Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

International Effort Could Put First Canadian On the Moon

timothy posted about a year ago | from the mayor-ford-the-obvious-choice dept.

Moon 152

A long-term plan created by 14 cooperating space agencies around the world could mean that a Canadian astronaut may get to visit the moon sometime close to 2030. The International Space Exploration Coordination Group, of which Canada is a part, released last week an updated roadmap laying out intended projects, including a lunar visit. "[CSA space exploration director Jean-Claude Piedboeuf] suggested astronauts could again be moon-bound in about 15 years. It would be the first human visit to the shining orb since 1972, when NASA astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt spent 75 hours there. This time, there could well be Canadian visitors. Their specialty: robotics. 'We're proposing a vision where Canada could have an astronaut, effectively a Canadian who will be in lunar space, either in orbit or on the moon and could operate a Canadian rover in the same way that Canadians operate a Canadarm on the space station,' Piedboeuf said."

cancel ×

152 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIRST POST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44668937)

Personal Effort Could Put This Post First

Re:FIRST POST (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44669357)

FIRST CANADIEN!

He's pretty old now - but there's no stopping his "going to the moon" business.

Re:FIRST POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669485)

FIRST COMEDIAN!

May I suggest Justin Bieber? (3, Funny)

Begemot (38841) | about a year ago | (#44668939)

Pleaaaaaaaaase....

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44668977)

Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, I do believe that William Shatner deserves to be the first Canadian on the moon. If they can work it out that both can go, well, I'd click that 'Donate' button.

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44669035)

There is a severe fuel cost for putting massive objects into orbit, on the order of 100 to 1 for fuel to paypload weight

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#44669039)

Throw celine dion in the mix and I will donate quadruple

however we can save weight by only shipping their ego's there.

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (2)

lunatix (236608) | about a year ago | (#44669367)

I believe their egos would be disproportionally heavier than their actual body weight.

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (1)

dk20 (914954) | about a year ago | (#44669773)

Celine's house in Florida is up for sale, a paltry $72MM she might be able to contribute to the cause?

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44669091)

He can leave his hair at home. I think that will reduce the payload weight considerably.

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44670535)

This is false. Although there may well be a 100 to 1 fuel mass to payload mass ratio, fuel costs are negligible compared to other costs - fractions of a percent. of the total cost.

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44670609)

wrong, you are not seeing the forest for focusing on a leaf. The physical structure and stages of a rocket are mostly about housing the fuel.

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | about a year ago | (#44669735)

In 2030 William Shatner will be 99 years old.

Re:May I suggest Justine Bieber? (4, Funny)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44669037)

Leave her alone!

Re:May I suggest Justin Bieber? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669639)

Not he should be the first canadian to step foot on the surface of the sun.

15 years? (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44668951)

from Kennedy's challenge to first man on the moon was 8 years. just from that, I'd say this is mostly not planning to go anywhere in the next 20 years.

Re:15 years? (4, Interesting)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#44669393)

from Kennedy's challenge to first man on the moon was 8 years

Only because of the years and years of preparatory work already done. Development of the F-1 started in 1956. Much of the design and engineering for the Apollo capsule was already complete (although as a general purpose earth orbiter). The same goes for the engineering and development of the Saturn family of boosters.
 
One of the reasons Kennedy chose a moon landing as a goal (over the other options considered) in the first place was because so much of the necessary groundwork was already in work.

Re:15 years? (4, Insightful)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year ago | (#44669499)

One would think there is even more groundwork done now than there was in the 60s. The main difference is that between a president making a commitment and a committee making a presentation.

Re:15 years? (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#44670361)

Some of the groundwork has been done - but this project isn't getting the thing that made the real difference... a huge budget. Which wasn't a direct result of Kennedy's commitment - he was actually looking for ways to scale it back. The huge budget came because he died in Dallas and LBJ pushed for the program as a monument to Kennedy.

Re:15 years? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44669623)

Right, and we still have all that ground work and a lot more that has been developed in the mean time. If we put as much effort in to getting to the moon as we did then, like say the fate of the earth depended on it, I'm sure we could go in a year or two.

Re:15 years? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44670413)

The main difference between then and now being then, us vs them was US vs Russia, whereas now, us vs them is R vs D.

Both R & D work so hard to make sure the "other side" can't claim to done something to get re-elected.

