Author Topic: NASA to go back to the Moon  (Read 14964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Red Squirrel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2750
  • Country: ca
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2017, 02:03:41 am »
They should build a wall prototype on the moon, then fly Trump so he can personally see it.  And leave him there.  >:D

Seriously though I think this is good news, though I guess it's kind of a touchy subject when you consider where else the money can go.  Hopefully they don't just send people there for fun but can be given the chance to actually lay out a proper scientific mission such as things they want to study.  It's not just the surface, but the journey.  There is more tech available now than there was last time so more sensory data can be obtained.  Radiation, that kind of stuff.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2017, 02:13:01 am »
They should build a wall prototype on the moon, then fly Trump so he can personally see it.  And leave him there.  >:D

Seriously though I think this is good news, though I guess it's kind of a touchy subject when you consider where else the money can go.  Hopefully they don't just send people there for fun but can be given the chance to actually lay out a proper scientific mission such as things they want to study.  It's not just the surface, but the journey.  There is more tech available now than there was last time so more sensory data can be obtained.  Radiation, that kind of stuff.
At the risk of turning this into a political discussion, a few months of "defense" is as expensive as the entire NASA budget ever. It's not exactly going to make a relevant difference going to the Moon again.
 
The following users thanked this post: wraper

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2017, 02:19:07 am »
At the risk of turning this into a political discussion, a few months of "defense" is as expensive as the entire NASA budget ever. It's not exactly going to make a relevant difference going to the Moon again.

That's the gigantic elephant in the room when it comes to any debate involving budget. I support our military and I think it's an important thing to have, but the scale of the spending is absurd. We don't need to be spending trillions of dollars getting involved in wars all over the world, we know we're capable of ramping up in a hurry when needed, we proved that in WWII. Unfortunately we never really ramped back down.


 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8643
  • Country: gb
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2017, 02:22:03 am »
Signing intent documents is good publicity, but it doesn't mean a lot. We have seen that before. I'll believe they are serious when then sign up for some serious funding.
 

Offline wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 16861
  • Country: lv
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2017, 02:29:06 am »
At the risk of turning this into a political discussion, a few months of "defense" is as expensive as the entire NASA budget ever. It's not exactly going to make a relevant difference going to the Moon again.
There is something seriously wrong with this world  :palm:.


« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 02:35:16 am by wraper »
 

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9890
  • Country: us
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2017, 02:42:06 am »
First of all, if humanity is to survive, we need locational diversity.  So sayeth Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking (among others) although for different reasons.  Think about why we don't see dinosaurs roaming around!

The moon doesn't make the cut in this regard.  If the earth gets hammered, perhaps the moon orbit is upset.  The moon just happens to be a strategic outpost.  Mars is a better location in terms of diversity.  Of course, so is any other habitable planet.

The space program spun off a lot of innovations.  The smartest people in the world were working on that program.  Microelectronics was one, advances in medicine another.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/nasa-inventions/nasa-breakthroughs-in-medicine.htm

Don't minimize July 20, 1969.  This was the first of 6 moon landings (12 astronauts have walked on the moon) and no other country has ever come close to matching that achievement in nearly 50 years.  Nobody has come close!

The space program was good for small business.  I worked in a small machine shop that did a lot of contract work for NASA.  The shop was loaded with outstanding machinists and tool/die makers.  I lived in San Diego when the aerospace industry tanked and these workers moved over to small job shops.  I learned a lot in my early years just working around them.

The space program also provided a lot of opportunities for engineers.  That's good because engineering became the program of choice after Sputnik was launched.  The very next day, the entire educational system in the US kicked it into high gear.  That's why the boomers are touted as the best educated and most productive generation the world has ever seen.  Alas, we're pretty much out of the picture (at least those of us on the leading edge) so the next generations better pick up the pace!

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/as-the-boomers-head-for-the-barn/

There is some debate that the Millennials are better educated but I want a recount that includes only STEM graduates.  Who cares how many people have majored in Ancient History?

How can the US possibly justify the fact that we have to hitchhike to our own space station?  That's absurd!

I look forward to a rejuvenated NASA.
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, Cubdriver

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2017, 02:47:37 am »
It's not anyone's space station. It's in the name. That Cold War approach will only slow things down. We, humans, go to space.
 

