Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Manned Space Flight Set For Autumn

brandido writes "According to an article at Space.com, "Chinese space officials remain on schedule for the first piloted flight of that nation's Shenzhou spacecraft. Chief designers and mission directors say Shenzhou 5 will be launched in autumn, reported the People's Daily last week." Between this, the X-Prize, and multiple launches of Mars probes in the last few weeks, it looks like the space race may be heating back up?"

373 comments

  1. let's get ready to rumble! by sweeney37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's like my dad always said, "a little competition never hurt anyone."

    look at the last time the US had a space race, we achieved what many call the greatest achievement of mankind, we landed on the moon.

    Mike

    1. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by goldspider · · Score: 2, Funny
      "we achieved what many call the greatest achievement of mankind, we landed on the moon."

      ...or did we?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooperative competition never hurt anyone. The last time the US had a space race, it was because the whole world had the chance of implosion by nuke.

      As long as everyone plays nice, everything will be ok, but when was the last time everyone played nice?

    3. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree about a little competition never hurting, but I think the greatest achievement of mankind could be any one of these:
      1. Not blowing up the whole world yet
      2. Moveable type and its' consequences (books, replication of knowledge, etc)
      3. Penicillin
      Once manned heavier-than-air flight was demonstrated, going to the moon was pretty inevitable, but would have been impossible to achieve w/o either of the first 2 items :-)
    4. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      But if we go ahead now and do all these amazing things - wont they just become the next generations conspiricy theories?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by DonkeyJimmy · · Score: 1

      we achieved what many call the greatest achievement of mankind, we landed on the moon.

      I dunno man, have you ever seen Shaolin Soccer?

      --
      "Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
    6. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by missing000 · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest the transistor.

      You would have a hard time getting to the moon without a lot of transistors.

    7. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by el-spectre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a slight difference between a 100 foot flight in a light aircraft, and launching a 7 million pound rocket, I think.

      I am still amazed that we went from 'can't fly' to 'can land on other astronomical bodies' in less than a lifetime.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    8. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Mnemia · · Score: 1

      I'd call penicillin-based antibiotics more of an achievement of a mold than of mankind. After all, they are the ones that evolved the bacterial-nuking chemicals as a survival mechanism...

    9. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by bravehamster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just because an achievement was dependant upon earlier advances does not lessen its greatness any. Indeed, it would be better to say that Man landing on the Moon represented the pinnacle of human achievement to that point, the result of thousands of years of single achievements put into focus by a unique moment. The only thing I can think of that will trump that is when we create our first extrasolar colony and ensure the long term survival of the human race, regardless of what happens on Earth.

      --
      ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    10. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Troll
      There's a slight difference between a 100 foot flight in a light aircraft, and launching a 7 million pound rocket, I think. I am still amazed that we went from 'can't fly' to 'can land on other astronomical bodies' in less than a lifetime.
      The fact that it was done in under a lifetime shows that it wasn't such a big stretch after all. thanks for (inadvertently) proving my point :-)
    11. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You malodorus dolt! Everybody knows that the transitor was reverse engineered from ALIEN TECHNOLOGY!

    12. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about

      1) The Haber process for synthesizing ammonia. Without ammonia for fertilizer, this planet would probably have experienced Malthusian famines.

      2) The transistor. 'Nuff said.

      3) The movable type printing press. Time magazine named Guttenberg (not Steve) the Man of the Millenium.

      4) Mathematics in general

      5) The scientific method

      6) Heat engines, generators, motors, which enabled the industrial revolution.

      7) Controlling fire

      8) Langugage...to paraphrase Pink Floyd..."For millions of years, man lived just like the animals...then one day something happened which opened the power of our imaginations...we learned to talk".

    13. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and it should of course be noted that dogs made it into space before humans.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    14. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by goofballs · · Score: 1

      except launching something into space has very, very little to do with flight!

    15. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators, don't mod this racist white trash.

    16. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      it's like my dad always said, "a little competition never hurt anyone."

      Depends on the nature of the competition.

      For example, insanely stockpiling nuclear weapons nearly destroyed all of us. Even the Space Race involved fatalities that might have been averted if it wasn't a race. Today, any number of faulty products are shipped before they are ready in the name of competition. Athletes destroy their own bodies to seek a little bit of competitive edge.

      Point is, history has indeed shown that humans perform well under competitive pressure. However, competition doesn't always bring out the best behavior among humans.

    17. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I certainly don't want to diminish the importance of heavier-than-air flight, but I just have to be a twit and point out that people have been flying in balloons since the late 1700s.

      What really amazes me is how soon after the historic flights of Alcock and Brown, and of Charles Lindbergh, it became comparatively safe and routine to fly across the Atlantic.

      (I know my comma placement sucks, but I'm too tired to fix it.)

    18. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Sorry slick, that pretty poor logic. That 2 events occur in succession does not mean that one naturally led to the other.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    19. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have a hard time getting to the moon without a lot of transistors.

      We got to the moon without the use of transistors. However, the electron is another story.

    20. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extrasolar colonies may not ensure survival against all natural disasters. Gamma ray bursts are apparently pretty potent.

    21. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      except launching something into space has very, very little to do with flight!</quote>

      Do a little research on manned space flight.

      One of the steps to get there, they had a little project called the X-15 Rocket-Plane. Got right to the edge of space.

      There was also the Dyna-Soar project (Dynamic Soaring)

      And let's face it, if it wasn't for trying to fly through the atmosphere on re-entry, Columbia wouldn't have disintegrated. Those were wings, buddy. Sure it flew like a brick, but it flew.

    22. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have to say that the development of agriculture was far more important than any of those 3 accomplishments.

      It led mankind away from being hunter-gatherers, and started a fundamental change in the way we live (creation of cities).

    23. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's face it, if it wasn't for trying to fly through the atmosphere on re-entry, Columbia wouldn't have disintegrated. Those were wings, buddy. Sure it flew like a brick, but it flew.


      OMG, Great, they should have hired you over at NASA, since those dudes have been thinking about this and have not _yet_ come up with why Columbia disntegrated.

      I think you are the greatest piece of white_meat_elderly_troll on /., I feel much pleasure in replying to your greatness, maybe one day you'd invite me over to your little Canadian town and we can enjoy a mutal fisting sessions.

      I do enjoy the way you say "Dynamic Soaring", it just sends vibes through my rectum. Honestly, honey, arn't you gonna get me a boner with that Dynamic Soaring penis of yours?

      And speaking of X-15.. OMG.. did I say I love your rocket? I just love it cause

    24. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I said that it had to go through the atmosphere. There are only 2 ways to do that, at this point - ballistic (you drop like a rock) or glide (like the shuttle). If there was no atmosphere, the shuttle would not have burned up by friction w. said atmosphere. Sorry you didn't/couldn't/wouldn't see the connection.

      Even the apollo capsules could control their re-entry profile to a certain extent - the center of gravity wasn't along the same axis as the center of the heat shield.

    25. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, if you need more obvious proof. ;)

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    26. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I think more hamsters/frogs/mice have been launched than any other species. They may not have gone as high, but the results are always spectacular...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    27. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

      i find it funny that in encouraging others to be angry and repelled by the comment within your link because its racist...and then you follow it up with a racist slur.

      Brilliant

      --
      Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
    28. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Ok.

      The X Rocket planes were very advanced and fast, but they were still held aloft by aerodynamic lift (at least as much as a F-16 is now). A rocket has zero aerodynamic lift, but a massive amount of thrust.

      I will give you that the X-planes advanced rocketry, but they were completely different vehicles than a Saturn V.

      Also, the shuttle doesn't generate significant lift either. Re-entry is essentially a controlled fall used to bleed off speed. It has a 4-1 glide ratio, which is pretty poor. If a landing is blown, there is no way of pulling up and trying again.

      Sorry man, but you're wrong. Can we let it go?

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    29. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      The early X rockets had fully functional wings - that was one of the reasons they couldn't go so fast. Just look at an X-1 - no sweep-back.

      The X-15, however, doesn't have much wing - if you stood it on it's tail fins, it looks pretty much what people in the '50s sci-fi books thought a "rocket-shop" should look like.

      A 4-to-1 glide ratio is still better than zero. And for a hypersonic glider, pretty damn impressive.

      Different vehicles, w. different purposes. But you or I would give our eye-teeth to take a ride in the X-15-A-2. 4,520 mph. mach 6.7 280,000 feet (53 miles up)!

    30. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Well, I was going for firsts. If you want to count numbers, I'm not sure, but I suspect only a microbiologist would recognize the species that has had the largest number of members in space...

      And now that I think about, they should share with dogs the honor of being among the first species into space, well before any human...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    31. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the wings were more for steering than lift, in truth. But the aircraft had to be lifted by a B-52 and did not travel anything like a traditional rocket.

      4-1 is a very very poor ratio for a glider.

      280,000 feet? I don't think it flew that high... that's even higher than the blackbird.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    32. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      4-1 is a very very poor ratio for a glider.</quote>

      But a hell of a lot bettr than a pure rocket :-)

      Actually, the record was 350,000 feet, which is even more. Here's a link at nasa x-15 Wonder what would have happened if they had continued along that line?

    33. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by goofballs · · Score: 1

      Do a little research on manned space flight.

      that's just it- manned space "flight" isn't "flight". massive thrust to get it up into orbit, with no pilot control, and a controlled fall, with little pilot control. manuvers in space hardly falls into the "flight" realm.

    34. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by goofballs · · Score: 1

      280,000 feet? I don't think it flew that high... that's even higher than the blackbird.

      it flew that high- you gotta remember the blackbird is air breathing and the x-15 was rocket propelled...

    35. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      280,000 feet? I don't think it flew that high... that's even higher than the blackbird.

      Discovery Wings has been running some stuff on the X-planes lately...IIRC, the X-15 topped 300k feet on some of its flights. Several pilots got their astronaut wings while flying the X-15...it generally flew much higher than the SR-71 (which normally went to somewhere around 80-100k feet).

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    36. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      yipe, I stand corrected (and impressed)!

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    37. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell do cross-dressing nuns have to do with spaceflight?

    38. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by HydeMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am more impressed that Al Gore hasn't taken credit for any of these great acheivments!

    39. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you call him a malodorus dolt, you insensitive clod!

    40. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Gleng · · Score: 1

      Ooh...slashdotting some poor bastard's Tripod site.

      Spitefull!

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    41. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by PickyH3D · · Score: 0

      Tripod's exceeded bandwidth page is the sign of everything. Who knew?

    42. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by PickyH3D · · Score: 0

      So the glass is half empty?

    43. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      yeah, poor Laika was launched into space without any means of getting her back.

      I demand justice.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    44. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

      You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

      FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

      Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

      OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

      Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

      All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

      Fact: *BSD is dying

    45. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we're quaking in our boots over in the good old' U S of A. Imagine having those godless Chinese satellites flying over Iowa!!!!

    46. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You are splitting hairs.

      Neither the Shuttle nor Apollo nor any other manned spacecraft perform powered descents. That is, they're all doing variously faithful impersonations of bricks.

      So, by that argument, what these spacecraft do is not heavier-than-air "flight" (that is, using aerodynamic forces to travel through an atmosphere for a relatively long time).

      Of course, you could twist the definition to include space capsules if you wanted to, but the reality is that atmospheric flight has very little to do with space travel, manned or unmanned.

      Believe me. I know.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    47. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      Just to be sure, why exactly should I be penalized because you feel it's important to have government involved in space exploration? Remember, there are millions of people who don't approve of this use of tax dollars, but they are still forced to support it.

      Hold up moderators -- this no troll. I have a legitimate question here. What makes this arbitrary use of government so important that I should be FORCED to support it?

      The key to space exploration is not bigger, more oppressive government. If we really want space exploration to "take off", we need to remove government from the picture, and give the money back to those who know how to spend it best: those who actually earned it in the first place.

      I hate to bring it up, but the US government space program has failed spectacularly not once but twice. If that was a private firm competing in the market, they would have been driven into the ground a long time ago, and rightly so. When a government program fails, they are often rewarded with more funding -- digging us even deeper into the hold.

    48. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      In that case, this would be my list of greatest human achivements:

      1. Intelligence. (as in thinking)
      2. Use of tools.

      Once Intelligence was mastered, not blowing up the world was pretty inevitable. Movable type was also pretty much inevitable with the combined forces of the intelligence and the use of tools discovery, with sufficient time span. Sufficient time span given by not blowing up the world.

      Nah

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    49. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, she got back. Kind of.

    50. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably learned that Dubya claimed them as his already.

    51. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite how you can call a naturally occurring organism the "greatest achievement of mankind" is beyond me.

    52. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of the backyard launches. Although I did launch a few rockets as a kid, I didn't have any payloads in them, but I have seen a few bugs go up...and so few ever come back down in any recognizable form in the capsule...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    53. Re:let's get ready to rumble! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      To a point, I agree. But those X-15 and other rocket-propelled planes were testbeds for engines, fuels, materials, aerodynamic models like laminar flow, etc. A whole heck of a lot of research that was done trying to fly fast horizontally directly translates into trying to fly fast vertically.

      I'd say launching rockets has a whole bunch to do with flight.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  2. Wow ... by jmays · · Score: 4, Funny

    and to think ... they all have accomplished so much even without the support of N*SYNC. Amazing.

    --
    KARMA TAG! You're it.
  3. This is great news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...because the astronauts on the space station have been hungry for delivery for weeks.

    1. Re:This is great news... by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Funny

      problem is, they'll be hungry again about an hour after they've eaten...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:This is great news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROR!

    3. Re:This is great news... by davidhan · · Score: 1

      But at least they'll get those pirated Finding Nemo DVDs they've been waiting for.

    4. Re:This is great news... by bad_fx · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they can always eat their space suits:

      Also, space suits are at the ready, including more than 20 kinds of China-made space food.

  4. I hope they are serious about space by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and I really hope everything goes perfect for them.

    Because it seems that China will be the only hope for real advances in space. The US program will never gear up to what it is supposed to be at.

    All I know is the thing that may do it, is china placing a moon base just might get the attention of the tubs of idiocy that sit in the congress and house of represenatives....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I hope they are serious about space by WC+as+Kato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US is hindered by a major factor; MONEY. I'm certain that technology is not a problem. NASA and its U.S. contractors are going to be paid a lot more than their China counterparts. With the US budget deficit in the trillions, the government has to be convinced that a space race is worth funding.

