No more American manned spaceflights

[Matt Wiser]

Except for a few fanatics over on spacepolitics.com, there's hardly anyone saying that the Commercial Sector should take over all of HSF. What NASA has in mind is the commercial sector taking over the ISS support mission, first with cargo, then crew rotation. They'd rather spend the money buying the service from American companies rather than the Russians. The Russians aren't happy at the prospect, as you'd expect. Congress views the commercial sector as the least of two bad options (they'd rather have NASA handle the mission, but know the money's not there). NASA would have oversight of commercial flights to ISS re: crew safety, and the FAA would be overseeing other aspects of U.S. commercial space flights-whether it's for NASA, another space agency (NASA is in charge of safety for all NASA-sponsored astronauts-the Japanese, ESA, Canadians, etc.), or a space tourism flight. Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Not everybody listens to Alex Jones I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL17ST243as

I’m genuinely at a loss as to whether he believes what he’s saying or whether it’s all part of operating within his niche.

Originally Posted by Targan

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members) and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.

Many of my countrymen take issue with the UN. Some of the given reasons represent very reasonable concerns. Some of the given reasons are pure poppycock. Most of the given reasons have various ratios of legitimacy and poppycockedness. I have some issues the UN, but this isn’t the occasion to go into them. As a vehicle for supporting and managing lunar development, the UN is the best available choice for keeping the Moon from becoming either an Antarctica (a scientific preserve virtually bereft of commercial development) or a Wild West (a virtual free-for-all in which the rule of law frequently is observed through its breach). A lunar Antarctica will not deliver the resources humanity very much needs at this juncture in history, while a lunar Wild West will reward the wealthy and aggressive in the short term and probably lead to the militarization of space as the wealthy players attempt to secure by force of arms what the power of law has failed to secure. If the UN is the agency that authorizes a lunar colonial government, then the big investors who will naturally want to manipulate the system to secure advantages for themselves (and themselves only) will have a much bigger task than corrupting the government of some economically supine banana republic. At the same time, there will be an opportunity for every nation to both participate in creating the charter for the lunar colonial government (LCG) and in receiving the benefits thereof. Every nation will have a chance to have a voice in the formulation of the rules for developing lunar resources. Equal access to lunar resources through the LCG will enable all nations with corporations capable of assembling capital to participate in an orderly lunar gold rush. Nations incapable of participating directly in development of the resources nevertheless will benefit from disbursement of tax revenues and participation in the charter-building and monitoring process. Truculent nations (though wishing to impede the process for a variety of reasons) can be managed by parliamentary procedure. Nations engaging in warfare not sanctioned by the UN, genocide, or crimes against humanity would lose their access to disbursements from the taxation of lunar enterprises.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by RN7

in fact the US military programe seems far more ordered and practical. Maybe if you put the USAF in charge of NASA's budget and then invited the commercial sector to take a greater role and attracted foreign space agencies to participate it might work.

Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning. The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

'Fraid not.

Then I guess we won't be agreeing, that's all.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

...NASA seems to have been punished for bad management and the squandering its resources by the politicians and bureaucracy that runs it, at the expense of its highly capable scientists, engineers and astronauts.

Well said. The Apollo program did its job so well that the political support for Apollo withered on the vine. Ever since then, NASA has been run by bureaucrats, not scientists and engineers.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nation’s commercial interests in space are “protected” against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible.

[Matt Wiser]

An armed presence in space is inevitable. Sad to say, but it's more likely going to be on the national level instead of the UN's. And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever. Want an example of that? Back in the early '90s, the UN was thinking about some kind of tax on international airline tickets to fund its operations. Not a single country supported it, and the idea died a quick death. Same thing will apply here.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

An armed presence in space is inevitable.

Space already has been militarized, though I can't comment on the degree to which it has been weaponized. I'm not debating whether there will be an armed presence in space, Matt. You know I'm no peacenik or flower child. But degree matters.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Sad to say, but it's more likely going to be on the national level instead of the UN's. And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever. Want an example of that? Back in the early '90s, the UN was thinking about some kind of tax on international airline tickets to fund its operations. Not a single country supported it, and the idea died a quick death. Same thing will apply here.