Re:15 years? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a year ago | (#44671445)

Right, and we still have all that ground work

We have the knowledge, but not the industrial base. We couldn't build a Saturn V in a year.

If we put as much effort in to getting to the moon as we did then, like say the fate of the earth depended on it, I'm sure we could go in a year or two.

But it doesn't. The Apollo program, and most of manned spaceflight in the 1960s, was a bigger dick contest with the USSR with little science content.

The lower cost and increasing capability of unmanned probes means that there's nothing we can send human beings to do on Luna or beyond that's worth the cost of sending them there. And that will remain true for the foreseeable future.

"But manned missions to deep space are inspiring!" you say? So is a performance of Beethoven's 5th. Maybe manned space flight should compete for NEA funding. I like gigantic art projects as much as anyone, but when our planet is facing a sustainability crisis we should focus resources on the survival of civilization.

"But look at all the spin-off technologies! We'd never have had mircocompters without Apollo!" you say If you want advances in practical technologies, it's more efficient to put your resources directly into developing those practical technologies.

There are reasons why no one has gone beyond LEO in decades.

Re:15 years? (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44670435)

Only because of the years and years of preparatory work already done. Development of the F-1 started in 1956.

The V2 rocket is what really started the space age. It was the first thing humans ever built that reached space. It wasn't easy; the Nazis poured vast resources into that research. And there is a direct lineage from the V2 to the moon program.

Re:15 years? (1)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year ago | (#44670505)

It's sad that going to the moon six times is worth less in preparatory work than what had been done up to 1961. We've lost so much knowledge and experience that we've regressed as a species, at least in terms of human space exploration. Hopefully this time around we never forget how to do it.

Re:15 years? (1)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#44670577)

Nonsense. We are so much more capable now in space travel than we were in the 60's that there's just no comparison.

Re:15 years? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#44671607)

It's sad that going to the moon six times is worth less in preparatory work than what had been done up to 1961.

It's only "sad" if you're unaware that it's 2013 and that materials, processes, etc... have changed radically in the intervening fifty years and that impacts pretty much every aspect of the project. Not to mention being ignorant enough to not grasp that every major engineering projects requires considerable ground and preparatory work beforehand (roughly proportional to the size of the project), even if it's something done routinely (like building a bridge).
 

We've lost so much knowledge and experience that we've regressed as a species, at least in terms of human space exploration. Hopefully this time around we never forget how to do it.

If we lived in a universe where we'd "forgotten" anything, you'd have a point. So, either you live in a different universe than the rest of us or you're just abysmally clueless.

Re:15 years? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44670693)

not relevant at all, since the Apollo program had other goals and missions before the moon challenge. the technology hasn't gone away, we have more prep work now

Re:15 years? (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about a year ago | (#44669841)

Crash programs are very expensive and a budget like Apollo's may never happen again.

Re:15 years? (1)

gregor-e (136142) | about a year ago | (#44670353)

Particularly for something as frivolous as yet another moon landing. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Guess what we found out? The moon is made of rocks and dust. Big whoop. Now, put together a heavily-funded crash program to cure aging? That's something a lot more people could get behind.

Re:15 years? (5, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44670671)

wrong! even if we take the entire Apollo program which had other purposes before Kennedy's challenge, that was $25.4 billion as reported in 1973. That's 102.3 billion dollars now. Or the cost of the U.S. nuclear arsenal which is two thirds of a trillion dollars every decade. A fraction of cost of a war with no purpose and no results (other than a few hundred thousand dead Iraqi citizens), for example. Space exploration is very cheap.

The really sad thing... (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#44668953)

...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.

And I was born years before Gagarin flew.

Re:The really sad thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44668975)

Even more sad is that someone your age can't let go of the symbolism of a dead era.

Re:The really sad thing... (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#44669103)

Let go? What do you replace it with?

Re:The really sad thing... (4, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#44669179)

Even more sad is that someone your age can't let go of the symbolism of a dead era.

I wasn't born in that era, but I understand the sentiment completely. During the late 50's through the mid-70's, we experience the pinnacle of technology and humankind has been going down hill since. We had rockets that went to the moon. We had supersonic transport. We built the fastest airplane ever, we built several different airplane models that are still in production and have yet to be surpassed. We invented what eventually became the internet. Since then, we haven't done much of anything except squabble and fight and sue. One might also notice a correlation in the diminishing of funding for education and research to our newfound stunning lack of achievement.