      --
      --- I'm Green Hornet's sidekick not Inspector Clouseau's!
    2. Re:I hope they are serious about space by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      Getting China into the race might just make the U.S. program back into what it was in the 1960's. We will hopefully return to the moon, even if because we'll be damned if we let China set up a base there first. A race to Mars would be another good next step.

      Of course the reasons for going would be less than noble, just to show up a new rival, but the technological advances that would come out of the program would be of great benefit for everyone back home on Earth.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    3. Re:I hope they are serious about space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said it was technology....

      and I never said it was money...

      the problem with the space program and NASA is the idiots we call congress, the house of representatives and the president. If they pulld their heads out of their butts long enough to think about the future we would be much farther along.

    4. Re:I hope they are serious about space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone assume that the congress and house of reps are "tubs of idiocy" simply because they don't pour resources into spaceflight? I mean honestly, other than fulfilling some geek wet dream, what will actually be accomplished? Going to Mars still won't cure aids, bring security, or even help us give housing to the homeless.
      Maybe colonization could alleviate some of these things, but there are far deeper problems that we have to deal with first. So again, short of fulfilling trekie dreams why berate the lawmakers on this one?

    5. Re:I hope they are serious about space by einTier · · Score: 1

      NASA is hindered because they think space is only for scientists and research projects. The adversion to space 'tourists' is so high there, I don't know if they could embrace it even if would save the organization as a whole.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
    6. Re:I hope they are serious about space by ashayh · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the US (and other nations) had stopped spending such ridiculous amounts of money on "Defense", man would've been on Mars a long time ago.
      I know its too much to hope it'll happen.

    7. Re:I hope they are serious about space by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Weellllll.....
      The space program was a defense program; we would never have, probably, even got so far as the jet aircraft stage by now if it wasn't for defense spending.
      I'm not counting out goddard, of course, but most of the MAJOR advances in Rocketry, Aircraft & Avionics are due to WAR, or the threat of war; Jet aircraft & Rocketry were kick started by WWII, the Space Race was just a facet of the Cold War.. Read a book called "the Right Stuff"; it not only shows this clearly, but also illustrates how screwed we are due to the decision to go with gemini / apollo instead of continuing on the path that the X-15 project was traveling.
      But on the Lighter side, This news is a Fucking Fantastic thing; I want my kids to have the option of getting OFF this suicidal planet.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    8. Re:I hope they are serious about space by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      NASA and its U.S. contractors are going to be paid a lot more than their China counterparts.

      There is a simple solution to this problem that companies have been using for years. Simply outsource the production to Asia!

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
  5. if there is not a race to mars by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 5, Insightful

    then I don't know what else could get NASA moving again.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:if there is not a race to mars by KavanaghNY · · Score: 1

      I agree. Without a central focus on the human exploration of Mars, the American astronaut corps will be tasked with maintaining and repairing the International Space Station for the next twenty years. Swap out a gyroscope here, repair a carbon-dioxide scrubber here, ad nauseum. Risky but boring.

      A month after the Columbia disaster, I sent a letter to my senators in D.C. suggesting a plan to rebuild and revitalize the american space program. Here is the letter.

    2. Re:if there is not a race to mars by FeloniousPunk · · Score: 1

      Remember, it's not a matter of getting NASA moving again. It's a matter of getting the Congress and the President moving again. If NASA had the bucks, they'd be ecstatic to build and operate a Mars manned mission! But they get very, very few bucks these days, and that's largely thanks to the Congress (and the President to a lesser extent, though I think the Executive has conditioned itself to diminishing returns from Congress since the end of the Space Race and just doesn't bother asking for much).
      Congress needs to catch the space religion. A Chinese astronaut on the moon would be the best way to do that.
      Nothing against the Chinese of course, just writing this from my USA standpoint. I wish them the best of luck, and the more countries exploring space, the better.

      --
      I know this because Tyler knows this.
    3. Re:if there is not a race to mars by Saad+M · · Score: 1

      It's not really NASA's fault to tell you the truth. It's more the fact that US Gov. has really withdrawn much of the funding that NASA did have during the Apollo program and hence leaving NASA to concentrate on smaller projects.

    4. Re:if there is not a race to mars by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      and let's be honest here, folks, the government won't make this push without popular support. I just don't see a widespread feeling that space exploration is that important. People would rather get tax cuts above all else, seemingly...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    5. Re:if there is not a race to mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just need to report on CNN that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network have established bases on Mars and we must respond. That's the only thing people care about anymore.

    6. Re:if there is not a race to mars by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure NASA is "moving", if only they had the funding, cause I think ideas and desires to go where no man has gone before is not what NASA lacks. The congress, and the public, and everyone who thinks spending dollars on stuff that kill others is well-spent money, aren't moving anywhere.

  6. Great, by stanmann · · Score: 1

    So when do we get to live on the moon. I want to fly in the air tank. And have an air conditioning plant(fern) in my room.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    1. Re:Great, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Vegetarians eat Vegetables, BEWARE the man who claims to be a Humanitarian.

      This makes me think of a lot of menus that have sections like: Chicken, Beef, Pork, Seafood, Vegetarian.

  7. Shenzhou = God's Vessel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wish them best luck.

    1. Re:Shenzhou = God's Vessel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off you big cock sucker

    2. Re:Shenzhou = God's Vessel by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

      actually Shenzhou means "Magic Vessel" or "Divine Vessel" http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-03p.html

      --
      Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
    3. Re:Shenzhou = God's Vessel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > fuck off you big cock sucker

      Are you accusing him of being a big cocksucker, or a big-cock sucker?

  8. Santa! This is what i want! by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully the Chinese pushing forward with developing their own space program might give NASA, ESA, and Multi-national Corporations the kick in the ass they need.

    can't wait to be able to say "We live in a world where a Chinaman has walked on the Moon." can you? :-|

    --
    Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
    1. Re:Santa! This is what i want! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the heck did this get modded up?

    2. Re:Santa! This is what i want! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Want to totally disrupt the whole China putting men on the moon thing? NASA should return to the moon. About two months before the Chinese are about to make their first manned landing on the moon, NASA successfully lands on the moon with a crew that includes one Chinese man. Heh heh heh...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Santa! This is what i want! by pizen · · Score: 1

      "We live in a world where a Chinaman has walked on the Moon."

      Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

    4. Re:Santa! This is what i want! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did capitalize it, you ass! What more do you want?

    5. Re:Santa! This is what i want! by SunPin · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious. The US could and should do just that.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
  9. Space Race Heating Up? by SanLouBlues · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, it definitely is. Only this time, it's the Capitalists vs. the Communists. Oh wait . . .

    1. Re:Space Race Heating Up? by Ryu2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      FYI, most sectors of China's economy are now largely capitalist and market-driven, in the wake of economic reforms that Deng Xiaoping instituted in the late 1970s.

      Perhaps you meant to say "Multiparty Democracy" vs. "Communist" government.

      --
      There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    2. Re:Space Race Heating Up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, most rational people don't consider Republicans and Democrats all that different. The foreign policy of both groups is virtually identical, while the internal policy is generally what differs. But looking back at Clinton's internal social policies and now seeing a republican dominated senate poised to approve major advancements in health care, perhaps the only difference in the two parties is the companies that support them.

      And seeing as how US companies get massive amounts of financial aid from the federal government, the US can't really be called a capitalist economy either. It doesn't have a free market in that those with a shoddy product or service can still crush their opposition if they have the right political connections.

      So perhaps 'feigned capitalism vs. feigned communism' is the more appropriate.

    3. Re:Space Race Heating Up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Multiparty Democracy"

      No, he wasn't talking about the European Space Agency.

    4. Re:Space Race Heating Up? by Lord+Barrabas · · Score: 1
      Communism = the system where ownership over production and its factors rests with the labour force.

      Economy = the system in which resources are allocated and transformed by production.

      Communism is, therefore, unavoidably associated with economics, not government. Classical upotian commmunism is defined by the lack of government (see Engels). Socialism, on the other hand, is defined by control/ownership of production being held by the Government (and, theoretically, ergo the people). So you can say "socialist government", but "communist government" actually makes no sense. If you're going to split hairs, don't rely on colloquial definitions.

      To paraphrase yourself, perhaps you meant to say "multiparty democracy" vs "authoritarian government".

  10. Those wacky Chinese! by Universal+Nerd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let the superpopulation of the moon begin!

    Huh huh...

    --
    Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul Ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
    1. Re:Those wacky Chinese! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as it's got a fat internet pipe, I'm in!

    2. Re:Those wacky Chinese! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it will but you won't be able to view goatse.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Those wacky Chinese! by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they only said you can have one child on THIS planet. They didn't mention the moon. LOOPHOLE!!

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  11. first chinese manned space flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I read one of those crackpot books, the kind that gives proof aliens visited earth in the past, ancient civilizations had modern technology (like batteries) etc.


    Anyhow, it claimed there were chinese plans from the 1400s or so for a space ship.

  12. Race may not be a good thing by addie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although the manned space program has been ridiculously successful in terms of preventing accidents, there have been 3 instances where small decisions have led to fatal mishaps. The Apollo launchpad fire, the Challenger, and of course Columbia. The more times we attempt these types of activities, the more accidents we will have. That said...

    I'm a space junkie, I love reading about anything exploration related. But national pride is not a good excuse for spending billions to go into space. Should we be celebrating the Chinese, or asking them why they aren't instead working on a way to contribute to the ISS program? Europe is heading for Mars news story, and the US has already been there. How many different times do we need to accomplish the same goal under different flags?

    I applaud the Chinese for getting a man into space, this is by no means an easy task. But we have to look at priorities. I'd love to live in a world where competition wasn't the driving reason to succeed!

    1. Re:Race may not be a good thing by msheppard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only reason you are alive is becuase your ancestors were competitive and won.

      I am referring to the single celled organisms that COMPETED with the other single celled organisms and won. Then they formed multi-celled organisms and kicked the other multi-celled organisms butts (well, what was going to become a butt eventually)

      So you say: "I'd love to live in a world where competition wasn't the driving reason to succeed," and to be blunt, there is no life if we don't compete. At least not as we know it.

      M@

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    2. Re:Race may not be a good thing by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Insightful
      That would be 3 incidents in the US. If I remember correctly, the Soviet Union is strongly suspected to have covered up deaths of astronauts.

      And the chinese are not doing the same goal as the US mission. The US mission was to reach the moon for Glory purposes and examination of the moon.

      The chinese mission is instead to improve their man mission space technology to be competitive with the US and russia. The moon is just a handy tourist attraction that is being used as a mile marker so that they will know they are getting it right.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Race may not be a good thing by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Its the differences that makes us who we are.
      The Chinese space program needs all the luck it can get, and I'm sure the majority of us here wish them the greatest success.
      Striving to better ourselves is what the human race does best. Diversity to create your own implementation of an idea is not only rewarding, but DOES bring benefits to others. The next generation space craft will be built upon the ideas and solutions found in the current generation. The same has been true throughout our entire existance.

      I cannot imagine a world where linux is simply a cooperative coilition with Microsoft.

      With each step we take we grow stronger.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:Race may not be a good thing by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

      "I'd love to live in a world where competition wasn't the driving reason to succeed!"

      What would you substitute? Competition is the ONLY reason to succeed. Because if you don't someone else WILL...and the losers of history (pure communists and religious fundamentalists mostly) Will tell you that if your culture doesn't promote structured competition you are DOOMED to failure. Thereâ(TM)s Russia (1990), Feudal Europe (Dark Ages), East Germany (Circa 1940s-90s) and countless others too numerous to mention.

      --
      Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
    5. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ironically YOU wouldn't exist if all the cells in your body didn't cooperate with each other. The real evolutionary steps came when there was cooperation: single cells forming multicellular organisms, animals forming groups, people forming tribes, etc. Competition only holds the status quo; it keeps things in a kind of entropy until the next big step forward.

      Alone I can build a house. We together can build a city.

      Furthermore, do you know what we call something that is so over compeditive that it cannot do anything BUT compete with everything?

      Cancer.

    6. Re:Race may not be a good thing by gasrios · · Score: 1

      I applaud the Chinese for getting a man into space, this is by no means an easy task. But we have to look at priorities. I'd love to live in a world where competition wasn't the driving reason to succeed!

      I totally agree. And I must add I am sorry to realize there are so many postings here by people who seem to be happy this will throw the USA back into the "Capitalists vs. Communists" sort of competition again. You are praising history jumping back 50 years.
      This notion of "competition for the new world" is about 500 years old. Why can't anyone think of anything new?

    7. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Vaystrem · · Score: 1

      "How many different times do we need to accomplish the same goal under different flags?"

      The problem is that you assume that every time an attempt is made it is trying to accomplish the same goal.

      Many, many, many space shuttle launches were underwent and the purpose of each mission was different: rescue a satellite, conduct a large number of experiments in a zero gravity environment, ISS related issues, etc.

      "Europe is heading for Mars news story, and the US has already been there."

      Fantastic, and absolutely correct, however, do you believe we have learned everything there is to know about Mars from the few visitations we have currently managed? No? Have you compared the significantly different experiment targets between the different programs? No?

      The fact is this is a wonderful development for all of science as no longer is the United States the primary vehicle for Space research. This will allow a great deal of new and varied experiments that may not have had the opportunity before, and will allow for greater global gathering of information from a variety of sources, instead of one.

      The only possible way I could agree with your statement would be if we all agreed the goal was
      KNOWLEDGE.

      And upon reaching that realization, I hope we would all understand that one trip, isn't enough to achieve that worthy goal.

    8. Re:Race may not be a good thing by bigjocker · · Score: 1

      Although the manned space program has been ridiculously successful in terms of preventing accidents, there have been 3 instances where small decisions have led to fatal mishaps. The Apollo launchpad fire, the Challenger, and of course Columbia. The more times we attempt these types of activities, the more accidents we will have. That said...

      With that kind of tought we would not have airplanes, sea boats, even cars. Do you think that the first airplane was the safest thing in the world? A lot of people died in the first days of aviation, or in the beginning of the trasatlantic cruises.

      I'm pretty sure there was somebody saying "why do you do it? do you have to risk so many lives? why do you try to make that thing fly instead of helping create faster cars?"

      I'm a space junkie, I love reading about anything exploration related. But national pride is not a good excuse for spending billions to go into space. Should we be celebrating the Chinese, or asking them why they aren't instead working on a way to contribute to the ISS program?

      WTF?? So, what you are saying is the ISS is the only thing we must focus on?

      Europe is heading for Mars news story, and the US has already been there. How many different times do we need to accomplish the same goal under different flags?

