China Scrubs Moon Mission Plans

Ha! They were right... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 05:55 · Score: 3, Funny

They finally found the US documents to prove THERE IS NO MOON!!!

Re:Ha! They were right... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 05:57 · Score: 4, Funny

licencing costs alone for the 'Moon' Studio were unreasonable. not to mention time and costs for actually shooting the video and then killing all the witnesses... do you know how much red tape there is in killing witnesses, add to it the 'reasonable death' stories... creative people cost way too much.
Re:Ha! They were right... by albeit+unknown · 2004-05-18 06:15 · Score: 2, Funny

No moon...just a SPACE STATION!
Re:Ha! They were right... by SquadBoy · 2004-05-18 06:34 · Score: 1

A Battle Sphere. Everybody knows that.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200303/0743435931. ht m?blurb

--

Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Re:Ha! They were right... by macdaddy357 · 2004-05-18 07:29 · Score: 1

We like dee moon!

--
How ya like dat?
Re:Ha! They were right... by melee · 2004-05-18 11:49 · Score: 2, Funny

I would bet that the PRC has worked out the process of liquidation of undesirables to a fine art, or at least a series of slavishly followed forms.

My wacky conspiracy theory is that the Area 51 Fake Moon Surface Studio had already been repurposed to look like Mars and the Chinese didn't care to construct a new facility.

Common problem by Neil+Blender · 2004-05-18 05:55 · Score: 5, Funny

The found that after going to the moon, they'd have to go again in an hour. The additive cost was just too much.

Rots of ruck. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 05:56 · Score: 2, Funny

With your next manned space fright.

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 Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 06:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Not to necessarily dispute your larger point, but while rural Chinese are impoverished, they're not starving to death. It's not Sudan or North Korea. Although North Korea is kind of their fault.
Re:money by Golgafrinchan · 2004-05-18 06:06 · Score: 2, Informative

...but those people are starving to death over there.
This makes it sound like all Chinese people are impoverished across the country. China != North Korea. Many people in the coastal region and Beijing live fine and aren't even close to starving to death.
The people in the rural areas, of course, are the ones who are impoverished. But Beijing is giving them the shaft in all ways imaginable anyway. After all, in China, if you're born in a rural area, then in most cases you aren't allowed to move into the city, thus keeping your family poor for generations.
Actually, the most pressing thing pissing me off about the Chinese government now is that they recently closed down the call center where people could make appointments to get visas to come to the US. As a result, people have to line up outside the embassy for hours before it even opens up in the hope that they'll be allowed inside that day. Given that I have a Chinese girlfriend who's going home for the Summer, I'm a bit upset about this situation. For more info...

--
My userid is prime!
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 WormholeFiend · 2004-05-18 06:11 · Score: 1

"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"

Agreed. It's quite impossible to compare the USA's deficit and debt to anything else on this planet.

Have those numbers reached the googol yet?
Re:money by garcia · 2004-05-18 06:12 · Score: 1

You really shouldn't assume something. I read it and ignored it. IMHO he should not have given a reason validating the fact that the US seems to care more about the possibilities in space rather than its own citizens.
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 kevlar · 2004-05-18 06:15 · Score: 1

Actually, they shouldn't spend OUR money on sending China to the Moon.
Re:money by garcia · 2004-05-18 06:21 · Score: 1

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

Hmm, sounds very similar to another country I know pretty well.
Re:money by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2004-05-18 06:22 · Score: 1

I'm a bit confused, are you describing the US or China?

--
- These characters were randomly selected.
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 Suidae · 2004-05-18 06:26 · Score: 1

Please also consider that not everyone who doesn't have a 2 cars and a 30" TV wants those things.

Provide medical care and education for those who want it, and control population growth, otherwise, leave them to themselves.
Re:money by jaywee · 2004-05-18 06:28 · Score: 1

No no no, China *needs* to harvest space resources quite soon - in order to improve lives of your "common" people. World is already experiencing shortage of iron/etc EXACTLY because of massive growth in China. And their needs will be only bigger and bigger - you simply need another source of resources - Space. Simply put, our civilisation is starting to outgrow this little piece of rock we are living on.
Re:money by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-05-18 06:37 · Score: 1

but those people are starving to death over there
No, they aren't. They export food. This isn't the sixties, people....
Or did you mean the North Koreans were starving? And this is relevant how? North Korea != China. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all Asians are the same. It annoys the Asians, and makes you look foolish.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:money by vaccum+pony · 2004-05-18 06:38 · Score: 1

You're not a dick, just a little uninformed in this area. The Chinese have an up and coming middle class. In thirty to forty years, they will have a rather large consumer population. Larger than the US. There is not enough existing fuel or materials to support their middle class. I don't mean there is not enough in China, I mean there is not enough on the planet. If China wants to avoid wars over resources, she will have to find new resources. China has already stated that the intended goal of their space program is to acquire these resources. It will be expensive, but at least they are making the attempt. Very few other nations are seriously looking in this direction (Japan has a very cool experiment going to generate power AND hydrogen from orbiting solar-power). So their announcement that they are ignoring a flashy manned lunar landing is no big deal or surprising. They are a more readily accesable research platform and a station is a hell of lot cheaper to get to and leave than a moon base.
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 GoofyBoy · 2004-05-18 06:46 · Score: 1

>or never done anything else worthwhile.

Not having your fellow man live in horrid conditions is not worthwhile?

I find it amazing that the majority of people here will kick and scream about having "free and open" software, yet will put future space travel over feeding his brother.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:money by HyperCash · 2004-05-18 06:46 · Score: 1

Its been shown that even if you put the money into feeding the poor that the number of poor will just continue to grow until you can no longer afford to feed them and you are right back where you started.

--HC

--
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
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 Stargoat · 2004-05-18 06:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't let her go. I'm serious. Marry her in a small ceremony, and wait until you get your I-131. This is experience talking.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Re:money by linzeal · 2004-05-18 07:02 · Score: 1

Glad to see other people have actually read the Koran instead of bullshiting about its contents. I'm not religious out of spite with Catholoicism, but I have read most of the world's religious texts and feel more astute for it.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:money by Stargoat · 2004-05-18 07:03 · Score: 1

They already have a larger consumer population than the US, just not a larger consumer economy. China's been growing at ~8-10% for the past two decades. The economy over there is huge, and getting bigger ever day.
The official economic policy is like a fascist Japanese model. That is, the government controls who may enter the cities, keeping rural population about level, while providing labor for the urban production markets.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
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 gnu-generation-one · 2004-05-18 07:06 · Score: 1

"Maybe I'm a dick, but I think they should spend their money on their own people before spending it on the moon."

Well technically, all the people working on the space-science projects are "their own people", and paying them to build rockets (or write software, or fabricate aluminium, or build launch towers, etc.) probably counts as helping them financially.
Re:money by GoofyBoy · 2004-05-18 07:06 · Score: 1

>Spent any money going to a baseball game lately?

Suppose I said I spent mutliple billion of dollars of your money on going to ball games.

Now suppose I said although its not going to show a profit or produce anything immediatly or solve the worlds problems, but I COULD HAVE with your money. Would you just nod and passively accept that?

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:money by Maudib · 2004-05-18 07:10 · Score: 1

Actually the Chinese government is spending a ton of money on education and the sciences. Diffusion to the rural population is slow because there is almost 2 billion of them.

Their space program is actually evidence of this. If you recall the U.S. program was actually created as part of a broader program to encourage the study of math and sciences in the U.S. (ultimatly as part of the cold war effort). Accelerated math and science programs were introduced accross the country in order to further the overall effort. China's program really fits in to a similairly large effort.

The problem in china isnt a lack of committment to education by the ruling party, but rather that politically and socially the ruling party is stifling, and they use education to further that.

To say they arent interested in educating their people is absurd. First of all, they are strongly committment to a national modernization program. Second, they realize the value of state schools in pushing social propaganda.
Re:money by Cheetahfeathers · 2004-05-18 07:11 · Score: 1

Space colonization is the one and _only_ long term plan for survival. With our current use of limited fossil fuels, increased risk of destruction thanks to biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. this may be our best and perhaps only window for starting such colonization.

Not to sound like a dick, but better that billions starve to get a few hundred thousand into space, than spend it on people here. I don't think we need to be so drastic, though. I'm still hoping for a win/win situation.
Re:money by FXSTD · 2004-05-18 07:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

Not to nit pick but Jesus said it about 600 years earlier.
Re:money by bpowell423 · 2004-05-18 07:13 · Score: 1

hmm... if Mohammud said that, Jesus said it first. Matthew 26:6-13 tells of a woman who poured an expensive bottle of perfume over Jesus. Some of the disciples of Jesus complained saying the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus recognized and appreciated the beauty of what the woman had done for him. In Matthew 26:11, he says, "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."

I agree with your post, btw.
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 b-baggins · 2004-05-18 07:28 · Score: 1

If you're so sure you can solve the world's problems, use your own damn money and leave mine alone.

I swear, liberals are so eager to spend other people's money...

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:money by GoofyBoy · 2004-05-18 07:29 · Score: 1

>The government that spends the money is not a single person, it collects taxes from the populace at large.

But its still your money (the collective tax-payers). When the government is spending that sort of money the question is still the same, do you want to spend a huge load of money on this or something else?

>The populace at large spend many billions of dollars on ball games and other forms of entertainment.

But it was their direct choice. If YOU want to spend that sort of money to go to the moon, thats fine. Just don't spend other people's money on it and imply that its better than helping others on Earth.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:money by b-baggins · 2004-05-18 07:31 · Score: 1

Oh, please. China has want and need because it's a freakin' COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP!

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:money by joeljkp · 2004-05-18 07:55 · Score: 1

Scientific research, a stepping stone to other places, resources that aren't available on Earth, national pride, a mission for NASA, technological advances....

--
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Re:money by Yokaze · 2004-05-18 08:04 · Score: 1

Chinas military budget: $47 billion, GDP $6 trillion.

US militaries budget $399 billion, GDP $11 trillion.

Source

I'd consider a sub 1percent military budget quite moderate.

--
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Re:money by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 08:10 · Score: 1

liberals are so eager to spend other people's money...
GW Bush is many things, but he is not a 'liberal.'

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:money by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-05-18 08:15 · Score: 1

Depends on what that "something else" is.

Here's $100B to spend over the next 10 years. You can either:
A) Explore space, maybe get a toehold on going back to the moon, and all the jobs, knowledge, and tech that goes with that,
B) Give everybody in the country two pizza's ($35) a year for the next 10 years
C) Give the bottom 40% of wage earners $70 per family member a year for the next 10 years,
D) Hire 1 teacher for every 300 schoolkids,
E) Something else

It really, really depends on what that 'else' is

Note that Bush is initially asking for 1% of that figure I used above. Adjust accordingly.
Re:money by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 08:21 · Score: 1

Now you're changing the subject. All of the comments in your original post (where there was no mention of GDP) could equally be applied to the US. Let's face it, when a nation is mesmerised by reality TV but can't name the Prime Minister of their neighbour to the north, it's hard to get much more ignorant.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:money by Hatta · 2004-05-18 08:41 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that, instead of us going to the moon, we should bring the moon to us!

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:money by stienman · 2004-05-18 08:42 · Score: 1

First - yes, the US must change to meet the new global economy. I support outsourcing, at the expense of my own salary and living conditions. I imagine my stance will change over time. Disclaimer - I'm not an economist, I'm current taking a macroeconomics class but it's really just a skim overview of economics.

And GDP numbers I bring up below are from the world bank Total GDP 2002 report.

The E.U.s GDP is approximately the same as the U.S. About $10 trillion if I recall.

6,648,492 million. About 1/5 of the world economy. Part of the reason, I suspect, for the US's huge GDP is the cultural acceptance of high personal debt, which I understand is not a cultural similarity to many nations in the EU, though it is slowly creeping in over there. Home ownership and low cost mortgages, federal bank insurance, tax credits on various debts, etc early on in the 20th century provided a fertile field for today's economy in the US.

China's GDP was around 6 trillion...it will eventually pass the U.S. and not in the so distant future.

To be pedantic, China's GDP is 1,266,052 Million. I agree that it eventually must pass the US GDP if 1) China remains one cohesive state and 2) Any societal/cultural/governing revolution is started, mediated, and controlled by the gov't. I don't think China can withstand any of those revolutions economically, despite state efforts to do so. Further the gov't must spend so much money training and keeping their citizens in line it may be difficult to sustain any temporary growth.

