Russian Moon Landing May Take As Many As Six Launches (examiner.com) 242
MarkWhittington writes: Russia has made no secret of its desire to land cosmonauts on the lunar surface sometime in the late 2020s. As the United States, at least for the current administration, has decided to bypass the moon in favor of Mars, Russia could move to wipe out the humiliation it suffered at the hands of NASA when it lost the 1960s race to the moon with the landing of Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969. However, a story in TASS suggests that a Russian moon landing effort would be complex, requiring up to six launches of its Angara rocket.
They should have gone in '69 (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently space travel was much easier back then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they can buy-back their defective engines from Orbital. I don't think they want them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They should have gone in '69 (Score:3)
Von Braun also designed and oversaw the Apollo missions...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Faking moon landings was easier then.
And all the Apollo project budget went on bribing the Russians and every other country capable of tracking the mission [wikipedia.org] to play along and lie about tracking the Apollo spacecraft to the moon and back, right?
Re: (Score:2)
No, there probably wouldn't have been a massive bribery operation. If the moon landings were faked they would just have launched a real, unmanned rocket and sent it to the moon for other countries and mission control to track.
After it ejected the return module, the rocket would crash on the moon or be destroyed in space (successful landing!).
Then Stanley Kubrick's footage of fre
Not easier, more useful (Score:2)
The concorde was not built primarily for its speed (that was a nice extra), but for fuel economy. Single-stream jet engines are better in terms of fuel economy when they fly faster. The drag rise counters this, but for the concorde they had the drag rise restriced to an acceptable minimum.
The invention of the double-stream jet engines made that need for speed obsolete.
Yes, the concorde existed, but was soon outdated because of the use of newer, better jet engines.
Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Insightful)
They're talking about 2029 as the earliest launch date with a flyby perhaps a year earlier. All of this, of course, depends on funding. Which doesn't seem like such a bright spot:
n September, Russia’s Federal Space Agency Roscosmos announced that it will send a lander, Luna 25, to the Moon's south pole in 2024. After touchdown, the lander will investigate the lunar surface for future lunar bases. The Luna 25 mission was initially proposed in 1997 and has since suffered a number of delays, but it seems that with Europe's aid the mission could finally get the jump-start it needs. Construction of the spacecraft has already begun.
So, they are trying to send an unmanned probe to the moon that was supposed to be launched 18 years ago in another nine years. And you thought NASA has budget problems.
And they want to send a whole metric shit ton of equipment - six booster loads full. From a scientific point of view it sounds great. But it doesn't sound particularly realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really surprising considering that NASA's annual budget is more than triple what Roscosmos' budget is.
Re:Don't hold your breath (Score:4, Interesting)
Everything costs a lot more in the US though. One US dollar spent by the US government at some US contractor is not going to go nearly as far as the same amount (in Rubles of course) spent by the Russian government.
Just look at how ridiculously inflated defense costs have gotten in the US. An aircraft carrier cost about 2.5B 20 years ago, now they cost 15B. Inflation isn't that high in this country.
Re:Don't hold your breath (Score:4, Informative)
Inflation isn't that high but there are lots of costs associated with such projects. These are not the same carriers purchased twenty years ago - look at the available tech that they can now stuff into one.
That does NOT negate your point about it being too pricey. It just means that the rate would almost certainly exceed inflation because they're not even similar products except they both float and launch planes - not even the planes are the same in many cases. Add in the amortized design changes and, yeah, it's gonna be more costly - tech that we have now simply was not available then. It is still, of course, too damned expensive because, honestly, we've got enough of 'em already and nobody else can even remotely compete with such a class.
We've won... We can trickle along with moderate improvements at much lower cost, at a decreased level of alertness, and be fine. Our military has lots of problems but our Navy is, very much so, far above any other blue-water force on the planet. Bar none.
That said, there's no real comparison between the two types of carriers. Even if we left the design largely the same, the amount of tech that was unavailable for prior inclusion would make it more expensive by default.