The context is different. A tax on international airline flights is a tax on existing operations that are being taxed by national governments already. No one likes new taxes. This is why it's so important to get the legal framework in place before resource exploitation begins. A treaty signed by the various member states is a must. I won't pretend it will be easy--just vital.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever.

Goodness knows these sorts of extreme statements are fun to write. However, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. To say that getting international cooperation on such a matter will be a gargantuan task would be reasonable. National soverignty is, after all, the reason Americans tend to give for hating the UN. To say it can never happen is an example of cocksuredness which is rather unlike you, Matt.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever.

That's a big assumption. I personally am not opposed to the UN having taxation authority. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't give them carte blanche but I don't write off the idea out of hand.

I think European nations might be willing to consider it, for instance. After all they've already subsumed some of their national sovereignty by joining the EU.

I tend to be wary of making such sweeping statements (not saying I don't occasionally make them though ).

[Matt Wiser]

I'm not saying that there won't be UN involvement in space, but any new treaty-especially one that sets up some kind of taxation on lunar (or asteroid) resources to fund UN operations, is something that doesn't seem realistic. Taxation is a power that governments reserve for themselves: hence the successful fight against the airline ticket tax.

You're more likely to have a "scramble for space" along the lines of the Scramble for Africa back in the 19th Century. The allure of revenues from space resources is something that national governments will be tempted to get their hands on, for very obvious reasons. And those governments will do whatever it takes to protect their citizens and companies from the depredations of others. The UN could serve as a forum for such disputes (and there already is a UN Outer Space Treaty, signed back in '67), where these can be (hopefully) resolved amicably. But if history is any guide, there will be times when diplomacy fails, and the sword is unsheathed. War in space will happen-it's only a matter of time, and whether it'll be rival companies, rival countries, or a space Navy vs. pirates, it's going to happen.

[Legbreaker]

Honestly, I can't see anything being brought back in commercial quantities from space - the costs involved are just too great.
The real profits will be along the lines of advances in technology, not raw materials.

[Targan]

Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Taxation is a power that governments reserve for themselves: hence the successful fight against the airline ticket tax.

This is why it’s important to have a colonial government in place for Luna from the start.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

You're more likely to have a "scramble for space" along the lines of the Scramble for Africa back in the 19th Century.

This is exactly what we need to prevent. I think the danger of this sort of thing is so immediate and so great that we need to take active steps to prevent it. The trick is to convince all of the major players that taking steps to prevent the Moon from becoming the latest Africa is really in everybody’s best interests. I’m aware that pulling off such a trick will be quite the accomplishment.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

The allure of revenues from space resources is something that national governments will be tempted to get their hands on, for very obvious reasons. And those governments will do whatever it takes to protect their citizens and companies from the depredations of others.

And there is the opportunity. In this day and age capital is too mobile to be tied to national sovereignty. The rise of China and the Cayman Islands should illustrate very well indeed that the investors with the kind of money needed to develop Luna won’t be paying taxes in an industrialized nation. The corporate headquarters will all go someplace where the local government can be bribed into accepting rock bottom rates. The US, Europe, Japan, Russia—they’ll all get next to nothing either because the monied interests have removed themselves or have struck extortionate deals to stay in-country. If lunar developers pay into a common till, everybody gets something rather than almost everybody getting nothing. Again, the trick is to convince all of the major players to accept this reality in favor of the version of reality being peddled by the respective PACs.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

But if history is any guide, there will be times when diplomacy fails, and the sword is unsheathed. War in space will happen-it's only a matter of time, and whether it'll be rival companies, rival countries, or a space Navy vs. pirates, it's going to happen.