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9890
  • Country: us
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2017, 03:14:36 am »
It's not anyone's space station. It's in the name. That Cold War approach will only slow things down. We, humans, go to space.

Who put up the bulk of the money?  BTW, I don't know the answer to that, it's hard to find out due to the way NASA accounted for Space Shuttle operations.  The other partners have made sizable contributions.

Nevertheless, the ISS is about to reach its end of life in 2024.  I suppose it could be extended, again, but it's getting dated.  NASA just needs to firm up the deorbit operation.  Somehow, disposal remains our problem.

In my view, the Cold War approach is the only way to run the space program.  There is no reason to export our technology to countries that will, sooner or later, be our enemies.  Every agency for themselves!

We got to the Moon by ourselves, we can get to Mars (or back to the Moon) without anybody's help.  We just need the will to make it happen.  Unfortunately, the will is gone and has been since the early '70s.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg  Even with the military buildup for Vietnam, NASA was getting a high percentage of the Federal budget.  Now they get chump change.


 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2017, 03:27:46 am »
In that case, you'd better get used to other nations cooperating and surpassing any singular nation both budget and technology wise. Any nation could eventually become an enemy, but not making friends in the first place or even actively picking fights isn't helping.

Going to Mars piecemeal, not working together will only increase risk and costs. Any developed nation could spend billions and get to Mars sooner or later. It hasn't happened because no one wants to carry the burden alone. Cooperation seems the sensible solution and has happened on many joint missions. NASA, ESA and JAXA do a lot together.
 

Offline Nusa

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2416
  • Country: us
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2017, 03:43:58 am »
It's not anyone's space station. It's in the name. That Cold War approach will only slow things down. We, humans, go to space.

Names are names, not promises of inclusion. It's a political football like any other major multi-national project, with those that are involved and those that are excluded. Why do you think China's space program is independent. They're probably capable of sending spacecraft to the ISS right now (they're compatible with the Russian docking system) if politics allowed it. Which is more than the US can say at the moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_International_Space_Station
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4101
  • Country: us
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2017, 04:44:41 am »
Quote
That's the gigantic elephant in the room when it comes to any debate involving budget. I support our military and I think it's an important thing to have, but the scale of the spending is absurd. We don't need to be spending trillions of dollars getting involved in wars all over the world, we know we're capable of ramping up in a hurry when needed, we proved that in WWII. Unfortunately we never really ramped back down.

Actively trying to ramp down on our spending doesn't make an individual rich. It gets them assassinated. When you are the president of the US, you can feel free to try it. If it's more than lip service, you will find the bottom of a hole. Anyone wants to blame the president, Obama or Trump, democrat or republican, you are delusional to think our president can decide he wants to cut back on spending and anything like that would actually happen.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 04:46:15 am by KL27x »
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4314
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2017, 07:24:17 am »
What are the benefits to humanity in spending money of huge telescopes, manned space missions, and space probes? I frequently get asked this. Isn't the money better spent on direct human aid? Maybe, but maybe not.

The missions to the moon advanced computers and material sciences extremely rapidly. We would not be conversing here on this forum without these advances.

There is a huge and expensive telescope system near where I live here in Chile. ALMA. (http://www.almaobservatory.org) It cost 1.5 billion USD to build and needs around 60 million per year for operations. It is run in partnership with the EU, USA, Canada, Japan and other minor contributors. That means maybe 1 billion tax payers that helped pay for this. It cost each of them the price of one coffee to build it and the price of a stir stick for a coffee every year to keep it running. What do we get from this investment? How does it help humanity in any tangible way?

Well the computer that combines the signals for the 66 radio telescopes does computations very similar to that needed for NMRI. The advances in the technology of this telescope can help improve machines that find a cancer in your body sooner, aid in diagnosing heart problems, and help with diagnosing many human health problems. ALMA can also help in understanding our solar system's future and what we might need to mitigate problems that occur from changing solar conditions, far ranging dangerous asteroids and other rocks, and many other unforeseen dangers. The data from ALMA is available to world for all to make their own discoveries, for free.

That being said, I can't feel anything but cynicism against Trump for his action. it is just more grand standing on his part. Maybe it is being done in fear that the Chinese are starting to outpace the USA in many things. It is the new arms race perhaps.
 