Finally, I wonder if the Russians are accepting anonymous donations? I'd throw a few bucks there way. I like space and I like Russia. I've donated to NASA before (I'll skip the novella) and that made me feel pretty good. Donating to Russia would be even more meaningful as they're probably able to stretch the Rubles further even after their administration takes their cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation isn't that high but there are lots of costs associated with such projects.
Of course, there are. The thing here is that they'd still cost $15 billion even in the absence of the "tech" because the cost driver is corruption and inefficiency not the tech.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget graft. That's surely in the budget too.
Re: (Score:3)
These are not the same carriers purchased twenty years ago - look at the available tech that they can now stuff into one.
20 years ago, I paid $3000 for a 133MHz computer, with 64MB of RAM. Today, I can buy a 3GHz computer, with 4GB of RAM, for $300.
How much thrust does that produce? Payload capacity to orbit?
Re: (Score:3)
Not everything follows Moore's Law. That and they can include *more* tech. We're still being ripped off but not as much as one might think.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and unfortunately, rocket technology is on the opposite side of the tech/price scaling curve. NASA has their own inflation rate used for budgeting long-term projects, and it trends much higher than the US national inflation rate. The reason is obvious when you think about it: back in the 1950s, many common commercial products were handmade, with domestic labour, but are now mass-produced with cheap overseas labor and advanced labor-saving technologies (depending on the type of product). But just lik
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it should be noted that mass production hits some obstacles when it comes to upper stages. You need a lot fewer engines, and higher ISP than you need for the lower stages (but not as much thrust requirement). You can do it with the same or similar ISP like SpaceX does (same engine, just vacuum optimized expansion nozzle), but that limits your scaling - it's fine to LEO/GEO but you're never going to get to Mars and back with a practical-sized rocket with those kinds of ISP figures. Which is why Spac
Re: (Score:2)
I think that people just seem to overlook that newer $devices are sometimes much more expensive than their historical levels simply because they contain technology (not just computers) that was simply unavailable or was prohibitively expensive at earlier times. An example might be a high-end luxury car. The car I have with me is a 6-series from BMW and it was more expensive than my last purchase by a large margin. Why? It has features that simply weren't reasonable, or possible, when I last bought a similar
Re: (Score:3)
But hasn't BMW a long track record of relatively more advanced engineering in their cars which has more or less always accounted for some of their price premium? Do you think the relative-to-other-cars increases in sophisticated engineering has increased or stayed constant?
I also wonder if BMW pricing (especially for higher-end models like the 6 series) hasn't increased merely to defend its position as a status item? If their market demographic has seen an increase in income, BMW raises their price to bot
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen, concerning pricing, it's about average increases. I've a very advanced "infotainment" (that I don't use, really), advanced pedestrian detection and night vision - including IR use, etc. Additionally, I've got 450 ponies (it's the dual turbo) and the sport package, etc. Those weren't options on my older model (as far as I know) and this one was 'bespoke."
If I wanted a status item then I'd have bought a status symbol. This is pretty tame looking and it only gets "the look" from car buffs
Re: (Score:2)
There are some nice American vehicles. I own a really stupidly large number of vehicles (it's my hobby and a long-winded story) and some of them are American-made. Some of my favorites are American but I have my quirks. I have a 1973 Dodge Dart and, from that same year, a Jeep Wagoneer with the factory PTO. I own a few American trucks. I'm in the market for an HMMWV and I want an Oshkosh of some type before I die (they will not sell me an MRAP even if I pay extra - I have asked, so I'll probably end up with
Re: (Score:2)
One can of course take the concept too far (OTRAG, I'm looking in your general direction... [google.is]), but mass production is indeed a key aspect.
It seems the OTRAG [wikipedia.org] failed only because it wasn't tested enough. All new rocket technologies fail at some pont and often spectacularly. There's nothing to indicate that the OTRAG is a particularly deficient design.
For those too lazy to Google or read the link, you can picture the OTRAG as a bundle of pencils or crayons tied together, a rocket that looks almost entirely made up of strap-on boosters.
