China To Launch 2 Into Space In September

Doug Dante writes "China Daily reports that China's space agency plans to launch two Chinese astronauts into space for a 6-day mission in September. The spacecraft includes both a re-entry and an orbital module. The article, an official publication of the Chinese government in English, also extends a plain invitation for the U.S. to partner with China on space."

Comments

Good

[Uber Banker]

Co-operation between countries in space exploration is only a good thing. Build up trust, knock down militarisation.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Co-operation between countries in space exploration is only a good thing.

What? Did you not follow the US-Russia space race at all? "Co-operation" between an anti-communist democratic republic and a pro-communist People's republic is nothing more than politicized espionage. It can't possibly be anything else.

Build up trust, knock down militarisation.

Oh, is that what happened between the US and Russia? Because the way I saw it was that Russia lost, and now only the US gets to militarize space. I haven't yet seen any indication that the end of the Cold War did anything but speed up the US militarization of space.

"Co-operation" in peacetime means the strongest side gets to do as they wish, and the weaker side, faced with abject nuclear annihilation, can do nothing except "co-operate".

If you think China's space program has any other primary goal except militarization of space, you are naive and deluded. If you think any government space program has ever had any other goal, you are naive and deluded. Relying on government propaganda to accurately depict world events is stupid and inexcusable. And so is rooting for a Chinese (as in the PRC, not the race) presence in space because of idealized notions of the motivation. China is a totalitarian dictatorship guilty of the worst conceivable tyranny against its own people, and of repeated, actual and threatened, aggression upon its freer neighbors. It is an avowed enemy of the United States of America. Offering them moral sanction by way of cheerleadering on slashdot is nothing but despicable.

Re:Good

[the gnat]

I haven't yet seen any indication that the end of the Cold War did anything but speed up the US militarization of space.

Unless there's some key detail I'm missing, I'd say the exact opposite is true. Any motivation to militarize space was driven by the knowledge that the USSR most certainly had this intention, and while you may be right about the PRC's plans, the US hasn't been responding yet.

If you think any government space program has ever had any other goal, you are naive and deluded.

I agree that this was much of the unspoken motivation for the original US space program, but I just don't think that's been true for years. Certainly the deep-space probes are purely scientific, and I don't see any military benefit to a Mars landing (okay, the scientific benefits for that are pretty slim too). You might be able to make a case for a military motivation for the ISS, but if so why would we ever cooperate with other nations on that?

Re:Good

[Uber Banker]

What? Did you not follow the US-Russia space race at all?

Indeed. Why were advances made? Becuase resources were pumped at the problem. Do you prefer resources to be pumped at putting 100s of lasers and nuclear weapons in orbit? And FYI the space race reached its zenith in the late 60s/early 70s. 'Competition between countries' moved on to new things - see how space exploration deteorated in the late 70s and early 80s when, a true barometer of 'competition', the amount of ICBMs and targetted military spending as a % of GDP increased to the maximum.

You seem to have a peculiar understanding of China. The Chinese government is a totalitarian dictatorship which has failed to reform. However they know this - their entire motivation is to keep the population happy to prevent revolt - that's why economic growth and repatriation of income across the country is such a massive priority - people don't revolt when, overall, living standards are advancing rapidly. The 'space race' China is undertaking is just another extension of this - keep the population happy that China is a player on the world stage, make the people happy with the government - the totalitarian dictatorship using the exact same population control methods the 'anti-communist democratic republic' the USA used in the 1960s, it is called patriotism and is indeed a dangerous tool - but there is a different in 'positive patriotism' in celebrating achievements and 'negative patriotism' which is saying 'my country is better/more powerful than yours' - interesting that the 'totalitarian dictatorship' China uses 'positive' tools to manage the population while the 'anti-communist democratic republic' is today using negative ones.

Strange paradox, eh? China can only be seen to seek militarisation of space if you think it is motivated by the same population control methods as the USA is today.

Re:Good

[shokk]

Bow to your US-Indo-Sino masters.

Re:Good

[mi]

And we may soon find ourselves in a shooting war with China -- over Taiwan...

Re:Good

[ahdeoz]

It would be a better move than partnering with the EU.

Re:Good

[Tjp($)pjT]

You've never watched movies have you? From orbiting Jupiter to stations on Mars or even the Moon, when tensions run hot on earth disasters happen. :)

Re:Good

[ahdeoz]

abject nuclear annihilation? Yes, that's what China fears. They would prefer a mutually assured destruction balance of power, and so to would have certain elements of the US population. (The US, by the way, you can see has clearly not militarized space, even given over 20 years free reign to do so. That's twice as long as it took from seeing Sputnik fly overhead to landing on the moon.) Do you ever wonder how China made this great leap forward in space exploration? Their astronauts are flying on US designed rockets, which were originally designed to carry nuclear warheads across the globe. And do you doubt that the impetus for China's manned orbits are done primarily to learn how to point our own missiles back at us?

Re:Good

[biauxin]

The only reason China wants to pitch in with the US here is to further the technology required to accurately guide a system into orbit.

As of now, China does not have long range ICBM technology. I like it that way.

Re:Good

[dustmite]

Ironic then that the US is a large funder of China's military expansion via massive trade deficit. Helping to create a significant potential military superpower 20 to 30 years from now, and for what --- a few cheap products now? Cheap shirts and plastic toys? Hope it's worth it.

Re:Good

[Guppy06]

You mean like trade? How about them Permanent Normal Trade Relations the US has with China?

The importation of personal articles is limited to those intended for personal use and imported in reasonable quantities. The value of the items contained in each shipment must not exceed (12.08 USD) and the total value of the shipment received annually by each family may not exceed (96.66 USD).

source.

If this is what cooperation with China on trade looks like, I'm kinda curious about how the Chinese would "cooperate" with the US on space exploration.

Re:Good

[jcr]

I fail to see how this can possibly help the people of Tibet, who live under the yoke of Chinese militarization every day.

-jcr

Re:Good

[jcr]

If you think China's space program has any other primary goal except militarization of space, you are naive and deluded.

I disagree. It appears to me that the purpose of China's space program is much more about propaganda than anything else. The effect of China's space program on their capacity for opressing their own people is precisely nil.

Mao and his successors in the Red Dynasty managed to kill thirty million Chinese, and all but eradicate Tibetan culture with nothing more high-tech than tanks, guns, and couple million brainwashed thugs to do his bidding.

-jcr

Re:Good

[jcr]

I think Taiwan would do surprisingly well in an armed conflict with China. Don't discount the difference in motivation between conscripted slaves, and people fighting for their liberty.

Of course, the thugs have nuclear weapons, but I very much doubt that they'd be willing to risk retaliation by the US and Japan.

-jcr

Re:Good

[yangsta]

While I don't necessarily agree with your accessments about China's motivations, I congratulate you for managing to squeeze "great leap forward" in there ;)

Re:Good

[jcr]

You think US and Japan are welling to risk their own life on Taiwan? Dream on...

If China popped off a nuke on Taiwan, there would be hell to pay. That's the retaliation I'm talking about.

-jcr

Re:Good

[mi]

All of the anti-Semitic literature, that I ever saw in Kyiv, was in Russian and brought in from Russia.

Your fear-mongering is so absurd, it is funny. Long live, Ukraine!

Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Bush will outsource NASA next.

Re:Great.

[strelitsa]

I know you are just Bush-bashing, but I sincerely hope that he does. Private industry is inherently more efficient than a big centralized government bureaucracy like NASA.

There is no reason any more to have a NASA sucking on the US taxpayer's teat in the first place. Let private industry explore space (and assume the risk and reap the rewards).

Re:Great.

[pnewhook]

NASA is mainly an administrative body to hand out contracts and monitor their executon. Almost everything NASA does is executed by subcontractors such as Boeing, Locheed Martin, United Space Alliance, etc.

So in effect NASA is already privatized and has been for some time.

Re:Great.

[strelitsa]

tell that to our airline industry.

If I knew anybody in the business, I would. And they would agree with me. Air travel is unequivocally safer now than it was before deregulation. Accident rates during the twelve-year period from 1979 to 1990 (after deregulation) were 20 to 45 percent below their average levels in the six or twelve years before deregulation.

As for Chapter 13 filings, bad and/or inefficient companies go out of business while efficient companies continue and expand. Its called "capitalism", and its a good thing. Surely you're not advocating a return to direct government subsidy of airlines?

Re:Great.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason any more to have a NASA sucking on the US taxpayer's teat in the first place. Let private industry explore space (and assume the risk and reap the rewards).

No reason except that private companies do not have the best interests of the American people at heart. As with the privatization of Social Security (and most other operations normally performed by the "government"), the private corporation taking over these endeavors will only think of the bottome line: their own profit. In particular, the case of Enron and the airlines in the US should point out this obvious fact (and probably did to many) to the politicians and citizenry pushing for privatization. No private company will do what is in the best interest of the American people unless they are legally forced to do so. To think otherwise means that either you're selling something or you've already been sold.

It may or may not be Bush bashing depending on the source. It doesn't change the reality that there are certain activities within our society that are better left to at least mostly neutral agencies (think utilities, media, space, military, social security, health care) since to put them in the hands of private corporations leaves them open to even more cynical manipulation than they are subject to as government bodies. It may not suit the purposes of Dubya, Cheney, O'Reilly (bill, that is), Limbaugh and others who seek to direct as much money and power to themselves and their friends using a platform of "free markets" and "competition" but it doesn't mean it's not true. Until the American people realize that these folks and the folks like the parent post who seek to color this truth to their own ends are only out to take advantage of the average consumer, the future prospects for the USA are bleak. Providing for the common good is what made America great. The current status quo of "more for me" is what our founding fathers (and mothers) were fleeing when the left the European continent hundreds of years ago. It's just that our current "leaders" have devised a way of warping democracy to do what the aristocrats of England had been doing for hundreds of years before 1776. The American people just haven't realized it yet.

As one of the cousing posts points out, until America realizes this, China and India will continue to advance and ultimately overtake America as not only manufacturers but also as innovators. We have to do it together as one in the US, or we won't be able to do it at all.

Re:Great.

[strelitsa]

Pretty insightful comment. I'd mod it up if I could.

There are still a number of needlessly complicated rules and regulations that "private" companies are subject to when it comes to spaceflight, though. And none of those are enforced by contractors.

Re:Great.

[strelitsa]

Strong, centralized government control really worked well for the Soviet Union, didn't it?

Re:Great.

[pnewhook]

Yes and those are driven by strict government rules.

NASA requires very strict reporting on all government contracts : weekly / monthly status reports, audits on all hours billed, checks on development and test procedures, etc. They also require that major contractors use lots of geographically diverse smaller subcontractors, effectively spreading the money around.

All of these minor subcontractors have the same reporting and traceability requirements to the major subcontractors as the major contractors have to NASA.

With 3 to 4 layers of subcontracting out as is typical, you can easily see how a lot of money gets taken up in overhead with little work to show for it.

Re:Great.

[pedroloco]

If private industry is more efficient than NASA, why haven't they already built their own launch facilities and satellite launchers?

And please don't blame it on US regulations. Little is stopping companies from making deals for building launch facilities and factories in some other country.

Re:Great.

[strelitsa]

Why incur the expense of building a huge infrastructure (launch facilities, berthing and messing facilities for contractors, company stores, housing, roads, etc.) when you can just contract launches out to Arianespace or pay NASA to do it on the US taxpayer's dime? Most private companies can't waste resources on purpose and expect to survive - only centralized governments with that comfy taxpayer safety net can afford to do that.

Re:Great.

[jcr]

Private industry is inherently more efficient than a big centralized government bureaucracy like NASA.

Bingo!

Just look at the results of the Ansari X-prize.

If someone posted a billion dollar prize for getting back to the moon, I'm pretty sure that Burt Rutan or someone like him would get it done inside of a decade.