The following users thanked this post: daqq

Offline CJay

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4136
  • Country: gb
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2017, 09:09:19 am »
We got to the Moon by ourselves, we can get to Mars (or back to the Moon) without anybody's help. 

Sure, just send Werner Von Braun and his German colleagues back to Germany and delete all his knowledge from your space programs and we'll call it quits.
 

Offline Assafl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 600
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2017, 09:10:23 am »
Quote
That's the gigantic elephant in the room when it comes to any debate involving budget. I support our military and I think it's an important thing to have, but the scale of the spending is absurd. We don't need to be spending trillions of dollars getting involved in wars all over the world, we know we're capable of ramping up in a hurry when needed, we proved that in WWII. Unfortunately we never really ramped back down.

Actively trying to ramp down on our spending doesn't make an individual rich. It gets them assassinated. When you are the president of the US, you can feel free to try it. If it's more than lip service, you will find the bottom of a hole. Anyone wants to blame the president, Obama or Trump, democrat or republican, you are delusional to think our president can decide he wants to cut back on spending and anything like that would actually happen.


A bit naïve isn't it?

The US isn't participating in wars out of altruism. Sure the US was invited into WWII (courtesy of Hirohito) and ended up participating on many fronts, but it ended up costing the US money, human life, lost GDP, etc. If you add to it the costs of the George C. Marshall Plan for Europe (and its like in Asia) - the cost of the war was even higher - much higher. The only good that came out of it was the rebuilding of the economies.

So the US spends money on trying to keep some sort of stability that the world can't slide into chaos. It isn't an act of Altruism (the genocides-de-jour that keep happening are proof - but they always happen in places that cannot slide the world into a WWIII) - it is sound financial responsibility.

It funds the UN, which is deranged version of Babylon 5 if you will. But serves as a place for leaders to vent and lash out and beats war any day (as annoying as watching Khaminei and his Cabal of Shiite Zealots prancing about the NYC clubs trying to herd Antisemites to their cause - it is better than actual war with Iran). Keep your enemies closer...

BTW - this isn't to state other countries should depend on the US. The purpose of all this activity and spend is to keep stability. If letting Russia keep Crimea is more stabilizing than battling it out with Putin - so it will be. Ukraine had to defend itself but couldn't. Never trust a super power to defend any one else's interest but its own.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 09:29:48 am by Assafl »
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1093
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2017, 09:46:48 am »
NASA was created purely for the purposes of political football - to beat the Soviets. They did that, and managed to do some great science along the way.

The directives by this President and previous ones are meaningless, since there is no one left to beat. Worse, they give NASA flip-flopping objectives and no extra money. NASA should be left to do science, under direction of a science supervisory committee, space pioneering and exploitation should be left to commercial companies, and political objectives should be left out of the whole damned thing.

Unfortunately with Trump and the anti-science retards in control, that won't happen. NASA will be a spittle covered dog chew for Trump and his cronies. Hopefully, they will still get to do some useful science with the money they are left with.
Bob
"All you said is just a bunch of opinions."
 

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 943
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2017, 10:45:23 am »
"Think about why we don't see dinosaurs roaming around!"

Because dinosaurs didn't have rockets.

Therefore when the asteroid headed their way, there was not a lot they could do about it.  :(

Also, a fact pointed out elsewhere is that the money spent on 'global warming' would fund seven entire Apollo projects A YEAR.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 11:05:20 am by IanMacdonald »
 

Offline borjam

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Country: es
  • EA2EKH
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2017, 11:30:21 am »
Yeah! And I imagine it will be sponsored by big companies, even by the Las Vegas casinos!

Please someone explain me how to achieve that while lowering taxes!

« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 11:56:37 am by borjam »
 

Offline Tepe

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 572
  • Country: dk
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2017, 11:46:16 am »
Don't minimize July 20, 1969.  This was the first of 6 moon landings (12 astronauts have walked on the moon) and no other country has ever come close to matching that achievement in nearly 50 years.  Nobody has come close!
I am a bit curious as to what metric one is supposed to use to measure some achievement's distance to Apollo achievement. For starters, I will assume it is multidimensional.
 

Offline Assafl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 600
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2017, 12:09:53 pm »
Exploration for Mar-a-Luna.

BTW - How far does a golf ball travel on the moon? No need for woods is there...