All too true. Given that the burden of free will still rests with us, I’ll choose to have the fighting be between a space constabulary and outlaws over an international space war or intercorporate space war any day. Space weapons will be astronomically expensive for everyone. The fewer there are, the less money wasted. Corporations shouldn’t want to spend money on space weapons unless they manufacture them for others. Nations shouldn’t want to spend money on them because lawyers are cheaper than astronauts (although not by much), and in any event the companies whose interests said nations will be fighting to protect will be fighting to avoid paying taxes to fund the weapons. Right now… at the beginning… before large-scale investments have been made… before a de facto arrangement supersedes all our better ideas… is the time to create a legal framework that benefits everybody by encouraging development and peaceful competition for the resources and the markets. Right now, there are no sovereignty issues for the Moon. Therefore, no government has any business getting its panties in a bunch over taxation of resources extracted from sources not owned or controlled by that government. Now if the US or Botswana want to tax light helium or platinum entering their sovereign territory, that’s up to the US or Botswana. However, as it stands the US and Botswana have no legal claim on resources in or under the lunar regolith. Those resources belong to humanity, and it is to humanity that remittances must be made. Of course, the aforegoing is nothing more than idealist claptrap once a few billion private dollars get involved. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, now is the time to sort out a legal framework that will benefit everybody and obviate the need for an expensive militarization of space and the kind ruinous competition that make reading about the Wild West and the colonization of Africa so diverting.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is exactly what we need to prevent. I think the danger of this sort of thing is so immediate and so great that we need to take active steps to prevent it. The trick is to convince all of the major players that taking steps to prevent the Moon from becoming the latest Africa is really in everybody’s best interests. I’m aware that pulling off such a trick will be quite the accomplishment.

There is a precedent - Antarctica.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Honestly, I can't see anything being brought back in commercial quantities from space - the costs involved are just too great.
The real profits will be along the lines of advances in technology, not raw materials.

Have faith in capitalism. It's all a matter of cost-benefit ratios. Investors will find $25 billion to invest if they are convinced they can make $100 billion. If you’re interested, I can recommend some reading that lays out the numbers. Once tokamak fusion can be made to be profitable, the energy values of light helium will blow the lid off conventional thinking.
I agree, though, that the advances in technology will be quite profitable. Look at what the world got out of Apollo.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There is a precedent - Antarctica.

That’s a good example of preventing a mad race for resources. I’m glad you re-introduced it to the dialogue. Our challenge is to move beyond creating a scientific preserve and towards development of the resources.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

An armed presence in space is inevitable.

I forgot who it was, but an SF author once said that when mankind is able to reach the stars and joins the interstellar community, our biggest export to other planets will be mercenaries -- so great is the human capacity and willingness to fight.

[pmulcahy11b]

On a different but related track, a recent PCWorld report says that Internet speeds to Earth are only about the same as dial-up speeds here on Earth. That's something they're working on to speed up; It will be essential before you can have a large civilian presence in Earth orbit. The problem is that the ISS is moving, the Earth is moving, and the ISS constantly has to change tracking stations while it orbits. Those tracking stations weren't designed for Internet traffic.

Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that...

A Canadian astronaut has already tried to play Warcraft from the ISS on his day off and found out the slow internet connection stopped him from effectively doing that.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that...

Once again, the technology needs to catch up with the theory. Quantum entanglement theory shows that it is possible to create linked particles. I believe these are the key to FTL communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

Once again, the technology needs to catch up with the theory. Quantum entanglement theory shows that it is possible to create linked particles. I believe these are the key to FTL communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

That's a long way in the future, though it might be one of the keys to FTL travel as well. Michio Kaku believes that FTL travel may be as little as 200 years away, and will probably be based on time-space warping. Stephen Hawkins does not agree with the timeline (he thinks it's much further off), but agrees that FTL travel will be based on time-space warping.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

America has one significant advantage over all its competitors in space with the possible exception of Russia. This would be the size and technological capability of its commercial aerospace and space industry, which to an extent is a legacy of the Cold War and the Military-Industrial Complex. A similar and more politicaly controlled space industry exists in Russia, but if you think America is having a hard time financing its space projects on its own just imagine how hard it is for Russia. Although other countries have space programes, they are to a varying degree politicaly controlled and funded.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning.

When I stated USAF control would lead to a more ordered civil space programe, I meant it would lead to less showmanship and less bureaucracy and more sense. Also the USAF is a bit more multi-dimensional than NASA in regard to not just having to focus on orbital and space related activities. Is there a comparable air force which does a better job than the USAF?

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

Which SSTO projects are you refering to?

The Rockwell X-30 was cancelled in 1993 because NASA couldn't design it to cary a crew and a small payload with the US DOD wanted, which I think was quite a reasonable request.

The Lockheed-Martin X-33 was cancelled in 2001 after a long series of technical difficulties and after NASA had invested $922 million and Lockheed Martin another $357 million, which in turn led to the cancellation of Venture Star, as X-33 was a subscale technological demonstrater for the Venture Star project.

