India, China, and Japan Are All Planning Moon Missions (upi.com) 114
schwit1 shares an article from UPI:
India will make its second mission to the moon in 2018, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) announced this week. The Chandrayaan 2 spacecraft consists of an orbiter, lander and rover configuration "to perform mineralogical and elemental studies of the lunar surface," the ISRO said... Several other countries, including China and Japan, are planning lunar expeditions in the coming years -- partly to better understand the moon's environmental conditions for the potential of human settlements...
According to Popular Mechanics, the ISRO is attempting to make the lunar landing on a budget of $93 million, which is about the same cost of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket that's scheduled for launch by the end of this year. The Falcon rocket, though, is only going into orbit -- and a $93 million price tag for a lunar landing could have impact on other countries' space plans.
India landed a spacecraft on the moon in 2008, and plans to complete this second lunar landing by March.
According to Popular Mechanics, the ISRO is attempting to make the lunar landing on a budget of $93 million, which is about the same cost of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket that's scheduled for launch by the end of this year. The Falcon rocket, though, is only going into orbit -- and a $93 million price tag for a lunar landing could have impact on other countries' space plans.
India landed a spacecraft on the moon in 2008, and plans to complete this second lunar landing by March.
Some Earth zones are contaminated. (Score:2)
In the Moon there are Plutonium traces from the past lunar missions.
On the Earth, there are Plutonium traces from the past nuclear accidents/tests.
At least on the Moon, we *know* that radiation exposure from any Plutonium contamination is orders of magnitude lower than exposure someone would get from *natural* radiation sources (e.g. cosmic rays, solar particles, etc) since unlike the Earth, the Moon has no magnetic field to protect it.
Good, America can't afford this nonsense anymore (Score:1)
Too many trillions wasted on war and entitlements. Human spaceflight cannot be justified based on its enormous costs and risk vs paltry scientific return vs unmanned missions.
Re: (Score:1)
So we spent too much on war and now we can't afford spaceflight? Or are you saying we should not spend the trillions on spaceflight, so that we can spend it on wars?
Come on, General; you can spare a few billion!
Why the Moon and Mars? (Score:1)
Here's what I don't get about these plans to inhabit the Moon and Mars: even with temperatures and oceans rising, the conditions on the Moon and Mars will still be less hospitable than on Earth, and going there will still be more expansive than adpating for conditions here on Earth.
Let's say temperatures rise by 10 degrees celsius and oceans by 2 meters in the next 100 years, will conditions then be worse than the current conditions on the Moon and Mars?
I am all for space exploration, but is there really *a
Re: (Score:1)
Let's say temperatures rise by 10 degrees celsius and oceans by 2 meters in the next 100 years, will conditions then be worse than the current conditions on the Moon and Mars?
Depends - If that warming of the earth / flooding and all the other resultant changes have led to world wars, tribalism and human societal collapse then yeah, maybe I would rather be living in a biodome on the moon.
Of all the things that might keep me up at night, it's wondering what world my children may have to deal with when
Re:Why the Moon and Mars? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what worries me? It's that we are going to have generations of children raised by people who taught them both directly and indirectly to be terrified of anything and everything. And by people who have absolutely no sense of perspective.
You are here, a putative adult, expressing existential fear over the modern equivalent of the boogieman. Your grandfather might have been willing to storm out of a landing craft into a hail of well-planned machine gun and artillery fire, your parents had to live with the very real and immediate possibility that every airplane that passed over might just have dropped a 1 megaton bomb on your your school, and it was very close to happening on at least 3 occasions. Now, you are living in the lap of luxury and security, but are terrified by a computer simulation?
Even if the most absurd climate predictions come true in every detail, you assume it will destroy human civilization? People have dealt with one problem after another, successfully. Human civilization survived The Plague, for Christ's sake, something that they had absolutely no defense for, and just had to sit around, hour after hour, day after day, for decades, not knowing if the next time they coughed it might mean they are dying in the next 48 hours. Now a slow, perhaps mythical, rise in sea level is going to reduce the world to chaos?