      Why does Ford keeps creating sport cars if Ferrari's will always be faster? In your previos sentence you asked why didn't they focused on the ISS, but if the US and the Russinas are already there, why bother?

      If Europe wants to go to mars then Good For Them !!!! If the US has lost it's enthusiasm for the big targets, that's their problem. The rest of the world still wants to conquer space, and complaining about other nation's efforts is not helping.

      If the US wants to focus on the ISS that's great, but somebody has to keep pushing the edges, that's how science and technology evolve.

      I applaud the Chinese for getting a man into space, this is by no means an easy task. But we have to look at priorities. I'd love to live in a world where competition wasn't the driving reason to succeed!

      Competition is one of the driving reasons to succeed. Ask IBM, Apple, Michael Jordan, the NYY, the Brazil football team ... etc

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    9. Re:Race may not be a good thing by zCyl · · Score: 1

      or asking them why they aren't instead working on a way to contribute to the ISS program?

      You are neglecting the strong psychological component to economics. If the Chinese successfully lead a manned space program, this will show the world that China and its people are ready and able to undertake complex technological endeavors. This translates directly into international investment into China and business cooperation with Chinese companies, which translates directly into booming economic strength.

      I for one hope they have a successful space program, science can benefit greatly from the diversity of approaches this can yield.

    10. Re:Race may not be a good thing by msheppard · · Score: 1

      Cancer: Good point. I was trying to make the jump single-cell compitition to multi cell coperation, but still competing.

      M@

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    11. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true to a very limited degree. There are plenty of examples where cooperation between genetically different groups of cells pays off too, otherwise we'd all be mating with our siblings.

    12. Re:Race may not be a good thing by gasrios · · Score: 1

      The only reason you are alive is becuase your ancestors were competitive and won.

      Can you enlighten me here and explain the relation between competition in nature being a driving force towards evolution and why international competition is not only the best but as you put it probably the only choice?
      BTW, The only reason we are all here is our ancestors *grouped* and fought together.

    13. Re:Race may not be a good thing by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lynn Margulis (famous microbiologist [and first wife of astronomer Carl Sagan, incidently]) wrote an article about what she rates as the five most dramatic steps forward in the evolution of life on Earth. I don't remember the whole list off the top of my head, but it included things like "motility" (going from just floating to moving under ones own control is a far bigger advance than, say, flying, which is just a refinement of motility). All five were not the result of competition but cooperation between formerly seperate organisms. Cooperation has brought about the biggest advances in evolution, competition has done nothing but refine the efficiency of existing designs...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    14. Re:Race may not be a good thing by mikerich · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If I remember correctly, the Soviet Union is strongly suspected to have covered up deaths of astronauts.

      Sorry, that was a myth put out by the Americans to make the Soviets look slipshod and backwards. All of the supposed cosmonauts who were killed before the flight of Yuri Gagarin have been found to be fictional and all of the flights since then have been accounted for.

      The Soviets have lost 4 men in space and no more. They were Vladimir Komarov on Soyuz 1 on April 24, 1967. Soyuz 1 flew well before the ship was ready, it was known to be faulty, but Brezhnev insisted that it was launched to keep up the pace against the Americans. Soyuz 1 suffered a series of faults ending in her parachutes becoming entangled, she crashed to Earth killing Komorov instantly.

      The second group of fatalities were Georgi Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev on-board Soyuz 11. They were the second crew of Salyut 1, the World's first space station (Skylab was second). After 23 days in orbit, Soyuz 11 returned to Earth, but a pyrotechnic malfunctioned during separation of the orbital and re-entry modules; an air valve was stuck open and the module gradually depressurised. The ship landed automatically, but the crew were found to be dead when the capsule was opened.

      And that's it.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    15. Re:Race may not be a good thing by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Competition is the ONLY reason to succeed. Because if you don't someone else WILL...

      And why would I be bothered by the fact that someone else has succeeded?

      Personally, I hope others succeed. The more they do, the more likely I do as well...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    16. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alone I can build a house. We together can build a city.

      Don't forget that the city is competing with many of the natural inhabitants of the area for resources. How many beavers do you see cooperating with the city?

    17. Re:Race may not be a good thing by tayjo · · Score: 1

      Nike got to you too?

      --
      With your neck on my shoulders we could wreck civilization!
    18. Re:Race may not be a good thing by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      Will tell you that if your culture doesn't promote structured competition you are DOOMED to failure. Thereâ(TM)s Russia (1990), Feudal Europe (Dark Ages), East Germany (Circa 1940s-90s) and countless others too numerous to mention.

      does the USA count too?

    19. Re:Race may not be a good thing by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      And how many times hasthe Millikin Oil Drop experiment been done? How many experimental aircraft have broken the speed of sound? If you want to be part of certain communities, you have to do things yourself, the hard way. That means launching and recovering a capsule, launching and recovering a live specimen, sending man into orbit. Although you can buy your way into any industry to a certain degree, you have neither the experience or the credibility until you've achieved certain goals. After all, this isn't programming or anything...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    20. Re:Race may not be a good thing by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I've always found the Russian approach to space pretty amazing. For all our (American) rhetoric about safety, the Russians have, and probably always have had during the entire history of space exploration, the most reliable spacecraft. I'd feel far safer in a Russian craft than any American one. It's not that things never go wrong, but when things go wrong on a Russian craft, they generally don't suffer catostrophic failure. I'm trying to find the word that makes me fear American spacecraft: would it be overengineered? They're way more complex than they need to be to do the job they need to do. I believe NASA thinks its mission is to push new technology forward, rather than solve specific problems (like how to put a man on the moon or make a reusable spacecraft) -- but is that really what we ought to be doing? Are we busy churning out American dreams while pragmatic Russians are staying focused on the problem at hand?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    21. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Of course there will be more accicdents... the only way to prevent them will be to compleatly cease manned space flight. It's not hard to make a small, wrong decision and have things go fataly wrong.

      As for national pride, is there any more driving force for a government to do anything at present? Other than go a terrorist huntin'?

      Each time something is done, the process is refined, and new things are learned (either that something works, or doesn't). It's the refinement of knowledge that will be the ultimate reward... eventually a trip to the moon or mars will be a routine thing. And the onward to bigger and better projects.

      Humans by their very nature are competitive beings, sending people out into space for the sake of a nation's pride is better than sending people off to war for national pride, don't you think?

    22. Re:Race may not be a good thing by JohnsonJohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the idea of evolution as an endless ass kicking contest holds sway with the Ted Nugent crowd it is neither rational nor an accurate protrayal of evolutionary processes. In the Darwinian sense competition is really a struggle of an organism against its changing environment. As the environment changes the organisms best capable of dealing with the changes survive. This is counterbalanced by the increased rate of reproduction that organisms closely attuned to a very specific set of environmental conditions can achieve. Hence, smaller mammals with lower caloric requirements, warm blood, large broods, short generations and omnivourous diets are better able to survive a cataclysmic event like the nuclear winter like event that ended the reign of the dinosaurs. Furthermore direct competition between species is rarely observed. For example, a lion will rarely go out of its way to attack a leopard unless the lion is near starvation and the leopard has recently made a kill. If the lion is such a poor hunter that it needs to steal food to survive it will probably not be able to reproduce as it will starve to death when the leopard leaves its territory and no other creature will provide food for it to scavenge.

      The primary force driving evolution then is the external environment. Direct competition generally occurs only within members of the same species but rarely leads to speciation. Also, direct competition usually is related to sexual (as opposed to asexual) mating and not all organisms that reproduce sexually compete directly. For example male songbirds "compete" by being considered more attractive than other birds (a situation that is mostly a result of genetics although diet and other environmental factors also play a role). In modern human society the ability to kick butt does not generally enhance the chances for reproduction. In the US being wealthy and buying a large house can help in the mating game, but unless you are a boxer or hockey player it is doubtful that butt kicking is going to help one gain those sexually advantageous items.

      To extend this analogy to the space race although personally I find stretching biological facts into epistomological facts about the world in general as pointless as deriving philosophical truth from quantum mechanics. Commercial space interests such as the X-prize contestants are generally looking to develop technology to the point where low earth orbit becomes cheap thanks to economies of scale. National space programs however tend to be more interested in prestige building programs: such as putting people in orbit, landing on the moon, and interplanetary missions which will not necessarily make achieving low earth orbit economical. Therefore there is room for cooperation between those who want to make space cheap and those who want to push the boundaries.

    23. Re:Race may not be a good thing by axxackall · · Score: 1
      I'm trying to find the word that makes me fear American spacecraft: would it be overengineered? They're way more complex than they need to be to do the job they need to do.

      Well said! Now I want to remind Albert Einstein:

      "Make things as simple as possible. But not simpler than that."

      Somehow I afraid that China space program is based on oversimlified solutions.

      --

      Less is more !
    24. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Rectal+Prolapse · · Score: 1

      You are thinking in the macro, not the micro. Multicellular organisms have contended with bacterial infections, viruses, and other parasites for millions upon millions of years. The host organism is directly competing with these smaller, more adaptable organisms for the resources that the host spent the energy to attain.

      The more successful parasites (like the common cold, the flu, fleas, etc.) don't have to kill the host. They use the host's body as an incubator for the parasite's reproductive needs. And, given enough time, the parasites can become part of the organism itself...a symbiotic cooperative relationship can develop (mitochondria may have been the result of such a process). But, obviously, not all organisms "choose" cooperation in their evolutionary development.

    25. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      Pssst! Cooperation is competition between larger groups or vs. reality!

      But don't let that get in the way of good socialist philosophising.

      Besides, the second part to "cooperation is better" is "cooperation is better, so you will cooperate with us on what we want to do and how we want to do it or we will kill you".

      I.e. Cooperation is competition -- between one group with a power hungry leader and a smaller group trying to live by themselves. Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, "cooperation", you know.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    26. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not in space, but I've seen a documentary that showed a film of a pretty bad on-pad explosion of a Russian rocket, killing many people around the rocket.

    27. Re:Race may not be a good thing by JohnsonJohnson · · Score: 1

      My point is that competition in the biological world is usually a race to differentiate in a manner that alleviates conflict rather than to destroy another species completely. Until the 20th century when smallpox was eradicated, the malaria parasite removed from much of the world and polio nearly eradicated the response of organisms to parasitic organisms was to develop traits; like the sickle cell gene in the case of malaria, which alleviate the problem without destroying the parasite. The sickle cell gene makes one less vulnerable to malaria but it does not destroy the parasite.

      Granted, humanity's ability to modify its behavior and environment, through public health campaigns in the case of smallpox or DDT in the case of malaria is a new and historically unprecendented phenomenon which changes the rules of biology. However it also a very recent phenomenon and has not been in effect during the evolutionary processes that led to humanity.

      I didn't say that evolution "chooses" cooperation over competition. Merely that in the case of evolution flight (through changes in genotype that often lead to phenotypic changes) is more often chosen than fight (physically destroying another species) to badly mix metaphors. It's not an either or proposition either, but by and large direct interspecies competition is far rarer than the Discovery Channel and Ted Nugent would have you believe.

      Even in the case of economics, flight through identification of underserved markets and first mover advantage is generally preferable to fight. One example is the response of European automobile manufacturers to the Japanese in the American market (the Europeans developed strong "brand" identities and sold cars at upmarket prices to those for whom a car is as much a lifestyle choice as a necessity) while GM, Ford et al. attempted to build their own small automobiles in direct competition with Toyota and Honda. The corporate history of Sun and Apple in response to Microsoft's expanding product lines: Apple essentially becoming the BMW of PC makers and Sun taking Microsoft head on is similar.

      Don't get me wrong, I like to deliver a good butt kicking as much as the next craven, sadistic narcissist. However, I don't need to justify my actions by claiming "that's how the world works".

    28. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, wait...

    29. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to live in a world where competition wasn't the driving reason to succeed!

      Yeah, maybe you and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot will have a tea party in hell.

    30. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, the three-named gentlemen were fiercely competitive domestically and internationally in making sure that no-one else their power.

    31. Re:Race may not be a good thing by SunPin · · Score: 1
      I cannot imagine a world where linux is simply a cooperative coilition with Microsoft.

      Neither can I. Which world do you live on? And while you're at it... where do you want to go today?

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    32. Re:Race may not be a good thing by Guppie · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be the accident on October 24, 1960, where a R-16 (aka. SS-6) rocket exploded on the launch pad, killing over 100 persons. Undoubtedly the worst accident during the space race.
      Read about it here or here.

    33. Re:Race may not be a good thing by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, do you know what we call something that is so over compeditive that it cannot do anything BUT compete with everything?

      American?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    34. Re:Race may not be a good thing by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Sorry :)

      I meant Republican.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    35. Re:Race may not be a good thing by mikerich · · Score: 1
      That's the one, although the space.edu page is incorrect. The R16 on the pad was an ICBM test and not a Mars mission. Kruschev had just made a boast about Soviet missiles being turned out like "sausages from a machine" and wanted to show off his new missile as the centrepiece of the anniversary of the Soviet Revolution.

      Not only that, but the R16 was desperately needed. The American government had been hyping 'the missile gap' when they knew there was nothing of the sort, but the Soviets felt pressurised to build up their arsenal. The R16 would be the first Soviet rocket to use a storable oxidiser (nitric acid) instead of liquid oxygen, which meant it could sit on the pad or in a silo, fully fueled and ready to go for an extended period.

      The disaster occurred because the engineers had been pressurised to launch on time. The missile was rolled out to the pad, fuelled and then tests were conducted which showed a series of faults. Desperate to launch, the engineers decided to make the fixes on a fully fuelled missile.

      The disaster involves the premature ignition of the second stage of the missile. Normally this was prevented from firing before first stage burn-out. At first stage burn-out, there should be a clean separation, followed by the ignition of the second stage. In the event of the first stage burning out but separation not occuring, the second stage would ignite and blow the first stage off the end of the rocket.

      The rocket was sitting on the pad, with its pipes filled with fuel and oxidiser that would ignite on contact. Somehow, they got through a valve into the engine chamber, the second stage ignited, the exhaust burned through the first stage which then exploded catastrophically.

      The R16 went on to become the Soviet Union's first successful ICBM, but AFAIK it was never used as a space launcher.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    36. Re:Race may not be a good thing by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      OK, but that would still be 3 US plus 2 soviets = 5 total. Not 3 for the world.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  13. Welcome ... by roark1138 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... to the 1960's, China!

    1. Re:Welcome ... by Arcturax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually their spacecraft are far more advanced than the Apollo era craft were, simply because there is newer tech today. Have you seen their space control center yet?