 

 

Offline glarsson

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 814
  • Country: se
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2017, 12:32:14 pm »
I am a bit curious as to what metric one is supposed to use to measure some achievement's distance to Apollo achievement.
11 people on the moon = close
0 people on the moon = not close
Have not tried for over 30 years = not very close at all
 

Online Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12298
  • Country: au
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #45 on: December 12, 2017, 12:33:23 pm »
Exploration for Mar-a-Luna.

BTW - How far does a golf ball travel on the moon? No need for woods is there...

 

Might be an argument for using one on the 8th hole.  It's a par 5 ... 23,785 yards.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2017, 12:50:46 pm »
It doesn't work like that any more. Cancer itself makes lots of companies money. Cancer drugs are the most profitable drugs in the world. As rates of cancer rise, they get to charge more and more people huge amounts of money for the 'privilege' of simply living. The way things are being set up now, it might soon be illegal (if it isn't already) for governments to fund a cure for it! Seriously.
What about finding a cure for cancer first !? Idiots !  >:(
Astronauts cant cure cancer. Nor do rockets.

But the money spent on rockets would !

Edit: OK, I'm not against progress but traveling to lifeless Moon and Mars is the last thing that we need right now.
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2017, 12:59:39 pm »
Certain kinds of government spending are immune from procurement rules that will make the money get spent on huge international companies that pay their employees crap wages, which in countries that sign the GPA, will soon be taking over virtually all government spending, much to the demise of unions, public workers, etc. Think global privatization thats irreversible.

So, when they talk about space or hypetrains, etc. this is really a way of signalling to your supporters that the government money will still be headed your way just by different means. They may have to get rid of all the public services and poor peoples stuff but you're still going to get the big bucks. The bigger and more high tech the more money can vanish into thin air without adult supervision, the better.

Wars are of course the best wasters of money. national emergencies are #2, Anything with emergency in its name is likely to be the most successfully inefficient.

Its also a clue that their supporters will have to be in only a few fields to get state money. (Military, space, secret state, secret secret state (to spy on the secret staters) surveillance, secret police, super duper secret tech, actual legislators at federal, state, local or quasi-public entities, and so on)

Otherwise it will go up for competitive bidding and the expensive countries whose wages are alleged to be too high, won't (can't) get the work, cuz too willing to coddle the professional protectionists like most of us, and people everywhere with decent skills, so it will go "overseas" and if those workers want to bid down one anothers wages, they will, soon they will be making almost nothing.

This is like a gathering of all the people who really own and control the world telling the sham governments and the worker bees who's boss.

Who gets to take the honey and who gets the polluted sugar water.


Or whatever, it goes to the countries that have the high skill workers most willing to work for almost nothing. (After all worker bees have to eat something).

Most of those are administrative or various professions (including engineering) but really almost all jobs will get pulled into this net - Most jobs involving any tax money at all will soon be done over the Internet. Its possible even grammar and high schools will be globalized and then as incomes fall still more, likely automated. (because tax receipts will sink because everybody will be unemployed). (Lots of people will also be homeless and dispossessed, they may lose the right to vote, its hard to say how or if their children will be able to access schooling) Countries that don't currently have public education wont be able to give people it (see the rules on domestic regulation, standstill, etc.) unless they (the WTO, our new masters) make some kind of rule allowing it, and all the countries would have to agree on it.

They might if they can get their cut. Basically, in the WTO, government spending has become a tool of political aims, which the poor countries want the jobs from. After all, their wealthy folk say, we've (the US rich and the EU rich) have gotten even more filthy rich off them for 20 years, according to the statistics, now they want their cut. So, cough up your good jobs. The crap jobs come later.

One of the best cartoons Ive ever seen on trade and related deals I saw yesterday on Richard Stallman's web site, its from 2004!

« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 01:24:34 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 7350
  • Country: 00
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2017, 01:31:49 pm »
Yes, of course, you are totaly right. But somebody would have to be blind to not see how the shift to contracting has occurred in order to hide the defense spending and channel more profits to MNCs. MNCs which also serve many other countries defense related procurement. When a corporation has multiple international customers, it is called a "multinational" one and at some point the dynamic shifts with the countries becoming lower on the totem pole than the corporations. That is what has happened. They just haven't told us so we go along our merry ways barking up the wrong trees which suits them just fine, thank you.



Many government jobs now go to government contractors, huge companies that still specialize in WTO (or OMC) GPA exempt areas and many of them do engineering.

