China may be worlds ahead in building lunar legacy - U.S. hampered by economy, short-term plans

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 26, 2004 | Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

[Cincinatus' Wife]

President Bush's call for sending Americans back to the moon revives an old dream: the hope of turning our sister world into an inhabited, commercially active Grand Central station of the solar system, from whence rockets will cruise to the outer planets and perhaps beyond.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Working on the Moon

[Gunslingr3]

Wernher von Braun what he expected to find on the moon, he jokingly replied: "Russians"; if he were still alive today, he might reply: "Chinese."

This is because von Braun was a rocket scientist, not an economist.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Well, President Bush has an MBA and he's had trial by fire with 9-11. Between the two, I think he's pegged this just right.

[Gunslingr3]

Well, President Bush has an MBA and he's had trial by fire with 9-11. Between the two, I think he's pegged this just right.

An MBA? Like the guy in the FedEx commercial? :)

Seriously, the article's main thrust is correct, unless there is entrepenurial need behind lunar exploration it's just going to be a bureaucratic waste. Without a profit motive there's no signal to know if you're correctly applying resources.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I agree. That's why Bush's call to return to the Moon to use it's resources was spot on.

[Gunslingr3]

I agree. That's why Bush's call to return to the Moon to use it's resources was spot on.

Is it just a bully pulpit exhortation, or does he plan to spend tax dollars to try and make it happen?

[cookcounty]

"Helium-3 is virtually nonexistent on Earth. But it's abundant on the moon, where the isotopes have been sprinkled over billions of years by the solar wind, Kulcinski said. He estimated that a million tons of helium-3 exists in the upper 2 meters of the lunar surface. "

Doesn't this assume that the old pre-1969 theories about dust deposition over 2 billion years on the moon are still accurate? As the "YECs" (Young Earth Creationists) delight in pointing out, the expected large quantities of dust accumulations didn't materialize. There's very little dust, and the moon is a pretty "rocky" place.

Or would the helium-3 penetrate the surface rock to 2 meters? I'm no geologist. I'm just asking.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes, it will need tax dollars. The technology transfer explosion alone is worth it, not to mention scientific discoveries, national security and a long overdue educational kick in the pants.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Or would the helium-3 penetrate the surface rock to 2 meters?

The dirt on the Moon is ground-up rock, made by the bombardment of micrometeorites on the Moon over billions of years. The helium in the dirt comes from the Sun, which implants helium, hydrogen, and many other light elements in the dust by the solar wind.

BTW, 3He is present, but in very minute quantities -- about 1 part per billion. However, this is enormously enriched compared to Earth. Still, it would mean moving a lot of dirt to get at it.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

ABC Online

Russia, US can collaborate in Mars exploration: Putin. 27/01/2004. ABC News Online

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1031972.htm]


Last Update: Tuesday, January 27, 2004. 1:03am (AEDT)
Russia, US can collaborate in Mars exploration: Putin
Russia and the United States can collaborate in exploring Mars, Russian President Vladimir Putin told US Secretary of State Colin Powell in talks on Monday.

Congratulating the envoy on the US mission that has seen two probes land on the surface of the Red Planet in the past three weeks, Mr Putin said that Russia "has noted with interest President Bush's ambitious plans for the conquest of Mars," the Interfax news agency reported.

"I believe that in this area there are things we can do together," Mr Putin said.

Mr Powell for his part said that he was "pleased with the developments that are on the horizon with respect to continued cooperation in space."

Mr Bush earlier this month said his administration planned to send American astronauts back to the Moon as early as 2015, perhaps to set up a base to provide a springboard for a manned mission to Mars, and invited other space powers to join in the initiative.

The initial response from Moscow was cool however.

Russian space officials hinted that Moscow was capable of launching its own Mars mission at considerably lower cost than the US proposal, but Deputy Prime Minister Boris Alyoshin said last week that "the time is not right" for such a mission.

The US probe Opportunity landed on the Mars surface on Saturday with a similar exploratory mission to Spirit, which landed on Mars on January 3 but broke down last week.

Opportunity began transmitting pictures back to Earth that US space officials described as a "scientific jackpot."

--AFP

[FreeAtlanta]

This is one thing that really bugs me about the people screaming that we shouldn't spend money on space exploration. If the Chinese land on the moon, will they be able to claim it for their nation? Does our flag and first landing make it ours? Do we have to actually occupy the moon to have a claim?

Looking back at the huge land claims that Europe had on the Americas, they held up and we had to buy our lands. In 50 or even 20 years, will the nation that establishes a fixed base on the moon have claim to the whole land mass? Probably. At the very least, it will be a strategic asset, and I would rather it be us, then China or some other possibly unfriendly nation. JMHO, but I think we would be more app to share the moon than any other nation would.

Also, I am sure there were a few people who thought that all the ships in the 1300 and 1400's going over the horizon, were a waste of time and money.

Thanks, for giving me my soap box, I know most everyone on this thread probably is of like mind and I am just talking to the choir, but it makes me feel better. :-)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Because the Moon has resources, it is something to claim and China and Russia and India and Japan and the European Union are all heading back to the Moon to stake their claim. To own the resources gives one the power to launch into the universe and protect space resources (commercial and military satellites). The technology needed to accomplish these goals is a treasure trove to military applications.

Finish goal set long ago, in galaxy far, far away***While I believe in physics more than destiny, I think humanity has a role to play beyond this island earth. Men once looked at the seas and wondered what was beyond. Today we see the firmament and know there's something up there that with cunning, sacrifice and courage we can reach. In short, I support President Bush's plan to put us on the moon again and go from there - the fruition of which I shall never see. Fortunately, it's given to our species to think beyond our years.

I don't see this in investment terms. No Brit saw a penny from funding investment in early America; the Massachusetts Bay Company went broke. But you can say that in the long run the colonies paid off. Sure, the Spanish got rich from plundering the Indies, but which "investment" did more to save the sum of things?

There are reasons to return to space: scientific knowledge such as lured the explorers of the Enlightenment to dark continents and distant isles; the fear that we may ruin our world from overuse or war and a backup would be nice; the spirit of challenge and adventure. And, of course, just as French shipwrights were paid to craft La Salle's vessels, dollars spent on space are spent at home. We no longer have slave economies such as erected the pyramids, so in one sense there is no waste.***

[boris]

The problem is this:

(a) The chinese have the advantage of all the technology we paid for and invented;
(b) The chinese have a command economy, so if the bosses say, "do it", the cost does not enter into the equation; people want to stay alive, so they do it.
(c) In the U.S. you must obtain funding in the hundreds of billions of dollars to make people "do it"; such funds are in short supply.

--Boris

[boris]

"Russia, US can collaborate in Mars exploration"

Every time we "collaborate" with the Russians we get taken for rubes.

Which is what we are. Apollo-Soyuz was a massive one-way technology transfer from us to them.

The Russian elements of the space station were simply a way for Bill Clinton to funnel money to his friends in return for substandard and late hardware--meanwhile putting U.S. aerospace workers in unemployment lines--and suppliers out of business.

--Boris

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Very true.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Very true but available. Some rearranging at NASA is necessary.

[swarthyguy]

Waiting for the Sputnik like catalytic event to galvanise the USA.

GO, China Go!

[swarthyguy]

>>If the Chinese land on the moon, will they be able to claim it for their nation?

I believe they will. They may not even bring the guy(s) back but send some up more later and keep expanding their base that way.

By traditional exploration, they would have full right to call the Moon part of China. Regardless of the space treaty, which I don't think they are a signatory too.

The Chinese used to be explorers; Royal Junks down to the East African coast in the 15th Century until called back and told to stop exploring by the Emperor.

And then came Columbus; today he'd be attacked with cries of waste of money, we know there's nothing there, etc.

[Gunslingr3]

Yes, it will need tax dollars. The technology transfer explosion alone is worth it, not to mention scientific discoveries, national security and a long overdue educational kick in the pants.

How will they know what to spend the tax dollars on?

Please understand, it's not that I don't look forward to man colonizing the moon, I just recognize government bureaucracy is horribly inefficient at applying resources to solve a problem. The free market, guided by the good steward of supply, demand, and profit will get us to the moon with the best technology and least waste.

I want, at a dead minimum, for an equivalent amount of other largesse to be repealed before government funds, taken at the point of a gun, are diverted to fulfill this political goal.

[Gunslingr3]

The chinese have a command economy, so if the bosses say, "do it", the cost does not enter into the equation; people want to stay alive, so they do it.

But costs do matter, ergo the USSR collapsed before fulfilling Braun's prediction.

Slaves don't work as hard as free people, working for their own self interest. It's why the U.S. standard of living crushes that of any slavocracy.