-jcr

Re-Entry

[RobertTaylor]

"The spacecraft includes both a re-entry and an orbital module."

You would hope it had some form of re-entry module if you were the astronauts!

Re:Re-Entry

[DaneelGiskard]

BTW ... why is it called re-entry and no simply entry? Just wondering ;-)

Re:Re-Entry

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

It's China. Their idea of re-entry is probrably having their astronauts sitting atop the Hubble.

Re:Re-Entry

[another_henry]

Because you're returning to Earth. For (robotic) landers on other bodies e.g. Mars and Titan they just call it 'entry'.

Re:Re-Entry

[LifesABeach]

If I were the head of the 'CNSA' from the land of the Panda Bear, I think I'd be talking to Burt Rutan, not NASA; Lets face it, results count.

Memo to NASA; Say it aint so.

Maybe some day

[turgid]

I look forward to the day when space exploration is done by private companies with staff all over the world. Then, the competition will be between companies and not some sort of xenophobic constest between mutually distrustful national governments. The pace of progress will probably increase by an order of magnitude too.

Re:Maybe some day

[Chemisor]

> Then, the competition will be between companies
> and not some sort of xenophobic constest between
> mutually distrustful national governments.

You mean, like Microsoft and... uh...

Re:Maybe some day

[Yartrebo]

There aren't any laws or treaties preventing private companies from sending things into space.

The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).

A company can put $1B in excess capital in the stock market (or pay dividends, allowing the shareholders to do so) and in 35 years that $1B will become $32B on average. 70 years from now it can be expected to be worth over $1T. Since investing in space stuff is very risky, a substantial premium above the stock market return will be required to get companies to invest.

The bottom line: Governments are probably best left to handle research, and publicly release the results so that all companies have access to the latest tech, which will allow companies to do what they do best - manufacture, not research.

Re:Maybe some day

[wertarbyte]

But consider this: These competition between distrustful countries brought us into space and to the moon.

Re:Maybe some day

[Epistax]

The pace of progress will probably increase by an order of magnitude too

As will the mortality rates. Unless government is heavily involved with safety, you can expect corners to be cut. Now this might all be FUD, but no more than the statement I am quoting.

Re:Maybe some day

[strelitsa]

There aren't any laws or treaties preventing private companies from sending things into space.

Actually, there are (at least as far as doing it from US soil). There are a myriad of US alphabet soup agencies that have regulatory authority over private industry when it comes to space exploration. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (HR 5382) signed into law in late 2004 by President Bush reduced some of those onerous requirements, but it is not a complete panacea for those ills, and it brings its own level of bureaucracy to the process.

The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).

In the United States, NASA is the taxpayer-subsidized 800-pound gorilla when it comes to space flight. US private industry finds it difficult if not impossible to compete against a NASA wielding a virtually unlimited taxpayer-funded checkbook which subsidizes as much as 600 million dollars of the true cost of every Shuttle launch. These companies that want to launch commercial payloads are pretty much locked into using NASA hardware or outsourcing to Arianespace.

Re:Maybe some day

[isorox]

So? Arround 10 people a day are killed on UK roads, doesn't stop us driving.

Re:Maybe some day

[shokk]

Wow, because mega-corporations make much better decisions than countries about treating employees/citizens! The pace of progress will increase on the backs of whatever population can be yoked to pull the Titan/Shenzhou/Soyuz to the launch pad. Will WalLockMart or VirginAmazon care about salaries or rights once they have militarized space? It is inevitable that once someone has a resource somewhere (space hardware in this case) that they will set up infrastructure to protect it from others. You are so blind to think that the very mistrust that motivated you to make your statement is not alive in others. It is human nature, and once these companies get their fingers in the pie they will behave no differently in their projects than the pharohs did in theirs.

The only question:
Will we be able to push to the stars and advance humanity with the resulting tech in all this, or will we stagnate in our LEO playground?

Re:Maybe some day

[strelitsa]

Wow, because mega-corporations make much better decisions than countries about treating employees/citizens!

Golly, the things you learn on Slashdot. I've been wrong about this all along I guess - strong governments such as Nazi Germany and the Communist former Soviet Union obviously treat their citizens much more humanely than some private company ever could.

I wonder which mega-corporation sponsored the old Roman Empire's gladiatorial games and mass crucifixion of battlefield opponents? Was it Halliburton?

(sarcasm OFF)

Re:Maybe some day

[turgid]

Sucks, doesn't it? Sometimes I am astounded that it's only 10, from what I see on the way to work in the morning. Really, employers should stop being so insistent that people are sat at their desks and working by 08:30.

Re:Maybe some day

[FleaPlus]

Believe it or not, it's somewhat difficult for a commercial company to compete in an industry where other (much larger and established) companies are getting billions of dollars in cost-plus contracts from the government. That's the main reason you haven't seen plenty of commercial companies in the field.

Re:Maybe some day

[ahdeoz]

You've got to be kidding. Privately funded sattelites go up all the time. Boeing & Norway (okay, norway isn't a private company, but it's run by one) are building offshore launchpads to get around US law because NASA is so expensive and backlogged. NASA is probably the most profitable enterprise the US Government has ever created outside the IRS. For decades they had a virtual monopoly on communications sattelite launches, and that is very big business indeed.

Re:Maybe some day

[FleaPlus]

Yeah, god forbid that companies have a dominant role in spaceflight, like they have in airflight. Just look at all the oppression and inter-company warfare we've seen since companies have started to operate air services (for a fee, even!).

Re:Maybe some day

[FleaPlus]

Wow, because mega-corporations make much better decisions than countries about treating employees/citizens!

The point isn't that CEOs make smarter or dumber decisions than politicians. The point is that when they do make dumb decisions, you can choose another option -- you don't have somebody putting a gun to your head if you don't accept the decision.

Re:Maybe some day

[poot_rootbeer]

not some sort of xenophobic constest between mutually distrustful national governments.

Why, if space exploration were privatized, there could even be the potential for some sort of International Space Station, where American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts could live and work side-by-side!

What a marvelous day that would be!

Re:Maybe some day

[isorox]

They dont. Start times in London are staggered from arround 8AM to 10AM, some even earlier/later

Of course most people are in for the 8:30/9:00 starts, but then why bother getting up an hour earlier when the train fare is the same?

Re:Maybe some day

[QuantumG]

maybe you missed the part where the O'Neillian dream died? Communications satelites are a dying breed. SpaceX will be launching a spy satelite, but they're pinning their hopes on space tourism, just like the suborbitals.

Astronauts

[RobertTaylor]

"But he said the duo will be chosen from the same 14 fighter-jet pilots who were part of the first selection process...

No chinese billionaires or boy-band members going up?

Re:Astronauts

[Deliveranc3]

Commmunists are a silly bunch what can we say.

Re:Astronauts

[arose]

Maybe "Fighter-Jet Pilots" is a 14 member boy-band...

Re:Astronauts

[ahdeoz]

Go watch "The Right Stuff" kid. Sheesh, don't they teach history anymore.

Re:Astronauts

[Guppy06]

"No... boy-band members going up?"

Everybody knows about the Boy Band Gap between China and the West!

Re:For a moment i thought...

[maxwell demon]

It definitely fails in being a good headline.
Luanch 2? Does that mean the second Launch? Or do they plan to launch two rockets?

Yes, the article then tells me the missing information. And that part it the essential one: That China plans to send two people up (actually, they'll not send Astronauts, but Taikonauts :-))

But

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they be returning them to Earth?

Re:But

[-kertrats-]

Unless I'm missing something drastic, I think you're making quite a leap to say that the AC was being racist.

Re:But

[dotwaffle]

In fact, the Soviets when sending up Gagarin were shit scared about the Cosmoanuts defecting to the West, so they used an autopilot, and were only going to give the pilot the code to disable it if there was any trouble - otherwise he was just a passenger! Thank god the Soviet Union no longer exists!

Re:But

[aussie_a]

He's probably commenting on the fact TFA specified there would be a returning module. I think for most people it's assumed there would be a returning module.

Re:But

[mindstrm]

And what's wrong with that, really? If the Cosmonaut wants to pilot a few ten billions of dollars of state hardware, they were right to ensure that he would return it. It's not his to take to the west in the first place.

Re:But

[turgid]

And in doing so he's affirming our racist assumptions. I'd better stop posting before I incite more troll moderators.

Oh, and I will not slow down. I'm not a cowboy. I'm a cheuchter.

Re:But

[turgid]

The Chinese government doesn't have a respect for life. It has nothing to do with Asians as a "race." (Which is really quite racist, since we're all human.)

Neither does the American government. After all, they descend to the level of murderers by murdering them as "punishment" for their crimes. They even murder innocent people who would be freed after an appeal if only their evidence could get heard by rational, impartial judges and juries.

Why bother with Right, Truth and Justice when you can have easy, populist revenge?

At least here in the EU we are civillised and progressive in this respect.

Re:But

[turgid]

Are you retarded?

Not particularly. I passed the MENSA mebership test, but I turned them down when I found out how much money they wanted from me to join their elitist, right-wing social club for insecure bigots who score highly on Cattell IQ tests.

Woo hoo! Slashdot is such fun.

Re:But

[jcr]

I'm not sure what's more pathetic: being a mensan, or bragging about passing their test and snubbing them.

-jcr

Re:But

[turgid]

OK I admit it, I'm retarded. You win.

A matter of pride

[Odo]

The US would never partner with the Chinese. Not while the US shuttle is grounded. And once it is flying, they won't need to partner with them. The Chinese know this. Having to rely on the Russians to get to the space station is embarrasing enough, but dropping to third place thanks to the Chinese would be too much.

On the other hand, the Chinese have (so far) been very good a keeping the operation of their space program separate from issues of national pride. They launch misions when they are ready, not in time for some politico's birthday or scheduled speech. Linking the two was one of the reasons the Russians never made it to the Moon and one of the reasons the Americans lost Challenger.

Re:A matter of pride

[WormholeFiend]

They launch misions when they are ready, not in time for some politico's birthday or scheduled speech

But what about Feng Shui?

Re:A matter of pride

[strelitsa]

They launch misions when they are ready, not in time for some politico's birthday or scheduled speech. Linking the two was one of the reasons the Russians never made it to the Moon and one of the reasons the Americans lost Challenger.

Huh? Challenger was lost because they launched on a bitterly cold day which aggravated a design flaw in one of the SRB's O-rings. Besides being inaccurate, your observation is just so much 20-20 hindsight.

As for linking space exploration to national goals, America did pretty well meeting JFK's goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the decade of the 1960s was over.

Re:A matter of pride

[JDevers]

At Challenger's launch time, the ambient temp at the Cape was 36F. While that is moderately cold for Florida, I doubt 99% of the people on this board would call it "bitterly cold." While the temp did play with the O-rings sealing ability, the O-ring had previously failed to seal at 56F. I would say that the problem would more correctly be termed "complete and total cheap crap" than a design flaw or oversight. I can imagine the engineers at Thiokol...Engineer 1 "you mean it isn't always 90F in Florida? We should think about changing our design then!" PHB1: "Do you know how much that would cost? It is almost ALWAYS above 70F there, so the O-rings will be fine 99.9% of the time. That's a better than average failure rate!!!"

Re:A matter of pride

[demachina]

"Besides being inaccurate, your observation is just so much 20-20 hindsight."

Actually you are the one who is probably innaccurate though we will never know for sure. NASA was probably under substantial political pressure from the Reagan administration to launch on schedule. Reagan was going to trumpet the "Teacher in Space" in his imminent State of the Union address and they probably wanted he to actually be in space when he made the speech.

If you weren't under some kind of pressure why would you press ahead with a launch on "a bitterly cold day" The launch pad was completely iced up, they had NEVER had a day that cold for a launch. The freezing and the ice created all kind of potential dangers, the brittle O rings was just the one that led to disaster, falling ice damaging the shuttle was the one they were very worried about. If they weren't under pressure why wouldn't you way until a warmer day. If they had the O rings most probably wouldn't have failed. NASA postpones launches for a lot less than the launch pad bering covered in ice and all the components being below typical temperature.

Re:A matter of pride

[strelitsa]

And your proof of that statement would be ... ? The Shuttles launch from Florida (not exactly Maine climate-wise), and the launch dates are set months in advance.

Re:A matter of pride

[strelitsa]

NASA was probably under substantial political pressure from the Reagan administration to launch on schedule.

Conspiracy theories are so much easier to believe than actual facts, aren't they?

If you weren't under some kind of pressure why would you press ahead with a launch on "a bitterly cold day"

There is a phenomena called "go fever" in the industry. Both Apollo 1 (using unsafe pure oxygen during a ground test) and Apollo 12 (launching in a thunderstorm with lightning) fell victim to it in NASA's history. And Ronald Reagan was not in office during either of those launches.

If they weren't under pressure why wouldn't you way until a warmer day.

Because they had a schedule to keep? Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch.

Speaking to "the haves and the have-mores." George W. smirks: "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base"

Ah, a Michael Moore fan I see. That explains your obvious affinity for wild conspiracy theories, I guess.

Re:A matter of pride

[clymere]

yes, i hate to admit it because i am most certainly not a bush fan...but that quote was taken very much out of context. I watched "Fahrenhype 911" last week just to hear what ind of rebuttals they had. One thing they showed was that footage came from a charity dinner where the tradition is for the two political candidates to give a humorous self-depecreatory speech. Al gore was there, and gave a similar speech as well. It looks very damning in Moore's film. Much less so if you know the context.

Re:A matter of pride

[demachina]

"Both Apollo 1 (using unsafe pure oxygen during a ground test)"

That wasn't exactly "go fever", that was a fundamental flaw in their design, though perhaps they were rushing when they made it long before, just like the O rings were. Its not the same thing as using some discretion and postponing a launch until the launch pad isn't covered in ice and everything thaws out.

"Apollo 12 (launching in a thunderstorm with lightning)"

Thunderstorms are a daily occurrence in Florida. They are a constant risk and you have to learn to launch with them in the neighborhood, or you don't launch, though obviously its desirable to not launch through them. Having large quantities of explosives sticking up in the air, at risk of a lightening strike, is a risk you have to accept having a launch pad in Florida. To put it another way, waiting for a clear day in Florida is nearly an exercise in futility. On the other hand postponing a launch due to ice on the launch pad is something you will have to do once in a blue moon in Florida so you probably should.

"Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch."

And you CAN'T prove there wasn't. I was mostly objecting to the fact that you were stating it as fact there was no pressure, which you can't prove either. At least I was couching my counterpoint as a possibility, not as a fact which was your mistake. Circumstantial evidence suggests something was pushing NASA to launch on a day they shouldn't have. Pressure from the White House is one possibility. Unless you get the people in NASA who made the launch decision on a lie detector you will probably never know.

So why don't you stop stating as fact something you can't prove and slamming me for stating something as a possibility that is a possibility.

"That explains your obvious affinity for wild conspiracy theories, I guess."

Michael Moore has nothing to do with the fact George Bush was so indiscrete as to say this on camera in front of a bunch of tuxedo clad fat cats, even if it was supposed to be a joke(much truth is said in jest). It was a well known Bush gaffe, one of many, long before Michael Moore used it. I was quoting George W. Bush not Michael Moore it has nothing to do with a "conspiracy", its on video tape.

Re:A matter of pride

[Anonymous Coward]

> > On the other hand, the Chinese have (so far)
> > been very good a keeping the operation of
> > their space program separate from issues of
> > national pride.
>
> This is completely backwards and the fact your
> comment was modded up so high is one reason
> I've given up on trying to have an intelligent
> political discussion on Slashdot.

Nobody is claiming that the Chinese space program isn't for national pride. The claim was that the OPERATION of said program wasn't dictated by the minute to minute requirements of national pride. The Chinese government may say "Launch a probe to the Moon", but so far they haven't said "Launch a probe to the Moon this Saturday in time for our meeting with the US president". The latter is what got the Soviets in so much trouble. Command performances. In contrast the Chinese government sets some goals, and leaves the space program to get on with the job.

Yes, it is all about national pride. But (as usual) China takes the long term view.

Re:A matter of pride

[kcelery]

Feng shui is for choosing the launch site. For choosing the launch date, other metaphysics tools would be used.

Re:A matter of pride

[strelitsa]

Its not the same thing as using some discretion and postponing a launch until the launch pad isn't covered in ice and everything thaws out.

The final investigation found that a combination of the faulty SRB design and wind shear conditions more violent than any ever experienced were direct causes of the SRB failure. It wasn't just the ice/cold temperature that caused the loss of Challenger.

Yes, it was cold in Florida that day. But ice routinely forms on the external fuel tank even on the warmest days. Its a natural function of having that much liquid oxygen contained in an enclosed space. And some of the ice invariably breaks off during launch, in some cases even smacking into the Shuttle's brittle control surfaces (as we are finding out in the Columbia investigation).

"Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch."

And you CAN'T prove there wasn't.

Silly wabbit - you brought it up first. Which means that it is incumbent on you to back it up. And trying to prove a negative earns you nowt but a visit from the Logic Police. Now let me see your license, registration, and proof of insurance please ...

Re:A matter of pride

[Donny Smith]

> Feng shui is for choosing the launch site. For choosing the launch date, other metaphysics tools would be used.

It is called the (Chinese version of) lunar calendar (nong li).
In it for every day there's a list of dos and don'ts.

Re:A matter of pride

[turgid]

But what about Feng Shui?

I don't think they bother about her birthday either.

Re:A matter of pride

[demachina]

"The final investigation found that a combination of the faulty SRB design and wind shear conditions more violent than any ever experienced were direct causes of the SRB failure. It wasn't just the ice/cold temperature that caused the loss of Challenger."

The key point you are glossing over is the O rings were made of rubber, or some synthetic equivalent, and they hardened the colder they got. The harder and colder they got the more likely they were to fail and not seal. Some of the engineers who were aware of the O-ring blow by defect, which had happened in previous missions, also knew that the risk of their failure increased the colder the rings got.

The cold weather was a definite contributor to the failure of the O ring that caused the disaster. Nor sure I understand why you are trying to dismiss it other than you are trying to salvage your position, since you've realized you can't prove the White House, fed up with previous delays, wasn't pressuring NASA to launch in time for the State of the Union speech so know you are trying to rationalize that it was OK to launch in temperatures far below the norm, and with a defect that was known to worsen in the cold.

"in some cases even smacking into the Shuttle's brittle control surfaces (as we are finding out in the Columbia investigation)."

Just to clarify another statement you are making that is at least misleading. It wasn't ice that fatally damaged Columbia, it was a piece of the foam insulation designed to prevent the ice, because yes falling ice is dangerous during a launch, always has been, always will be. The obvious point being that yes its dangerous on the ET, and they tried to prevent it with insulation, and ice is also dangerous if its shrouding the launch pad which it only did on that very cold day, it was falling all over the place. But, falling ice obviously wasn't the issue with the actual disaster, it was just something that should have caused NASA to exercise caution and postpone if they weren't under pressure to launch. Again having known defective O rings that were more likely to fail in cold weather was a known danger NASA chose to overlook much to their demise.

"Silly wabbit - you brought it up first. Which means that it is incumbent on you to back it up."

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. As long as you say something you can't support, FIRST, you don't have to prove it. Heh. Later dude, with that satement you've established you aren't worth the time.

Re:A matter of pride

[demachina]

My sig isn't one of "Moore's lies". Its a verbatim quote of George W. Bush from video tape. Your only defense is its out of context and that is a weak defense.

When you are a President, of a supposed Democracy, with a reputation for pandering to the rich saying it, even if its supposed to be a joke, is the height of bad taste and is just pouring gasoline on a fire.

Its right up there with his other attempt at comedy where he showed pictures of himself looking under a table in the oval office for the "missing WMD's" in Iraq. When you've lied a country in to a war thats killed thousands of people, destroyed what was left of America's reputation around the world, and is going to cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars, making a joke out of it indicates kinda poor judgement.

Or when he said "Bring 'em on" to the insurgents in Iraq, they did, and there are American soliders dying every day because they did "Bring 'em on" is kinda bad judgement.

Want me to go on? If you want to do a head to head between lies and stupid stuff Bush says and lies and stupid stuff Moore says Bush wins hands down. Michael Moore is an insignificant buffoon grabbing his 15 minutes of fame every couple of years. He isn't running the world's most powerful country. What Bush says matters, especially when he is lieing, what Moore says doesn't. Bush's lastest lie, telling everyone Social Security is in imminent danger of bankruptcy. It will never be bankrupt, the worse thats going to happen is benefit cuts or tax hikes and those wont be necessary until the middle of the century. If Bush gets his private accounts he is in fact going to make the short fall worse and sooner, he's not fixing anything. Medicare is going to go bankrupt long before Social Security due to out of control health care costs and profiteering by big drug and health care companies

Michael Moore bashing doesn't even enter in to this, except as a tactic, a tried and true, right wing tactic, to deflect attention from their fearless leaders gaffes by launching a frontal assault on someone else.

Re:A matter of pride

[khallow]

Nobody is claiming that the Chinese space program isn't for national pride. The claim was that the OPERATION of said program wasn't dictated by the minute to minute requirements of national pride. The Chinese government may say "Launch a probe to the Moon", but so far they haven't said "Launch a probe to the Moon this Saturday in time for our meeting with the US president". The latter is what got the Soviets in so much trouble. Command performances. In contrast the Chinese government sets some goals, and leaves the space program to get on with the job.

China has timed some of its launches (often when testing missiles and related military hardware) before (I think the unmanned test flight prior to the manned flight was timed to complete right before a major meeting, but can't find links). You are right that the program in general isn't beholden in such a way as the Russian program was.

Re:A matter of pride

[strelitsa]

The cold weather was a definite contributor to the failure of the O ring that caused the disaster.

I am not disputing that. I have never disputed that. Why are you disputing and evading the FACT that the investigating board found that unprecedented wind shear was also a contributing factor as I said?

Nor sure I understand why you are trying to dismiss it other than you are trying to salvage your position, since you've realized you can't prove the White House ...

Because the burden is not on me to prove or disprove a conspiracy theory that you proffer. The burden is on you. I cannot prove that something didn't happen - it is logically impossible to do so.

Just to clarify another statement you are making that is at least misleading. It wasn't ice that fatally damaged Columbia, it was a piece of the foam insulation designed to prevent the ice ...

So a piece of insulating foam is more dangerous than a piece of ice. Jehosaphat, the things you learn on Slashdot.

Again having known defective O rings that were more likely to fail in cold weather was a known danger NASA chose to overlook much to their demise.

You apparently seem to believe that this fact is a "smoking gun" that indicts the Reagan Administration. As I said a few posts back and as you also chose to ignore, spaceflight is an inherently dangerous business. To take the leap of faith as you apparently are from systemic managerial failures within NASA to arrive at some sort of cockamamie indictment of Ronald Reagan is silly and unsubstantiated.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Naah, I won't say it. Just suffice to say to that I hope you have a better day tomorrow.

Later dude, with that satement you've established you aren't worth the time.

Works for me. Ta.

if they put 2 in space

[1nv4d3r]

If china puts 2 in space, will 1 + 1 start to equal 3 on earth? That'll take some getting used to.

Re:if they put 2 in space

[StratoChief66]

No, 1 + 1 will start to equal "the artist formerly known as two", or one of two's brothers, to or too will take his place.

Re-entry.

[the_mind_]

"The spacecraft includes both a re-entry and an orbital module."

How... how kind of them...

Re:Re-entry.

