Russians on the moon

[HungaryTom]

I am happy since this news might rattle up the US to a noble competition

Two years ago I did translate at a conference celebrating the first Hungarian astronaut going to the cosmos with a Soviet.
Afterwards I asked one scientist why did such high visibility projects (space shuttles etc.) stop in development (you see new versions only in computer designs and the currently flying 20+ yo specimens look like overhauled Taxicabs in Havanna when you see them after landing in close-up, I don't wonder why astronauts get some alcohol before they challenge their luck on those ole hardware, mind you) and the direct answer was that the Cold War ended and the Gulf Wars and the War on Terror swallowed all the funds from space industry.
After the Soviet collapse on the other hand, Russians begun to do the 'flying circus': space tourism for getting some money...

The 1990's saw only a myriad of telecom, GPS etc. satellites being shot to orbit-naturally this is exeggarated but you could never see a progress like in the glory days of the space industry.

Now that Russians have oil wealth and mineral wealth they have ambitions and plans - that's normal.

Why should be the United states different - you guys have also wealth and a much larger economy. It is never good for any development to be without competitors - I think here also of China or the EU.

Anyway the high-tech trickles down to civic industry always from military applications or space industry, OK? It is much more meaningful to curb industrial development from space industry than through arms race in wars.

 

[carter]

Originally posted by HungaryTom
...the Cold War ended and the Gulf Wars and the War on Terror swallowed all the funds from space industry.

There's the rub. In reality, the entire 20th century can be viewed as one long conflict on a global scale with pauses for the players to catch their breath, shift alliances, refit and resupply, and then dive back into the conflict. No superpower has ever mamaged to stay completely uninvolved though some have tried. This wasn't a series of wars, this was one long conflict that gobbled up at least 4 generations.If you don't think so, ask their mother's.

Global warming is very likely to create the right set of conditions for another conflict. Resources/raw materials, geographic control of territory, and ideology have been at the center of conflict forever.

To hope/assume that these problems can be left on the planet is just plain silly.

Originally posted by Hungary Tom
...high-tech trickles down to civic industry always from military applications or space industry...

While not universally true, there is validity here. Certainly government funding and support can advance products and technology more quickly. However, no government is altruistic by nature. Governments support what will support their continued existence. There is always an agenda.

Until human beings are rewired, conflict is a seemingly inevitable part of the future. Perhaps the best way to face that is to embrace it and do our best to control the nature and scope of the beast. Avoidance and appeasement have no history of being successful over the long term, At least not for any major nation.

 

[Twitch]

We don't even know how to get to the moon again. We lost it. There was supposed to be a moon base at the end of the Apollo program. We were supposed to have been to Mars by the mid- 1980s.

We have no way other that the old time chemical rockets, which would have to be developed all over again to get to sufficient size to carry a useful payload. Our long and redundant detour to powerless re-entry vehicles ala the shuttle has done little but produce a dubious "space station" which is a wonder or a rickety piece of crap depending on who you talk to. We have no vehicle that makes it practical in its primary purpose that it could be a launch platform without gravity for more distant exploration.

A vehicle with less power and mass could be launched from orbit. ie., more economically. Of course chemical reaction rockets, which is all we have in our powerplant inventory, rely on pushiing against atmosphere to accelerate like jets do. We have not developed any other viable type of power to capitalize on a space launch. Chemical rockets are very much proportionately less efficient in the vacuum of space.

We have vehicles that come hauling azz back to earth like bricks similarly to the very first "capsules." There has been no concentrated R & D on any source of power for what comes after the worn out shuttles. Just what is that folks? NASA certainly has no program underway to build any new next-generation vehicles.

Their "program" seems to be little more than a well rendered CGI fit for You Tube

Where is a vehicle that can take off under its own power, cruise in space and return under power? Werhner von Braun had been calculating what it would take to get to the moon since the early 1940s and his peers such as Eugene Sanger who laid out real plans for what can only be described as a space shuttle in 1944. They knew in 1944 the nexy logical step past the shuttle interum was a craft capable of self-powered space flight with the ability to land under power.

It's all BS and whitewash. Talking about serious manned exploration of the Earthly quadrant of this solar system can not be backed up with hardware or even funded programs. There is no vehicle as described above in concept form much less in planning stages. The best they could do is aim a shuttle at the moon and let it dead-stick there to drop some concocted "lander," that will fit in the bay, with all the attendant hoopla of walking around and then rendevous with the shuttle. Of course since the shuttle blows its wad of fuel achieving orbit they'll have to invent some sort of way to have extra fuel to fire the main engine to break moon orbit and head home.:eusa_doh:

I talked to Gordon Cooper not long before he died. He was at one of my American Fighter Aces functions. I sensed his reluctance to really bad mouth the post-Apollo programs but his hesitancy to offer any positive feelings to it was apparent. I felt a bitter sense of betrayal that any astronaut would feel if his space agency went off track and for too long as he said NASA did.

Until a real space engine can be developed no one from any country is going to do more than "get slingshotted around," as Cooper called it, the near environs of Earth for short periods. Without artificial gravity space crew suffer a myriad of physical ills from muscle atrophy to osteoperosis and other things.

When we see these wonderous programs full of computer animation of things that could be we have to relalistically ask ourselves what is hype and what is really do-able. It's beyond commitment and funding if we don't have the technology. It's just assinine to spend gazillions to recreate 1969 using the same motive power.

 

[Samsa]

Can anyone say . . . waste of money better spent elsewhere? I will never understand the obsession with space exploration.

bk

I'm with the Baron.

 

[Story]

Mr. President, we must not allow a green cheese gap!

 

[deanglen]

Mr. President, we must not allow a green cheese gap!

lol lol lol :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

dean

 

[Viola]

I'm with the Baron.

Me too. Well, space exploration would be cool beans...if it wasn't taxpayers paying for it.

 

[Dr Doran]

I'm rabidly pro-space development here. Mining, experimentation, all sorts of things.

My uncle, however, is an engineer who has worked on confidential projects (not even my aunt knows) with satellites all his life and he comes out against manned missions anywhere. I'm not sure what to think. He is obviously an insider. I would not be surprised if he were to say that all the flashy stuff is only opium for the masses to support the real stuff which is military.

WE. MUST. COLONIZE. AND. TERRAFORM. OTHER PLANETS. A single stupid meteor could wipe out our civilization(s) otherwise.

 

[MrBern]

Didnt the Chinese say a few years ago that they were intent on going to the moon?

Everything I've ever read about the Soviet space program or working w/ cosmonauts on space stations didnt exactly instill any confidence. But I suppose most of those poor decisions were under the duress political pressures.

 

[Diamondback]

WE. MUST. COLONIZE. AND. TERRAFORM. OTHER PLANETS. A single stupid meteor could wipe out our civilization(s) otherwise.

EXACTLY! Heck, even if we dodge all the meteorites, we must reach out to the stars eventually--in just a few billion years, everything this side of Mars is gonna be cooked when the Sun goes red-giant.

I'd rather the private sector pay for it myself, but in a way all the spinoff technologies being commercialized does become a partial-payback, and some things are just too big for the private-sector to do. Can you visualize a private corporation operating the Nimitz, for example, except for as a government contractor? I didn't think so...

 

[Story]

Can anyone say . . . waste of money better spent elsewhere? I will never understand the obsession with space exploration.
bk

Yeah. Silly explorers - who needs 'em! lol

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Doran
I'm rabidly pro-space development here. Mining, experimentation, all sorts of things.
My uncle, however, is an engineer who has worked on confidential projects (not even my aunt knows) with satellites all his life and he comes out against manned missions anywhere. I'm not sure what to think. He is obviously an insider. I would not be surprised if he were to say that all the flashy stuff is only opium for the masses to support the real stuff which is military.
WE. MUST. COLONIZE. AND. TERRAFORM. OTHER PLANETS. A single stupid meteor could wipe out our civilization(s) otherwise.

Mankind has looked to the stars throughout history. Space may not be the final frontier but it is a frontier. There have always been men and women who wanted to know what lay beyond the horizon. Some were supported by governments, some were privately or self-funded. Regardless, exploration is part of the human psyche. The need to know can be suppressed but it cannot be extinguished.
Is space exploration liable to have a major military component? You Think?
Certainly.
Could it get ugly? Of course it could. Does this mean it shouldn't happen? Of course not.

This is one of many articles regarding the recent planting of the Russian flag beneath the North Pole.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/02/news/north.php

Does anyone believe that there will not be a military component over this?

Let's be realistic, the next few centuries aren't likely to see life get better on earth. Frankly, once the oil reserves are gone, it could be downright ugly.
Look at recent US stances. Global Warming, 'Well, we're not convinced it's such a big deal'. Alternative Fuel, 'Let's see what the private sector can do'.Federal Funding, 'We have a lot of $$$ tied-up elsewhere', 'Besides, have you seen our Balance of Payments Defecit?' We're on the same page as the rest of the world? Are we even in the same book?

Meanwhile the US continues to be the single largest consumer of products in the world. AND, we produce less internally each year. We have become a nation of consumers instead of craftsmen. Is there a place for both? Certainly. But, how many high schools do you know of that still offer Industrial Arts courses as electives? There are far fewer than there were 40 years ago. The rest of the world caught up to us or is catching up rapidly. This nation out-sources like crazy. It doesn't appear that there is an end in sight. One day we'll all wake up and realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is a TRAIN! This is not reassuring when considering long-term survival as a nation.

So, is there hope for an off-world solution? If so, for who? (whom?)

In his Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars trilogy, Kim Stanley Robinson posits at least one possibility for colonization and Terraforming of Mars that is supported by Multinational Corporations. Not too far-fetched when we consider the companies in existence today that have a greater financial capability than many nations and not just third-world nations.

At some point, humanity will emigrate from this planet. How soon? Who knows. Who? Anybody's guess. Inevitable? Yes, unless we manage to destroy all life on this earth first.

Originally posted by Diamondback
Heck, even if we dodge all the meteorites, we must reach out to the stars eventually--in just a few billion years, everything this side of Mars is gonna be cooked when the Sun goes red-giant.

Now that's taking the verrrrry long view. But, this will happen too. Hopefully we'll have moved, not toward the sun but, beyond our solar syatem long before then.

 

[Twitch]

While I believe the NASA concept space program is antiquated and not worth the money I do believe we need to move off this rock and get out there with a seriously real intent.

The happy happy belief that the money should be spent on happy happy needy people will never happen anyway if NASA was out of the budget. It'd get sucked into some other dubious guv'ment thaing!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Yeah. Silly explorers - who needs 'em! lol

The Incas certainly didn't!

.

 

[Viola]

Yeah. Silly explorers - who needs 'em! lol

They didn't get anywhere people weren't already. They weren't even trying to, they'd misplaced India.

 

[matei]

While the thread appears to have gone in a more intelligent direction, some of the early comments were rather childish - or perhaps uninformed.

Why would someone assume that the Russians lack the "inherent competence" to put someone on the moon? While the Soviet Union didn't place a manned ship on the moon, they did successfully land an unmanned craft to collect lunar samples.

The Soviet Union's Luna program was, after all, the first to reach the Moon with unmanned spacecraft (this is common knowledge, but if you are not aware of it just google it).

I realise that the Soviet Union and Russia are two seperate entities, and that political / financial situations have changed, but I believe you would be wrong to assume that Russia is incapable of of placing a person on the moon - especially within the given timeframe.

Regarding the suggestions of the ilk that the Russians would tear down the American flag, etc... come on guys - grow up.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

While the thread appears to have gone in a more intelligent direction, some of the early comments were rather childish - or perhaps uninformed.

Why would someone assume that the Russians lack the "inherent competence" to put someone on the moon? While the Soviet Union didn't place a manned ship on the moon, they did successfully land unmanned craft to collect lunar samples.

I realise that the Soviet Union and Russia are two seperate entities, and that political / financial situations have changed, but I believe you would be wrong to assume that Russia is incapable of of placing a person on the moon - especially within the given timeframe.

