If I were a world leader I'd push for it differently. And I would get the funding.
Firstly I'd get about 20-30 countries to invest in the mission
That is probably why these countries should invest this amount spread over 10 years(arranged according to GDP):
USA- $80 billion; Japan- $40 billion; China- $39 billion; Germany- $35 billion; France- $25 billion; Italy- $24 billion; Russia- $20 billion; Brazil- $15 billion; Canada- $16 billion ; India- $15 billion; Spain- $15 billion; Australia- $ 10 billion; South Korea- $9 billion; Netherlands- $9 billion; Turkey- $ 8 billion; Poland- $5 billion; The next 7 countries $2.5 billion; The next 12 countries $1.5 billion; The next 12 $1 billion; The next 5 $0.5 billion; The next 10 $0.25 billion; The next 20 $0.1 billion; The next 20 $50 million; The next 30 $25 million.
Total: $421,250,000,000
From countries alone

Then international sponsors as a competitive bid for sponsorship of each sector
Two from each of these:
Oil and gas; automotive; aerospace; banking and insurance
One company from each of these sectors:
Electronics; Metals; Software (computing); Hardware (computing); Retail; Electricity generation and telecoms; construction; Retail; Chemicals; Media; Mining; Biotechnology; Alternate energy; (maybe Tobacco and beer)

Each must bid for a sponsorship in their sector. Highest 3 Bids in all sectors get their own flags on the moon, Sponsorship on the shuttle. Every sponsorship gets used in their own adverts and products (sponsoring the international space programme) and is used in any Media representation and documentation of the ISP. All sponsors have rights to use patented technological advance discovered
Should bring about $8 Billion to the table over 10 years.
Then get the best scientists, engineers and translators from each country according to the budget they put in. Then have all the countries vote equally for the main host country host the engineering and launch. (After those with inadequate infrastructure have been eliminated.)
Have a world flag with each cooperating country on it biggest to smallest contributors largest in concentric circles Or the UN flag.
Every participating country will have many radio, television and newspaper specials on it.
The last thing needed is a wonderful name for the programme like Apollo but more world unifying: Like the International endeavour space mission, International unity space mission or international Enterprise space mission.
SUMMARY:
$429 billion Total budget for 10 years on various missions: Men and women on the moon 3 times, a small lunar pod base, several new communications satellites, expand The ISS to a permanent capacity of 20 to 25 people, 5 mars robot explorer missions, an interstellar and 2 solar system exploration craft like voyager. Also a close field asteroid and near earth object discovery telescope.

Then a 5-10 year break and another budget call in from countries for the next 10 year project to put a man on mars by 2030 by then most economies should be 1.5 to 3 times the size they are now or more for developing countries.

I can't wait until you're in charge eddie, it's all so simple.

International effort = much squabbling and little-to-no agreement over how the budget should be spent, not to mention who should fund the project and by how much.

Hey i'm only half serious on this, but there's no forum on that, more fanaticism than realism.
The sums of money aren’t, but could be if people were committed to it.
On the serious side:
What I'm really saying is that the USA doesn't have to do it all on its own with use of international funding.
BTW No one ever erected a statue to a critic
Warlords, yes; Dreamers, yes; People who championed the weak, yes; People who fought the establishment, yes; critics, no.
Plus I find it excessively cynical to not believe that we can strive for greatness.

We'll that opinion is based on summits like the G20, G8, Copenhagen, Kyoto and the UN whenever it deals with a failing country but we must accept fundamental difference is that most of those are on AGW. (Anthropogenic global warming)

Let’s compare Issues here:
AGW summits:
-Developing nations want to develop so they need cheap fuel which in the short term is Oil, Gas and Coal. Those are all CO2 intensive but for them to achieve a standard of living they will have to use them.
-Developed countries have to grow to keep their populations satisfied and this is a long run problem; no one won an election for averting something that MAY happen in 30 years time.
- Developed countries don’t want their population paying quadruple for their energy bills
- Developed countries have massive welfare states: education, health, benefits and pensions they can’t afford to shell out for poorer countries.
-Developing nations are often potential enemies and rivals for economic future and transferring money.
-Some countries doubt the existence of AGW or the severity of it (can’t blame ‘em)
- And last but not least this is about getting the best deal for your own nation and getting everyone else to pay.
Failing or dangerous countries:
-Other countries have interests in those countries (China, the USA or Russia for eg)
-Other countries have interest in keeping certain states failing
-Invading them doesn’t work and is counter intuitive
-Sanctioning them harms the people not the dictator
-There are a lot of dictators that don’t want to be eventually invaded themselves

Now let us look at cohesive successes (not about making people happy or about whether you agree with them or not, just where politicians get on!):
NATO: contains 28 states, most invaded Afghanistan or aid operations there, Europe has a supreme commander, the North American nations have a supreme commander, Balkans interventions and the international security assistant force.
The EU: 27 states: a massive success with 16 members abandoning their native currency, For all of the control over its interest rates to be sent to the EU, The regional development programme, the common agricultural policy the single market, the channel tunnel, the Schengan agreement and the Human rights bill. If you want international co-operation look here, there are squabbles but things get done.
Concorde
The Euro fighter
Various Military developments
In space:
Brazilian space agency is extremely fond of co-operating with deals with the US, China, Russia and the Ukraine

The European space agency: pools the small investment of its states into greater achievements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr ... ace_Agency
The Chinese and Russian joint space operations
Indo-Russian, European, Bulgarian, American space co operation (Chandrayaan-1, APPLE) with various others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Spa ... ganization
Euro- American space operations (Hubble )
Euro-American-Canadian operations (the James Webb space telescope)
Israeli- American co-operation
Chinese space station programme with likely help from Iran, N Korea and Pakistan
And the big one the International space station: 100 billion Euros total cost estimate by the ESA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ce_Station


SUMMARY:
So not impossible to co operate, probably impossible in a way I stated originally (with political factors involved). But such an operation is fiscally feasible as opposed to politically.

I would be sceptical of emploring the stereotype that internatinal eforts come to nothing when it is likely that they do when they cost little politically.

The European Space Agency is a mess. Even it can't decide how to spend budgets effectively because members can't agree on how the money should be spent.

As for the EU - it works because we all only give over money, the Commission calls the shots. And TBH even the EU succumbs to national interest and internal squabbling.

Also, most of the joint-defence projects you cite, particularly the Eurofighter, were not only delivered late but massively over budget. Why? Because the partner countries kept changing their requirements for what the plane should do - and other partners left the project altogether! There was also much squabbling over where the work should go - one of the key things that is hurting the efficiency of Airbus.

Why would they pay for moon landings when they've have no chance of one of their astronauts/citizens landing on the moon?

Airbus is a single entity and they had plenty of problems from using manufacuring sites in several countries. The new Galileo sat-nav system has been appointed to just one company primarily to keep costs down and keep the project on schedule.

Yes they have.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Au ... inte-Beuve

I love the students on this forum. They have an answer for everything!I look forward to the point when they realise it's the questions that are more important....

Absolutely. Airbus is a consortium partly owned by defence firms in a number of European countries. As such, there is always much squabbling over just where the work should go. This ALWAYS happens with joint projects.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... 8877?f=rss

Pity about where the article comes from, but we'll find out tomorrow I spose (maybe)

A question without an answer is a statement and such a statement is always no we can't.

We live in a world that is more globalised by the year:
Federalisation of the EU
The expansion of the EU
The isolation and lack of advancenement that will come with being a small isolationist country: North korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and burma all will be finding themselves stuggling if they don't take part in the "global stage." They will be picked on or picked off.
NATO expansion
International defensive pooling: UN and NATO
The expansion of chinese economic imperialism in africa.

On other critisims of the air bus project that is but one anecdotal peice of evidence some projects are sucessful and some aren't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus
the entire conglomerates projects seem to have both sucess and failure for varying reasons.
on yet another pointmost countries would not fund it they have much more to worry about, but developing and developed countries still want to say they helped put a men on the moon. Also many coutries haven't had a man in space nvm the moon and the possibilities of a man in space are better. Leave the budget to the scientists and engineers. Really other than putting men on the moon (which is more symbolic than anything) maybe a large space budget would massively aid scientific research.


BtW charles augustine hasn'r got a statue that is a bust, plent of critics have got one of them. Abraham lincoln has statues all over the western world, he was doer.

Unfortunately, it seems you have missed the point. Just because a question does not have an answer, does not make it a statement. Questions are important. They make us think for ourselves and not quote our degree courses

It's very easy when you know a lot of facts and history etc. to imagine that you have answers. Once you leave education and join the rest of us, you may begin to realise that answers can be all too easily arrived at and in fact true knowledge is far more elusive.

Or maybe you'll just get a job at Asda.....

Note to self: Obama != Osama

I think it's a pretty sensible, if slightly disappointing decision. There's much bigger, and more pressing, things to worry about in the grand scheme of things.

This is true. Space has been there a long time, and it'll still be there when we've stopped squabbling about patches of soil and what's under them.