[dotwaffle]

It's a shame you probably won't have watched the "First Man In Space" documentary a few weeks ago done by the BBC about Yura Gagarin - it appears that although they did intend to seperate the re-entry and orbital modules, it went completely tits up and span out of control. Gargarin would have certainly died if the heat from re-entry hadn't burnt through the wires holding it together... I know we say a lot of crap about the Chinese... But thank god they're not the Soviets...

Re:Re-entry.

[mindstrm]

They soviets have:

- Better ejection technologies (can the shuttle crew eject on the takeoff platform if they think things are going south?)

- More reliable, simpler designs. (What the US achieves with multiple backup systems and tons of high-tech engineering, the russians achieved with much more testing to find a design that was inherently reliable. eg: soyuz, mir)

- As you said, Gagarin was the first man in space. It's not like the US space program, even decades after this, doesn't still have it's share of carnage and destruction.

Re:Re-entry.

[StratoChief66]

Yeah, but notice how they are called the "Russians" these days. I believe he meant that he is glad the Chinese space program isn't starting out the way the Soviet one did (when they were the Soviets, back in the day). Having said that, I like the Russian way of doing space things these days much better than the American way for the reasons you mentioned.

Re:Re-entry.

[Cheerio Boy]

- As you said, Gagarin was the first man in space. It's not like the US space program, even decades after this, doesn't still have it's share of carnage and destruction.

Actually they don't talk about it but Gagarin wasn't the first man in space - he was just the first to return. I can't find the exact article but it was on www.astronautix.com .

Re:Re-entry.

[Teancum]

Every single one of these points, other than the first man in space (who was actually before Gagarin, but died in space hence the non-person status in the old USSR) could be said about the old Apollo space capsules.

While Apollo was high-tech engineering (as was Soyuz), it was no-frills. And as seen with the Apollo-Soyuz missions, it was the Apollo modules that seriously kicked butt at being able to manuver and perform multiple dockings. The Soyuz capsules were more or less simply targets for the docking attempts.

It was a pity that all of that engineering, in typical American fashion, was dumped down the drain and the blueprints filed somewhere next to the Ark of the Covenant (aka Indiana Jones). I am not totally hating the Space Shuttle, but with 20/20 hindsight the USA lost an incredible body of engineering talent and design philosophy when no follow-up to the Apollo occured. May Senator Proximire never rest in his grave.

Re:Re-entry.

[dotwaffle]

Yes, Soviets = bad. Russians = not so bad. Americans = too close to call :)

Of course, I'm talking about politics here, generally Russians/Americans are nice people. Generally. I'm speaking generally here.

Astronauts?

[Fulkkari]

Astronauts? Shouldn't the corrent term be Taikonaut? Anyway, it is nice to see China making progress in this field.

Re:Astronauts?

[Fulkkari]

I misspelled the word "correct". Ironic isn't it?

Re:Astronauts?

[yotto]

Actually, according to the source you submitted:

(I stripped the Chinese characters as they didn't survive the cut/past process)

The term taikonaut is sometimes used in English for astronauts from China by Western news media. The term was coined in May 1998 by Chiew Lee Yih from Malaysia, who used it first in newsgroups. Almost simultaneously, Chen Lan coined it for use in the Western media based on the term "tikng", Chinese for space. In Chinese itself, however, the term yuhangyuan (yhng yun) ("space navigator") has long been used and refers to astronauts and cosmonauts, and the closest term using taikong is taikongren, which literally means space human. Official English text issued by the Chinese government uses the term "astronaut." It is unclear whether the Chinese apply the honorific at training or successful mission completion.

So, in short, no. 'Astronaut' is the correct term according to China.

Re:Astronauts?

[Markus Landgren]

No. The correct term would be yuhangyuan, or in English: astronaut. "Taikonaut" is a play with words by people outside China, which is not any more correct than calling american space travellers "spaceonauts". If you had actually read the link you included you would know this.

Re:Astronauts?

[Fulkkari]

True. But I think the majority of the people here on Slashdot live in the Western world. Taikonaut is a good word because it tells the nationality to the reader. "The term taikonaut is sometimes used" is a bit confusing IMHO because at least in my experience the word taikonaut has been always used instead of astronaut when it comes to the Chinese. Who has the right to decide?

Re:Astronauts?

[Fulkkari]

Usually the word that is most frequently used will be the one that is correct. There are numerous of examples of this. I understand that the Chinese officially use the word astronaut, but if we decide use the word taikonaut instead (which our media at least in my experience has), it will be the word we should use, because it is the word we are familiar with.

Re:Astronauts?

[ceeam]

Ahh, I wouldn't say that they (or ISS men) are going into _space_, much less so the _stars_. It's an Earch orbit. 350-380 kms up from the surface. Just barely outside the athmosphere. Not that it's a piece of cake, of course.

Re:Astronauts?

[yotto]

Who has the right to decide?

Good question. I see three options:

The Chinese do. This was the assumption I made, but I'm starting to question it. We don't call Germany "Deutschland" after all.

We do. "We" here is America, or more broadly the Western World. This seems to be the way you think it should work (I'm not saying that you're wrong, mind). It's our language, we'll call them what we want.

Nobody does. This is probably closest to the truth. Nobody actually picks what term we use, but eventually everybody starts to use the same term.

Personally, I see no problem using the term "Chinese Astronaut" or, if it's obvious we're talking about China, using the term "Astronaut" on its own. For that matter, I would prefer "Russian Astronaut" to "Cosmonaut". A hundred years from now when 30+ countries have people in space (At least, I hope that happens) are we going to have 30 different words for their Astronauts? We're already up to 4 now and I'm getting annoyed with it.

Re:Astronauts?

[isorox]

No.

Taikonaut is an bastardisation by people who think they're multi-cultured by bolting words from various roots together. Perhaps you should read the link you posted.

Re:Astronauts?

[yotto]

Hehe, ESA "astronauts" are called spationauts which I think is the worst one of them all.

Re:Astronauts?

[Markus Landgren]

If "your media" say taikonaut, you should really get around more. In my experience tabloids use the term taikonaut while real newspapers call them astronauts.

Complaining about the completely unambiguous term "Chinese astrunaut" is simply trolling. And from an aesthetic viewpoint, taikonaut is an abomination of a word, and it's abundantly clear that it did not originate in China. The terms astronaut and cosmonaut both have in common that they are used by the respective space travellers' own nations, and that the languages which they occur in have a tradition of borrowing words and suffixes from Latin, which Chinese does not.

Re:Astronauts?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Astronauts? Shouldn't the corrent term be Taikonaut?""

"Astro" being the prefix meaning "american"? If you're going to use the English language then at least be consistant - astronaut is the word for someone who works in space.

If you use taikonaut, then for consistantancy you'd also need to use anglianaut or usianaut to describe americans who work in space. If you want to use the chinese language, then by all means do so, but you'd need to use chinese words like yháng yuán rather than chinese-sounding english pseudowords.

Presumably in your view of the world the foreigners also have taikophysists studying taikophotography and taikoscience?

Re:Astronauts?

[Vellmont]

No. Believe it or not some of us don't need a seperate word for non-Americans in space. Cosmonaut was the Russian word for Astronaut (though I'd still guess its popularization had something to do with the cold war). This taikonaut thing is just stupid. Who cares what nation they're from? Slashdot is an english language site, so the term is astronaut.

Re:Astronauts?

[Kesha]

Astro in astronaut stands for "star", not american.
Cosmo in cosmonaut stands for "cosmos", not russian.
Personally, I prefer cosmonaut, but I am Russian so I am biased.

Paul.

Re:Astronauts?

[m50d]

No. We don't need a new word for astronauts from every nation. Astronaut will do just fine.

Re:Astronauts?

[Q Who]

No. Believe it or not some of us don't need a seperate word for non-Americans in space. Cosmonaut was the Russian word for Astronaut (though I'd still guess its popularization had something to do with the cold war).

Perhaps its popularization had something to do with the fact that Russians were the first to reach space?

Re:Astronauts?

[poot_rootbeer]

Shouldn't the corrent term be Taikonaut?

Shouldn't you have read the Wikipedia article you linked to? It states that taikonaut is a term invented by the Western press, and that China itself uses the term "astronaut" in its official English literature.

Re:Astronauts?

[Teancum]

The only reason I can give for seperate terms for each country of origin is due to the fact that so far only three countries have poured the national resources together in one spot to have independent space programs: USA, China, and Russia (USSR).

That said, You don't see seperate terms for astronauts from Israel, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, France, Germany, or Canada. And all of these countries, with others have already sent somebody into space via one of the other space programs. These are all called astronauts, and justifiably so.

I don't see any problem with the grammar police insisting on simply "Chinese Astronauts" instead of "Taikonauts". The whole issue with Cosmonauts/Taikonauts is more a PR stunt anyway, due to the fact that they stand on the top of a multi-billion dollar effort to put somebody into space. Any time you spend that much money, the PR costs are incidental to coin a new word anyway.

If you want to see something wierd and bizzare regarding pushing a word to change its meaning, look up the word "cola" in a Portuguese/English dictionary. Somehow Coca-Cola spent enough money in Brazil and Portugul to change the meaning from glue to something cool to drink. I shudder to think of how much that actually cost to do that, but it wasn't cheap. A little Chinese PR work to push the term "Taikonaut" is nothing in comparison.

Re:Astronauts?

[Principal Skinner]

"Astro", "cosmo" and "naut" are all from Greek, but I agree with everything else.

Re:Astronauts?

[Vellmont]

Perhaps its popularization had something to do with the fact that Russians were the first to reach space?


I seriously doubt it. The US reached space very shortly after the Russians did. I'd also guess the word Astronaut pre-dates any actual launch of Americans/Russians into space. The press obviously needs a word for the "profession" before they actually accomplish the feat.

Re:Astronauts?

[Vellmont]

and here's the etymology:

astronaut
coined 1929 (but popularized 1961) from astro-, comb. form of Gk. astron "star" + nautes "sailor." Fr. astronautique (adj.) had been coined 1927 by "J.H. Rosny."

Tech transfer

[rijrunner]

Not sure how much I buy into that invitation. There is no real chance of anything substantial happening. China is trying to cooperate with a lot of countries now, but only the European Space Agency has really moved forward with chinese cooperation on Galileo. China did buy a couple Soyuz to help with their design work.

The biggest red-herring is all that stuff about tech transfer. China gets more tech transfer every day from US tech companies moving to China than anything they can get from building equipment to spec for joint space ventures. Most space work is pretty basic and is only a subset of regular industrial processes. There isn't really anything that special about it.

Re:Tech transfer

[demachina]

I think outsourcing space exploration would yield all the same benefits its yielding in every other sector of our economy. I'm pretty sure aerospace engineers, especially through pork laden contracts to Boeing and Lockheed are really expensive. Imagine the benefits of tapping dollar an hour Chinese aerospace engineers.

There is irony that NASA more closely resembles a corrupt Soviet or Maoist era socialist bureaucracy than anything you should be seeing in the home of the free and the land of the capitalist. Moving the work to China might be an improvement, though I would favor moving it to Russia's space agency, their labor costs are way below U.S. rates too and they have far more experience than the Chinese. They are a can do group who do way more with way less and they are willing to try innovative concepts like raising cash off well healed space tourists, they are positively entrepreneurial.

If you are dead set against outsourcing to foreigners, well then there is always Burt Rutan and T/Space. Their labor costs are high but would also do a lot more with a lot less than the current NASA politburo.

Re:Tech transfer

[lampajoo]

yeah, the technology is old technology, but the _operational experience_ that the chinese are gaining is going to be something that they can offer to other nations...even the US.

Once China starts to show up the USA..

[Prophetic_Truth]

Once China begins to show up the USA then we have another space race, go china! The US public needs to be motivated by such competition to get interest back into space. If the US is the only nation really striving in space then the willingness to dump cash into NASA by public representives is not justified unless it means those representives wont be re-elected.

Will launching 2 men into space do this? No..But its a start to eventual competition as long as China's economy continues to grow, and doesn't bust like the former Soviet Union.

Re:Once China starts to show up the USA..

[Malc]

Why do we need more mtivation to go in to space? You seem to be decribing one-upmanship, which IMHO is just a waste of taxpayer's money. If there were real reasons for going in to space then surely it would justify itself without the need to have a pissing competition.

Re:Once China starts to show up the USA..

[Cheerio Boy]

Why do we need more mtivation to go in to space?

Because we're lazy sheep who are more interested in Reality TV than possible life on mars or the scientific discoveries we could gain by going out there.

You seem to be decribing one-upmanship, which IMHO is just a waste of taxpayer's money. If there were real reasons for going in to space then surely it would justify itself without the need to have a pissing competition.

It got us to the moon didn't it? And besides - anything that makes the government not think about war and oil is a good thing in my opinion.

Now watch me pull a -12 Troll from people...

Probably not as history goes..

[Devar]

Judging by their reaction in the past, I wonder if the US will cooperate this time around.

Re:Partner? Why?

[WillerZ]

If you asked most people in Europe to rank governments in decreasing order of hostility, the US would be above China.

Phil

Free elections, non-hostile government

[Tim Ward]

I would never consider cooperating with the Chinese until China becomes a normal country (free elections, non-hostile government, etc.)

Let me guess - you're not American!

(Rigged elections; government hostile to more countries than any other government on earth.)

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[Donny Smith]

> Let me guess - you're not American!

You're right.

>(Rigged elections; government hostile to more countries than any other government on earth.)

I guess this is your opinion about the U.S.A. Well I won't comment on it - it will suffice to say that the U.S. has partnered with many countries (even the one-time enemy Japan) in space research and it worked well.

China, on the other hand, has _ongoing_ problems with proliferation, human rights and IPR. What sane government would cooperate on sensitive technologies with such country?

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[WIAKywbfatw]

Wow, it says so much that you think of one of your nation's biggest trading partners (if not the biggest) as "the one-time enemy Japan". Do you also think of Mexico and Britain in those terms?

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[Donny Smith]

>Do you also think of Mexico and Britain in those terms?

How appropriate a question (considering this is Slashdot). My original post is Troll/Flamebait and this is Funny, I guess!

Mexico and Britain: I guess you must be Irish since you are forgetting that Northern Ireland belongs to the United Kingdom?

Well sorry to disappoint you with my lack of anti-Mexican stance. I don't think anything of Mexico and the U.K.; the latter did a good job on this Hyugens project.

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[WIAKywbfatw]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm British. It just amuses me to see people talk about one of their nation's closest allies (the US and Japan have several mutual defence treaties) in terms indicative of emnity rather than friendship.

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[doodler99]

Funny to read all of these interesting postings. I am a Chinese, new generation. I don't know what the heck you are talking about, but tell you a bit truth: when we call for partnership, we mean: we are coming, we don't expect you say yes, in fact, we don't care. we know what we are doing, we know what our problems are, we are working on them. To summarize, we only care one thing: WIN, WIN, ruthless WIN. and another: DOMINATE. Chinese has to be dominate to survive. period.

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[dustmite]

Wish I had mod points to mod you +1 Informative. Americans are clueless as to the attitudes you express because they arrogantly just disregard anyone other them as too irrelevant to even think about. Yes, the US is worried (rightly, but futilely) about losing their 'technology secrets' to China, as if they can somehow stop the inevitable by preventing 'tech transfer'. "Don't let China get our secrets, and we'll keep them out of space". Puh-lease .. China is going there ANYWAY, they don't need US technology or cooperation, it might help speed up the process a little but they certainly don't need it. It's not as if China can't learn the knowledge on their own, as the US did 40 odd years ago, of course they can. So either 'cooperate and accept "2nd position" working with us', or go it 'on your own' and, well, lose ... yet the US is unable to imagine themselves in anything other than "position 1"; US vision of future sees China as second place always, so they would never accept any cooperation now that didn't have them in position of leader, yet 30 years things will look very different. Funny thing is, the US are funding Chinese development via trade deficit, and for what, a few cheap products? You said it .. China is coming, it's the dawn of the Chinese century. (And no I don't like it one bit .. ;)

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[lampajoo]

Just cause our government has some treaties with a government which it installed them doesn't mean that we trust 'em.

And for the record, we don't like you LIMEYS either. Still pissed about Washington DC getting burned... and that tax on tea was BS as well.

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[lampajoo]

When I asked my formerly chinese, now american, land lady what the chinese really thought about whites she said that they say publicly that they're the best but deep down they view us as superior. I'm kind of doubtful that a nation with a deep inferiority complex is going to dominate anything. that and the fact that europeans are the superior race...we're slumming it right now buying a lot of tvs and crap that we don't need but just watch what happens if china trys to break out of it's east asian box. A few thousand dead american GIs aside, we control the middle east...guess who's going to be buying oil from us in 30 years?

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[dustmite]

"Get out of the way" .. who is that aimed at, US or China, I can't tell? Certainly not me, because I'm neither American nor Chinese (which would have been obvious to you from my post if your reading skills were better), so your attempted insult was kinda stupid. Better luck next time. But, I agree with you 100%, USA is no different from other empires and all the hypocritial bull about freedom and democracy is just propaganda to gain support for their illegitimate cause of plundering the world's resources under guise of so-called "liberation". Bush's inauguration speech is proof that we will see more and more of this too. Fortunately China is already too powerful for the US. Unfortunately the American public is dumb enough to buy into it and believe it. War is war, it's always been about three things only: power, territory and resources. So-called "ideological" wars are really just about power. This is universal, there has never been an exception in human history, and never will be. I mean, who TF would spend billions taking over a country because they 'believed in the cause of liberation', holy crap, how stupid does a person have to be to believe that.

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[dustmite]

Europeans are the superior race? Ha ha ha! I hate to break it to you, but the peak of European civilisation has already passed (and yes, I'm white). We're has-beens, we had a good run but we're already on our way out, you only need to read up on a number of basic demographic trends in various countries to realise this. (Basically we went all soft and stopped making babies.) The problem with the US is precisely that you guys are only looking 30 years into the future and all you see is oil, all you are doing now is making sure you have oil 30 years from now. China is more far-sighted, and are looking 50-100 years into the future, when oil will no longer be irrelevant .. at which point the US will own the middle east but all they'll have is a desert, because the oil will be gone (I suppose you're going to tell me "oh please it'll never run out?"). Fact is, 30 years from now the world will be down to it's last 1/4 of oil, China knows this, and China doesn't want to have to get it's oil from the US, and so are already preparing to get the hell weaned off oil and onto the true energy source of the 21st century, nuclear (pebble-bed modular (PBMR) nuclear plants, the new relatively safe form of nuclear energy, no meltdown danger). You should do more reading, on second thoughts, no, don't worry, just keep "slumming it" and go back to watching TV and reading slashdot, don't worry, US will rule 4EVER DUDE.

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government

[lampajoo]

yeah, I've heard of PBMRs before actually. =) But for any country, especially china to be petroleum independent before serious oil shortages start just isn't believable...how will their massive fleet of internal combustion engine powered vehicles be powered by nuclear? from what I hear there's been quite an explosion in automobile ownership in china. where will they get the money for fuel cell or other wise powered electric vehicles? And all this talk about PBMRs is great, but countrys like china that have little concern for their own citizens will deploy traditional nuclear for quite awhile. also, no one really knows how much petroleum is left in the world...what you said is not a fact, it's a hunch. The oil crunch when it does occur won't come on nearly so quickly as you would like to think...it's not like we're going to wake up one morning and there won't be any gasoline at the pumps. There'll be time to adjust.

As far as declining birth rates for people of european descent go you're looking 500 years in the past. Birth rate has nothing to do with whether a civilization or race is dominant or not. China's massive population is a LIABILITY, not an asset. They know that, that's why they do so much to try to bring their birth rate down. Technology, specifically military technology, is what is important and europeans are still dominate in that arena. Space is the key to military dominance of Earth and the US and the Europeans are ahead of everyone else. Currently our hands are tied by nuclear weapons being too horrific to use and the whole MAD thing, but once the next generation of super weapons is created, by us, we will have once again engraved our name in history as the dominate race. The decline in the importance of reproduction to whites is just the beginning of the end of humanity, the next step in evolution, as we know it...reproduction decreases, life span's increase, biology is replaced by technology. most non-whites(and quite a few whites) will end up like the neanderthal.

Re:Partner? Why?

[dotwaffle]

I'd rather we (meaning the westernised countries) partner with the Chinese - we know they are honourable in keeping their contracts etc, even though we may disagree on policies. China isn't such a bad place to be - it's far better than Iran and North Korea for example :) I'm not saying we support them, I'm saying we help each other with space programmes etc - we can discuss their agenda when we become friends =)

Signed,

The Eternal Optimist, and Eternal Fool for trusting the Commies.

Ho hum.

[turgid]

This is insightful and interesting to me. On the surface, it does appear as if China is going about things the right way. I hope that they have learned from everyone else's mistakes and that they never gratuitously lose a life in the pursuit of space exploration as a result.

They *have* to launch 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Because half and hour after launching the first one, you know they're going to really want to launch some more...

:-)

Re:They *have* to launch 2

[StratoChief66]

Or when the first one comes back down in his "re-entry protective blanket" they will launch the next one. They probably shouldn't let the second guy see the first's landing...

asians tend to be good at refinement...

[capsteve]

it's my opinion that while western countries are good at cuturally breeding innovators, the eastern countries (while they also breed innovators) are better at breeding refinment. breeding sounds very commoditized, but it is meant in its broadest sense of cutural/societal influence... yes, the chinese contribution to global innovation include paper, printing press, gun powder, military strategy, martial arts, holistic medicine, feng shui and pasta, to name a few. what other innovations have asia brought us in the 19th or 20th century? the western world, on the other hand, are responsible for a fucking butt load of innovation for quite a few centuries (3?): internal combustion, pnumatice tires, radio/tv/sattelite communications, electronic computing, internet, medical and pharmacueticals... the list could keep going. this whole innovations/refinement discussion could be it's own topic of discussion... the asian countries, on the oher hand, have been really good at taking western innovations(cars, electronics, entertainment), digesting it, and regurgitating well thought out refinements. honda element, sony ps2, ringu, these are things that are now feed back to the innovators, but in the end they are really only refinements to the original.

the chinese will be the country to watch in the next few decades. they are still one of the few communist countries in existance, they have the biggest population on the globe, and they are entering the growth and refinement stage that japan, korea, and other southeastern dragons went thru in the 19th and 20th century. they also have some of the biggest problems in the world; they have the biggest population on the globe(organization will be difficult), they are still communist(not good for innovation), and they are entering a stage i their cutural development which might require more capitalistic injection from the west.

the fact that the chinese will fly more taikonauts this year has IMHO a few big implications:
1) we have the economy to support a state run space program
2) we have the cultural drive and support of the people
3) we have the resouces to make this happen
4) the biggest one is this-we're flexing our muscles-don't fuck with us!

it's also interesting that according to the article, they are extending a welcome hand in talking about working together with nasa. this is a simple publicity move to bolster their rising technical position within the world and it basically says, "we're growing up as a country and we're not to far behind you. team up with us now, and you won't be eating our dust. don't and you might get fucked". afterall the united states government has really taken a beating in the last few years regarding space, space travel safety, and global joint projects(ISS). right now the chinese are on the upswing, they are just entering the golden area of space travel that the uinited states and ussr were going thru in the 1950-1990's(golden area in terms of economic and workforce resources as well as national support). there's really a lot of multi-facet/multi-layered pros and cons teaming up with the chinese... some are good, others could be not so good. hope this venture doesn't turn america into an obedient dog on a chinese leash...

Re:asians tend to be good at refinement...

[blahplusplus]

Being communist has very little to do with innovation, what really matters is where they are spending their resources educationally and what they are doing to maintain the economy and peacefulness within their own ranks.

With over 1 billion people, once they become all educated I'd say every nation on earth will be screwed. Think about the probability of smart people from the amount of people/population they produce alone outweighs any kind of deterimental factor.

Re:asians tend to be good at refinement...

[Anonymous Coward]

"what other innovations have asia brought us in the 19th or 20th century?"

When you are being fucked over by foreign powers and have to worry about how to survive to the next day, you don't tend to have leisure time to think about science.

Just the 19th and 20th century? Why don't you complain about how the Europeans were so backward and barbaric when the Chinese or the Islam Empire or whoever were advancing technologies on all fronts?

Holly shit, get the fuck over yourself. Every peak power of its time makes significant contribution to innovating in all kinds of fronts because it can afford its citizen the resource and leisure time. It just so happens that for the past few hundrends years it has been Western countries who were in the position to dominate. All the innovations you talked of are build of previous innovations from other dynasties and powers.

When the next super power rises, it will drive even a bigger jump in progress for the rest of world, based on today's achievements. I guess by that time they can say, sure the Americans have brought us the internet, and etc., but what have they done lately? It seems that they are just good at refinements!

Re:asians tend to be good at refinement...

[djward]

the Americans have brought us the internet

Al Gore? I didn't know you posted on /.!

Re:asians tend to be good at refinement...

[ahdeoz]

It was the foreign powers that spent their leisure time thinking about science that enabled them to 'fuck over' the Chinese. And for about 1000 years Europeans complained about how backward and barbaric they were when the Chinese (Mongol) and Islam empires tried fucking them over. Realizing that brown people could beat white people in battle unless the white people applied themselves is what helped bring Europe out of the desparagingly termed "Dark Ages"

Re:asians tend to be good at refinement...

[jtbauki]

Wow what a generalization to make. I know you are trying to not tread on anyone's feet while making your grandiose theory but the fact of the matter is, white people got lucky. They were at the right place at the right time.

I read this book (forgot the name), that chronicled the history of technology and showed the surprising convergence of techonology. When the western world used arabic numbers, printing press (chinese), gunpowder(chinese), paper(chinese), these things which are the necessary precursor to modern civilization, you wonder how much is really done by the Western countries (alot for sure, but why?). Electricity and magnetism were already discovered as well as gravity and math before Franklin and Newton. I also bet a lot of us here at Slashdot are intelligent enough to discover some of those "great" discoveries like the periodic table, penicillin, and the steam engine. It's just that most people at those time periods did not have the opportunities that we have today in education and resources. They were just trying to survive. We have more scientists today than for the last 10000 years combined. The last 300 years has been an aberration in time, where people were allowed time and place to make these simple discoveries. Sure some of the discoveries are pretty complex (calculus), but even the Mayans could predict the rotation of the stars for the next 300 years (they are surprisingly accurate!). The point is, I believe, any culture could have discovered what has been done these past 300 years.

Re:Partner? Why?

[mgs1000]

So what answer do you think you would get if you asked the Taiwanese or the Japanese?

My hope is that they get the hubble

[dalutong]

I think the Chinese should say "hey, U.S. If you don't want the hubble anymore we'll take it. It is 20 year old technology so you can't be that worried about secret tech getting into our hands. We'll even give you 1 billion jiaozi for it."

Would make me happy. China would be able to get a benefit and the hubble would be able to survive. not to mention that a high publicity scientific partnership with china would help our international record.

Re:My hope is that they get the hubble

[strelitsa]

(Guinness beer commercial ON)

BRILLIANT!

(Guinness beer commercial OFF)

Re:My hope is that they get the hubble

[kacymartin]

it dosent really matter how old the technology is, if its secret then they cant have it. Cellphones are based on declassified WWII technology, and the SR-71 is 30 years old and still one of the most advanced spy planes in the world. And just look at the shuttle, it was designed in the 70's.

Re:My hope is that they get the hubble

[bullitB]

"We'll even give you 1 billion jiaozi for it."

A billion dumplings?

Yeah, I'd take it. Oh, wait, only if they're meat dumplings.

Re:My hope is that they get the hubble

[ahdeoz]

The word 'BRILLIANT' is actually older than Guinness beer commercials.

Re:My hope is that they get the hubble

[dalutong]

hey -- i love meat jiaozi as much as the next guy, but after a million they'd get old. don't you wnat some diversity?

Re:My hope is that they get the hubble

[dalutong]

actually, the concern, as i understood it, was that we didn't want to risk astronauts lives to fix it. the chinese would cough up the money. probably would pay to have their astronauts trained in how to fix the thing.

money is rarely the problem.

Re:My hope is that they get the hubble

[Guppy06]

Eh, you'll only be hungry again in a few hours anyway.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Partner? Why?

[bbc]

"If you asked more people in the world to rank governments in decreasing order of hostility, the Europeans would come out as the most hostile people *ever* to walk the earth"

"The Europeans" as an entity even remotely approaching a people hasn't existed for more than 40 years. I don't think we as Europeans have conquered or killed that much.

As Dutchmen ... ah, well, that's a whole other story. Still, my great-great-great-great grandfather has been dead way too long to still be blamed for much misdoings. Now, if we were looking for a hostile people still alive ...

But let me guess, Bill O'Reilly won't allow you to entertain such thoughts.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

such a gulf of misunderstanding

[bushboy]

Reading through the predictable series of replies - and having often replied in type myself (excuse the pun) - I find it scary the lack of knowledge and the assumptions made.

I'll donate $100 to send some soul who posts here over to China to see for themselves.

To make no presumptions.

No "based on heresay" comments.

To Actually GO THERE and report back.

Re:such a gulf of misunderstanding

[e2ka]

What? Do you expect everyone on Earth to go to every other place on Earth so that they know what they are talking about?

I'm sorry, I think heresay (news) is about the best most people can practically do.

If you think people are getting it wrong, correct them, don't tell them to get on a plane.

Re:such a gulf of misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

To Actually GO THERE and report back.

I was living in China when they sent their first taikonaut into space. It was late in the evening when I first heard a ridiculous number of firecrackers going off - not an irregular occurrence by any means, but this was exceptional for both the volume and the time of day. I went outside and discovered huge crowds of Chinese University students sending up fireworks and cheering. The general attitude was one of pride, and a sort of self-effacing aggression. "Watch out! We're coming up" but politely said to this foreigner, at least.

The government, naturally, trupeted loudly and lengthily about the glories of the P.R.C. I later heard that the U.S. subsequently forbade U.S. scientists from certain types of collaboration with the Chinese space program, and that Chinese scientists were crying with frustration; they had thought that the U.S. would welcome them onto the world stage with open arms (especially given that their launch was made in large measure with U.S. know-how), and instead they were getting the cold shoulder...

China is a cool, but crazy, place. If they ever manage to halve their population they'll be a force in the world to reckon with. If not they'll be powerful, but too burdened with the peasantry to achieve their full potential.

Re:such a gulf of misunderstanding

[808140]

Unfortunately, an informed post or two on Slashdot can do little to reverse what amounts to essentially, in the case of most Slashdotters, more than a decade of cold war propaganda.

While most of us wear our tin foil hats most of the time, for some reason we are extremely reticent when it comes to admitting to ourselves that our government has been (and in fact continues) to deliberately deceive us when it comes to world politics and affairs. This is an extremely uncomfortable realization for Americans in particular, who are taught from birth that theirs is the best nation in all respects, followed by Europe (although we're quick to point out that they were a continent of fascists before we liberated them in WWII). All other nations are either wallowing in poverty or being actively repressed by dictatorial communist sympathisers.

Consider, for example, that most Americans believe that the Chinese carry around Mao's little red book, and that the Chinese people live in a world that has no concept of freedom or individualism.

This view was most true more than three decades ago, and even then was -- as any reasonable person would expect, in a country with a population like China's -- prone to rather large regional variation, and the direct result of a power struggle between Mao Zi Dong and reform-oriented members of the CCP (the Red Army and the Cultural Revolution were, by in large, a direct result of Mao attempting to solidify power by building a cult of personality.)

The moment he died, Deng Xiao Ping pretty much went ahead and set China on the path that would transform it from a Maoist (not communist -- it was never that) dictatorship into a capitalist power likely to become the economic superpower of the 21st century.

When it comes down to it, Americans would prefer not to see the China of today. It's not surprising -- it's scary. America is begining to lose its edge. We at one point benefited from the sort of manufacturing boom that the Chinese are experiencing now -- Europe moved most of its manufacturing base to the US at one time, because it was cheaper -- and look what happened to the then thought to be unending empires that sat on the old continent: they took second seat to us.

We fear the same will happen with China. It is growing at a rate that we cannot hope to match. It is not hard to imagine, when you're in China, that they will be the next United States. This is very, very frightening.

So instead, we remain ignorant, as best we can.

Only actually going there can remove that willful ignorance. Which is why most Slashdotters will never bother.

I am American; I have lived and worked in the PRC for the better part of three years now.

China crisis!

[payndz]

I can't get to TFA. Did we just slashdot China?

Re:Remember Tiananmen

[strelitsa]

One AC calling another AC "spineless". Somebody owes me a new irony meter.

Be careful of invitations

[ScentCone]

I'm guessing that most Chinese invitations (on matters this complex) come with something along the lines of, "...and please also pass along any and all technology or intellectual property that NASA and its privately owned contractors may have or use, so that we can better help you. Don't worry, it won't ever be used to compete against you or threaten Taiwan."

Save Hubble!

[Fredbo]

Hey maybe the Chinese will be able to get a program together to save the Hubble...

Re:Partner? Why?

[bbc]

If Napolean was a European (as opposed to a Frenchman or Corsican), then by extension Americans are Europeans too, and all the USA's wrongdoings of the recent past should be written on Europe's tab too.

You appear to be a bit of thicky, so why bother, but I'll try again: we were comparing actions of nations, not those of continents. (Continents don't do much in the way of killing.) Nations are often tied to states, and states have budgets and borders. One state can negotiate with another state, and a state can decide not to deal with another state because of its undemocratic and hostile behaviour.

As I said before, Europe as an entity to be bargained with (and to accept or dismiss over past atrocities and current political behaviour) hasn't existed for more than 40 years.

Re:Partner? Why?

[strelitsa]

Were France (and Corsica by extension), Russia, and Germany physically move out of Europe while I slept last night or something? That's what I get for missing staff meetings. I've got to start drinking more coffee or vente cappuccino - this "sleep" thing I'm addicted to is obviously cutting into my learning time.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons. Read the quote from the article:

". . . there is an arrangement for astronauts to move from the spaceship's re-entry module to live and do scientific tests in the craft's orbital module."

The Chinese orbiter appears to be a modular craft, more like Apollo than Gemini. The Chinese "re-entry module" would be the capsule, with the "orbital module" being the can.

By the way, SF writers and other students of the future have noted for decades that when the Chinese take a serious interest in space, the rest of us had better get busy or get out of the way.

Have a nice war,
Mal the Elder

Re:RTFA

[jonwil]

Actually, by the sounds of it its more like Soyuz than Apollo.

Re:Partner? Why?

[Atomic Frog]

Unlike the good ol' USA? Who is hostile to just about everyone, including its own citizens?

I went to DC _before_ 9/11, every single bloody federal building had metal detectors and bag searches before we could get in. They automatically _assume_ everyone is against them.

I'm a f**king US citizen (by birth, not by choice), and I do not feel safe with with the Feds. I recently went to the social security building. The procedure? 1 person through the door at a time, metal detector, search and all. There's an old granny with a cane (not visible minority) ahead of me. They took her cane and made her take off her shoes and belts before making her hobble through the metal detector.

I'd be more worried about the US Government than the Chinese government. At least in China, they're nominally a dictatorship, but the average citizen gets left alone (if you guys know anyone there, you'll know the situation is way over-blown). Unless you do mass protests in public, you'll get no trouble.

In America, geeze, the average citizen should worry about getting unfair treatment from the gov., the cops, anybody in the "estabilishment", especially if you're the wrong colour.
The worst I've done is speeding tickets (and that's not even in America), and everytime I cross the border, they're not friendly at all.

Is America free? Shit no! Didn't those protestors get prevented from getting X feet away from the Republican/Democratic conventions?
"You can only protest under our rules" -- what kind of country does that sound like to you?

The safest, free-est country in the world is not USA. In a free country, you can do what you want, you don't have to lock the doors, you don't have to worry about somebody wanting to beat the shit out of you.

hmmm

[wikinerd]

Chinese are inviting the US to cooperate in space, but I suspect that they want to spy on US space technology. I wouldn't trust the Chinese government, and I think USA should seek more cooperation with EU, Japan and Russia (depending on its future democratisation). We, the Europeans, can offer much more to USA in space than the Chinese. We have space facilities in French Guiana, close to the Equator, which is the best place for launching rockets in space. No other space power has access to the Equator, including USA. We signed a deal with Russia to let them access the European space centre in South America, but I think we can sign a similar deal with the Americans, too. I believe NASA could save money by launching rockets from French Guiana instead of Canaveral.

Re:hmmm

[CavemanKiwi]

Actually the US have several Islands in the the South Pacfic Ocean that are very close the Equator. I am not sure how large or how suitible they are for a Space launch program but the US certainly has access to Islands in very close range to the Equator.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even need islands; some rocket launch ventures are using sea-based platforms. Still, French Guinea (or is that Freedom Guinea?) is a mainland site with established space infrastructure. I'm not sure shipping all that US hardware down south makes sense, though, especially considering how labor-intensive the shuttle program is, for example. For commercial launches, it makes sense, and US companies already launch on ESA rockets like Ariane.

Re:hmmm

[fyrewulff]

That would be nice, but what about transporting the Shuttles and etc down there? They might be saving money not moving everything down to the Equator. There's also the fact that we can have our own warplanes and military to protect our shuttle launches against attack, whereas I don't believe we have the same luxury down there.

Re:Money for Space but None for Tsunami Victims

[jameszhou2000]

Just for your information, the population of China is more than four times larger, compared to the states. Even if you count it as a whole, the overall GDP (according wordbank's 2003 data) of China is only a little bit more than 1/8 of US's.

Now you do the rest of the calculations if Chinese are generous or not, compared to the states.

Re:Money for Space but None for Tsunami Victims

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

"1 order of magnitude more" means "10 times as much". Order of magnitude change is a +/-1 exponential change. From your list above, it seems only Australia contributed an order of magnitude more than China. Yes, this still leaves China in the last place (measured by absolute values various countries donated), but let's not exaggerate.

Re:Money for Space but None for Tsunami Victims

[jameszhou2000]

I just found out your numbers are not correct. I don't know if you do it intentionally. Mainland China contributed US$60 million (that number is from PRC government only. The number of donations from the public is not counted.) Considering Chinese in mainland are still extrememly poor, the number is good enough. A person who earns 100 dollars a day may find it is OK to donate just 1 dollar, but a person who earns 1 dollar a day may have difficulties to contribute even 10 cents. In terms of Taiwan, it contributed US$ 55.6 millon, and that put Taiwan as the number 8 on the list. Hong Kong (as a city) contributed 0.7 billion Hong Kong dollars that is US$ 89.7 million. That is, on an average, each person in Hong Kong contributes 100 HK$ which is about 13 US dollars. That is the world's highest record!

Re:Money for Space but None for Tsunami Victims

[jameszhou2000]

I just found out your numbers are not correct. I don't know if you do it intentionally.

Mainland China contributed US$60 million (that number is from PRC government only. The number of donations from the public is not counted.) Considering Chinese in mainland are still extrememly poor, the number is good enough. A person who earns 100 dollars a day may find it is OK to donate just 1 dollar, but a person who earns 1 dollar a day may have difficulties to contribute even 10 cents.

Hong Kong (as a city) contributed 0.7 billion Hong Kong dollars that is US$ 89.7 million. That is, on an average, each person in Hong Kong contributes 100 HK$ which is about 13 US dollars. That is the world's highest record!

In terms of Taiwan, it contributed US$ 55.6 millon, and that put Taiwan as the number 8 on the list.

Re:Partner? Why?

[seb249]

Your right there - have looked at the American version of democracy over the last few years and have come to the conclusion myself that they are far from the free'est nation in the world. Its more like you can only have freedom if you have the money to buy it!

Re:Money for Space but None for Tsunami Victims

[dustmite]

Hey troll, let's look at the ratio of military spending to tsunami aid: China military spending: $60 billion. Ratio: 1000/1.
USA military spending: $370 billion. Ratio: about 1050/1. Funny, I don't see any significant difference in the degree to which the priorities are distorted towards military rather than humanitarian spending, in fact the US fairs slightly worse.

Of course, you also neglect the incredibly obvious fact that this should be weighed against GDP for it to mean anything. Or do you seriously think that if Bill Gates gives $100 of his own cash to a charity, that that makes him more generous than a very poor person who gives $20 to that charity? That would be, um, dumb.

Your US aid figure amounts to a puny $1 donation per American. Wow, you guys are so generous, bet that $1 of yours really broke ya. Funny, a large percentage of Chinese people have to live off less than $1 a day.

Something is fishy here...

[pclminion]

Why would they announce this? Surely they don't want to risk a complete disaster in front of a global audience. I would have thought that the initial flights would be completely secret (of course, the intelligence communities would know about it through their spies, but not the general public).

Either China is supremely confident that this is going to work, or they've already done manned testing without making it public.

I'd make a small wager that these are not, in fact, the first two Chinese to fly into space on a Chinese rocket. Perhaps it's happened before, but in secret...

Relationships

[Mishra100]

I think relationships with other countries is a lot more important than giving away "secret" technologies. Maybe if the US showed more of a want to cooperate with other coutries, they would be willing to work (and not steal, if that is even true) from the US. World relationships can save lives and make things like invading Iraq easier which saves more lives... This is, of course, after we have established healthy relationships with other countries... Which will never happen since the US likes to try to take control of any operation.

Re:Put up or SHUT UP

[dustmite]

Um, it's a bit late to pretend this was "really about Japan": The poster put US at position "1" and said "Westerners are, at least, 1 order of magnitude more compassionate than the Chinese". I didn't know Japanese were Westerners.

Our military force is a force for good

OMW, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, that has to be the single most naive comment I've ever read on slashdot. Wake up man, do a bit of research, the real world is out there waiting for you to learn about it if you'll only stop blindly believing everything you see on Fox and everything Bush says.

Fucking Walmart Storm Troopers

[Shihar]

Don't you hate it when corporations send out their black death squads to KILL the competition? Wal-Mart has not death squads, neither does Starbucks. Nations hold a monopoly on force that corporations can't even begin to contemplate competing against. If the US government, or even the government of ass backwards mud-hut-vil decides that it is kicking a corporation out by force and taking all of their stuff, then that corporation is going to lose, every single time.

Further, you miss the larger point that even if a corporation decides to run around with guns, the only thing they can get their hands on are mercenaries. Mercenaries are in it for the money. People like that don't risk their lives. You can inspire a nationalist do go charging head first into a machine gun nest or charge a beach head. We did it all the time in World War II. Hell, people still do it today. When a guy jumps into a car loaded with a bomb and drives it into a check point, he knows that when he pulls the trigger he is going to die.

Fear of corporate armies is silly and stupid. Even if corporations became powerful enough to create their own, and even if nation states didn't smack them down long before they got powerful, you still couldn't override the simple fact that you can inspire a nationalist (military or civilian) to go get himself killed to take an objective, but that a mercenary will tell you to go fuck yourself.

You read WAY too much Sci-Fi and take it for face value. The evil corporate death squads are not going to eat you.

Re:why would China partner with America?

[fyrewulff]

We can, but we have grounded the shuttles for now via our own decision, not from any technical or money issues.

Not entirely true

[mosb1000]

Companies do (often) spend money on projects without a guaranteed return. The problem is that they will only spend a small amount on such projects, and they often demand intellectual property rights in return. It can also be seen in the form of underwriting (happens a lot in universities) which companies do for PR reasons.

Also, there are cases where this kind research happens in private industry. For example, Space Ship One was developed with the help of a $10 million investment from Paul Allen, even though he was unlikely to earn a return on this investment. It's true that you won't see corporations doing this kind of thing, but wealthy individuals will invest in these projects if they want to see the research get done.

I've seen people argue that companies would do the research more efficiently than the government. And that if the government didn't tax the economy in order to do research, companies would do it themselves (because they would have more money to invest in future earnings). But the government spends ten times as much on social programs as on R&D, so I can't imagine that cutting government R&D would have a noteworthy effect. Now, cutting social spending, that's where the real money is at.

Also, perhaps if IP laws were such that companies could make money on really long-term research, that might help with the problem. Perhaps, you could say that a patent is only worth some multiple of what the R&D cost, and that amount increases over time.

Re:Partner? Why?

[BeerCat]

Interesting comments. I was passing through Dulles, before Sep 11, and noticed that the line in immigration for US citizens moved more slowly than the one for the foreign rascals (like me). On the other hand, on return to the UK, and changing terminals at London Heathrow, the immigration was along the lines of "EU passport? That's fine. On you go. The US citizens changing terminals did get their passports looked at, but it still wasn't as long as arriving in US.

After 9/11, it looks as though the US government really lost the plot (at least as far as airport security goes). In the UK, apart from the "no sharp objects" (but you can have all the booze you want, in nice glass bottles. Go figure), things are pretty much as they were before.

Re:Put up or SHUT UP

[jcr]

Dustmite,

I notice that your snarky comment above was written in English, not German, Japanese or Russian. Consider for a moment why that is..

-jcr

Militarization Not Bad; No Reason to Work with PRC

[reallocate]

1. Militarization, by itself, is not bad. Human history amply demonstrates that some of us are quite capable of killing many of us to advance our own aims. Turning the other cheek often results in a temporary, and false, sense of moral superiority, followed by violent death.

2. Soviet militatization of space, or anything else, was bad.

3. The U.S. has everything to lose and nothing to gain by cooperating with China in space. It amounts to little more than an invitation to share technology with China's 1960's-era program.

4. If China wants something, let them become a real democracy first. If the Chinese people, at least the Chinese people in Beijing and other large cities, value prosperity more than their freedom, we should walk away until they come to their senses.

Re:Militarization Not Bad; No Reason to Work with

[yangsta]

Why does it matter that China is not a "real democracy"?

Do you really think people in the U.S. "value prosperity more than their freedom"? What would the people vote for if given the choice between tax cuts plus less "freedom" and tax hikes and more "freedom"?

I put "freedom" in quotes here because remember that the purpose of any government (and any organized institution such as most religions) IS to control people and reduce their freedoms. Some are more overt, and some give people the illusion of being "free".

Re:Money for Space but None for Tsunami Victims

[808140]

It's already been pointed out that your numbers aren't totally correct, but as someone who lives in China and works with Chinese, I too have noticed that, in this case at least, the Chinese aren't particularly eager to give. My company did a fundraising drive (among our employees) for donations and pretty much no one gave, which we considered to be in pretty poor form. Asking around, I was surprised to find that many of the locals here are actually not very fond of Indonesia. Apparently they have a history of mistreating (in the eyes of the people here) their substantial ethnically Chinese minority.

The Chinese consider being Chinese to be a blood thing, not a matter of legal citizenship or passport, or even connection with Chinese culture. Therefore, an ABC who has lived in California for 4 generations and knows little or nothing about China and the Chinese is considered Chinese. This extends to all overseas Chinese communities.

Anyway, my view is that this isn't a good excuse. We Americans also disagree with much of Indonesia's political activities, both past and present. Don't forget, though, that we initially pledged only 35 million USD, and are much more wealthy.

The Chinese could definitely give more (in fact, everyone could). But maybe this bit of background information explains a little bit about why the people are responding the way they are.

Re:Put up or SHUT UP

[808140]

The fact that our military might and economic influence have propagated the spread of our language and culture is seen as righteous and just by you, an English speaker, is hardly surprising.

The question you should be asking yourself is, do the cultures, languages and peoples we've displaced or otherwised influenced with our own benefit in mind benefit in the same way that you have? Would the people from those cultures who speak those languages agree?

The world has been and continues to be forcibly America-fied. As Americans, we naturally see nothing wrong with this, but perhaps we ought to look at ourselves a little more critically. Why, in the long run, is English being spoken by most of the world any better or different than Japanese or Russian? After all, the speakers of all these languages have commited horrible acts. Is one better than the other, really?

I'm not sure the world is as simple as you think it is.

Re:Put up or SHUT UP

[jcr]

The fact that our military might and economic influence have propagated the spread of our language and culture is seen as righteous and just by you, an English speaker, is hardly surprising.

I see that you've completely missed the point.

The question you should be asking yourself is, do the cultures, languages and peoples we've displaced or otherwised influenced with our own benefit in mind benefit in the same way that you have? Would the people from those cultures who speak those languages agree?

I'm sure they would. Ask any German, Russian, or Japanese person whether they'd rather be living under fascism, communism, or an emperor-cult theocracy.

-jcr

Launching two people into space isn't hard

[melted]

Getting them back alive is the hard part of the problem, usually. Even the almighty NASA blows up a few people every now ant then.

Re:Launching two people into space isn't hard

[lampajoo]

yeah... but the chinese government doesn't value human life at all so it won't be a big deal for them if it does blow up.

Re:Launching two people into space isn't hard

[melted]

My thinking exactly. :0) With a population of 1.3B, they'll run out of money much sooner than they'll run out of people. Besides, reducing the population is one of their strategic goals anyway. :0)

Re:Put up or SHUT UP

[808140]

With respect, all of your examples are designed to make what is in reality complex look simple. In actuality:

The Japanese youth of today, having never experienced the Shintoist military state that was pre-WW2 Japan, are ill-qualified to answer your question. Further, elderly Japanese people who remember pre-WW2 typically remember a powerful nation and days of glory, humiliated and humbled in a war they lost. Are you so sure they would agree that their nation today is better off because we won WW2? I understand that from your perspective, of course democracy is better than an "emperor-cult" theocracy. But the Japanese who were defeated in WW2, well, they might not agree. Even now, Japanese president Koizumi frequently visits the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo to pay his respects to Japan's WW2 fallen, many of whom were directly responsible for such atrocities as the Rape of Nanjing.

Similarly, despite your assumption that Russians prefer their current government to the soviet one, the Communist party remains popular in Russia, winning elections, interestingly enough. Yeltsin's main opponents in his re-election campaign were the communists, and he nearly lost. Putin is a strong candidate, of course, and he isn't as easily challenged, but they continue to show strongly in local elections. For a nation that no longer has any reason to support them, the Russian communist party are not seen by the Russians as being the evil you presume them to be. I wonder why that is?

I will concede the German point -- Germans are so overcome by guilt over the holocaust that they see their time under Hitler as having had no redeeming characteristics. I'm not sure how much of that is due to our (as in, the occupiers of West Germany) efforts to educate them on how inhumane their actions during WW2 were, and how much of it is just common sense once you've been presented with the facts. But the fact remains that I know no German that would say anything good about those times, and so I'm forced to concede your point.

My point, which you seem to have completely missed, is that irrespective of whether or not our way of life is or is not better, the people that we force it on may not agree with us or our motives. Even now.

Let me make one thing clear, though, lest you misunderstand: I am not suggesting that I believe that communism, facism, or "emperor-cult theocracies" are better than the democracies that now exist (or mostly exist) in the countries you've indirectly mentioned. What I am pointing out is that the jury, especially in the countries in question, is very much still out, and that we, the USA, have acted unilaterally and in our best interests in much of the world.

Even if we accept, on the face of it, that our acts during WW2 and later the cold war resulted in a better life for the people of the countries whose goverments we toppled, there are many other examples of our meddling that have not turned out so well -- Latin America being a prominent example. My argument is with your assertion that we use our military for good, rather than to our own ends. I argue that we as a nation are primarily motivated by our own best interests, and that in certain cases, our own best interests have resulted in a better life for the people that we've decided to use. We (and the other Allies, minus the USSR) changed West Germany from occupied enemy nation into Ally because they were the front line in the Cold War. We helped them develop economically instead of keeping them crippled to serve our own ends, and they benefited from this, certainly.

Japan, too, was initially seen as a country we needed to occupy, lest they start their bloody rampage again. It was only because of their proximity to Korea that we began truly considering them an ally -- their convenient location and educated population made them an ideal place to build the military presence we would need to defeat -- or at least, stop -- Kim Il Sung in a proxy war with the USSR.

Re:Militarization Not Bad; No Reason to Work with

[reallocate]

>> Why does it matter that China is not a "real democracy"?

China's government denies the Chinese people their aboslute right to govern themselves. Any and all governments not elected by the people are illegitimate. No one has any obligation to obey the edicts of those governments. That's why they resort to force to compel behavior. (See the Declaration of Indepenence. All this is nicely articulated there, in much better prose than I can create.)

>> Do you really think people in the U.S. "value prosperity more than their freedom"?

No. That's why I did not say that.

>> What would the people vote for if given the choice between tax cuts plus less "freedom" and tax hikes and more "freedom"?

Depends on where each voter stands politically and whether they perceive the tax cut will benefit them or won't. If the cut reduces or eliminates government activities that you need or want and cannot fund by yourself or that the private sector does not provide, then the cut will reduce your freedom.

>> ...the purpose of any government (and any organized institution such as most religions) IS to control people and reduce their freedoms.

Absolutely wrong. The purpose of a democratic government is to protect and sustain the freedoms of the governed. This is not equivalent to allowing anyone to do anything they want at any time. That is anarchy, which is directly opposed to freedom.

No Blood for Chips

[mi]

Although substantial US force is sitting nearby (including, like, two carrier groups and 50K Marines in Japan), I'm afraid, US may chicken out at the end.

I can just imagine the "No Blood for Chips" marches on Washington and "Give Peace a Chance" sit-ins, while Taiwanese defenses are dismembered.

Japan will need to amend its Constitution (again) to do anything.

I too hope, the Taiwanese will prevail, but it is not certain -- and we (rightly) promised to help them.

irrelevant = relevant [NT]

[dustmite]

(minor correction)

will they beat the return of the shuttle?

[peter303]

I guess its abotu 50-50. The shuttle return is already at least a year beyond its initial date. Some of the new things like the on-board repair kits and new fuel tanks took longer than originally predicted.

Re:Militarization Not Bad; No Reason to Work with

[yangsta]

Any and all governments not elected by the people are illegitimate.

That's an opinion, not a fact. The authors of the Declaration of Independence also had opinions, but there is nothing sacred about their opinions. I have great respect for figures such as TJ, but remember that everyone has his/her own agenda. You can research the motives of the "founding fathers" further to find out more.

In western democracies, people are bombarded over and over again with why democracy is good, and why it's the best form of government; this brainwashing is not really different from the kind people governed by what you would consider lesser forms of government receive.

No. That's why I did not say that.
Not explicitly, but you implied it when you said:
If the Chinese people, at least the Chinese people in Beijing and other large cities, value prosperity more than their freedom, we should walk away until they come to their senses.
Saying that "we should walk away until they come to their senses" would imply that "we" are "in our senses".

The purpose of a democratic government is to protect and sustain the freedoms of the governed.

Again, this is an opinion. I disagree with that opinion.

To make it a fact, it can be better phrased as:
"The purpose of a democratic government, as stated by that government, is to protect and sustain the freedoms of the governed."

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it's extremely important to sometimes maintain a more removed perspective not subject to direct government propaganda. I am a Chinese citizen currently living in the U.S., and I've heard the schpiel from both sides.

Re:Militarization Not Bad; No Reason to Work with

[reallocate]

If I am not allowed to express my approval or disapproval of those who govern me, then how can that government be consider legitimate? Clearly, it cannot, unless one accepts a standard of legitimacy that does not consider the needs and rights of the governed. However, that would be tantamount to arguing that governments exist to benefit the interests of the few who govern. That is morally unacceptable.

The question of a government's legitimacy is not a question of opinion or of correctness. It is a moral and ethical question. We are all born free and independent actors. That freedom is not a gift of any government. Any authority held by any government can exist only because it is granted by the governed, or because it is stolen from the governed.

I frequently get the impression that many people believe their rights are provided by the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Or more dangerous. No one in the U.S. and other Western democracies believes the government or their country's constitution created the rights they possess. We possess those rights by simple virtue of our birth. Our constitutions recognize and protect those rights, but they are not the agents of their creation. I was born an American, but my rights and freedoms would be the same had I been born in Beijing in 1949 or in Moscow in 1917 or as a Jew in Berlin in 1933 or anywhere else at any time.

Pay China to repair Hubble

[heroine]

With congress overrulling NASA again on even a robotic servicing mission and most of u.s. wanting to get out of science and technology, now is the time to pay China to do space missions.

Chinese PR stunt?

[Principal Skinner]

I'm not one to defend the Chinese commies, but this time I think they really had nothing to do with it. As stated above, all their English news releases use the word "astronaut".

The sad thing is, this all started with a Malaysian guy inventing the word, and, somehow, much of the Western press bought into it and began spreading it.

Re:Put up or SHUT UP

[jcr]

Are you so sure they would agree that their nation today is better off because we won WW2?

Have you ever met a Japanese farmer who is old enough to remember life under the military dictatorship of Tojo?

I have, and yes, I'm quite sure that all but the lunatic fringe of Japanese society would agree that they're better off today than they were under the "greater east-asia co-prosperity sphere."

I'm not saying Fidel is a good guy, but neither was Pinochet.

I would agree that it's a sad thing that the USA never toppled Pinochet, as well as many other dictators that needed killing, but that doesn't diminish the good that was done in toppling Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, Duvalier, Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein.

Our military has only occasionally been a force of good. Let's not be too quick to generalize.

No, our military has usually been a force for good, and your own generalizations do not convince me otherwise.

-jcr

Re:Militarization Not Bad; No Reason to Work with

[iminplaya]

No one has any obligation to obey the edicts of those governments.

Even if they have copyright law? Does that mean that if China adopts American style copyright, we can continue to ignore it and copy Chinese music and movies willy-nilly because their gov't is not legit in your eyes? That kind of flies in the face of the things you state on the copyright threads. Or do we only have an obligation to obey American/European law because they appear to be elected by their peoples? Or if their laws match ours? Define legitimacy. Is it 51%? 10% with guns? 100 lawyers? What? We already have to many people that say that the 1st amendment of the American Constitition goes "too far" in protecting rights. What are you going to do when they become the majority and the amendment is eliminated? It will be legitimate, right? Are you going accept it because it's the law and demand that we obey it also? Good luck trying to change it legally if you don't like it.

Re:Militarization Not Bad; No Reason to Work with

[reallocate]

The person who creates something has all rights to it, and retains all rights to it unless he transfers those rights to someone else. Copyright laws differ regarding how much they recognize that reality.

Legislation, as should be obvious, does not determine right or wrong, or reality. What I make is mine. That includes every possible benefit I might acquire. If you believe differently, let's hear it.