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of the problem. Generally when one takes a complex system and focuses in a narrow-minded approach toward optimizing just one aspect they end up blowing it on other aspects. For example, an equally well reasoned but precisely opposite argument to OTRAG is Big Dumb Booster concept, where rather than trying to mass-produce many small rockets, you make singular giant rockets because when you compare the economies of giant rockets to those of small rockets, the giant rockets usually win.
OTRAG has som
Re: (Score:2)
The CPUs used in space have to be radiation hardened and extremely reliable. They can't use the latest manufacturing processes that let you buy a mass produced 3GHz CPU for a few tens of dollars, they have to have them specially designed and made out of different materials on a difference process and then extensively tested.
Re: (Score:2)
Not always. That is only true for probes. On the ISS they use Thinkpads with standard CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and any Russian project is going to be beset by graft and corruption. Look how much the Sochi Olympics cost.
Yes, and the amazing thing is they still manage to fly. The NASA budget is over 10x that of the Russian space agency, which almost feels like an alt-space company like Space X.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama isn't a bad leader (in general, the world hates the US far less now than they did back in 2003-2005), but he has spent his life in an ivory tower, so tends to be like European leaders -- erring on the side of Chamberlain.
Yay for low expectations. "Erring on the side of Chamberlain" is quite the backhanded foreign policy compliment.
60 years later (Score:2)
Nothing wipes out humiliation of a country that no longer exists like going to the moon 60 years later with a rocket that - still on paper - is 1/6 as capable.
Re: (Score:2)
But Putin could ride it! Kennedy never did anything like that.
OTOH, if we do elect Donald Trump as president, it might be an excellent idea to emulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to any Planet if Trump gets elected. Those funds will be diverted to some unnecessary Middle East Military action.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wipes out humiliation of a country that no longer exists like going to the moon 60 years later with a rocket that - still on paper - is 1/6 as capable.
Try to be fair - it is a good exercise, if nothing else. The US moon landing was not really much more than an expensive dick waving expedition with little or no plans for the future, as events have shown. Hopefully what the Russians and Chinese intend to do will be more planned and more constructive. I mean, it makes my shudder to think that anybody travelled up there in a tin can with a computer system about as powerful as a Furby. Brave - very brave; just not all that smart.
In my view, we should start sen
Sputnik? (Score:4, Informative)
FTSummary: Russia could move to wipe out the humiliation it suffered at the hands of NASA when it lost the 1960s race to the moon with the landing of Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969.
Uhm, "lost" the space race?
Sputnik? Remember?
Oh, and Russia also landed a craft on, and beamed back images from, the surface of Venus. They were first. In fact, and I expect to be corrected, I don't recall the US ever landing a probe on Venus that did anything other than send back a few blips of telemetry readings before dissolving in the Venusian atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"when it lost the 1960's race to the moon"
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sputnik? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sputnik in fact was an AFTERTHOUGHT.
The Russians had a single unified ICBM effort and they decided to just "put a cherry on top" as it were. American leadership was much less in a panic about it than the general public. Eisenhower also liked the idea of setting the precedent of allowing sat overflights as the US was priming to put up spy satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
Eisenhower also, likely, knew that we weren't as far behind as the populous believed. One could say what we weren't even really "behind" so much as we were concentrating on different aspects. Not long after Operation Paperclip, we were able to put stuff *in* space but we were concentrating more on things like navigation, processing, accuracy, and reliability.
Another interesting aside, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, Yuri didn't actually do much in the way of piloting his craft. It was controlled from t
Re: (Score:2)
I figure it was more about control and, out of that, comes funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re:Sputnik? (Score:5, Interesting)
but the development of the Shuttle and the Soviets' failure with their equivalent
Actually, the Soviets succeeded in realizing that an airplane-shaped payload strapped onto the side of a rocket makes no sense after only one flight. It took us over 100 flights before we realized the same thing. I think they won that round.
Re: (Score:3)
It was our own damn political fault that we decided that the shuttle should contain the parts for a station, parts that individually had to be smaller than the shuttle's cargo bay. Had the ent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle's misuse as a payload delivery platform was not a technical failure of the vehicle. You are right, it was a terrible cargo vehicle, but would have been an excellent vehicle on which to operate longer-duration special missions that required the equipment to be launched and returned in one configuration.
