Slashdot Mirror


China Plans Manned Space Launch By 2005

cosyne writes: "CNN.COM has this article on China's space program planning to send a man to the moon. 'The mission is part of Beijing's plans to create a space industry and earn the prestige of joining the United States and Russia as the only nations to have sent humans into space.' I wonder if they'll make it before the recently mentioned amateurs."

211 comments

  1. French Toast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The AC Avenger strikes again!!!!

  2. New product labels by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    So will most consumer products soon start bearing the label: "Made in Space" ?

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  3. Our Space Program by gillbates · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reminds me of the Cold War that stimulated our space program. There's nothing that can stimulate a space program better than a military advantage. Perhaps this little bit of competition will encourage Congress to give NASA the funding they need to do more than just crash probes into distant planets.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  4. monkeys! by TheM0cktor · · Score: 1, Insightful

    lets see...

    China: billions of dollars, no need to get licenses to launch rockets (they own their own damn country), infinite supply of monkeys to test rockets on.
    Amateurs: finite (comparatively tiny) supply of money, have to jump through dozens of hoops to launch anything at all, no monkeys.

    What do you think?

    1. Re:monkeys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They have an infinite supply of monkeys? I wonder how many of them have typewriters.

    2. Re:monkeys! by fishebulb · · Score: 1

      Not so much jumping through hoops and regulations. One group (cant remeber which one) said that if the epa gave them any guff they would just go south across the mexican border, or somewhere else that wouldnt have soo many laws and regulations. But the money is still a huge advantage obviousely for china, although that may not be as important, look at NASA's successes/failures. The budget has been cut, yet they have basically been using scrap piles to find parts. But thats a fine balance of knowledge and money so this will be interesting space race between amatures and china?

    3. Re:monkeys! by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      I bet we have more slashdot-trolls than they have monkeys. Oh wait, monkeys can be trained ...

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    4. Re:monkeys! by ho11yw00d · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad we protect your right to make an ass of yourself.

      --
      That's not my hand.
  5. Cagey by 1alpha7 · · Score: 1

    CNN.COM has this article on China's space program planning to send a man to the moon.

    Actually, they're quite cagey about the Moon thing.

    Sun Laiyan, vice director of the China National Space Administration, declined to give any details of the moon exploration plan other than that it was part of China's space industry plans.

    Of course, they dead set against "militarizing outer space". Oh yeah, such peaceful people; naturally they're against that. For us, anyway.

    1Alpha7

    --
    Live to be Moderated
  6. Exciting but... by pigeonhk · · Score: 3, Insightful


    How much resource and money would be spent on sending people onto the moon? Should they be spending on something else to solve other problems in China?

    --
    If you have the source, you have the whole world...
    1. Re:Exciting but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      How much resource and money would be spent on sending people onto the moon? Should they be spending on something else to solve other problems in China?

      Yeah, kinda like the US. Literacy rate below any other supposedly civilized country. Social security almost non existent. Good education reserved for those who can afford it. More people in jail than anywhere else. Makes you wonder how reasonable it really is to burn $400M on every shuttle launch, for example...

    2. Re:Exciting but... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "Should they be spending on something else to solve other problems in China?"

      Yeah, instead they should be focusing on something that can stir nationalistic pride in the people, something to help them endure the coming hard times for the good of the state. Wait a second...

    3. Re:Exciting but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldnt the money spent on NASA be used on the starving people of the Aplechian mountains and the streets of our cities? Amercia's slums and the poor. At least no one dies of hunger in China.

    4. Re:Exciting but... by Zspdude · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you're forgetting that the expediture of obscene amounts of wealth is the most crucial criterion of most successful national programs. The same thing can be said of the US and of the USSR, when during the cold war, they pumped bilions of dollars into the space race, and the weapons race, when dollars were severely lacking elsewhere in the nation. They got away with it because there was a cold war on, but it was a huge expenditure just the same. Just because NASA has already sent a man to the moon, you can't deny China the right to waste large amounts of their own monies doing so. It's their perogative, and really, they're not doing anything different than have the US or Russia.

      --
      What's in a Sig?
    5. Re:Exciting but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. These are cultural differences. The Chinese are not Americans, they are nothing whatsoever like Americans.

      For the Chinese, the first priority is nation honour. Nothing comes before this, nothing. They'd rather lose 50% of their population than lose national honour.

      If sending people to the moon gains them alot of honour points, they'll do it irrespective of the cost.
      If it means 100,000 dying from money not spend on operations, so be it.

  7. Spending by InnovativeCX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that China really has no other reason to do this other than to say that they have done it, and they are spending giant amounts of money in the process. Think of what else that could be used for! Even if they succeed, that does not take care of their other problems such as hunger, poverty, etc. This whole plan is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984; It's all just to boost military morale.

    1. Re:Spending by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Actually, they're doing it for two reasons.

      One is to be taken seriously by the other 1st world countries as a modern nation.

      Two is to boost the morale of the entire country, not just the miltary.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:Spending by InnovativeCX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even so, that still does not solve a major problem. I honestly won't look at China as a modern nation until I see some real, uh, modernization in their social structures. Sending a man into space is a novelty anymore, it's been done. Morale can only take a nation so far, it may help their people for a little while, but it will catch up with them. What I am saying is that their money could be much better spent.

    3. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what makes that different in any way to the US' reasons for landing on the moon? Astronomers didn't really gain much knowledge - certainly no useful knowledge - by the billions of dollars spent. The functional gain was American morale boosting, and American muscle flexing around the world. Quite necessary when you take into account the situation at the time, fair enough - but still, gaining little in terms of useful knowledge.

      China knows all this - they aren't stupid. They're just eager to show the world that they are perfectly capable of doing it too. China's been an astonishing civilization for a long time; the possibility of it becoming a leading one again is high - be prepared..

      Poverty isn't seen as a problem in China in the same way you view it. Hunger isn't such an issue any more either - the life expectancy in China is 72 or so... in the US, 77. Those 72 year olds aren't starving.

    4. Re:Spending by mangu · · Score: 2
      ...gaining little in terms of useful knowledge...


      Remember the Soviet Union? They tried going to the moon, but failed. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore. That country died and decayed in dozens of little bits.

      The "useful" knowledge gained in space exploration is not in astronomy, it's in the technology, in thousands of different industries that were spawned by space exploration and in its side effects. Funny thing is, you can't just say "forget space exploration, let's just deveolp the technology". That's not the way it works. In research you need a focus point to aim at. You cannot say "let's develop thousands of new technologies at random and then let the industry find applications for them". But that was the main effect of going to the moon.

    5. Re:Spending by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Well gee, isn't that the argument against ALL space programs?

      "It cost HOW much? You know how many homeless people that could feed?!"

      Now, how about this scenario 20 years from now:

      Everyone goes to China for access to space. Why? Because of the control of the government over the country and disregard of international treaties have allowed them to make the most progress. Everyone goes to China because their space industry is the cheapest and most reliable. Most goods leaving the planet go though China, greatly enriching it like a seaport greatly enriches a city. (Think New York)

      This all depends on the success of their space program, after all, it's a huge amount of money and they can't afford to have too many failures.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    6. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "let's develop thousands of new technologies at random and then let the industry find applications for them"

      Actually you can. That is called basic research. It just is not as efficient.
      But, your post seems to be one of the most thought out posts that I have seen this a.m..
      The original space program as laid out by Kennedy was well thought out and very directed. It gave us the moon, but it also gave us a number of technologies that we use day to day. Unfortunatly, Every president starting with nixon has screwed up NASA.
      1)Nixon/Ford cut the Budget (trying to control inflation) on next Launcher giving us the Shuttle.
      2) Carter cut funding to it in an effort to get inflation under control demoralizing NASA.

      3) Raygun started the Space Station and the true beginning of the Buerocratic NASA.

      4) Bush kept growing the SS. More cuts.

      5) Clinton grows it but uses all and more for ISS. It now becomes a political creature and not an innovation or a true stepping stone. If it were, they would have come up with a factory approach to it. That is a true lego type appoach.

      6) GWB has already damaged it by killing X-33 (Even though I suspect that it was actually just pulled into the military). The engine was proven (final tests were july and it outdid expectations). The design had undergone several drop tests. The only real problem was the composite tanks. They had already switched to Metal tanks (heavier), but these could have been refurbished later.

      What is sad is that the rate of inovation is now minor and not of use.

      What NASA needs is to be split into 3 groups.
      1) deep exploration.
      2) local exploration (ISS fits here).
      3) putting us on Mars/Moon. Personally, I agree with Zubrin on how to do it.

      All new admins of which many of the current "managers" should all be fired and then hiring will be done by the most prolific engineers.

    7. Re:Spending by Mad+M · · Score: 1

      The largest country in the world with a massive population that makes up a large share of the global population. Hum! I wonder why they wanna put people in space.
      My money and i suspect the chinese money is on the Chinese being the first to colonise the Moon.
      Sorry Yanks but you lost that one back in the 70's when you didn't go back.

      --
      It wasn't me!Honest officer
    8. Re:Spending by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1
      So what makes that different in any way to the US' reasons for landing on the moon? Astronomers didn't really gain much knowledge - certainly no useful knowledge - by the billions of dollars spent. The functional gain was American morale boosting, and American muscle flexing around the world.

      ...and increased interest in children in learning about math and science, probably contributing to the US Geek Culture we live in today, not to mention spinoffs like microelectronics and pacemakers.

    9. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where did you get hunger, poverty ideal from? From my personal exeperience, chinese eat if not the best but close to the best food in the world.
      Go to China to see and tast yourself.

    10. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mary James, is just 13. Most doctors classify her as malnutirioned. She lives with her family in the Aplechian mountains of America. She only gets 2 slices of bread, 4 glasses of drinking water and 5 waffers per day. Just the other day, her younger sister, Karen, died of ringworm disease, there is no doctor that would help them. Mary has tooth decay, that's advanced to the point, that she needs all her teeth removed, it hurts her a lot, but cant be helped. She has nail fungus growing on all her finger/toe nails, as do the 5 other kids in the little (aplechian standards) family. Mary has never seen a TV, neither has she heard any music, she has never seen a cartoon, nor has she ever seen a barbie doll. Mary would die before she reaches the age of 25, but she would have given birth to at least 6 children before this. Mary is a citizen of the United States of American. The most powerful and richest nation on the face of the world (cica early 21st century).

    11. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Remember the Soviet Union? They tried going to the moon, but failed. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore.

      Remember the USA? They tried to send a man to the space before Soviet Union, but failed...

      I think "to be second on the moon" did not motivated Soviet Union enough to acomplish this project.

    12. Re:Spending by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Remember the Soviet Union? They tried going to the moon, but failed. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore.

      Oh come on. I'm as big a space technology backer as there is, but this is like predicting the fall of Canada because no Canadian team has won the Stanley Cup recently. I would think that the internal contradictions of the Soviet system, along with our huge military spending in the 80s had a hell of a lot more to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union than their failed Moon program did. We were basically so rich that we could afford to light money on fire, and they foolishly believed that they had to keep up with the Joneses. It was like some giant potlach feast between nuclear powers.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    13. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a chinese, posting from china (and not controlled by the government for the parnoid), I could say that your view on China, is fairly incorrect. We do not have any people dying of hunger. Sure, we are poor, but you should remember one of the virtues of the Communist system is being socialistic. Thus, everyone gets their food in time and according to the good standards we keep (our FDA equivalent calories is higher than you guys), and plus have you ever tried Chinese food?

      Please do not spread these false theories of yours, even if it's just for a /. post and some Karama.

      Ta.

      Chau Lie

    14. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to add a little factoid to this post, 95% of all rice grown in the US is consumed in China. And it's true, there are no people dying of hunger in China, whereelse many die in the US (as noted by other posters). They are pretty advanced as a race goes, it's just that you view them with your white tainted, colonoist, imperlistic glasses. Chinese are very friendly, fun loving people, heck, some of my best friends here at the school are Chinese. And food is good ;), just next to Thai. Indian is ok too. But Thai is my fav, then Chinese and Indian.

    15. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh?! Ever read 1984? I think 1984 is about what the US is now. Not China. China is a `a brave new world'

    16. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the reason commie RMS has created 'A BRAVE GNU WORLD' ?? Man, all these commies are alike.

    17. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking sensationalists. You bunch should have died. Take your Fuckovery TV, your Pubic PBS and your freesoftware elsewhere. Welcome to the United Microsoft Union of Software Eletists.

    18. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Know anything your talking about? How old are you? :) I think your postings fall to the 'fallacy of authority', ie. you make false claims, that you think are true :) But, it's a classic fallacy in Phil/Logic.

    19. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 'A Brave New World', by Ardus Huxley (sp), is what inspired Orwell to write 1984. It is correct in pointing out that China is a lot like Huxley's world, -- see population control, etc --, and the US a lot like Orwell's, -- watch TV --.

      Zeinnerman.

    20. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who moderated that? Just read what he wrote, it's just pure BS and racist. Look at his other posts, and see comments by people on them, he's a racist, illetrate who has some hidden agenda against the people of China. I guess this is fairly common among half literate white American males.

    21. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo mama so white, when the ran out of paint during this war, they plastered her on the walls of the White house.

    22. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a Nazi?

    23. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey eurotrash, the jealousy of America is oozing from your pores.

    24. Re:Spending by mangu · · Score: 1

      It was like a poker game. Once the betting started, both sides had to keep up with it. The US spent huge amounts in military research in the 1980s, but a lot of that spending brought results. When the Soviet Union couldn't keep up with the technical race in the "star wars", the regime was lost.

      What kept the mixture of cultures in the Soviet Union together was the respect the central Soviet government imposed. A lot of that respect came from the police state, but there had to exist the belief among the people that the police power was backed by military power. The US was perceived to have become so superior in space technology that the announcement of a plan to build a space defense was seen as a real threat by the Soviet leaders. Getting back to the poker metaphor, if the other guy bets more chips than you have left, you have lost, even if he is bluffing.

    25. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did your socialist professor tell you that one about
      no chinese dying of hungers, and LOTS of people dying of hunger in the U.S.

      bahah, you leftists are funny.

    26. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slut posting under your own post for Karama? Someone mod down as troll!

    27. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even so" --- Are you contradicting your own post? This is highly amusing. Moderators beware (as mentioned by trolls as well). People who post under their own post needs a real life :)

    28. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      InnovexCX, stop posting anonymously, under your own post to make signal, you'd be moderated down finally. And stop wasting bandwith. Go find a life or something.

    29. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      InovexxCX bitch, I know every Anonymous post here is by you! Fucking retard, go jack off your daddy.

    30. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flameon!!!!!!

      --
      InnovativCX
      sandreas@whitleynet.org (SPAM PROT)

    31. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Russia a modern nation? Not really... at least to me. And they have sent dozens of men and women into space.

    32. Re:Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, they are probably planning a space based weapons platform in the futue.

  8. Eh by airos4 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How's "Been there, done that" as a foreign policy? We even have t-shirts, which unfortunately were mostly made in China. I say we dust off the plans for the Apollo capsule and Saturn V rocket, slap an Athlon in there, and go open a McDonalds on the moon so the Chinese have somewhere to eat when they get there.

    --
    I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
    1. Re:Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All known blueprints to the Saturn V were destroyed by our govt. after the last one was manufactured. In a way that is a sad loss, as it is certainly the best that was ever achieved in traditional chemical rocketry. In that one case, size also mattered! A tolerance of 1/10 mm on a 10 foot nozzle is much better than a 10 inch one. Simply put, you could eliminate poor tolerance by size.

      Of course, the Russians failure was in material science and manufacturing. They just couldn't make things that large. Hence, they choose to weld and put together larger components from smaller ones. The famous explosion and failure in '68 was a result of this. Of course, after the Apollo program, never again would we create large bore milling equipment for such custom work. To keep the space shuttle production costs down, we choose to manufacture the solid rocket boosters the same way Russia built large rockets; fused segment panels rather than single bore, because it was cheaper to do. One well recalls what happened because of this decision.

    2. Re:Eh by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      We can't build the Apollo hardware anymore. Although we have the plans (contrary to urban legend), it all uses obsolete technology that isn't made anymore. It would be cheaper and faster to design and build a new lunar vehicle than clone late 60s technology at this point.

      Has anyone worked out the mass of a lunar transfer and landing vehicle that would take off from the highest orbit the shuttle can reach? I'm assuming the shuttle would not tag along. Or even better, with a Soyuz tagging along as an Earth re-entry vehicle? The Soyuz was designed to go to the moon and it's still being built.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    3. Re:Eh by redcliffe · · Score: 1

      No they weren't. That's just an urban legend. They are still in the archives, although some of the plans that weren't necessary were disposed of, they are stil on microfilm and digitial media AFAIK.

      David

  9. one question... by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 1

    What exactly is there to do on the moon?
    yeah, we could build a base or something, but if we are there for just a few hours or days, what can be said rather than "WHOOO!!! were on the moon!"?

    1. Re:one question... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      I thought we discussed China's space program over a year ago. The head of their space program mentioned at the United Nations that they intend to explore the Moon and use its resources. Lunar mining implies a significant presence on the Moon, and unless they're going to use all the resulting material to expand their lunar bases, it also implies a lot of materials ending up in lunar orbit (a lot easier to achieve from the surface of the Moon than is Earth orbit from the surface of Earth) for construction in space.

    2. Re:one question... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "What exactly is there to do on the moon?"

      Build a factory and tell the EPA and Greenpeace to go fuck themselves. Next question.

    3. Re:one question... by thorgil · · Score: 1

      I've heard something about a helium isotop thats pretty interesting for fusion power research..
      On earth this isotop is very rare.
      The moon on the other hand is supposed to contain more of this type of helium.
      So... building mines on the moon might be one task to do...

      Have anybody else heard about this, or do I remember wrong?

      ----
      Go to moon and check out IF the US went there or not... Could be fun if they didn't.
      What shall we then belive in?

      - You've heard about the U.S?
      - Yeah!... but I don't really belive in it... It's just fairytale spread by aliens.

      Maybe the Earth IS flat after all....
      ------

      --
      Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
    4. Re:one question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You rock, man! (No, seriously - you do.)

  10. Nice to see.. by zentec · · Score: 1, Troll


    that technology Bill Clinton allowed Loral to sell to the Chinese being put to good use.

    After all, if you can put a man in space, you can put a nuke in Washington.

    1. Re:Nice to see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the program you are referring to was started by George Bush Sr. and simply continued under Clinton. I'm not a Clinton defender but please state the facts.

    2. Re:Nice to see.. by zentec · · Score: 1


      Nice try, but you're wrong. This program was not started by the senior Bush.

    3. Re:Nice to see.. by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Not entirely related to this case, but China gets alot of hi-tech defence-tech from Israel. Technology that USA first sells to Israel, and Israel then sells them to China. That tech is not supposed to be available to China, and USA knows that Israel leaks sensitive information to China. But ending cooperation with Israel is a big no-no

      American troops found advanced image-intensifiers on Iraqi tanks during the Gulf War. Those devices were made in USA. USA sold them to Israel, who sold them to China, who sold them to Iraq. And that's just one example. Israel has also sold technology related to the Patriot missile and various air-to-air missile-tech.

      What goes around, comes around.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  11. Why the European Union? by dj28 · · Score: 1

    Weren't they concerned about human rights over there in China? Why would the cooperate with a communist state? You would think with all the money they have they would develope their own space project rather than funding the Chinese.

  12. Moon Landing by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Informative
    There were earlier reports from the middle of the week that China was planning to eventually go to the moon. Later Reports showed that this was not correct, at least not yet.

    They just want to get their feet wet, for now.

    New Scientist has a good story on this. And there is this page with links on the chinese space program from U.S. Embassy Beijing Environment, Science and Technology Section.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  13. another great adventure? by TheM0cktor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this will embarass the US government into mounting another of its great space adventures... Wishful thinking i suppose, but my grandparents got to watch a moon landing with their kids and i want to watch a mars landing with mine. (when i find a geek-friendly woman that is)

  14. The Peoples' Rocket by Quizme2000 · · Score: 2

    "I should point out that some powers in the world are on the way to militarizing outer space, not peacefully exploring outer resources," Huang Huikang, an official from China's foreign ministry, told the China Daily.

    "Another arms race in outer space has begun since 1998 and we should be watchful," Huang said.


    I would like a few more facts and less fundumentalist tone to be interested in this. A satallite program for China makes perfect sense for communications and survey for the billion(s) of people. I sure the US will be paying attention to the launch activites of our future olympic hopefuls, but an arms race in outer space is not econmically nor politiclly fesiable to begin with. Talk is cheap and that is all this is, political grandstanding: US bad--China good.

    "The Proples' rocket is going to lay the smack down on the evil american capitalist pigs!"

    Please don't take this article as being newsworthy.

    --
    "Get them before they get....
    1. Re:The Peoples' Rocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      but an arms race in outer space is not econmically nor politiclly fesiable to begin with.

      I think that the Chinese are being overly generous with this 1998 thing. Killer satellites have been under test a lot longer than this. In fact a good 25% or LEO trash is debris from killer satellite tests that were conducted at least 20 years ago.

    2. Re:The Peoples' Rocket by Ebon+Praetor · · Score: 1

      The Chinese have got a pretty good point. There's no particular reason that they can't militarize space the same way the US is trying to. The US isn't even very secretive about its plans to flaunt international treaties regarding the militarization of space. In fact, their websites have stories about how they are currently researching war in space. If anyone started an arms race in space, it wasn't China, it was the US and the former USSR.

    3. Re:The Peoples' Rocket by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      No one started an arms race in space. It was inevitable once the first satellite was launched, and military tacticians of all countries started thinking about that.

  15. The Secrecy of China's Space Program by GNU+Zealot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Chinese Manned Space Program: Behind Closed Doors is a very interesting read. It details not only a large chunk of the history of the Chinese space research, but also describes the secrecy that has shrouded most of it.

  16. Those were the days by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How well does this translate into Mandarin?:

    "We choose to go to the moon, and to do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

    Cynical old bastard that I am, those words actually choke me up every time I hear them. Space exploration (not arsing about in low earth orbit) exemplifies everything that is great about the human spirit. Our reach should exceed our grasp.

    We in the west have forgotten that, and now it's all about the bottom line. Sounds like China still gets it. Good luck to them, I reckon.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Those were the days by dolphinuser · · Score: 1
      You can hear and read his speech at:

      historyplace.com

      John

      --
      The drops of water don't know themselves to be a river; and yet the river flows.
  17. Beijing?s plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did you feel the need to launch MS Word for such a small write up?

  18. Very Cool by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is extremely cool, and a good thing for all of us.

    Hopefully it will kick start another space race, and get the americans off their butts. Bush has done nothing but slowly kill NASA with its budget cuts.

    In 2005, Russia may become the only country with access to the ISS. (find the story on space.com somewhere -- With all the budget cuts the US no longer has a HAB module or Crew Return Vehicle. Russia's obligations supplying Soyuz Rockets ENDS in 2005 leaving the USA totally stranded.)

    With China sending men and women into space on its own, and making plans to build its own Space Station and sending men to the moon, EVEN if it doesn't wake up the US govt. and inject more money into NASA, at least we are making progress and reaching for the stars.

    Communist regimes are very good at certain things. The Soviet Union was a powerful military country, and built 9 space stations. (Salyut 1-7, Mir, and now the ISS).

    Hopefully China can also achieve some amazing things.

    I want to live on Mars someday. I don't care how it happens, or who gets me there, i just want to be there.

    D.

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:Very Cool by Colin+Bayer · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union was a powerful military country, and built 9 space stations. (Salyut 1-7, Mir, and now the ISS).

      IIRC (which I might not, and I'm not going to check, because I'm a lazy, lazy man), Salyut 1-7 were just missions to a single space station (brought up with the first of the flights). Can someone confirm or deny this?

      --
      Want Linux games? HERE.
    2. Re:Very Cool by jmauro · · Score: 1

      You are correct. They're was only one Salut station. Much like there was only one Skylab. We still had Skylab 1, 2 and 3 though.

    3. Re:Very Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bush has done nothing but slowly kill NASA with its budget cuts.

      OK, that's a blatant falsehood. Clinton cut the NASA budget throughout his tenure. Under Bush, the NASA budget has actually increased in dollar figures. So why do you see all these programs getting cut? Because Bush said to NASA "you have permission go ahead and kill those programs that have only continued to exist because they are congressional pork". Clinton wouldn't let NASA kill projects it wanted to terminate. Bush will.

      A

    4. Re:Very Cool by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Hopefully it will kick start another space race, and get the americans off their butts.

      I hope it will *not* start another space race. Like the last one, as soon as the artificial 'goal' is reached, the program will be over, with little left to show for it. Getting into space, and staying there, means finding an economic reason for being there. Economics and immediate threats to survival drives human expansion, not some mythical 'spirit of exploration'.

      Bush has done nothing but slowly kill NASA with its budget cuts.

      Um, insisting that someone live within their budget is not 'cutting' the budget. NASA has overspent and Bush refuses to pay for the overruns. (Actually the biggest cutter of the NASA budget of all time is Clinton.)

  19. ICBMs by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    One of the military connections to the US space program was the development of huge missiles. A missile that can launch a payload to go to the moon can also be used as an ICBM.

    China may be interested in things like this.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:ICBMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      china already has ICBMs ...
      its 30 years

      yawn

    2. Re:ICBMs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they want to nuke the moon?

    3. Re:ICBMs by rela · · Score: 1

      One of the military connections to the US space program was the development of huge missiles. A missile that can launch a payload to go to the moon can also be used as an ICBM.
      China may be interested in things like this.


      They don't already have them!?

  20. NASA never crashed probes on distant planets by mangu · · Score: 1

    Only on Venus and Mars, which are the closest planets.

    1. Re:NASA never crashed probes on distant planets by Colin+Bayer · · Score: 1

      They're still pretty damn distant on an Earthly distance scale... :)

      --
      Want Linux games? HERE.
    2. Re:NASA never crashed probes on distant planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Venus and Mars, which are the closest planets.


      Well, they did crash (intentionally) a probe into Jupiter (it came with the Gallileo probe). That's moderately distant. :-)

  21. Just a smoke screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a smoke screen for the development of delivery technology for nuclear warheads. If there was some economic reason for putting people on the moon, either the US or Russia would have them there.

    1. Re:Just a smoke screen by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      If flying over the Atlantic is so profitable, why such a large gap between the Wright Brothers and Lindburgh?

      If the internet was so profitable, why did it take decades for anybody to even notice its existance?

      If the steam engine would revolutionize the world as we know it, why were there several millenia between the first development of one and the real adoption of it?

  22. Yeah, go China! by LordNimon · · Score: 2

    I think this is a great idea. I think China should be strongly encouraged to expand its space program. In fact, I would be happy if they became the leader in space exploration. As soon as they announce plans to colonize Mars, it will scare our government into funding plans for the same, and then our space exploration work will be back on track.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    1. Re:Yeah, go China! by CNPOS · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, great idea. Lets let China colonize "the Red Planet". Friggin' pinko commies. What would McCarthy have to say about that, eh?

      Then again, if all the Chinese up and moved to Mars...

  23. They still have a long way to go by LibertarianCrackSmok · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article: A monkey, a dog, a rabbit and snails were sent into orbit aboard the second Shenzou launch but scientists say that more unmanned tests will be necessary.

    Translation: The monkey, dog and rabbit died together or one of the animals died. China isn't ready to go to space.

    1. Re:They still have a long way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.. would make a great beginning for a joke. "A monkey, a dog and a rabbit went to space..." Dunno how to make anything funny out of that tho.

  24. I am always Amazed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Bush, Raygun, or Nixon had sold it then this poster would be saying how smart it was that we sold it as EVERYBODY else has that technology. India, Russia, Japan, and Europe all have similar technologies that could have been sold instead. This is the same as if we had sold them RSA encryption. But then again lets not allow any facts to get in the way of a conservative insanity.

    1. Re:I am always Amazed. by zentec · · Score: 1


      Thanks for your attempt at putting words into my mouth. But you are incorrect.

      The technology sold to the Chinese were bought and paid-for by US taxpayers, and sold when Loral and a couple principles made suspect soft-money contributions to the DNC. The only way this would have even come to light is the not-so-indirect contributions from China via way of John Wong.

      So please, spare me your political claptrap about conservative insanity. I was a card-carrying Democrat until my security was sold to the highest bidder. Face it, they're all crooks and as long as you live in denial and wrap yourself in a curtain of "it'll be ok, my gubberment wuvs me", it'll never change.

      Have a nice day knowing Chinese nukes, constructed far crappier than their Russian counterparts, will be pointed at you for the rest of your life. All courtesy of crooked politicians.

    2. Re:I am always Amazed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >spare me your political claptrap about conservative insanity.

      Actually, I am Libertarian.

      And no. Our security was not sold. This was all technology available from outside the USA. There was not a thing that they aquired that could not have been bought from Europe, India, or Russia. And yes, it was started before with GB. Just not as much.

      As to the Chinese Nukes, I am truley at ground zero (within 5 miles of USA's communication, but then again, this is also USA's only ABM system ). There is no doubt in my mind that nukes will always be pointed here. Was it due to crooked politicians? no. Is the chinese's Missile more accurate now? sure, what of it. 1/4 mile make very little difference.

      And As to the soft-money, it is common now with both republican's and democrats. It use to be that you could count on Republican to lie about money and Democrats to lie about sex. Now they just lie about it all.

  25. Oh please - we know the real reason by flacco · · Score: 2

    China wants space-based military capabilities to compete with the US, including killer satellites to knock out US spy and GPS satellites.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    1. Re:Oh please - we know the real reason by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Good. We've grown too soft and cozy in the space arena as it is, especially when you consider how much we as a nation rely on it.

    2. Re:Oh please - we know the real reason by flacco · · Score: 2

      ...and I'm sure the Chinese wanna give a big shout-out to Hughes and Loral corps for their help.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  26. Fox? by flewp · · Score: 1

    Who wants to bet Fox is already working on creating a show stating how the China mission was all a big hoax?

    --
    WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  27. A new world instability by SumDeusExMachina · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    I think that I speak for many when I voice my concerns over China in space. This is the same country that constantly threatens to invade Taiwan and is very militaristic in general. What happens when they militarize space? Do we let them hang out with a bunch of nukes hanging over our heads?

    I thought I'd never say this, but Bush's missle defense plan is looking better and better every day...

    --

    Is your company running tools written by ma
    1. Re:A new world instability by perlyking · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that I speak for many when I voice my concerns over China in space. This is the same country that constantly threatens to invade Taiwan and is very militaristic in general.


      Hm, is America jealous that someone may become more violent and invade more countries than they do.

      :-)
      --
      no sig.
    2. Re:A new world instability by elandal · · Score: 1

      Threatens to invade Taiwan, yes, but I'd guess that those threats are more of international politics than real. They'd definitely go to Taiwan if nobody tried to forcibly stop them, but as long as it'd mean real military campaign, not just shending troops in ships over they're very unlikely to do that.

      Militaristic? Definitely. They are close to Pakistan and India - countries that are in eachother's throats and have nuclear weapons. Oh yes, there are some other countries pretty close, too, like Afganistan..
      Also, USA is pretty militaristic, too. As is Russia. See: big country, big army, need to prove that they're big - hit in all three cases. India would also be covered by this.

      Now, if China tries to put a big starwars lasergun on the orbit, I bet that USA will do the same instantly, except with hundred cannons. Russia would want to, but currently can't afford.

      I don't fear China any more than I fear USA. Actually I fear Russia a lot more than China. I don't think these three countries however are a big problem. I fear Pakistan a lot more (India less so). I fear Iraq and Israel more. And, so does Bush.
      The missile defense plan is not against China or Russia (which both have enough nukes to make the world glow - US missile defense or no), but against countries that might have one or two strategic nukes. I'd guess it's ten to a hundred defense missiles to get a single nuke down, so if China decides to shoot a hundred of them on ballistic trajectory, USA wouldn't have enough defense missiles to take out but a few.

      I applaud China on their hard work on the space program, and wish them safe manned missions. We do need more competition on the manned space mission front, and China is just the country that can truly make it.

  28. Pleaaasssse!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human Rights anybody???? We are one of the worst on utililizing the death sentence (Funny that the states that use it heavy still have the worst crime rates i.e.. texas, Ill).
    The Northern Allianace has a record AS BAD AS the taliban and MUCH worst then the chinese. Yet we back them when it was conveient. I didn't see you objecting to Human Rights.

    Putin is from KGB and has taken Russia backwards, yet when Bush says "We can do Business" do you object? Perhaps the fact that it is Bush and not say Gore that you keep quiet?

    I think, Therefore I am. You posted the parent, Therefor you aren't.

  29. THANK YOU CHINA! by xeeno · · Score: 1

    It's about time someone kicked the US in the pants and got them going. In the past, we've complained about China's policies regarding "subversives", their willingness to exploit child labor, and their lack of hesitation to cane the crap out of American teenagers that
    think that they can get away with being obnoxious in someone else's country. But unlike us Americans, they're actually interested enough in space to get back into orbit and possibly to the moon. They're going to get results. Can we, as Americans, stand to see space dominated by the threat from the East? Maybe we'll see something other than talk from American politicans now. Maybe we'll see a push into space.

    This pleases me greatly. I was frightened that
    we'd never seriously get back into space in my
    lifetime. Come on, George. Respond to the yellow threat! Get us back into space where we belong.

    1. Re:THANK YOU CHINA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are 50 years ahead... so what? The Chinese government can just send some people to America to study and they'll be back on track again in no time.
      Knowledge is for everybody, not just for one nation.

  30. Stephen Baxter on Chinese and US in space by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

    I just finished re-reading "Voyage" and "Titan" by Stephen Baxter. Spooky. Chinese space program (including the objective of landing on the moon) and the death of the US manned space program figure in Titan, while the goals of the US space program are a big part of Voyage. If you haven't read any of Stephen Baxter's fiction, try Voyage first.

  31. So, what... by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 2

    "They just want to get their feet wet, for now."

    Maybe they should just plan a manned mission to the Pacific Ocean.

    --
    324006
  32. Slashdot Hypocrisy by Knunov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If any post mentions the U.S. govt's plan to build a missle defense system, it gets modded down into oblivion, usually with associated comments dismissing the threat as being unlikely or impossible.

    But China is getting ready to put men in space, and it is widely cheered as a Good Thing.

    How so many people miss the correlation is beyond me.

    A rocket is far more complicated than a missle, and the technologies are remarkably parallel.

    You see a country that doesn't like the U.S. developing technology that can easily be used to deliver a nuclear payload and you cheer, while simultaneously objecting to the very plan that can protect us from the developing threat.

    If the idea of another cold war appeals to you, by all means, cheer on.

    Now, go ahead and mod me into oblivion as 'Flamebait' or 'Offtopic'. What /. really needs is a 'Doesn't Buy Into Liberal Utopian Ideologies' or 'I Don't Like The Way You Think' negative mod option. It would be closer to the truth.

    Knunov

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    1. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by anno1602 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Point granted: Just as the European Union, China is no longer willing to accept the U.S. as the world's single most important power.

      Question: Despite that, the USA and the EU seem to get along quite well. The EU and Russia get along well. Do you _need_ a different big bad enemy in the world? Or is China scaring because it works so very different from Western culture?

      I don't think China wants to actually attack the U.S. Much too dangerous, too much common econmic interests, and much more of those ahead. Globalisation really makes wars between industrial states akin to economic suicide. Why does it scare you that China is developing a military potential which can match the USA? The idea is to lower America's single biggest influence in the world, not to bomb it into oblivion. And the EU is working on that too, by the way, they just don't shout it out loud.

      (Side note: Human Rights have been proven to be a Good Thing for Western cultures. What makes us so sure they work for cultures which are not in any way comparable to ours?)

      Greets,
      Anno.

    2. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Knunov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll respond in reverse.

      "Human Rights have been proven to be a Good Thing for Western cultures. What makes us so sure they work for cultures which are not in any way comparable to ours?"

      I've thought about this, as well. What I always come up with is this: Why doesn't China have an immigration problem?

      Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no". Ask Asians living in China if they want to live in the U.S. I suspect the answer will be different.

      Another experiment would be to temporarily transplant people into the opposite culture. This is done already in the form of exchange students. The people visiting the U.S. and living like an American will probably want to stay. The people visiting China and living like the average Chinese citizen will be counting the days to get home.

      I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom.

      "I don't think China wants to actually attack the U.S."

      I don't either, actually. But it's still a better feeling to be the only kid on the block with a gun. It's nice to not worry. I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them.

      This being said, the same argument won't hold up for all countries. If Iraq had ICBMs, I don't doubt for a second they would use them.

      Knunov

      --
      Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    3. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by torqer · · Score: 1
      Hey. I don't think there is a direct correlation between putting men in space and the beginning of a cold war. A few too many points you make are incorrect. Such as:


      "A rocket is far more complicated than a missile, and the technologies are remarkably parallel."


      While it may be true that both require propulsion of some sort, they are hardly parallel. The USA's missile defense system, in all it's glory, is to have a missile hit another missile (or other flying target) while the targeted object is still in flight.


      China wants to send people into space... With things like lunar landing gear and scientific equipment.


      Hardly what I would call "parallel."

    4. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human nature, and the resulting affairs of nations, have not changed dramatically in the last hundred years. There will still be wars and empires. If you think that nuclear weapons won't be used in the next war, try reading some current Chinese military theory.

    5. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      To continue this:

      "Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no". Ask Asians living in China if they want to live in the U.S. I suspect the answer will be different."
      I don't know about U.S., but I've lived in a flat with Chinese studying here. They came here to study and planned to go back to China after that, and, from all I've heard from them, quite liked it over there. Granted: They're from Shanghai, a city which is currently implementing the Chinese-Western society, so it may not be representative of other cities, or (especially) the poor mainland regions. They also admitted that while Shaghai is quite typical of the large and booming Chinese coast cities, the mainland is another world altogether. It depends on who you talk to, I guess (as always).

      "I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom"
      I think so, too. Point taken.

      "But it's still a better feeling to be the only kid on the block with a gun. It's nice to not worry. I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them."
      Take into account that this feeling is one that was reserved for Amricans. Europe, during the cold war, knew it would be the place where the Big Clash(tm) would happen, should it happen. So I, as an European, can sympathize with China striving to have a gun, too. To paraphrase you: If there is a kid on the block with a gun, and you are not that kid, it will be better for you if you get a gun, too. In an ideal world, nobody would have a gun. But human history doesn't point in that direction.

      "This being said, the same argument won't hold up for all countries. If Iraq had ICBMs, I don't doubt for a second they would use them."
      True. And this is what really scares me. Think about the fact that the Cold War never turned into a hot one because both parties knew they could only loose. The nukes were just too powerful. I think we can trust China that *if* another cold war should break out (Which is definitly a possibilty, although I don't think it will happen. Think in terms of money here, too.), they would be sensible enough not to do Stupid Things. However, with other states, you cannot be sure about this. And these are the ones we should be concerned about, not China.

      Anno.
    6. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2

      That's funny. ~ 70% of the Chinese grad students in the CISE department of my university are not willing to stay here or go anywhere but back to China once they graduate.

    7. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them. "

      I'd rather see no one have missile defence systems than just the USA.

    8. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Yes, the Iraq situation would be far more dangerous, because it is a fundamentalist state. The main danger with China is that if it's population keeps growing, it will get to a point where they they are far beyond the carrying capacity of their country, and, having nothing left to lose, could demand aid with the threat of global annihilation.

    9. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by nusuth · · Score: 1
      "I don't either, actually. But it's still a better feeling to be the only kid on the block with a gun. It's nice to not worry. I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them."

      "Nobody has nukes" is an unstable condition, eventually somebody will make one. It is also an impossible condition, as somebody already made a lot of them. "Somebody has nukes" is stable but undesirable condition, as one of those countries might use them against others (USA and Russia already agreed on using tactical nukes with reservations) which is one of the worst crimes that a country can (and one actually did) commit. "Everybody have nukes, and plenty of them" is a much better case, as long as every country in possesion of them is sane enough not to use them. I belive every country, including Iraq, Afghanistan and other "terrorist states", qualifies as sane in this respect. Iraq did not attempt to attack USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia or Turkey by chemical or biological means during gulf crisis remember? That is not because they were incapable to do so, nor because they wouldn't like the immediate results; rather it was because in middle term their country would be totally destroyed. The same goes with nukes too.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    10. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by jmauro · · Score: 2

      Iraq is not fundamentalist. They are dictitorial and have a major "cult of personality" problem, but they are not as fundamentalist as Iran or even as Saudi Arabia. They're dangerous because the center of power is completely power hungry and all around crazy, not because of religious influences. They're used as a cover to get support from others to help Iraq.

    11. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The population growth of China is a bit lower than that of USA's.

    12. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's backwards. Iraq was one of the most secular Middle Eastern states before they were on the outs with the U.S., and even though they're currently ruled by a despot, he's not really a religious despot. Communism in China is more of a state religion than Islam in Iraq.

      As far as missile defense goes: it would not be a sufficient defense against an adversary with more than a few warheads, and so wouldn't prevent attacks by China at all. And as we've discovered, smaller adversaries don't need ICBMs at all to cause mass destruction in the U.S. We need a jetliner shield and a realistic chemical/biological threat prevention mechanism more than a missile shield at this point.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    13. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by kfg · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the increadable arrogance of the Chinese, doing something that may not be in the US's best interests, and the arrogance of those here on Slashdot, many not even American, who think that countries other than the US should be able to shape a space program if they wish to. What are they, Unamerican or something?

      I say China should be forced to follow America's way of going about such things.

      We should take all the Chinese, and all the Americans, and make them *vote* on what China can, or cannot, do.

      That'll show them who's boss.

      KFG

    14. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Knunov · · Score: 1

      You're right.

      The top dog shouldn't wait for those weaker than him to approve their own destruction, as it will never come.

      He should just indiscriminately eliminate threats while they are weak, much the way adult male lions kill the male cubs in a pride so as to limit future competition.

      We, the U.S., should simply snuff out anyone, be it a country, race, religion or individual, on Earth that might be a threat one day.

      Fair play is overrated, especially when your life hangs in the balance.

      Knunov

      --
      Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    15. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by elflord · · Score: 1
      I've thought about this, as well. What I always come up with is this: Why doesn't China have an immigration problem?

      It's a trick question. China does have an immigration problem, with N. Korea. They don't have as much of a problem as the US, because their borders aren't as exposed.

      Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no".

      Most non-Chinese don't want to move to China, sure (-; Seriously, besides the mainland-Chinese, most of the Asian students intend to go back home.

      I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom.

      You're starting to sound like Timothy. You're confusing affluence with freedom. People from industrialised countries (eg Singapore) or sem-industrialised countries (eg Malaysia) that have repressive governments aren't as interested in immigrating.

    16. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Knunov · · Score: 2

      "You're starting to sound like Timothy."

      No need to get personal.

      Knunov

      --
      Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    17. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Gutboy_Barrelhouse · · Score: 0
      I'd go for 'Troll' just on account of this sentence:
      "You see a country that doesn't like the U.S. developing technology that can easily be used to deliver a nuclear payload and you cheer, while simultaneously objecting to the very plan that can protect us from the developing threat."
      Give me a break. That plan can't even protect the US from dummy missiles, launched BY the US under ideal circumstances, that are continuously beaming their exact location to the kill vehicle. THAT's why people object to it.
    18. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Stelmsind · · Score: 1

      Oh, and you were such a good troll until you gave the game away with that! :(

    19. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because The Party will kill their families if they don't come back, and if they don't bring back western science's latest developments....