Regarding the suggestions of the ilk that the Russians would tear down the American flag, etc... come on guys - grow up.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap

not to mention the small point of it being a russian craft that takes -American- astronauts and supplies to the space station in between shuttle flights....and if there were an emergency....back down here.

 

[Twitch]

The error in peering back through the veils of history with today's values is that we get statements such as the Inca (and all pre-Colombian indiginious people) got screwed. It is past history and no revisionism will change it.

What we fine cultured folks today see as a bleeding heart tragedy the inhabitants of Europe saw as opportunity. Every ingredient was coming together that would give humans their next big step- the exploration of the entire planet.

And Colombus was only a coincidental name in it. The time was such that another would have sailed west soon after if he'd failed. Technology was such that sea vessels were finally capable true global travel. Economy was ready to burst into a global market. Distances could be conquered now and international trade and travel was about to happen no matter what.

Humankind had been developing and inventing steadily and Europe and the Eastern environs of the traveled world were set up to trade in a sophisticated manner unknown before crude bartering of beads for shells existed. The beginning of a global market which would move goods and cargos around the planet was at hand and nothing was going to hinder that. Everything that we know and have now is a direct result of this spirit of exploration, trade, knowledge gain, and conquest.

When Europeans did encounter the brutal savagery of tribes such as the Maya, Inca and Aztec they were understandably repulsed. Warfare in the known world may have been blody but not to the extent of the heinous bloodbaths they witnessed in the Americas.

God fearing men, even uneducated rank and file soldiers, no doubt harbored a deep repulsion for peoples that made murder a sport and spectacle on a scale grander than the Roman exhibitions. There have been found diary entries with their conclusion that these barbaric savages should be eradicated for their own good and for Christian sanity.

Must we now detachedly conclude "well that's how they were, who are we to judge?" and ignore the fact that the European Christian culture of the time was in direct conflict of ideals and sensitivities with human sacrifice on massive scales?

The indigenous peoples of the Americas would have clashed culturally with ANY people from across the seas. If they had not been contacted and global exploration bugun the principal native cultures and governments were not fluid in any way with the ability to evolve. They were led by tyrants and subjugated on every level.

By the time the Spanish arrived the Mayan had already imploded and rejected the kingdom/supplicant way of life. It ultimately didn't work for them and wouldn't have continued to work for the Aztecs, Incas or any wannabe tribe for that much longer.

While we like to imagine a simple happy life of indiginous folks in pre-Colombian times the truth is that a vast number of people had their freedom surpressed and were forced to live as middle age serfs for the most part always offering more and more of the product of their labor to a bankrupt system run by figurehead fanatics who considered themselves divine and divorced from their own power base. No where in the Americas is there evidence that any of these charming people had the slighest ideas of conservation of any kind. They went through resources like a wino through Thunderbird.

If a state and its people was being subjugated in these ways today the UN would be stepping in and the eco-greenie nuts would be up in arms. Somehow we squint back in time and twist the occurances in their timeline to fit our 21st century pre-conceived notion of how we imagine is should have been in a past fairy tale world.

The tribal cultures of the Americas were warrior societies. No warrior scoiety can stand forever in that their very core is combat, death and sacrifice. Had the Europeans left the Americas alone would the natives still be bloodthirsty? Would travel adviseries tell people to avoid tribal areas for fear of being canabalized? Certainly the world would not stand for 2 continents to remain steeped in blood sacrifice because they feel sorry for their quaint ways.

At some time in the past 500 years someone would have put and end to sacrificial bloodletting and canabalism, the slavery and oppression. If it wasn't the Spanish it might have been the Chinese or several nationalities. To that point humans had advanaced and explored as per their curious nature and no matter who had infiltrated the Americas or when there would have been conflict.

For civilization to have taken the important global step that it did it was inevitable that un-civil cultures to the majority had to pass away.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Wait...you expect people to read such long responses.....riiiight..

lol

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Wait...you expect people to read such long responses.....riiiight..

lol

That response isn't worth the time and eye strain.

.