      It's awesome! There is a ton of information about their space program here.

      Also, you might want to note that the U.S. is currently incapable of landing on the moon. All the equipment used to do it in the 60's and 70's is too old and most of it can only be found in museums now. The rest is rusting in NASA hangars. If we want to go back, we would be better off developing updated versions of the Apollo craft. So in a way, China has a bit of an edge right now if there was a sudden race to put a base on the moon.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    2. Re:Welcome ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if you fat arse Americans wanted to get to the moon again now how long do you think it would take?

    3. Re:Welcome ... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      Probably a year or so. Take out the old Apollo plans, dust them off, put in new technology, and build the bugger.

    4. Re:Welcome ... by nervous_twitch · · Score: 1
      Seems to be dead. I found a few more:

      03.25.02.shenzhou.ctv.104.jpg

      03.25.02.shenzhou.ctv.105.jpg

      shenzhou-control.jpg

      Looks pretty nice :)

      --
      Trees everywhere, and not a forest in sight.
  14. Also in the news: by Rxke · · Score: 2, Informative

    on spacedaily.com : Arianespace, Boeing and Mitsubishi Heavy Plan alliance. By the way, Arianespace is already planning to work with the russian Proton guys... Looks like this kind of cooperation could be interesting in the long run for bigger projects, if this works out, a multi business way of thinking for e.g. future Mars missions wouldn't be looked upon as farfetched as it used to be (today, that is)

  15. Chinese astronaut by L.+VeGas · · Score: 0, Funny

    Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Chin Up".

    bwaaa haa haa haa

  16. New race by bobtheheadless · · Score: 1

    Although not much of a "race", I'm hoping it at least spurrs more NASA funding to send stuff to Mars (that won't blow up...)

    We humans are messing this planet up pretty bad, might be nice to move to a new one some day :)

    --
    --- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
    1. Re:New race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After they won the NBA champion last night, you could at least spell it right.

    2. Re:New race by bobtheheadless · · Score: 1

      Meh, I care not for basketball.
      Or an extra R here and therrrrre.

      --
      --- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
    3. Re:New race by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

      So we can screw that one up too? SWEET! Dibs on re-starting the Oil-Refining Industry on our new home!

      --
      Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
    4. Re:New race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm hoping it at least spurrs more NASA funding to send stuff to Mars (that won't blow up...)

      I hope they send stuff that WILL blow up. Explosions are cool ;)
  17. Japan is working diligently towards this too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just having a problem getting the laser sword to operate.

  18. Re:Article Text by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...capability of launching humans into anal orbit and returning...

    Oh god no....... not that!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  19. Space race by aplank · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A wise man once said "Space should not be a race It should be a journey" :-P

    1. Re:Space race by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So instead of saying the space race is heating up, we should say "It looks like the space meander is idling on luke-warm"?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Space race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's rhetorical nonsense... who said that?

  20. Space Flight Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they follow the stereotypic asian driver (or suicidal pilot running into spy planes) I dunno if it'd be safe to have them up there.

  21. The Iraqi Information Minister by uli9999 · · Score: 1

    Let's listen what the Information Minister has to say on this topic:

    http://www.theinformationminister.com

    Yeah, he knows what's going on...

  22. Re: The People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the same reason politicans do stuff "for the children".

  23. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you suck, not even cloooooooooooooooooooooooooose.

  24. Heating up, heh by Nix0n · · Score: 0, Troll

    Heating up?

    Let's hope it doesn't "heat up" too much upon re-entry. Remember what happened to the Columbia!

  25. Unmanned flight is cheaper by viniosity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is a lot to be said for unmanned flight. Just because the Chinese are getting ready to send a manned spacecraft up does not mean that we should assume that this race is good. In reality it costs a LOT more to send a manned flight into space (safety concerns). That's money that might be better spent in other places. I can understand if lots of you are skeptical about it given where Congress chooses to spend money. Still, I would think that it might be worth a pause before deciding this is a race we need to win.

    1. Re:Unmanned flight is cheaper by Cedric+C.+Girouard · · Score: 1
      In reality it costs a LOT more to send a manned flight into space (safety concerns).


      Then, get some cheaper, more expandable astronauts... Some deathrow residents... You know... You might make it, you might not. If you make it we'll give you life instead of the needle ?

      The amount of security devices on the shuttle if I'm not mistaken exceeds the amount of other devices.

      Build cheaper shuttles, get expandable bodies, profit!

      --

      Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...

    2. Re:Unmanned flight is cheaper by bigjocker · · Score: 1

      Then, get some cheaper, more expandable astronauts... Some deathrow residents... You know... You might make it, you might not. If you make it we'll give you life instead of the needle?

      This is pretty wicked, you know?

      I remember, as a child, asking my dad why didn't they use deathrow residents for the cint-eastwood-cowboys movies ... that way the shootings wold look a lot more real!

      I won't copy here his answer ...

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    3. Re:Unmanned flight is cheaper by Cedric+C.+Girouard · · Score: 1
      I remember, as a child, asking my dad why didn't they use deathrow residents for the cint-eastwood-cowboys movies ... that way the shootings wold look a lot more real! I won't copy here his answer ...

      Let's face it. Someone condemn to deathrow has somehow taken away alot from society.
      They're also very costly to maintain (prison maintenance, guards, food, etc etc).
      They've already been sentenced to death (while I may not agree with it, those in power elected by the majority do.) and are a weight on society while they're waiting out.
      This is not a realistic movie issue. They could be benifiting society, and at least give a try to redeeming themselves. You'd be surprised at what someone can achieve when his/her life is on the line.
      And they wont be escaping... Where would they go ?

      On a side note, I also believe that electric chair, gas chamber and needles are inhumane ways to die. With so many people in need of organs, it just seems a waste not to use theirs (provided they are drug free, healthy and whatnot.) it might not erase the whole pain of losing someone to a murderer, but at least the murderer would not die in vain. You could save lives.

      Anyways...
      --

      Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...

    4. Re:Unmanned flight is cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It costs a lot of money? The money goes somewhere, to employ highly educated people and to help progress human knowledge. I would much rather my tax dollars go to that then some welfare mother whom I may never meet.

  26. I hope not by slam+smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it looks like the space race may be heating back up?

    I sure hope not. The space races of the past did little to foster cats(cheap access to space). And this won't either. It will be like the apollo missions to the moon, flag and footprints and never to return. I want space tourism, industry, and sustainable high level of commerce and privatization. The only one of these three items that has a potential of doing that is the X-Prize, because it fosters private industry not just feed the bueracracy that is NASA or ESA (European Space Agency). And now it looks like China is going to do the same thing. You'll have to excuse me if I'm a little underwhelmed.

    1. Re:I hope not by LeiGong · · Score: 1
      I want space tourism, industry, and sustainable high level of commerce and privatization.

      Pardon me for my cynicism but how do you propose China enter space tourism, commerce, etc. without at least first putting a man into space? Many people take for granted the advance space technology that the US has. Keep in mind how many decades behind China's space program is relative to the US's program. We have more astronaught that's been on the moon and back than their entire astronaught talent pool.

      To all of those who are whinning about how China isn't doing enough to further Mars exploration or space tourism or space commercialization, please remember the space program needs to take baby steps and not giant leaps. The US had to launch a dozen undozen or so unmanned vehicles into space before strapping astronaughts into a space capsule. You can't walk before you crawl and you can't goto Mars until you've been to the moon. This is science and engineering, not a magic show.

    2. Re:I hope not by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, space tourism for non-boy band members and real privitization won't happen as long as we're using chemical rockets. The only viable non-rocket based system that I've seen is the space elevator.

      Hopefully, if China puts people in space and maybe pulls off a stem cell breakthrough, people in the Western world will stop dismissing China as a third world backwater and get off thier butts to compete.

      -B

    3. Re:I hope not by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      The commerce end of it they already done quite a bit with thier Long March launchers. I'm not trying to insult the Chinese space program. I hope that it is successful. But in my opinion, we need space to be profitable, to be the complete domain of private entities and not governments. As long as space is the playground of NASA, ESA, the Russian Space Agency, and now the Chinese gov't. Going into space is going to remain the playground of the privileged few.

    4. Re:I hope not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is official. Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

      You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

      FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

      Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

      OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

      Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

      All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

      Fact: *BSD is dying

  27. Moon by FTL · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you are trying to figure out where the Chinese are headed, all you have to do is look at this picture of a Shenzhou rollout, then compare with this picture of a certain NASA rollout. Creepy, huh?

    I wish them the best of luck.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    1. Re:Moon by LeiGong · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bottom line: There is nothing noble about China's spaceflight plans. So let me get this straight.

      First China will send a few people on the moon.
      Then they'll build a space station. And before we know it they'll have nuclear silos on the moon pointed straight at DC, LA, and NYC. In order to defend the silos against capitalist attacks, China's going to build a few TIE fighters to guard the surround space. Then the next thing you know they'll be sending chinamen on spaceships and attack the US from above the atomisphere. I'm sure that's just the beginning. After the nukes from the moon and the orbital attacks, China is going to colonize Mars and start a real "Red Army." These soliders will be ultra-powerful due to their incredible ability to withstand harsh conditions. Training in low-grav scenarios will also make them faster than any conventional US troops. Then all of the "Red Army" will board a super-large spaceship and spend 2 years flying toward Earth. In their spare time on the spaceship these solider will build ultra-advanced laser weapons and powersuits. Once they land they'll completely wipe our entire Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and the Coast Gurade.

      Man, you're right! God help us all should the Chinese ever land on the moon. It'll be the end of us alllllll.

    2. Re:Moon by sohp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Superficially they look similar, but compare the numbers:

      CZ-2F: Diameter: 3.4 m, length 62.0 m. LEO Payload: 8,400 kg
      Saturn V: Diameter: 10.1 m, length 102.0 m, LEO Payload: 118,000 kg(!)

      If you removed the Apollo spacecraft and the 3rd stage (S-IVB) from the Saturn it still wouldn't fit through the CZ-2F's little door.

    3. Re:Moon by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There is a reason the setups appear so similar.

      Indeed. However, the universiality of the laws of physics makes a much more convincing explanation than all the other stuff you went on about.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Moon by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      What's with the doors? Why not just the one big door, why have all the consecutively smaller doors as you go up? Just curious...

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    5. Re:Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the size of the people and the trucks on the two pictures. NASA's was at least 3x the size. That's not to say the Chinese are not doing well, but they're not going anywhere near the moon with that.

    6. Re:Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "slashdot pro-communist-nation party line" - ROFLMAO!!! Slashdot is libertarian central on economic issues.

      "China is stealing US technology and reusing it as the fastest available means of doing so" As opposed to the US space program in its heyday which was built around German technology and engineers... (And let's not forget the cadre of ex-Avro Arrow Canadian and British engineers at the heart of the Apollo spacecraft program).

      Yawn - just another paranoid, insular, ignorant American...

    7. Re:Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they have a safe manned launch capability (Soyez), unlike the US (Shuttle).

      They also know how to build space stations, unlike the US.

    8. Re:Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from the difference in scale noted by others, how many ways are there of designing an assembly building for a large rocket?

      The resemblance isn't surprising, but thanks for the links!

    9. Re:Moon by shione · · Score: 1

      it opens faster because each of the small doors goes up at the same time. To open it in the same amount of time using a single large door would require pulling it up much faster. Also lots of small doors take up less room becasue each of the doors go behind the other. if the door was one single piece then the hanger would have to be twice as tall.

    10. Re:Moon by shione · · Score: 1

      China's has a smaller payload thats why it doesnt have to be that big

      CZ-2F Payload: 8 400 kg
      Saturn V Payload: 118 000 kg

  28. Re: The People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exit solitaire long enough to read a damn book...you could even go further and pick up A HISTORY BOOK!!! or JUST maybe you might get a fucking clue and buy a newspaper every once in a while! maybe...if you're really feeling spunky...you could *gasp* LOOK IT UP!

    buts since i'm so unspeakably generous i'll tell you the answer...
    "The People" IS the Chinese gov...they labor under the same delusion as the americans. The Chinese Gov is considered the direct representation of every citizens will...thus "The People's [insert institutional name here]"

  29. shameful by Boromir+son+of+Faram · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Slashdot community should be ashamed. This story has only been up a short while, and already I'm seeing references to rockets made of bamboo, astronauts eating freeze-dried dog meat, and even the despicable phrase, "runar rander." This sort of bigotry and racism is unbefitting of one of the most respectworthy technical communities on the web today.

    You are probably all just jealous because you lost your jobs to better trained immigrants, or because you always strike out with the cute Chinese ladies. Sad.

    --

    Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
    1. Re:shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      one of the most respectworthy technical communities on the web today.
      ?????!!!!!!
    2. Re:shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah! dont forget, SARS now invades outer space... how about some more of the civit cat meat\?

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

      I agree 100% - I've just read a number of comments which shocked me. I've read some shady things on slashdot before, but the number of questionable comments posted to this story is disgusting.

    4. Re:shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment just made my day, they may have moderated you to "insightful" but I see a heck of a funny troll. I would have bitten if it wasn't for the "one of the most respectworthy technical communities" bit.

      Boromir, son of Faramir, I salute you!

      "rockets made of bamboo", that was great.

    5. Re:shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "is unbefitting of one of the most respectworthy technical communities on the web today"

      BWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

      Stop it, you're killing me! AAAHHHHAHAHAHA!!!

    6. Re:shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well what do you expect from Americans? They'd just fight these silly racist wars while the rest of the world gear up and leave. Won't that make them happy?

    7. Re:shameful by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      So? Set your tolerance higher... If you read at 2 or 3, most of the blatant trolls/flamebait/slurs will not be visible, and you don't have to be offended.

      An alternate theory is that you recognize that racism exists in the world, and give it the attention it deserves, none.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    8. Re:shameful by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Boy, that's a good point. Nowhere else in the world has racially influenced conflicts.

      Except europe.
      and asia.
      and africa.
      and south america.

      Aussies can't be bothered to fight, and antarctica is too cold :)

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    9. Re:shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your previous posts make it obvious. You are a fucking racist, I'm ashamed to even be a member of the same site as you uneducated white filth. Go buy a gun from Walmart and do us a favor.

      I guess, the tards come out when you elect Mr. Hitler wanna be and pretend the rest of the world won't do anything about it. Maybe this might not be so bad if your mother who is also your sister isn't spoon feeding you crap about people eating babies and dogs in china.

      You are a tard, admit it. Fucking shit, I bet you'd run away if you ever had to confront one of us and make these racist statments. I bet you'd get your ass royally fscked by hords of ppl who are more intelligent than you.

      Eat crap, white trash.

    10. Re:shameful by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up. Mod the jackassess down. Nuff said.

    11. Re:shameful by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Get a life. I've worked w. asians, roomed w. asians, etc. And blacks. And most all other races.

      They had more of a sense of humour than you do.

      And Walmart doesn't sell guns in Canada.

      <quote>crap about people eating babies and dogs in china.</quote>

      Never said anything about eating babies ... guess fucktard ACs don't know how to read.

      As for eating dogs, they admitted it to me. What do you want me to say, that they were full of shit and you aren't?

    12. Re:shameful by Cruel+Angel · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't think this post was about being PC. Being PC is mostly about using euphamisms, and not hurting peoples feelings.
      The type of comments the author referred to are simply bigoted, racist, and ignorant.

      PC is saying things like, "persons of mainland asiatic descent" instead of Chinese. Bigoted is "Chink"
      We're all old enough to know the difference.

      --
      Two Rules For Success:
      1) Never tell people everything you know.
    13. Re:shameful by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but this guy was just doing a knee-jerk reaction, AND most of these reactions have been posting as ACs to boot.

      As far as I'm concerned, I hope that China succeeds. I hope they set up a permanent moon base. Someone has to, and they've certainly got everybody looking back into space and asking "why not" instead of "why".

    14. Re:shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And Walmart doesn't sell guns in Canada.

      You're right, you have to go next store to Canadian Tire to pick up a rifle these days...

    15. Re:shameful by c00kiemonster · · Score: 1

      I agree , rasism is stupid , it is a display of ignorant stupid people .. intersetingly i read once that the chinese were developing a reentry vechile using wood as heatsheild , the theory was at high altidude there is a lack of oxygen therefore it would not burn up a lot chaeper than using andor developing expensive and exotic ceramic heatsheild ala spaceshuttle

    16. Re:shameful by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm USian, and have no problem with other people cracking on USians... I would hope people could take a joke Boromir son of Faram.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    17. Re:shameful by srn_test · · Score: 1
      > Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith

      Huh? Is this part 2 of your troll, or are you just not very good at reading?

  30. should be ok... by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 1

    i think it'll turn out ok, unless they decide to have one of their fire drills on the way up.

    1. Re:should be ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, and nightclubs in Road Island show the US have better fire safty?

  31. Re: The People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because China is communist. Communisim is based on a shared people's state.

  32. Another man on the moon? by Pointy_Hair · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So, other than a cover for long range (ICBM) weapons testing, why is China revisiting the manned trip to the moon?

    1. Re:Another man on the moon? by Kaimelar · · Score: 1
      Quoth the poster:

      So, other than a cover for long range (ICBM) weapons testing, why is China revisiting the manned trip to the moon?

      Why did the United States and the USSR go to the Moon in the first place? For the science? Because the world needed velcro and Tang? Well, I like Tang, and velcro is really handy, and the science that was done was extremely enlightening. That being said, I think most people would agree that the Space Race between the US and USSR was all about political posturing and bragging rights.

      China wants to be accepted by the world community as a 1st world power. As a columnist in Wired suggested last month, think of the political impact of the entire world watching as a Chinese astronaut steps foot on the moon, respectfully folds the American flag there, and replaces it with a Chinese flag.

    2. Re:Another man on the moon? by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Why did the United States and the USSR go to the Moon in the first place? For the science? Because the world needed velcro and Tang?

      Say what? Velcro was a gift from the Vulcans.

    3. Re:Another man on the moon? by Pointy_Hair · · Score: 1

      I would agree with the political posturing - something that hadn't occurred to me. I don't read Wired so I wouldn't have seen that column. Pretty insightful really. I'd have to say it was both posturing and weapons research, considering the cold war really accelerated during those years and I'm sure that the US and USSR space programs were pivotal with respect to weapons programs.

      My whole point was that the linked article made out like the Chinese were embarking on some exciting space adventure. The US and it's allies are not the only soveriegn states who can and will use a space program and not for exciting adventures. Bragging rights and getting on the 1st world stage is just less sinister sounding than ICBM research but are both ends to the space program's means.

    4. Re:Another man on the moon? by Baiken · · Score: 1

      what about searching for a heavy magnetic anomaly with the form of a monolith with a ratio of 1:4:9?, remember the Tsien space station, they were the first humans to get to jupiter moon Europa...

  33. "will work for delta vee" by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how to say this in chinese? I want a ride up damnit!!

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  34. Re:Article Text by Rxke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spacedaily.com claims sources say it will be later, somewhere in december, also rumours go that there's a big possibility for a 2 man crew, or even a 3 men crew, that would be a first in history: first launch attempt, and a 2 (or 3) men crew... i wish them all the luck they'll need.

  35. One small step for man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...one giant step for WORLD WIDE CHINESE TAKE 0UT.

  36. Re:including ... by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 1

    don't forget the pork fried jizz and cream of sumyung guy

  37. 2061 by Horizon_99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anybody else reminded of 2061? Bring on the monoliths!

    My god it's full of stars!

    1. Re:2061 by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean 2010. And hopefully this mission won't end the same way Tsien did...

    2. Re:2061 by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Or maybe 2069, a sex odyssey ?

    3. Re:2061 by Horizon_99 · · Score: 1

      yeah you're right, and yeah I wish them better luck than the Tsien, must be a bitch to be eaten by a big whateverthehellthatwas! ;)

  38. Political Space Racing by targo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sometimes I wish the Soviets would have gotten to the Moon first because then Americans wouldn't have had any other choice but to put a man on Mars to save face.
    Either that or a nuclear strike against the USSR (I'm not kidding, there were people who seriously suggested that to the US administration if the Soviet Moon program got too far) because otherwise the political situation would have been intolerable. It's all political, science is a third-rate consideration, and noble goals like actual expansion to the space are not even mentioned. But still, I wish them luck, any step forward for whatever reasons is better than our current self-admiring stagnation (like how long can we hype the moon landing?? It is still the main exhibit in all space-related museums after 35 years!)

    1. Re:Political Space Racing by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      ... and then there's the story about the Newfies out to scoop the whole world by landing on ... THE SUN!

      Q: Won't that be hot?

      Q:We'll be goin' a' night, boyah!

    2. Re:Political Space Racing by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Sometimes I wish the Soviets would have gotten to the Moon first because then Americans wouldn't have had any other choice but to put a man on Mars to save face.

      Indeed, the Soviets had a long string of "firsts" -- we were the underdog until we landed on the moon.

      Fact of the matter is, the USA sucks when it's in first place. We're really only any good when we're the underdog. Someone has to surpass us before we start thinking about putting down the McCheeseburger, getting out of the Lay-Z-Boy, and actually doing something great with our lives.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Political Space Racing by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1
      They say that the best person to be king is the one who doesn't want to. The problem is all these damned self-centered politicians care about is themselves. And unfortunately, they've got the money, and they're going to continue to shove it up their collective butts in the form of pointless "programs" and "committiees" unless you promise them something that will get them re-elected in 2 or 4 years. As you mentioned, we didn't go to the moon for science, we went there so that all the crack monkeys in DC could give Kruschev (sic) the finger.

      So now we've beat the Soviets, and we're basically the only nation with real access to space for people. If the politicians can't use our space-access to get re-elected, they won't do a thing for it. The problem is that we've done most of what we can do in space within a time limit of 2-4 years. So the politicians aren't gonna do squat for space exploration/science, and we all know their propensity for screwing it up when they finally do have a few billion to piss away.

      So now we're left with a handful of choices:
      • Personally funded programs: Not usually enough money, therefore not usually able to do anything meaningful but possibly being able to say "we can."
      • Science Organizations: They would do very well (See Voyager probes, Apollo, etc) but they still usually have to prostitute themselves out to the government for funding.
      • Commerical programs: The money to get there is rarely an issue (Bill Gates' bank account could currently launch ~80 shuttles), but the will (read: profit margin) to do so is. Getting the investors to fork over enough money to pull a small asteroid into low earth orbit, and then set up mining operations is impossible when it costs $20,000,000 per ton to get there.
      Of these three, commerical programs look most promising (The competition between them is similar to the competition between the US/USSR that drove the original space race). They employ excellent scientists, and give them reasonabe power do what needs to be done to make the project work right. Once it gets cheaper to access space (True RLVs, SSTO, etc), the value of steel 4 times stronger than anything from earth (iron crystallizing in space would be flawless) among other things would probably be our best hope for establishing a standing presence in space.

      For all the evil they do, for the moment these corporations are the only ones with the money and eventually the motive to go up there.

      Of course, one the COMMUNIST countries that probably supports TERRORISM gets up there, the space race will start all over again.
    4. Re:Political Space Racing by LongJohnStewartMill · · Score: 1

      Americans wouldn't have had any other choice but to put a man on Mars to save face.

      I wonder if it still counts if the man is dead. I'd like to see that as NASA's next project: point a rocket at Mars, strap a corpse on there and let it fly. Think of all the money they'd save. Heck, I would volunteer.

  39. Bah, moveable type? by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gutenberg was a wuss who would have frozen to death if it hadn't been for the inventions of Ogg, Bringer of Flame.

    1. Re:Bah, moveable type? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO OGG really did pre-date MP3?

    2. Re:Bah, moveable type? by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and what reward did he get? His liver eaten out. Wise ass.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  40. I'm hoping for Antigravity spaceships! by Shafe · · Score: 1

    Electrogravitic propulsion all the way!

    http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technolo gy /gct_xprize_030615.html

    1. Re:I'm hoping for Antigravity spaceships! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope those guys aren't looniess and are actually on to something. It's about time, damnit.

    2. Re:I'm hoping for Antigravity spaceships! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably talking about this:

      http://www.gctspace.com/

      One of the best sci-fi reads I've had in a long time.

  41. obligatory 'big lebowski' quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'chinaman' is not the preferred nomenclature.

    asian american, please.

    1. Re:obligatory 'big lebowski' quote by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      He's taling about PEOPLE FROM CHINA....they arn't americans of ANY kind!

    2. Re:obligatory 'big lebowski' quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 'chinaman' is not the preferred nomenclature.
      >
      > asian american, please.

      One could argue that it's this politically correct bullshit, with all its incumbant laws and regulations, that is a big part of why we're falling behind.

      But that falls on deaf ears, I'm sure.

    3. Re:obligatory 'big lebowski' quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's talking about a quote from "The Big Lebowski"...
      ps. "talking", "aren't", "Americans"

    4. Re:obligatory 'big lebowski' quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fact that there are people like you who don't recognize this reference to one of americas greatest artistic triumphs ('the big lebowski') -- and yet act like you consider yourself to be a proud american is why we're falling behind.

      go back to prague.

  42. How to get the US gummint interested in Mars by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Start a rumour about WMD being stashed on Mars. I guarantee you, a manned Mars program gets major funding! But that would be handled through the Father-errr...Homeland Security Agency, not NASA. _Nothing_ is going to get NASA moving again.

    What else would get the US gummint on the space train: Oil on Mars! I can't see environmentalists being able to make a big dent in a drilling-on-Mars project. :)

    Why is China interested in space? No SARS there. No student protestors, either.

    Still, it'll be good to be able to get good Chinese food while in space. They should open up some restaurants at the LaGrange points and the Moon & Mars. General Tso's Space Chicken! :)

    1. Re:How to get the US gummint interested in Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could also offer a Chinese laundry service to the ISS!

  43. Isn't this a Soyuz? by boomgopher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Shenzhou spacecraft looks just like Russia's Soyuz space vehicle - bummer.
    When are we going to get some new space vehicles, damnit?

    Zzzzz.....

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    1. Re:Isn't this a Soyuz? by kmeson · · Score: 1

      You're right. It it pretty much an updated Soyuz. And where have you seen a building like this?

    2. Re:Isn't this a Soyuz? by mikerich · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes it is a heavily modified Soyuz. They got it because Soyuz is cheap, simple, tough as old boots and does the job. And the Russians needed the money - sounds like a perfect match.

      Don't forget Soyuz was never just intended for one purpose (like Apollo), it is a family of spacecraft that can be configured to several purposes - including, had the Soviets been able to tame their N1 booster, fly around and orbit the Moon.

      In many respects Soyuz was far superior to the Apollo capsule, so it makes a great start for a country with limited resources to get into the manned space program.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    3. Re:Isn't this a Soyuz? by axxackall · · Score: 2, Interesting
      When are we going to get some new space vehicles, damnit?

      I completely against any idea to satisfy your aestetic demands. The spacecraft must do the job - fly up or land down. Safily (not like Shuttles). As for today, Soyuz design is the proof of safity (comparing to Shuttles). Therefore, don't invest money to anything which is more complicated than Soyuz (at least for now).

      Speaking about money. Investment (and ROI!) is the biggest problem in the space industry. I would rather ask:

      When will we have well-profitable space programms, damnit?

      --

      Less is more !
    4. Re:Isn't this a Soyuz? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      From pictures I've seen, the Soyuz spacecraft was definitely much roomier than the Apollo spacecraft, given there are two pressurized sections of the spacecraft. It was fortunate the the Russians were able to overcome the early chequered history of the spacecraft, given the Soyuz 1 crash and the unfortunate air leak that killed the Soyuz 11 cosmonauts. The newest Soyuz T-4 variant owes almost nothing to the original Soyuz design with its interior design.

  44. Which of the following three will happen: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    1. Seeing space as a competitive thing again as China begins to get involved in space, tapping into the american psyche's healthy enthusiasm for competition of various sorts, america is inspired to jump-start its space program and lead it to new and bigger things which push and expand the envelope of what our technology can do and benefit both science and our species' exploration and expansion within the solar system
    2. Seeing its national penis threatened, America immediately dumps a bunch of money on NASA in order to do a bunch of high-profile but not very particularly planned out with a specific purpose in mind PR shuttle missions that center public attention on our space program again for awhile but do nothing in particular to further science or our understanding of anything; following this, once China actually begins to show some kind of meaningful ambition within space, America, staring at its penis, freaks out again and becomes determined that an american must be the first man to set foot on mars, causing us to pour more money into setting up a somewhat-thought-out plan to get people on Mars at some date, leading eventually to humans walking on Mars in an act that is indisputably one of the most amazing acts of human achievement ever.. but, becuase NASA's budget fizzles as soon as the cameras are no longer directly trained, we do not set up permanent or even reusable-for-future-flights research stations or mars-orbit mission springboard points, nor do we explore any of the potentially useful or scientifically valuable ramifications of being able to travel to mars. But we do bring back some really cool rocks
    3. Terrified becuase we lost another shuttle, america drops interest in manned spaceflight, all but scuttling the shuttle, hand-tying NASA with the threat of more bad PR if bad things happen to astronauts, and moving through a few more abortive, corruption-ridden and rediculously expensive shuttle-replacement programs that promise the moon (get it? pun) but after much prototyping and a complete design but no built models still leave us nothing to get into space with except the original prototype space shuttle fleet. China becomes the new leader of man's exploration in space

    (Seriously. Where would we be if the explorers of "yesteryear" had been as timid as we are today? I mean, do you think a single one of the explorers to the new world didn't expect it was VERY likely their ship would sink at sea and they would die? Yet they went anyway. Of course, it probably helped that almost all of Christopher Columbus's crew, they could only get them to go on the journey becuase they were all condemned criminals anyway, and it was life in jail or go on this boat to God knows where that might kill you. But still. The extent to which NASA protects its astronaut's lives is amazing, but things are *going* to happen, and I suspect no one becomes an astronaut without knowing and accepting that fully. Now, you may also say it isn't a great idea to spend billions on these spacecraft if quite possibly they're just going to blow up anyway, but i would counter that our government already spends billions and billions on devices which are designed and built for no other purpose other than to blow up in the most destructive way possible...)
  45. Red star rising... by macshune · · Score: 2, Funny

    (reuters)-BEIJING-The Chinese government today announced rumors that a manned spaceflight is to take place sometime during the next long while.

    "Yes, the rumors exist. Sometime in the next long while we will start to seriously think about the possibility of putting a Chinese man somewhere above the trophosphere," an undisclosed official with possible ties to the Chinese government presumably stated.
    It remains to be seen if China can make good on its possible intentions to consider manned spaceflight. Only two other countries have done so, the USA and Russia.

  46. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why Americans suck at space is cause you are too busy being a racist worldwide, you just don't have time for science.

  47. Re:Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow i'm getting the mental image of the ending of 2001.. he passes through the tunnel into transcendence as reality becomes unglued around him...

    Except then, once he reaches the light at the end of the tunnel, instead of a giant space fetus, it's just the goatse guy..

    That would suck..

  48. Most modern thingy around, for now by Rxke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Consider: Space Shuttle: concieved around 70's, built 80's Soyuz: 60's, minor upgrades, still based on old model. Shendzou: 90's, 00's? Granted, it seems to be based on the soyuz, but Chinese say they built it themselves, and this seems to be the case: it's considerably bigger, more modern electronics et.c. Who would ever have thought that the Chinese would be flying the most up to date spacethingy, it seems absurd, but it's a fact. How the world has changed since the 80's...

    1. Re:Most modern thingy around, for now by dhovis · · Score: 2, Informative

      The space shuttle was actually conceived in the 60's, I think and built in the 70s. The first flights were in the early 80s.

      By the way, the space shuttles have been updated quite a bit over the years. I believe each shuttle has undergone one or two complete rebuilds in their lives. All the old CRT displays were replaced with LCD models, etc. Now, the thermal protection technology hasn't been improved much, if at all, but when Columbia was lost, it was a much different shuttle than the Columbia that was first launched in the 80s. It was the same airframe, most of the rest of it had been replaced.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

  49. Welcome.... by pjdepasq · · Score: 1

    ....to the 20th century. Good to see a new member of the club.

  50. Tigers don't like when you do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brother troll, please be safe out there!

  51. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh what an intelligent and insightful comment! You've added so much to our lives by trying to inject you're humour which no doubt is based on your vast experiences in the world. Oh look! A warm, heartfelt apology... aww how kind of you. That must definitely make it all better.

    Your comment was stupid.

    "Sorry, someone had to say it.."

  52. ... does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we're going to have to worry about slant-eyed gook hippies now too?

    Send ME up there. you fucks are all INSANE!

  53. I vote penicillin by siskbc · · Score: 2, Funny
    3. Penicillin

    Definitely penicillin. Thank God, no more clap!

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:I vote penicillin by egreB · · Score: 1

      "Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
      Kudos for obscure HHGTHG-sig!

  54. SWEEEEEEEET!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is awesome news! It's great for competing nations because it gives them hope that there is something at which we won't completely dominate them. Consider the support of soccer (or football) across the globe. The rest of the world loves it because we suck at it. Everyone hates to be subjugated, but can also be calmed by minor victories. Consider Brad Pitt. The guy's probably better looking than anyone who's ever been to this site, but most people here find comfort in the fact that they are probably much smarter than him. Minor victory. But yet we are content. If we let the rest of the world fly into space in the hope that they can excel, then they just might calm down a bit. If everyone feels like a player, then there's no player-hating.
    Also, if the US government begins to see the space-race as a missed opportunity, or even a threat, then they'll be forced to devote money and manpower towards space study/exploration. But this effort will not only be helmed by the government. When private enterprise realizes the opportunities in space, they will also be forced to turn their attention toward the stars.
    All in all this will be a good thing. There may be some bumps in the road. Some explosions. Some burn-ups. Some wars. But in the end, we will move a step closer to ensuring our species' survival by getting off this dirt clod before it's too late!

  55. Re:Article Text by Tom+Rothamel · · Score: 1

    Um... Shenzhou 5 will hardly be the first launch attempt. On the other hand, the space shuttle flew manned on its first launch attempt, with a crew of two.

  56. Re:including ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason why Americans suck at space is cause you are too busy being a racist worldwide, you just don't have time for science.

    </quote>

    Nice generalization. A few points:

    1. I'm not American
    2. Poking fun at our foibles makes us more human, not less. There's a big difference between humor and racism. One's intended for a chuckle, the other for hurting someone.
    3. Most important: Your generalization of Americans as racists is itself a racist generalization.
  57. focus on new propulsion systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should work on propulsion systems with less $/kg, as well as robotic exploration of the solar system. Manned space flight at this point seems to have no scientific or economic value.

  58. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever it is, you are a 45 year old white trash who has nothing better do than come here and post racist comments on chinese people. I bet your wife divorced you for very good reasons, and I bet my buddies in Lachine would nicely cut your tires if we want to.

  59. Re:including ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, I know several Chinese women who have eaten dog in China, when they went there for visits. So get a life. Not everyone thinks that dogs are pets.

    Hell, if I were in China, or several other countries, I'd probably be considered a rancher 'cause of my 2 (very big) dogs.

    At least I recognize that likes and dislikes, to a large extent, are culturally determined, not absolutes. I also consider it fair game. You don't? Tough shit. Don't ever go to the Nasty Show at the Just for Laughs Comedey Festival. You'll see gays making fun of gays, women making fun of men, men making fun of women, men making fun of men, women making fun of women, blacks making fun of whites, whites making fun of blacks, whites making fun of whites ...

    Get an account.

  60. Shouldn't that be ... by briaman · · Score: 1, Funny

    Shouldn't that be a Mandarined Moon Mission?

    --

    ==========
    Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
    Abort / Retry / Ignore ?

  61. Been There, Done That by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 4, Informative

    "putting a Chinese man somewhere above the trophosphere"

    A hate to break it to the undisclosed Chinese official, but a Chinese man has already been above the troposphere. We sent him up in the Space Shuttle. He is my former boss, and all around great guy Taylor Wang. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/wang-t.html

    He is now a prof. at Vanderbilt University, where I worked for his dept. as a student worker for several years.

    1. Re:Been There, Done That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, but he's a U.S. citizen. Doesn't really count. He's technically an American.

  62. Coming Soon... by harrsk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    SARS on Mars

  63. Who will get to the moon first? by AmoebafromSweden · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, since everyone believes they Nasa havent been to the moon maybe we can have a new Spacerace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Who will get to the moon first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot "!!11!!111" from your post...

  64. Goddess and Rabbits on the moon by maliabu · · Score: 1

    sending manned-flight to the space will be a huge step for china, as they'll be even closer to checking out the moon, which for centuries, is believe to be the resort for the Moon Goddess and those rabbits.

    the implication could be huge, as chinese are known to be very creative and inventive in terms of technologies, but they're somehow restricted at the moment.

    1. Re:Goddess and Rabbits on the moon by eugene_t00ms · · Score: 1

      "...but they're somehow restricted at the moment."

      Its called Communism...not to mention they have that whole [From China] "We will one day dominate the Earth in all respects." thing to concentrate on. Maybe they're just thinking ahead...

      --
      Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
  65. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderators, dont mod this racist pig. He's a 50 year old troll who uses mild racism in all his comments since I've seen him. Please do not give him an upper hand, he would be all over. I hope people like this would leave /. on their own.

  66. wow by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

    the chinese are going to do the same thing that the US and Russia have been able to do for more than 40 years now. wake me up when some actual exciting news happens.

    --
    -Cnik
  67. Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once manned heavier-than-air flight was demonstrated, going to the moon was pretty inevitable

    Um, no.

    Flight through the atmosphere with heavy craft and launching something into space are almost completely unrelated problems.

    For the first, you need to figure out how airfoils work to produce lift (helicopter blades count in this category), and figure out how to move the air that surrounds your craft to produce thrust. Then there's materials engineering to get the performance to weight ratio nice enough.

    For the second, you have to figure out celestial mechanics, and you have to figure out how to build reaction drives that _don't_ use the surrounding medium to move (as you won't have air around you for much of your trip, and it's more of a hindrance than a help at significant speed). Then you have the herculean task of materials engineering and clever craft design required to get an impulse-to-weight ratio large enough to escape the gravity well (or at least have enough delta-v for orbit). If the gravity well was even a little deeper, we wouldn't have been able to do it with chemical rockets at all (though aircraft would still be easy to build).

    There's a world of difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine. There's a world of difference between something light and strong enough to glide and something light and strong enough to have a 40:1 wet:dry weight and make orbit. It's not a difference of scale - it's a difference of fundamental type of device.

    In summary, please do more research about exactly what's involved in each task before proclaiming that one follows from the other. What actually precipitated _both_ was the industrial revolution, which gave a drastic increase in technology and in materials science.

    1. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I was referring to the drive, the curiosity, that would make going to the moon inevitable. Once we found out we could fly, we could inevitably want to go hight, further, faster.

      And I for one am glad the Chinese are doing this. It brings some real excitement into space again. Because they're now mankind's best chance to set up a lunar base.

    2. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      I am going to have to respectfully disagree. Speaking as an aerodynamicist at a company that builds both jets and rockets.

      For the first, you need to figure out how airfoils work to produce lift (helicopter blades count in this category), and figure out how to move the air that surrounds your craft to produce thrust.

      All you need is thrust, lift is just one kind of thrust, the rotating blades of a helicopter, produce a lifting force which is the thrust that lifts the aircraft. Other sources of thrust would work as well [jet engine for instance (yes, modern jets do contain airfoils, but they don't need to in order to be a jet and produce thrust)]

      There's a world of difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine. There's a world of difference between something light and strong enough to glide and something light and strong enough to have a 40:1 wet:dry weight and make orbit. It's not a difference of scale - it's a difference of fundamental type of device.

      No, they are both devices that expel matter with a higher momentum than it was acquired at, in the case of a rocket you carry the matter with, and in the case of a jet, you pick it up along the way, fundamentally the same.

      yes there is a drastic difference in the amount of technology required for atmospheric flight and space flight, but it is an evolutionary difference, not a revolutionary difference. I do agree that the underlying revolution was industrial...

      I would say that comparing heavier than air flight and space flight is like comparing a 60's era computer and the modern PC. The later is a hell of a lot more impressive, but not fundamentally different. If you are going to pull out the tubes vs. silicon discussion then you obviously don't grasp the scale of the difference that I am speaking of...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    3. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was referring to the drive, the curiosity, that would make going to the moon inevitable.

      In which case, it could be argued that once the poets made popular the tale of Icarus, it was inevitable that we would go to the moon.

      Even better (and probably closer to the truth), ever since life evolved intelligence and the ability to dream, it was inevitable that we'd go to the moon...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      In which case, it could be argued that once the poets made popular the tale of Icarus, it was inevitable that we would go to the moon. Even better (and probably closer to the truth), ever since life evolved intelligence and the ability to dream, it was inevitable that we'd go to the moon...
      Works for me. At least I hope that's how it all plays out in the end.
    5. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      All you need is thrust, lift is just one kind of thrust, the rotating blades of a helicopter, produce a lifting force which is the thrust that lifts the aircraft. Other sources of thrust would work as well [jet engine for instance (yes, modern jets do contain airfoils, but they don't need to in order to be a jet and produce thrust)]

      For any craft with less than 1g of thrust, you need wings to provide the lift. This is what my airfoil comment was referring to. Helicopter blades were mentioned as a special case, as they could equally validly be considered wings or a thrust-producing device.

      There's a world of difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine.

      No, they are both devices that expel matter with a higher momentum than it was acquired at, in the case of a rocket you carry the matter with, and in the case of a jet, you pick it up along the way, fundamentally the same.

      A water pistol is also a device that expels a jet of matter with greater momentum with which it was acquired. As I'm sure you appreciate, the engineering concerns with propeller, jet, and rocket engines are vastly different. My point was that the development of the first does not make development of the third a minor feat.

      yes there is a drastic difference in the amount of technology required for atmospheric flight and space flight, but it is an evolutionary difference, not a revolutionary difference.

      I respectfully disagree, especially since the original context was one of going from propeller planes to spaceflight.

    6. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Hmm, while heavier than air flight might not be directly related to getting to the moon, getting back is where knowledge of flight becomes handy. At least getting back, in one piece, and on the same continent as which you intend on landing.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because they're now mankind's best chance to set up a lunar base.

      Yeah, but do we really want mankind's first lunar base to have 5 1/2 foot ceilings?

    8. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but do we really want mankind's first lunar base to have 5 1/2 foot ceilings?</quote>

      Actually, the first astronauts and cosmonauts both had to be smaller than average. This

      1. enabled them to fit into the capsule,
      2. generally meant less consumables were required, and
      3. less mass to boost into orbit.
      Hey, I wouldn't mind having to deal with low ceilings if if meant a trip to the moon!
    9. Re:Aircraft vs. spacecraft. by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      Ok, nerd, calm down. Your pocket protector is askew. Here's a brown paper bag; breath deeply and try to control yourself.