    20. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by AiX2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly.

      1) The parent misses the point. I applaud the spirit of achievement for any nation making it to space. Setting sights on the moon is only incrases the laudability.

      However, the conservative militant FUD tied to NMD enrages me. NMD is a brain dead idea, that as Trent Lott put it, is the most expensive solution to the least likely scenario. 9/11 tells me that hostilities towards the US aren't likely to be enacted in a grand war that would inevitably result from launching missiles at the US. Rather confrontation will come with guerilla terrorist acts. No nation in the world has the rescources to win a 1 on 1 war with the US and they recognize this.

      2)NMD doesn't extend from a defense necessity. Bush would be touting NMD as a panacea for our purported defensive ills no matter the situtation. The pro-militant agressive rhetoric scored points with special interest groups (read: military, christians preparing for armegeddeon, et al) and he needs to please them with a major increase in the defense budget. Should NMD come in under budget by half, another half baked defensive spending plan would come up.

    21. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by ChenLing · · Score: 1

      [Disclaimer: I'm a Chinese born, naturalized US citizen.]

      A new 'Cold War' might not be such a bad thing.
      As long as it doesn't become a hot war, that is.
      It helps people focus on real issues, instead of whether our current leader wears boxers or briefs.

      China knows it *has* to find new resources. Right now it has 6 times the US population, crammed in 1/6 the usable living space (the rest are mountains and deserts). China will use up half of its water table soon (by 2010 the last I read). The population is still growing.....

      Yes China is an aggressive nation. Yes they are dangerous. But they are *much* less hostile towards the US than the USSR ever was. Why? Because there is no Europe to fight over. So the only two possible points of contention are South Korea and Taiwan.

      Just as a side note, in both China *and* Taiwan, the schools doesn't exactly teach that the other is a separate nation....you kinda have to figure that out for yourselves.... ;)

      China is westernizing right now at a sickening pace (if you ever watch Chinese Central Television, and compare it to what it was 10 years ago, you'd swear there are two different countries). China right now is purely capitalist country (economically, a totalarian government politically). As such it is uneconomical to ever fight a war that isn't over quickly (or one that will earn you disapproval with your economic partners, such as the US, Europe, Russia, etc).
      So while China may disapprove of the "western world" politically, it will never damage the absolutely wonderful markets abroad.

      Of course this is assuming party hard-liners don't come to power (they were probably the ones who delayed the return of the US spy plane pilots).
      But they are a dying breed anyways.

      As an optimist, I believe that once we start colonizing another planet (moon, Mars, others), many of our current social and political differences will seem minor, and so will disappear (it's much easier to resolve small differences, such as race, religion, sexual orientation -- yes they really *are* small differences!)
      So I'm all for exploration of space, whether by US, Europe, Russia, China, or anyone and everyone else.

      The funny thing about progress is that once you have it, it's really hard to change back. As China will only become less close minded (the real danger) as they progress.

      Well, I think thats enough for today Timmy, a pop quiz for tomorrow!

      --
      "You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
    22. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no". Ask Asians living in China if they want to live in the U.S. I suspect the answer will be different.

      First of all, Asian != Chinese. That's pretty obvious. Second, China's neighbors seem to hate China for no reason other than to please the US. The Chinese aren't called the "Jews of the East" for no reason (some king of Thailand came up with the title).

      Another experiment would be to temporarily transplant people into the opposite culture. This is done already in the form of exchange students. The people visiting the U.S. and living like an American will probably want to stay. The people visiting China and living like the average Chinese citizen will be counting the days to get home.

      Of course. Wouldn't you be counting the days to get home if you didn't get 'Friends', Taco Bell, Walmarts, etc. in China? I believe that's called different levels in the standard of living.

      I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom.

      Everyone likes being allowed to do selfish things.

      But it's still a better feeling to be the only kid on the block with a gun. It's nice to not worry. I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them.

      See it the other way: would you like to be one of the kids on the block without a gun, and see the kid with the only gun get away with kicking the shit out of your neighbor?

    23. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's funny. ~ 70% of the Chinese grad students in the CISE department of my university are not willing to stay here or go anywhere but back to China once they graduate.

      I can personally explain why this is (I know plenty of students in such circumstances). The reason why they want to go back is the very same reason why so many people (in general) want to emigrate to the US, money/jobs. You see, China has Bush beat in talking about economic stimulus packages. In China, these grad students, mostly PhDs, receive large grants to start industries and such to boost the economy. These are very generous grants, because, looking at the current example America is setting, money and a healthy economy pleases the population much more than anything else (sure, freedoms rock, only if you use them).

      As for the suggestion that families are killed for dissent, that's absolute bullshit. Such fiction can only come from the mouths of those who cannot be trusted on this issue.

    24. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post your home address so I may come over and just "indiscriminately eliminate threats while they are weak". You're just some little shit to me...

    25. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Rocket and a missile are exactly the same thing.

      Cases in point.

      Redston: First two Mercury Launches. (US Army Short-Medium Range missile)

      Atlas: Remaining Mercury Launches. (US ICBM - first generation I believe)

      Titan: Gemini Launches - (US ICBM - Second generation: a large improvement as the Titan allowed the missiles to stay in their silo's in a fully fueled condition)

      The only reason why the Apollo missions did not have military missiles used is because the payload requirements of the program exceeded that of any military ICBM requirement, not because of any technology reason.

      The main difference between a Missile launch and an orbital launch is purely trajectory (assuming that the missile can actually attain orbit due to its payload capacity requirements)

      The Russian Rockets, same thing, all of them were Rockets that were originally designed to be ICBM's. That they ended up being ill suited for that purpose does not change that fact.

    26. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Knunov · · Score: 1

      The differences I was alluding to were life support systems, navigational systems, etc. and that would make a spacecraft more difficult to design and build than a missle.

      But yes, the propulsion systems are essentially the same.

      --
      Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    27. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      I don't think China wants to actually attack the U.S.

      You are correct, they don't want to actually attack, they are doing something far more subtle:

      They are attempting to create the impression that they might attack. That impression then changes how the US and the EU and everyone else treats them. (They've got ICBM's, we've got to be careful how far we push them...) They want to use that pressure to influence events in their favor.

      It's called 'deterrence' among other things, and it does have an enormous effect in international politics.

    28. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      As far as missile defense goes: it would not be a sufficient defense against an adversary with more than a few warheads, and so wouldn't prevent attacks by China at all.

      This is an often misunderstood point behind BMD. It's not designed to completely stop an incoming attack, that job is almost impossible. But what BMD does do is introduce an enormous amount of uncertainty into the attack. The attacker will no longer be able to calculate 'I can launch x amount of my missiles (knowing they have y reliability) and have a z percentage chance of destroying my targets'. A new and difficult term has been added to the equation, and even though subtle it's important to military planners and politicians.

      And as we've discovered, smaller adversaries don't need ICBMs at all to cause mass destruction in the U.S.

      And? So? The events of 9/11 don't change the fact that many nations inimical to the US are close to obtaining ICBM's. The threat exist and are growing. Also from a military point of view, jetliners and biochem attacks are rather unpredictable and undependable in their effects, not a good thing. Also threats of those types of attacks can not be used in advance to influence the behavior of the target nation, because once the threat is issued, security gets stepped up, and the window of opportunity closes. Nations and militaries *don't* build offense to execute bolt-out-of-the-blue attacks, but build capabilities that allow them to influence events. (There are exceptions to the rule, but they are just that exceptions.) International diplomacy isn't Civilization, but is far more complex and subtle.

    29. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by rela · · Score: 1

      I don't think China wants to actually attack the U.S. Much too dangerous, too much common econmic interests, and much more of those ahead. Globalisation really makes wars between industrial states akin to economic suicide. Exactly. Always follow the money.

    30. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by wozzeck_berg · · Score: 1
      I wonder just how much interaction you have had with foreigners or living abroad? Many of my friends are from other countries (many from Asia) and I've lived and worked in both China and Japan. With that, let me embark on a critique (not criticism) of parts of your argument. Indeed, I agree with much of what you said both here and in the original post.

      I've thought about this, as well. What I always come up with is this: Why doesn't China have an immigration problem? True, China has no immigration problem....well, they have many illegals entering Hong Kong and Macau but those places are a bit different than the Mainland. It seems to me that the immigration situation in China is effected more by the economic situation than their lack of human rights protections. If China were as affluent (or even half as afluent) as the US or Japan, people would not leave and many would want to enter. Think about this...the US has "protections" for human rights, but those protections are routinely ignored in the case of illegal immigrants. Unlawful detention, retention of rights and violation of those rights are commonplace. Yet thousands still risk life and limb to enter the US , live as illegals, live in poor neighborhoods and recieve sub-standard wages.

      "Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no"." Which "Asians" did you ask? Perhaps if they were Korean, Thai, Japanese, Laotian or Phillipino they might not want to live in China. Assuming that "Asians" reffers to Chinese living in America, your staement might have some validity. True, many American-born Chinese are not clamboring to return...but that is because America is their home, not China. Additionally, I know of many Chinese-Americans who d want to live in China. But it is diffcult to move from middle-class American life to middle or upper-class Chinese life. A lack of human rights has nothin to do with it.

      The people visiting the U.S. and living like an American will probably want to stay. My girlfriend is an exchange student from Japan living in America. She has no desire to live here after graduation. She is interested and not-unhappy to live here, but she would rather live in her homeland. In addition to her, I know and interact daily with MANY exchange students from Korea, China, Kenya, Malaysia, etc. None (even those living in China or other "oppresive" countries) wish to live in America regardless of the fact that we have "better" human rights than their countries of origin. Their reasons are varied, but many site the cultural ignorance and apathy of the average American and the rabid insistence by many Americans that our way is the best way and neccessarily is better than another. American's tend to have a mindset of "other cultures are good so long as they sufficiently conform to our standards of comfort and accepptible conduct." This is both culturally insensitive and imperialistic, though understdable considering the position into which they are born. Just look at Roman cultural xenophobia if you want historical prescedent...or Chinese...or Japanese...or French...depending on the time.

      The people visiting China and living like the average Chinese citizen will be counting the days to get home. I lived in China. Because I brought money with me, I could afford more things than the average Chinese, but my housing, food and working situation was the same (actually, on occasion I splurged for a nice dinner at a hotel, something MANY Chinese can do). I was not counting the days to return. Several other Ameicans were though. Why? Beause Americans are spoiled. Those who hated China didsn't like it because they had to adapt to different food, culture and living standards. They were insensitive to the extreme! They were actually angry that Chinese didn't conform enough to America, that there were no McDonald's and that the food was gross, etc. Basically, they wanted to return because things were different and poorer. And not American enough. Besides me, there were hundreds of foreigners that respected and enjoyed the ancient Chinese culture and food. While we all missed America, it was for homesickness not because we were being oppressed or were lacking human rights.

      I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom. First of all, there is no neccessary correlation between individual freedom and human rights. Also, most people prefer to live in cultures that do not promote individual freedom over duty to society or to the whole. Take the example of my girlfriend (but many other foreigner from Asia and Europe have expressed, to me, the same sentiment) again. Her culture (though rapidly being Americanized) promotes homogenity and duty to other before duty to the self. Oh, and her country has human right protections. Yet she does not wish to stay here. But let's assume you meant "I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes [human rights]." Now it makes sense right? No! The fact of the matter is that the average Chinese is no more effected by his "lack" of human rights than the average American is by his having them. When was the last time you had to appeal to the freedom of religion protections because of persecution? When was the last time your Chinese counterpart did? Sure, Falon Gong is being suppressed....but so are Voodoo/Hoodoo and non-standard religions in America. The basic fact is that economy drives how happy people are, not rights. We are presently signing awa our civil rights right and left but there is no mass exodus...why? Because we still have Cheetos and Football.

      I think before you start making claims about the validity or superiority of one system over another you should:
      I) Take time to interact with people of that system and even that system itself.
      II) Rid yourself of your apparent insistence on the greatness of the American system. In fact, many people, even after having tasted our system and it's rights choose to return home. Some of those who do not, remain for economic reasons and some stay ecause they truly LIKE our society better. But that is predilection, not a value judgement.
      III) Try as hard as possible not to imperialize other cultures. Our culture is only two hundred years old and only fifty years old in it's present form. Chinese culture is thousands of years old...can't they teach us anything? Some things that make sense in one value-system don't make sense in another. It is innapropriate to create a value judgement based on that. Your perverted Hegelianism is quite distressing and dangerous.

      Your facts are right, but I think your analysis is wrong. I don't think you are stupid, just uninformed and guided too much by preconcieved notions. Actually, almost everything after "freedom" and most of the original article I agree with. I hope you take this rebuttal as constructive criticism, not as some sort of attack. Of course, I welcome any further comments you may hav on the subject and any counter-analysis of my post. Evolution requires interaction.

    31. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by ethereal · · Score: 1
      But what BMD does do is introduce an enormous amount of uncertainty into the attack. The attacker will no longer be able to calculate 'I can launch x amount of my missiles (knowing they have y reliability) and have a z percentage chance of destroying my targets'. A new and difficult term has been added to the equation, and even though subtle it's important to military planners and politicians.

      I don't see what this matters - an attacker is guaranteed MAD if they make such an attack. The certainty of their destruction is not in question. There isn't a whole lot of difference between 50% destruction of the U.S. and 100% destruction in my mind - either would be counted a great victory by an adversary in the minutes they had left to live. A missile defense that is not a near-perfect defense does not materially alter the situation militarily (well, other than the money that it's taken away from more worthwhile defensive efforts).

      Also from a military point of view, jetliners and biochem attacks are rather unpredictable and undependable in their effects, not a good thing. Also threats of those types of attacks can not be used in advance to influence the behavior of the target nation, because once the threat is issued, security gets stepped up, and the window of opportunity closes.

      Exactly why we need to spend defensive money on security ahead of time, nuclear nonproliferation efforts worldwide, and intelligence to figure out what entities might have nuclear attack capabilities. Better to nip the problem in the bud than to rely on a questionable and largely unproven defense against a weapon (the ICBM) which will be used as much in the 21st century as the bow and arrow was in the 20th.

      Nations and militaries *don't* build offense to execute bolt-out-of-the-blue attacks, but build capabilities that allow them to influence events. (There are exceptions to the rule, but they are just that exceptions.) International diplomacy isn't Civilization, but is far more complex and subtle.

      Any entity which does not have nuclear parity with the U.S. and makes nuclear threats against the U.S. will find themselves preemptively stopped, either by a team of commandos who destroy their nuclear potential or by a preemptive nuclear strike if necessary. Any state with nuclear parity is subject to MAD (and wouldn't be stopped by a missile shield anyway). The U.S. is thus only effectively more at risk from an unannounced nuclear attack from a small entity or group (the unannounced part means that "influencing events" beforehand isn't high on their agenda). A missile defense won't stop that adversary, since they'll just fly in a nuclear device on a jet airplane, private plane, or construct it within the U.S. itself. The only way to stop such a small and determined adversary is to use military intelligence and political savvy to defuse such attacks before they start. A missile defense will just be a "Maginot Line" in space for the 21st century - easily bypassed by those who really want to do harm in the U.S.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    32. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, those are the major differences, but the main utilization of space for manned military missions have largely been superceded by the development of much more sophisticated and cheaper unmanned satelite technologies.

      So in effect, China embarking on a manned space program appears to have several objectives:

      1) Develop a sense of national pride (hmmnnn.... sounds familiar to one of the side effects of the Apollo program)

      2) Encourage the development of industrial technology using a space program as a catalyst.

      3) Encourage the development of an industry where it is clear that the competing powers neither have the vision or the desire to embark on. (And personally I don't think that the ISS has any vision other than the visions of congressional representatives getting pork barrel contracts for their districts. ISS is about as useless a space station as you can get)

    33. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      I don't see what this matters - an attacker is guaranteed MAD if they make such an attack

      It does matter, because it allows the US to respond in ways other than WMD and with less than overwhelming force to the small scale attacks that are more likely in the future. You are living pre-1990, not post 2000. (As the quote below shows)

      There isn't a whole lot of difference between 50% destruction of the U.S. and 100% destruction in my mind

      BMD is *not* meant to stop currently extremely unlikely 'massive attack'. It's meant to blunt or stop the increasingly likely 1-10 missile attacks.

      A missile defense that is not a near-perfect defense does not materially alter the situation militarily

      Sorry, but it does. Even a 50% defense doubles the amount of missiles an attacker must launch to ensure a given level of damage. This is very simple math. (And once the supporting infrastructure is in place and debugged, adding interceptors is far cheaper to us than buying ICBM's and warheads are to any attacker.)

      Exactly why we need to spend defensive money on security ahead of time, nuclear nonproliferation efforts worldwide, and intelligence to figure out what entities might have nuclear attack capabilities.

      Clue:We are doing so, but that does not defend us against the numerous nations already posessing such a weapon or it's base technologies.

      Better to nip the problem in the bud than to rely on a questionable and largely unproven defense against a weapon (the ICBM) which will be used as much in the 21st century as the bow and arrow was in the 20th.

      Clue: The problem already exists. It's not going away. Oh, and another clue, nobody is proposing to not test the system before deploying it fully. The parts being proposed for early deployment are the radars and other well developed bits and pieces.

      Any entity which does not have nuclear parity with the U.S. and makes nuclear threats against the U.S. will find themselves preemptively stopped, either by a team of commandos who destroy their nuclear potential or by a preemptive nuclear strike if necessary.

      And if the commandos are not sucessful? Then what? We've tipped our hand. And to suggest that we would launch a pre-emptive strike (along with the fantasy about commandos), is juvenile at best.

      The U.S. is thus only effectively more at risk from an unannounced nuclear attack from a small entity or group (the unannounced part means that "influencing events" beforehand isn't high on their agenda)

      In the real world, possesion of nuclear arms implies the capability to influence events. They provide influence by their mere existence, without overt threats of use.

      A missile defense won't stop that adversary, since they'll just fly in a nuclear device on a jet airplane, private plane, or construct it within the U.S. itself

      In the real world people posessing delicate, expensive, dangerous things like to keep them under lock and key and close control. They also like the ability to use them with minimum warning and maximum influence. That means ICBM's. While the threat of alternate delivery systems exists, in the real world, the one where many nations are developing ICBM's, that threat is very small. In the real world we need BMD to defend against real, existing, growing, threats.

    34. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by ethereal · · Score: 1
      It does matter, because it allows the US to respond in ways other than WMD and with less than overwhelming force to the small scale attacks that are more likely in the future. You are living pre-1990, not post 2000. (As the quote below shows)

      I think that the suggestion that the U.S. would not respond with overwhelming force in the face of any nuclear attack is a mistaken one to give to the world or to ourselves. The whole point of maintaining superiority in terms of this kind of weapon is to make sure that the consequences of a known nuclear attack on the U.S. are certain. The situation has not changed since the cold war: any nuclear attack on the U.S. which can be traced back to a particular country will be met with a massive and devastating response. To respond with any less than that would invite more attacks.

      BMD is *not* meant to stop currently extremely unlikely 'massive attack'. It's meant to blunt or stop the increasingly likely 1-10 missile attacks.

      Any missile attack is traceable, and would invite a similar or greater retaliation from the U.S. No country is going to attack the U.S. with nuclear missiles unless they embrace destruction. Missile attacks themselves are pre-1990s, not post-2000 (or post-09-11-2001 I might say).

      Sorry, but it does. Even a 50% defense doubles the amount of missiles an attacker must launch to ensure a given level of damage. This is very simple math. (And once the supporting infrastructure is in place and debugged, adding interceptors is far cheaper to us than buying ICBM's and warheads are to any attacker.)

      Read more carefully: the amount of damage doesn't really matter. A nuclear attack via missile on the U.S. will result in the nuclear destruction of the attacker. We are already using MAD to effectively handle this sort of threat. This threat will never go away, since there are already nations existing which could totally destroy the U.S. if they wanted to.

      And heck, for any up-front expenditure X, it is possible to say that it's "cheaper" to just pay an additional %Y for so much more protection. The question is whether the upfront expenditure is worth it, or whether there are better ways to achieve the same goals.

      Clue:We are doing so, but that does not defend us against the numerous nations already posessing such a weapon or it's base technologies.

      MAD protects us against nations that launch missiles. I agree that we are not currently very well protected against the use of nuclear weapons for domestic terrorism (non-ICBM-launched) by those nations or other groups, and that's exactly where I think the defense budget should be going. It is very obvious to the rest of the world, friends and enemies alike, that using an ICBM to strike the U.S. is about the toughest and least rewarding means of attack.

      Clue: The problem already exists. It's not going away. Oh, and another clue, nobody is proposing to not test the system before deploying it fully. The parts being proposed for early deployment are the radars and other well developed bits and pieces.

      The ICBM problem exists, but it is no longer the most important problem to be solved, and there are better ways to solve it than when ICBMs are already in flight. The problem is effectively solved by MAD, just as it has been for 40 years or so.

      I'm not saying that the system has not been tested before deployment, I'm more worried that it has not been tested prior to us being asked to pay for it. The feasability of the system has not been proven and will not be proven completely for quite a while, perhaps even after it is fully deployed.

      And if the commandos are not sucessful? Then what? We've tipped our hand. And to suggest that we would launch a pre-emptive strike (along with the fantasy about commandos), is juvenile at best.

      I don't think that it tips our hand for an adversary to find out that we have acted to remove their opportunity to make a nuclear threat against us; that is exactly what a rational person would expect the U.S. to do. It's about as juvenile as, say, dropping U.S. special operations troops into Afghanistan, or flying high-altitude spy planes right over the Soviet Union, or - oh wait, we did do those things. Sometimes life just imitates Tom Clancy, doesn't it :)

      But seriously, I admit that there are difficulties in ensuring that attacks on the U.S. do not succeed. I just think it will be cheaper and easier to prevent those attacks before they occur, rather than while they are in progress. Especially since other means of attack are still quite available.

      In the real world, possesion of nuclear arms implies the capability to influence events. They provide influence by their mere existence, without overt threats of use.

      Sure, but the U.S. is not significantly more at risk as long as that existence is known. It's the folks out there who have nuclear weapons that we don't know about that we should be more worried about, or perhaps the folks that do have nuclear weapons and then find their governments wobbling on the edge of collapse, like the USSR or modern-day Pakistan. This month's new nuclear state can be added to the U.S. MAD list quite easily. This month's new terrorist group with a suitcase nuke cannot be so targeted or threatened.

      In the real world people posessing delicate, expensive, dangerous things like to keep them under lock and key and close control. They also like the ability to use them with minimum warning and maximum influence. That means ICBM's. While the threat of alternate delivery systems exists, in the real world, the one where many nations are developing ICBM's, that threat is very small. In the real world we need BMD to defend against real, existing, growing, threats.

      I think it would be great to defend against everything - missile attacks, domestic nuclear terrorist attacks, chemical/biological attacks, and even box cutters on airliners. But I think a reasonable military planner will first defend their most likely avenues of attack against the most possible threats. And I think recent events have demonstrated that ICBM attack is not as likely a threat as we have planned for, and other types of attack are much more likely and much easier to carry out than we had thought. We would be remiss if we did not first shut down those avenues of attack (through intelligence gathering, actions against terrorist groups, nuclear nonproliferation treaties, international nuclear arms inspection agreements, and even preemptive attacks against credible present nuclear threats) before moving on to trying to shoot down fast-moving suborbital bits of metal with other such bits of metal. We may even find that those first efforts have reduced or eliminated the amount of missile defense which is required.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    35. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      Only ~70%?

    36. Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2

      ~70% were ONLY willing to go back to China. An additional 20% weren't staying in America, but weren't necessarily going back to China.

  33. What exactly is there to do in America by mangu · · Score: 2

    Since there is this new continent in the way between Europe and India, the knowledge that the Earth is round is of little practical importance. To reach India from Europe one must navigate East, anyway. There is very little to be gained from building a base or something in this new "American" continent.

    1. Re:What exactly is there to do in America by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      The whole thing with America was gold. If gold hadn't been found, it would have gone the way of the Vikings landing. Only once Spain had a definite presence did other countries become interested.

  34. ESA & Human Rights WAS: Re:Why the European Un by anno1602 · · Score: 1

    Point 1) Before you talk about human rights, think about the fact that the U.S. is the country with the most death sentences. And frankly, when it comes to U.S. companys investing in China... This human rights thing is a fig leaf if you ask me.

    Point 2) Europe *has* a space program, called ESA (European Space Agency, d'uh). Together with the U.S., they have people up in the ISS (and a good part of ISS has been transported up there by ESA's Ariane). However, they have an eye on economics, and such a program is very expensive. I think the rationale is: "We want to be able to get people up in space, they want to be able to get people up in space, this is expensive, we are on good terms... Let's do it together." Oh, and about communism: It's not that much of red flag in Europe: Don't forget, Communism is a nice vision. The Soviet Union or China don't have anything to do with Communism (Read Marx' and Engels' book if you don't belive me). They are/were dictatorships.

    Side note: I'm not a communist, but I still think that labelling China as a communist state is unfair for commnuism.

    Greets,
    Anno.

  35. the article represents the nadir of journalism by xah · · Score: 2, Informative
    I read this article last night and just shook my head. Yes, it is very intersting that China plans to send humans to the moon. That makes an impressive headline for CNN.com. Actually, it's in the sub-headline. But where does it say that China will send a man to the moon within the article itself? Nowhere. Reading the piece from beginning to end left me bewildered. They announce something, give some background facts, and never investigate the chief fact of the article, not mentioning it even a single more time.

    This is an important development. The world's most fearsome tyranny is attempting to take the lead in the space race. We deserve better reporting on these plans than this amateurish effort.

    --
    I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
  36. Chinese money best sent in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The butchers in Beijing, when they spend money on the Chinese, tend to spend money on making things worse for them.


    I'd rather see them blow the money in space than fund more troops to rape Tibetans, invade Taiwan, or build new tanks.

  37. ICBMs came before by mangu · · Score: 2

    ICBMs were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, well before the space programs of the USA and USSR. It was the technology in the ICBMs that was used for going to the moon, not the other way round.

  38. Always old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or is Slashdot consistently two days behind on every news story?

  39. But but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have already send monkies into space :D

    1. Re:But but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chew on my lock nut!

    2. Re:But but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why dont you gank down on my cock you horse raping jizzmopper

  40. Mindless Bush-Bashing... by Thag · · Score: 2
    Bush has done nothing but slowly kill NASA with its budget cuts.


    No, Bush has begun reigning in a beaurocracy that was out of control, even their own, and is reintroducing the concepts of fiscal responsibility and sensible management.

    The current issues with ISS are due to their own mismanagement and setting of unrealistic goals. When someone blows their budget again and again and again, the last thing you should do is give them more money! Yes, it will be harder in the short term, but if you don't, the waste and corruption will kill you in the long term.

    Bush is, typically, going in and actually fixing the problem, instead of boasting about "reinventing government" then covering things up.

    The amazing thing about Clinton/Gore is that their ethical lapses, bad as they were, were completely overshadowed by their utter incompetance as leaders and managers.

    Jon Acheson

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
    1. Re:Mindless Bush-Bashing... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Er, I thought the ISS was a pure political project. With Capital hill forcing NASA to build it using international partners. You know, keeping Soviet rocket scientists employed and out of Iraq?

      Gee, aren't we all having a wonderful time together?

      And I wish people would stop acting so surprised that NASA acts just like a huge government agency.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:Mindless Bush-Bashing... by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      is reintroducing the concepts of fiscal responsibility and sensible management.

      Let me, as a scientist doing basic research, to interpret this for you. What you mean is:

      "smothering the skill and imagination of skilled scientists and engineers by chaining them with red tape and oppressing them with fiscal goals set by people who have no clue as to what the research concerns and how long it will take to get meaningful results"

      Science is art. Fiscal responsibility and sensible management, taken to the extreme form the bureaucratic rats want it, kills the creative mindset.

    3. Re:Mindless Bush-Bashing... by AvatarADVathome · · Score: 1

      Yes, but are you characterizing pre-Bush NASA as a bastion of unfettered scientific creativity, free of bureaucractic red tape? NASA's structure has been extremely messed up for years - they kill good projects and throw the money away on bad ones. Shuttle ought to be a big red warning sign. I'm more than sympathetic about basic research problems (shoot, man, spend more! More!), but NASA's current operations are not that.

  41. Population problem solved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jetesson them to the moon under the guise of a space program :D

  42. I doubt this. by Krapangor · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't think all scientist who were working and the first ICBM really wanted to create ICBMs instead of real "space rockets".
    I think some of them tried to build "space rockets" and used them for military purposes.
    Take von Braun for example. He always wanted real space flight (well known fact) but build military rockets for the Nazis and the US first. But when the US were searching for space flight rockets after the sputnik shock his project succeeded at once unlike to navy's whose blew up very impressively. The navy used ICBM based designs. I suspect that von Braun always kept space flight capable rockets in mind and created the rocket stuff this way. Therefore his success.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  43. China & the Press by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    It's a shame that China is taking the classic police state stance of "We'll tell the press about it once it's over successfully, or not at all if its a failure" with these launches. Because the People's Army Navy has to send specialized tracking ships to around the world in order to keep in contact with the capsule, both foriegn intelligence and foreign news agencies know of a pending launch long before the rocket is put on the pad. And I haven't even mentioned NORAD yet.

    With all that going against them, if there is a failure it will be all over the internet long before the state officially confirms or denies that there ever was a launch. That can't be good for their credibility...

    1. Re:China & the Press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With all that going against them, if there is a failure it will be all over the internet long before the state officially confirms or denies that there ever was a launch. That can't be good for their credibility...

      You do know the Internet wasn't open to the public during the 60s? Wait, the Internet didn't even exist then. Only recently did the government declassify footage and documents of all the failed US space missions. I don't know if they're still selling these, but some commercials were hawking cassette tapes of all the failed launches (very spectacular). Like you said, too bad our government censors these things...

    2. Re:China & the Press by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "Only recently did the government declassify footage and documents of all the failed US space missions."

      All manned US missions were well-publicized, with launch dates announced to the press in adavance. While aspects of their missions may or may not have been kept classified (depending on the mission in question), we always knew who was going up, when, and for how long.

      As for the police state approach, the Soviet Union made no mention of Gagarin until it was confirmed he was safely on the ground, which is probably what will happen when the first yuhangyuan goes into orbit and then lands safely.

  44. Mod that up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn man, that's just so true, we just forget them evertime no? I saw these kids on Discovery the other day, they are white, and worse off than any kids in Somalia or Ethopia. Shame, real shame, good thing I'm not an yank.

  45. MOD DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators! The bitch InnovativCX is just a buzzword compliant script that posts garbage on /. Read and unserstand before you mod anything sluts.

  46. Because China isn't a communist state. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dispite what most people want to believe, China is not a communist state.
    There's a mix between capitalism and communism, thus taking advantage of the best of both worlds.
    Everybody has the right to start his/her own company.

  47. *** MOD UP *** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful post! Please mod up!

  48. ** MOD UP ** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful post, please mod up.

  49. missed the boat. by xanthig · · Score: 1

    So china plans on sending a human into space... Hmmm Oh my god! The Chinese are catching up on american technology, they're only 40 years behind our space program!!

    1. Re:missed the boat. by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      You mean 50 years... But anyway, it is never too late to catch up. No matter how far behind you are.

    2. Re:missed the boat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >The Chinese are catching up on american technology, they're only 40 years behind our space program!!


      Yeah--40 years behind our space program which has been going in circles for put near the last 30. We keep on like this and I don't think the PRC will have any problems catching up. Or surpassing.

  50. Please try to understand: by glrotate · · Score: 0

    Warp drives do not exist. Not many are willing to waste 6 travelling to and fro the nearest planet Mars.

    Not to mention that these are essentialy multi billion dollar geology experiments. Travel to Mars and analyze their wonderful red rock.

    Space Travel is nearly pointless.

  51. Now is the time to go to Mars! by yggdrazil · · Score: 1

    Now is the time to go to Mars.
    Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

    Send a bunch of equipment first,
    then a large party of humans, one way.
    Let them explore the planet,
    and then figure out how to change the planet, plants, animals and humans to be able to live there, selvsufficiently...

    Everone who would like to become the first martians, raise their hands...

  52. Can you read the text you quoted? by glrotate · · Score: 0
    "A rocket is far more complicated than a missile, and the technologies are remarkably parallel."



    Note he did not say ballistic missile defense was simmilar to space travel, he said ballistic missiles are simmilar, because they are.

    The chinese could care a less about the swiss cheese on the moon. They want to be able to nuke New York and Washington DC. How hard is that for you to figure out?

    1. Re:Can you read the text you quoted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two questions:

      1) They can already nuke NYC & Washington with their current technology. What difference would a manned space program make?

      2) What evidence do you have that they are being overly aggressive in their intentions. Hell if I had 3000 warheads that could potentially be aimed at me, then why should I not be able to have some form of defense to that threat.

  53. No poverty? So thats why Chinese eat dogs? by glrotate · · Score: 0

    http://www.ahan.org/pages/dogschina.html

    They raise st bernards to feed the masses.

    1. Re:No poverty? So thats why Chinese eat dogs? by seizer · · Score: 1

      What's actually wrong about eating dogs? The only difference between a cow and a dog is in your upbringing (and mine, incidentally - I don't like the idea, but I can see that it's only my nurture, not nature, which has produced that feeling).

  54. What Bullshit!!! by Low_Drag · · Score: 1

    No one dies of Ringworm, its a minor fucking skin fungus! If her mother would put down the Crack Pipe and go get some food stamps from uncle sugar, no one would starve either!

    1. Re:What Bullshit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      INAMD,

      But (still med school), I would like to drop my 2cents into this discussion.

      When Ringworm (tinea capitis), infects the subject's scalp (just for example), it has been known that the worms can drill right through the skull or via fissures near soft bones, eyes, ears and hive in the brain itself. Ringworm infections in the brain, often is very hard to cure, if it's minor, a small surgery is good enough, major cases often leads to brain damage and or death (Louis and Clarke, 1994).

      Though most ringworm infections are easy to cure, it has been known that people of the Aplechian mountains are at the highest risk from this worm. The reason for this being, almost non-existant healt care facilities, poverty and lack of education.

      In a study done (Ali and Ramesh, 1997) in the late 90's in the mountains, it was found that 3 in every 10 deaths were caused by advanced ringworm infections. Curiously enough, scalp acne, an advanced form of acne, was found to have an infection rate of 98% with more than half on the critical. Ringworm infectionations can advance through scalp acne and become devastating.

      Hope that helps.

    2. Re:What Bullshit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno what freaking med skool you are at, but *every* link I looked at when I searched on google for "Ringworm tinea capitis" said *nothing* about worms.

  55. Bush has INCREASED NASA's budget by Low_Drag · · Score: 1

    Clinton cut it in real dollars most of his two terms. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. Bush is trying to fix another one of Clinton's many mismanagement messes.

  56. They're going to beat us! by JWhiton · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like China is trying to get the jump on us! We all know what we must do...

    We must be the first country to send a Chinese man to the moon!

  57. huh? by austad · · Score: 2

    I thought I remember hearing that they were planning on shooting someone into space sometime this year? Wasn't that on slashdot a few months back?

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wasn't that on slashdot a few months back?

      Very true. I suspect CNN of now "forgetting" that they reported on the same news stories before, and just recycles them. Ah, the mediocrity of /.

  58. billions for first space tourist service by peter303 · · Score: 2

    The US seems to be ignoring this market-
    people who'd pay a hundred grand for a week in
    orbit. Perhaps a clever competitor like China
    will figure out how to do this cost effectively.

    1. Re:billions for first space tourist service by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      The US seems to be ignoring this market-
      people who'd pay a hundred grand for a week in
      orbit.


      Not really, their are a dozen or more groups working on serving just that market.. The core problem is that none of them have been able to attract funding because the market is so small at the hundred grand level.

      There are also a few groups working on the 20- to 50- grand/week market, but it also questionable if the market is even big enough at that level.

      Perhaps a clever competitor like China will figure out how to do this cost effectively.

      Cost effectiveness is not the problem, getting the ticket price low enough and the service reliable enough and attracting enough riders to amortize your costs is. ('Cost effective' does not 'cheap'.)

  59. Itsa Superpower Status Symbol by Tablizer · · Score: 0


    It says, "we are rich and powerful enough to *waste* money on manned missions when robots are cheaper and safer"

    Humans should go into space, but first we need to find something beyond chemical fuels to make it economical. Researching that is where the money should go for now IMO, not more Chemnauts.

  60. Ascriptive society - Expect more of this by ba-iii · · Score: 1

    In this ascriptive world, this is more than expected! Of course it has its good and bad parts.
    It is good since it is furthering of science and technology in a different part of the world and this will create more momentum to advance science as all the world notices.
    It is bad because of the veiled goals that are being met. China is set to meet more such goals with its portending currency devaluation.
    We should only expect more of this!

  61. A couple of thoughts... by kcbrown · · Score: 2
    1. The space race might start up again, and that might be a good thing, but don't let it get your hopes up. The goal I (and many others) would like to see achieved is a permanent, independant manned presence in space, because only then will we as a race truly be able to survive whatever happens to our planet.

      But there's a reason for the opposition to private manned space missions expressed by the government: the government opposes an independent manned presence in space. The reason is that such an independent group would wield much more power than the U.S. government does, because it could (if it wished) threaten to drop small asteroids anywhere on earth with relatively high precision. It's only when the U.S. government has an adequate defense against such an attack that it will truly allow a manned presence in space.

    2. Another cold war might be good for the United States, in terms of freedom and such. Didn't anyone here notice how quickly our freedoms started to erode once the cold war with the Soviet Union ended? Without an "enemy" that exemplifies traits that are in direct opposition to the ones the U.S. ostensibly stands for (liberty, justice, etc.), it seems we move quickly away from what we stand for -- we forget who and what we are. If we get into another cold war, we might get some of our freedoms back. Because it would not do at all for us to look so much like the enemy.

      Of course, that's probably wishful thinking: we'll probably wind up in another cold war and lose more freedom all at the same time, and in the name of that cold war to boot!

    Sigh... The world seems like such a hopeless place right now, because there's no place left on earth that I know of where real liberty isn't on its deathbed.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  62. Why demand aid? by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    when you can figure out how to help yourself. Maybe the whole reason behind the chinese space programme is because they realise that they're running out of land faster than anyone else. If they had the ability to ship people to another /planet/ then things might be a little easier on the long run.

    Kinda like the british overpopulation problem in the late 1700s, leading to all that empire land grabbing.

  63. *** MOD DOWN *** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moron post, please mod down.

  64. Re:ESA & Human Rights WAS: Re:Why the European by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you start spoutin it, check your bloody facts, The majority of the ISS as currently in orbit has been launched by the Proton rocket from Baikonor in Kazakhstan. Non of it at this point has been launched by Ariane. The rest of it has been transported by the space shuttle.

    Until the last couple of years, the Ariane 5 rocket could not be commited on as it was still technically in the testing phase of development when the launch plans were being made for these components. The Ariane 4 rocket was all booked up as well as cost far too much for ISS budget.

  65. I doubt this will happen by AnimeFreak · · Score: 1

    Reason?

    In the next bit, China is going to join WTO. Many people, including me, will see this as a stab into Lady China's chest as it will cause the country's economy to crumble further and then cause the current government to collapse out of Communism.

    Then again, they're not really Communist when they have moved away from the Communist side of Economics.

  66. Rescue? by istartedi · · Score: 2

    How hard would it be to retrofit a Space Shuttle for a Lunar mission? Could the cargo bay hold an Apollo-style LEM and enough fuel for the mission? Perhaps the shuttle could rendezvous with some kind of booster, although I imagine you'd have to EVA to bolt them together. Really, I don't care how they do it, it would just be really cool to see the Shuttle in Lunar orbit, with a lander coming out of the cargo bay.

    If the Chinese are serious about this, they should swallow their pride and establish rescue plans with the US and Russia. Even if we can't fit a lander in the cargo bay, we might still be able to rescue them from Lunar orbit.

    It seems like this whole business might actually be done best by combining Russian and US technology. Use the US lander technology, and the Russian disposable rockets to launch fuel modules into low orbit. Link up with the fuel module and away you go! Come to think of it, why bother just using it to rescue the Chinese? Why not just go there ourselves? Oh wait... there's not much reason to go, and establishing a permanent presence would be EXPENSIVE.

    So, unless the Chinese find something really valuable to mine up there, I don't see the rationale for a permanent presence at this time. Then again, maybe they know how to make rockets really cheaply, but based on my experience with cheap metal products made in China, I wouldn't want to ride one.

    If there is stuff to mine up there, we should send robot mining units. Why risk people for such a prosaic activity?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Rescue? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      How hard would it be to retrofit a Space Shuttle for a Lunar mission?

      Extraordinarily difficult. (It would take *5* Saturn V's to boost *1* shuttle into Lunar orbit.) You could develop a shuttle carried LM and CSM, and bolt them together in (earth) orbit, but the shuttle can't lift the tran-lunar injection stage.

      So, unless the Chinese find something really valuable to mine up there,

      There is *no* mineral so expensive and unobtainable on Earth that it makes any sense to go to the moon for. (Even using the most optomistic estimates of the Cheap Acess to Space crowd, the moon simply takes to much fuel to get to and return.)

    2. Re:Rescue? by istartedi · · Score: 2

      It would take *5* Saturn V's to boost *1* shuttle into Lunar orbit

      That's totally not what I had in mind. I was thinking of launching the shuttle with an empty bay and a skeleton crew. The lander and the fuel would come either from one big (separate) launch, or perhaps part of an "emergency supply" attached to the ISS.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Rescue? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      That's totally not what I had in mind. I was thinking of launching the shuttle with an empty bay and a skeleton crew. The lander and the fuel would come either from one big (separate) launch, or perhaps part of an "emergency supply" attached to the ISS.

      It would still take the equivalent of *5* Saturn V's to boost the shuttle into lunar orbit. The Shuttle is big and heavy and takes a lot of fuel to put into trans lunar coast, a lot of fuel for lunar orbit injection, a lot of fuel for trans earth coast and a * lot * of fuel to slow down. (It's a toss up whether the wings would rip off before the tiles failed, neither will stand up to the forces of a reentry from a lunar trajectory.)

    4. Re:Rescue? by istartedi · · Score: 2

      I see your point. I guess you have to compare the size of a CSM+LEM to the size of Shuttle+LEM. I was thinking that most of the energy was expended simply getting into low Earth orbit, and that once you were there it wasn't that bad to reach escape velocity. I mean, they are already going 18,000mph and escape is 25,000 so it didn't seem that bad. Where do you get your 5 Saturn figure though? I'd be interested in seeing some equations.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:Rescue? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Where do you get your 5 Saturn figure though?

      Rough memory from working it out in the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup years ago. (2 SV's to refuel the ET for TLI. Another to boost the LOI stage, another to boost the TEI stage, another to boost the retro stage..) Something like that.

  67. err... by air1 · · Score: 1

    'The mission is part of Beijing's plans to create a space industry and earn the prestige of joining the United States and Russia as the only nations to have sent humans into space errr... isn't ariane a european project, wasn't jean lou chretien sent in space...???? oh well

    --
    if the sites slashdot links to get slashdoted, how come slashdot itself never gets slashdoted??
  68. Re: China Plans Manned Space Launch By 2005 by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1

    Perfect timing. I just finished researching synthetic fibers. If I hurry production in three of my cities I can launch my spaceship by 2004.

  69. Obligatory Geek Culture Reference by Halloween+Jack · · Score: 1
    --
    I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.