Then there is Blackstar which nobody seems to know much about other than claiming it doesn't exist, and its not a NASA project.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I’m genuinely at a loss as to whether he believes what he’s saying or whether it’s all part of operating within his niche.



Many of my countrymen take issue with the UN. Some of the given reasons represent very reasonable concerns. Some of the given reasons are pure poppycock. Most of the given reasons have various ratios of legitimacy and poppycockedness. I have some issues the UN, but this isn’t the occasion to go into them. As a vehicle for supporting and managing lunar development, the UN is the best available choice for keeping the Moon from becoming either an Antarctica (a scientific preserve virtually bereft of commercial development) or a Wild West (a virtual free-for-all in which the rule of law frequently is observed through its breach). A lunar Antarctica will not deliver the resources humanity very much needs at this juncture in history, while a lunar Wild West will reward the wealthy and aggressive in the short term and probably lead to the militarization of space as the wealthy players attempt to secure by force of arms what the power of law has failed to secure. If the UN is the agency that authorizes a lunar colonial government, then the big investors who will naturally want to manipulate the system to secure advantages for themselves (and themselves only) will have a much bigger task than corrupting the government of some economically supine banana republic. At the same time, there will be an opportunity for every nation to both participate in creating the charter for the lunar colonial government (LCG) and in receiving the benefits thereof. Every nation will have a chance to have a voice in the formulation of the rules for developing lunar resources. Equal access to lunar resources through the LCG will enable all nations with corporations capable of assembling capital to participate in an orderly lunar gold rush. Nations incapable of participating directly in development of the resources nevertheless will benefit from disbursement of tax revenues and participation in the charter-building and monitoring process. Truculent nations (though wishing to impede the process for a variety of reasons) can be managed by parliamentary procedure. Nations engaging in warfare not sanctioned by the UN, genocide, or crimes against humanity would lose their access to disbursements from the taxation of lunar enterprises.

The Antarctic model would seem the best way for any future colonisation of the Moon and other heavenly objects, but if private industry gets involved expect trouble.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nation’s commercial interests in space are “protected” against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible.

Most if not all countries would consider any facility, colony or instalation in orbit or beyond to be their own soveriegn territory, and are likely to be overtly hostile to any other country or organisation attempting to enter, inspect or take control of it. A commercial facility owned by a large corporation might be a grey area, but if their using the resources or infrastructure of a host country to maintain it then their likely to be considered some countries property. Unfortunately people and countries are territorial, even on Antarctica, and they will retain the right to defend themselves if they think they are being threatened or potentially under some prospect of threat, and the militarisation of space is an inevitability.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.

I think were moving a bit beyond ourselves here, maybe in the next century and I'll be happy discuss it with you all then

[Matt Wiser]

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The thing that makes me laugh is that while the spacepolitics.com fanatics are arguing, the Asian nations and others are pushing ahead with their own space programmes. The Chinese aren't the only ones getting rockets ready for space exploitation and do the fanatics think that Israel, India or even Indonesia will stop their own space programmes to let the USA or Russia dominate the heavens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...space_programs

And as for commercial exploitation, there's definitely the belief that there is some very big money to be made, considering the notions put forward in the following article, it's simply a matter for them of creating the technology to exploit the universe.
http://www.physorg.com/news183044315.html

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[pmulcahy11b]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

[Matt Wiser]

The ChiComs have only flown two HSF missions so far, and though some say they're getting ready for a Salyut clone of a space station, they're on a very slow path at present. Want to move up lunar return with people? Confirmation of a Chinese lunar landing program, and that will get Congress on NASA's rear end, because there are members on both sides of the aisle who feel that "NASA was first there, and NASA should be first back."

The people on Spacepolitics.com are fanatical, no doubt about that. A lot of them have the "my way or the highway" mentality.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

Firefly fan?

[Matt Wiser]

No hard evidence so far of a ChiCom lunar program at present (No heavy-lift vehicle, no lunar lander or surface systems under development, etc.). However, the Chinese have said that they do want to attempt a lunar landing sometime in the 2020s. Want to kick-start NASA into returning to the moon sooner than they currently plan (late 2020s, minimum)? Confirmation of a ChiCom lunar mission in the planning stage. Watch Congress go ape, and direct NASA to "beat the Chinese".

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

You mean the first man on the moon?