The single thing that’s absolutely guaranteed to re-spark US interest in the space program is other countries succeeding in their own programs. Fear of being perceived as “second best” would dynamite the Federal budgetary flood gates. Congresscritters, in their fever to be perceived as protecting American superiority, would stampede screaming to the doors of NASA to be the first to fling out buckets of cash. Anyone who couldn’t keep up with the frenzy would be trampled into a bloody pulp.
I hear tell that the Chinese are gazing upward at our great natural satellite. So what are, in y’all’s opinions, the actual odds of Chinese success?
I’d guess this is actually more an economics question than anything. The Chinese certainly have the will to distinguish themselves in the world as a second superpower, and being the second nation in history to send some bepantsed apes to the moon, then bring 'em back, would do quite nicely as a demonstration. The question seems to be whether their 10% annual growth can sustain itself long enough to fulfill their astronomical dreams.
Can they do it? Could the Russians? If so, how long will it take?
Sure they could, with sufficient time and money. Choosing to accept higher risks than past programs would also speed things along.
But if anyone actually cares about who was first to the moon, let’s settle for photos. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter scheduled for launch in October '08 will be able to image the LEM lower stages that were left behind by the Apollo missions.
So when that day comes, let’s all hoot and holler about how we were first. Then sit back, encourage the Chinese, and save ourselves something like $50 billion. Or better yet, spend that savings on going someplace else in (or out of) the solar system.
People have already been to the moon. They didn’t find much reason to go back. It’s not like a new world with Injuns to conquer and gold to pillage. It’s just a big ass rock without any kind of usefulness. For this reason, I don’t think we’ll see China, Russia, America, or anyone else go on another manned moon mission in the next hundred years.
I’ll second what Leaffan said, Bush has outlined a program to go to the moon and it apparently has support within NASA and Congress–although some human space flight enthusiasts think the focus should be entirely on getting to Mars.
I can think of a few valuable reasons to send men to the moon. For one, put some telescopes on the far side of the moon and you’ll have some extremely good views of the universe, a remotely-operated observatory on the moon (or even manned with a small support crew semi-permanently) could greatly aid our study of the universe.
Fine for you guys, but what about people who aren’t studying the universe? When did Republicans cross over into the “let me decide how to spend your money” camp?
The space race of the Cold War period was a real race. The Soviets put the first man-made object into orbit, the first animal, the first human astronaut, and gave the U.S. good competition for the first lunar landing. China is much richer and better developed and more technologically sophisticated now than the U.S.S.R. was then. I see no reason why they can’t do this.
That’s what government’s do, period. The U.S. Government has always been in that camp, since its inception as a political party the GOP has been in that camp. The difference between a Republican and a Libertarian is we are grounded in reality, we know that government has a role in our society and that government has a proper authority to collect taxes and spend that public money in a wise manner.
Where we differ from our more socialist-leaning “friends” is in which manner we decide to spend that money and for what reason. I like to think we’re more focused on providing equality of opportunity than equality of result (which is what a lot of social welfare is focused on.) But no mainstream Republicans have ever to my knowledge bought into the ludicrous libertarian philosophy that the government has no valid reason to collect and spend public funds.
I also like to think that the GOP is more about fiscal conservatism and responsibility, in letting the economy run itself as much as possible, and in avoiding economy-hurting forms of taxation (like capital gains) and et cetera. However recent history has shown the party hasn’t kept to those things very well in the past few years.
I wasn’t necessarily talking about long-exposure imagery. Observatories on the far-side of the moon would be ideal location for a radio telescope, in the orbit of the Earth there is significant interference from all the satellites and other signals around and from the Earth.
Furthermore, a traditional optical telescope would also be effective on the moon, this NASA page explains the benefits of locating both optical and radio telescopes on the lunar surface.
Maybe Republicans need to read up then, since they obviously don’t know what they’re talking about. We have nothing against collecting and spending public funds for the purpose of securing rights and property.
You know very well that earth is the only place reachable by us that can sustain man. And we’ll be stuck here till the sun burns out or an asteroid hits us. So, how about studying hunger? How about studying injustice? How about studying how to provide a context of peace and honesty so free people can pursue their own happiness in their own way? If you want to go to the moon, then go. Who’s stopping you? But pay for it yourself.
And go where? The moon? Are you kidding? And we may be around in ten billion years, sort of like the cock roach and crocodile are still around, but something much greater will have evolved. At least hopefully.
It really does matter, I think, whether that “something greater” is descended from Homo sapiens, or from the raccoon rooting in that dumpster over there.
Why? Your body and mine will be worm guts recycled forty million times over. And our species will have produced a million more Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos. Give the 'coons a chance. They can’t do any worse.
“There is no individual thing in nature, than which there is not another more powerful and strong. Whatsoever thing be given, there is something stronger whereby it can be destroyed.” — Baruch Spinoza