China Plans Moonbase 781
jfruhlinger writes: "According to this BBC news article, the Chinese government plans to put a human on the moon by 2010, with the long-term goal of 'set[ting] up a base on the moon and min[ing] its riches for the benefit of humanity.' The article seems to think that the program is more for the benefit of China's defense and aerospace industry. D'ya think they can pull it off?"
But will it be (Score:4, Funny)
"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:2, Troll)
Re:"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:3, Insightful)
> for their extensive chain of gulags and
> slave labor camps down here on Earth.
Actually, the good 'ol US incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than red china.
With our current trend of zero-tolerance and long mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offences we keep building more and more prisons and keep filling them up. LA's Twin Towers Correctional Facility is the world's largest prision. Lets not forget Guantanamo Bay where we refuse to honor the Geneva convention because the prisioners of our "War on Terrorism" are not prisioners of war according to the US.
Re:"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:3, Interesting)
So that they can go around the world, making wars and killing people, and calling it "war against terrorism", and justifying all that with "we are democracy" phrase?
I like them more as they are now. In their own yard.
Re:"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:2, Redundant)
Maybe they're hoping that someone else will try it first.
Re:"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:5, Insightful)
For sheer results for monies spent, they seem to be gaining on us. Perhaps to build a space-faring civilization, at least at current levels of technology, a nation needs a dictatorship, or at least a permanent government capable of making plans for period greater than four to eight years.
This is NOT what the future was supposed to be.
And are we living in a democracy anymore? Sigh. Looks more like a plutocracy installed by any means necessary.
Oops, there's a knocking outside my door.
"Sir, are your papers in order? There have been questions about comments you have made about the president on the Internet. If you could answer some questions?"
...
"Please come with us. No, you cannot have a lawyer. No, your family cannot be called. No, we decide when you leave. --taser him, he's running for it...!"
TZZZZZZZZ drag drag drag
[The preceeding wasn't funny, and can now happen in the U.S.A. Remember kids, questioning those in power is unpatriotic, and treasonous! All stand now and drown out the traitors on our Permanent War on Terra with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance...]
grr
Re:"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:3, Interesting)
mother fFuckers, all of you. you all (anyone who's commented in this thread at all) is sooo wildly hooked on the idea of communism vs. democracy.
a real democracy is this: every day, you wake up fFree of rules and go about your business until called upon to join everyone else in the most recent vote. that vote will be anything fFrom where to lay a road, to what stores are allowed in your town, to how much money will be allocated fFor education and military spending.
a real communism is this: every day, you wake up fFree of having to worry about anything but getting your exact job done. your job was either chosen or given you by a community leader(s). that leader(s) will make all the choices, and collect and distribute all worldly goods as they, in their infinite wisdom, see fFit. you need worry about nothing.
neither we, nor the chinese, live in either of these. we live in republic, where we vote on leaders, and pay taxes to a government who gives out things on a limited basis. they live in a socialism, where they get to vote on a fFew things and have to buy some stuff.
fFor fFuck's sake!! stop your whining and complaining about how communism is so awful and democracy is so great!!! individual policies and practices alone are good or bad, not whole governmental structures!
Re:"For the benefit of humanity" (Score:3, Interesting)
A democracy, or representative government, with an electorate of engaged properly educated citizens, is arguably a good approach to ensuring a government that acts for the general welfare. However, it is hard to claim either the precoditions or the results or even the reality of the form for the United States today.
The Chinese on the other hand often suppress freedoms that we think are ultimately essential to a general welfare government, but nevertheless the Chinese do manage to act often in the general welfare. And their lunar colony is an example of that, an argument which can be simply based on our experience with the Apollo program economic multipliers. More generally, by our own historical experience, great science projects of this nature increase the moral and educational level of the population as well as transform the economy.
But... (Score:2, Interesting)
Green Cheese Market (Score:4, Funny)
I guess the Chinese will have all the market share for selling green cheese to the world.
Re:Green Cheese Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Green Cheese Market (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the manufacturing costs are higher, the military position (uphill on the gravity well compared to earth) could only be beaten by orbital systems backed up by asteroid and orbital mining/manufacturing.
Military Base Potential (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this is not the moral High Ground.
I seem to recall something on this written by some science fiction author someplace. I am sure some military planners someplace are sweating over this right now.
Re:Military Base Potential (Score:3, Interesting)
In the book, large rocks are encased in iron, and shot out of the moon's shallow gravity well with a rail gun to be caught by Earth's much stronger gravitational field. I am not a physicist, but I don't think it would take a very big rock to equal the destructive power of a nuclear weapon if it was dropped from just inside the Earth's gravity well.
Incidentally, this is going to occur to the Dept. of Defense as well. If China actually makes progress, we (the US) are going to see a lot more money in NASA's budget very soon. I think this kind of thinking is what the original space race was all about.
Would the US participate (Score:4, Insightful)
It is Good(tm) Regardless (Score:5, Interesting)
It is good for humanity, regardless.
If China is serious about this, maybe it will be get US Government off of its sorry ass, stop underfunding NASA, and start actually doing something to facilitate long term economic exploitation of space.
If the US doesn't get off its ass, humans will still have finally gotten off their sorry asses and begun colonizing space. Once we have colonies independent of earth, the liklihood of our extinction goes way down. This is a Good Thing(tm), regardless of whether those humans come from the United States, China, or Timbuktu.
If the Chinese manage to start another space race with the United States I will personally take my hat off to them, because apparently we (the United States, and the West in general) don't have the will, or the vision, to do it on our own, without competition from the Russians or someone else.
Maybe the threat of having the Chinese sweep away all physical proof of the lunar moon landings (to promote the absurd myth that the landings were somehow fake
Re:Would the US participate (Score:2)
Why should China offer the "US" welfare just because we can't frigging reform our space program? IMNSHO it would be very very bad for the whole of mankind for China to offer the "US" participation it it's space program.
Re:Would the US participate (Score:2)
US's attempts in blocking China (Score:3, Informative)
It's a surprise that nobody here mention the many attempts by the United States in blocking China to get into space.
The thing started way back in the '50s, and throughout the Cold War, and even AFTER the Cold War has (supposingly) ended.
Take the International Space Station (ISS) for example - why countries like Brazil and Japan are allowed to take part, while China isn't even part of it?
The thing is that the US will NOT let China in taking part in ANY space program, not even those which are supposed to be PEACEFUL.
Wonder why the article concern so much about China's plan for moonbase ? Of course, the only concern for the author is that China must NOT be allowed to go into space.
All these while the Japs are encouraged to take part in space programs.
Don't you think it's kinda double standards ?
Re:US's attempts in blocking China (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you use a race based standard, like the theme of your poost.
The USA blocks China mainly because of their overt statements that they want to destroy the US and some of our allies, like Taiwan.
We had an embargo on Japan when they were saying similar things pre-WWII.
Besides, even those efforts wained during the Clinton administration, with plenty of US payloads and US rocket technology launching from China for Irridium.
Hope this helps you.
Re:Would the US participate (Score:2)
I think it would probably be better for humanity if the Chinese didn't offer the US any involvement. After all, the US doesn't have much of a reputation at the moment for taking a global view. See Kyoto, oil in Alaska, the US pollution per capita figures, missile defence treaties etc. to see what I'm talking about.
Re:Would the US participate (Score:2)
check out: http://www.space.com/news/a11_plaque.html [space.com]
doesn't fully answer your question, but indicates someone back then had a wider view of the world.
hope (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope so. Perhaps this is the start of the second space race?
Unlike a space station it could be self sufficient (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets also hope it's governed by similar laws as Antarctica.
Re:hope (Score:2, Insightful)
It won't be sexy or glitzy like the US space program, but it will sure be pragmatic and it was probably cost a whole lot less, too.
It would be nice to see some political reforms, though...
Re:hope (Score:3, Funny)
reminds me of an old joke: "Hey Mr. President, the chinese have painted the moon red!" "No Problem, send some of our guys up to write 'Coke' on it"
Re:hope (Score:2)
China might retaliate with mining a local asteroid, or large space station. As long as neither economy collapses, great.
Re:hope (Score:3, Interesting)
Alert your congressman!
Or a different response (Score:2)
The economic/scientific bebefits of a moonbase would be of more advantage to China in a time of Peace. It wouldn't survive a war.
Sure, let's just forget about the rest of Defense (Score:2)
For that sort of vision, I'd certainly be willing to put in $500 investment a year out of my retirement funds and take both a security leap, a science leap, and a nice portfolio boost along the way.
Much better, don't you think?
Perhaps the US gov. will believe China can do it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, it worked with Sputnik...
One Way Trip? (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be a whole lot easier to accomplish getting somebody to the moon to live if you didn't have to worry about getting them back. I'm willing to believe that the Chinese would send people up to the moon with supplies to attempt to set up a moon base, and keep sending them more stuff, but not worry about the return trip, at least not right away. Send 3 guys up with O2, food, water, and equipment to process lunar dust and rock to extract O2. Use the weight budget that would have been used for a return trip for more survival supplies. Send up resupply rockets. Once the people on the moon have had a chance to experiment on the lunar dust and get a better idea of what would work (perhaps dying in the process), send more people with better equipment. Keep sending people. Don't worry - those who died on the moon did so in the firm belief that they were paving the way for those who followed. They'd be heros on the ground.
The dynamics are way different if you are willing to accept casulties.
Re:One Way Trip? (Score:3, Informative)
I sure as heck hope not (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I sure as heck hope not (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:2)
How could the USA stand by and let the chinese be the first to build a base on the moon? I'm sure the military would be interested if nothing else.
How space will be used (was: Re:I wonder...) (Score:4, Funny)
IOW, the US government should "stand by" and do nothing (whether they will resist the urge to waste taxe$ in space is another question). Let's look at how space-commerce (the voluntary, non-government-supported kind) is going in the real world, right now:
So far, it's ALL rich people, and all "tourism." 100%! No exceptions!!
This was to be expected, but think ten years (and maybe 100 orders of magnitude cheaper) down the road...Space-tourism is going to evolve toward one thing, and it's a thing that governments (of any sort) don't seem to want to consider:
SEX tourism. Couples are going to want to have intercourse without gravity (and without annoying swimming pools, scuba gear, etc.). Many honeymooners will want to, uh...start out with a bang (sorry! Couldn't resist).
This will happen naturally, I'm sure of it. Ultimately, all this sex will be the main thing supporting science up there, but no central planning bureaucrat (Chinese or US) will anticipate this, it'll just happen. I only wish that I could find some way to make money off my prediction when it comes to pass...
JMR
(My own opinions, nobody else seems to want them.)
This will push development the tech we really need (Score:2, Insightful)
'China's moon mining plan is perhaps one of the best things that could have happened as far as space exploration is concerned. The world's primary space organisation, NASA, is constantly having its budget chipped away by the US government. Hopefully, China's future successes in space missions will force the US, and other countries, back into research and development of technologies needed for space flight and colonization such as nuclear propulsion, terraforming and techniques for mining resources on off-earth locations such as the moon and asteroid belts.'
Who knows - three hundred years from now, our decendents could look back on this day and say 'thanks to China pushing the world into a new space race, we managed to develop the technologies that allowed us to get off that overcrowded and overpolluted chuck of rock that we called Earth, before it killed us all off for good.'
chinese govt. thinks apollo was faked! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure how this idea got intot he PRC leadership -- senile Chairman Mao watching Capricorn One too many times? Unless the PRC has changed its tune, we may be witness to the odd and embarassing spectacle of the Chinese claiming to be the first on the moon...
jf
Re:chinese govt. thinks apollo was faked! (Score:2)
Chinese claiming to be the first on the moon... (Score:2)
My own personal hope once upon a time was to someday walk on the elevated boardwalks around the Apollo 11 landing site and see Armstrong and Aldrin's footprints. Don't think it's going to happen, not even for my kids, maybe for my grandkids...
Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
Virg
It was done with 1960s technology once... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say any sufficiently determined organization with enough money to sink into the project could build a moon base.
Another factor: They'll find it easy to recruit enthusiasts from all over the world. Imagine a brain drain toward China.
Re:It was done with 1960s technology once... (Score:2, Insightful)
$2 Billion.
Cost of setting up a moonbase (self sustaining) $10 Billion approx.
Just go look at Dubyas defense spending, and weep at the fact we could all be there.
Re:It was done with 1960s technology once... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're seriously underestimating 1960s tech.
Actually, the Saturn V was better, cheaper (per lb of payload) and about as reliable as the Space Shuttle. The only big failure (ignoring Apollo I) was Apollo 13, and that wasn't a launch vehicle failure.
It also launched much more payload than the Space Shuttle can; the Space Shuttle simply can't reach the moon because of this.
Re:It was done with 1960s technology once... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It was done with 1960s technology once... (Score:2)
D'ya think they can pull it off? (Score:4, Interesting)
Will they do it before we do? - A resounding 'Hell yes'. They don't have to go through all the red tape that we've made for ourselves. IF the goverment says we are going to do it they will do it.
Will they establish a STABLE moon base by 2010 - Hell no. There will be too many countries trying to sabatoge those ambitions(present country included) for both political and security reasons.
I learned where the word sabatoge came from by watching Star Trek movies.
Does anyone here know... (Score:2, Interesting)
AFAIK the moon is of the same material as earth, making it mainly a large rock of silicondioxide and iron.
Interesting stuff like uran/gold/etc. should be too rare to mine it commercially (high expenses for transport !).
Mining what? What "riches"? (Score:3, Interesting)
What you might get from the moon:
- Astronomical observations (especially on far side)
- First class secrecy (on far side)
- Solar power?
- Fair vacuum, easily accessed
- Prestige
- High ground, drop rocks on anybody you don't like (Heinlein)
Re:Does anyone here know... (Score:2)
Space race back on? (Score:2, Insightful)
Impossible , they will be blinded by the light ! (Score:2)
If this guy has anything to do with it
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscie
shame physics always gets in the way of great ideas
Go China! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go China! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go China! (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, it's a shame but exploring space is something my kids will have to do.
Re:Go China! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even "by and large"; western governments are run by people supposedly chosen to represent the millions, but in reality represent only themselves, basing their decisions to a great, great extent on what will help them maintain their exalted, feted position when the next election rolls around. The population thinks the representatives are voting based on what "the people" want. It's a comfortable illusion, and an ultimately dangerous one.
right now, the attitude of the people is screw space, we have bigger problems, like 3rd world debt, growing the economy and reducing our dependance on oil.
Except I don't think a lot of people in the U.S. pay much mind to third world debt, and fewer think about how to really deal with it and the root causes of that debt. I hear a lot of 'Net chatter from people who simply want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, demeaning alternative power sources as "greenie stuff that gave us California's power mess."
As far as I'm concerned, it's a shame but exploring space is something my kids will have to do.
Something tells me even your kids won't be doing it. It will be kids in Beijing that will be exploring space, because the West is resting on its laurels, too busy solidifying its economic and political empire and keeping the masses content and mollified to worry about little things like "exploration" and "pure science".
Ironically, much of the West's technological power today came as a result of the space race. I wonder if the same thing is about to happen in China. I wonder if another freedom movement will come with it - one that might succeed.
trying to be apolitical here, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Communism Wins!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Hong Kong (Score:2)
Joe
Nuclear testing in space? (Score:2)
China overflow error, moving to the moon.
Re:Nuclear testing in space? (Score:2)
EMF? ummm, No. (Score:2)
Re:Nuclear testing in space? (Score:2)
I think it would be both a danger and an opportunity.