Utility > capability. Capability is just a technology demonstration in the absence of further usefulness.
Re:Sputnik? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I wasn't alive at the time, and I'm sure their was nationalistic pride that was lost to the Americans when we went to the moon; but the former Soviet Union had nothing to be ashamed about. Their aerospace chops were proven time and again. Sputnik, Gargarin, Tereshkova, Mir, Venera, etc., not to mention Sukhoi and Mig.
That was 45 years ago. Today, the U.S. has to beg for rides to the ISS. WE'RE the ones who should be humiliated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, other agencies have had some great accomplishments.. there's no reason NASA has to have a monopoly on space exploration. Right now, there really is no point to extended manned space travel. As much as the Star Trek nerd in me wants to travel the stars, we are far away from that ability.
It's funny you think a Soyuz is winning the long term race. They take people to a floating pla
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Soviet space program Notable firsts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] has the list of Venus related missions
Re: Sputnik? (Score:2)
Protip: Venus isn't on the Moon!
Re: (Score:2)
Half of Soviet missions to Venus failed anyway. They were just a lot more persistant about it ;) Really, the Soviet Union had a pretty terrible record for space exploration away from the confines of Earth - near universal disasters on their Mars program and not even an attempt to explore the outer solar system. But at least their persistence with Venus paid off - the US practically ignored our "evil twin". My favorite finding was the detection of iron during their descent through the clouds - they think
Humiliation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The real humiliation wasn't the space race, it was losing their empire in 1989-1991. Most of the other European empires managed to get over the loss of their former colonies, but the Russians are still whining about it 25 years later, as if they had some sacred right to brutalize and exploit the Poles and Czechs (among many others). Ditto for China, which seems to be intent on claiming every territory that might have at one point been under Chinese rule as payback for its own supposed humiliation(s).
(To b
6 launches isn't complex (Score:5, Informative)
6 launches isn't complex. We do twice that many flights to ISS every year. In total, we've done over 160 flights to ISS, with Russia doing over half of those.
Anyway, I bet they can do it in 4 Angara launches. Russia is super experienced with in-space rendezvous, autonomous docking, and even more advanced things like propellant transfer (which they do regularly at ISS). 4 or even 6 launches would be no problem.
They'll save a ridiculous amount of money by not building a megarocket like we insist on.
But I agree with the skeptical posters here. Russia always talks about these sorts of things and never does them (not that we're much better). I think it's code-word for "if oil gets over $150/barrel and stays there, then we can do this."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully with cheaper oil, Germany is scaling back its coal production. Fear of Fukushima has done more environmental damage with the resurgence of coal than all the nuclear power accidents put together.
Re: (Score:2)
You may a point about damage but at least attempt to tie your points to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Down, but certainly not out - and definitely not out as fast as it would have been with continued nuclear use and development.
https://carboncounter.wordpres... [wordpress.com]
http://www.greenbiz.com/articl... [greenbiz.com]
http://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Naviga... [www.gtai.de]
https://eu.boell.org/sites/def... [boell.org]
Re:6 launches isn't complex (Score:4, Interesting)
Rusted on Republicans take note - the Chinese are making an absolute fortune selling those solar panels developed in the USA but forced offshore to keep some donors happy. America could be making a killing from that American technology if a few loud Texan oil executives had not put their interest ahead of the country. Those six million manufacturing jobs lost recently could be doing that and spinoffs instead of that many or more doing it in China.
Re: (Score:2)
...
They'll save a ridiculous amount of money by not building a megarocket like we insist on.
...
Nothing says "big phallus" like a Saturn V.
Re: (Score:2)
6 launches isn't complex.
For a single mission it certainly is. We did ONE big-ass launch for each Apollo mission. The problem with multiple launches is that your risk increases - each one carries with it some chance of failure, and if even one fails, the whole thing is scrapped. You've also got a ton of risky and complicated orbital rendezvous to pull off... Apollo only had to do it once for each mission.
