Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

To the Moon and Beyond 227

Posted by michael from the europe-has-the-initiative-the-US-lacks dept.
isorox writes "The BBC is reporting that 'Europe is considering sending humans to the Moon, Mars and beyond within the next few decades', although the UK government 'does not support human space flight and will not fund UK citizens to go through the official European astronaut training programme'. However while plans are made for the next 30 years, Rosetta is due to launch in 2 weeks time, ready to rendevous and land on a comet in 2011. Assuming it doesn't blow up on launch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

To the Moon and Beyond More

To the Moon and Beyond

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:36PM (#4973058)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • And the Europeans would be the first to step on the Moon (according to some).

      I really doubt it.
      Haven't you noticed Europeans have been investing heavily in Hollywood studios lately?

      -

  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:36PM (#4973059) Homepage
    How does the ESA decide which projects to pursue, how much to spend, and who will contribute what or get which contract?

    Give the political tussles that go on in the United States over such things, I can only think Europe with rivalries running back centuries would be quite challenging. On the other hand -- they seem to be doing quite well!

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by KjetilK ( 186133 ) <kjetilNO@SPAMkjernsmo.net> on Saturday December 28, 2002 @04:06PM (#4973146) Homepage Journal
      ESA has a Science Programme Committee that has the main say in which projects to pursue. The members are scientists from each of the member countries.

      To some extent, everything is politics, but the scientists of the ESA-SPC have generally been well focused on scientific merits, and on consensus within the scientific community.

      Who gets what contracts is on a different level, and I have no idea how that happens.

      • Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)

        by patiwat ( 126496 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @05:02PM (#4973292)
        > To some extent, everything is politics, but the scientists of the ESA-SPC have generally been well focused on scientific merits, and on consensus within the scientific community

        It is all about politics. Why else was the scientific budget frozen for much of the latter half of the 90's, while the launchers budget bloomed, or the massive amount of funds on the table for Galileo?

        The ESA's budget is practically set by the European space ministers, who are usually ministers of science of the european governments. The science ministers are influenced much more by industrialists (who supposedly build European space capabilities and labor force) than by scientists.

        As a general rule, you should ignore any statements about multi-billion dollar multi-decade programs made by individual scientists, ESA members, and departments, and focus more on the proceedings and commentaries of the actual each ESA Minister meetings which occur once every couple of years. That's where the real committments are made. Since most major programs require committment from all ESA members, a pork-barrel policy supported by France might not neccesarily be supported by Germany or England.

  • What is up with the UK (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lowtekneq ( 469145 ) <lowtekneq@hotmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:36PM (#4973062) Homepage
    Can someone from the UK answer this please? Is it the people or just the government that is so opposed to doing anything that involves the European Union? I'm German and spent a good deal of my life there, and i still try to keep up to date with European politics. The UK didn't want the Euro, they don't agree with the EU when it comes to war.. What gives?
    • I think the UK people with regards to space flight might not object too much however we'd probably rather see our taxes go elsewhere.

      And I'm going to go into the reasons why most of Britain is anti-Euro/anti-EU - too little time and no interest on here.
    • Hm.. I agree that there are more important things to spend our taxes on (like building another millenium dome, giving our uncorrupt politicians pay rises, or cramming yet more refugees into our country*) - but I don't see why our country is so opposed to Europe.

      I recently went to the Netherlands on a short break, and got used to the Euro quite quickly.. I think its time we grow up and adopt that.

      (*That was sarcasm, for those who didnt get it!) :)

    • Loyalty check (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Syncdata ( 596941 )
      The UK is wary of the EU, because it wants to maintain it's excellent economic relations with the US. I don't believe that the UK wants to be embroiled in some of the trade disputes forming on the horizon between the EU and the US. I think the UK is being wise in choosing the role of middle-man/mediator.
      As for not going along with the Euro, well that makes good sense to me. The UK is correct (IMHO) in wanting to be independant financially from the rest of Europe.
      In closing, to prevent myself from being offtopic, let me just say, moontrip good. Go EU.
      • > The UK is wary of the EU, because it wants to maintain it's excellent economic relations with the US.

        Here's an alternative perspective: England doesn't support an ESA mannned space program because english scientists and industrial corporations aren't in the loop. In addition, the english science minister would destroy his political career if he put billions of pounds into a project that wouldn't benefit the people of england.
      • > I think the UK is being wise in choosing the role of middle-man/mediator.