But be aware that everything changed in 1995 when the WTO (or OMC) winked into existence, it and other organizations like it are now the defacto world government.  (See chart here http://www.levyinstitute.org/conferences/minsky2011/presentations/Wallach.pdf  )

 and a lot of the most earth-changing and potentially controversial of those changes have been held up in negotiations such as the one (MC11) that ends today in Buenos Aires, every two years. The wealth of government procurement and the workers in a growing number of service sectors  are the subjects of a growing raft of international agreements are now pawns in a huge game.

Now even once clearly domestic based contracting jobs in quasi-governmental areas are coming under strong pressures to globalize when their parent comppany is a large government contractor for multiple governments.

Also, money. Profit. Its all about profit. Buying (labor) low and selling that labor or the products of that cheap labor high. Minimizing your costs, maximizing the return of surplus value to your shareholders.

San Diego is too expensive for companies that win bids to localize in because of the high cost of living and wages. Think somewhere in the Deep South if they are in the US at all. See
"Rising powers' venue - shopping  on international mobility"- Working Paper 20143, UNCCH (Swiss government think tank)

Pressures are high on MNCs to spread the wealth around. The real growth they always say is elsewhere. Asia, in defense also Africa.

-------------

First of all, if humanity is to survive, we need locational diversity.  So sayeth Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking (among others) although for different reasons.  Think about why we don't see dinosaurs roaming around!

We could easily end up like them, soon!
--------


The moon doesn't make the cut in this regard.  If the earth gets hammered, perhaps the moon orbit is upset.  The moon just happens to be a strategic outpost.  Mars is a better location in terms of diversity.  Of course, so is any other habitable planet.

The space program spun off a lot of innovations.  The smartest people in the world were working on that program.  Microelectronics was one, advances in medicine another.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/nasa-inventions/nasa-breakthroughs-in-medicine.htm



But, according to the people who run the planet, they were "professional protectionists", living in a bubble of high wages which were anachronistic and out of touch with the wages in the globalized rest of the world. Between you and I, it seems to me that as we move further into a global environmental and health catastrophe they want fewer scientists of all kinds, especially fewer scientists from non-wealthy backgrounds. So, the ladders are being pulled up.

A good way to do it is to make sure that only the richest would be scientists can get an education. They have made giving away education quasi-illegal by means of trade agreements like the GATS and countries are under pressure from countries like the US to fall in line.

So, people of means get a leg up and others get a leg down. Still if they can tough it out after getting their PhDs and publishing multiple papers and perpetual postdocs, family paying most of their expenses all the way, eventually getting a real job, they will be employed.

Increasingly, only people of means can afford that so most Americans don't qualify, because that huge amount of wealth keeps becoming more and more concentrated.


The people behind this, clearly want fewer scientists, not more!


Don't minimize July 20, 1969.  This was the first of 6 moon landings (12 astronauts have walked on the moon) and no other country has ever come close to matching that achievement in nearly 50 years.  Nobody has come close!

The space program was good for small business.  I worked in a small machine shop that did a lot of contract work for NASA.  The shop was loaded with outstanding machinists and tool/die makers.  I lived in San Diego when the aerospace industry tanked and these workers moved over to small job shops.  I learned a lot in my early years just working around them.

The space program also provided a lot of opportunities for engineers.  That's good because engineering became the program of choice after Sputnik was launched.  The very next day, the entire educational system in the US kicked it into high gear.  That's why the boomers are touted as the best educated and most productive generation the world has ever seen.  Alas, we're pretty much out of the picture (at least those of us on the leading edge) so the next generations better pick up the pace!

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/as-the-boomers-head-for-the-barn/

There is some debate that the Millennials are better educated but I want a recount that includes only STEM graduates.  Who cares how many people have majored in Ancient History?

How can the US possibly justify the fact that we have to hitchhike to our own space station?  That's absurd!

I look forward to a rejuvenated NASA.

We all do, which is why I am trying to explain whats been done.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 02:01:45 pm by cdev »
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2850
  • Country: se
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: NASA to go back to the Moon
« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2017, 01:50:19 pm »
cdev, I agree. If the rest of the world knew what the UK was really like they'd be shocked.

Most of the money spent 'on space' can be spent again, they don't really pack the rockets with money and send it off.  :P
.  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf