backtop

Print 56 comment(s) - last by jhh108.. on Dec 11 at 11:51 PM
Establishing a permanent moon base is on the minds of many

NASA recently announced plans for a permanent base on the moon, which would begin once astronauts physically return to the moon around the year 2020.  The U.S. space agency is interested in constructing rockets and spacecraft that will be able to get people and supplies to the moon. 

The base will be built at one of the moon's poles, as the poles should offer a mild climate and more sunlight than other locations.  Four-person crews will initially spend short durations on the moon with teams constantly being rotated in and out, as with the current routine at the International Space Station.

The scientists and researchers stationed at the moon base would be able to use the moon's natural resources to help maintain the lunar outpost.  It is believed that the lunar base could be used as a stepping stone for future manned missions to Mars.  NASA has not released a specific cost estimate for the program.  NASA also plans on asking other nations and businesses to assist in the creation of the lunar base.

But before manned missions can be launched, NASA will launch a series of robotic missions to help study and analyze possible locations of lunar camps.  The lunar reconnaissance orbiter, scheduled to launch sometime in 2008, will create high-resolution maps to allow scientists to pick good landing sites while searching for natural resources.

Additionally, NASA anticipates to announce more details of Project Orion, the task to put American astronauts back on the moon by 2020, later this year.  Russia then pledged to put a mine on the moon by 2020, China has also announced that it plans to put a man on the moon by 2024, followed by JAXA in 2030. Although we're easily a decade before an actual space race, the moon is certainly shaping up to become the next backdrop for such an event.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Nice news but sad
By cochy on 12/5/2006 3:30:56 AM , Rating: 4
Just saw this news on cnn.com. What's sad about it to me is that the space program moves at such a slow pace. Back in the Apollo days you could go from ZERO space program to landing a man on the moon in 10 years...now with our current technology it takes 20 years to even set foot there again??? lol I'd be happier if they just got rid of Nasa all together than fund them like a 3rd rate social program. *weeps* Can't any government realize that the future is in space? A nation with a huge head start will have a massive advantage. Meh I hope a rich nation like China will grab the ball.




RE: Nice news but sad
By GhandiInstinct on 12/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Nice news but sad
By GhandiInstinct on 12/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Nice news but sad
By Tyler 86 on 12/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Nice news but sad
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/5/2006 3:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone who has an account has the ability to moderate up or down. We've noticed a problem and are working on giving fewer points to members with lower post counts and lower post scores.

Kristopher


RE: Nice news but sad
By creathir on 12/5/2006 4:05:55 AM , Rating: 1
So now I actually get PUNISHED for being conservative?
;)

- Creathir


RE: Nice news but sad
By Le Québécois on 12/5/2006 9:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's not any worst than beeing punished because I bad mouth all the time against the comments system (Yes I know Kristopher you don't like it and even modded me up at some point because I was "under fire").

My rating is almost below the 1.5 mark because of that so sorry Kristopher but :
quote:
We've noticed a problem and are working on giving fewer points to members with lower post counts and lower post scores .


So because I got under fire so many times I will be punished too. I don't think it's right.

I don't think it's a good idea either. From what I can see the system is based(if not a complete copy) on the comments section of Anandtech articles. This system may works there but here I think it need a complete overhaul.

Like I said in a previous comments in another news last month I have plenty of ideas of how to make a better one so just e-mail me and I'll send you the whole thing.

I have some past experience in forums modding ( www.bahagon.com , a French Canadien online RPG game) I am sure I could be off some help in designing a good one for DailyTech. But there's no point for me to send it to you if you're not interested.

Until next time,

Le Québécois.


RE: Nice news but sad
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/5/2006 3:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's a logical AND: meaning you have to have a low post count AND low post score. Neither you nor Creathir fall into that category.

We've been tracking the moderation and this would eliminate a good chunk of the unneeded moderations down.

Kristopher


RE: Nice news but sad
By Le Québécois on 12/5/2006 5:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ah the good old Boolean algebra logic. That was one of my favorite courses back in college.

I'm glad you cleared that out for me. Thanks because you frightened me when I first read about that sooner today.

It won't be perfect but now I think it's a pretty good idea. At least that way only active members will be able to rate many comments down when they don't feel like writing back. And it will also force people to think before writing thing so they don't get rated down all the time.

Now if only that system would have been in place before I was taken into(or started) that whole flame war about the comments system. But hey, you(meaning me here) can't have it all. At least I'm glad the system is improving.

Thanks again.

Until next time,

Le Québécois.


RE: Nice news but sad
By Dfere on 12/5/2006 9:45:17 AM , Rating: 3
Creatir,

You are not being punished.

It is simply a system in which he who yells the most with more support by the masses, gets to overshout your opinion, and you count less, without regard to subject matter, or experience. So if you don't yell all the time, and don't play to the masses, you don't count as much. Welcome to liberalism 101. Perhaps this is the basis for "minority rights"?

At least it is harder to classify someone here, so someone cannot play a race/sexism card as conveniently.......

Stand tall.


RE: Nice news but sad
By sbanjac on 12/5/2006 6:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
Has it occured to you that someone realy doesn't agree with your post?


RE: Nice news but sad
By Aikouka on 12/5/2006 8:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
What does that matter? I believe the link to moderate up and down does not say "I Agree" and "I Disagree" respectively. In fact, you may not have agreed with the two posts above, but they were on topic and presenting their opinion in a decent manner (not filled with chat speak or inane banter, etc).

Moderation was implemented to get rid of people making moronic posts like, "ZOMG FIRST" or responding to someone's comment with "NO UR SUTPID!" I remember reading DailyTech before the moderation system went in and every thread had someone going "First Post!" and now I think I've seen it... what... once?

So, in short, the concept of moderating isn't whether you agree, it's whether the post meets a certain level of quality.

Oh and ummm on topic... a moon base sounds interesting. I'd kind of like to see some artist sketches or something of that sort to stimulate the imagination ^_^.


RE: Nice news but sad
By Moishe on 12/5/2006 7:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
Geez man, if someone posts crap, it'll get voted down by anyone with a vote. Stop whining. The editors of DailyTech are people too and have just as much right to vote and hold their own opinions.


RE: Nice news but sad
By Hypernova on 12/5/2006 4:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
If there's one thing Apollo programme taught me on whether something is possible it's that IT'S NEVER THE TECHNOLOGY THAT MATTERS. All we need is commitment to the goal. If we really wanted to we could be on the moon by next Xmas. It's simply a matter of do the politicians want to and would the bean counters pass the budget.


RE: Nice news but sad
By FITCamaro on 12/5/2006 7:09:12 AM , Rating: 4
Yes....I feel oppressed by "dictator" Bush every day.....

I could write a novel on this but I'll keep it short.

Bush isn't perfect, neither was Clinton. He was handed the presidency as the economy slowed from Clintons watch and then faced the hardest thing since WW2. He's done alright. Don't agree with everything he's done, but thats inevitable. Get over your little fantasy of Bush is Hitler.

If we were prosecuted for free speech you'd be in jail now.

Big Brother is necessary and not any worse than what any other nation does. I've had handcuffs on (briefly) as a result of it and still find it needed and perfectly acceptable.

Do you vote in every single election there is? Sometimes you have to work. Yes its a problem that a lot of people don't vote but as long as the ones that don't vote don't bitch about who the leader is, I don't feel sorry for them. You didn't care when it was voting time so you can't care now.

For obesity and education, blame the parents. It's not the governments fault parents don't teach their kids to take care of themselves or to value education and do their fing homework.

And NASA does the best it can with the money it has. I love the space program and thinks its appalling at how much their budget has been cut. Clinton started it on its way to where it is now and the public largely doesn't care so politicians don't see a reason to either. It doesn't get them elected to support NASA.

Get over your little liberal attitude.


RE: Nice news but sad
By encryptkeeper on 12/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: Nice news but sad
By AxemanFU on 12/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: Nice news but sad
By encryptkeeper on 12/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: Nice news but sad
By Goty on 12/5/2006 10:48:07 AM , Rating: 3
Yep, they showed us. Got the senate majority by a whole seat. Damn, I wish conservatives could win by that kind of margin!

Anyways, back on topic now, this isn't an article about the government.


RE: Nice news but sad
By rushfan2006 on 12/5/2006 11:08:23 AM , Rating: 3
Actually -- I don't care who it is...who makes the comments, but anyone that just focuses on this "liberals are great, cons are wrong" or "cons are great liberals are wrong"......or dems verse repubs....or mix any flavor of the aforementioned together......any idea that is the mentality of us verse them is more WRONG than anything any one side can possibly say against the other "side"....why? Because this is supposed to be a "UNITED" nation...not divided and segmented into to petty groups who care more about personally feeling right then the well being of the nation.

So I'll say it -- you are all dumb asses - I don't give a shit who you vote for...if you support this bickering, "he said she said" mentally crap you are an idiot.

So there....done.



RE: Nice news but sad
By encryptkeeper on 12/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: Nice news but sad
By straycat74 on 12/5/2006 2:06:22 PM , Rating: 1
Bush is something that Clinton never was-- a MAJORITY president


RE: Nice news but sad
By goz314 on 12/5/2006 2:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush is something that Clinton never was-- a MAJORITY president


-With the exception of those first two years of the Clinton administration - '92 to '94. Dems controlled both the White House and Congress at that time.

Unless of course you are referring to the two President's relative percentage of votes netted in each of their two elections. If that is the case, then you are doubly wrong. President Bush didn't win the majority of the popular vote in 2000, and President Clinton won both the '92 and '96 presidential elections with wider margins of the popular and electoral votes than President Bush was able to attain in either 2000 or 2004.


RE: Nice news but sad
By straycat74 on 12/5/2006 10:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton won the 1992 Presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote)

1996 Bill Clinton Pop. Vote: 47,401,898 (49.2%)
Bob Dole Pop. Vote: 39,198,482 (40.7%)
Ross Perot Pop. Vote: 8,085,373 (8.4%)


RE: Nice news but sad
By rushfan2006 on 12/5/2006 2:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
LOL wow you showed me.....omg *bowing to you*....

I'll try to explain in easier terms ....sorry there is no bouncing ball animation for you to help you out or that I can draw pictures with crayons for you either...but hey, I'll do the best with what I have to work with....


No shit sherlock -- that in politics people will disagree....

My point is some of you spend extreme amounts of time during your political debates like witnessed on this board fighting/bickering/arguing -- do you realize to a third party observer it comes off its the arguing and slandering that gives you guys off and not the fact of making solutions to solve real problems.

The two major political parties forever fail to grasp this concept...turn on any political show and I'll bet you more often than is not the case -- the content of the show is more on slander and one side proving they are right and should award some friggin medal or something....and the small remaining fraction of time left over they actual deal with an important issue.

Want further examples of this political fanaticism?

Take a story, any story on any polticial figure past or present....or any news story that has impact on the national to whatever extent.

Research it to death -- finding out all the facts, interview the people involved -- as many sources as you can get....be as impartial as it is possible to be.

Now talk about that story to someone on your opposing party...if you are dem talk to rep..and vice versa....there is a HUGE chance, even though you have factual information -- the other side will disagree for the sake of disagreement and more bickering will ensue.

Folks will bicker on wait shade of blue the sky is just because they want to be "right".

That's the stuff I mean. OF COURSE you will disagree, and I NEVER said otherwise. Perhaps the first time I didn't explain myself clearly.

And btw, like religions -- I don't believe everyone who likes politics is a nut case.....some are grounded, I'm mostly aiming at the fanatics.



RE: Nice news but sad
By encryptkeeper on 12/5/2006 3:28:17 PM , Rating: 1
"do you realize to a third party observer it comes off its the arguing and slandering that gives you guys off and not the fact of making solutions to solve real problems"

Do you realize that we don't care if we come off like that? Especially to a self righteous nut like yourself? This is a forum, if you don't like my comments, go somewhere else.


RE: Nice news but sad
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 12:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "They'd rather commit real crimes against...children (like Mark Foley)...

Congressman Mark Foley sent an email to a 17 year male old page, telling him he looked good in shorts. Congressman Gerry Studds repeatedly had sex with a 17 year old male page, took him on trips out of the country (at taxpayer expense), and eventually had the boy move in with him.

Foley committed no crime whatsoever, but resigned anyway. Studds committed multiple crimes, was never prosecuted, didn't resign, and was even reelected to office after the scandal came to light. Relected six more times, in fact.

Foley was a Republican. Studds was a Democrat. You be the judge.


RE: Nice news but sad
By encryptkeeper on 12/5/2006 1:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that's a horrible thing to do. But my post was comparing the Clinton and Bush administrations. Please READ my articles before posting on them so you don't look like a total jackass.


RE: Nice news but sad
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 3:24:38 PM , Rating: 1
> "But my post was comparing the Clinton and Bush administrations..."

If so, why mention Mark Foley and Newt Gingrich? And why accuse Foley of "crimes against children" when a congressman who actually did commit sex crimes against children not only went unpunished, but was praised by Clinton after the fact?

And just a piece of advice, you might garner a little more credibility here if you didn't pepper your posts with terms like "idiot" and "jackass".


RE: Nice news but sad
By goz314 on 12/5/2006 1:26:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
He basically let congress do all the work...


Actually, the Constitution clearly states that Congress should do most of the work. The government is primarily the dominion of the people and their representatives, not the executive branch. It has only been in recent history that a mis-interpretation of the importance of the President and his role of supreme "leader" of the entire country has gained credence with the American people.

It can be argued that this shift is a slippery slope to follow. Too much power, real or imagined, in the hands of essentially one person is not necessarily a good thing. Ironically, when the President takes the oath of office he pledges to defend and uphold the Constitution. In doing so, he also signs up to limit his role and the scope of what he can do when interacting with the government. Too bad most modern Presidents (current one included) don't put their money where their mouth is in this regard.

At any rate, I have digressed from the topic of NASA and the future plans for exploration on the Moon. Go NASA!


RE: Nice news but sad
By GhandiInstinct on 12/5/06, Rating: -1
RE: Nice news but sad
By Dfere on 12/5/2006 8:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight. Bush is responsible for us not being on the moon? He is responsible for "obiesity"?

Thanks for the gift. Merry Xmas.


RE: Nice news but sad
By ahodge on 12/5/2006 12:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Um, we've spent ~$350 BILLION dollars so far on the war in Iraq. We can't fund NASA if we spend it all in Iraq. And yes, I would say that the Bush administration is responsible for the war in Iraq. Hence, they are responsible for NASA not having a sufficient budget to get us to the moon in a more timely manner.

As for the child obesity problem (not to mention the adult obesity problem), again, that comes from the government spending all my tax dollars on bombs instead of programs to help get better, healthier food in public schools.

This shouldn't become a political shouting match though. The fact is, liberal or neo-con, I think any of us reading this artical on Dailytech are excited over the prospect of a lunar base. It gets political because many of us are fed up with the current administrations priorities.


RE: Nice news but sad
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 12:48:57 PM , Rating: 1
> "Hence, [the Bush Administration] is responsible for NASA not having a sufficient budget...As for the child obesity problem...that comes from the government spending all my tax dollars on bombs...

Come now, you're being ridiculous. NASA's budget has risen under Bush. Clinton cut NASA's budget by $715M his second year in office...even by by the time he had left office, the budget hadn't recovered to pre-1992 levels.

The notion that either NASA or obesity levels have been impacted by Iraq is total nonsense. Debate the war on its own points if you wish, but don't start pulling pies from the sky.


RE: Nice news but sad
By goz314 on 12/5/2006 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clinton cut NASA's budget by $715M his second year in office...even by by the time he had left office, the budget hadn't recovered to pre-1992 levels.


Actually, Congress cut NASA's budget. The President does not have the sole power to author, debate, approve, and ratify the budget. A given administration can suggest a budget that includes details about what they would like to see, but ultimately the responsibility befalls Congress. The President can then choose to sign it into law or veto it.


RE: Nice news but sad
By Alphafox78 on 12/5/2006 12:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
We wouldnt have a NASA or a USA if we werent fighting for our freedom, be it in iraq or wherever a terrorist nation is.


RE: Nice news but sad
By Pirks on 12/5/2006 5:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
Alphafox78, you're right on target, one of the rare reasonable posts here (excluding always brilliant masher's posts of course ;)

yeah, really, what's the difference between hitler, saddam, any other iranian or taliban mullah? they are all the same and US Army was fighting these guys and will be fighting them forever. US Army brought down hitler (granted, after hitler was substantially weakened by its fellow and buddy joseph stalin) and didn't let stalin to have europe and massacre it like he and fellow commies did with russia starting from 1917, then the same US Army liberated Japan and South Korea. all the countries where US have been back then in WWII days are now flourishing.

if US brouight down russian commies back in 1920s we haven't had any nuclear problems or maybe even WWII! unfortunately the world never was very friendly or stable place, freaks and crazy dictators are always pop here and there and if there's no sane police - who's gonna keep a hold on these thugs? who'd protect south korea from northern commies, or europe from russian commies? who'd protect afghan women and children from medieval taliban mullah slaughterers? as much as I can protest against iraq war, I always see the general picture and no liberal moronic teenager who smokes pot and yells "make love not war" can shift my understanding of this pciture - the world is a jungle, if you wanna be in charge and control the law and order on the planet - you HAVE to be strong, I'd never vote against big pentagon budget, they are the people who'd bring down any nuclear wielding saddam of the future. yes, I know military is bad and such, I'm not a military guy myself, but I studied a lot of history and got relatives who served in several wars including WWII, so I can see through any liberal moron who has no idea about pot, peace, and all this stuff they are talking about. we should actually let taliban to behead a couple of prominent liberals, just to give them a taste of the REAL world.

the saddest part about these recent wars is that taliban is too smart to do that and they just pay liberals to spread anti-war propaganda, just like hitler was paying his minions in europe before WWII broke out. and these liberal minions didn't even change since then, they take taliban money and start their blah blah as if nothing has ever happened.

I mean, it's the same routine these days, US Army goes to liberate someone, then US liberals pull it back because taliban or saddam or whoever paid them well (or maybe they do it for free which is even WORSE!), and then next taliban/alquaida/saddam/whatever blows another US target, next war, next liberal onslaught and so forth - neverending cycle of democracy.

this is not gonna change for the next couple of centuries, we'll have to wait for economic development of many large countries, like china and india before some major geopolitical shifts could happen and maybe THEN freaks/saddmas/talibans will get tougher treatment because not only the US but many other countries will stay vigilant and serve as a police TOGETHER, not current UN circus style


RE: Nice news but sad
By goz314 on 12/5/2006 6:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
This last post is worse than a "choose your own adventure" book.

Fact or Fiction? ...you decide. LOL!


RE: Nice news but sad
By Pirks on 12/5/2006 9:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
not a fact, not a fiction either. ever heard a word "opinion"? read some dictionary for definiton. thanks.


RE: Nice news but sad
By therealnickdanger on 12/5/2006 8:53:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
GhandiInstinct wrote: Look where we are now, under the opressive regime... blah blah blah

I would vote your post down just for using the comment section as your own personal soap box. Basically everything in your post is ludicrous FUD and is meaningless to the discussion of space exploration. I truly pity you, that you choose to wallow in your own hopeless existence, but this is not the place for your whining. Seeing as how my post has little to do with space exploration as well, I would take no issue with it being demoted. At least it would become bright red and stick out even more. LOL


RE: Nice news but sad
By rushfan2006 on 12/5/2006 9:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
LOL..ahh DailyTech..interesting articles and amusing comments......that's why I return each day -- you guys almost ALWAYS give me a laugh -- being truly funny or just one those got to laugh because your comments are so outlandish its funny kind of things.....

First I don't like Bush...actually to be honest I don't really like much of any politican...like ever. There are just degrees of how much I agree or disagree with them, but I'll not fully praise any of them.

Second, one of the largest misconceptions is people give credit to the president for a solid and strong economy....president has important influence over it...however, the economy is firstly controled by the labor force of the nation -- the businesses and from a government perspective actually congress has more sway than the president does.

After all the president's economic plans don't just go into effect on his word alone.

Now onto NASA....you want to know why NASA moved faster back in the 50's than today...probably because space exploration was brand new for our nation....when things are new you obviously are "trying out everything" for the first time.....through the years they found out the mistakes and they unfortunately had lots of deaths....now they want to design more take more time planning and they also have more ambitions plans for each launch too. Finally, budgets aren't what they used to be -- and despite my AGREEMENT with all of you on the importance of space exploration....it doesn't outweigh the other things we need to invest more money in...like fighting this stupid war (remember even to bring home our troops we need money), healthcare reform -- that alone costs billions, the immigration issue...again billions....etc.

It's all about priority...I don't think NASA is priority nor do I feel they SHOULD or DESERVE to be priority.



RE: Nice news but sad
By masher2 (blog) on 12/5/2006 12:21:13 PM , Rating: 1
> "Back in the Apollo days you could go from ZERO space program to landing a man on the moon in 10 years...now with our current technology it takes 20 years to even set foot there again??? lol I'd be happier if they just got rid of Nasa all together than fund them like a 3rd rate social program. *weeps*.."

Honestly, today NASA is more part of the problem than part of the solution. It's the curse of government bureaucracy, which gets ever-more inefficient over time. Analysts have demonstrated how a crash program could yield us a moon base in under five years time. NASA's 20-year estimate is a grim reminder of how far the agency has sunk.


RE: Nice news but sad
By cocoviper on 12/5/2006 12:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have some misunderstandings about the space program of the 1960s and the planned space program this is talking about. Apollo was designed to physically put a man on the moon at any cost. Money, efficiency, resources, sustainability- they were all ignored in the hope of getting us there as quick as possible.

Its somewhat like...I'm sure a climber could get to the top of a tall mountain in a couple days...but if he wanted to STAY there for a long period...then it would require more planning and time. Orion is not and should not be the same as Apollo and their "waste anything but time" mentality. Its about safety and sustainability.

And "a rich country like China" ??? I won't even begin on that one...


Competition = good
By Le Québécois on 12/5/2006 9:49:04 AM , Rating: 3
That's was you get when you have a "monopoly" on something, even if it's something as vague as space...

What made the Space "Boom" we(well not me..wasn't born at that time) had in the 1960 was the USSR VS USA race to reach space and beyond. When the USSR collapsed the race had his winner (USA) and then the money given to the NASA went down years after years.

So now that China AND Japan announced that they wanted to go on the moon, the USA just couldn't stand to be beat by someone. So again: Competition IS good.

BTW, If it weren't from the Iraq war and all the money that went in it, the NASA would have probably be able to lower the time needed to reach their goals like they did back then.




RE: Competition = good
By Topweasel on 12/5/2006 1:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
The war in Iraq hasn't affected NASA. Infact as poster has already noted its budget has actually being increased. The war is really having more of an affect on PR and State Debt than anything else.


RE: Competition = good
By Le Québécois on 12/5/2006 2:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The war in Iraq hasn't affected NASA.


You are absolutly right about that and I never said that it has affected NASA...yet...but it will in the future.

The NASA doesn't throw date in the air like that, they predict what budget they will have for the years to come and how it will affect the project. Forget about all the money that was put into the Iraq war and I'm pretty sure that now that a new Space Race has begun that they would have received much more money that they will now because of all the money that went into the war.


RE: Competition = good
By goz314 on 12/5/2006 3:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The war in Iraq hasn't affected NASA. Infact as poster has already noted its budget has actually being increased. The war is really having more of an affect on PR and State Debt than anything else.


Yeah, the war has affected that and the national deficit and total national debt. The taxpayers will have to pay it all back you know. Don't even get me started on an ROI analysis for the Iraq war.


I'm not sure that this will happen
By Xajel on 12/5/2006 4:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
at least not from NASA, I guess it will be another nation other than US, I know lot of you guys will disagree with me as US and it's NASA are the most powerfull nation in Space programs, but I don't know why I have this feeling about it in the near future, What I feel is that the future of US will be dark and blurer in years after 2014/15/16... so for me, unless they did it before 2014/15/16 then it's much like hopeless for me to expect something like this from US/NASA...




RE: I'm not sure that this will happen
By Targon on 12/5/2006 7:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, but only because the people that make up the US government don't care about what will really help the PEOPLE in the USA and only about those who give large donations to their campaigns.

It seems that every country out there is pushing science and technology, and here the government pushes oil and non-tech.


By AxemanFU on 12/5/2006 10:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
I can guarantee you the US government spends more on science and tecnhology than any other government in the world, AND it also encourages private companies to do the same. The space program is basically a massive R&D project and jobs program, when you boil it down. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we need to be sure as it goes on that the benefits justify the costs.


Climate, on the moon?
By SoCalBoomer on 12/5/2006 12:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
I thought climate required air which the moon doesn't have. . . :D




RE: Climate, on the moon?
By shaw on 12/6/2006 9:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
The over abundance of cheese makes up for the lack of air.


People...
By Enoch2001 on 12/5/2006 11:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
Depsite your social and political views on whether or not this is a good or bad thing, I should clarify that the reason it is taking so long is NOT because of a lack of technology.

It's the political climate.

During the Apollo missions there was a Cold War and a surplus of money, and that was the main reason for things happening as quickly. Note that shortly after these missions, the 1970's Oil Crisis (imagine that), the decadence of the 1980's, and the .COM bust - we (as in the American people) are in no condition to fund this type of mission as quickly. Nor by ourselves.


The world has changed forever. Space exploration has as well.




We are kidding ourselves
By jhh108 on 12/11/2006 11:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
After killing off fourteen astronauts in two shuttle explosions, plus almost doing away with three others on Apollo XIII, it should be evident to any impartial observer that we don't have the skill for space flight to be reasonably safe and reliable.

The reason for this is not our president, not NASA, not the Iraq war, and not a hypothetical decadence of this generation. It's simply that putting people into the hostile environment of space is a tall order, and our technology isn't up to it yet.

It seems to me that the first problem to solve is to eliminate the need to re-enter the atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour, or, equivalently, to adequately isolate the entire ship from the pressures and heat of doing so. Until then, we would do best to confine ourselves to sending robots, as we have with the successful missions to other planets.




Moderated
By slickr on 12/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: Yea right
By rcc on 12/6/2006 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hey troll, which bridge is yours?


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki