Print 109 comment(s) - last by thecoolnessrun.. on Mar 20 at 10:23 PM

Not only can the Chinese space program make it to the moon, it will get there before the U.S., according to NASA

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told a House Committee on Science and Technology that the Chinese are likely to be the next nation to reach the moon, even before the United States.  "If they wanted to mount a lunar mission, they could do so," Griffin said.  The Chinese space program also has around 200,000 employees, while NASA has a workforce numbering close to 75,000.

Assuming NASA continues to receive the amount of funding it is currently getting, the space agency will be able to send astronauts back to the moon in 2019 -- an additional "few billion extra" will allow NASA to reach the moon in 2017.  The Chinese government continues to funnel large amounts of money towards the nation's space endeavors.  

Serious budget cuts and issues with the current NASA lunar program were the main reasons cited by NASA.  Bart Gordon, chairman of the U.S. House science committee, recently said that NASA is headed for a "train wreck" if the space organization cannot get the funding that it needs.  
With the pending retirement of the space shuttle in 2010, NASA also needs to finish the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) on time after the shuttle is retired.  "If the CEV is delayed even further, then we will cede leadership in human space flight at a time when Russia and China have such capabilities and India has announced its intention to develop them," Griffin said.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ss284 on 3/17/2007 8:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Before the US?

RE: what?
By daniel1113 on 3/17/2007 8:42:16 PM , Rating: 5
July 20, 1969...

I'd say we beat them by a solid 40 years.

RE: what?
By mjrpes3 on 3/17/2007 9:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
No no no! This would be the first real mission to the moon.

RE: what?
By artbronze on 3/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By doctor sam adams on 3/17/2007 10:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
You assume that relying on computers and technology will necessarily lead to more successful outcomes. To tell you the truth, people don't really know how to use computers to their optimum ability, we're still just figuring them out.

RE: what?
By KaiserCSS on 3/18/2007 12:03:33 AM , Rating: 4

Implementation of fire = about 800,000 years.

Implementation of advanced technology and electronics = about 40 years.

Think of all that is possible due to fire. Cooking your food, making metals of all sorts, heating and powering your homes, propelling your vehicles.

Now think about technology and everything that has been made possible because of it in such a short amount of time. Given the fact that we've barely entered the "modern age", one can only wonder what will be possible hundreds or even thousands of years in the future.

RE: what?
By Samus on 3/18/2007 3:52:41 AM , Rating: 1
right, just look at WWII dogfighters. they achieved precision and accuracy that computers still can't replicate. human's are incredible beings in desperate times.

and we were desperately trying to achieve a landing on the moon, and it's quite obvious we succeeded. How else did an American flag get planted there?

RE: what?
By Tsuwamono on 3/18/2007 5:29:41 PM , Rating: 3
Well alot of conspiracy theorist believe it isnt actually there. Me, i dunno what to think but i do believe the US landed on the moon. i dont really doubt that but its always good to listen to the theorists. They make good points when you talk to the intelligent ones.

RE: what?
By mjrpes3 on 3/18/2007 1:45:57 PM , Rating: 1
sarcasm attempt == complete failure

RE: what?
By dever on 3/19/2007 1:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
first real mission
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Thanks for the laugh.

RE: what?
By Soviet Robot on 3/18/2007 4:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
Really? You witnessed it first hand? You went to the moon? WOAH COOL DUDE.
It would be nice to see us go to the moon with the technology we have now, high resolution photo and video cameras, shit like that.

RE: what?
By dtm4trix on 3/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By ani4ani on 3/18/2007 5:28:16 AM , Rating: 5

one thing that bothers me - 7 years after JFK said we would go to the moon, back in the 60's we do it; man lands on the moon. Computers less powerful than pocket computers and we can do it in less than 7 years. Rocket technology marginally better than WW2 V2 rockets and 7 years later we do it.

Bush says the same thing in 2003, and this time its going to take 15-16 years to do - makes you wonder?

RE: what?
By Rotorblade on 3/18/2007 10:28:25 AM , Rating: 5
Lack of funding.

American citizens don't care about space as much as they did in the 60's. That and I imagine that there are quite a few more rules regarding saftey and what materials can and cannot be used in the construction of our rockets and lunar landers.

RE: what?
By KernD on 3/18/2007 2:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
You must keep in mind that NASA back then had all this funding for one thing, now it does allot of different things, it can't spend all it's budget on the moon mission, it has the shuttles to maintain, the new one to develop, the space station development and maintenance, and there has been allot of inflation since the 60s.

By there are 6 lunar lander bottom half up there on the moon, how did they get there if we didn't go there?

RE: what?
By jase4u on 3/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By Mclendo06 on 3/18/2007 5:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
We never landed on the moon just like the holocaust never occurred. 40 years from now, some people are going to say that 9/11 was all a farce. This is just another example of a few (using a very restrained combination of adjectives here) "childishly foolish" individuals concocting a hollowly conceivable story about how a monumental event in humanity did not occur and wrapping it in very shiny paper so that people who aren't willing to dig into the facts (and one needn't dig very deep in this case) will swallow the lies they are being fed. By doing this, these "childishly foolish" individuals get the attention they so selfishly desire but are wholly undeserving of, all at the cost of the truth. Any individual of at least average intelligence who is willing to do at most a little legwork can systematically debunk any claim made by the skeptics and come up with a variety of unique arguments which back up an actual moon landing. With regards to the radiation question, here are a couple of good sites:

Note that I would consider individuals working at NASA and CalTech to be "scientists of reputable standing."

Another site I would recommend which addresses the whole "we didn't land on the moon" conspiracy is:

As far as China landing on the moon - that would be great. They can go and take pictures of our LEM bases which are still there as well as the flags which are still undoubtedly standing tall next to them, not to mention the footprints which have sat undisturbed for nearly 40 years.

RE: what?
By jeff2007 on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By TwistyKat on 3/19/2007 6:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't make me think. I'm quite confident it really happened. To pull of a hoax like this on a global scale (even the Russians acknowledged it was real) would virtually be impossible.

So many people would have had to be on board with the hoax and be trusted to keep quiet for the rest of their lives.