        The only trouble with sitting on the fence is that you get a fence post up your arse (yes, the spelling is correct, I am British).
    • While the UK is not adopting the Euro, they will be converting their currency to something called the Canadian Euro. The coins will look about the same, toll clerks on the Alpine pass tunnels will try and palm them off on you for change only they won't work in most vending machines.
    • Hey,

      Can someone from the UK answer this please? Is it the people or just the government that is so opposed to doing anything that involves the European Union?

      Well, to many britons, the european parliment seems obscure and far away. People don't pay much attention in EU elections, often don't know who thier representatives in the european parliment are, etc. As such, people feel disconnected from the political process.

      It is rare for people to hear about the european parliment making exciting, good, beneficial decisions; there are often stories about people being arrested for not using metric measures, and other buracratic rulings. Furthermore, quite often when important legal decisions are made by top courts, there is a european court that overturns the decision.

      Reasons for going into Europe are typically complicated economic reasons, like no currency fluxuations helping buisness trading within europe, and suchlike. These issues are complicated and hard to understand. It is easy, on the other hand, to talk about how "there'll always be an england" [fordham.edu]; jingoistic flag-waving is easy, while teaching a population about economics is not.

      So, to summarise, people feel independance stands for:
      • Tradition
      • Election system that people understand


      While people feel integration with europe stands for:
      • Unelected buracracy
      • Our elected representatives being over-ruled
      • Ending up getting dragged into a european super-state
      • Plus the Euro has a stupid name


      That's my take on it, anyway.

      Michael
      • Well, I agree on the last point. They should've gone with the name 'florin'. Because it is obviously much cooler than Euro and its a historical currency in more than one country.
      • I think you are right that a lot of people think this, but they need to stop reading daily mail. Britain cannot stand alone. I think a lot of intelligent people know this. Integration with europe is the only way to stay competitive. Everyone in europe is slightly upset and worried about the EU, change is unpleasant. But they also know that to compete economically with the US and Asia a unified europe has to be the future. Say what you will about the name of the currency, but the paper bills look so cool. The have bright colors! Everyone likes bright colors. Although I'll miss Darwin on the five pound note.
    • The UK isn't in Europe apparently. In the news and media, it's always "over in Europe" not "elsewhere in Europe". It's almost seen to be a different place; disconnected from us.

      The island thing is probably a big part of it.

    • Nothing exactly... Re:What is up with the UK (Score:4, Informative)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @05:40PM (#4973386) Homepage
      Well, the UK government's position on human space flight has always been 'it's a waste of money' and this really stems from a time where the UK was practically a third world country after WWII. Actually, right now I still agree with their position on this; except I think that people should be able to waste their own money (space tourism) if they want to; and as much as they want to; and the price needs to come down.

      But on the subject of the euro; the problem with adding the euro is much more subtle than it appears.

      If the UK gets the euro, then that means that there has to be a single bank throughout europe that controls the number of euros in distribution.

      It also means that central control of interest rates is essential. That means that the interest rates are controlled centrally for the good of europe (i.e. probably by the Bundesbank; which constitutionally has to act for the good of Germany, rather than the good of Britain, or even Europe; since it is by far the biggest bank).

      Since the economies of Germany and UK tend to do move in rather different ways, tying them together is going to cause some issues; as well as benefits. But it is honestly unclear to most people who have studied it in detail whether the benefits or the issues are going to dominate.

      And this is putting issues of sovereignty to one side... there are lots of people with very firm opinions on that, to say the least.

      Personally, I think we need to go for the euro, but I'm fairly nervous about it.

    • Robotic exploration seems to make much more sense, but in terms of scientific results (you can explore more with robots because it is cheaper), with regard to commercial potential (again, robots are cheaper, thus likely to be useful for later profitable space enterprises), and with regard to generally useful technological development.

      Eventually humans should return to the Moon and reach Mars, but let the robots pawe the road for us first.
  • ... about it blowing up, just a tad rude. I don't see the point in critizing someone when they are trying. *shrugs*

    • It IS rude, to be sure. But then again, if Europe is aiming to have a world-class rocket program of their own, then they should be prepared to take the heat.

      (As an aside, I've always heard that Arianespace's press release are fairly aggressive as to how great their products are. Can't ask for pity if that's true. Sorry, no links available.)

      Think of the Lockheed/NASA meters/feet screw-up on the Mars spacecraft. Can't tell how many people lost years of their lives/careers and were crushed by that development. But then again, fix the problem, and continue on to dare greatly yet more--
      • It IS rude, to be sure. But then again, if Europe is aiming to have a world-class rocket program of their own, then they should be prepared to take the heat.
        ESA isn't aiming... It already has a world class rocket program. I don't know current figures, but in 99/2000 Arianespace had ~50% of world launch market.

  • sweetness (Score:3, Insightful)

    by schnits0r ( 633893 ) <`nathannd' `at' `sasktel.net'> on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:38PM (#4973068) Homepage Journal
    thats what we need. More interest in getting mankind somewhere instead of trying to kill a man of another kind.

    • Re:sweetness (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RicktheBrick ( 588466 )
      Someone should figure out the odds of mankind producing a space elevator. If the odds are even somewhat good that we will eventually produce such a device than we should reduce our spending till such a device is produced. I think that every dollar spent today would produce 100 times the results if we waited until that time.
      • ...we should reduce our spending till such a device is produced. I think that every dollar spent today would produce 100 times the results if we waited until that time.

        Right. Because the developments in aerospace, materials science, astronomy, and so forth that come directly or otherwise from the space program are not worth having now--we ought to wait fifty or a hundred years. Should we stop planning the Next Generation Space Telescope--or other space-based observatories--until it gets cheaper to put them in space?

        We should evaluate proposed space missions for viability and based on potential scientific and economic spinoffs, not on savings associated with forty-year postponements for hypothetical technologies. Sometimes it is worth paying a premium to receive information sooner.

  • What will the Hoax theorists say? (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Tyro ( 247333 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:39PM (#4973071)
    Any chance they'll do a fly-by on the original moon landing site so we can STOP hearing from these types?

    That WOULD be a giant leap for mankind.

    • Re:What will the Hoax theorists say? (Score:5, Funny)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:46PM (#4973093) Homepage
      What will the Hoax theorists say?

      They'd say the Rosetta mission was faked, too. It's infinite regression or infinite regressives or something like that. :)

      The only real solution is to send these folks to the Moon themselves, let them be our first colony, which IMHO would be killing two or three birds with one rocket.

      Actually, the "brains" of the movement wouldn't go -- their motive is profit.

    • The "moon": a ridiculous liberal myth. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:54PM (#4973115)

      It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

      Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

      Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

      Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.


      --
      Credit your source. [spiralx.co.uk]

  • Nice to see (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:41PM (#4973077)

    It's good to see more interest in space travel and exploration. Doesn't anyone else think it's a bit stupid that nations spend so much money on weapons/military, just to cause that extra human suffering that makes life so grand... while we pass up the opportunity to explore what is undoubtedly the most fascinating and wonderful thing out there: space.

    Holy crap, aren't we a dumb bunch of talking apes. There's probably some pretty neat stuff out there beyond Earth...

    • Holy crap, aren't we a dumb bunch of talking apes. There's probably some pretty neat stuff out there beyond Earth...
      Which is exactly why the aliens haven't contacted us. I'm sure that every interstellar map created has a big warning sticker right next to Earth warning to steer clear.

    • Doesn't anyone else think it's a bit stupid that nations spend so much money on weapons/military, just to cause that extra human suffering that makes life so grand... while we pass up the opportunity to explore what is undoubtedly the most fascinating and wonderful thing out there: space.

      Nope, not stupid at all. It's the spending on the military that gives us the freedom to be explorers. Without the (U.S.) military, we would quickly fall from civilization to barbarism.

      Maybe someday when all countries are stable democracies we won't need the military anymore, but that ain't gonna happen this century. Maybe next century.

      • Without the (U.S.) military, we would quickly fall from civilization to barbarism.
        OH MY GOD! Did I miss an irony marker, or do you really believe that?
        Maybe someday when all countries are stable democracies we won't need the military anymore...
        So, since other countries are not democracies, we should land there, tear the country apart and impose a democracy on the people. Patiently, please clearly ellaborate on the differences between this kind of "evangelism" and Europen Crusades [newadvent.org].

        • So, since other countries are not democracies, we should land there, tear the country apart and impose a democracy on the people.

          If we did that, then it wouldn't take 100+ years, now wouldn't it? Actually, probably the greatest thing we could do for the world would be to rip apart a lot of countries and remake them. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

          What I find amusing is trying to find where in my post you decided I was advocating that. Nah, you're not someone who reads their own biases into things. Nah.

          • If we did that, then it wouldn't take 100+ years, now wouldn't it? Actually, probably the greatest thing we could do for the world would be to rip apart a lot of countries and remake them. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
            Actually, it would. You can't forcefully grow civilizations. Much as individuals, civilizations evolve, and must grow at their own pace. There's no guarantee that democracy will be the end result in the middle-east, or in African countries or in the East. The evolution will suit their own particular characteristics. For some, democracy is one valid stage. Lots of them have assimilated it naturally. None will take democracy by force. Ripping a country apart would destroy the natural evolution and would set the country back hundreds of years, reconstructing social fabric.
            What I find amusing is trying to find where in my post you decided I was advocating that. Nah, you're not someone who reads their own biases into things. Nah.
            It was the last alternative. You don't specify what you need the military for, in an exploratory endeavour. I can't actually believe one can suppose military actions to be a need for exploration. Military force is the only option left.

            My own country, Portugal, perhaps the greatest explorer people mankind ever saw (back in the 14th and 15th centuries), spawned an era of exploration without military actions. You see, we were at the time ~3 million people, and exploration by force was impossible. Scientific evolution did not need the military for anything, and empire building was done by culture mix with the natives, not by assimilation (contrary to spanish actions at the time, and brit actions later on).

            • You don't specify what you need the military for, in an exploratory endeavour. I can't actually believe one can suppose military actions to be a need for exploration. Military force is the only option left.

              Sorry, you misunderstood. My point is not that we need the military for exploration, but that we need the military to keep the world in (relative) peace. Without the (particularly US) military, the unstable wacko leaders would aggressively pursue policies of expansion. There's a reason that the world has had (relative) peace for the last 50 years. You think human nature has changed that much since then?

    • "it's a bit stupid that nations spend so much money on weapons/military"

      Hey, at least if you spend it on weapons, you have something, namely nice weapons to defend yourself with.

      Holland is building one useless freight railroad from nowhere to nowhere, and another high-speed train line that will cut the Amsterdam-Paris journey by an impressive 15 minutes. Total cost for these two projects? 15 billion Euro's. 15 frikkin' billion Euro's for two useless projects. A 1000 Euro's from every Dutch citizen. Just think what we could have done with this money in the area of science, education, medicine... or these Space missions.

      I do applaud this initiative, and I hope that European states will contribute liberally, though... I see that chances for that are very slim: this project affords no prestige to individual ministers and is thus doomed, as far as allocating funds is concerned.
      • Holland is building one useless freight railroad from nowhere to nowhere, and another high-speed train line that will cut the Amsterdam-Paris journey by an impressive 15 minutes. Total cost for these two projects? 15 billion Euro's. 15 frikkin' billion Euro's for two useless projects. A 1000 Euro's from every Dutch citizen. Just think what we could have done with this money in the area of science, education, medicine... or these Space missions.
        Oh, don't feel so bad. Here in Portugal, our excellent leaders are planning a TGV line between Porto and Lisbon. There is already a high speed pendular railroad, so the time cut is around 15min. A whopping quarter of an hour. And they've redrawn the project so many times that the Spanish decided to go ahead and build their own goddamn rail network without taking communication with our trains into account.

        But, hey... TGVs are cool

  • The UK Government strikes again! :/ (Score:3, Informative)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @03:41PM (#4973078)
    the UK government 'does not support human space flight and will not fund UK citizens to go through the official European astronaut training programme'.

    This is the same UK Goverment that scrapped subsidies on University Tutor fees so that the load on the students doubled, the same UK government that doesnt support our athletes, all athletes have to get private sponsorship. This is the same UK Government which supports illegal asylum seekers better than its OAPs or people who really need the money! No wonder the UK is going down in the world.
    • Sigh. So true.

      Britain has some serious talent that would be beneficial to the project. Rolls Royce has always been one of the world leaders in Aero Engines, and we have always had competent aviation technology. Not only that, but we have already invested a lot in the development of air breathing rocket engines until the Thatcher government canned the project.

      This is not a cost, but an investment. The main benefits of an aggressive space programme are the progression of science. Just the materials science aspect of the Apollo programme must have added billions to the economy - Just how much velcro and teflon is sold each year? Then there are ideas such as cordless power tools, and freeze dried food. According to one report (admittedly from NASA, so therefore probably a little biased), the US economy has received $7 back for each dollar spent on the space programme.

