China Scrubs Moon Mission Plans

money by Stevyn · 2004-05-18 05:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

Maybe I'm a dick, but I think they should spend their money on their own people before spending it on the moon. True space development does lead to useful technologies, but those people are starving to death over there.

Yeah, you could say something similar to the US and NASA, but it's insulting to the chineese people to compare their situation with even the poorest in this country.

Re:money by garcia · 2004-05-18 06:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

perhaps our country should consider doing the exact same thing.
Re:money by LrdHlmt · 2004-05-18 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

US Military Budget is probably over 40 times Nasas. And I'm pretty sure China, bieng also a nuclear power has a huge military budget to. This is where the money should not go.

Spending in science (space exploration) is always money well spent, specially with unmanned, redundant (two identical spacecrafts or more) missions.
Re:money by stienman · 2004-05-18 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think they should spend their money on their own people before spending it on the moon.

Spending money on the 'people' will not lead to useful change, even if it's spent on the 'right' things (food, housing, education, etc).

They can't feed their own people without educating them.

They can't educate their people and expect to remain in power.

So they spend it in PR stunts so the uneducated can, if they want, take national pride in a nation which does not treat them well.

And they spend it in military/police funding to keep the powerful in power.

And they limit the flow of information, again, to limit education and to keep the powerful in power.

Until there is a radical change in societal structure/governmental structure, nothing is going to change, regardless of where they put their money.

IMO.

-Adam
Re:money by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah yeah, let's solve all the world's problems before we go into space blah blah blah.
Dude, in the words of Mohammud, 'the poor will always be with us.' If we'd waited for utopia to spring into existence here on Earth we'd never have gone to the moon, never have launched a space shuttle or never done anything else worthwhile.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:money by stienman · 2004-05-18 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ha, ha, ha. It's very funny for many people to respond to this post and ask, "Are you talking about America?"

The reality, though, is that if you think we have it bad in America, you should really read up on what it's like elsewhere in the world.

Think of it as competition, in the same vein as Linux vs Windows.

Right now America is the undisputed 'king of the hill' or monopoly in world economics and most other areas you'd care to graph. Many other nations work just as well, but they simply don't have teh incredible wealth that the USA has.

Were you aware that the USA spends 1/3 of the money spent around the globe? The GDP of the US is over 11 trillion [US Dollars]. The GDP of the entire global economy is merely 32 Trillion.

The global economy is changing that - we see it as outsourcing, other countries see it as getting US dollars so they can increase their GDP.

If you want to change the monopoly status of the US then you agree to outsourcing, and you should seek to bring other nations to the level the US has rather than bringing the US down.

This, of course, covers nothing about the humanitarian crisis in china

It really is striking to see the level of elitism among americans. I include myself when I say that many in america get a paper cut and don't think about the mere availability of the bandaid as a striking contrast to life elswhere.

So yeah, I laugh when I see the posts asking me if I'm talking about needed gov't change in America vs China. It's really funny to me.

-Adam
Re:money by Chairboy · 2004-05-18 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are no stores in space. Every penny spent on space exploration is spent here on earth. It employees scientists, engineers, clerical types, food workers, maintenance staff, and so on.

If they did this, they would not be 'spending it on the moon'.
Re:money by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-05-18 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just curious, but what should the USA do with the ~$16B it puts into NASA instead? People seem to believe that the NASA budget is bigger than the DoD budget, the way they talk about stripping it from NASA to "use here on Earth".
Fact of the matter is that NASA's budget is a pittance. It's hardly enough to maintain four stinking Shuttles, much less develop a follow-on vehicle. The ISS is International because the government wouldn't fund NASA to the point of being able to build it ourselves.
And unmanned missions aren't worth the trouble. If we aren't going to go there ourselves, why bother? So we learn that Mars had water once? Whoop-de-do! Doesn't matter a hill of beans what there is to be learned in space if men aren't going to go there. If the manned space program dies, then the rest of it might as well die as well - since we'll be deciding to sit back and play video games till the next asteroid smacks us.
The way people look at space these days is getting to me....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:money by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Spent any money going to a baseball game lately? That doesn't help to 'feed your fellow man.' Been to the theatre? Seen a movie? Taken a walk in the park? None of these things 'feed your fellow man.' But they are still worth doing.
Where does this perverse notion come from that all of human endeavour must be about making a profit or being immediately productive or solving all the world's problems? It's incredibly short-sighted.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:money by XaXXon · 2004-05-18 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

But our country DOES take care of its people better than China. This gives us the ability to morally spend large amounts of money on space projects.

This goes back a long ways. Hunters and gatherers couldn't spend time doing things like art, science, literature, because they didn't have the resources to do it. As soon as people realized they could farm and raise stock, we had extra resources to partake in more civilized endeavours.

I'm not saying the Chinese are hunters and gatherers, but they simply don't have the resources to take adequate care of their populus and spend the massive amounts of money for manned space missions.

We do.

Now you can move the line back and forth as to what defines "adequate" living conditions for people, but if any country has enough resources to go to space without hurting it's citizens, it's the US.

If you're going to argue that no money should be spent on space exploration, then I can't really say anything to change your mind, but many good things have come from science and research that wasn't absolutely necessary for our survival.
Re:money by nosilA · 2004-05-18 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Loathe as I am to send this thread so far offtopic, I have to address this comment. Yes, the US is better than nearly every other country in the world in this and most respects, but that's no reason to get complacent. We got here by challenging our leaders, by having better education than elsewhere in the world, by innovating, and by being incredibly inhumane. I'd rather not go back to the inhumanity that litters our past, but we should do what we can to continue to improve ourselves in other categories. I don't think our current leaders are doing a good job of promoting the values that I believe are best in our country, and are starting to look a little bit like the paths some other civilizations have taken toward defeat.

Bush is not Emporer Nero, fiddling as Rome burns, nor are we living in 1984, but our government does share some traits with the bad societies of history and fiction. Our duty as citizens of the country and the world is to correct these problems, not to sit idly by and say "it could be worse."

In November, we have to make a pragmatic choice - is A better than B? But the rest of the time we have the freedom to be idealists - to complain, to demonstrate, to write to our leaders, and to campaign to change things. Don't tell me I can't point out the flaws in my country - that is one crucial trait that does make us better than China.
Re:money by demachina · 2004-05-18 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Were you aware that the USA spends 1/3 of the money spent around the globe? The GDP of the US is over 11 trillion [US Dollars]. The GDP of the entire global economy is merely 32 Trillion."

Keep patting yourself on the back. Just because America was and is wealthy doesn't translate in to it continuing to stay that way.

The E.U.s GDP is approximately the same as the U.S. About $10 trillion if I recall. One reason for the E.U. is to create a unified economy to compete on the global stage with the U.S. and one of its goals is to displace the dollar with the Euro as the currency used to value oil.

China's GDP was around 6 trillion last I saw and growing at a furious pace as in double digit annual growth. At that rate, at the rate at which misguided western executives are pumping capital, jobs and intellectual property in to China at the expense of the U.S., and with the huge trade deficits the U.S. runs with China it will eventually pass the U.S. and not in the so distant future.

Its true the U.S. GDP is growing again but that is almost entirely due to very low interest rates and the massive fiscal stimulus the Federal government is injecting in to the economy by running more than a half trillion dollar budget deficit, borrowed money being put in to the pockets of the wealthy with tax cuts and borrowed money being poured in to massive defense spending, especially thanks to Iraq which has consumed nearly $200 billion alone in a year. This deficit spending is leading to near term prosperity at great future risk. Greenspan, Warren Buffett, the IMF and the World Bank are all raising red flags over the danger inherent in current U.S. economic policies.

The U.S. is the world's largest debtor nation with a 7 trillion dollar national debt which is exploding. The projections for the next ten years thanks to the Bush tax cuts, retirement of the baby boom etc are truly scary unless there is another dot com bubble to dramatically increase revenues or dramatic Federal spending cuts, whil in fact Federal spending is exploding under the Bush administration.

It remains to be seen if the trend continues but one reason the DOW is declining is foreign investors dumped a record $13.5 billion in U.S. stock in March. Warren Buffet is likewise betting heavily against the dollar and the U.S. economy.

On the news last night it was reported that outsourcing is running at a rate 40% higher than previous estimates and accelerating rapidly.

--
@de_machina
Re:money by demachina · 2004-05-18 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Guess it depends on who you believe and most economic statistics are lies or damn lies, thanks to currency fluctuations, accounting differences etc. For the EU once source I find says:

"The European Union surpasses the United States in population and exports and rivals it in GDP. Its population was 377 million on Jan. 1, 2001, and its aggregate GDP for 2002 was US$ 8.591 trillion, compared to 10.365 trillion for the US and 715.4 billion for Canada."

And that was in 2002 so it probably it must easily be over $10 trillion now considering the extent to which the Dollar has cratered relative to the EU since then. You need to allow for the fact the Euro is something like 20% higher than it was versus the dollar before Bush came to town and if you are estimating GDP in dollars that does factor in.

Another more recent estimate:

"According to figures from Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities, the EU's combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will grow to 12.1 trillion dollars, slightly higher than the 12.04 trillion dollar GDP of the United States, which will thus lose its position as the world's leading economic power."

Your number for China appear to be more accurate than mine. 6 trillion was thrown out in an article I read a month or two ago. It appears certain China's GDP is around 11 trillion Yuan and it has been growing at just under 10%. The tricky part is how you value the Yuan. One rate I find is about 12 cents for a Yuan which yields maybe a $1.3 trillion GDP. The problem is everyone knows the Yuan is being pegged at an artificially low exchange rate which makes Chinese goods artificially cheap on foreign markets which is why they sell so well and a source of muttered fair trade complaints. To accurately value their GDP the Yuan should be floating and set by market forces, though if it did that it would dramatically alter their financial position relative to the West across the board.

--
@de_machina
Re:money by Entropy2016 · 2004-05-18 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

"And unmanned missions aren't worth the trouble. If we aren't going to go there ourselves, why bother? So we learn that Mars had water once? Whoop-de-do! Doesn't matter a hill of beans what there is to be learned in space if men aren't going to go there."

Lets take a look at manned missions versus unmanned missions, shall we?

Manned orbital missions: Scored a social, political, and engineering success, but scientific discoveries amounted to humans can handle low gravity okay.

Manned Moon missions: Scored a social, political, and engineering success, but the scientific discoveries amounted to moon rock == earth rock. If it had been possible, we'd probably have sent a robot first.

Next, look at the stuff that "doesn't matter a hill of beans".

Hubble Telescope: Despite being remote-controlled, it has discovered many new (and beautiful) things and it has also helped us find proof that our science is correct (black holes, general relativity, etc).

Voyager probes: Sent back images that helped further our understanding of the jovian moons (like Europa), Saturn's rings, etc. Also helped prove to ourselves that we can achieve major feats of engineering and course-planning. I think we also might have put some earth-stuff in the 2nd voyager just in case aliens find it. If so, it might not advance our science, but it could easily advance theirs, which is still a helluva achievement.

Martian probes: Has (and are still) helping us learn about what Mars has to offer (hopefully resources that will support colonization, which would justify a manned mission). The history books carried in the backpacks of students living on Mars wont think those "unmanned missions [weren't] worth the trouble".

It looks to me as if our manned missions didn't do a whole lot more than prove "it can be done". Compare that to the scientific & cosmological discoveries of our unmanned probes. Unmanned missions also help us figure out what manned missions are worth the effort.

If it turns out that we can't live on mars, a manned mission will create little more than boot-patterns in the dirt, which will be blown away by the next martian wind.

"If the manned space program dies, then the rest of it might as well die as well - since we'll be deciding to sit back and play video games till the next asteroid smacks us."
Survival shouldn't require abandoning Earth. Even if we can live elsewhere, it's not like we can allow asteroids to hit the motherland anyway.

There's nothing wrong with being content with simpler goals like preserving the Earth.
Some people think it's too humble a goal for humanity,
but often the humble route is a sign of maturity.

Such a shame by Pi_0's+don't+shower · 2004-05-18 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I hate to say it, but if some other country (China, India, Russia, etc.) got their act together and went and did something of note in space, it might inspire the administration and congress of the US to place a higher priority and more resources into the american space program. This is a shameful decision for both China and for the space program of the world.

Re:Such a shame by garcia · 2004-05-18 06:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

Personally, I would prefer that we keep our budgets right here on Earth. We have enough holes right here in America that we could be exploring. We don't need to go off and find ones on far off places.
Re:Such a shame by wowbagger · 2004-05-18 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, it is such a shame they are shoveling all those dollar bills aboard a rocket and shooting them into space, never to be seen again, rather than spending them here on earth.

What?

You mean, they *do* spend them here on earth? That they are going to pay people here on earth? That those people have jobs because of this?

--
www.eFax.com are spammers
Re:Such a shame by EpsCylonB · 2004-05-18 06:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

You think all that "we're going to Mars" stuff was a mistake or a coincidence?

I think that it probably had more to do with distracting the voting populous from the disastrous results of the american foreign policy because this is an election year.

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2004-05-18 05:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

In that case he probably will follow.

--

Technoli

Shelved due to cost... by lukewarmfusion · 2004-05-18 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

A space station? That sure is thrifty!

There's an International Space Station... why can't we all work together?

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by eericson · 2004-05-18 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right. So you're saying that humans should never explore the cosmos?

You need to get away from your keyboard a bit more, sir. The need to explore is a funamental component of what makes humans, well, humans. Part of that drive to learn involves risk, and frankly I'd give anything to have a chance to take that risk.

--
The evil monkey commands you to dance.

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 06:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

neather do sports and big sporting events. but it creates jobs and work. if all we did was what was needed and made sense, do you think we would have computers.

i work(ed) in IT and computers just create work.
if we didn't have computers, think of what it would be like.
more farming
less industry, no just-in-time ordering, no internet
and a bunch of bored people playing outside.
instead we have lots of paper pushers that are just spinning their wheels moving papers and numbers around to acheve... something... not sure what, but it wouldn't be there without the computer.

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by RoyalCheese · 2004-05-18 06:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it comes down to "limited resouces demand that we ration our efforts".. sure if we had nothing better to work on it might be a fine idea to direct a significant chunk of our taxes at sending a few bodies to the Moon or Mars or anywhere else, but I think at the moment, we really need to consider the questions of our energy supply, pollution, food and water. And work directly towards solutions to these problems instead of heading up into space and along the way inventing a new "teflon".

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 06:13 · Score: 0, Insightful

Wrong Answer.... At least here in the US

We live in a country where about 40% of our economy goes to supporting the government.....

Imagine where we could be, if only we could use that for something that really benifits the human race instead of the people in power....

Support for the "INTERNATIONAL" space station by beatleadam · 2004-05-18 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let us for just one moment put aside the notion of Media Spin on this article and take a look at a few elements...

"China has welcomed international cooperation in its space station."

Headlong goes the project forward as money spent on our people here on Earth is of far less importance than showing the rest of the World that we alone can build and support a space station diplomacy be Damned...

It was unclear if plans to forge ahead on its own were influenced by recent signs the United States might not want China to join the 16-nation, $95 billion International Space Station.

What signs were these? If as is stated in "16-nation" is correct, it is not only the United States' decision on who does or does not join the project...

Chinese space officials were "shocked" the United States had not done more to welcome them into the small community of space-faring nations, a leading U.S. expert said last month after a trip to China.

Again, if this is a 16-nation project, it is not just the United States who should be "welcoming" anyone, nor is the United States sole choice in who joins or not.

The United States harbors concerns that the army-run Chinese program could some day pose a threat to U.S. dominance in military satellite communications.

And finally the "truth" comes to light.

I am NOT looking to be "Flamebait" here, but just look at what this article is saying and Think about the political climate we live in right now and who has the "power" to extend or retract a hand!

--
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Re:Support for the "INTERNATIONAL" space station by hnjjz · 2004-05-18 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

The United States puts up the majority of the funds for the ISS and would have the biggest say in anything that goes on. Other than the US and Russia, most of the other nations participating in the ISS only makes relatively minor components and all launches are performed by either the US or Russia. Even the Russian effort is largely funded by the US, so don't kid yourself on who is really making all the decisions. After the Shenzhou V launch, both the Russians and the Europeans had suggested bringing in China on the ISS project but it was met with a negative reaction from the US. In fact, Europe and Russia are already cooperating with China on a variety of space projects such as Galileo.

Re:What would have been the point.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 06:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's exactly the point.

Think of this parallel: Pakistan tested a nuclear weapon several years ago, knowing full well that doing so would bring them international scorn and economic sanctions. They did it for "pride." They did it to show the world that they had mastered atomic knowledge, despite the fact they have great difficulty in feeding their population. Pakistanis were tremendously proud of their achievment.

Likewise, the Chinese would become only the second country *ever* to put a human on the moon. It's an enormously difficult task (so enormous, apparently, that they scrapped the plan). It would show the world that the long period of Chinese stagnation has come to an end. They are once again going to be a world super-power. What most people forget (or never knew) is that for most of the world's recorded history, China was the greatest power on Earth.

I, for one, think it's highly rational that the Chinese wanted to do this.

Pot, meet Kettle by FreeUser · 2004-05-18 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

well we already have one difficult partner... Russia... who can't put a single thing into orbit within 3 years of when it's supposed to be
there...

Pot, meet Kettle.

Uh, yeah. Like the space shuttle you mean?

Yes, that's right. Currently Russia is the only nation in a position to launch manned spacecraft. Without them we would already have abandoned the IIS and it would likely have already plummeted to the earth.

Meanwhile we can't even save Hubble, and it remains to be seen if we ever get our fleet back off the ground again.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Pot, meet Kettle by HeghmoH · 2004-05-18 06:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

American knuckleheads never let inconvenient facts like Russia currently being the only country on the planet able to regularly launch people into orbit to change their biased opinions.

I love my country, but our manned space program sucks, sucks, sucks. The US has been just as much, if not more, of a difficult ISS partner as anybody else.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!

Fear by netfool · 2004-05-18 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The United States harbors concerns that the army-run Chinese program could some day pose a threat to U.S. dominance in military satellite communications."

I can understand the concern. A billion plus people, a huge army, an economy that is growing rapidly and will probably soon trounce the US's to become the next Superpower.
But China has never really been an expansionistic type country. It's seems throughout their history, they're usually the ones attacked, or the fighting is domestic (power struggles etc).

Here's where I contradict myself - I could see all of that changing however, a growing economy with a billion++ people will probably need a lot of resources...especially oil.

I wonder if this whole Iraq war is really about safeguarding the middle east from future chinese aggression. I mean, we can't have a communist nation invading a democratic nation! Or even an areas around it as it would cause the domino effect and all the countries around it would fall to communisim as well (SEE Vietnam War).

--
Left 4 Dead Gaming Group - http://www.l4dgg.com

Re:Fear by InternationalCow · 2004-05-18 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

You do have a point, but I disagree on China not being expansionist. Their history clearly shows that, on occasion (when deemed safe to do so without too many political/military consequences) they DO expand at the expense of others. Example in point being Tibet. And if they could get away with it (they cannot now since that would start a major war) they would gobble up Taiwan in the blink of an eye. I should also mention Mongolia in this context. So, I do appreciate the concerns about a Chinese, perhaps armed, presence in space...

--
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
Re:Fear by Psyqlone · 2004-05-18 07:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

But China has never really been an expansionistic type country. It's seems throughout their history, they're usually the ones attacked, or the fighting is domestic (power struggles etc).

...yes and no. Historically the worst enemy of the Chinese have been other Chinese, even to the present day (how's that for progress?)

Go back over the past couple thousand years and you'd find that the Chinese have invaded and/or conquered the lands of Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Tibetans, and a few minor Tartar/Turkish/Mongol and subcontinental realms at different times. ...point being that they haven't always gotten along with everyone and still don't.

It wasn't all brutal subjugation and cultural imperialism. Over time, contact with the Chinese (even colonialism and governance) allowed for trade and communication with civilizations far beyond the Chinese sphere of influence.

Here's where I contradict myself - I could see all of that changing however, a growing economy with a billion++ people will probably need a lot of resources...especially oil.

Wouldn't it be funny (and perhaps a bit ironic) if the Chinese concentrated a lot more research and funding into hydrogen-based fuels out of necessity reducing their need for petrol?

Oh great.... by Kevin+Burtch · 2004-05-18 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

( This will undoubtedly get modded as a troll by some Bush-loving republican, but who cares? ;) )

Now Bush will undoubtedly follow by canceling the new moon & mars missions.

Why do I say this?

He was killing off everything he could with regard to NASA, cutting their funding to the extreme... until China announced their plans.
He immediately did a 180 and said we have to go to the moon and mars.

Why?

We haven't been there in over 25 years, it's up for grabs!
Whoever gets there 1st will end up claiming it like a poor mannered brat in a sandbox.

Why should anyone care?

Because the moon has resources that can be used to launch further missions... watch educational TV some time (Discovery, TLC, Science channel, etc.) and you might see what I'm talking about.

--
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -

Re:Oh great.... by ChaoticLimbs · 2004-05-18 06:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

See, your main problem in this "line" of argument is that you assert that America claiming the moon like some brat in a sandbox is BAD whereas the rather less socially conscious Chinese government doing so would be less bad.
I would also like you to justify the claim you made about Bush cutting NASA spending. Even if he did, I would say NASA needs a bit of redirection, as their big spendy program, the ISS, accomplishes nothing. I built all 20 of the Space Station Emergency Lighting Power Supplies and battery packs. It kept me employed for 3 years. But really, it doesn't do anything up there. At least giving them a goal accomplishes something. In the past, setting goals lit the fires under our scientific community and got development of new tech started. Even if we fail, it's better to fail with a goal than to meander aimlessly with a multibillion dollar budget.

Re:Welfare by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-18 06:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, we decry the military-industrial-congressional complex that seeks only to enrich itself whilst destroying stuff. I would have no problem if we spent as much money on the space program as we do on defense, and vice versa. At least we'd be building stuff and going somewhere instead of blowing stuff up and making life on earth worse.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.

Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by garcia · 2004-05-18 06:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

yup, it sure is. It also seems to be human nature to dig yourself into unrecoverable debt just to make yourself do something.

I'd prefer we wait until the country has a budget that is not in the red and we have a society that isn't full of poor and destitute people who are dying of random diseases because we are afraid to tell the insurance and oil cartels to fuck off.

Yes, this will likely never happen. My point is made.

They Realized That Space Exploration Is Worthless by $criptah · 2004-05-18 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

China has a lot of problems that must be taken care of prior going to the Moon. Unfortunately, so does the United States.

Being a geek and a vivid phyiscs fan, it hurts me when I see space missions cancelled. However, I am a human being as well; I realize that there are billion dollar price tags associated with these goals. It is wise not to spend money if you cannot afford doing so, wouldn't you agree? If we *really* want to continue space exploration, maybe we should stop world-wide safaris first.

I really hope that the United States comes to the same conclusion and stops hoping to be the first on Mars. It would be nice if we spend more money on education and creation of affordable healthcare. Once we get these -- and many other things -- fixed, we shall fly. For now, I'll read science fiction and dream.

Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Erwos · 2004-05-18 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

"How about we wait until we don't have to fight any more goddamn wars"

We've been fighting wars for all of human history. It's unlikely that'll happen anytime soon.

The biggest problem people have on /. is addressing reality _as it is_, rather than how it should be. If you think war is going to end anytime soon, you're deluded.

I also enjoy this theory that's so popular on /. that "space research is so much more beneficial than military research for the common man". I've never seen anyone actually prove that, and I think it's foolish to take it at face value.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.

Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by beakburke · 2004-05-18 10:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem with the idea of "solve all of our problems first" is that it is very shortsighted. If we wanted to we could spend all of our money just on providing everyone with a certain minimum standard of living, healthcare, you name it. And expectations will always rise as long as we keep becomming more wealthy as a group, so you are fighting a never ending battle. In short, you are committing what is known as the "snaphot falacy"

You have to balance the temptation to blow all our money on current wants and needs and to make investments in research and technology, that will make us (and our kids) better off in the future. It is the productivity through education. technology and specialization that allows us to live as well as we do. Saying that we need to slow down progress means that your standard of living is implicitly going to suffer. This is the same trap that communism fell into. You have to account for the long term effects of those kind of decisions.

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.

Re:2010 Space Odyssey by shadowbearer · 2004-05-18 13:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I hope so. It might give the Western world (aka the US) a sorely needed kick in the pants.

If we leave aside exploration - which is important for it's own sake - there's the fact that domination of space would be a military trump card; witness the huge impact that just intelligence satellites have made.

Treaties or no, a solid launch/travel capability in space has been and is going to be one of the next contentions for superpower status. Having weaopnry in orbit that can strike within two hours of an alert, with little danger of retaliation, is an absolutely priceless military asset. We may not be able to do that economically now, but we certainly will be able to do so within the next few decades.

SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.

Slashdot Mirror

China Scrubs Moon Mission Plans

40 of 390 comments (clear)