      To those of us that don't eat, sleep, and breath the tactical charts of the original Start Trek Enterprise, his meaning came across as more inspirational. Once man realized that he could leave the ground, a major limitation had been lifted. Then, given mankind's propensity for trying to outdo himself, it was inevitable that his machinations would carry him beyond the atmosphere, regardless of the devices required.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  68. Volkswagen Factors by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Nevermind the numbers. Just look at the vehicles at the bottom of the picture. Compare the size of the bus to the size of the rocket in the Chinese picture. In the NASA picture there is a pickup truck there, but you barely even notice it because everything else is so huge.

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

      Absolutely. Unless you've stood beside one of the Marion crawlers that transport the shuttles you have NO idea of the massive scale of the things.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    2. Re:Volkswagen Factors by sohp · · Score: 1

      Oh that's hilarious! I hadn't noticed the stuff on the ground. That makes the difference in scale impressively clear.

  69. Re:including ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    1. Pointing out that the Chinese do eat dogs (and 2 have told me about it) isn't racist.
    2. It's amazing how many ACs like to make threats.
    3. Wrong divorce. I'm the one who filed for divorce after enduring too many of her schizo fits (and I proved in court that she was a mental head case who wasn't able to discern truth from her own paranoid fantasies).
    4. And you got my age wrong.
    So STFU.
  70. They have catapults.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    that shoot that far?

  71. godspeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or if the communist government doesn't believe in god, chairmanofthecommunistpartyspeed...

  72. Re:modding. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    It's funny how ACs keep asking moderators to do things, but don't have the courage to actually get an account and maybe get moderator access?

    And you keep getting my age wrong, too

    What next, you'll get my weight wrong also?

    <quote>since I've seen him. </quote>

    I seriously doubt you've seen me. I tend to not keep company w. people who make rash judgments about others.

    Remember, it's a cultural difference between the Chinese and North Americans regarding dog meat and horse meat, not a race thing. The Chinese find us equally odd for eating horse meat. Just do a google and you'll see what I mean.

    Besides, there are no different "races" of humans. Just humans and ACs :-)

  73. titan by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Between this, the X-Prize, and multiple launches of Mars probes in the last few weeks, it looks like the space race may be heating back up?"

    Stephen Baxter's wonderful book Titan starts out with the first Chinese manned spacecraft orbit of earth, which does in fact spark a new military build up comparable to the American/Russian era.

    I can't recommend this book highly enough, it is remarkable to me how time and again how close Sci-Fi authors come in their visions of the future of our race.

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
    1. Re:titan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Titan also correctly predicted the reentry disaster the befell the Columbia. Time will tell if Baxter was correct in the fallout of that disaster.

  74. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the parent needs to be moded -1 Jealous.

    Yup, we squeeze every possible asset trying to eliminate every other nation on earth. We don't hand other countries BILLIONS of dollars to get them money to deal with aids and such. Maybe we should just leave every other country in the world alone, to get over run by tyrants just so we can send some people to Mars.

  75. Re:Article Text by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    Spaceballs quote:

    "Yes, THAT!" *Zaps his you-know-what*

  76. Reboot America's Nationalistic Space Program? by malsdavis · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I just hope with this being the chinese, the American government will restart its space program (which atm is pretty much dead) now that it has another 'evil' communist country (well sort of) to compete against. I can't wait for President Bush to announce the 'first country to put a man on mars race'.

  77. Re:modding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We suck great horse dick too! DO YOU TOM? DO YOU? YOUR FUCKING WIFE IS A CUNT, I SPOKE TO HER ON THE PHONE ONCE, and she told me she had to divorce you cause of your issues! Man, I know you pretty well, I know you and I know a lot of shit about you, I have been quite all this time cause you have decided to show up on the same message board I come on. But, If I see BS from you, you'd get your personal shit on here as fast as you can say.. SUCK HORSE DICK>

  78. Re: The People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do they really beleive everything is for "the people"?

  79. Re:modding. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Get it right, AC. Your post is obviously a troll, and violates the terms of use of /. Now, you reveal yourself as a troll, because I've been here for years and years, so the odds are you're the newbie.

    But if you're not, so what? So, in the interest of educating trolls everywhere, next time you post, pls. get the facts straight, in order to be more convincing :-)

    1. I'm the one who filed for the divorce (1997)
    2. I'm the one who produced the witness to testify about her mental problems. (1998)
    3. I'm the one who got a judge to state that "she sounded convincing in the beginning, but as her testimony continued, it became impossible to separate truth from fantasy and outright lies"
    Or maybe you have me confused w. someone else :-( So chill out, dude. Take it easy. It's the end of the day. Enjoy it.

    The Chinese are going to the moon, with any luck, and this is not just a good thing, it's GREAT! As I stated elsewhere, it'll get people everywhere thinking "why not", instead of whining "why". I'm sure most of us would love to be with them on the trip.

  80. My prediction... by Free+Bird · · Score: 1

    is that the entire crew will die in a horrible accident.
    Mark my words.

    1. Re:My prediction... by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      Of course, given that there are only two outcomes of a spaceflight your prediction isn't too significant.

      Now, if I said that next week a meteroite was going smack you in the head for making such lame predictions and it actually happened, *that* would be significant.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    2. Re:My prediction... by Free+Bird · · Score: 1

      My prediction isn't lame. Remind me to laugh you in the face when I turn out to be right (and I *will*).

  81. Re:flight by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    that's just it- manned space "flight" isn't "flight". massive thrust to get it up into orbit, with no pilot control, and a controlled fall, with little pilot control. manuvers in space hardly falls into the "flight" realm.

    But it didn't have to be that way. And it still doesn't.

    Besides, one of these days we may get a buckyball skyhook, and then we'll really be able to speek of the "climb to orbit" :-) Finally, an event that would actually get me to watch the Olympics.

  82. Space Race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The United States and the former Soviet Union would like to welcome China to the 1950's and 1960's.

  83. Chinese may be first with base on Mars/Moon/Other by rossy · · Score: 1

    My guess is that China would have a long term goal to get to the high ground while the rest of us are watching it on reality TV.
    The good news is that they will save on shipping costs for all their components, as most high tech stuff comes from Asia these days anyway.

    --
    Ross Youngblood
  84. Things don't look good for the U.S. by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

    It's not looking good for the U.S. China and the U.S. are heading in opposite directions, economically.

    China, being 4x the population of the U.S., only needs half our productivity to have 2x our economic strength. China is loosening up for business, while the U.S. is slapping ever more regulations and roadblocks on ours.

    Can't smoke in restaraunts. Can't build here with out a $30k "study" and lots of luck. Get sued for $1 million because someone had a pr0n on their e-mail. Get sued for another because someone wiped out on your snowy sidewalk in the 20 minutes between when it snowed and when you noticed for shovelling. Get sued for another million because you were standing there when a fleeing suspect drove into you and your head went through the windshield to where they were driving and injured their body.

    We are currently hopeless.

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    1. Re:Things don't look good for the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Can't smoke in restaurants!

      Awwww...poor baby!

  85. Re:including ... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    Your generalization of Americans as racists is itself a racist generalization.

    That's precisely why I hate all bigots!

    --
    I stole this Sig
  86. Don't forget a couple of close calls. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    The Russians had a couple of close calls with their Soyuz program during the 1980's. I remember that one time during a launch the second stage shut down prematurely, forcing an emergency landing that nearly had the Soyuz capsule end up in China. In 1983, the rocket carrying a Soyuz spacecraft literally caught fire on the launch pad, and it was decided to have the astronauts escape using the escape rocket tower, which was a right decision because 20 seconds after the escape rocket tower fired carrying the Soyuz spacecraft away the rocket literally collapsed on the launch pad in a big ball of fire.

  87. Communism, space, technology! by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    Oh this must make us geeks happy.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  88. Re:including ... by Daffy_Duck_cb · · Score: 2, Funny

    My girlfriend is Chinese (not a citizen of US yet), and she has never eaten dog and never will. If it's fair to make fun of some Chinese people for this practice then it's just as applicable for them to make fun of Americans for storing too many appliances in the front lawn of the double-wide trailer.

  89. Oh GREAT by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    The Chinese can export their one child policy, forced abortions and Kent State massacre one hundred times over policy to alien civilizations.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  90. It would be cool by Oaktree_b · · Score: 1

    I don't see why thy shouldn't put a man (woman?) into space. NASA sure is having problems these days, the Russians are down on their luck but still in the space race, and Europe is having a few problems with the big Arianne launchers. If someone else can get a stable rocket into orbit with a human aboard, go for it.

    --
    ------ Will of Iron, Knees of Jello.
  91. Re:Article Text by wildsurf · · Score: 1

    ..capability of launching humans into anal orbit and returning...

    ...and wiping out Klingons?

    --
    Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
  92. Dude... by SunPin · · Score: 1

    how much money do you have?

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  93. why china why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that the only reason China wants in space is to show the world that they can. They have been looked down at for so many years (rightly so for a lot of reasons). But this is all a publicity stunt/trying to climb the world ladder. I just feel sorry for the people whos lives will be in jeopardy when the government starts taking shortcuts.

    Maybe I'm just pissed off that they got the olympics instead of Toronto, just because of politics.

    1. Re:why china why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm just pissed off that they got the olympics instead of Toronto, just because of politics.

      We didn't get the Olympics because:
      a) Mel "Clown" Lastman is our god-damn mayor
      b) the fact that our traffic system sucks
      c) the city of Toronto and the business community were unwilling to invest billions to set the infrastructure up
      d) we don't support our athletes so we never really make an impact in the world scene

      I'm sure politics did play a great part, but no more than the factors I listed above.

  94. Re:including ... by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

    Most important: Your generalization of Americans as racists is itself a racist generalization.

    Technically, no, it's not.

    The American race, per se, is the Native American. The various immigrant groups that form up the bulk of the population categorised as "American" aren't a race. Therefore, making bigoted statements about them isn't being racist.

    Racism is a prejudice based around appearance, not nationality.

    --
    "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  95. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1) It is when pointing out that Chinese people eating dogs has *absolutely* nothing to do with the discussion. You're only bringing it up because it's such a big taboo in America, and an easy way to make fun of Chinese people (and only poor Cantonese would eat dog, anyway). And by the way, talking bad about Americans isn't racist - because "American" isn't a race, moron, it's a nationality!

    2) It's amazing that a person would publicly make stupid bigoted comments under his own name. Can't that be used against you, if you get a job anywhere outside of Idaho?

    3) Can you blame her going crazy, being married to a weird bigot who repeatedly posts anti-Chinese message on a techie message board?

  96. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I WAS born here; that makes me a "Native American"!

    Or do you have a different definition of "native"?

    Maybe what you meant to say (if your ignorance had not been in the way) was "aboriginal Americans".

  97. Re:Article Text by Rxke · · Score: 1

    um... The article is a bit more clearly worded than my mumblings, i'm afraid. I meant to parafrase: 1st manned orbital launch attempt by a country... (yuri Gagarin:1) (Glenn:1) chinese willt ry for (mr X and Mr y (2) well, it's nitpicking; but it would be a first...

  98. Re:flight by goofballs · · Score: 1

    But it didn't have to be that way. And it still doesn't.

    sure it doesn't have to be that way, but that's the way it is. which you seem to be acknowledging, so i don't know why you had problems with my initial statement...

    --me-- except launching something into space has very, very little to do with flight!

    --you-- Do a little research on manned space flight...

  99. China already has ICBM's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has had ICBM's that can reach anywhere in the US for over 2 decades now. They don't need an expensive manned space program now for cover. www.fas.org

  100. Made in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Who in his right mind is stepping into a craft that is to launch one into SPACE with the label

    Made in China

    not to mention a keyboard with 6000 keys.

  101. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hao! Me trade wumpum for firewater and boom-boom stick!

    Actually, every single person in the world except for you realizes that "Native American" means Indian, and that "aborigine," outside of scientific discussion, has connotations of racism.

    Your semantic games indicate a low intelligence. Do you go around asking people why they park on driveways, and drive on parkways? Do you?

  102. Good luck by theolein · · Score: 1

    If it works good luck to them. The mere fact that they are doing this is enough to push the space race into higher gear again. In the long run it will be good for the economy and there will definitely be a manned human settlement on the moon within the next two decades.

  103. Someone funnier than me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... insert SARS/"Reverse Andromeda strain" joke here.

  104. Re:modding. by lee7guy · · Score: 1

    But the real question is: Why the hell are you discussing your personal life with Anonymous Cowards on slashdot? Ignore them and they'll go away.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  105. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet he does.

  106. Good on them by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    I say. The more we goto space the better at we get. MArs here we come.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  107. Chinese Manned Flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been to Mann's Chinese Theater... does that count?

  108. ...so logically by Psyqlone · · Score: 1

    ...the next nation that sends astronauts in to space with their own domestically built vehicle goes back in time to the '60s?

    I'm rather somewhat surprised that the French or the British or the Japanese haven't sent up their own manned ships yet.

    The Germans were ahead of all of them and us at one point. ...them's the breaks I guess.

  109. ...and then it follows by Psyqlone · · Score: 1

    ...whatever nation launches a manned space mission in their own domestically built vehicle goes back in time to the 50's and 60's. I suppose the EU will send manned missions in to space at some point though I'm somewhat surprised that neither the French, British, or Japanese haven't done it already. ...and the Germans were ahead of all of them and us at one point.

  110. Re:including ... :-) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    I appreciate the thrust of your argument, bit there is no such thing as "race" when talking about humans, and, in a sense, I bet you agree.

    It's just that there are certain conventions or short cuts that people seem to want to stick to in conversations, and we thus have the term "race", when what we really mean is people of different cultural and/or ethnic backgrounds.

    Mind you, in the grand scheme of things, even cultural or ethnic differences shouldn't mean anything, except as a point of respect and understanding for differing upbringings and world views - after all, the world would be boring if we were all alike :-)

    But if we want to get pedantic, or technical, there is no "native american race". Our common ancestor (for all humans, with the possible exception of /. trolls) appears to have come out of Africa at some time in the distant past.

  111. Re:flight by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Good morning :-)

    My unstated point was that (and I guess I should have taken the time to include it) the political process and pork-barrelling have interfered with the way that we currently attempt space missions.

    There was a dual-pronged approach to space flight in the early days. While the US boosters were blowing up on the launch pad, and the USSR was having launch after launch into orbit (w/o disclosing the ones that didn't make it), there was a second path that the USAF was working on - this included vehicles that could take off and land under their own power, as opposed to being shot into space atop a converted ICBM.

    Now we may have to re-invent and extend the technology that allowed the X-15-A2 to go to 354,000 feet, at over 4,000 mph. Or look at a different approach.

    Even today, space flight is more about politics and national prestige than it is about advancing man's knowledge of the universe.

  112. Re:flight by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    All I had originally said was that landing on the moon was pretty much inevitable after powered heavier-than-air flight.

    This statement had nothing to do with engineering, and everything to do with human curiosity.

    The LEM certainly did a powered descent from orbit. Would you say this is not "flight", just because there was no asmosphere?

    Also, as I previously pointed out, the advances in atmospheric flight (materials science and engineering, human responses to changes in pressure, temperature, air mixture, etc., g-suits, pressure suits, nav systems, comm systems, etc...) helped pave the way for space travel.

    I'm not including space capsules, but even your definition (using aerodynamic forces to travel through an atmosphere) would include the space shuttles' unpowered glide (I know, it's glide ratio is crap, but it certainly cannot be described as a ballistic path). Or do we now exclude all gliders from our definition of flight?

  113. Re:greatest human achievements by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Once Intelligence was mastered, not blowing up the world was pretty inevitable.</quote>

    How about the Fermi paradox?

    Simply put, the conjecture is that our universe should be teeming with life. If so, why don't we see intelligence is a self-limiting process, where, once certain discoveries are made, the "intelligent" species blows itself out of existence.

    The fact that we have yet (area 51 notwithstanding) had any verifiable evidence of other intelligences in the universe would indicate that the paradox might hold some truth.

  114. Re:modding. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    It's called back-trolling :-)

    The premise is that, if you can keep a troll occupied, he or she won't be bothering other people, will eventually get bored, and in the meantime isn't bothering others.

    The requirements for back-trolling are as follows:

    1. Do it on company time. Not on your own time. Once the troll realizes that, contrary to hm/her, you're actually getting paid for your time, the trolling activity is much less enjoyable
    2. Keep the discussion off-topic, so people who are browsing above a certain level aren't interfered with. This is consistent with back-trollings' purpose of making the net a better place.
    3. When the troll looks like they're going to slip away, dangle some personal info in front of them. Keep them on the hook longer. This way, when they finally leave, they will be less likely to want to waste more time trolling someone else
    4. Look at the post times - most of the trollers are after-school kids who are looking for some form of self-expression and attention from somebody, anybody. By giving them this attention, you're keeping them from indulging in other types of anti-social behaviour.
    5. To keep their attention, you have to have a sense of humor, and also be ready to feign anger, outrage, whatever is required to keep the troll engaged in the discussion. Remember, your goal is to keep them from harassing other, less thick-skinned netizens.
    Maybe I should post a back-trolling howto. Further comments or ideas would be appreciated:-)
  115. Re:greatest achievement of mankind by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Quite how you can call a naturally occurring organism the "greatest achievement of mankind" is beyond me.</quote> I take it you're referring to penicillin. The achievement wasn't in the mold, which is naturally occurring, but in recognizing the utility of the mold (a seemingly less-than-worthless pest) in fighting disease :-)

    If and when you have kids, you may one day be able to look at them in wonder, realizing that, while they are "naturally occurring organisms", they also represent, at least in your own eyes, your most important achievement :-)

  116. Re:flight by goofballs · · Score: 1

    My unstated point was that (and I guess I should have taken the time to include it) the political process and pork-barrelling have interfered with the way that we currently attempt space missions.

    when you're dealing with billions of tax payer dollars, of course the "political process and pork-barreling" is part of it; that's the job of the politicians- to look out for their constituents! the money's being spent, might as well as have it make some jobs in your district! =)

    as far as self-powered launches, that was *NOT* being explored in the early programs. simply wasn't feasible technologically. hell, we still can't do it today. ;)

  117. Go China Go! by veliath · · Score: 1

    veliath

  118. Re:flight by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    as far as self-powered launches, that was *NOT* being explored in the early programs. simply wasn't feasible technologically. hell, we still can't do it today. ;) </quote>

    I think if we had to, we could do it. Would take a few years, but with sufficient motivation, the engineering could be done. Long-term, it would be more viable than anything we've got now. But I still want the bucky-tube space-hook!

  119. Re:including ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Maybe we should just leave every other country in the world alone to get over run by tyrants
    Being overrun by tyrants, or being overrun by the US. hmm, is there actually a difference then? And don't start on the usually "we saved "-rant, because you didn't. All the US ever did was replace a dictator with one more US-friendly. WW2? The US only got involved because of the American ships which had unpleasend encounters with German submarines. But what would one have to expect from a country run by the industrial elite? About time the US freed itself.
  120. Re:flight by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Your original statement has merit.

    The LEM didn't operate in an atmosphere, therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with flight. Flight happens exclusively in atmospheres.

    Some of the technologies are similar indeed, but the engineering of the vehicles is a totally different kettle of fish.

    The shuttle's gliding capability is really a joke. Yes, it can sorta turn a little bit, and sorta guide itself, but it's on the ragged edge of controlled wing-borne flight. If the shuttle had not been designed by committee, (specifically, the Air Force, which absolutely demanded a winged vehicle, so that it could land at Vandenberg Air Base for some weird reason) it would not be a winged vehicle at all.

    Gliders are unpowered, wing-borne flight. Some people consider lighter-than-air vehicles to fly, but I think it's a degenerate case. Jet-borne flight (like the Harrier) is a special case. Helicopters are certainly borne by their rotating wings.

    Sure, it's a semantic argument, but that's the way the discussion was going...

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  121. Searching for answers... by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Like why the average monthly wage in china is $2.

    I can't believe these tards. They've GOT to realize that if they were capitalist, they'd own the world...

    /sigh

    1. Re:Searching for answers... by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      Debating what China spends its money on, either a rocket, or its people, is entirely on-topic.

      We need a word for trolling mods.

      Trods.

  122. Re:flight by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Flight happens exclusively in atmospheres. </quote>

    Definition of flight from dictionary.com

    1. The motion of an object in or through a medium, especially through the earth's atmosphere or through space. 2. An instance of such motion. 3. The distance covered in such motion.
    Seems pretty plain to me ... :-)

    Even NASA calls it space flight:

    1. Goddard Space Flight Center
    2. Marshall space Flight Center
    3. NASA Office of Space Flight
    Keep in touch :-)
  123. Re:flight by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Fair enough. You and NASA disagree with myself and John Andersen, who wrote my aerodynamics textbook.

    The list of things I disagree with NASA about would fill a large number of posts.

    I stand by my distinction. It's obviously open to interpretation. Moving along. : )

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  124. Parasite Rex... by Rectal+Prolapse · · Score: 1

    I strongly suggest that you read Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer. Hopefully my point will be much clearer to you then. :)

    I'm not saying that fight is all there is, but the evidence presented by parasitologists and zoologists suggest that cooperation and competition go hand in hand (cooperate with your fellow group-mates, so that you can out-compete the other group in the same territory -- perhaps even wage war on them. Baboons and chimpanzees do fight each other, y'know).

    Also, the fact that we can prevent the spread of certain diseases, like SARS, doesn't change the rules of biology at all, anymore than a primate who hollers when a tiger or some other big predator approaches does. Humans don't have a monopoly on communicating threats.

    To say that humans are "above evolutionary pressures" only demonstrates a lack of understanding on what evolution is. If the environment decides to throw a ten kilometer diameter asteroid at Earth and wipes out humanity, then it is pretty obvious that we did not yet evolve enough to deal with this disastrous change in environment!

    Provided of course that we don't destroy ourselves first, which would be a demonstration of how humans can place evolutionary pressure on themselves.

    1. Re:Parasite Rex... by JohnsonJohnson · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the book, I'll look into it though. The comment that started off this thread implied that evolutionary success is largely determined by the ability of an organism to destroy (I believe the exact term was "kick ass") other organisms. I merely wished to point out that by and large evolutionary responses are far more subtle. Who knows what the proverbial microbe did, it may have crawled under a rock containing some tasty goop while an asteroid wiped out all its foes and simply come out standing. At any rate there are a myriad of organizational principles at the macroscopic level: from humans in cities (intraspecies) to cattle egrets and water buffalo (interspecies) but they don't necessarily extend to the microscopic. At this point things could vere into the realm of the influence of our gene's "need" to replicate is reflected in our concious decisions (I personally think it's minimal) but that's getting too far afield. As for humanity being above evolutionary pressures I claim no such thing. What I think is unique about humanity is we have reached the point where we can decide that we don't want anymore smallpox or SARS viruses or even mosquitoes to exist. So in effect we've become the proverbial 10km asteroid from beyond as far as many species are concerned, except we have an attitude. In a sense humanity has turned many predator prey relationships completely around. Furthermore we can reduce the populations of other organisms at a rate so much larger than their reproductive capacity that evolution has no chance to act to compensate. All in all a pretty unusual state of affairs that has only been true for the last 5,000 or so years out of the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth.

  125. Definition of "democratic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United is a capitalist dictatorship. See how one President Bush pushed his country to war with a majority of the population in disagreement.

    China is a one-party democracy. It's not like the US or North Korea where the leadership is passed on from father (Kim and Bush Srs.) to son.

    Really, the only really democratic countries are the small North European countries, and even they are in danger of being swallowed up by the EU.

  126. Re:including ... :-) by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

    Not so... race refers to subspecies or breeds, and there are definitely those in the human species.

    The classic breakdown is African, Caucasian, and Asian. This is highly simplistic, and there are more.

    All up, there's about 20 or so human sub-species, and (believe it or not) not all can breed easily with all the other sub-species.

    --
    "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  127. greatest achievement of humankind? by sbwoodside · · Score: 1

    OK, this REALLY isn't offtopic ;-)

    - tool use
    - language
    - agriculture
    - writing
    - the steam engine
    - the assembly line
    - the computer
    - the internet

    what's scary is that if you chart those out on a timeline, the periods are decreasing exponentially .........

    simon

    1. Re:greatest achievement of humankind? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I take it you are referring to the first moving assembly line at Ford (1913).

      Computers (or analytical machines) predate this. Charles Babbage's analytical engine was proposed in the 1830's. The first programmer was a woman (Ada Lovelace, daughter of Lord Byron). In 1980, the U.S. Department of Defense honored Ada Lovelace by naming its new programming language "Ada" after her.

      It's interesting that the use of punch cards to program weaving machines, and/or analytical engines, precedes the Hollerith punch card reader by more than half a century.

  128. Re:including ... :-) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Well, let's look at this one point at a time:
    Not so... race refers to subspecies or breeds, and there are definitely those in the human species.

    This is the same argument that the kennel clubs make about their "breeds". It's all bullshit. There's only "canis familiaris". Sure, we use shorthand, such as "Newfoundland" or "St-Bernard", but it's all the same - a dog. Now, I wouldn't try interbreeding my Newfie with a Chihuahua, because the Chihuahua wouldn't survive the mating. This has everything to do with the size of the parts, and nothing to do with genetic incompatabilities. In humans, there is nowhere near as much variance.

    The classic breakdown is African, Caucasian, and Asian. This is highly simplistic, and there are more.

    "classic breakdown..." sounds pretty dated to me. "highly simplistic..." can't argue there.

    All up, there's about 20 or so human sub-species, and (believe it or not) not all can breed easily with all the other sub-species.

    Well, I don't believe it. Can you provide any evidence?

  129. parent is troll. mod it down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is in fact troll. To enlighten parent's poster, reponse follows.

    >> why exactly should I be penalized because you feel it's important to have government involved in space exploration?
    R&D yields economic opportunity. Ever heard of the microchip? As for being "penalized", it's called "taxation" and it's part of being in ANY society where the masses are not owned outright by the ruling class.

    >> The key to space exploration is not bigger, more oppressive government. You're right; that's the key to "homeland security". The key is recognizing opportunities and acting on them. I know of 2 cases where private entities have gotten into building space infrastructure. In the mean time, the gov is the entity which has the resources and vision (at least, kennedy did) to realize that space is worthwhile and indeed strategically necessary. I know you'd love for us all to burn our books and go back to the farm, but those days are gone. I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you that populations grow geometrically while their resources grow arithmetically and how the primary resource of all economies is actually energy, ie sunlight regardless of storage form; I won't bother arguing with you that colonization (NOT immigration) of nearby planetoids is the smartest way to harvest needed resources (energy and minerals, which can be turned into needed products like food and tools). I won't go into depth (although I could) because Rush-Limbaugh-ites like yourself don't care about logic and facts unless they can be used to your own advantage; the only thing they (or you) care about is getting paid more, taxed less, and no rights for non-WASPs.

    >> and give the money back to those who know how to spend it best: those who actually earned it in the first place. The only problem with your theory is that people who reach the economic stratosphere only get there by pursuing their own interests to the exclusion of the interests of others. If Bill Gates and Donald Trump cared more about the future of humanity than the power rush of influencing world events, and the rational for a space-development program were laid out for them, they would fund it. But, if they were that altruistic, they never would have got to "the top" because someone just as driven but with less ethical constraints would have stomped them while they were still small fry.

    THAT'S why we HAVE government; to recognize and execute actions in the interest of the many which are not apparent to the individuals.

    Or would you prefer that we cease taxation and disband our military? Have you ever taken a political science course, or did you ignore everything therein because you didn't like the conclusions reached on considering the tradeoff between conformity costs and consensus costs?

    >> I hate to bring it up, but the US government space program has failed spectacularly not once but twice. If that was a private firm competing in the market, they would have been driven into the ground a long time ago, and rightly so.
    I hate to bring it up, but the USA failed to repel the German advance more than twice in early WWII. Under your logic, we "should" have given up at that point, because the determination of a "free market" overrides all other considerations, eg genocide and fascism. We "should" have let the Communists in Russia have all the internation prestige associated with the space race because our rockets blew and theirs flew. Good logic. No doubt you'd disagree in these points (as would I) that other, more important considerations take priority. That is my point on your question and I hope you can understand if even if you cannot swallow the truth of it. So here's my summary for the attention-challenged:

    The future condition of humanity hinges on our solution to the lack of environmental and technological resources we face.

    It is mathematical FACT that we WILL either find new resources or experience resource shortages. Because str

  130. Maybe this will help. by phrackwulf · · Score: 1

    Let's face it, the United States is badly in need of an old fashioned, BOHICA, humiliation. The Russians pulled it off with Sputnik, but I'm not sure the Chinese can get us off our collective butts. Maybe if they start launching weapons into space, that'd be a good old fashioned Cold War type deal. Beats having their economy make us their bitch twenty years from now.

    --
    What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!