At least one person would have had an axe to grind or looking to make some $ and come forward by now with evidence that it was staged.

It really happened. Stop kidding yourself.

RE: what?
By Oregonian2 on 3/19/2007 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 4
That's exactly the point. The USSR'ians certainly would have been tracking things and seeing exactly what was going on. They would have been able to track where signals were coming from very precisely using a couple earth tracking stations. Had it been faked, in 1969, the USSR would have blown it up sky-high in the press. To think that the Russians were cooperating with a faked landing back when they were our most bitter enemies is hilarious to think of.

RE: what?
By Visual on 3/19/2007 7:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
you are so far from reality it's not even funny.
if you had any clue of what you're talking about, you'd know that we can't hope to see any machinery that we left on the moon with a traditional telescope. even hubble's resolution is too low, and for a telescope on earth the atmosphere would make it impossible.

but ordinary telescopes are not all that we have. scientists have reflected laser beams off special prisms that appolo crews have placed on various sites on the moon, and use this method for calculating the distance with millimeter precision. i wonder how conspiracy maniacs explain this one - perhaps an unmanned probe delivered those mirrors, eh? well, then a few years in the future when china lands there and sees the usa rovers and footprints and whatever, i'm sure some nuts will claim a secret unmanned probe delivered those too...

RE: what?
By jabber on 3/19/2007 10:46:41 AM , Rating: 2
What would be cool? If and when either the US or the Chinese land on the moon and get anywhere near the old luna rovers, slap on a new battery and away they go.

However, in reality I don't know what degrading effects 40+ years of solar exposure and lunar temps would have on them.

RE: what?
By jeff2007 on 3/20/2007 1:14:56 AM , Rating: 1
First of all, you are so blinded that you can't question anything. Who said anything about Traditional Telescopes??? What about the SMART 1 European satellite? It's primary mission was to MAP out the moon and take super high res pics. I suppose according to you idiots, they used traditional camera on the satellite. They even crashed the satellite INTO the moon.

How frickin close do we have to be to get a picture. You are so pathetically satisfied with media spin it's sickening.

RE: what?
By AnnihilatorX on 3/17/2007 8:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well before the 'next' US moon landing

RE: what?
By therealnickdanger on 3/17/2007 8:56:22 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah, if by "before", they mean nearly 40+ years after we have already been there six times. I know the context is "before we return to the moon", but still.

RE: what?
By someguy123 on 3/18/2007 3:02:15 AM , Rating: 3
i find it incredibly odd that during the time we landed on the moon we did so six times in a row, and yet we have not been able to replicate any similiar results since.

what the hell is nasa doing with all the money they recieve? the only good thing I've seen come out of them for the past forty years was the tempurpedic mattress.

RE: what?
By Griswold on 3/18/2007 5:35:04 AM , Rating: 5
You got it all wrong. You need to see the big picture, what was NASA doing during the 60s and 70s besides pursueing goals that ultimately resulted in the moon landing? Not to mention that the race to the moon was politically motivated and immediately halted after public interest in it faded.

And what is NASA doing now with alot less money? Alot more differntiated and valuable research, I'd say. And once they're back on the moon, the research they will do there will also be alot more valuable and serious than the (mainly) publicity trips in the 70's.

Compared to then, NASA's funding today is on life support.

RE: what?
By alexcurpas on 3/18/07, Rating: -1
It's all about safety
By SpacedOut on 3/17/2007 10:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
We can't reuse old tech, nor can we rush things to get back to the moon. American society has become too focused on safety and avoiding risk (in the sense that risky things become a PR nightmare and liability for some company or another cluster “f” for the fed government).

For all you 30-something males out there...did you wear a seat belt in your dad's 1980 Cutlass Supreme? Or wear a helmet when you took your new Mongoose or Huffy off a homemade 2 foot ramp?

The Shuttle's failure rate is less than 2% during its service life. For something so complex (and sitting on tons of highly flammable material), this is actually quite incredible. This is not to diminish the sacrifices made my Challenger or Columbia crews, nor those that came before (e.g., Apollo 1).

Yet, if we really want to explore and conquer the moon (again), outer planets, and so on, Americans need to become less risk adverse and rekindle some of the pioneering spirit that made our nation great. I believe we could get to this point again, as long as the US government stops breeding fear, eroding citizens’ rights, and ceases its costly wars which most Americans no longer have the stomach for.

Think about it….if the money that has been spent on Iraq went to education, the sciences (including the space program), social welfare, and a few other things, we could be well on our way to exploring Mars. And if I could be a part of such a program, and know that I only had a 50% chance of success (the other 50% being a cold, mostly likely asphyxiated death in space), I would choose the adventure in a heartbeat.

RE: It's all about safety
By ani4ani on 3/18/2007 5:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Im rather pleased that Aeroplanes are a little bit more "reliable" 2% = about 400 planes dropping out of the sky a day!

RE: It's all about safety
By Ringold on 3/19/2007 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Considering a small Cessna, and indeed VLJ's, have fewer important components than I have fingers, all of which have generous safety margins in how much stress they can take and how accurate or inaccurate a pilot can be in his operation of the systems, while space craft require absolute accuracy in operation and very thin safety margins, it seems pretty natural that planes would be more reliable. For the Shuttle to have what I thought was closer to a 1% failure rate, I'm actually rather impressed. :)

RE: It's all about safety
By masher2 on 3/18/2007 1:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "if the money that has been spent on Iraq went to education, the sciences (including the space program), social welfare, and a few other things, we could be well on our way to exploring Mars...."

I'm not sure how you feel that spending more money on "social welfare" is going to get us to Mars, but I have to point out that, since the Iraq war began, the federal government has spent over 12 trillion dollars (that's $12,000 billion), the majority of it on income-redistribution and entitlement programs.

RE: It's all about safety
By oTAL on 3/19/2007 1:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well... most of the arguments I'll make are debatable, but you asked for it...

A well implemented social welfare program could reduce poverty, social reclusion, crime, drug use, disease, etc.
Less crime usually leads to less organized crime which leads to less corruption... that in turn leads to a more productive society with resources to spare on long term scientific investments.

