparatory work beforehand (roughly proportional to the size of the project), e

      • by rubycodez (864176)

        not relevant at all, since the Apollo program had other goals and missions before the moon challenge. the technology hasn't gone away, we have more prep work now

        • Um, care to repeat that in English, or at least in properly phrased English?

          • by rubycodez (864176)

            In 1962 we took an existing space program and technology and made a new goal of reaching another world. We then reached that goal. We have in 2013 a bigger existing space program and even more technology. There is no reason we couldn't reach another world in less than a decade, for a price that is a tenth or less of a purposeless war or maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal of obscene and uselessly huge size.

    • Crash programs are very expensive and a budget like Apollo's may never happen again.

      • by gregor-e (136142)
        Particularly for something as frivolous as yet another moon landing. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Guess what we found out? The moon is made of rocks and dust. Big whoop. Now, put together a heavily-funded crash program to cure aging? That's something a lot more people could get behind.
      • Re:15 years? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rubycodez (864176) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @02:21PM (#44670671)

        wrong! even if we take the entire Apollo program which had other purposes before Kennedy's challenge, that was $25.4 billion as reported in 1973. That's 102.3 billion dollars now. Or the cost of the U.S. nuclear arsenal which is two thirds of a trillion dollars every decade. A fraction of cost of a war with no purpose and no results (other than a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi citizens), for example. Space exploration is very cheap.

  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @09:35AM (#44668953)
    ...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.

    And I was born years before Gagarin flew.

    • by geogob (569250)

      ...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.

      You are totally correct and somewhat wrong at the same time.

      To put a man on the Moon, the first step is to wish to put a man on the Moon and to actually try to put a man on the Moon. In other words, those who decide how much money is put in which envelope must want to put a man on the moon. Otherwise it will never happen. As no deciding party actually wants that or sets that as a priority, for whatever reason, you are totally correct in saying we are further away from putting a man on the moon than sometim

      • With enough money and a few years lead time, I suspect the Falcon-9 could probably get us orbiting the moon, and that there's enough talent in private space to also supply a suitable landing vehicle for a spacewalk.

        The real trick is to plan to do something which gets us enough buy-in that we actually go there, and do something which keeps us in-space as a permanent - and ideally profitable (or break-even) endeavour.

  • With the way national governments keep piling up debt [economist.com], it's unreasonable to assume any of those governments will be funding space exploration in 2030.

    • by peragrin (659227)

      The world is already broke. the next big economic collapse will be governments who are massively over extended.(which is nearly all of them)

    • by blahplusplus (757119) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @11:43AM (#44669547)

      "With the way national governments keep piling up debt"

      That debt is to private banks, you do know that each nation is supposed to have it's own national bank making that kind of debt impossible? The worlds banking cartel launched a coup against most nation states to keep them under their control via national debt.

      Don't think so? Why not look at what even these canadian politicians have to say. Money is political fiction, the national debt exists because private power wants it to exist to prevent progressive social change under the fear mongering of national debt.

      http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/ [ohcanadamovie.com]

      • by Raenex (947668)

        http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/

        Too bad the production is so juvenile (sound effects, jokes, etc). I do respect the message and the impressive list of people he managed to interview. Still, it's just a Canadian-focused rehash of similar works, such as "Money As Debt" and "The Money Masters".

        • The difference is, it's interviews with real politicians saying "yes we could do this but...(insinuating the majority of the public is too stupid/can't grasp this)", did you see what May and Layton said? skip to their interviews if you didn't.

          The fact that the politicians know what is possible but they are stuck in a system that would never allow it and because the public is just too fucking stupid / brainwashed.

          • by Raenex (947668)

            did you see what May and Layton said? skip to their interviews if you didn't.

            Quotes or times, otherwise I'm not going to skim through it searching for it. The two common themes seemed to be that the current system is good (the establishment), or that the system is entrenched (fringe parties).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    We're proposing a vision where Canada could have an astronaut, effectively a Canadian

    Wouldn't that be an astronuck?

  • by hessian (467078) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @09:57AM (#44669031) Homepage Journal

    How soon before we can send the rest of them?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    No more hollywood fakes. Nothing this time will hide from high definition cameras. Will have proof and can trace every step from the start to the moon. No more lying, no more fake Apollo flights.

  • Awesome news. If we can hit the 2030 mark for a Canuck, then we'll certainly have a Timmies on the moon by 2035 or so.
  • In a rare event, I am going to play the optimist and suggest commercial space endeavors will get us back to the moon before then. How soon? Perhaps between 2020 - 2025. It's easy to scoff at that, but technology is officially advancing at rate such that we already can't guess what things will be like in a mere six and a half to eleven-years from now. Scientific and technological advancement has become like a runaway, and aggressive, chemical reaction - like a wildfire burning intensely in powerful but chao
    • This all kind of hinges on the cost to LEO I suspect. Given the prices people pay for space tourism, I have been wondering what sort of improvements might make Lunar orbit tourism a thing instead. It's only a 3-day ride, and I suspect passage around the dark side of the moon would still be an incredible thing given that, what, about 30 people maximum have ever been there?

      • by murdocj (543661)

        There was a story about 2 years ago about Space Adventures marketing a possible flight around the moon in a Soyuz. But the price they were quoting was way more than the flight to the ISS. There probably aren't more than another 30 people who could afford it, want to go, and psychologically could deal with being in a small space capsule for 8 or 9 days with a decent chance of dying during the trip.

      • by ibwolf (126465)

        I have been wondering what sort of improvements might make Lunar orbit tourism a thing instead. It's only a 3-day ride, and I suspect passage around the dark side of the moon would still be an incredible thing given that, what, about 30 people maximum have ever been there?

        27 to be exact. Apollo 8 and 10 through 17 each sent 3 astronauts into lunar orbit. Apollo 7 and 9 stayed in Earth orbit conducting tests. Apollo 1-6 were unmanned.

        • by ibwolf (126465)

          27 to be exact

          Bleh, scratch that. The real number is 24.

          James Lowell flew on Apollo 8 and 13.
          John Young flew on Apollo 10 and 16.
          Eugene Cernan flew on Apollo 10 and 17.

          So in total, 27 trips have been taken around the moon, by 24 men.

    • In the USA it's almost always been commercial spaceflight but the government has been the main customer. For the last couple of decades there's been plenty of other customers for satellites for example.
      What is it that you think will change to make someone other than a government pay for a trip to the moon?
      • by wjcofkc (964165)
        What do I think will change? That's just it, I don't know. Other than the possibility that landing on the moon could prove to be an exercise for greater missions that would profit. My point is: all of scientific and technological achievement going into even the near term future has become by far and away a greater wild card than it has ever been before, and we have only just achieved that level of mystery. I'm just saying, don't put anything past the near and long term future. We can't know anything other t
        • by dbIII (701233)
          You don't seem to get that the "new paradigm" is still the same as the old one only with some different contractors. More people may be selling but it's the same bunch buying and saying what the stuff will be used for. I'd like it to be different. I'd like to see industrial efforts on captured near earth objects, but nobody is even talking about the sort of stuff apart from governments.
  • 14 cooperating space agencies around the world could mean that a Canadian astronaut.... The International Space Exploration Coordination Group, of which Canada is a part/quote

    So what about the other 13 space agencies? I mean, it could be Canadian, but couldn't it just as well be one of the other countries? I just skimmed the article, but I didn't say where it listed what countries the other agencies were from.

  • I've read it first as "international error". It turns out that this is a very easy mistake to make.
  • by ebno-10db (1459097) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @11:59AM (#44669641)

    Are they going to send a human Canadian? Ho-hum. Humans on the moon is a been-there-done-that kind of thing. Now, the first moose on the moon, that would be be cool!

  • ...on the moon aswell.

    just saying.

  • So who is going to direct this fake moon landing? It's a proven factoid that Kubrick directed the first (which is how he got access to those Carl Zeiss Planar f/0.7 lenses he used in Barry Lyndon). I think Ridley Scott will direct, though if lens flares are needed...

  • ...does that make the Moon Earth's toque?

  • International Effort Could Put First Canadian On the Moon

    Do the Canadians in general (and the one in particular) have any say in this, or are they just expendable?

  • OK, I am Canadian so I think it would be cool to have one of us on the Moon and all however their rational makes about zero sense.

    So a a Canadian robotics expert to drive a rover? Why can this not be done from the comfort of a couch whilst eating a poutine? I mean the whole point of a "rover" is the "remote" operation... I mean, yeah I get it if it were Mars and you have crazy time lag between commands because of the distances involved, but the moon?

    I mean if they were to say it was to do repairs or somethi

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...