--
Benjamin Coates
This is Great News! (Score:2, Funny)
If its one thing Amercan's can't stand, its communists on our Moon!
Excellent, I hope they succeed. (Score:5, Interesting)
sorry but the US as a leader in space research is dead... put a fork in us as we are done.
They're in for a surprise. (Score:2, Funny)
Garg
soo.... (Score:2)
Re:soo.... (Score:2)
We let them build the base then when their government collapses, because we all know that communism cannot work. Just so we can then say
The one thing you can say about China... (Score:5, Insightful)
Be it in business, life, current affairs -- whatever the situation. It's almost ingrained into the Chinese worldview. This has been shown time and time again, through the projects that have been completed and/or worked upon, in China. The Great Wall and The Three Rivers Gorge are the first two obvious examples that come to mind; the manmade Kunming Lake [wiw.org] elicits the same thoughts, as well.
Now, I'm not saying these tasks are/were not costly, both in terms of dollars and human lives, nor am I saying that many (especially current) Chinese projects are without corruption and/or controversy.
Rather, what I am pointing out is the historical Chinese trend of "progress" against odds. I don't really want to use the term "determination", because there is certainly the very real possibility that people work on these things against their will. Yet in any case, foreigners who've worked there on corporate projects for a while will tell you that, when working with a Chinese corporation, while they may promise you something seemingly outrageous... but short of a few exceptions, they won't promise you something they can't/won't complete.
The aforementioned exceptions are, however, predictably tied to corruption, where unwilling corporate heads -- or even middle management -- can very easily tie up a project with red tape, unless there's a little cash to "oil the wheels". If China's going to build a moon base, this corrupt undercurrent, in my opinion, is the most likely stumbling block. (As an aside this goes for the 2008 Olympics, too. After just getting back from Beijing a few weeks ago, I will be most amazed if they solve, at least to a large degree, the pollution problem, as they have promised.)
In most cases, however, while a project may take 10, 20, or two hundred years, the Chinese have historically tended to accomplish any goal that they've set out to do.
Again, it's all in the mindset... a "slow but steady" one, at that. Westerners tend to think in short, digestible timeframes. "Project ABC has to be completed in X months." The Chinese, on the other hand, look at things across a much, much larger timetable. What's a hundred years, when you've been around for several-thousand, already?
Granted, in a modern world, this opens the door to corruption and inefficiency... but how many of those "really cool projects", on which you've spent countless hours at work, have gotten tossed into the circular file because they were deemed too costly or too time-inefficient by the corporate heads?
So they say they'll have a moon base? I really don't doubt it. It may not happen in my lifetime, or yours... but it will probably happen, nevertheless.
Re:The one thing you can say about China... (Score:2)
Slow down (Score:2)
No Kidding?! (Score:3, Funny)
Sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the title is "China to build Moon base", 90% of the discussions are related to 'communists', 'stealing technology', 'human rights'. I presume, most of the people have never been to China.
Couldn't people stop 'stealing technology' stories for a moment (think US would have nukes if they haven't *stolen* German scientist and research?), and talk about feasibility of this project, no matter who does it.
There are so many sites dealing with politics - don't turn Slashdot into another one.
2010 - no problem (Score:2)
Let's see, the US pulled off landing a man on the moon in 7 1/2 years. China has years of technological growth since then, and more manpower (and more resources?) then the US did at that time. The state of the art for propultion is far beyond what it was back in the day US landed on the moon.
Sounds like a piece of cake.
To start mining would take a much reduced cost per kg to lift, most likely heavily reusable spacecraft. Getting it down doesn't have to be the same way - read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for ideas, which also converts into a nice big weapon. Gotta love standing at the top of a deep gravity well.
I think this is not only possible, but probable. And potentially scary for nations that don't play nicely with China. Once to the moon, elsewhere is next. Population pressure unlike anywhere but India may provide a good motivation to think long term about spaceflight. Or maybe I'm wrong.
But there is no reason the Chinese can not succeed if they want to.
=Blue(23)
Good question (Score:2)
This is great news! (Score:2)
If this puts space back into the public eye, then it's a Good Thing (tm) through and through.
Slapstick (Score:2)
My god, Vonnegut was right.
The essential question is WHY. (Score:4, Insightful)
As always, the essential question is why. Prestige only gets you so far. Notice that after mankind proved it could be done in 1969 - 1974, we just plain stopped. Know why? We'd gotten all the scientific information we could reasonably have gotten, it was very dangerous, and very expensive. So now we have to ask why and look for deeper responses, an actual purpose to flying out into space. What possibly could be done on the moon that couldn't be done right here, or perhaps on our money pit noisemaker, the Int'l Space Station (ISS)? I strongly suspect the answer is nothing.
Speaking in a larger, world exploration of space sense, couldn't we get more scientific gain by sending out many, many more satellites equipped with finely engineered sensors? I know our human nature makes us feel that if there's not a biped there we haven't really experienced it, but putting a base on the moon, landing on mars, doing deep space exploration, etc - these are all things that become exponentially cheaper if we decide to send machines instead of people to do it.
Before we went to the moon it held an air of mystery for us. But when we got there we found it was just a big dusty gray rock, and so our fascination was with ourselves with succeeding in getting there, not with the destination itself. People who dream of moonbases fail to realize that it'll never happen. It's like going to a far-away island - anything you need you have to bring with you. Food, housing, any and all equipment to do anything - it's ridiculous and there's no reason for it. We'll also never practice interstellar travel, or likely even get beyond Mars & Venus as humans, mainly due to the gamma ray problem. And will it be worth it? For science, yes. But not for any practical purpose.
Re:I Hope they (Score:3, Funny)
I've see the pictures and they look a bit dodgy to me
So in 2011 we can look forward to people claiming that the Chinese Moon mission pictures are fake, then?
"Of course the Marco Polo trip was fake. You expect me to believe humans could cross the Gobi Desert? This whole "China" thing sounds a bit dodgy to me..." -- 13th century conspiracy theorist
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:I Hope they (Score:2, Funny)
Not going to get into the issues of trying to pass through the Van Allen Belts wearing suits of 7 layers of 'glass like' material for protection. Nor the number of photos with uneven hash marks (they must have just slid back and forth across the lense as I'm sure they were designed to do for various reasons of National Security). Nor even to get involved with the infamous 'lost report' blasting Nasa's legs out over the whole thing and actually having everyone who's tried to bring it to light die in freak accidents...I mean..these things must happen all the time to all sorts of reports. The president goes through many speak writers each month from being hit by trains, plains, and Logger Head Turtles...
No I just want someone to explain why a rocketing pod failed to create enough power to kick up any dust at all while lifting a pretty heavy pod out of the moons gravite. That's what made me believe the states have never been there. Anyone? (please, no blanket reply/dismissal...if you can't anwser the question please just move along)
Oh..and I did try to make an account..but it seams not to be responding right now...or else doesn't work for Opera 6...whichever..
Re:I Hope they (Score:2)
Discussions on Physics (Score:5, Informative)
> After watching the video of the moon rover driving around and kicking up dust as it went... and then seeing the video of the Lunar Lander rocketing off the moon's surface without stiring up any dust at all????? The only way I could see the smaller force of the rover kicking up more dust than the larger force of the rocking pod not able to moving ANY dust at all is if the laws of physics are not constant on the moon.
Actually, the trap you're falling into is based on assumptions about how dust behaves on the Moon. Those assumptions almost always stem from observed behavior of dust and dirt on Earth. There are a few key differences, however, that make a HUGE difference in how small particles behave in these two very different environments. They are:
Atmosphere: this is by far the most important, and the most confusing. This causes two things. First is that there's a lack of turbulence that is unfamiliar to those who don't work with vacuum. This is what causes your disparity of observation. You'll notice in the film that the return module of the lander did not fire a rocket directly at the moon, but instead it pushed on the top of the descent module. That means the main thrust of the engine went downward into the descent module and then straight out sideways. On Earth, this would cause a swirl of air all around the module, but on the Moon, there's no air to swirl, and the thrust never gets to the ground, so there's no dust movement. Second, dust on the Moon is not like dust or dirt or sand on Earth. On Earth, these things get worn smooth by air and water. On the Moon, they don't so dust is very hard-edged, and its behavior more closely mimics wet snow than sand.
Gravity: this tends to cause things to behave differently than expected, and it goes hand in hand with the lack of atmosphere. Just as Mr. Armstrong did not descend quickly to the surface, we'd expect dust to fall slowly. However, what the mind fails to suss out is that the lack of air resistance more than makes up for the lesser gravity when small particles are concerned, so when dust falls quickly, it looks odd. However, the rub is that the only place dust can fall as quickly as a human being is in a low gravity vacuum, which would seem to prove that they were in fact on the Moon.
> Not going to get into the issues of trying to pass through the Van Allen Belts wearing suits of 7 layers of 'glass like' material for protection.
This stems from misunderstanding how radiation works on the human body. The method for determining exposure has two factors: intensity and duration. One can get a fairly high dose of radiation and not develop health problems if the the duration is short. Conversely, low exposure for long periods can cause difficulties, which is why x-ray technicians stand behind a wall when they use the machine (else they'd get small doses, but lots of small doses) while you get to stand in the beam (high exposure, but you only do it a few times in your lifetime). The Van Allen belt has (relatively) high radiation levels, but unless you're planning on living in it (and most space stations are positioned outside it (well, inside it, relative to Earth)) you're not going to get a lethal dose. All of the discussions about how much shielding is needed for the Van Allen belt are based on the amount of shielding necessary to block all of the radiation, but it's not necessary to do that if you limit the amount of time spent there. The balance is that the Apollo astronauts did get a dose of radiation, but it was in the area of 1 rem (radiation sickness doesn't normally appear until the levels get to about 20-25 rems), so it wouldn't be particularly dangerous (or at least no more so than the trip to space on the booster rocket was to begin with).
Virg
Re:One has to think (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One has to think (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh God, I'm tired of these hypocrites. I fail to see how this is different than spending 390 BILLION dollars (or so) A YEAR on a military budget. Last I checked, there were a lot of hungry/homeless/poor people in the USA, and it still doesn't prevent military from having budget increased every year.
Re:It's ironic really... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's ironic really... (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalist NATIONS don't take huge percentages for GDP in taxes to go in search of the raw materials for production. Instead, CAPITALIST individuals (or their legal constructions) take personal risks to later return a profit. If a CAPITALIST has the means to launch a moon-mining project (including obtaining some precedent for mineral rights on Luna) and the fervent belief that they will make money (BENEFIT). This is all well and good and moral, and all who contribute do so voluntarily.
Frankly, if the Chinese are going to go to the moon on the backs of the Chinese workers it will almost certainly hasten the demise of their non-free (non-free as in speech and as in beer) regime. [See Heritage foundation freedom index. ] [heritage.org] That will benefit humanity.
Re:It's ironic really... (Score:2, Insightful)
The main reason that capitalists have not taken up mining on either the moon or nearby asteroids is the price of admission. It costs about $10,000 for every pound that goes into orbit. Taking that same pound to the moon increases the cost even higher. And what is on the moon that could be mined right now anyway? Sure, it's a rich source of helium 3, but how many power plants are there currently that use helium 3 as a fuel?
The cost of getting men and material into orbit, let alone to the moon, has to come down dramically and the possibility or extracting a profitable material would have to really go up before such an operation would ever be seriously considered by industry. Any corporation that would spend billions of dollars on something with almost no profit potential would last about as long as Enron or Global Crossing.
Re:It's ironic really... (Score:2)
Agree with mining for resources, but I prefer to do it on the moon, or from an asteroid in the far future. Mining on Earth damages the area ecologically, which is OK with a couple of billion people's needs. But postulate TEN billion or more, and the our planet's going to look like a golf course with a gopher invasion.
The moon is rock and vacuum. Strip mine away!
The thing is, that used to be true, as far as personal risk. But now with a corporate structure, individuals take no risks in enterprises such as space flight - legal fictions do, as you say. But this means that the classic penalties for failure or malfeasance -- penury or jail -- are now erased. But more on point, a corporation simply cannot take the risks an entrepeneur can take -- such as a twenty year plan to build lunar mines and an orbital industy to compliment it.
Another point: corporations darn well use huge chunks of the GDP -- it's called defense spending. And other things. Remember Ross Perot? He hates government spending -- but doesn't want us to remember that EDP, his fortune, was made off of goverment contracts.
Except that these capitalist individuals aren't lifting us into space. Neither are corporations. The thing is, corporations must make a profit quarter to quarter -- quite large ones, or Wall Street has a meltdown. And space development is a decades-long process with no profit to be made until major components are complete -- a cheap launch system, a lunar base with mass-driver complex to lift the materiel, an orbital system to capture the materiel, smelters, factories, orbital stations/colonies, lunar-terran shuttle systems, on and on. Probably trillions in capital outlay before one penny in steel/aluminum/titanium deliveries, or a decent capability to accept colonists in numbers. No corporation can do this because no shareholder will accept it.
The words "moral" and "business" are not connected. Do not confuse religious and moral issues with business practices -- such confusion is dangerous and intentional. Businesses are not human and their procedures are not moral in any way. HUMANS behave in a moral fashion. BUSINESSES are amoral contructs run by morally-shielded humans. Businesses should never claim a mantle of holiness, and I will not let this meme start without a fight. Thought we didn't catch that, hm?
I'm a Son of Heinlein myself, which means I can smell a dead semantic herring in my underwear drawer.
I'll skip the Heritage Foundation. Sadly tho, if the regime falls before the benefits of space development roll in, the Chinese people will get McDonalds, cars, traffic jams, and corporate control -- and the world loses because the last hope for getting off this planet dies.
I'll hope that democracy develops in China, but that somehow this amazing development continues somehow despite taxpayer protests -- because it really is the last real hope for the human race to spread off this planet before we turn into a race of suburban tax haters who think everything is fine the way it is.
Re:It's ironic really... (Score:2)
Re:Mine an Asteroid (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mine an Asteroid (Score:2)
I doubt either the Russian military or the US military is going to let that scenario go unexplored or unanswered.
Re:Chinese have vision, but vision doesn't cut it. (Score:2)
Re:China is mining the moon for (Score:2)
Re:China is mining the moon for (Score:2)
Eh. It's probably a lot easier to monitor communications down here on Earth. As for the creation of missile silos, I'm not sure the Chinese could really count on even hitting the Earth from that distance, much less a city or an air force base. It'd be easier for them to just stick a few nukes in orbit and pass them off as communications satellites or some such thing.
Re:China is mining the moon for (Score:3, Informative)
If you're on the moon, you don't need nuclear weapons [amazon.com]. As for communications, the signal loss is so dramatic, especially for signals that aren't explicitly pointed at the moon, that you'd be wasting your time.
Since 80% of the effort of going to the moon is actually used in getting off the earth's surface, you'd be better off with earth-based satellites. For some information (of unknown quality) on this topic, check the Federation of American Scientists [fas.org] site.
Re:China Loses Numbers Game (Score:2)
Re:May now congress will spend some money on NASA (Score:2)
Ain't gonna happen. Both Congress and the Prez would throw a fit: "You're overbudget on the ISS by billions and you want to go back to the Moon anyway? What are you smoking?" As much as I wish it was us building a base on the Moon, we'll be going to Mars before we go back to the Moon.
Re:and after (Score:2)
Does that go for the US as well, or are we exempt?