In a more direct way, a simple scholarship program could keep some kids in school, once again reducing crime and, possibly, giving better opportunities for a new generation of engineers.
You'd probably argue that the really special brains don't need that much incentive and that they usually come from sturdy families with good economic backgrounds. Still, some geniuses had few opportunities... and still managed to prove themselves... that must mean we probably lost some along the way, especially amongst women and blacks because of social barriers. Some highly intuitive people, like Srinivasa_Ramanujan need to be found so that their talents may be enjoyed by the world. Other than that, in today's world of big science you need a lot of average scientists to do work, not just geniuses! I know some people who gave up the university halfway because of economic problems... and that's in socialist Europe....

Well... I kinda overextended myself already, but I guess that "giving people the opportunity to study as far as they want", although a little beaten, is a good argument towards producing more engineers capable of helping put a space capsule on Mars...

RE: It's all about safety
By Ringold on 3/19/2007 2:03:44 PM , Rating: 1
I've seen people come from families that were economic disasters, your typical variety of inner-city slum trash, work full time during high school, pocketing cash all along the way, receiving "good enough" grades the whole way, then working through college, still banking all the way, and then lo and behold, without taking a bloody dime from any other person in the form of mandated government hand-outs, they've finished college and are prosperous, self-starting members of society. Not all of them are even that smart, oddly enough. I got sucked in to an inner city high school under the banner of the desegregation 'magnet' programs, though, so I've got plenty of examples of those types.

Anyway, that aside, scholarships just drive up the cost for the rest of us hard-working folk who had too much income to qualify for any need-based aid for college. You won't find hardly any expert that'll deny that the Democrat's cutting interest rates on student loans again will ultimately raise prices -- its a classic problem of too much money chasing a fixed number of goods.

To go on to debunk social welfare in general.. My god, reduce poverty, social reclusion (?!!!!!!), crime, drug use, and disease?! Good god man, good parenting and rule of law fixed crime and drug use, it's none of the governments damned business to manipulate my or anyone elses behavior to be more or less reclusive or whatever else is deemed by the mob to be a more desirable social trait, poverty is partly a function of the economy and partly a function of personal choice which means its part a personal responsibility (which is no business of the government) and part the economy (which government has a role in to fix true large market failures and then stay away otherwise). Disease barely applies; if you're thinking STDs, again, half the solution is personal responsibility, and half is pure economics -- if there's money in a cure, then it'll be done much better, faster, and cheaper than sending an army of unmotivated government scientists at the problem with billion dollar budgets.

I recently found another Frenchman I actually respect; Nicholas Sarkozy. Said something along the lines of the chief consequene of not allowing societies most dynamic individuals to become rich is that everybody is poor (a slam against wealth redistribution, which is what social welfare programs are all about). Europe is a case study in the failure of socialism, with its low growth, high unemployment, and weak governments, which stand in stark contrast to higher-growth more capitalist nations, such as America, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc, etc.

I don't know how many times I'll have to illustrate the facts of how history has treated socialism and proven that nations that place more responsibility on the person than the government have prospered in recent decades in contrast to socialisms stagnation, but I'll keep doing it regardless.

Oh, and that behavioral engineer talk is downright scary. FFS, that's the worst possible thing any government could do -- thats a shadowy form dictatorship and oppression, government making you take what they want you to take and smile while doing so. It's scary that you've bought in to it hook, line and sinker. If you don't exercise that intellectual demon from yourself, you're going to be little more than a government pawn.

RE: It's all about safety
By mindless1 on 3/20/2007 12:24:30 AM , Rating: 2
For each "example" of someone who managed to make it from nothing to graduated and self-supporting in an applicable field, there are thousands of those who don't, who made the right choices and worked as hard. There is a finite combination of opportunities enough to allow a few, but not anyone who would like to, to succeed in this situation. The rest may even get through school then find there is already a job shortage because so many jobs are being outsourced offshore. The % of those graduated from college is higher than past years but the average debt is up and study of sciences declining. On an absolte scale the population has to have a similar number of people making "good" choices, but the results are not there, more needs done.

RE: It's all about safety
By typo101 on 3/20/2007 6:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
most college graduates that I know who are in debt are so because they are pure bred consumers with a credit card. (actually, that applies to almost everybody i know who is in debt)

RE: It's all about safety
By Ringold on 3/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's all about safety
By oTAL on 3/20/2007 11:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
As I said those were debatable points and I do not believe them all like I presented them. I think the solution is somewhere in between, but I'd like to add that I'd prefer 1000x to be born in socialist Europe than to be given life in the casino economy of the USA. Your winner-takes-it-all economy leads to many social injustices and although every point you made were correct for adult people you need to understand that 99.9% of children lack the maturity to do the hard choices you think are necessary in the moment they are most necessary - growing up! I'm a very successful, disciplined person with a few achievements in my quarter century life, but I had it pretty easy and I'm really not sure if I would've gone this far without a few pushes along the way. Life can be pretty shitty sometimes and I know a few bad cases of that... a BRILLIANT friend of mine (she was the best student in an entire school and she hardly lay a finger on books) has gone to the point of trying suicide, and a part of that was indirect consequence of economic troubles caused by a sour parents divorce and a father who should have a space shuttle shoved up his ass.
Shit happens and when there's noone there to catch you should be able to trust society to give you a chance to succeed....
That's what I think happens in Europe. Everyone is given a chance. In the US, if you're born in the hood, poor, with drugs, violence, and unmotivated teachers in your school, a few friends in jail and every statistics saying you'll probably join them eventually... well... that makes it easier for a smart person to do stupid stuff.
Not everyone is an alpha! Some people need to be lead, and if you can't lead them in a right path then someone will surely guide them through the wrong one.

RE: It's all about safety
By Ringold on 3/20/2007 10:07:35 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, stop whining. I hear excuses that amount to "My mommy didn't breast feed me, I need a lifetime of welfare because I'm unmotivated and have turned to pot and booze" all the time. As said above, it's an issue of motivation and personal responsibility. Anybody that wants to succeed enough WILL succeed. Life in the USA is not a "casino economy"; our unemployment is much lower than in Europe, for example, but people here get out of life what they want -- unless they're lazy, in which case, we do indeed have social safety nets. They suck just enough, though, that I plan on working in life -- if I lived in socialist Europe, my game plan would be to get a job, become unemployed, and milk the benefits for as much as I could before rinsing and repeating. Why work when people like you are paying taxes and are willing to buy my sap story about "stress" and pay me to do "job training" or some such thing?

I don't think you even live in the US, or have ever been here. Everyone is given a chance here. Read the above -- I've seen many people "born in the hood" end up making more money than I do. The only people here that don't believe that are the ones full of excuses -- or making their livings from those making excuses, such as the disciples of Martin Luther King who aren't 1/5th the man.

And yes, not everyone is an alpha. Some people need to be lead. On their knees. Smiling, as the government tells them what they can't eat, drive, products to buy, services to consume, websites to visit, books to read or music listen to.

All of which, for America, would represent quite a meteoric fall from "live free or die."

And Europe is partly realizing the error of their ways as well. Sarkozy, for example; "And the main consequence of preventing the most dynamic members of society from getting rich is to make everyone else poor". A generalization, but the last 60 years bear absolute evidence of that. Of course, Sarkozy won't get elected, because people hate to be told that they're the problem. It's a start, though.

RE: It's all about safety
By rcc on 3/19/2007 12:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
I rather like the line out of Armageddon, which I'm going to paraphrase the heck out of here.

You are sitting on a million pounds of rocket fuel, in a machine with a half million moving parts, all build by the lowest bidder.

Gee Thanks.

Some things should not necessarily go to the lowest bidder, unless you can properly spec and QA them.

: )

RE: It's all about safety
By thecoolnessrune on 3/20/2007 10:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
I just watched that movie last night... One of my favorites for sure!

By Min Jia on 3/17/2007 9:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
We need an unified Earth.

RE: Hmmm...
By FastEddie on 3/17/2007 9:29:42 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Hmmm...
By frobizzle on 3/18/2007 8:45:14 AM , Rating: 3
We need an unified Earth

The hell with that! We really need the United Federation of Planets!

RE: Hmmm...
By omyg0t on 3/19/2007 9:23:51 AM , Rating: 2

RE: Hmmm...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/19/2007 10:54:14 AM , Rating: 1
Nice idea, never will happen. At least to till every nation values are nearly the same. Western culture puts great value on all human life where many Eastern cultures human life has little to no value...even less value if you are talking about a female life. We can not agree on what we consider simple ideas (life good), how could we unite on more complex questions and needs?

RE: Hmmm...
By Ringold on 3/19/2007 1:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sure we do; if it's under a strong central authority with a culture of freedom and personal responsibility, where rights are upheld and all people treated fairly.

Which is precisely the opposite of the United Nations.

So when you get that fixed, I'll sign up. ;)

Not that I think a unified Earth would have any more drive for space exploration. I don't see why it would; most the world is poor, and if this 'unified Earth' was a "democracy", they'd vote to give themselves all the benefits out of government accounts they can (see:Europe), and spending any extra than the world already does in disunion would just be less money available for them to free-ride on. Looking ahead at dividends such expenditures would yield in the future is beyond the intellect of most free-riders, thereby not entering in to their little voting equations.

Hm. I guess I can't sign on to this one, not easily at least.

RE: Hmmm...
By Min Jia on 3/20/2007 1:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
A unified Earth would help because we no longer need to worry about national defense when there's only one nation on the planet, all that military spending can be directed to other areas including space exploration... not to mention free access to the world's nature resource.

RE: Hmmm...
By Ringold on 3/20/2007 10:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
Europe and Canada are only jokingly concerned about national defense compared to what's shaping up to be the poles of the multi-polar future world; USA, India, China, Russia (due only to lots of warheads), and some type of Middle-Eastern bloc. Yet I don't see Europeans on Mars, much less anywhere near the level of achievement of still-mostly third-world China.

Besides, that assumes there is trust between all partners in a unified Earth. Trust everyone at your own risk. I'll keep my guns. :)

RE: Hmmm...
By Ringold on 3/20/2007 10:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Darn the lack of edit.

Anyway, to add to that, it's worth noting the greatest strides in the history of space were made during intense periods of NATIONALIST pride; America with Apollo competing against the Soviets, which also made great strides, and now China's program is almost 100% about national pride and very little else; it's astronauts are national heros. Europe lacks any united pan-European pride with the EU (any it does have is troubled with internal EU bickering), and has done nothing. Correlation?

By Cypherk1 on 3/17/2007 8:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
I love America but you have got to be kidding me. 2019? A few billion? The last time we went to the moon my cellphone could have ran the space craft. Your telling me that we could go to the moon on hand drawn space craft designs and now we might not even have a presence in space? I am really pissed off to see how far NASA has fallen. Old NASA should kick present NASA's ass.

RE: Wow
By DZWAY on 3/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wow
By artbronze on 3/17/2007 9:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yea we went to the moon, my dad worked on it and he was really proud of his work. I witnessed a lot of it including Saturn V launches and I can tell you they were incredible. I've worked on the Shuttle in the VAB for a couple of years now and its a kick to see some of the reminders of the Saturn V days. The only thing keeping us from returning to the moon is funding and a national will to do so. The real question is do we want a moon base or a manned mission to mars?

RE: Wow
By Chernobyl68 on 3/18/2007 5:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Myself, I'd prefer Mars for the moment. A manned lunar base is a serious long-term commitment of funds, and I'm not sure our government has the will to do that. Just look at the debacle (ie cost increases) the "International Space Station" became after we invited international cooperation because it was too expenive to do on our own. And they're planning to drop it in the ocean in several years. Granted there's no danger of the moon dropping our of orbit, but imagine what it would cost to supply a moon base.

RE: Wow
By jbs181818 on 3/17/2007 10:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
The only way the private sector could possibly do a moon base is if they could make money off of it and make it VERY safe. NASA is government funded research and don't have to worry about profits, at least not monetary ones. Once all this space tourism stuff takes off, it actually might eventually look promising for non-government funded space research and such.

RE: Wow
By Ard on 3/17/2007 10:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny because that's the same rationale I use. If the conspiracy theorists are to be believed, the fact that it's going to take us another 11 years (on top of the 39 that have already passed) and billions of dollars to duplicate something we've supposedly already done lends a bit of credence to their theory.

If the US really wanted to go back...
By Lord 666 on 3/17/2007 8:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just bring back the Apollo program? Why try to re-invent the wheel and focus on new technology when we supposedly have been there and done it already? NASA will not need billions more since all of the engineering is already done. Just bring up the blueprints for the Lunar Rover to make another one ;)

Its a positive thing that China is putting pressure on the US, not unlike the USSR space race.

By aurareturn on 3/17/2007 9:12:28 PM , Rating: 4
The Apollo missions were to do experiments and to test the moon.

These new missions are to setup a permanent base on the moon to allow future spaceships to land and refuel, repair, etc. If we can setup a space station on the moon, going to Mars and beyond is possible.

By artbronze on 3/17/2007 9:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
We could do the Apollo program again but it would even be more costly this time around. While we do have ancient drawings they are in archives on microfiche. The worst part is all of the tooling is gone to reproduce them. The saturn engines are now museum peices unfit for flight. and the tooling to reproduce them has been scrapped. The launch pads to launch them have been completely changed for the shuttle program also. The current plan is the most cost effective, It makes use of current launch facilities and a lot of the shuttle hardware is reused. The main problem is funding which only the President and congress can oppropriate. If you want to help right your elected officials and make known your support for the advancement of mankind.

Tech is way too old
By dagamer34 on 3/17/2007 9:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
The tech used in 1969 is way too old for us to use again. Essentially, we are starting from scratch to build a way to land on the moon again with more modern technology. With NASA unsure it can even get a spaceflight off successfully 100% of the time, going to the moon is way far off.

RE: Tech is way too old
By artbronze on 3/17/2007 9:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Our Shuttle technology today is very good, I can't remember the number right now but we've launched many times the number of Saturn V launches and all vehicals preceeding it. I know it sounds silly considering Challenger and Columbia but in comparison to the other space vehicals the Shuttle is very safe. The Shuttle is however very complex and costly to operate. I'd venture to say the Shuttle is the safest space vehicle flying right now, manned or unmanned and the number of flights to accidents will back this up.

RE: Tech is way too old
By mino on 3/17/2007 10:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a Russian, but I am sure some of them would call you arrogant.

Before you call Shuttle "very safe compared to other vehicles", try spelling S-O-Y-U-Z.

To be clear, Shuttle IS INCREDIBLE PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY. However, it was designed for performance (and initialy price/perf.) as a primary design goal.
Safety came to the limelight only after Callenger and (more importantly) the break-up of USSR.

You see, exploration allways WAS, IS and WILL be about taking you chances.
One can either play it safe(NASA of today), or break the boundaries (NASA of 60's), not both.
The biggest problem for NASA these days are politicians making decisions on stuff they have no idea about. In other words, no USSR to compete with.

NASA is on the right track with this "warning".
Politicians do NOT care for the advance of mankind. They however DO care for China becoming superior to US in any high-tech field.
This warning was not meant for public audience but for those at congress who see no reason to fund some "pathetic" space exploration when there are more "important" needs (like to bomb Iran...).

RE: Tech is way too old
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/17/2007 10:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'd argue the Russian variant of the US shuttle was and is the safest manned spacecraft to date. It used only liquid propellants so that the challenger incident could not happen, and with 80's technology was able to land, in an automated fashion after a few orbits, within inches of the center of its landing strip. ALL UNMANNED. If you take out human error, safety goes way up.
Nasa is screwed because there is not going to be money for the CEV, moon exploration or mars. The hubble will fall out of the sky. The only promise between the public and NASA and vice versa that will stick will be the retirement date of the shuttles. And with no shuttle- even with all the money diverted tot he CEV, it is not equipped to finish the space station.

By piesquared on 3/17/2007 11:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
China is an absolute engineering powerhouse. Always have been, always will be. The list of massive engineering projects underway in China is staggering. When they build or do something, they do it in monumental proportions. For example: The Sutong Bridge, Shanghai Raceway, Three Gorges Damn, the new Olympic construction projects, their monster ship yards, Great Wall of China, etc. The list goes on. They know how to do things big, they have to to support the population. Pretty awesome.

RE: engineering
By mino on 3/18/2007 7:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
Most importantly, chinese people DO care about progress and advance of the mankind.
They are ready for sacrifices and some setbacks will not make them change their course or stop.
This attitude was the single reason for incredible advances of the cold war era.
Just consider the real R&D budget of USSR of those times is estimated at >10% of their GDP !!!
We did incredible things back then.
Mind you, of that USSR GDP, virtual products like software and IP did make less that 1%.
Not like ~40% in the US of today.

We are still riding on the fruits of the cold era research...

RE: engineering
By piesquared on 3/19/2007 1:07:49 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I would rate the efficiency of the Chinese at near %100. From what i've seen there is utmost dedication and pride in the jobs and tasks they do, regardless of what it is. I think the balance of power is shifting very very quickly right before our eyes. And that's by no means a bad thing either. Just new opportunities.

RE: engineering
By EODetroit on 3/19/2007 10:19:06 AM , Rating: 2
China doesn't care about the safety of its workforce however. Its cheaper to allow things to be unsafe and let people die and buy off their relatives, than to run their grand projects in a safe manner. Research any big dam, bridge, mining, or other construction project, and you'll find out they lost many lives due to accidents along the way. In the US that would bankrupt a corporation. In China the government gives the families a stipend and a "sorry about your luck".

By DigitalFreak on 3/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Nope
By defiantsf on 3/18/2007 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 1
That's an unnecessary and a racist comment. Grow up!

RE: Nope
By masher2 on 3/18/2007 8:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
China is a nationality, not a race...and its not that uncommon to eat cat there. I've tried it myself in Canton.

RE: Nope
By defiantsf on 3/19/2007 1:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
Good for you! /sarcasm off

There is a literal meaning and a hidden one. Continue to hide behind your words. Anyone with half of a brain knows it's a moronic generalization and one formulated with prejudication!

RE: Nope
By fxnick on 3/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Nope
By EODetroit on 3/19/2007 10:22:44 AM , Rating: 1
There's no cows on the moon either, guess India and people who like green cheese are the only nations that can survive there.

RE: Nope
By omyg0t on 3/19/2007 11:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
maybe there r dogs or little green men ... those last ones would be a nice add to their menus

Never underestimate the power of doubt... hmm
By maven81 on 3/18/2007 10:50:03 AM , Rating: 2
Frankly, I don't think you naysayers actually belong on a site called daily tech. I'm not sure how someone with an interest in science and technology can doubt that they can achieve big things given an enormous budget, a clear goal, and political backing.

Nor do you appear to have common sense... You do know that apollo 11 wasn't the only moon landing right? By apollo 17 there was decent quality color video from the surface. But somehow that gets conveniently ignored hmm... As is the fact that some of the hardware left on the surface kept transmitting a signal, that there are photographs of the earth from the moon, but who needs logic right?

What's funny is that somehow I have a feeling if the russians had done it you would have no doubt in your mind it really happened. Judging by hollywood shlock like "space cowboys" they would put giant NUKULAR weapons there and run then with vacuum tubes you know. Because you're convinced that the us government lies about everything, while "the enemy" will do it just to scare you.

Then there are the unimaginative types that say nasa should have been killed a long time ago, because they aren't doing anything right? Because you slept through the existance of the hubble space telescope (and a whole slew of space observatories, interplanetary spaceprobes, zero g research into biology, materials science, avionics (because you also conveniently forget that it's the National AERONAUTICS and space administration) etc.
And what would you do with that 17 billion that you would gain every year? Spend it on planes that have "L-A-S-E-R-S" to shoot imaginary missiles out of the sky?

The reason they can't get to the moon quickly is obvious... in the 60s it required 20 billion dollars, and the combined efforts of hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists with the top contractors available building the hardware. That would be the equivalent of what, 60 billion dollars today? with boeing, lockheed etc etc working on it full time?
The reason they can't do anything is that they have been told to do it on a shoestring budget using existing resources. Of course someone who actually dedicates themselves to it like the chinese would do it faster! To put it in geek terms it's like saying "I want you to create a new top of the line processor, oh and you have 10 people and 1000 dollars to do it..."

By PrimarchLion on 3/18/2007 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to imagine NASA faking the moon landing when you think about the political climate of the time. The USSR was watching the mission closely, in more ways than one. If we would have faked it they would have found out. The results would not have been pleasant for NASA and the USA.

By omyg0t on 3/19/2007 11:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
i'll believe it only if they take me with them on the next trip

ya man they really made it up there, i admit it...

is this what you want to hear? ... satisfied? ...well i'm disgusted.

NASA Buget Figures
By Brovane on 3/18/2007 7:16:01 PM , Rating: 3
This link shows some good budget figures over the years for NASA.

By looking at the constant dollars figures for the NASA budget you can really see how the Apollo missions happened so quickly.

By yacoub on 3/17/2007 8:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
The Chinese space program also has around 200,000 employees, while NASA has a workforce numbering close to 75,000.

Strangely enough we actually have the higher ratio of citizens to NASA employees if it's 1.2 billion vs 300 million. =)

NASA scaremongering
By tvarad on 3/18/2007 7:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
I think NASA should have been wound up after the moon-landings. It's been an agency in search of a reason for it's existence ever since. The only meaningful work that should be continued in space is that being currently done at JPL with it's deep space probes.

Even if the Chinese go to the moon, the technology they will be using is pretty much what was used for Apollo, which, BTW is also what NASA is touting for it's new and improved moon mission.

This is nothing but a rant for extra funding to maintain the NASA bureaucracy and should be ignored.

What we need...
By judasmachine on 3/18/2007 2:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
We need to give up on these token accomplishments, and start doing things with these missions. At the rate we're going Virgin is going to be the first person on the Moon with pickaxes taking more than souvenirs. I say mine the Moon so we can leave our mountains in place here. (I realize that's easier said than done.)

By on 3/18/2007 2:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
So, what? Back in the 60s, the space program broke major technological ground because it was a crash program which, as a result, greatly pushed the technological envelope. That was its major tangible contribution, the advancement of technology. The scientific benefits were far less significant in a practical sense.

Nowadays, everything is done on-the-cheap with as much off-the-shelf technology as possible. For proof of that, just look at the spacecraft and boosters NASA will be using to get back to the moon. The new "moon race" is as horrible a waste of money as that $120 billion dollar "waste of space" station now orbiting the earth in search of a real mission.

"Spam in a can" manned space flight should be abandoned and every effort made to develop robotics and artificial intelligence for use in the exploration of space, both of these technologies also being highly useful down here on planet earth.

By nurbsenvi on 3/18/2007 6:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Loook!! China is going to moon before us! give us couple of billion dollars to beat them!!"

Poor NASA how did this happen?

NASA victim of its own success?
By senbassador on 3/18/2007 11:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
NASA's funding dramatically declined after they reached the moon. Once they did their mission and proved that we can do it, the public kinda forgot about them. Their funding stagnated ever since. No funding means no new discoveries. No new discoveries means no funding. A catch-phrase-22 on top of that.

By jabber on 3/19/2007 5:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
I really dont understand this downer on 'old tech. Apollo worked so well because they had so few options due to the tech of the time. Sometimes it can be easier when your options are limited and you can use that to your advantage and exploit it to the full. I watched the whole series of "From the Earth to the Moon" the other night and was stunned at the level of ingenuity but it also scared me witless at what would happen today if that project kicked off now. Yes their computers were primitive but thats just what you need. It just has to handle trajectories and other mathmatical functions. A few hundred (if that) lines of optimised code and you are set. A few disasters were averted due to the simplicity of the computers. When a major fault happend they were able to fix the code and relay the fixes back to the astronauts to input it themselves in minutes. Can you imagine doing that today? I bet NASA will spend the same time researching what OS to run the new missions on than it spent working out the whole plan for Apollo.

Simplicity and reliability is key. If you had a fully fuelled, fresh off the 1960's production line Apollo rocket designed by guys who actually invented the stuff and a couple of miles away a band spanking new 2019 Nasa rocket designed by guys who were not even born in 1969 using Powerpoint, fuelled on caffine and god knows what with a myriad of options.

I know which one I'd strap myself into.

My theory - Use the same principles and mechanics of Apollo, even down to the simplistic computer systems (you can always take more advanced stuff for the experimental stuff on the moon surface) but as weight was the main restriction maybe use lighter alloys and composite materials to replace certain areas (after suitable testing). I guess reducing the weight of a Saturn rocket by 5% would make a noticable difference.

Why re-invent the wheel? Its not like the guys (if they get there) are going to do much more than what the Apollo guys did. I dont think it will be till we can create launchpads from Earth orbit that we'll be able to send anything more than two or three guys with a few hundred kilos of gear.

Lastly I would be very proud the shake the hand of anyone involved in Apollo. They get fewer every year.

Reads the book 'Moondust'.

By Ascanius on 3/19/2007 1:52:51 PM , Rating: 1
What makes me laugh and also not laugh regarding these aledged moonelandings can be said in three words.

1. The fact of the Thule engine and what we have had ever since this piece of Vrill technology leaved Belgium.

2. Majic 12, Brotherhood of the bell.

3. The third alternative as was answer to a certain congress regarding the future of man on this planet.

One thing is great new endevors, another thing is living in totalt blindness of the truth about who we are and where we are heading.

It is not what you think that matters, but what you know, what you have in memory sort of speaking.

And all can be proven so easy by f.eks. filling up a hollow ball with quicksilver, making a tap that goes a bit down from the top, spin it and then finally chock it with a tesla coil.
The ball just has to be able to withstand a certain presure also wacuum helps a lot, but nothing dangeroues, unless you drink the stuff.

You can also just read (and understand or have someone help you understand) about it in the books of Nikola Tesla, Viktor Schauberger or Maconi, they will all tell you the real truth.

So will patents of the patent office and just a little common sence like, if we have this, what does that mean??

When you look into what i have written above around the web and use your brain as a sorting machine and then tries to conduct f.eks. this experiment, then you will know what is true, what can be done and also by refering to things such as sumerian tablets what have been done many times for so many decades under us, we never evolved, we staind the same plus the less fit gets more children than the fit.

But for those whom will not inquisit the nature of truth, please enjoy the "movie" called Nasa or what ever country you are in.

THIS IS IT!!!, This is the top of technology baby......

Yearh right, i really do cry for those whom beleave in this "show" one thing is know that a horrible death is around the corner, another thing is not knowing about it, i am the kinda guy that would rather die unhappy than dying blind, who are you?

I have buildt REAL antigravitational (over any surface and not just thrust based) devices, and here is the deal, it was easy, you just have to forget what ever you have learned and think for yourself.

Buildt my first as a ION Plasma shield based, the next a special controlled short circuit coil, then a special flywheel, and last Quicksilver in a ball wich is the most tricky of them all, but when you suddently have blueprints it is a cakewalk.

Funny enough, if you put all these things together you have something like the famoues Foo Fighter, Haunebuu Tachyhydron etc.

Those flying thingys that get so attacked as being some of the most controversial conspiray theory.

It is all real, it is just up to you to find that out to escape the lies just as i have.

What do you thin that have flown over the white house now two times with exactly 50 years in between and why, do you ever think of that, or do you just forget?

But who are you really?
A talk, chat and soft kinda guy, just enjoing life, then dont, there is no reward in knowing some off these things, only the opposite.

A ever knowledge searching Thoth with a very solid heart or no heart, then do it.

NASA plays the China FUD card to get more funding.
By Jaylllo on 3/17/07, Rating: -1
By soydios on 3/17/2007 9:36:42 PM , Rating: 3
regarding NASA's mission statement, I think that they should put back in the clause about "observing the Earth"

of course, a hefty budget increase for them would certainly help

By aurareturn on 3/17/2007 9:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot. A moon base does so much for our space exploration, your tiny mind cannot comprehend it.

Getting a moon base means we can go to Mars which means that we can do research on Mars.

All the government wants to do right now is to downsize the science field, increase the religious field, and tell US citizens that if we don't get Iraq and Iran, we'll be blown up.

If we gave NASA the Iraq war money, we'd have missions going to Mars, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Your anus, etc. Instead, we spent the money on trying to find "WMD" that "disappeared".

And the other thing is, Americans don't give a crap about Space. They'd rather know what Britney Spears did last week than to know if Mars has water/life.

By masher2 on 3/18/2007 1:01:59 PM , Rating: 4
> "Getting a moon base means we can go to Mars which means that we can do research on Mars..."

The moon is far more valuable to us than Mars is likely to ever be. A moon base is the first step towards industrial and commercial use of Luna, in an environment which is ideally suited to many industrial processes. Think about it-- you have limitless free vacuum, extremes of heat and cold, a weak gravity to ease large scale construction and movement of large processed masses. At a pole, you have solar power 24 hours a day, unfiltered by any atmosphere. The total lack of geologic or hydrologic activity means any industrial pollution generated stays where it is. On the moon's dark side, you have the ideal spot for radio telescopes, shielded from the earth's radio interference by the moon itself.

The surface itself is rich with many metals and minerals, not to mention He-3, found nowhere on Earth (or Mars, for that matter). And the shallow gravity well and lack of an atmosphere means that refined materials (or finished goods) can cheaply and quickly be returned to Earth.

The problem with Mars is that its too much like Earth...really cold, uninhabitable parts of the Earth. Its atmosphere is too thin to support life...but thick enough to make dust storms and convective heat loss far more of a problem than it would be on Luna. Gravity is twice as strong, solar flux is a small fraction as much, and, without nuclear-powered spacecraft, travel times are a nightmare.

Mars will, of couse, be useful for research purposes. But Luna will quickly become an integral part of Earth's economy, invaluable for commercial, industrial, and (eventually) residential usage. If not by us, then by the Chinese at least.