Overall, this reeks of impracticality. This is something that COULD work, but I bet nobody's seriously planning on using this arc
Re: (Score:2)
Russia uses hypergols for most of their upper stages, and a lander would likely use hypergols anyway (like the Apollo LM). You're describing a non-issue for the Russians.
Docking is now less hard work (Score:5, Insightful)
A later permanent lunar ability would then be less tricky allowing for the wonders of the ultimate high ground to be explored and science shared.
Russian has the very complex metallurgy, science, support, academics, computer applications to ensure all such projects will work.
Lets hope the needed projects get the full funding soon
Re: (Score:2)
Russian has the very complex metallurgy, science, support, academics, computer applications to ensure all such projects will work.
But, I'm not very impressed with their ability to control pollution... and by extension: dust.
Patriotic assholes (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you're ass was the one planted in the pod which landed on the moon, you're the asshole who thinks Armstrong said "On small step for the United States". A man landed and walked on the moon and you make this about national boundaries? This is about what we can accomplish as human beings if we set our minds to it. Using something that barely counts as a computer and communications systems which worked nearly by accident, we sent humans riding on an enormous bomb into space and managed to actually slow them down enough to land on the surface of the moon.
This was a victory for all of the world... not just the U.S. and it sure as hell wasn't a loss for the Soviet Union. The were able to see that their fellow man stood on the surface of the moon and be proud of what we can all accomplish and to know that if we reach for the stars... one day we might just reach them.
Screw your pathetic patriotic nonsense... every day I come here and read Slashdot and see people from all over the world (including Russia and China) talk about popular science together as a common species. I visit sites where people from around the world work to further medicine and we don't consider patents or national boundaries, we consider illnesses. We work together to design new algorithms for pattern detection within ultrasound images to detect anomalies.
I visit other sites where we discuss the mysteries of the Universe and generally find that we like those mysteries. Sometimes we wonder would we like it so much if they weren't mysteries. We speak as humans with no regards for national boundaries and who was squeezed from a vagina in a given place.
Patriotism is for fools. Nationalism is for fools. There is only one reason for national boundaries and that's to have some order to managerial tasks like deciding who should pay for which roads to be built.
I was born an American... when I learned that patriotism is a hoax, I decided to be something far greater... a human instead. My life has been far more fulfilling since.
That said... as someone born in New York, I do take an irrational pride in New York pizza and bagels... it's not a competition, it's an observation... we do it better.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice and all, but pride is a strong motivator and there's not much pride in being better than animals or plants. There's pride in being better than other people. That often comes in the form of your GROUP being better than another GROUP. Whether you're cheering for your football team or your country, pride at being a member of the best GROUP is a very strong motivator of both people and groups. We would not have gone to the moon in 1969 if it weren't a way to harness, leverage, and create national pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Human ego is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways. Virtually all of our accomplishment as a species are due to pride, lust, envy, and the others. Virtually all the horrors we've created as a species are due to the same.
Re:Patriotic Pizza (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Patriotism is a disease that makes a moron believe (s)he's better than someone else because (s)he's better than someone else because they were squeezed from a vagina that either already was a citizen of a country or squeezed from it in said country. Unless you're ass was the one planted in the pod which landed on the moon, you're the asshole who thinks Armstrong said "On small step for the United States". A man landed and walked on the moon and you make this about national boundaries? This is about what we can accomplish as human beings if we set our minds to it. Using something that barely counts as a computer and communications systems which worked nearly by accident, we sent humans riding on an enormous bomb into space and managed to actually slow them down enough to land on the surface of the moon.
As much as I agree that the moon landings were something for the whole world to be proud of, _especially_ the Soviet Union which initiated the space race, I think that you underestimate the effort required to put two men on the lunar surface, EVA, and return them alive with lunar samples. It was _not_ something that the Ice Commander and Buzz did while the whole world watched. It was an _American_ effort, with almost half a million people working on the project directly. And those who were not working on th
Russian Roulette (Score:5, Funny)
They have six rockets, but only one of them is loaded.
The difference between a rocket and a missile (Score:2)
Von Braun Screwed Up (Score:2, Insightful)
In the 1960's, the USA was faced with a decision; go to the moon fast using a lunar-orbit rendezvous technique, or take our time and do it right, with an Earth-orbit rendezvous. The Earth-orbit rendezvous would have built a space station, assembled the actual Moon rocket in space, and returned to Earth orbit to actually land in a landing capsule.
Von Braun wanted to get there FAST, without bothering to assemble any space infrastructure along the way, and we won the "space race". But in doing it that way,
Re: (Score:2)
If our on-again, off-again Mars quest is any indication, that's the only way to actually get there. One of the reason Bob Zubrin keeps pushing for a ten-year program is we can't seem to be able to hold the po
Re: (Score:2)
"How Nasa brought the monstrous F-1 'moon rocket' engine back to life" (16 APRIL 13 )
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar... [wired.co.uk]
".. these were hand-made machines. They were sewn together with arc welders
Re: (Score:3)
However it does make sense - Skylab should have been first and not last to be disgustingly abandoned to deorbit due to budget cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
When JFK set his target to land on the moon he was probably thinking of cooperating with the USSR on the project. He had a good relationship with the Russian's top politicians which really helped during the missile crisis. If he had not been assassinated Apollo 11 could well have been a joint US/USSR mission, and cost a great deal less and had a longer lasting legacy.
It's a classic case of... (Score:4, Interesting)
"As the United States, at least for the current administration, has decided to bypass the moon in favor of Mars"
It's a way of kicking the can so far down the road that you can't even find the can.
Re: (Score:2)
Get your can to Mars.
Could Elon Musk beat them? (Score:2)
Now, I'm curious. Could a Falcon Heavy send a Dragon into a lunar flyby orbit?
Could a Falcon Heavy send a Dragon plus a service module, such that the Dragon could land and take off from the moon with its escape thrusters? What about the Space Launch System, if it ever gets built?
Re: (Score:2)
Moon Landing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People still believe the USA landed month Moon? That's sad.
The parabolas defined by the falling kicked-up dirt clearly betray the fact that the supposed "moon landings" were filmed in a sound stage on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the desert scenes in Capricorn One [imdb.com] you're thinking of.
Anyone want to make a bet? (Score:3)
Yeah, that'll work (Score:2)
Russia could move to wipe out the humiliation it suffered at the hands of NASA when it lost the 1960s race to the moon
Second comes right after first!
Re: Resume the lunar program (Score:2, Funny)
That depends on which hopeless moron is elected to replace him. If it's Trump then I predict a change to a program to send people to Venus. It's a lot closer, is similarly sized to earth, and has a real atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's Trump then I predict a change to a program to send people to Venus. It's a lot closer, is similarly sized to earth, and has a real atmosphere.
Please tell me you're joking, right? Sorry if I missed the sarcasm. I don't consider 500 degree sulfuric acid at 90 atmospheres to be much of an advantage. Anyway everyone knows Trump would be more interested in building a casino on the moon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, what's the wind like 50 km above Venus? Because anything over 15 m/s or so is hell on airships on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
A casino on the Moon, retirement colonies on the Moon (low gravity will make it easier for geriatric billionaires to walk around), and hotels in space, and radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon? I like them all!
Humans WILL build colonies on the Moon. The primary language probably won't be English. I'd rather it be Russian than Chinese.
Re:Resume the lunar program (Score:5, Interesting)
A moon base would be by far the biggest boondoggle in the history of this nation: Trillions of dollars sunk into a make-work social program for space nutters.
Come on, surely you can do better than that. The bank bailouts, the wars knowingly started on false premises, the wars started on "regime change" ...
Re: RECORD MAKING !! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower didn't expect to ever return to Europe. And half of them died in the first couple of years, in the horrible wilderness called "Massachusetts".
Everybody who goes to Mars will die. (Some quickly, some slowly, some from old age.... maybe even some who come back to Earth.) EVERYBODY dies. Many pioneers died along the Oregon Trail, or heading to California. Exploration isn't safe, but staying home in bed doesn't protect you from dying.
Re: (Score:2)