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...This deficit spending is leading to near term prosperity at great future risk.

Well, at least you agree that the current administration's plan is working, albiet extremely risky. When the depression struck the gov't tried all the 'normal' methods to get the economy going, and then a guy by the name of Keynes wrote several treatises on the subject of economics which effectively said that then current theories were no longer applicable to then current economies. The economy only did well when aggregate spending, private, busines, and public, was up. It is his model of the economy which we use. Therefore, when the economy is bad the gov't must increase its spending, and encourage private and business spending. Further, deficit is a tool to be used to increase spending. Whether the rich or poor should be the ones receiving the encouragement is up for debate.

Personally, I hope to see more foreign investment and outsourcing. I hope that I can personally stay ahead of the curve and make myself valuable as an employee, but in the end the relationship I have with an employer is a business relationship. If he can get a better deal on milk at KMart, then he might stop shopping at Kroger. If I don't step up to the challenge and make a better offer then I can't reasonably force them to choose me over a better/cheaper product. I think too many people are fairly prideful on this point - as if it were their right to be making more than 80% of the world's population at the expense of other employees and businesses.

Besides, as companies get burned by outsourcing, and others have great success many jobs will move back here and other jobs will leave. This cycle will find another equilibrium just as past outsourcing 'emergencies' (cloth mills, steel, cars, etc) did. It's just another decade in the global economy - nothing to see here, move along. If one really didn't agree with outsourcing, one would have to forego buying any products made elsewhere.

Our economy already depends too much on outsourcing of goods and services. The real shock will be when we're forced t
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 Stargoat · 2004-05-18 09:42 · Score: 1

Basically, its not certain she'll come back. Dealing with Americans in China is also difficult. The American Embassy tends to employ local Chinese (as I understand it) and they are tough to deal with.
Once you get to a point where you can just go, and not need to speak to anyone, like with a I-131 or a Green Card, you'll be much better off.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Re:money by tloh · 2004-05-18 09:50 · Score: 1

How is North Korea kind of their fault? Since the collapse of the soviet bloc, communist China is essentially the only supporter of communist Korea. Where Kim Jong Il has made a mess of managing his country, Beijing has readily provided assistance to the N. Korea people, without which they would be even more desperate than they are now. Don't ge me wrong, the fact that China can afford to give a lot more is not lost on me. I think at a some level the top brass in Beijing would even *want* to prop N. Korea up a little more so as to avoid the attention of the world press making a big stink about how bad it is. The problem is Kim Jong Il is very much a dictator who bows to no one, not even his neighbor and benifactors. It isn't China's fault if they are not being *allowed* to help.

--
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Re:money by bigpat · 2004-05-18 09:56 · Score: 1

"ust 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. ... "

Fact is that NASA's budget is bigger than the tax revenues of 41 of the 50 states. Seems that the States manage to do quite a bit with that type of money. Broken up evenly amongst the states, I think that each State would find quite a lot to do with an extra 300 million dollars a year. Sure it only works out to about $50 for every man woman and child in the US, but to some people an extra $50 per year could mean the difference between being able to pay the bills or going further down that slippery slope.

Sure, everything is relative.

I'm all for
Re:money by demachina · 2004-05-18 11:06 · Score: 1

"Personally, I hope to see more foreign investment and outsourcing."

I guess your view of it depends on whether you are heading to be an executive in a multinational, are rich and a big shareholder in multinationals, or you work for a living. If its the first two you do have a reason to like it. If your the third the only reason you have to like it is you can buy stuff cheap at Walmart. This is important since if you are a worker in the U.S. your real income is probably flat or declining so you need cheap goods.

You are going to have to drum up some truly valuable skills to compete with workers in China and India, and they are working as hard or harder on those same skill as you are. The minimum wage in China is around $0.30/hr and and its a suggestion that is not generally enforced. One estimate of the real wage in China for someone manufacturing stuff for WalMart is around $0.21/hr. I'm sure highly skilled jobs pay substantially better but you are probably still at an at least 10/1 disadvantage just due to the cost of employing you in the West. A 10X handicap is a pretty big thing to overcome no matter how hard you try.

So, I really don't see what special skills you're going to acquire that are likely to make up the gap. A year or two ago everyone was talking about biotech skills but recent stories suggest those are moving to India too. The ONLY skills I can see as really safe are work in homeland security or the military industrial complex since a significant percentages of those jobs require a security clearance and U.S. citizenship and they are America's biggest growth sector. Halliburton is hiring something like 200-300 people a week to send to Iraq as long as you don't value your well being to high. Apart from that you have to go for service jobs like health care which require your body be in the U.S.for the most part. Otherwise I hope you are aiming for an MBA because getting in to executive management is really the only way I can see you may have a good shot at success in America in this century. Trial lawyer might work too, though much of the legal research part of that trade is, you guessed it, being offshored to India.

If globalization was based on truly fair trade it would be easier to support outsourcing and foreign investment. The problem is its not a level playing field. China is using a broad array of tricks to tilt the playing field in its favor. As I mentioned pegging the Yuan artificially low is one. Once its wiped out manufacturing in the U.S., Japan, Korea and the EU it will be free to remove these artifices because it will control the world economy at that point. Exploiting a huge, cheap labor pool, with very few rights is another crucial angle. Western prosperity, workplace standards and healthcare costs have priced Western labor out of the global market no matter how good your skills are. The fat cats that run companies know that and there is absolutely nothing stopping them from abandoning you in favor of the cheapest bodies and minds they can find that can do the job.

"Well, at least you agree that the current administration's plan is working, albiet extremely risky."

I agree it is stimulating something resembling growth. I don't agree that its really working. It works in about the same way CEO's in recent years have taken to making their quarterly number look good, cheap accounting tricks. In an $11 trillion dollar economy, borrow a half a trillion dollars and spend it. Presto you fake a %5 growth in GDP. It makes your numbers look good and if you time it right you get reelected which is the Bush Administrations main goal far more than a sound economy is.

Another key problem is its not the free market the Republicans bellow so much about. When the government is spending all the money in the economy like it is now its picking the economic winners and losers, not the free market. It just happens most of the winners are the supporters of the Republican party, wealthy stockholders, Halliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed, Boei

--
@de_machina
Re:money by LWATCDR · 2004-05-18 11:28 · Score: 1

But it is not a go into space or feed the poor question. The information from weather satellites alone has saved many lives. Not to mention the information that from earth resource satellites. Or the benefits that we get from communication satellites. The total amount spent on NASA in the US budget is tiny. The population of the US spends more money on potato chips each year than it does on space travel.
You could also say why waste money on, Internet access, Art museums, Music, or parks when there are people starving?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:money by uncoveror · 2004-05-18 11:51 · Score: 1

Now that the Chinese won't go to the moon, Bush doesn't have to worry about red China controlling all the green cheese, but he probably still wants some.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:money by grainofsand · 2004-05-18 11:52 · Score: 1

And if China had a track record of being transparent about its military spending, I would agree with you. But, and it's a big but, many analysts argue that China's actual military spending is closer to US$ 600 billion per annum or about 10% of GDP.

--
A dream is good. A plan is better.
Re:money by grainofsand · 2004-05-18 12:01 · Score: 1

The biggest problem in assessing China's GDP is not the value of the Renminbi (yuan) but in taking into account the massive under-reporting that occurs in the burgeoning private sector.

During the 80s, the contribution of the private sector was small, so under-reporting had little impact on the numbers. But as the private sector has grown, and it is the non-state sector in China that is driving the economy, that under-reporting has seriously skewed the GDP figures.

A CSFB analyst said last week that it is possible China's actual GDP is about double what is officially reported.

Many Chinese companies under-report to avoid paying tax on sales and profit.

--
A dream is good. A plan is better.
Re:money by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2004-05-18 12:18 · Score: 1

I disagree with some of your points...

Part of the reason, I suspect, for the US's huge GDP is the cultural acceptance of high personal debt, which I understand is not a cultural similarity to many nations in the EU, though it is slowly creeping in over there. Home ownership and low cost mortgages, federal bank insurance, tax credits on various debts, etc early on in the 20th century provided a fertile field for today's economy in the US.

I don't think debt is the cause of USA's higher GDP figures. Debt is generally a BAD THING! You are basically mortgaging the future for the present via debt. A country will less debt is preferable to one without higher debt.

The reason USA's higher GDP is due to its prosperity, mostly from the 1700's and 1800's. I (this is just my opinion) personally think USA "accumulated" its wealth (GDP if you will) through trade and technology (mostly trade). Contrary to popular opinion, USA actually had the largest economy by the late 1800's! It has been sitting on that and growing since then. If there was no World War II, I am guessing that Europe would be closer to USA than now (EU would be much wealthier than USA now).

To be pedantic, China's GDP is 1,266,052 Million.

When you are comparing countries, you should be looking at GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity. Most economists use GDP-PPP these days. If you use PPP, the figures are very different ( check out the chart in the middle of the page).

When the depression struck the gov't tried all the 'normal' methods to get the economy going, and then a guy by the name of Keynes wrote several treatises on the subject of economics which effectively said that then current theories were no longer applicable to then current economies. The economy only did well when aggregate spending, private, busines, and public, was up.

The most popular form of capitalism right now is not Keynesian Economics. Rather it is Globalization, aka neo-liberal economics, aka neo-liberalism (as trumpetted by Milton Friedman and others). The capitalists who rule do not follow Kenyes anymore (although he certainly did have impact). For instance, I am pretty sure Keynes would have been against cutting taxes for the wealthy (especially dividend taxes).

The US govt spending over the last year has nothing to do with Keyenes' views. Bush's plan has more in common with supply-side stuff than Keynes. For instance, if you were following Keynes, you would spend money on public works, or hire more workers, or something. What happened in USA, in contrast, is that the majority of the deficit is due to tax cuts. I don't think that really fits Keyenesian Economics. I guess starting a bogus war and spending billions in Iraq (which is largely recycled to US corporations) can be considered as a stimulus but the tax cuts are definitely more in line with supply-side economics.

I think too many people are fairly prideful on this point - as if it were their right to be making more than 80% of the world's population at the expense of other employees and businesses.

That may be true of right wingers but leftists like me have a different view. My problem with neo-liberal economics is that it is nothing more than an attempt by capitalists to undermine worker rights. The vast majority of jobs are outsourced mainly because working conditions are worse in poorer countries (no rights, no unions, safety laws not enforced, environmental laws ignored, etc). This may not be true for high-tech and professional jobs being outsourced, but the vast majority of jobs being outsourced are lower end jobs. The amount of professional jobs being outsourced, even in the tech industry, is very small.

If one really didn't agree with outsourcing, one would have to forego buying any products made elsewhere.

Not quite. After

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:money by stienman · 2004-05-18 12:24 · Score: 1

The GDP figure I gave for the EU was actually the monetary GDP for the EU, so it doesn't include the UK, which would make your figure more valid - unfortunately I don't think the pound is tied to the euro so it's not one self contained economy.

Not that it matters, they certianly have much buying power. I wonder what the GDP per capita is...

-Adam
Re:money by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2004-05-18 12:27 · Score: 1

And you think you could get to the moon with 1% of that figure?

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:money by igny · 2004-05-18 12:59 · Score: 1

It employees scientists, engineers, clerical types, food workers, maintenance staff, and so on.
Are they sending missionaries into space now?

--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Re:money by demachina · 2004-05-18 13:34 · Score: 1

The Eurostat source I cited says the population is about the same as U.S. and the GDP is about the same so per capita must be about the same as the U.S. It would be interesting to study if there is more or less regional versus the U.S. I would assume Eastern Europe is probably dragging down the per capita GDP somewhat though its the region poised to grow fastest for the same reasons China is growing, cheap, well educated labor and a lot of room for improvement.

--
@de_machina
Re:money by demachina · 2004-05-18 13:42 · Score: 1

This is some good, thoughtful writing. Anyone, with some mod points give it a boost. You right wingers better savage it mercilessly.

Also thanks for giving me the source for the 6 trillion figure for China's GDP, err GDP-PPP I used in the original post.

--
@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.
Re:money by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-05-18 15:40 · Score: 1

Obviously not, which is why I used $100B. And not in 10 years, either.
Re:money by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2004-05-18 16:18 · Score: 1

This is some good, thoughtful writing. Anyone, with some mod points give it a boost. You right wingers better savage it mercilessly.

Most of what I posted has little to do with left vs right. It's basic stuff :)

Also thanks for giving me the source for the 6 trillion figure for China's GDP, err GDP-PPP I used in the original post.

You are welcome :) PPP is pretty much what matters these days. For instance, if you can produce 1 kilowatt of electricity in one country for x, and you produce it for y in another country, they should both be equal (PPP kind of adjusts for it).

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
Re:money by TeraCo · 2004-05-18 18:36 · Score: 1

Wait until you've got universal healthcare first :P

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Re:money by kevin+lyda · 2004-05-18 19:30 · Score: 1

there are things to watch out for besides an asteroid hitting earth. the sun won't last forever.

and no, it won't affect us or our great-great-great-great-etc-grandchildren, but space travel is a big fscking journey. we need to start stepping.

--
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Re:money by CrimsonAvenger · 2004-05-19 00:55 · Score: 1

Sure, unmanned probes produce a lot of interesting information. But how much of that is terribly useful if we just sit here quietly on this planet until extinction takes us?
Hubble has produced some fascinating things. It shoud be preserved and extended until a replacement is in place. But how would we be worse off if it had never been launched? Not in terms of science, but in terms of the way people live. After all, if manned space travel is a waste of money, how much value can be assigned to putting a telescope in space to look at the stars (which will essentially be just lights in the sky if we don't visit them someday)? Personally, I put a high value on science. But if we turn our backs on space, then we may as well do it right - forget deep-space probes, forget orbital missions that don't directly affect Earth. Keep the commsats and weathersats in place, and ignore the rest - because they won't really matter....
I, alas, have the engineering viewpoint - absent intention to go there, learning something about a place is pretty much shruggable.
Actually, I don't think "preserving the Earth" is a humble goal. It fits my definition of "grandiose" a bit better. But as far as that being a goal of humanity, that goal posits a fairly short lifetime for humanity. The planet won't be here forever. Or even a very long time, in cosmic terms. 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.
Why should going other places imply "abandoning earth"? Did humanity abandon Europe when the Americas were rediscovered? Some people will go, some will stay.
And you may not be willing to "allow" asteroids to hit the motherland, but if we turn our backs on space, we really won't have much ability to stop one. The unmanned mission theory of asteroid defelection has a fatal flaw (which is shown quite clearly in our recent Mars missions) - if the vehicle fails to do its job properly, for whatever reason, it's a LONG wait till you can try again. Men on site, at least, have the wherewithal to do "adapt and overcome" if something goes wrong - they may fail, but they can try again. Without a year-long wait for the second vehicle to arrive....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:money by XaXXon · 2004-05-19 06:43 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, spending more money is not the answer to healthcare. As long as more money is put into healthcare, health insurance companies and drug companies will just suck more out.

It hurts me a lot to think that business people consider health care just another business venture -- something to get as much money as possilbe from. But it's true. Until we do something about greedy drug companies and health insurance companies, no amount of money will properly solve the health care issues in this country.

Might as well spend the money on something else.. like space exploration -- though I'm not saying that NASA is exactly fiscally responsible. All I'm saying is that putting that money into health care would not magically fix the problem.
Re:money by cornjchob · 2004-05-19 09:54 · Score: 1

Unmanned missions also help us figure out what manned missions are worth the effort. ...so if we don't do a manned mission, then there was no real point to begin with, other than gee-whiz factory. Whoopty shit. Not only did you prove your parent post right, but made yourself look like an ass at the same time. Wow, dovetailing--you must work out.

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.

Talk about maturity--what happened to having to do what one has to do? If the human race found out they had n to prepare for an immiment collision with an asteroid that will wipe most of the earth out, that's a finite amount of time. Let's also add the condition that it's at least feasible to send a large portion of people to another planet that will be habital for a large number of years. Are you gonna play Russian roulette with trying to block the asteroid, or are you going to send people to that planet? Or are you going to put your thumb in your ass, work on both at once, and get nowhere? It's survival that matters--where is inconsequential.

There's nothing wrong with being content with simpler goals like preserving the Earth.

that's a simpler goal? I'd love to hear that one.

--
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
Re:money by Eviscero · 2004-05-20 01:32 · Score: 1

Since China scraped plans for a moon landing; the moon-folk can rest assured that they will not be Politically Re-educated or run over by 20 ton tanks.

--

It's not what you know; It's what you can find out.
Re:money by Entropy2016 · 2004-05-20 09:33 · Score: 1

Don't worry about time and technology. By the time asteroids or supernova become a problem, the technology will have been documented for a long time (although we may not have enough resources to implement it).

I think our decedents will be able to put Earth's finite resources to far better use than we can. If we start too early we could stunt our growth. It would be very sad if the final generation had to be extinguished because we drove too many SUVs.

We also need to develop socially. The last thing we need is terrorists sabotaging the exodus because they're afraid of being left behind.

Despite being a shitty movie, Lost In Space is probably the most accurate portrayal of the problems humanity will face while trying to exodus (resources & terrorists).
Re:money by Entropy2016 · 2004-05-20 11:29 · Score: 1

" Not only did you prove your parent post right, but made yourself look like an ass at the same time."

My parent post claimed that a robotic mission is only good when preparing for a similar human mission.
Myself, on the other hand, said that unmanned missions are good even if humans don't ever plan on trying to follow.

You quoted me saying "Unmanned missions also help us figure out what manned missions are worth the effort.", but that shouldn't suggest that I think Unmanned missions only help us figure out what manned missions are worth the effort.

So what makes you think I proved his point?

" that's a simpler goal? I'd love to hear that one."

Neither you or I could presume to know how hard it would be to save the planet versus space colonization. Without math, evaluating what's-simpler-than-what is largely based on opinions and assumptions. For example, I could assume that colonizing other planets would require resources that we might not have without preservation efforts. If goal A=preservation and goal B=preservation+colonization, A would be simpler.

My point: That was a silly thing to contest, (but did you love hearing it anyway?)
Re:money by sumdumass · 2004-05-22 05:12 · Score: 1

Exactly. One of the major advantages to the original space exploration and race to the moon was to show the world our technoligy was capable. This did wonders for our econimy as well as made the U.S a leader in several fields that were emerging as a direct result from the space exploration.

Going to mars or even the moon will definatly have a simular impact. Wether or not people believe the merits of the actual mission, the side efects alone are worth it. This is the reason China and england and all the other newcomers to the "space field" are attemping to make it known. The benefits outway any of the negatives.

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 Ieshan · 2004-05-18 06:13 · Score: 1

...it did.

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

It's all just the same "one-upsmanship" that's common in international politics.

Now that China isn't in the picture, I'll bet you a candy bar and a +1 Insightful that we don't go to the moon either.
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:Such a shame by jaoswald · 2004-05-18 06:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

This sort of thinking misses the point: it usually falls under the name "broken window fallacy." For instance, after every hurricane, you hear about how there is a boom in home construction and window repair to fix damaged buildings. If you just watched the local news on TV, you might naively wonder "if hurricanes are so good for business, why don't we break windows all year round?"

The answer is that all the resources (capital, raw materials, and labor) that went into fixing the broken windows could have been used, in the absence of a hurricane, to build new structures, so that over the same period, you would have had more buildings, instead of the same number of buildings returned to pre-storm condition.

You can't simply count the money and claim that it is a net benefit to the nation's welfare (in the sense of happiness/utility). If we paid billions of dollars to dig a hole in the ground and billions more to fill it up, you should agree that is a net waste of resources, even if that money got paid to Earthlings. Sure, the hole diggers and fillers will claim all sorts of spin-off benefits (better technology to dig holes!) and "jobs created" by their efforts, but it doesn't make it a good policy.

Any government-mandated spending has the effect of distorting capital, labor, and resource markets, in ways which might (might: I'm not some die-hard starve-the-government type) reduce overall welfare.

Spending billions of dollars to place robotic go-karts on Mars, for instance, is not self-evidently the best way to spend the money.
Re:Such a shame by drinkypoo · 2004-05-18 06:35 · Score: 1

If you're trying to make a colander hold water, you're going to have to plug all the holes, the ones at the bottom, and the ones near the top. Arguably we should be plugging them from the bottom to the top but since some of those holes are deliberately created (for instance, the "poverty industry" in the USA, or the military situations created in different ages by the USA, the British empire, France, Rome, etc etc) they cannot be plugged. Since all the holes are losing water at the same time, plugging any of them is a win. It's true that due to hydrostatic pressure, the holes at the bottom are the most important, but this is where the metaphor breaks down because the world is more complicated than that. Spending money on space exploration and development nets benefits in other areas which in turn yield benefits in areas which seemed to be unrelated. Advancing technology, especially in public ways (better to spend it on space than on the military if you can help it) benefits all mankind. That money isn't going to spent on solving world hunger, which I am sorry to say has no tangible benefit to most people, and the feeling that you have done good does not seem to be enough for most of the people with the money, who are the only ones you have to convince.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Such a shame by timeOday · 2004-05-18 07:10 · Score: 1

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?
That reminds me of what my uncle said several years ago when my (extended) family went to visit the Kennedy Space Center:
"Bah, I call it welfare for PhDs"
But now as an aspiring PhD I find it hard to object :)
Re:Such a shame by JavaSavant · 2004-05-18 07:33 · Score: 1

I just don't buy into the exploration of space by governments anyhow. It largely only benefits research done by the military-industrial complex, and the real research that effects you and me into things like medicine, etc. should be done by professionals in those fields as part of private enterprise where the objectives and motives are driven by profit rather than by political pissing matches and the need to find a rocket that won't only propel a human to the moon, but will also propel a 50 megaton warhead into some dictators bunker in the middle of the desert. Just my .02 though.
Re:Such a shame by Glonoinha · 2004-05-18 07:58 · Score: 1

See also, The Big Dig in Boston.
You are more correct than you could possibly imagine.

--
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Re:Such a shame by joeljkp · 2004-05-18 08:02 · Score: 1

I'm sure the hapless peasants in that Armageddon movie had been against the space program too, until someone found an errant asteroid.

--
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Re:Such a shame by ymgve · 2004-05-18 08:50 · Score: 1

Quite the contrary. If we don't look outwards and explore anything outside our own little planet, we will never get the means to escape from this rock in the event that it should be headed for destruction.

Not that we should ignore the problems present on this planet at the moment - that would be stupid. But it would be equally foolish to ignore space exploration. In a few centuries, mankind's survival might even depend on it.
Re:Such a shame by demachina · 2004-05-18 11:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it probably has as more to do with finding a way to shovel large amounts of money in to the coffers of the aerospace companies that are key benefactors of the Bush administration. Boeing in particular is looking to be in deep trouble trying to compete with Airbus in the commercial aviation market. There are some who contend Airbus is winning thanks to subsidies from European governments. This program would be a great way for the U.S. to subsidize Boeing without it being challenged in the WTO. The DOD already tried a blatant subsidy to Boeing last year by trying to award it a huge contract for 767 tankers with no competition and using leases that dramatically inflated the costs and Boeing's profits.

In this it has a lot in common with the missile defense program. Another program where vast sums are being spent over a long period which may or may not result in anything that ever works or is deployed.

If you are seeking to pour money in to the pockets of your friends a program with a multidecade life span which may or may not actually bend any metal or go anywhere for a decade, if ever, is a pretty good program.

It will also result in a bunch of highly paid, high tech jobs in the U.S. that will be hard to outsource. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them end up in swing states like Florida where grateful workers will help shore up the Republicans at the ballot box. I wonder how many of them will be filled by foreign born engineers when they discover there aren't enough qualified engineers in the U.S. to do the work, and the ones there are are busy working on weapons.

Think of it as a counterpart to the Medicare "Reform" bill which subsidizes the health and drug companies (key Republican benefactors), or the the Energy Bill which subsidizes big oil, gas, coal companies (key Republican benefactors) or the War in Iraq which subsidizes Halliburton and Bechtel (key Republican benefactors). The Bush administration is pretty creative in finding ways to loosen up the purse strings on your tax dollars so they can go to their friends.

--
@de_machina
Re:Such a shame by shadowbearer · 2004-05-18 13:20 · Score: 1

I think you are right on the mark, there.

Did the DOD ever have a real rationale for the end-purpose of those 767 tankers? I recall reading a bit about them but never followed up.