      Okay. I'll stop ranting now.
      • > Just the materials science aspect of the Apollo programme must have added billions to the economy - Just how much velcro and teflon is sold each year?

        Velcro was invented [velcro.com] in the 1940's by a Swiss inventor. Not NASA.

        Teflon was invented [dupont.com] in the 1930's by Dupont. Not NASA.

        NASA has a page which lists real spinoffs [nasa.gov] from Apollo, not urban legends.

      • The last Tory government and the current Labour(?) one only seem to think that there is one industry in Great Britain, the Financial Services.

        Manufacturing has been sacrificed to feed the bankers. As a result we have seen an increase in the number of accountants and MBAs coming out of our universities, but a phenomenal drop in the number of engineers and scientists.

        It is not just the sciences that have suffered. Any course that is not seen to have an immediate payback is at risk. This is not just a student loans issue, it is part of the creeping corporatism that seems to be affecting most of the West. The attitude that nothing is worth doing unless it makes a profit within 18 months blights any long term view.
    • And clearly not same UK government that sponsored the greatest exploratory missions in history, for several centuries. One can only hope that the current short-sighted thinking is an aberration in the history of the British people.
      • its because theres no indigenous moon-people to conquer and enslave.

        Yeah yeah, I know cheap shot. But if you think about the purpose and outcome of most of those prior British explorations of the 18th century..

  • I think it's great that Europe is working on manned space flight, however that "blowing up" snide comment was a little rude. (And NO, this ISN'T offtopic you dumb moderators.)

    Why isn't NASA interested in sending people to Mars?

    Cheers
    • Why isn't NASA interested in sending people to Mars?

      NASA has plenty of stuff on the Mars menu [nasa.gov] as it is. Personally I hope they take a pass on sending humans, there's just so little point to it. Odds are Europe will come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, if they want to pay for it, go for it!

      Send the robots, you don't even have to pay them and they can be programmed to say historic things like, "This is one small step for [a] man-bot, one giant leap for man-bot-kind." I just don't think it's cost-effective to send humans with all their frailties -- and send enough extra stuff to get them back.

      These folks disagree [nw.net] and these guys [marssociety.org] are already colonizing Mars/Utah. Certainly the idea captures the imagination.

      In the meantime, part of Mars has been conveniently discovered in Canada [nasa.gov].
      • Who says we have to bring the first man on Mars back? Send him there with a shelter and some supplies, then send an unmanned rocket with more supplies, then maybe another man or two, then more rockets with supplies, until they are self-sufficient.

        Tim
  • This sums it up: "Sellers was born in East Sussex but had to become an American to achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut."

    Sorry to be so bias, but what are the chances? According to this article, [bbc.co.uk] they're having problems getting a 'Beagle' robot up. Hint: You might want to consider playing nicely with your neighbors, or else expect to be left behind.

    • According to this article, [bbc.co.uk] they're having problems getting a 'Beagle' robot up.

      Your article dates from September. A more recent one reports that Beagle 2 is about to be delivered [thescotsman.co.uk]. OK, that doesn't mean the bugs have actually been ironed out, but at least it should launch.

      • I don't mean to stir up nationalistic fervor. But if this is to be a Euro deal, well then I see your point, why does the article mention GB? (I'm answering both replies here).

        I think its very cool that countries and governments are spending money on the advancement of science, and as I have posted here before, for example on the troubles in the Russian space program, it's all good (or, in their case, bad when science programs suffer and scientists are forced to find other work).

        Can't we all work together? According the the article, political squabbling is a problem. To me, then, ignorant, closed-minded politicians and bureaucrats are holding back the progress of humanity. A way should be found to remove them from the process, and one would do any impediment.

        • Re:And here's how they're going to do it (Score:4, Informative)

          by patiwat ( 126496 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @05:20PM (#4973325)
          > if this is to be a Euro deal, well then I see your point, why does the article mention GB?

          Because the ESA can't force its members to follow and pay for a program. The ESA merely coordinates the national space policies of its member states.

          Some background: the ESA has 2 budgets, a mandatory budget and a discretionary budget. The mandatory budget is set in proportion roughly to each member's GDP. The discretionary budget is made up of each member's additional funding.

          Projects funded under the mandatory budget have to have very broad-based benefits (and no, "mankind" doesn't count) because they take money from every member and therefore require the vote of every member. Usually, this is made possible by dividing up the industrial support base into every ESA member country, so that Germany makes control systems, France makes engines, Italy makes SW, etc. If a country's Space Minister doesn't think that his/her country will receive direct (scientific) or indirect (industrial) benefit from a project, he won't vote the the budget allocation.

          If all the Space Ministers won't vote for a program, individual Ministers can do a project anyway, but pay for it themselves. Thus Italy, which has a vested industrial interest in getting its small-launcher program off the ground, is paying for the entire program on its own, using its discretionary budget. France, which has a major vested industrial interest in launchers, is fighting hard to get major launch programs on the mandatory budget, but will probably go through the discretionary budget if the other members veto.

          It'll be very difficult for a ESA human-spaceflight program to be supported by all ESA members. That is why this article, which highlights England's valid objections, is so important.

  • Rosetta should be fine. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Soft ( 266615 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @04:00PM (#4973126)
    Rosetta is due to launch in 2 weeks time, ready to rendevous and land on a comet in 2011. Assuming it doesn't blow up on launch.

    It is supposed to be launched by a "classic" Ariane 5G which, rumor says, is not affected by whatever broke the last one (main stage nozzle cooling system, according to said rumor; this was supposed to increase the Vulcain's thrust by 20%).

    But then, I'm the one who predicted [slashdot.org] this new Ariane 5 would send both the Atlas 5 and the Delta 4 back into the starting-block--and submitted the story right after its failure :-(.

    As for this Aurora project, as long as the funding isn't there, I don't see how anything else than noise could come out, apart from a very cool logo--unfortunately I can't find a link: from left to right, da Vinci's "corkscrew" flying machine, a clipper sailboat, and some figurative solar sail spaceship; and the background fades also from left to right, from an old sailing map below a sky chart, to a satellite view of the Earth below the stars, the Moon and Mars.

  • United States Territory? (Score:5, Funny)

    by trotski ( 592530 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @04:03PM (#4973136)
    Isn't the moon claimed as a United States territory?

    In that case, the euros would have to go through customs and pay import duty fees every time they travel to the moon?
    Oh, and what about smuggling out American moon rocks? Seems to me that the Euros are intending to ANNEX united states property! After all people, the moon is clearly marked by several US flags.

    If we allow other claim OUR moon than the terrorists have already won.

  • I just don't now anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UrGeek ( 577204 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @04:05PM (#4973142)
    I grew watching the all of the Mercury launches. Most of Gemini. I stayed up pass midnight for the first time in my life to wait for Armstrong and Aldin to take a walk on the moon. I was a True Believer in human spaceflight and a human presence in space.

    But now that I am older and with our new computers, I just wonder. I see millions of homeless in America that we never tolerated before. My older friends are all in fear of not being able to afford healthcare. The American empire is ready to start preemptive wars to maintain the right to pollute the earth and to maintain the monolopy on weapons of mass destruction.

    I am totally opposed to going to Mars. It is just too soon and too much else needs to be done. I would like to a program that works toward building O'Neil colonies but that type of planning and cooperation is just not going to happen. Any exploration can be done by robots. The resources for a human base on the moon or a trip to Mars is just misplaced resources.

    Now, if you are going to build mass drivers and then build solar geneator transmitters in orbit, then I would dearly love to stop burning carbon. And if a few monarchies lose there billions in the process, that can only be a Good Thang.

    • Re:I just don't now anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mangu ( 126918 ) on Saturday December 28, 2002 @04:56PM (#4973272)
      I grew watching the all of the Mercury launches ... I see millions of homeless in America that we never tolerated before


      They weren't homeless when the USA was sending men to the moon, were they?

  • We, the US of A, were the first to land people on the moon. We shouldn't have stopped going. And now, the technology used to take us there in the first place is the near equivalent to a pocket calculator. Why the hell aren't we going back?

    There are plenty of reasons. Political BS, as Congressfolk just want to line their own pockets. Bumblin' Dubyah and his wannabe wars on Terrorism (not terror, can't have a war against an emotion) and his "you tried to kill my daddy" vendetta with Saddam. Economic breakdown in the wake of Enron and company (BTW, Bushie and Cheney have their hands in that, too). Lack of interest in the Space Program (thanks to all of the above, it can't get any press).

    You conspiracy theroy nuts can go to hell. We went. We have the capability to go, stay, and colonize whether you want to believe it or not. That's what we should be doing: spearheading an international effort to get to the moon and establish a permanent human presence there. Once we get there, then we can worry about Mars.

    Launching to Mars from the Moon would be cheaper, since the force needed to break the moon's gravity is alot less. The benefits of sitting on the moon extend to the "collision asteroid" alarmists, since we could watch for them from a nifty vantage point. With the ISS as a jump-off point, missions to the moon would go alot smoother (in theory, anyway) than the Apollo missions went.

    This is going to sound totally chichè, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the moon is someplace we should be.

    • Re:So Why The Hell Aren't WE Going? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by leonbrooks ( 8043 ) <SentByMSBlast-No ... .brooks.fdns.net> on Saturday December 28, 2002 @08:35PM (#4973963) Homepage
      Launching to Mars from the Moon would be cheaper, since the force needed to break the moon's gravity is a[]lot less.

      Building a moon-base from which to do this would not be cheaper. Launching from space would be cheaper still for launches, but again building an asteroid-processing plant to achieve space industry would by frightfully expensive, even if we could lassoo a handy earth-crossing asteroid. The big launch-cost-saving move would be to plaster over that huge first step by building [highliftsystems.com] a space elevator.

      This is a sad thing to say, since thay're about all the USA has right now, but the other big economic step would be to shoot NASA, being careful to preserve the history it carries. It has gone from a relatively small, tightly focussed team to a self-preserving institution. The meta-planners seem to have no idea, as project after project gets 3/4 built and then canned, Fred and way-obsolete Shuttles continue to get funded but more interesting and productive things like powersats and elevators are passed over. NASA personnel, the dudes who breathe life into ancient satellites and otherwise regularly pull NASA's cojones out of the fire, would then be available to the commercial replacements.

      Commerce is no silver bullet either. Safety regs with real teeth would be needed, for example.

      The underlying problems are mostly social. Very few people see any return from this kind of effort, it all looks like very expensive geek toys to them. The projects which are pretty much guaranteed a return, like powersats, colonies, moon/asteroid mining and so on are all priced to cause collective sticker shock. That elevator seems to be the only useful `next step' priced at under $1T (actually $10-20G, any one of a dozen billionaires could privately fund it alone).

  • Fiscal Reality (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Necron69 ( 35644 )
    Let's think about this rationally for a moment. The FY 2003 budget [nasa.gov] for NASA is $15.1 billion, of which $6.1 billion is for human space flight.

    The ESA Human spaceflight budget [esa.int] is a bit harder to pin down due to multi-year authorizations and various breakdowns, but appears to be about 1 billion euros for the four year period from 2002-2006, so roughly 250 million euros per year. Note from the link that the bulk of this figure is contributions to the ISS, not human spacecraft development.

    Since the euro and dollar are roughly equivalent lately, at current levels the ESA would need to increase it's human spaceflight budget by 24X just to match NASA spending on the same. However, at that level, NASA isn't even vaguely contemplating a return to the Moon, much less going to Mars.

    Given the current economic situation in Europe, I'd put the chance of any of this happening at just about zero.

    When (if?) mankind finally returns to the moon, it will most likely be via a private company in some sort of for-profit venture. Unless there is some sort of new political goal to be gained, governments will not (and should not, IMHO) be part of the picture. Its just too damn expensive for taxpayers to stomach. - Necron69

    • When (if?) mankind finally returns to the moon, it will most likely be via a private company in some sort of for-profit venture. Unless there is some sort of new political goal to be gained, governments will not (and should not, IMHO) be part of the picture. Its just too damn expensive for taxpayers to stomach.

      The Chinese say they will land on the Moon by 2010. They are going to do their first manned launch in 2003 2 years ahead of schedule. I don't doubt they are serious about going to the Moon.

      Of course 2 things help the Chinese, first they seem to be able to do things for around 1/25th the cost of NASA, second they don't really have to worry what their taxpayers think.
  • Then I'll be impressed.
  • Some American: "Hey guys, can we, like, uh, catch a ride to the moon, dude?"

    Pilot: "Go away, you filthy swine!"

    Some Other American: "Don't bother with them. I got on once. The food is great, but the service just plain sucks... and its all in some dead language. Let's go try flying standby on the German one with the hot chicks."

Slashdot Top Deals

If I want your opinion, I'll ask you to fill out the necessary form.

Close