Re:The really sad thing... (3, Insightful)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44669255)

Since then, we haven't done much of anything except squabble and fight and sue. One might also notice a correlation in the diminishing of funding for education and research to our newfound stunning lack of achievement.

Yeah but the ultra-wealthy can enjoy thousand-horsepower all-wheel-drive supercars and cheap replacement organs from healthy, grass-fed South American kids...

Re:The really sad thing... (2)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year ago | (#44669527)

You all tend to forget that people receiving social aid have faster computers in their pockets than the whole world had during that "pinnacle of technology" time. The transition was from super government projects (flight to the moon, Concorde) to commercial developments, and from "cool stuff" to "convenience".

Re:The really sad thing... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44669587)

people receiving social aid have faster computers in their pockets than the whole world had

Nothing wrong with a little Chinese prison labor so the plebes can play Angry Birds, eh? ;)

Re:The really sad thing... (2)

dryeo (100693) | about a year ago | (#44670227)

America probably has more prison labour then China. Those private prison companies need to make money with their guaranteed prison population.

Re:The really sad thing... (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year ago | (#44669573)

We had rockets that went to the moon.

And when we got there, we found lots of jagged dust.

We had supersonic transport.

Which we already knew was horribly expensive due to (a) the effort required to slice through the air that vast, and (b) the heat generated at such speeds.

We built the fastest airplane ever,

And retired it because flying that fast is so fscking expensive!

we built several different airplane models that are still in production and have yet to be surpassed.

Because in the real world, there are always engineering trade-offs between physics and economics, and it turns out that the sound "barrier" is in actuality an economics barrier.

Yes, it saddens me, but I've moved on from youthful sci-fi dreams.

Re:The really sad thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669719)

We have viagra now. I care about that way more than space ships.

Re:The really sad thing... (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#44669761)

Things die for business reasons, not technological reasons. And I'd say rovers that explore Mars on their own is far more advanced than having humans do everything like on Apollo. The Concord died yes, but there are supersonic jets in private ownership (ex-military) [spacebattles.com] , it's all a matter of cost. Some things haven't changed much but smart phones, medicine, lots of things have become very much more technologically advanced. It just depends on where you're looking, I'd much rather be in a hospital in 2013 than 1963, thank you very much.

Re:The really sad thing... (1)

dk20 (914954) | about a year ago | (#44669795)

We now have super-strict IP laws. Back then, when the speech was made people didn't instinctively look at all the science fiction works and sue for infringement (we already had science fiction works about going to the moon after-all).

Re:The really sad thing... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#44669185)

Yep, exploration, dreams, achievement, that's all old hat, gramps! All the cool kids know that breathlessly following the circle jerks of the latest reality show is where it's at!

Re:The really sad thing... (1)

geogob (569250) | about a year ago | (#44669419)

...about all this is that means we're farther from putting a man on the moon than we were the day I was born.

You are totally correct and somewhat wrong at the same time.

To put a man on the Moon, the first step is to wish to put a man on the Moon and to actually try to put a man on the Moon. In other words, those who decide how much money is put in which envelope must want to put a man on the moon. Otherwise it will never happen. As no deciding party actually wants that or sets that as a priority, for whatever reason, you are totally correct in saying we are further away from putting a man on the moon than sometimes back in the past, where this wish was actually share among many deciding parties.

But I believe you wanted to hint at a technological limit, but it is not case; that the technology was there in the past to do it, but was lost it and that we are far from having this technology again. That might be correct, in light of the first part of my post, but has nothing to do with the state of technology or mankind technological capabilities. It’s simply lack of resources in that envelope. Dedicate the same kind of budget in Lunar and space exploration today as it was in the ’50 and ’60, we could get there in the blink of an eye so to say. The technology is there and the design and development of means to reach the moon could be done within a few years without any problem.

Another problem is the weight of the administrative machines behind space programs. I fight my way through this very same machine in my every day professional life, and I can assure you that with the state of administration as it is now, you get nowhere near the moon, even in 20 years. But it wasn’t much different in the ’60. This issue is also in the hands of the people deciding where the money. I can assure you, the day a deciding leader tells a space program administration they’ll get 134 billion$ to put people on the moon ASAP, you’ll see the quickest administrative reform of a space program. Ever.

In tl;dr form. Technology is there. Capability can be there fast. What is missing is will and need (sold at the right persons).

Re:The really sad thing... (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#44669531)

With enough money and a few years lead time, I suspect the Falcon-9 could probably get us orbiting the moon, and that there's enough talent in private space to also supply a suitable landing vehicle for a spacewalk.

The real trick is to plan to do something which gets us enough buy-in that we actually go there, and do something which keeps us in-space as a permanent - and ideally profitable (or break-even) endeavour.

This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (3, Interesting)

Nova Express (100383) | about a year ago | (#44668957)

With the way national governments keep piling up debt [economist.com] , it's unreasonable to assume any of those governments will be funding space exploration in 2030.

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44668997)

With the way national governments keep piling up debt [economist.com] , it's unreasonable to assume any of those governments will be funding space exploration in 2030.

Oh, I'm sorry, is the flavor of the shit sandwich any different with 2013 flavored dollars? Like most budgets are justified today...yet we keep spending. It's more unreasonable to believe that behavior would change. We ran out trillions ago.

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#44669047)

The world is already broke. the next big economic collapse will be governments who are massively over extended.(which is nearly all of them)

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (3, Informative)

rtaylor (70602) | about a year ago | (#44669513)

Democratic countries only. Most of the communist ones, including those that went through financial difficulties in the 80's/90's are in pretty good shape debt wise.

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669097)

Oh non-sense if our debt keeps growing we can just climb it to the moon.

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669307)

I would argue what is the point? Your wasting money to go where man has already been! There is nothing to gain out of going to mars or the moon.. Laughably the Republicans are pushing to waste money for a future mission on the moon and mars, but then cry and whine over government spending!!!!

Money better spent elsewhere..

Yes private money can fund this, and try to preserve the human race in the event of total destruction of the planet.. But there are a hosts of events that can happen to the other planets that could wipe us out anyway..

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669413)

Both Ron Paul *AND* Glenn Beck suggest you buy GOLD. TITANS OF INDUSTRY, GALTS OF THE WORLD, recommend you BUY GOLD! Gold is the only long term guarantee of financial security. If you want, I will buy your gold for TOP DOLLAR at any time so you can keep your ENORMOS Randian cash flow going! So come on, get out of your parents basement for a few minutes and ...

BUY GOLD!

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669833)

Right up until the point the government outright bans its private ownership via a new special executive order?

Already been there, and done that.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 [wikipedia.org]


"Land of the free" as long as you didnt want to own gold in 1933....

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44670125)

Did you know Ayn Rand herself found a way to turn common lead into Gold? That's why the government had her killed.

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (4, Informative)

blahplusplus (757119) | about a year ago | (#44669547)

"With the way national governments keep piling up debt"

That debt is to private banks, you do know that each nation is supposed to have it's own national bank making that kind of debt impossible? The worlds banking cartel launched a coup against most nation states to keep them under their control via national debt.

Don't think so? Why not look at what even these canadian politicians have to say. Money is political fiction, the national debt exists because private power wants it to exist to prevent progressive social change under the fear mongering of national debt.

http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/ [ohcanadamovie.com]

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669647)

Mod this guy WAY UP.. This isn't conspiracy theory, it is real. To me it is also a way of hiding wealth.

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year ago | (#44671583)

http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/

Too bad the production is so juvenile (sound effects, jokes, etc). I do respect the message and the impressive list of people he managed to interview. Still, it's just a Canadian-focused rehash of similar works, such as "Money As Debt" and "The Money Masters".

Re:This assumes the world isn't broke in 2030 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669717)

That interactive chart is massively misleading. It shows Australia as being in the same category of debt as the USA but Australia has a total debt of 396 billion and a yearly change of 0.5% while the USA has a debt of 12 trillion with a yearly change of +13.1%. Now, I am not an economist but it seems to me that having 17k per person debt with basically no yearly increase does not show a country in massive debt unlike the USA with their ~40k per person debt and the yearly increase of 13.1%... That does not even take into account the fact that the USA's debt is 75% of their GDP while Australia's is 25%.

Unfortunately though, outside of Australia, most of the other countries in red seem to warrant the high debt label with debts of 50%+ of GPD and a increase of 5%+ with most being 10%+...

Wouldn't that be (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44668973)

We're proposing a vision where Canada could have an astronaut, effectively a Canadian

Wouldn't that be an astronuck?

Tresspassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44668991)

Stupid Canadians... Don't they know the Moon is American property! We claimed it, planted flags there and all. Even left a couple old trucks parked out on the front lawn. Sign says "No Tresspassing", can't y'all read?

Re:Tresspassing (4, Interesting)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#44669107)

We claimed it, planted flags there and all.

Well, since the flags are all white now, I guess we surrendered it all.

(Truth! The unfiltered solar radiation on the Moon has long since bleached all the flags we left up there pure white.)

Re:Tresspassing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669245)

Naw, just ain't put a new one up yet. Still got our old truck, satellite dish, and a couple pieces of junk on the front lawn, proof that it's ours and all. Might even find a couple old beer cans lying around.

Re:Tresspassing (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year ago | (#44671253)

Stupid Canadians... Don't they know the Moon is American property! We claimed it, planted flags there and all. Even left a couple old trucks parked out on the front lawn. Sign says "No Tresspassing", can't y'all read?

Don't make me laugh, eh? Hosehead.

Don't stop there (4, Funny)

hessian (467078) | about a year ago | (#44669031)

How soon before we can send the rest of them?

Not only first Canadian. First human on the moon. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669071)

No more hollywood fakes. Nothing this time will hide from high definition cameras. Will have proof and can trace every step from the start to the moon. No more lying, no more fake Apollo flights.

Re:Not only first Canadian. First human on the moo (3, Insightful)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#44669129)

Best argument that the Moon landings were real. Nixon couldn't cover up Watergate, how was he to get every nation on Earth to help cover up fake Moon landings? Don't you think a Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden type would have let the cat out of the bag? Don't you think the Soviet Union would have blown the cover? Get real.

Re:Not only first Canadian. First human on the moo (4, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#44669303)

Look, the moon landings were faked. Just not the way you think.

They were filmed on a sound stage on the moon. We've had a base on the dark side since the 50's.

Re:Not only first Canadian. First human on the moo (1)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#44671027)

Fakery is much more advanced now than in the 60's. It would be MUCH easier to fake a flight to moon today.

Re:Not only first Canadian. First human on the moo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44671571)

Fakery is much more advanced now than in the 60's. It would be MUCH easier to fake a flight to moon today.

Yeah, but nowadays it'd have to have explosions everywhere and a few dozen barely-clad moon babes. After enough executive meddling and influence from Michael Bay, it'd get bad enough that nobody would believe it could be THAT fake.

And a Tim Horton's by 2035! (2)

DaveyJJ (1198633) | about a year ago | (#44669119)

Awesome news. If we can hit the 2030 mark for a Canuck, then we'll certainly have a Timmies on the moon by 2035 or so.

Re:And a Tim Horton's by 2035! (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#44669319)

That IS great news! If there's a Timmie's, then they'd have to set up regular deliveries from Maidstone.

Re:And a Tim Horton's by 2035! (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#44671337)

Mmmmm... Tim Bits!

2030!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669133)

this would be news if it were 2029. i am further convinced we've never been to the moon.

The improvements in "Movie Magic" since the 60s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669139)

Its should be quite a production.

Of course non-North Americans will have to wait 6 months before they can see the footage.

spacex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669149)

hopefully non-governmental rocketeers will get someone up there long before then.

Commercial Spaceflight (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#44669167)

In a rare event, I am going to play the optimist and suggest commercial space endeavors will get us back to the moon before then. How soon? Perhaps between 2020 - 2025. It's easy to scoff at that, but technology is officially advancing at rate such that we already can't guess what things will be like in a mere six and a half to eleven-years from now. Scientific and technological advancement has become like a runaway, and aggressive, chemical reaction - like a wildfire burning intensely in powerful but chaotic winds, heading in directions we can't know until it gets there. Commercial space endeavors might not beat the Canadian effort by much, but the sooner the better by no matter how small a margin.

Why would commercial spaceflight take us back to the moon? I can't know, but I can guess it would make great practice for traveling longer distance and pulling off complex tasks. Maybe a warm up exercise for an ambitious and profitable mission.

That was probably not the best analogy, but you get the idea. That and I don't know much about cars.

Re:Commercial Spaceflight (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#44669551)

This all kind of hinges on the cost to LEO I suspect. Given the prices people pay for space tourism, I have been wondering what sort of improvements might make Lunar orbit tourism a thing instead. It's only a 3-day ride, and I suspect passage around the dark side of the moon would still be an incredible thing given that, what, about 30 people maximum have ever been there?

Re:Commercial Spaceflight (1)

les_91406 (2001206) | about a year ago | (#44671317)

Come on folks... You can talk about the "far" side of the moon or the "other" side, but remember that the far side is no darker than the near side.

Re:Commercial Spaceflight (1)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#44671593)

There was a story about 2 years ago about Space Adventures marketing a possible flight around the moon in a Soyuz. But the price they were quoting was way more than the flight to the ISS. There probably aren't more than another 30 people who could afford it, want to go, and psychologically could deal with being in a small space capsule for 8 or 9 days with a decent chance of dying during the trip.

Canadian Article (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year ago | (#44669241)

14 cooperating space agencies around the world could mean that a Canadian astronaut.... The International Space Exploration Coordination Group, of which Canada is a part/quote

So what about the other 13 space agencies? I mean, it could be Canadian, but couldn't it just as well be one of the other countries? I just skimmed the article, but I didn't say where it listed what countries the other agencies were from.

Seriously? (1)

Ed The Meek (3026569) | about a year ago | (#44669385)

Why? I love my Canadian friends, but with all the real problems awaiting solutions - why are we concerned with putting Canadians on the Moon? Scratching my head again...

Re:Seriously? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669533)

Why? I love my Canadian friends, but with all the real problems awaiting solutions - why are we concerned with putting Canadians on the Moon? Scratching my head again...

1. Start with dimwitted redneck Americans who willingly refuse to understand why science (which is haaaaaaaaard) is of any use.
2. Show them that some other country that isn't 'Murka is getting their asses to the moon.
3. Then, tell them that country is Canada.
4. In the event that doesn't sink in, remind them that this is a country with evil-scary sooooocialized heaaaaalth caaaaaaare!!! (oooo, spooky!)
5. Maybe force a few "eh?"s in for extra super-scariness.
6. Remind them that America hasn't been to the moon in decades.
7. Witness the terrifying force of a few million drunken, blindly patriotic rednecks easily manipulated into restarting the space program.
8. Profit!

THAT'S why. Oh, Canada! We stand on guard for thee!

Re:Seriously? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44669627)

tell them that country is Canada

Canada is a country? Then how come their queen lives in the mother country?

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669883)

Similiar to why 'merica is a country, but the large plot of land on the east coast is still known as "new england"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England [wikipedia.org]

Or why the US has a seperation of state and religion in the constitution yet the moto is "in god we trust".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust [wikipedia.org]

Some are left over relics from the past, some are just oddities.

Do it! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44669575)

Ideal candidates!

- Used to vast expanses of arid, lifeless land
- Experienced with months-long stretches of perpetual night and perpetual day
- Can handle the zing against the tongue of funky 'tang

International error? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44669599)

I've read it first as "international error". It turns out that this is a very easy mistake to make.

A human Canadian? (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#44669641)

Are they going to send a human Canadian? Ho-hum. Humans on the moon is a been-there-done-that kind of thing. Now, the first moose on the moon, that would be be cool!

moose ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44670715)

you mean beaver.....ya beaver on the moon now ya got me interested....

International Effort Could could put me... (1)

fredan (54788) | about a year ago | (#44669673)

...on the moon aswell.

just saying.

Canadian Space Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44669873)

Here they are, hard at work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp1e505TBHI

Already a canadian on the moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44670093)

Mr Piedlourdes has already been to the moon.

International Effort Could Put First Canadian On.. (1)

RockinRoller (3023071) | about a year ago | (#44670103)

Not sure this is a good thing or bad thing.

So who is going to direct... (1)

k31bang (672440) | about a year ago | (#44670857)

So who is going to direct this fake moon landing? It's a proven factoid that Kubrick directed the first (which is how he got access to those Carl Zeiss Planar f/0.7 lenses he used in Barry Lyndon). I think Ridley Scott will direct, though if lens flares are needed...

Re:So who is going to direct... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44671385)

There's only man for the job - Michael Bay.

If Canadians are on the Moon... (1)

glenebob (414078) | about a year ago | (#44671271)

...does that make the Moon Earth's toque?

let just say that we did (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44671319)

And don't.

All well and good but... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44671365)

International Effort Could Put First Canadian On the Moon

Do the Canadians in general (and the one in particular) have any say in this, or are they just expendable?

Alas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44671411)

You know some do gooder is going to suggest bringing them back

Well, all I can say is.... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#44671429)

It's aboot time!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>