Are you at all aware that people have worried about equivalent issues, all far more likely than this gibberish, for the entire span of human history and probably far before? Ever hear of Holland?
Teaching your kids that everything is always on the edge of falling apart and we are helpless to do anything over trivial problems is the WORST POSSIBLE THING you could do for the future of civilizations.
Your post is one of the most pathetic things I have seen in my 56 years. Grow the fuck up and learn to deal with REAL LIFE.
Re: (Score:1)
Human civilization survived The Plague
Actually it did not. It collapsed and stagnated for 500 years and more.
It raised later again, but that is not what I would call surviving.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it did not. It collapsed and stagnated for 500 years and more.
The plague was in the 1300s, coinciding with the start of the Renaissance, one of the greatest flowerings of society in history. I'm not sure why you think it collapsed, especially stagnating for 500 years or more (Goethe, Mozart, and Kepler all fall into that time period, for example).
Re: (Score:2)
There where several plagues.
The first one around 500, and between roughly 500 till roughly 1400 there was not much progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I would say technology more or less stagnated, except for firearms and a little bit bigger ships.
Re: (Score:1)
It raised later again, but that is not what I would call surviving.
This is literally what surviving means.
Re: (Score:2)
So dying and getting reborn also means surviving?
Mankind survived, single humans did not.
And neither did civilization, just because a new civilization rose up again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say, it destroyed civilization.
The parent said: civilization survived.
Which it did not. Civilization stagnated between 500 and 1500, with various drops in level, for what ever reasons.
Re: Why the Moon and Mars? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's far from mythical [noaa.gov].
It is not, however, an existential threat. It will not cause Western society to collapse (though some more vulnerable nations may not be so lucky).
It will be very expensive to deal with, and I expect that is what the GP is most concerned about (but not "terrified", as you seem to prefer to believe). Maybe look up how much the Netherlands has spent on its dyke system, and consider the cost of that for every coastal city on the planet. Have a look at what New York spent after Sandy's storm surge, and is now spending on new levees.
And that's just sea level. Have a look at all the other negative impacts described in the IPCC WG2 report, maybe read some of the many studies that attempt to count the net cost - and you too may be concerned for the sheer size of the bill any kids of yours will be stuck with.
Re: Why the Moon and Mars? (Score:2)
The biodome mention was obviously hyperbole, so maybe don't take that comment too literally.
And as for cost - first, a few percent of GDP would cause another recession, and that cost every year adds up pretty fast. Second, climate costs accelerate as we move further away from our norm so that annual cost would only grow. Third, those studies I mentioned all show that mitigation costs a lot less than adaption, so financially we'd be foolish not to act. Fourth, we'd avoid a lot of the more existential risks t
Re: (Score:2)
Listen sonny (I am two years older than you). No one needs to teach their kids anything these days when we have 24/7 advertising telling them that they will die if they do not eat the right breakfast cereal, kill their children if they do not buy the right car, fail to breed unless they spray themselves with perfumed stuff. No wonder everyone lives in a state of existential dread when they are being told all the time that they are under threat. Most of what is wrong with the world can be blamed on the psych
Re: Why the Moon and Mars? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what worries me?
This worries me the most too. You do realize that critical thinking is discouraged in education these days and consensus building encouraged. Read up on Morley Winograd [wikipedia.org], Senior Policy Advisor to Vice President Al Gore. and Director of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're living in a biodome on the moon, accept that you wouldn't have any meaningful control over your reproduction. Probably "unauthorised reproduction results in death for child and both parents", for whatever authorisation standards your society comes up with.
Re:Why the Moon and Mars? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that enough of a reason? And, if we can learn how to build a self-sustaining colony on the Moon, it will be much easier to build one on Mars. Not only will we know what to do, we won't have to do all of the exterior work in hard vacuum.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd really like to know what the economy of a moon colony would look like. Would it be a bunch if unemployed people sitting around watching netflix in 1/6th g while waiting on their resupply ship from Earth twice a year?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
because most of them would be busy...
Why can't that be automated? We're bombarded almost daily with stories about how there's no more work on Earth because all of that stuff is about to be automated here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, if we can learn how to build a self-sustaining colony on the Moon, it will be much easier to build one on Mars. Not only will we know what to do, we won't have to do all of the exterior work in hard vacuum.
Mars atmospheric pressure is 99.4% of a vacuum compared to Earth so there is no practical difference.
India's mission (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Butt-a-boom!
Re: (Score:2)
The captain goes on his head. The rest of the men go over the side, because they don't have any heads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
To the Moon, Alice! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big deal! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There you go. We'll still need coal-mining techniques for the moon. You know, to extract all the remains from the dinosaurs that got blown off the planet from the last comet.
Plus, while everybody else is trying to shelter under their solar-panel farms because they forgot how to dig a hole, we'll be living in great underground caverns, housing all of our excess coal-miners from Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
There you go. We'll still need coal-mining techniques for the moon. You know, to extract all the remains from the dinosaurs that got blown off the planet from the last comet.
Plus, while everybody else is trying to shelter under their solar-panel farms because they forgot how to dig a hole, we'll be living in great underground caverns, housing all of our excess coal-miners from Earth.
I like the spirit of your post, but caution that most of what we do is strip mining or mountain topping.
Re: (Score:1)
It was coal powered industries that took us to the moon. Anyone that thinks we can return to the moon, or go beyond, using windmills and solar collectors is a fool.
We are reaching the physical limits of chemical rockets. We can use chemical rockets to get to the moon and back but if we expect to get people to Mars or Venus then we will need nuclear power. We tried solar power on the moon, on Mars, on comets, and so much more. It turns out that solar power gets pretty weak out at Mars orbit. We lost som
Re: (Score:2)
It was coal powered industries that took us to the moon. Anyone that thinks we can return to the moon, or go beyond, using windmills and solar collectors is a fool.
I'm not certain where I said what you seem to think I said. You need to show me.
Or are you saying that we will not be able to go anywhere now if we don't increase coal production? I can play your game too.
We are reaching the physical limits of chemical rockets. We can use chemical rockets to get to the moon and back but if we expect to get people to Mars or Venus then we will need nuclear power.
We tried solar power on the moon, on Mars, on comets, and so much more. It turns out that solar power get
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, Trump really triggered you with his sympathy for coal miners.
Triggered is such an amusing word. As for sympathy for out of work coal miners, I live in the area and I have plenty of sympathy for the workers.. I'm also realistic enough to know that we could strip out every bit of coal around here, and they aren't getting their jobs back. Automation allows a few men to blast and strip huge amounts of coal. Hell, the post stripping land reclamation might employ more people.
You won't shut up about it, and I see it get injected into irrelevant conversations all the time, which means it's in your brain constantly.
While your concern for me is touching, it appears you pretty much exemplify the concept of being t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you actually have any sympathy, you might want to lay off taking cheap shots at them. Just a thought. DURR HURR COAL HURR in a conversation about India and China's moon missions. Super-off topic and inflammatory.
You don't even know who I am taking the shots at. Just as a refresher, The present administration cynically used the concept of putting coal miners back to work in an effort to procure votes in the states that were affected by the downturn in the coal industry.
For anyone keeping up with the news - why it wasn't obvious that they were the ones I was aiming at is curious to me, but I guess you must know on some level, given your umbrage.
The fix for disappearing coal miner jobs is to enable employment o
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! Because all a 54 year old father of three needs to do is move to New York City, call around to some friends, and get a job in publishing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true regardless of whether Trump or Clinton or Superman is President (OK, Superman's not native born...). Getting a new job is going to be hard, and technologically displaced people need serious assistance.
However, Trump's the one talking about getting the mines open again and the coal mining jobs back, and that very simply isn't going to happen, and Trump doesn't want it to anyway. That gives false hope, and diverts people's attention from what needs to be done to help these people.
Fundamental
Pointless for us to chase (Score:1)
Oh good, we should put a person on the moon soon because other people are doing it, right?
We've already been there a half dozen times. Furthermore, we have limited resources for this type of thing. Is another mission to the moom really worth our time without some sort of concrete goal for the mission?
I think not, NASA has far better uses for its resources
India, China, Japan... (Score:2)
... and Elon Musk! I think I read that he might be sending a manned spacecraft around the moon (and back).
Seriously, I'm not too worried (or impressed) by other nations repeating something that the U.S. did fifty years ago and that now a private citizen is developing the technology to do himself (ok his company).
And even if India's effort is cheaper than a NEW falcon heavy, will it be cheaper than one of his reused rockets? One that's been flown a few times? A dozen times? Once these space powers make r
Can I join in? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the reality is that the USA has left space behind. If other countries feel the need to re-enact 50 year old Space Theater, that's their problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the reality is that the USA has left space behind.
"From this moment on, it's going to be America First."
"For many decades, we've enriched foreign space industry at the expense of American industry."
"Subsidized the space armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military."
"We've made space rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon."
"I'm gonna build a big-ass honking wall between us and space!"
One Laptop Per Astronaut . . . ?
No space left behind . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
left space behind? I'm pretty we have a few missions in progress right now, with a few more exciting ones launching next year even.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very ignorant of the U.S. space program's extent, plenty of missions have been recently launched. Plenty in 2016, plenty in 2015, etc. etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you have to start somewhere. Besides, it isn't as if the US has shared all of the data and experience they gathered 50 years ago with the rest of the world.
Good for India, China and Japan. American arrogance has left us with an Idiot in Charge, a crippled Space Program, and a dependence on Russia to fly to the ISS.
Re: (Score:2)
"More like the American People have other spending priorities right now"
Right now? When was the last time America didn't have "other spending priorities"?
Considering that it's in 31st place globally for life expectancy, right above CUBA, for fuck's sake, those "other spending priorities" need to be looked at.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, space is nice and stuff, but the country has finite resources and they must be used on the most urgent issues. Rich folks desperately need a tax cut right now, so let Japan or India go to the moon while American leaders focus on the important things.
Re: (Score:2)
"Rich folks desperately need a tax cut right now"
Agreed. Give us your tired, your think-they're-so poor, huddled masses of triggered billionaires, yearning to be tax-free.
And what about that extra $1.5 trillion hole that will find its way into the debt as a result, while the Party of Fiscal & Personal Responsibility holds sway?
Er, well,erm... BENGHAZI, URANIUM ONE, LOCK HER UP....why, oh why, is the DOJ not investigating Crooked Hillary??
Re: Thanks Obama (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"At least we have the electric car fad."
Please print your comment, and put it in a place where you'll find it back in 5-10 years.
Bert
Meanwhile, America/Europe planning Social Justice (Score:1)
Need more reparations, pride festivals and feminist outrage to destroy the West.
Re: Meanwhile, America/Europe planning Social Just (Score:1)
Thanks Obama for helping the commercial spaceflight companies get off the ground, investing in actual science rather than publicity and proving a Black man can be just as good if not even better than a White president. Also a big thanks to Trump for showing that White supremecy is a myth. I mean one look at that bufoon and people can no longer take the idea of "master" race seriously anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
and thats the less funny bit
thats a fact
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Mother Nature is flawed. After all, what are hospitals, antibiotics, central heating, surgery, air conditioning, sewers, treated municipal drinking water for? For that matter, clothes?
What about cancer? That's a flaw.
So what are you really trying to say?
Re: (Score:2)
Brother, are you really asking an AC troll for clarification?
Re: (Score:2)
I am being silly, aren't I?
Re:Thanks Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... because visiting all of the planets of our solar system, orbiting some of them, landing rovers on Mars, sending probes into interstellar space... none of that counts if we don't occasionally drop a lander on the moon.
Re:Thanks Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for that, it needs to be said every time an article like this comes up, it seems. And, it's not like the US has abandoned the moon; NASA has had the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter operating in orbit around the moon since 2009 where it is still operating and returning scientific observations. And NASA has the two ARTEMIS (Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon's Interaction with the Sun) spacecraft operating in orbits around the Earth-Moon L1 and L2 Lagrangian points (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/artemis-orbit.html)! So that makes three NASA lunar observing satellites currently in operation.
Re: Thanks Obama (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Trolls are answering trolls now. We need to create a honeypot somewhere to distract them to.