I do think we need to spend more money towards battlefield style area denial anti-missile systems. We certainly won't have to defend against ICBM attacks on a large scale, at least not for the foreseeable future (I hope) but operative and reliable missile defense systems on the tactical scale would be very useful and save a lot of lives, in addition to developing the tech enough that larger scale systems might become practical.

If you are seeking to pour money in to the pockets of your friends a program with a multidecade life span which may or may not actually bend any metal or go anywhere for a decade, if ever, is a pretty good program.

Yeah, 'vaporware' projects seem to have been the 90s+ fad. They existed before, but do so on a much larger scale now. WRT to military expenditures I regard that as fraud. Screwing the military is pretty damned stupid.

Regarding Halliburton, I wonder what's going to happen to their PR once a lot of our soldiers come home and start writing books? The blatant crap they are pulling over there makes me angry as hell.

SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Re:Such a shame by demachina · 2004-05-18 13:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

Here is a more plausible reason for this smoke and mirrors program. To emphasize, its sure as hell not to distract people from the mess in Iraq. The fact is the only people who even remember he proposed this are the wannabe Trekkies, aerospace workers and NASA employees. How exactly are you going to distract the nation when no one is paying any attention to this outside of /.

I'm imaging Karl Rove sitting in his office crunching the numbers on the swing states for the 2004 election. Florida of course pops up at the top of the list for potential nail biters.

So you have this relatively small demographic in the Space Coast around Cocoa Beach and Melbourne whose livelihood is entirely dependent on the space program. If those few hundred thousand votes could swing Florida in or out of the R column would you want to go in to the election with them:

A. Facing the cancellation of the Space Shuttle and the ISS and with no manned space program to keep them employed. The unmanned and military programs might keep the Space Coast going but wiping out the Space Shuttle and the manned space program with no replacement would really screw up their local economy, their careers and their prestige.

B. Drooling over a multidecade, ultra exciting and interesting program to go back to the Moon and Mars that would keep even the younger people employed up to retirement age.

Pretty easy answer huh, B. So what does Rove do? He proposes a Mars/Moon program and pretty much locks up the vote on the Space Coast for Bush, and as a bonus any other place where there are a lot of aerospace workers and trekkies. Problem is you probably have zero desire to spend any actual money on it since your priorities are in defense spending, wars in the Middle East and tax cuts, and NASA is the last place you want to sink money.

So you throw tiny amounts of money at it and ramp it up very slowly, just enough to sucker all the voters in the Space Coast until November. After the election let it drag on until it reaches the point they are going to have to spend a lot of money, bend metal and go someplace, then you kill it because the nation can't afford it. Ideally you drag it out through 2008 before you have to spend any money.

I know its pretty cynical and someone may lob the standard tin hat reply at this but politicians really are this cynical and this election is shaping up to be both close enough and vicious enough the candidates are willing to do stuff like this to win.

--
@de_machina
Re:Such a shame by cozziewozzie · 2004-05-18 21:44 · Score: 1

The wages of those several thousand scientists + the cost of all the materials and tests could easily feed hundreds of thousands of hungry people in many parts of China. Perhaps they decided that this was more important than the prestige gained by doing something the Americans did 50 years ago.

Then again, they might use that money to censor free speech and execute people, just like the US are spending billions bombing the desert on the other side of the globe. That money would truly be better spent on a space programme or, even better, feeding the poor.
Re:Such a shame by Bob+Uhl · 2004-05-19 04:31 · Score: 1

Why should we 'devote more resources' to the space program? It's a complete waste of money. The return on investment is essentially nil. Yes, some advances (e.g. Tang) have come about, but those could have been developed far more cheaply.
The space program is a boondoggle. It's simply far too expensive to go into space right now; we don't have the technology; we don't have the precursor to the technology; we don't have the precursor to the precursor to the precursor to the technology. It's far too expensive to live in space; once again, we aren't even close to being able to do this reasonably well.
Three-quarters of the globe is covered in water. The undersea environment is cheap to get to, and is in several respects similar to the space environment (hostile outdoors; need to live in sealed containers). The sea is also full of life and food. If we don't live in the cheap, life-supporting ocean, why should we be living in the astronomically expensive, life-threatening reaches of space?
I'm a big fan of science fiction; I'd love to go up in space and visit the stars, or even other planets, or even just the moon. But it's not going to happen in my lifetime, or in the lifetime of anyone who even remembers my name. The massive amounts of money we are spending now could be better invested here on earth, on fundamental scientific work which will, in several centuries, determine if space can even be made to work.
To tell the truth, I'm pessimistic. Space is far too big, and far too hostile, and our requirements are far too complex. If artificial gravity is doable; if we can figure out how to cheaply cool things in a vacuum (venting gases is not a long-term solution); if we can develop non-chemical propulsion systems (artificial grav might help here)--then maybe space can be made to work. But even then, what's the point? Without terraforming, Luna and Mars are more hostile than the oceans, and even with the aforementioned advances far more expensive to reach.
Any argument for space can be applied to the ocean--and yet we don't spend much time on the sea floor, because it doesn't make sense. Space is far more expensive than the ocean; how much less sense does it make to spend so much time there?
The only real use of space is communications, astronomical observations and ortillery.

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

Next week... by Roadkills-R-Us · 2004-05-18 05:57 · Score: 2, Funny

CNN is reporting that China has scrapped its plans for a space station, due to cost. The Chinese government is committed, however, to launching at least three new biplanes this week.

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:Shelved due to cost... by d4rkmoon · 2004-05-18 06:05 · Score: 1

I thought the International Space Station only allows a limited number of countries. It's the whole "No girls allowed in this club house." concept.

--
-- Friends don't let friends buy Nokia.
Re:Shelved due to cost... by smcavoy · 2004-05-18 06:07 · Score: 1

Amercians fear they might loose any millitary advantage in space they currently have over China.
If China were to ever clean up it's human rights record, I'm sure they'd have a lot more friends pushing to get them into the ISS.
But like that's going to happen anytime soon.
Re:Shelved due to cost... by WormholeFiend · 2004-05-18 06:08 · Score: 1

since China wasnt part of the original plans for the ISS I dont think Chinese space components can be added it at this stage...

unless they used Russian components? I dunno.
That or help the other countries get their stuff up in the ISS's orbit?
Re:Shelved due to cost... by deadlinegrunt · 2004-05-18 06:14 · Score: 1

I thought the International Space Station only allows a limited number of countries. It's the whole "No girls allowed in this club house." concept.

Well that does explain the whole International naming convention...

--
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Re:Shelved due to cost... by visgoth · 2004-05-18 06:22 · Score: 1

"American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan!"

--
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
Re:Shelved due to cost... by CuriHP · 2004-05-18 07:58 · Score: 1

Well, you would only need two countries to make something international.

--
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
Re:Shelved due to cost... by Rxke · 2004-05-18 08:03 · Score: 1

Actually, China proposed to do exactly that... The US said China's tech is not mature enough, it was on Spacedaily, among other sites... So China is forced to do it on their own.
Re:Shelved due to cost... by deadlinegrunt · 2004-05-18 08:22 · Score: 1

True enough. Excuse my lack of clarity because the commentary was not on the original poster's use of the term...

--
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Re:Shelved due to cost... by Eminence · 2004-05-18 21:47 · Score: 1

why can't we all work together?
Because we are humans, not ants.
Re:Shelved due to cost... by richie2000 · 2004-05-18 22:20 · Score: 1

Care to explain the naming of the World Series? ;-)

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Shelved due to cost... by deadlinegrunt · 2004-05-19 02:24 · Score: 1

Nope - that's my point really. ;-)

--
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs

Space Station Huh? by Deflagro · 2004-05-18 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is obviously something just to save face. Everyone knew they would run into cost issues I believe. It can't be cheap to do stuff on the moon. Just as it can't be cheap to do things in orbit.

Give it 6 months or so and their space station will become some kind of probe, then a rocket, etc...

--
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!

Re:Space Station Huh? by VanillaCoke420 · 2004-05-18 07:21 · Score: 1

First time I read about their moon base plans, they also mentioned a space station as a step towards that goal. What they have done is not to substitute the moon landing with a space station, just cutting down the space ambitions. The space station was in their plans before this decision.

National Space Station by Angstroem · 2004-05-18 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, China also postponed the moon mission because they now want to built their very own space station after the US just replied "no" to China's question if they could participate in the ISS project.

And I always thought the "I" in ISS stood for "international".

Re:National Space Station by crazyhorse44 · 2004-05-18 06:10 · Score: 1

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... next you'll have the Chinese making unreasonable demands and holding up the program.

or maybe the Japanese just don't want them there?

--
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
Re:National Space Station by MoonBuggy · 2004-05-18 06:10 · Score: 1

Don't you mean Freedomese?
Re:National Space Station by serviscope_minor · 2004-05-18 06:16 · Score: 1

well we already have one difficult partner... Russia...

Yep, really difficult partner. What about ALL the other really difficult partners who can't even send people up there. In fact, if it wasn't for Russia, the station would be royally screwed at the moment.

Remember: In Soviet Russia... ah, never mind.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:National Space Station by stienman · 2004-05-18 06:23 · Score: 3, Informative

And I always thought the "I" in ISS stood for "international".

It means 'International' not 'inclusive' which is what I think you're trying to get at. A contract between any two nations is international, regardless of how many other nations sign on, don't sign on, disagree, or are disallowed from participating.

There are varied reasons for not accepting the Chinese into the ISS as an equal. Arguing whether they are good reasons or not is probably pointless - there are doubtless people on many sides of this issue. It could be something as simple as they are unwilling to design their rockets/parts in a way that matches our safety standards. It could be something as complex as a long ago treaty on rocket usage they broke which 'we' are going to hang over their head until they give an apology. We, the public, will never know all the reasons, reasonable or not, because not only do our leaders not want them to be known, but the chinese gov't really doesn't want people to know.

-Adam
Re:National Space Station by b-baggins · 2004-05-18 07:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's because a bunch of asses some how thought it was morally superior for the United States to "cooperate" with other nations in building a space station instead of just doing it ourselves.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:National Space Station by Cally · 2004-05-18 08:01 · Score: 1

Actually, China postponed the moon mission because THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY BARKING MAD!

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe

What would have been the point.. by baudilus · 2004-05-18 05:59 · Score: 1, Funny

of sending a man to the moon? To say they did it? It would be the biggest waste of money since I paid my taxes in April. I just don't see the rationale behind it - it's good they scrubbed it.

Re:What would have been the point.. by Fearless+Freep · 2004-05-18 06:03 · Score: 2, Funny

It would be the biggest waste of money since I paid my taxes in April.

At least *they* realized it in time
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.
Re:What would have been the point.. by mabu · 2004-05-18 06:38 · Score: 1

At this point, I'd gladly prefer my tax dollars going towards sending a team to the moon, as opposed to the invasion of another country, summer vacation homes for Halliburton and Gartner Group staff, tax cuts for the rich, faith-based organizations, or national biometrics databases.

It would be nice to have our nation rally around something which doesn't (intentionally) involve killing people.

It would be nice to have people talking about science that doesn't involve CGI in movie production, weight loss technology, or Onstar.
Re:What would have been the point.. by stanmann · 2004-05-18 07:04 · Score: 1

The moon is a stable low gravity stepping stone.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:What would have been the point.. by ErikZ · 2004-05-18 13:50 · Score: 1

They did?

What I heard is that India tested a Nuclear device. When Pakistan found out, they claimed to have done the same thing. That nobody detected.

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:What would have been the point.. by CaptainAvatar · 2004-05-19 14:43 · Score: 1

Hmm, while there were some claims of disparities between what Pakistan claimed to have tested and what could be independently verified, according to FAS it seems pretty clear that Pakistan did explode several nuclear weapons.

--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.

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.

A slight downer by Myrmi · 2004-05-18 06:00 · Score: 1

It was good to see a country that, originally, was so far ahead of the rest of the world astrologically (for example, they made the first recording of a solar eclipse ever in 2136BC) beginning to catch up with the new kids on the block.

Even though they've had to rein in their plans slightly, it should still be good to see them do.

--
"I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz

Re:A slight downer by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:31 · Score: 1

Small point, astronomy (scientific study of the heavens) is not to be confused with astrology (superstitious scams to get money off people by making general comments disguised as predictions about their personal lives supposedly based on astrometric readings.)

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Cost outweighs benefits? by Metallic+Matty · 2004-05-18 06:00 · Score: 1

Seems like a pretty classical case here. While I think a journey to the moon, even if not original, can still be a great opportunity for scientific research, I'd have to say this is probably a smart move by the Chinese government. A lot of information that could be obtained by such a mission would probably already be known from the American moon landings. And its not worth spending the ungodly amounts of money necessary to rediscover the moon rock.

Besides which, I think this whole thing was just a space program pissing contest in the first place. (Not that the US moon landings weren't.)

No moon for China... poo by 192939495969798999 · 2004-05-18 06:01 · Score: 3, Funny

I wanted to see an international space race again... just because I might get the chance to work on the software systems. That's some really cool stuff. Perhaps China's space station and our space station can have drag races. That would be sweet! I can see it now, as the US station pulls ahead, race fans everywhere shout: WOO! "That's a big ten-four, you some b*tch monkey n*ts!" (Dr. Evil)

--
stuff |

Translation... by abscondment · 2004-05-18 06:01 · Score: 1

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.

Translation:

US Media conglomerates are worried that other countries might start broadcasting television without them. Let's go to war.

Too bad by VAXGeek · 2004-05-18 06:03 · Score: 1

This would have been the only way to get NASA back in action. We really need to get a manned mission to Mars. If China would have gone, we would have HAD to go. Oh well, we'll probably get there eventually. Or not.

--
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h

Space Stations are Much cheaper.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 06:03 · Score: 1, Funny

When sending people to the moon you also have to work out how to get back. A space station is much cheaper because you don't have to get.... Oh wait.

Well, it's cheaper because when going to the moon you have to bring heavy equipment into space such as a Moon Rover etc. With a space station you don't have to bring any heavy.... Oh wait.

Um, it's cheaper because... Oh wait.

Huh, uh didn't the international space station cost Billions? Um. Yeah this makes NO sense.

Re:Space Stations are Much cheaper.. by funkdid · 2004-05-18 06:09 · Score: 1

http://www.space.com/news/iss_panel_010824-1.html (Not good with html tags -yeah I know, I know) apparently 30.1 Billion for a space station, but you can bring the cost down with coupons and waiting for the off season sales on industrial space-age plastics.

--
I boycott signatures
Re:Space Stations are Much cheaper.. by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-18 06:45 · Score: 1

The moon program, adjusted for inflation, cost around $23 Billion.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:Space Stations are Much cheaper.. by funkdid · 2004-05-18 06:58 · Score: 1

Next post shows international space station to be around 91 Billion. Funny I did the same thing this week. I told everyone that I was buying a new car for roughly $23,000. I realized that I couldn't afford the payments so now I'm thinking of picking up a $91,000 Mercedes SL I think it's the logical choice, no?

--
I boycott signatures

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by LostCauz · 2004-05-18 06:04 · Score: 1, Funny

well i'll be damned, i was logged in.

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".

Can I visit there space station? by MrRuslan · 2004-05-18 06:09 · Score: 1

Will there prices be competetive with the prices the russians offer to visit? Will boneless spare ribs and pork fried rice be included or will that be extra? and where can I sighn up?

Why? by baudilus · 2004-05-18 06:11 · Score: 1

Why sir, do we "really need to get a manned mission to Mars"?

Re:Why? by rtaylor · 2004-05-18 06:40 · Score: 1

Shhhh.. Don't tell them to do research.

We want to sell them a bunch more CANDU reactors.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:Why? by stephenisu · 2004-05-18 07:24 · Score: 1

well to be blunt, it's a penis size contest. In order to keep national pride up, we have to continue to outdo other countries. That's how nationalism works, propagandize your penis > their penis. It used to be about who had the most resources, then the most military, then it moved on to higher level tech.

--
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!

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 drinkypoo · 2004-05-18 06:40 · Score: 2

The US has had to financially carry the majority of modules which have gone into the ISS. In name it may be the international space station, but we wrote most of the checks and I suspect we're going to be making most of the rules as a result. As little interest as we show in going into space in ways other than putting up satellites, it seems that the rest of the globe has even less. This is unfortunate because as our financial climate worsens, we will have (as a nation) less and less tolerance for money spent on the space program. Let's hope that the UK continues to enhance their programme :) Or that China starts sending out some neat probes.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Support for the "INTERNATIONAL" space station by beatleadam · 2004-05-18 07:03 · Score: 1

As little interest as we show in going into space in ways other than putting up satellites, it seems that the rest of the globe has even less.

Very well stated. It can perhaps be said that really, no country has an interest in going into space via "manned missions" but most every country has an interest in Controlling space and however that is to happen is the political jockeying that is happening now.

This is unfortunate because as our financial climate worsens, we will have (as a nation) less and less tolerance for money spent on the space program.

While this is theoretically true, I would want to clarify the "reasons" as to why it is so. Unmanned space missions can go forward and most people not only do even know they are happening and therefore do not really care. Additionally if the money were to be spent (again, in a much more "perfect" world) on "social" causes such as food, medicine or preventing disease outbreaks, every person in all countries would (or should) stand and applaud such a "sacrifice".

--
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.

space station? ugh. by bani · 2004-05-18 06:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

last thing anyone needs is another space station.

china could do well with planetary probes. you get a lot of bang for the buck -- look at what the recent NASA mars probes accomplished.

something like a couple chinese venusian landers (rovers?) would be easily within the chinese monetary and technological budget, and would put them on the map. venusian exploration has been extremely sparse, despite how easy it is to get there compared to mars.

or how about a mercurian orbiter/lander? nobody's been there yet.

Re:space station? ugh. by WormholeFiend · 2004-05-18 06:17 · Score: 1

"or how about a mercurian orbiter/lander? nobody's been there yet"

a mission is already in the works though
Re:space station? ugh. by WormholeFiend · 2004-05-18 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

oops forgot to add the link:

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu
Re:space station? ugh. by Zerbey · 2004-05-18 06:35 · Score: 2, Informative

The Mariner 10 probe did a flyby of Mercury in 1975 and mapped 40-45% of the planet's surface.

The MESSANGER probe will launch in June and is expected to arrive in 2011.
Re:space station? ugh. by HyperCash · 2004-05-18 06:50 · Score: 1

"but what engineering marvels are they responsable for?"

I have had a little bird whisper into my ear that the Chinese are building a mildly impressive dam.

--HC

--
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
Re:space station? ugh. by HeghmoH · 2004-05-18 07:06 · Score: 1

venusian exploration has been extremely sparse, despite how easy it is to get there compared to mars.

Say what? It's easier to send things to Mars than basically anywhere else in the solar system, including the Moon if you allow aerobraking on the receiving side of things.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:space station? ugh. by Mannerism · 2004-05-18 08:45 · Score: 1

Mercury's about as exciting as the moon. Venus is more interesting but trying to get anything to last more than a few hours on that planet is very difficult.

But I do agree that probes are a better bet than a space station, at least at this point. I'd just choose Jovian or Saturnian moons instead.

--
Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight cancer and other diseases

Why? by randall_burns · 2004-05-18 06:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

My understanding is that one of the reasons for the proposed Chinese Lunar mission was to lay the groundwork to mine Helium-3. It seems a bit strange to me that when oil prices are at a very high point, the Chinese government would be moving resources away from energy related projects.

It appears that energy is a major factor that is pacing Chinese economic development. Have the Chinese established some other energy sources through R&D(say some results in some other form of hot fusion) or diplomatic arrangements(i.e. a deal with the Russians or Islamic oil exporters)?

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 drinkypoo · 2004-05-18 06:37 · Score: 1

We have the technology, we don't have the vehicles, this is due to a political climate and not a technological situation. The space shuttle's design was driven to an unfortunate degree by military needs. The fact that we've been keeping it all this time is the part that I can't understand.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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!
Re:Pot, meet Kettle by barawn · 2004-05-18 15:37 · Score: 3, Informative

The ISS would not have "plummeted to the earth" without Progress/Soyuz launches. Good grief, we can boost it with Atlas rockets if it came to that.

Robotic unmanned Atlas rockets, with an unmanned station?

Without the Russians, we would've had to abandon the station, and then constantly shove it upwards (for over a year now!) with technology we don't have. Keep in mind that several portions of the station have failed already, and needed repair.

Don't mock the Russians. We have three shuttles left - Atlantis, Endeavour, and Discovery. The reason NASA's not willing to use them isn't insane - we've almost lost half the fleet already. You wouldn't want to keep losing them, especially as you still need to last 6 or 7 more years.

We desparately needed the Russians to keep the ISS up. They had the technical expertise, and they had the technology ready to go. Could we have done it without them? Maybe - definitely a maybe.

As an aside...

Despite all this, Congress was still a total bunch of jerks, and refused to actually pay the Russians even when they went above and beyond what their responsibilities were. No wonder the Russians started talking to the Chinese rather than continuing to talk with us.

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 Ragnar+Forkbeard · 2004-05-18 06:37 · Score: 4, Informative

But China has never really been an expansionistic type country.
Tell that to the Tibetans.

--
"America is - without a doubt - the most bizarrre culture this planet has ever produced." --James Lileks
Re:Fear by netfool · 2004-05-18 06:53 · Score: 1

Okay, so they expand at the rate of 1.2 million sq miles per millenia. I really don't think that qualifies them as expansionistic. /slight sarcasm

--
Left 4 Dead Gaming Group - http://www.l4dgg.com
Re:Fear by pavon · 2004-05-18 06:57 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

I don't know about that. The huge boom in the chinese economy has been due to the the US outsourcing - in effect a huge chunk of the market was transfered out of the US into China, and they got all of the sales that went with it, for free. But this is quickly reaching an end. Just about everything that makes sense to outsource to China has already been outsourced. Proof of this can be seen by the fact that the growth rate has dropped from 36% at the peak of outsourcing to around 8% today. Furthermore, most economists (including the chinese) think that large sectors (like textiles) are becoming overexended and will crash if they don't put the brakes on investment soon. Most analysts expect their growth rate to come down to a normal 5-6% soon.

This makes sense. In order for your economy to grow, you need to have someone to buy your goods.
As I mentioned, there isn't much opportunity for growth due to outsourcing. The current exports to the US are limited by US economic growth. Lastly the thing that allows 1st world countries (like the US) to continue to grow is that we can purchace everything we produce. However, the recent growth in China has been very disproportionate and the vast majority of the people are still dirt poor, which causes difficulty in this regard. Basically China has gotten all the free growth they are going to get, and from here on out it they will have to work hard for it the old fasion way, just like everyone else.

That said I also think that the US (or WTO or whoever) needs to force China play fair. With the free trade should come the obligation to play by the rules, and that includes not manipulating currency, and not getting unfair advantages from human rights violations.
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?
Re:Fear by corngrower · 2004-05-18 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

You forgot to mention Korea, VietNam and Cambodia. All of which had Civil Unrest that was actively, militarily supported by China.
Re:Fear by iminplaya · 2004-05-18 13:04 · Score: 1

I still kind of think that without a suitable navy, China wouldn't get very far beyond its borders. Even with all the Americans fancy air power, they still need a navy to transport a significant part of it.

--
What?
Re:Fear by TheLoneDanger · 2004-05-18 18:59 · Score: 1

That said I also think that the US (or WTO or whoever) needs to force China play fair. With the free trade should come the obligation to play by the rules, and that includes not manipulating currency, and not getting unfair advantages from human rights violations.

There is something so darkly comic about using the idea of "unfair advantages" (in the economic sense) as an argument against human rights abuses. Or actually the argument wasn't against human rights abuses, just that they shouldn't be allowed when they grant an "unfair advantage". We really are just productions units, I suppose.

--

"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
Re:Fear by pavon · 2004-05-19 03:00 · Score: 1

There is something so darkly comic about using the idea of "unfair advantages" (in the economic sense) as an argument against human rights abuses. Or actually the argument wasn't against human rights abuses, just that they shouldn't be allowed when they grant an "unfair advantage". We really are just productions units, I suppose.

Hehe, I didn't notice that. They way I was looking at it, the only reason that people exploit others is because they benifit from it. If you don't allow them to benifit from exploitation then they will have no motivation to exploit. Although I guess not all human rights violations fit in the catagory of exploitation, and so those would have to be dealt with seperately.

Scrap metal by theAmazing10.t · 2004-05-18 06:15 · Score: 1

I quess they decided there wasn't enough scrap metal left by use to make the trip cost effective.

Re:It's still international by robert0122 · 2004-05-18 06:17 · Score: 1

I denounce China's unilateral decision to cancel its moon mission and build a space station! Has the UN been consulted about this?

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by RoyalCheese · 2004-05-18 06:18 · Score: 1

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. Well there would probably be a lot more people with jobs... More labour intensive - gotta employ people to do it!

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 Vendetta · 2004-05-18 06:38 · Score: 1

Don't bother watching TLC. Its 12 hours of Trading Spaces a day, with the other 12 filled by infomercials and more retarded "reality" shows. "The Learning Channel" my ass....
Re:Oh great.... by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:48 · Score: 1

Bush will be out of office long before any concrete plans can be made for any Mars mission, that's why he can afford to stand and make gradiose speeches about it as if he's some sort of JFK. in any case the guy has yet to see a spending plan that he doesn't like, I couldn't see him pulling the plug on any of this stuff. Our children will be working off the debt this clown has run up on the nation's credit card.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:Oh great.... by eutychus_awakes · 2004-05-18 06:50 · Score: 1

You may be right, but I hope not. Everything is political these days. What China DID do was give the US a political reason to get excited about space again. Is that so bad? It was politics that sent us to the moon in the first place. Politics has even led to the frustration prevalent in private industry which will soon produce the first commercial astronaut.

Face it - if planting a giant neon US flag on the moon for the whole world to see would bring the world closer to a point of peace and harmony (and I'm not saying it would, mind you) - then "politically" every lawmaker and budget director would be standing in line to have their name attached to it.

--
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
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:Oh great.... by _xeno_ · 2004-05-18 07:04 · Score: 1

Nah, Bush won't cancel the new missions.
Until after November 2nd, at least. His entire campaign has been trying to paint Kerry as someone who changes his mind at a whim and is against the national defense. Changing his mind on space exploration would give Democrats something to attack him on - saying "see, even Bush changes his mind."
Expect the plans to be canceled sometime mid-November. Which is exactly when everyone expected them to be canceled, anyway.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Re:Oh great.... by Kevin+Burtch · 2004-05-18 08:21 · Score: 1

Oh I agree! I would love to see the space program take off (pun not intended) again!

The "Oh great" was sarcastic... I'm saying this sucks that China pulled out, as that means the political motivation is gone, which means we'll probably not end up going any time soon.

--
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Re:Oh great.... by Kevin+Burtch · 2004-05-18 08:30 · Score: 1

No, I'm saying EITHER(/ANY) country would act like a brat, they already do!

As far as NASA's budget goes... I'm shocked that someone in your position (making parts for the ISS) hasn't seen all of the headlines about it since Bush took office (15,500 matches), it has been a few years now.

--
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Re:Oh great.... by DerekLyons · 2004-05-18 19:22 · Score: 1

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.
There is an first problem with your line of arguement, indeed with this whole article and it's comments is this; China never said it was going to the moon in the first place. Not once, not ever. The whole Chinese manned lunar program is a product of poor translation and the overactive imagination of science reporters and space fanboys in the West.
The second problem is that those with their ears to ground in the space policy community know there were rumors of a major space policy shift as far back as mid-2000, targeted for announcement at the Kitty Hawk celebrations. 9/11 and then the loss of Columbia delayed those deliberations and the subsequent announcement.

Future cooperation unlikely by amightywind · 2004-05-18 06:21 · Score: 1, Informative

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.

Space coorperation is one of the few cards the US has left to play against China's authoritarianizm and human rights abuses. They are in the WTO but practice slave labor. They are belligerent to Taiwan. They prop up a monster in North Korea.

The US has nothing to gain technologically by cooperating. Indeed, the risks of transfering technology that can be put to military purposes is high.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Shocked? by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:21 · Score: 1

Chinese space officials were "shocked" the United States had not done more to welcome them into the small community of space-faring nations

Shocked? I'm not.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Re:Shocked? by kmmatthews · 2004-05-18 07:09 · Score: 1

To quote amightywind's post: "Space coorperation is one of the few cards the US has left to play against China's authoritarianizm and human rights abuses. They are in the WTO but practice slave labor. They are belligerent to Taiwan. They prop up a monster in North Korea. The US has nothing to gain technologically by cooperating. Indeed, the risks of transfering technology that can be put to military purposes is high." That's why we haven't "welcomed them." [Of course, in a program that has 16 members as nations, I see this complaint of unwelcome from us as nothing more than propoganda - the usual from a nation that brutally supresses it's own people.]

--
feh. stuff.

What doesn't make sense about it? by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-18 06:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why is that?

From my perspective manned space exploration does make sense. Surely, a rover on Mars is a very cool thing, and can accomplish a lot on it's own. Yet, a human can accomplish so much more on a much shorter time.

Further, isn't it just human nature to want to go?

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.

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.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-18 07:46 · Score: 1

How about we wait until we don't have to fight any more goddamn wars, and then cut the Pentagon budget, and use 1/4 of the savings on social programs, half on the space program, and the remaining $100 billion (according to my handy-dandy True Majority pen) we give back to the people as a tax cut?

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-18 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm really not sure what one has to do with the other.
By the basic logic, then I should not sit and read SlashDot until my house is paid off. But my house will not be paid off for 30 years. Perhaps I should not purchase internet access, as the $50 per month that I spend would do better paying off my house, regardless of what other benefits internet access might give me.
Seriously, if you want universal healthcare... tell your congressman and representative that you will vote for whomever is willing to support it. Tell your friends that this is what you are doing. Then, actually vote that way. Same idea for big oil... Vote green, ride a bicycle.
In the mean time, some people (at least me) think research is usefull and worth some tax dollars.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 07:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

we HAD a budget that was not in the RED.

maybe if you would help elect leaders that are not complete and utter morons we might get somewhere...

funny how the guy known for chasing skirts and getting laid in office was able to balance the budget in 2 terms yet it took bush less than 6 months to destory it.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by John+Starks · 2004-05-18 08:00 · Score: 1

Funny how people like you equate bad economy with bad governmental decisions despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.
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 John+Starks · 2004-05-18 09:56 · Score: 1

I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to an AC who was presumably at score 0 when you posted. My comment didn't apply to anything you said.

But in any case, I disagree. Your attitude would prevent us from making any real progress at any point. Do you think the populous was in perfect health, happiness, etc. during the Age of Exploration? What about in the 60s, during the Space Race?

I agree with you that we must have priorities, but look at it this way: first of all, there will always be the poor and the sick. The marginal gain from throwing another couple billion dollars at them will be far greater than the cost of not spending that money on research, etc. for the future. Second of all, let's use another analogy: should we pay off the house before buying anything else? Of course not! We need to buy our wants, and we need to invest in our future, even if we are in debt.

Now, it can be debated that the mission to Mars will do little or nothing to help invest in our future. However, I believe that it will both fuel research and interest in science, both of which will greatly help the future of our country and our world.
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:What doesn't make sense about it? by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-18 12:19 · Score: 1

f you think war is going to end anytime soon, you're deluded.
And if you think poverty is going to end anytime soon, *you're* deluded.
Military research has helped mankind, but at what price? Yes, we are communicating on a medium created through military research, but imagine if the Internet had been used for its main design purpose; to allow communication during a nuclear attack, hundreds of millions of people would have died. Military research has indirect benefits for mankind, but space research has direct benefits to mankind; it creates new horizons to move into, it creates access to new resources, and it helps to develop technologies that are used terrestrially.
Unfortunately, NASA's projects are underfunded and without focus. Once it is focused on a goal, research can be better coordinated.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Casualposter · 2004-05-19 01:12 · Score: 1

The current war is not one the US HAD to fight. It has been shown to have been started by warmongers who lied about Iraq's military abilities. It has been used to the benefit of certain companies with links to the current US administration, and to benefit Israel. The cost of putting men on Mars has been estimated to be around 100 billion dollars, which is less than the current amount of money spent on the foolish "war on terrorism." The US has also spent more than the cost of a Mars mission on the wars against: "Poverty" and "Drugs" - - neither of which has been significantly reduced.

The money spent on building an infra structure in space would eventually pay for itself in new technologies, jobs, and economic opportunities that we have yet to imagine. Just as the Appollo space missions did.

I have a hard time justifying spending billions of dollars to destroy another country, especially one incapable of harming the US. We could have spent that money on an infrastruction that would provide benefits for all people on this tiny blue world, instead of spreading death and destruction.

Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such, with police and courts and proper sentences; not elevated to the status of "enemy state" and attacked with an army.

--
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-19 02:04 · Score: 1

Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such, with police and courts and proper sentences; not elevated to the status of "enemy state" and attacked with an army.
You sir are very wise. Or you agree with me. Whatever, you make a good point.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by cornjchob · 2004-05-19 09:40 · Score: 1

Space and Military are the same thing in these contexts. It's all about dominance, about getting there, and about having. Having an army with a large budget has more than enough potetnial to "create new horizons to move into", and also "create access to new resources" while "help[ing] to develop technologies that are used terrestrially"

Military research helps mankind at the price of life. Space exploration helps mankind at the price of life. Both have direct and indirect benefits. You need to get out of the wading pool, put some swimmies on, and dive into the deep end--life isn't, and never will be, roses. If it were, what would be the point of living?

--
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Eviscero · 2004-05-20 01:28 · Score: 1

To deny ourselves the need to explore is to deny ourselves the one of the very things that makes us human.

There are many resources on the moon that we maybe able to utilize to better life here on this planet. Since us humans can be compared to a virus; we are almost finished sucking this planet dry, lets move to the next closest host.

--

It's not what you know; It's what you can find out.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-20 01:36 · Score: 1

Thanks for agreeing with me -- I think
Comparing humans to virii, while hip and Matrix-y, perhaps goes a little too far. I have no intention of moving to another planet.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Eviscero · 2004-05-20 02:31 · Score: 1

I did agree with you..funny you said that as I was going to say "Couldn't agree with you more."

I don't intend on moving off earth either. I'd rather have my extra-planet resources delivered in 30 minutes or less.

--

It's not what you know; It's what you can find out.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Eviscero · 2004-05-20 03:07 · Score: 1

Forgive my dual post.

It was not my intention to sound 'hip' or give any indication that I cannot create my own analogies for the human race.

Remove the intelligence, the creativity, the free will, and the self-awareness that humans possess; and we are comparable to a virus. A self replicating organism living off of resources that are not our own.

--

It's not what you know; It's what you can find out.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-20 04:29 · Score: 1

Eviscero,
How does a viral reproduction and spreading differ from what any animal does then? When a lion kills it's prey, the lion can then flourish and provide for it's young. The lion lives off of resources that are not it's own (at least from the gazelle's point of view).
A virus uses the cells of a living organism to reproduce, destroying that cell in the process. A population of virii can destroy an entire organism, and subsequently spread to other organisms. However, usually, it doesn't kill an entire organism, instead it reproduces enough to move onto another host before that host can eradicate the viral infection.
Humans do much the same as both the lion and the virus. It is human creativity and intelligence that make us "more dangerous" to the environment. However, with the possible exception of a fossil fuel shortage or a global nuclear war, humans are not in danger of 'using up' all of the resources on the planet, just as lions are not in danger of eating all of the gazelles in Africa.
On the other hand, just like a pride of lions in an area where there are few gazelles, the environment may, some day, push back and cut out population that consumes too many temporary resources. This, invariably, would be considered a failure of science, or some such -- but really, it's more like the song, "Godzilla". "History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man"
What I'm saying is, as far as I'm concerned, the virus line in the Matrix was designed to introduce FUD. That is why I said it's hip and Matrix-y. Because, as far as I can tell, the comparison has no basis in fact. But it sounded so cool when Hugo Weaving said it so smugly...
I imagine Darl McBride, with Hugo's voice saying, "Linux is not like any other x86 operating system. But there is one operating system Linux compares to...UNIX. Like UNIX, Linux multi-tasks cleanly, and runs 'top', 'bind' and 'X11R6', so it must actually be UNIX... You know what I hate about this State... it's the smell... Mormon incense permeates everything."
Back to reality, I'm happy that you are agreeing with me, but I resemble^H^H^H^Hnt being compared to a virus!

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Eviscero · 2004-05-20 04:55 · Score: 1

Interesting retort. I wouldn't want to be compared to virii (biological or virtual) either. I was just stirring the philosophical stew.

I'll assume you meant "...I resent being compared to a virus"

I'm sure your not the only one who would resent the comparison. Along the same lines of logic; Why then are so many people comfortable with the THEORY of our evolution from primates? Wouldn't that fit the same mold? I'm interested in your opinion.

We have wandered off topic...pity. In an (albeit, vain) attempt to restore course; The creation belief of Chinese are interesting enough.

While space travel and moon exloration furthers our cultures' quest for understanding of the universe, how may Chinese use science to test their creation theory? Or does the Chinese even bother to question things that are taught to them as children?

--

It's not what you know; It's what you can find out.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-20 08:57 · Score: 1

How does space research cost life? Sure, in accidents. Military research is about how to subjugate people by hurting them and breaking things more efficiently than before. Space research is about learning about space and how to survive and thrive there. There will be accidents, yes, but unintentional loss of life is more favorable than intentional loss of life.
When everything works in space, people survive and thrive. When everything works in the military, people die. I would rather the vast majority of my tax dollars go to putting men and women on Mars than putting them in the ground.
And I dislike your condescending tone. I do not presume that space exploration will solve all of society's ills. Merely that it is a better way to spend my money.
And why should we not try to improve life? Life is about struggle, but why should the struggle be against each other? Shouldn't it be against our limitations, as a species, a world, a culture, and a person? Exploration is a far more noble struggle than war.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by cornjchob · 2004-05-21 15:34 · Score: 1

Space research is about learning about space and how to survive and thrive there

With what motives? Depending on whom one speaks to, that could be anything from business to war. Space research will merely open up new avenues for military research to get into.

When everything works in space, people survive and thrive. When everything works in the military, people die.

I have to disagree with you about "When everything works in the military, people die." When everything works in the military during war time, then yes, people die. However it is easy to notice that in more modern times when everything works in the military it's less likely to be wars fought. I'm not going to fire an ICBM at that country yander because I know he has ICBMs pointed right back at me. When you're both holding guns to eachother's heads, who shoots first?

And I dislike your condescending tone. I do not presume that space exploration will solve all of society's ills. Merely that it is a better way to spend my money.

For the most part, it was military spending that gave enough research before hand to get into space. The first rocketeers weren't military, but the giant leaps necessary (guidance (however poor), design, etc.) came mostly from WWII. However stating that it is a better way to spend your money puts this beyond the realm of any sort of fruitful debate, and even I am humble enough to step-back and say spend as you please :)

And why should we not try to improve life?

I'm not really sure what that means. Thus far, all the improving mankind has done seems to have, well, sucked. Then again, I love Thoreau, so perhaps I'm a tad extreme. Either way, since there's not going to be world unity anytime soon, any sort of improving life seems to first involve getting other enemies off one's back. Them's the ropes, and unfortunately one must play the cards they're dealt. However my original point of military and space having equal importance and being of equal necessity in the nice big hole mankind has dug for himself, and military research being here to stay because of human nature, I feel remains intact.

--
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? by Allen+Zadr · 2004-05-25 07:36 · Score: 1

Reply to this (very long) in my Journal.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.

Mod parent troll by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:26 · Score: 1

You remind me of the imperialist Brits who also thought the natives were good for nothing but riddicule. Who do you think invented rockets in the first place? (Please don't answer that it was America.)

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Re:Mod parent troll by crawling_chaos · 2004-05-18 06:52 · Score: 1

Traditional Chinese rockets have more in common with modern artillery shells and bullets than rockets and missiles. The Chinese didn't invent the liquid fueled rocket. That was done by a mixture of Americans, Germans, and Russians. Traditional Chinese rocket concepts have essentially no bearing on modern spacecraft.
Still, you are correct about the parent poster being an ass.

--
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Re:Mod parent troll by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:58 · Score: 1

I didn't say they invented liquid rockets - I was referring to the solid variety. Speaking of which, what about the solid rocket boosters? They're a pretty common sight on many's a space launcher.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Re:Mod parent troll by crawling_chaos · 2004-05-18 07:42 · Score: 1

They also have little to do with the original Chinese design. There's also the matter of applications. The Greeks invented the Steam Engine, but considered it a toy.
That's not to say that modern Chinese rockets are crap. From what I've seen, they have a capable design team over there. They've obviously been inspired by Soviet designs, just like ESA's rockets have a decidedly American appearance, but they seem to work well.
As far as Chinese participation in ISS goes, I don't think their launch facilities are well situated for reaching it. NASA probably also fears an even more complicated political situation when adjustments to the schedule need to be made.

--
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch

Re:Guess the Communists decided by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:28 · Score: 1

So they have slavery in China too? I'm learning more and more about China from the super well-informed experts on this thread.

By the way, wanna have a guess at what kind of labour was used to build the Capitol building in DC?

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

How will I get my Chow Mein on the moon then? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 06:28 · Score: 1, Funny

If China doesn't get to the moon then how am I going to get good Chinese food when I'm there. No doubt there will be a McDonalds but after seeing Super Size Me I never want to eat there again.

Re:Why tell everyone? by 42forty-two42 · 2004-05-18 06:29 · Score: 1

You of course mean +5, troll. And I'll be darned if I can't get +5, offtopic, too.

It's Expensive by solarlux · 2004-05-18 06:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Announcing plans is certainly easier than carrying them out. Cancellations (and cost overruns) have plagued every space program developed in our short "space age".

As an employee for a large aerospace corporation, I'm beginning to recognize why space is so difficult. On the parts level, parts must be "space-qualified", which limits selection to a few choice vendors who, in applying rigorous mil-spec requirements to parts testing and screening, mark-up the price 15x. The only alternative is privately "up-screen" the part according to program requirements, which is also a lengthy and time-consuming process. When dealing with space, so many new concerns must be addressed. Radiation effects, outgassing, vibration impact from launch, severe thermal excursions, redundancies, etc. Each hi-tech subcomponent has to be built twice -- one for flight and one for intense qual unit testing. Close scrutiny of reported industry design flaws must be adhered to. There's been quite a stir relating to some flawed algorithms in Actel FPGAs.

Anyway, my point is that space is difficult and costly -- as evidenced once again by this cancellation. My primary fear is that the USA lacks the monetary dedication to see such a large and bold endeavor as the moon/mars mission through to fruition. As for me, I'm just hoping the TPF and JWST survive.

Re:It's Expensive by Cally · 2004-05-18 08:19 · Score: 1

As an employee for a large aerospace corporation, I'm beginning to recognize why space is so difficult. On the parts level, parts must be "space-qualified", which limits selection to a few choice vendors who, in applying rigorous mil-spec requirements to parts testing and screening, mark-up the price 15x. The only alternative is privately "up-screen" the part according to program requirements, which is also a lengthy and time-consuming process. When dealing with space, so many new concerns must be addressed. Radiation effects, outgassing, vibration impact from launch, severe thermal excursions, redundancies, etc. Each hi-tech subcomponent has to be built twice -- one for flight and one for intense qual unit testing. Close scrutiny of reported industry design flaws must be adhered to. There's been quite a stir relating to some flawed algorithms in Actel FPGAs.

I don't know, but I'm guessing that the fundamental reason these testing and development processes are needed isn't so much that space is a massively more challenging environment (though obviously it's at the top end of the scale.) The fundamental problem is the cost of going there to fix something that breaks. Long term manned spacecraft such as ISS and Mir will and have had ad-hoc repairs to stuff that's worn out or broken on orbit & which had a safety impact. Apart from Hubble, I don't know of any unmanned spacecraft that have been repaired. The result is that stuff *can't* break. Once it's up there, it can't be fixed. This is one reason why manned missions to anywhere beyond the inner planets just can not work, ever, no matter what. Unpopular opinion I know, but personally I'm still loving my 2h daily session looking at the latest raw images from the Mars Rovers :)

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe

Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-18 06:38 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but Zubrin laid the smack down all over your robotic-exploration-favoring butt. Check it out.

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

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:Liberal erosion of rights...? by wintermute740 · 2004-05-18 06:42 · Score: 2, Funny

"...Bush and his crony Ashcroft..."

Something seems backwards about this statement ;)

--

--
www.nitemarecafe.com

Well that's enough about the US... by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 06:43 · Score: 1, Troll

what about China?

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

CNN = Government by freaksta · 2004-05-18 06:45 · Score: 1

The fact that CNN is reporting this means that the US -must- have had something to do with this! :P

--

Hrrm... I usually just sign my name.

instead of a Mars shot... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-18 06:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

we need to work on getting industrial capacity in orbit.

Re:instead of a Mars shot... by $criptah · 2004-05-18 07:46 · Score: 2

That is what I have been saying for years. Although it might not make a lot of sense to invest money into light industry, U.S. should try to bring back heavy industries back to the competitive levels.

False dichotomy by p3d0 · 2004-05-18 06:54 · Score: 1

You make it sound like every dollar spent on the space program is wrested from the hands of starving peasants.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

Re:They're just planning ahead by jasonbw · 2004-05-18 07:01 · Score: 2, Funny

except that it'll get crunched by a giant plant when it lands. If that wasn't the best arguement for turn out the lights...

Re:Hey, Chinese government, I have an idea! by ChaoticLimbs · 2004-05-18 07:04 · Score: 1

Hey, how about they stay home and make their own country better instead of simply exporting all of their intelligent people here? How about they ditch communism and get a real representative government? How about they build their own businesses apart from their military? How come all of the ills of the world are the fault of the USA?

Feeding the troll.

Re:Guess the Communists decided by ChaoticLimbs · 2004-05-18 07:07 · Score: 1

Your post almost infers that the slave labor is the Americans' fault. Are you inferring that or not?

Does this me we're not going now? by ogre7299 · 2004-05-18 07:08 · Score: 1

With China not going to the moon, is NASA's new program going to be scrapped since there aren't really politics involved anymore?

Very surprising by Dan+East · 2004-05-18 07:08 · Score: 1

I'm very surprised China made such an announcement. It is typical of communist governments to try and cover up information that would portrait their country in a negative light. The SARS outbreak in China is a perfect example of this policy.

Considering the timeline (2010 for a lunar orbiter, 2020 for an unmanned lander, etc), China could have easily sat on this news for a number of years and let things fizzle out quietly.

Dan East

--
Better known as 318230.

Next in the news by xeeno · 2004-05-18 07:09 · Score: 1

US scraps mars mission.

postponing by VanillaCoke420 · 2004-05-18 07:11 · Score: 1

I'm sure it's just that they postpone it. I don't think they've decided to never ever go there.

Re:Try a warm cup of Capitalism. by HeghmoH · 2004-05-18 07:12 · Score: 1

Good thing some guy named Deng tried your ideas back in the 70s. They worked out pretty well, too; things got a lot better around there after that. Of course, it's not 100% capitalist, but what is?

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

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.

Psst ...Ya wanna buy a used space station? by corngrower · 2004-05-18 07:14 · Score: 1

The US and Russia ought to be finishing up their use of the ISS in about 2020, the time frame for which China wants a space station.

Re:Guess the Communists decided by SirWhoopass · 2004-05-18 07:19 · Score: 1

The US Capitol building used a mix of slave labor and paid tradesmen. Not really that surprising, given it's location and the time period.

You're saying that if something exists in a nation's history, that nation can never criticize other on the issue? I guess the Europeans had better back the US on the environmental issues. And war.

Personally, I think where one it presently at is important. No one can change the past.

China not Invited by johndeerejedi · 2004-05-18 07:24 · Score: 1

The article says that China wants to be included on the ISS, but was snubbed. They guess it was because the Chinese PLA is so involved with the space program and they fear them advancing a lot in space tech.

That doesn't add up though, because the Russian and American space programs are closely tied to the military, and neither of them seems to be too concerned. As far as competition commerically, why is the ESA and JASDA(?) invited if we are afraid of advancements in tech resulting in competition?

Was a manned mission to the moon ever planned? by hnjjz · 2004-05-18 07:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

When were the Chinese ever planning a manned mission to the moon? I've been following the Chinese space program quite closely and all the official reports coming out of China concerning a moon mission either explicitly talk about sending an unmanned lunar lander or only vaguely mention a moon landing in general without stating whether or not it's a manned mission or not. I think space enthusiasts in the West have been reading far too much into some of the vaguely translated reports with wishful thinking, with arguments on which verb was used in the report and how that implies a manned landing when in fact reading the original Chinese reports (yes, I do read Chinese), it's pretty clear that it has always been planned as an unmanned mission. The CNN article is spinning this as a major change in policy, but would something like this be announced through a gathering of highschool students?

Wang told a gathering of high school students on Sunday

Ming by kippy · 2004-05-18 07:41 · Score: 2

If I remember correctly, China was very expansionist in the dynasty before the Ming dynasty. They had built and sailed ships that were capable of going anywhere in the world. I think they had even sailed as far as east africa. Then the Ming dynasty kicked in and they burnt the boats because they thought that anything foreign wasn't worth their time.

Had they continued on that path, they might have easily have gotten to a very backward Europe and we would all be speaking Mandrin today.

There's nothing wrong with expantion as long as you aren't hurting anyone. I'm sad to see that expantion to other worlds is being treated in the same style as it would be by the Ming folks.

--
Blaze a trail to the New World

Re:Ming by kippy · 2004-05-18 14:36 · Score: 1

My bad. I got my dynasties mixed up.

Still the point remains about expansion versus lotus eating.

--
Blaze a trail to the New World

2010 Space Odyssey by NeedMoreSleep · 2004-05-18 07:49 · Score: 2, Funny

In "2010 Space Odyssey", China developed a Space Station in orbit around the Earth. At least everyone thought it was a Space Station until they attached huge rocket engines to it an blasted off into space.

Could it ever happen?

--
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Author C. Clark

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.

Better way to look at Nations wellbeing. by Yanray · 2004-05-18 08:04 · Score: 1

Few considerations for the number crunchers out there.

Take US national debit divide by national income level.

Do the same for other leading economies. (Including the EU totals which have become more interesting since the recent inclusion of Czech, Poland......)

You will see that the US political debit to possible income ratio really is not that bad. It gets a lot worse with places like Sweden where national socialist agenda's stretch peoples income with high tax.

Better indications of national wealth and wellbeing are based on environmental economic principals, the Big Mac index (Economist.com), and infrastructure levels.

--
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish

Re:Better way to look at Nations wellbeing. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2004-05-18 12:24 · Score: 1

The "socialist" Sweden is more stable than the debt-ridden USA. If it were otherwise, how come I don't see the capitalists pointing out the danger in Sweden? If anything, the capitalists are concerned about US debt these days.

Why are you dividing debt by income? Just because you have higher income doesn't mean you are willing to pay. If the US govt attempted to make everyone pay a higher share, there would be a revolt...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

That's not a Space Station... by Gudlyf · 2004-05-18 08:07 · Score: 2, Funny

...that's a moon!

--
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.

Re:Guess the Communists decided by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 08:14 · Score: 1

True. I'd still like to know where the parent poster got this 'slavery in China' claim from though.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Re:Guess the Communists decided by SirWhoopass · 2004-05-18 08:34 · Score: 1

Slave labour on the increase in China

not the first time by gandalphthegreen · 2004-05-18 08:50 · Score: 1

Of course this isn't the first time China has junked exploration plans. In the 1400s, their voyages to Eastern Africa and Southern Asia were stopped and all the records of them were destroyed. This was done to allow more cash to be spent on keeping the Mongols/barbarians out and reform society. This attitude and even this specific event explain why China is where it is today.

If I've got some of the history wrong, correct me. I took the AP test on World History a couple of weeks ago and now all the information is leaking out of my brain.

Re:Guess the Communists decided by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-05-18 08:53 · Score: 1

Depends which set of Americans:

1. Large business owners who use cheap labor to cut costs- definately

2. Cheap people who don't care where the junk they buy at Wal Mart came from: Certainly

3. Manufacturing workers laid off due to Wal Mart insisting that Ohio Arts cut the cost of Etch-A-Sketches down to less than $.24/hr for the factory workers: Almost certainly NOT

I consider #1 and #2 to be traitors, and not real Americans, so I guess my answer is no, I'm not inferring that.

As to the guy who thinks that slavery doesn't happen in China, I provide this link

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

more like, orbiting missile platform by quarkscat · 2004-05-18 09:10 · Score: 1

Both the PRC (and their proxy, DPRK) got
really miffed at the USA's plans for the
(new & improved) missile defense system.
I fully expect any Chinese space station
to be very well armed.

Of course, once the Chinese found out that
the USA's moon missions were really filmed
in the Nevada desert, they lost interest.

They decided its just a rogue province of the PRC by gelfling · 2004-05-18 09:11 · Score: 1

And they decided to wait them out until the moon comes back to them. But if the moon declares independence it's an act of war.

Re:Guess the Communists decided by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-05-18 09:16 · Score: 1

As the modern slogan goes- socialism without democracy is slavery. Even if the government pretends to pay for the work in a totally mythological money system they invented themselves. Of course, more conventional slavery happens there too, even outside of the forced labor camps run by the communists

And yes- I'm well aware that in the early 1800s, slave labor was common in Maryland. But then we had this little thing called a civil war, which ended with an Emancipation Proclaimation and a constitutional ammendment outlawing the practice. Which is why Americans who still want slave labor have to go to China (or certain countries in Africa).

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Human Pyramid? by jwitch · 2004-05-18 09:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Average male height = 1.75m
Chinese Population = 1260000000
Mean distance to moon = 384400000m

Human tower to moon = 384400000 / 1.75 = 219657142.9 People

However, for a pyramid we will need ½(n^2) + ½n (n+n-1+n-2...+n-n)

Therefore number of people needed to make a pyramid to the moon = 24124630320000000

Since 24124630320000000 is more than 1260000000, you are clearly an idiot

Re:Human Pyramid? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · 2004-05-18 11:34 · Score: 1

lol good rebuttal :)

--
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)

Moon cake by trailerparkcassanova · 2004-05-18 09:44 · Score: 1

They found out it doesn't come from the moon.

space cooperation by Doc+Ruby · 2004-05-18 09:46 · Score: 2, Funny

The Moon is about 356,614Km from the Earth at closest approach. China is home to about 1.3B people. A column of Chinese people, stacked in "human triangles" sitting on one another's shoulders (1m high), would reach the moon, leaving over 230M people. Half to clamber up (then down) to the Lunar surface, at a rate of about 1Km:h, reaching the surface in about 20 years, splitting their population evenly between the planets in under 4 years. And they only have to scale up their acrobat budgets, not that risky American rocket science.

--

--
make install -not war

That's OK... by Roadkills-R-Us · 2004-05-18 11:43 · Score: 1

You remind me of a bigoted twit with no sense of humor.

I'd have said the exact same thing whether it was the Chinese, Russians, USAians, or Texans.

I was poking fun at the whole idea of a space station being cheaper than a manned moon mission. Or perhaps you would prefer the phrase, "peopled moon mission"?

Timing is everything by grainofsand · 2004-05-18 12:08 · Score: 1

I think it is more than just a coincidence that the announcement by mainland China for a manned moon landing was made just prior to the beginning of the election campaign in Taiwan, and the announcement to cancel same was made just after it became clear that Ah Bian (Chen Shui Bian) had won.

If I were more cynical, I would suggest that the manned moon project was another mainland strategy to foster Chinese nationalism across the Taiwan Strait in an endeavour to undermine Chen's pro-independence election campaign.

--
A dream is good. A plan is better.

China & The US Don't Get Along, Welcome To Rea by cmholm · 2004-05-18 12:26 · Score: 1

"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 don't have a problem with this proposition, do you? Given the long standing policies of both the Chinese and US governments - this goes 'way beyond Dubya - it is enevitable that they contend with each other's freedom of action. It's perfectly natural that the US works to maintain it's various military advantages, and equally natural that the PRC works to close the gap.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.

Ha! by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-18 13:05 · Score: 1

+2 Troll? Is that the best you conservative agenda-pushing mods can do? Pathetic!

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Re:money, redirected by nxs212 · 2004-05-18 13:30 · Score: 1

Money that China would have spent on space/moon exploration will be spent on pacifying Taiwan instead.
While this is bad news for Taiwanese people, I applaud China's dictator/president on concentrating on things that affect China.
Here, in USA, Bush is concentrating on problems millions of miles away. For example, how to make drinkable water on Mars...once and IF we get there. How about working on cleaning our lakes and rivers here on Earth, so that everyone can drink tap water without fear. Same goes for air quality.

Re:They Realized That Space Exploration Is Worthle by BlueEyes_Austin · 2004-05-18 14:10 · Score: 1

Blah, blah, blah. We'll NEVER get those things "fixed" because there is no end goal. Jesus, we're already spending something like 20 percent of GDP on health care...and we spend more per pupil for education than any other country.

Re:They Realized That Space Exploration Is Worthle by $criptah · 2004-05-18 14:15 · Score: 1

Money is not the only answer.

Aww... by Trejkaz · 2004-05-18 14:43 · Score: 1

But the space shuttle is great. I mean, everybody loves fireworks. Am I right? Huh? Huh?

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!

Not surprising by hcg50a · 2004-05-18 16:48 · Score: 1

Launching a mission to put a man on the moon for a 3rd world country like China is a huge waste of resources for nothing but a little prestige.

Having a space station or at least a few low earth-orbit missions is actually somewhat useful.

So, it seems to me that they have returned to their senses.

--
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016 11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s

hmm. by supernova87a · 2004-05-19 02:48 · Score: 1

If China, the world's hottest economy right now, is putting off going to the moon because of high cost/low return, what does that say about the US (and President Bush's) persistent (and not very scientifically grounded) push to go to the Moon, and even Mars?

radiation by barakn · 2004-05-19 03:54 · Score: 1

You are confused. The Van Allen radiation belt isn't composed of x-rays. And even the most energetic solar x-ray flares release less than .01 watts per square meter. For comparison, sunlight before it's filtered by the atmosphere is 1400 watts per square meter. There's no way a human body would melt or burst into flame from exposure to even the brightest x-ray flares. Also, the number of particles in the radiation belts varies dramatically with time. The Apollo astronauts were lucky.

--
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show

few hours on venus? by bani · 2004-05-19 06:43 · Score: 1

Actually during the venera missions, the russians had designed some surface probes which could operate basically indefinitely. They never got sent for various reasons.

I assume they were some very basic design, perhaps no real electronics whatsoever and just using some properties of the venusian environment to generate RF data somehow. But I couldn't find any details.

Re:Welfare by Pieroxy · 2004-05-19 11:22 · Score: 1

There will be military-industrial-congressional complex for as long as there will be wars. There will be wars for as long as there will be stupid people willing to kill others for stupid reasons. There will be stupid people as long as there will be people. Hence, military-industrial-congressional complex will always be around.

My .02

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

Re:Guess the Communists decided by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-05-19 12:16 · Score: 1

True enough- slavery will happen illegally as long as there is a centralized ecconomic system allowing a single person to profit from somebody else's labor.

However- the difference between the slaves in Florida and the slaves in China is just that- legality. The main slave owner in China is the government itself.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Those are not hackers by Orion+Blastar · 2004-05-25 04:46 · Score: 1

it is a social engineering trick called Phishing. Email pretends to be from Paypal or a bank, etc, and tells the user to log in and reactivate their account.

The email is HTML and uses images from the original site, but has an activation link that goes to an IP address in China to a bogus webpage that looks like Paypal or the bank. The victim then enters their user ID and password and bank account, credit card, SSN, mother's maiden name, etc and then it says their account is now activated. Then the Phisher reads their database and steals the victim's identity and transfers all their money to their bank account, and maxes out the credit cards, etc.

Please do not call it hacking, there is no hacking involved any more than a 419 scam is hacking. It is a scam, pure and simple, like a 419 scam. It is social engineering like the 419 scam, to get information out of the victim to steal their money. The Phising scam makes the 419 scam look tame.

People in China are not the only ones who do it, yet I see a lot of these Phishing scam mails going to my inbox that originate from China.

Also after the victim is Phished, they can be Doxed, that is the Phisher can create profiles based on the victim and enter whatever bogus information they want and display it on the Internet. All of a sudden Fred Jones has a profile that says he like child p0rn, and is gay, and has new email accounts that are sending out Phising scams, in the hopes of blaming him for the activity. People can be Doxed without the Phising Scams, which happened to me before. Also another Scoop site had the editors heads photoshopped on a p0rno pic by a hostile user, which is a form of Doxing. Doxing is also not hacking either.

Both Doxing and Phishing are the lowest forms of scamming next to the 419. It takes no real skill to do so, just BS a lot, and steal someone else's web page. There are kits going around to do Phishing, etc.

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.

Slashdot Mirror

China Scrubs Moon Mission Plans

270 of 390 comments (clear)