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/19/2007 10:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the US knows of the WMD in Iraq because we supplied them with it. There is no question they where and probably are still there buried somewhere in the thousand of square miles of sand. The WMD we (the US) gave them were in chemical form - small pox and Anthrax. This is commonly given out to countries so their Doctors can study these chemicals. However, unlike other countries, Iraq had no record of where, what, when, how these chemicals were used. Something that is required to do is log these events when the chemicals are issued out for study. I doubt they will ever be found…the people who may know where they are located are probably dead and you would only need a box the size of a shoe box to store enough chemicals to kill millions. So good luck finding that in the middle of the desert.
A better way to get the funds is not look to the past and blame people for mistakes or miss used funds, that's what you do when you elect the people who spend your money. The best way would be for the public to tell elected officials they have to take a 50% pay cut (so some amount of pay cut). We would have plenty of money to fund this program and many others and the Politicians would still be paid to much money.

By Ringold on 3/19/2007 1:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
A few things economic study tells us:
1) Giving pay cuts to politicians increases their proclivity to accept and seek bribes to maintain their lifestyle. Paying them too much lowers this urge. Bribery destroys public confidence in the entire system, whereas too high of pay just makes politicians look like pigs but people still are content enough to follow government rules.. therefore, best to pay them more than they're really worth then have them legislate to the highest bidder all the time.

2) Wages are a rounding error on the federal budget, almost. Social security, welfare programs, medicare, etc, are the bulk of it, casting a shadow over any other budget item. One could double NASA's budget and not impact the overall budget. If cuts need to be made, they'd be best targeted at our massive hand-outs, NOT in discouraging professional, intelligent individuals from seeking public service due to lousy pay.

By artbronze on 3/17/2007 9:46:18 PM , Rating: 5
What we need is another Werner von Braun who had a grasp on the big picture and the engineering genius to implement his vision. He also knew how to stay on course and remain focused on an objective. It also helped we had a paranoid society caught up in the cold war. I think the differences in political leadership are also notible.

By Griswold on 3/18/2007 5:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
Besides the genius von Braun definitely was, one of his biggest abilities that helped achieving all these goals was the fact that he knew how to sell this stuff to the politicians to get the funds he needed. He was more than just a scientist.

But the times are different now. There is no need to "prove" to the public that this hemisphere is suprior to the other.

By omyg0t on 3/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: seriously
By Berek Halfhand on 3/18/2007 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 3
I rated yours lower. Are you ignorant and don't want to admit it, scared of something, trying to change the subject or cause disruptions in this forum just so you can feel the center of attentions or special in some meager way, simply crazy, or are you truly sure within yourself that we didn't?

We did, it's fact. Nothing you can say to yourself will ever change that, so I will be a friend for a moment here and say "stop deluding yourself". It's not worth it buddy. Now, I know you're going to respond here, if you do at all, with either a cocky response or a defensive response seemingly ignoring my response to the best of your emotional intentions, but I know you'll at least consider and listen that you are mistaken.

I put a lot of energy into this post, let's all hope those people like this guy don't get defensive and have just a little bit of humility in them.

RE: seriously
By omyg0t on 3/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: seriously
By CrazyBernie on 3/19/2007 1:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's BECAUSE of our freedom of opinion that we CAN call you ignorant, crazy, and say that you want attention. Because it's obvious that you fit the bill. So :-p

And I'm sure all those technological advancements that we made to get to the moon TOTALLY aren't worth the money we spent. Oh, wait... you're using the internet, which might not exist as it does today without those advancements! Omigosh! You should sell whatever computer you're using and use the money to feed half the world! :D

RE: seriously
By omyg0t on 3/19/2007 9:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
are you comparing the cost of all types of reaserch you guys made and shuttles or rockets you build with my pc?

*rolls eyes* yea but my pc is probably worth more ...

oh and the net has nothing to do with the moon so please leave it out of the topic ;) you actually know what the difference between internet's evolution and the cost of reaching the moon is? wake up sunshine.

RE: seriously
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/19/2007 4:54:05 PM , Rating: 1
oh and the net has nothing to do with the moon so please leave it out of the topic ;) you actually know what the difference between internet's evolution and the cost of reaching the moon is? wake up sunshine.

Actually the internet was started and developed by the US military, concept started back in the late 1940's. The goal was to provide an uninterruptible line of communication across the US. So, if attacked a line of communication would remain in tacked. Still is used for this propose, just non-military person will not find any evidence of the on the web under address…the military has there own address for security reason.
During the moon missions (which there is tons of scientific evidence of this event happening, you just need to open your eyes and read or visit a few museums’) information would have come in from several locations around the US. They would not want this to be interrupted…so the communications lines would have most likely gone down the line that one day would be know as the world wide web. In the late 60’s it was not open to the public nor to the world (PC was an unthinkable item – a personal computer, no way would have been the thought), however NASA incredible budget and need for uninterruptible communication would have been strong enough that they would have given money to the military to provide such a service, which in turn would have help fund the advance the development of the web.
The US was on the moon, not very profitable so no reason to go back…with advances in technology, (being able to refine material on the moon now, verse not able to do it back in the 60’s) it creates a possible profitable opportunity. Thus, creating a reason to consider going back to the moon.

RE: seriously
By rcc on 3/19/2007 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
A person with doubt is thinking, may be right or wrong.

A person without doubt has stopped thinking, and no longer considers options. Or even that there may be options. And in many cases becomes a fanatic.

If anyone ever tells you you don't need to think or doubt, this is the "truth". Run away or shoot them.

I dont believe the US landed on the moon in 1969
By Neotermer on 3/18/07, Rating: -1
By Enoch2001 on 3/18/2007 7:52:25 AM , Rating: 4
History books to me are not evidence in my opinion. Neither is dodgy black and white footage.

I'm sure the thousands of men and women who dedicated their careers and lives to getting us there back in 1969, and the widows and families of Virgil Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee appreciate your conspiracy theory fodder.

*rolls eyes*

By kyleb2112 on 3/19/2007 3:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
We're constantly bouncing lasers off reflectors we planted there, and have been receiving data this way for the past 38 years:

But I suppose all those data are just part of the conspiracy, too...

"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki