Slashdot Mirror


China to Land on Moon Around 2017

smooth wombat writes "China has announced that it plans to land on the moon around the year 2017. They also plan to set up a moon-based astronomical telescope, measure the thickness of the moon's soil as well as the amount of helium-3 on the moon. Helium-3 is regarded by some researchers as the perfect non-polluting fuel source. China's first lunar orbiter could blast off as early as 2007, coinciding with its third manned space trip in which possibly three men would orbit Earth in Shenzhou VII and conduct a space walk."

293 comments

  1. Taking Their Sweet Time by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "China has announced that it plans to land on the moon around the year 2017. ... China's first lunar orbiter could blast off as early as 2007..."

    10 years to landon the moon?!?!? How many cows do they have tied up to the booster housing?

    I could see 3 to 5 years, but this isn't exactly new rocket science, is it? Is there some matter of the Russians and Americans not sharing with them, or are the Chinese just so proud they want to do it all themselves?

    The United States unveiled a $104 billion plan in September to return Americans to the moon by 2018.

    I fully don't understand that. NASA already knows how to do it. Why the foot dragging? They got to the Moon practically at Warp Speed compared to this mission. It's a sad day to learn all my Sci-Fi books will be further wrong on projections of lunar colonies, etc.

    China was designing a rocket that could carry a payload of 25 tons, up from a present limit of eight tons, the Beijing News reported this week, though it would unlikely be ready for another six-and-a-half years.

    Time to chuck the abacus and get some computers in those hands.

    They should land just in time for the 100th Starbucks opening.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      US knows how to do it with 1960's technology, making the moon viable as a platform for other activities, requires almost repeating the Apollo program all over again. Why? Because all moon activity was stopped in 1972 when the last 2 Apollo flights were scrapped.

      Plus maybe the most imporant factor: money. I guess China needs 10 year to spread the cost. Or would you rather pay for it? (And here I mean you, as in US citizens) USA owns China a LOT of money, i.e. China sits on wast dollar reserves. and can easily drive the value of dollar down the drain and/or raise the US interest rate a few points. Result of the almost 8 trillion dollar deficit USA has.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    2. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no touch on the physics/energy involved in this. Plus, the financial backing isn't like it was during the cold war.

      Stop your ranting and go learn something.

    3. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by fade-in · · Score: 1
      Watch the perjoratives, already. For a nation which is just barely emerging from third-world status, that is a very admirable feat.

      Moreover, the fact that "we already know how to do it" doesn't mean we don't have to design and build entirely new vehicles. After all, engineering and software are light-years ahead of where they were when we first landed on the moon; are you suggesting we take the old 16-bit Apollo computers out of mothballs and re-use them?

      --
      This sig is inappropriate in a post-9/11 world.
    4. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Watch the perjoratives, already. For a nation which is just barely emerging from third-world status, that is a very admirable feat.

      These aren't cavemen. Their economy is growing at a blistering rate and they're graduating plenty of engineers through domestic and foreign universities. They don't need to get a bunch of old V2 rockets and figure out how it's done.

      Moreover, the fact that "we already know how to do it" doesn't mean we don't have to design and build entirely new vehicles. After all, engineering and software are light-years ahead of where they were when we first landed on the moon; are you suggesting we take the old 16-bit Apollo computers out of mothballs and re-use them?

      Haven't you seen that these are exactly the plans NASA are considering? Going back to the Saturn V as a basis for all space missions. The Russians have it running so regular it's becoming a bus service for rich tourists. You don't advance one item of technology at a time, such as the old computers, but have all the bits worked on by various companies or universities or even at NASA. This isn't new stuff and much has been gleened from experience.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      US knows how to do it with 1960's technology, making the moon viable as a platform for other activities, requires almost repeating the Apollo program all over again. Why? Because all moon activity was stopped in 1972 when the last 2 Apollo flights were scrapped.

      Some parts will scarcely change, while others which may take advantage of advances in materials and computers shouldn't lag much as we've still got active launch programs for shuttles and satellites. It's not like the people who did it all suddenly died and their knowledge was lost.

      Plus maybe the most imporant factor: money. I guess China needs 10 year to spread the cost.

      You've obviously mistaken China for a poor country.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Funny

      "[...] China sits on wast dollar reserves [...]"
       
      ...which they need in order to pay for their nuclear wessels.

      (I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.)

    7. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      China has announced that it plans to land on the moon around the year 2017...

      All of it??? Well, in that case they should take their sweet time.

    8. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      "sits on wast dollar reserves. and can easily drive the value of dollar down the drain and/or raise the US interest rate a few points."
      You see that is the funny thing. If China drove down the value of the dollar then cheap stuff from china wouldn't be cheap! The less reason for jobs to be out sourced and production would shift back to the US. China can not afford to devalue the dollar or have it's currency go up. The last thing they want is to become a consumer economy instead of an exporting one. What you think would hurt the US would actually in the long run help it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      are you suggesting we take the old 16-bit Apollo computers out of mothballs and re-use them?
       
      Nah, why should we bring out the old 16-bit Apollo computers when we can just buy a bunch of commodity Dells and emulate them with this!

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    10. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China isn't in a rush to get there. They know someone else been there first, so there is no need to rush the project by dumping more money at it just to say they got there. Chinas goal it seems to be to say they were the first to do something usefull on the moon and you can't really do that by doing only the min of work it takes to get a few people and small equipment.

      They also know that its a very big possibility that they wont be able to do anything useful on the moon to warent spending a bunch of money at one time just to get there faster

    11. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1
      How many cows do they have tied up to the booster housing?.....Time to chuck the abacus and get some computers in those hands.
      The sad thing is, such ignorance and nearly racist stereotyping will probably attract some 'insightful' mod points.
      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    12. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

      They could just stand on each other's shoulders like they did in the kung fu movies.

    13. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA basically tossed everything it had on the Saturn V to justify funding for the shuttle.

      The US and NASA do not have heavy lift capability. We would have to develop it again from scratch.

    14. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by mikapc · · Score: 1

      China doesn't have as much control over us economically as you might think. The US has a nearly 12 trillion gross domestic product according to the cia world factbook, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/, so while the trend of deficits is a bad thing and could one day lead to China having that kind of leverage over us they are by no means there yet.

    15. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by magarity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've obviously mistaken China for a poor country
       
      Not quite but it's the next best (?) thing. China is a country full of poor people. These space missions are rah-rah points for the leadership to show how great the country is on the world scene so the sustinence farmers making do on $800/year will feel as if their sacrifices are not in vain.

    16. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by tabatj · · Score: 1

      The federal debt is over $8 Trillion http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/. The deficit is the yearly increase.

    17. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      China sits on wast dollar reserves. and can easily drive the value of dollar down the drain and/or raise the US interest rate a few points. Result of the almost 8 trillion dollar deficit USA has.

      Why would they ever do that? If someone owed you $1000, would you like the money they owe you to be worth something or would you rather have them repay you in funds that are worthless to you?

    18. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      Thanks. Now I need a new kbard. C|n>K

    19. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Yenin · · Score: 1

      It seems that China is giving a fairly realistic estimate of what they can actually do. Unlike certain other space faring nations who think that they can get to Mars just by saying so.

    20. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2017, 2018? By then Sir Richard Branson will be enjoying lunar blowjobs on a regular basis.

    21. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Not quite but it's the next best (?) thing. China is a country full of poor people. These space missions are rah-rah points for the leadership to show how great the country is on the world scene so the sustinence farmers making do on $800/year will feel as if their sacrifices are not in vain.

      China had 3 billionaires in 2004, this year they've got 10.

      Adjusting income for cost of living, there's plenty poor people in the USA.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    22. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      How many cows do they have tied up to the booster housing?.....Time to chuck the abacus and get some computers in those hands.

      The sad thing is, such ignorance and nearly racist stereotyping will probably attract some 'insightful' mod points.

      I suffer no illusions the number of engineers China is educating and getting educated at foreign universities. They have 7th? largest economy already and will have the largest in a few years. They won't need cows to jump over the moon. I expect they will achieve moon landing far sooner than they state.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    23. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by aasitus · · Score: 1
      One thing I can never understand is why exactly everything takes so damn long.

      For example, here in Finland there's a plan to have all the commuter trains in the Helsinki metropolitan area replaced by no later than 2025!

      Well, in a huuuuge metropolis like Helsinki there may even be as many as twenty trains (well, I don't really know, but they can't have too many), so it's a good thing the wise men have left themselves plenty of time to fulfill their promises.

    24. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These aren't cavemen. Their economy is growing at a blistering rate and they're graduating plenty of engineers through domestic and foreign universities.

      That's great. Can we stop sending them my tax dollars, then?

    25. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      It was actually a custom made 15 bit computer with 4k ram. I doubt today software programmers with their Windows only backgrounds would even know how to turn it on, let alone write an entire guidance system that would fit in those memory constraints.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    26. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by hey! · · Score: 1

      In the 60s, we went to the moon to show we had the greatest manhood. After we got there we immediately lost interest for thirty years. Now we're going to do it again.

      Of course, there's no glory in doing what the US has done already and is planning to do again, so the Chinese plan has to have a novel aspect: do something useful when you get there.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      You can bet that the USA will not let another country get to the moon before we do (again). If China actually starts to produce the hardware to go to the moon by 2017, then the US president will announce that we will return to the moon by 2015. You'll see . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    28. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I fully don't understand that. NASA already knows how to do it. Why the foot dragging?

      I guess its because of two reasons.

      The first reason is that NASA doesn't know how to get to the Moon. It's been such a long time since the last Moon mission that the people who worked on it have retired. Their knowledge went with them. What NASA has are technical documents; however, that is not the same as having actual knowledge and understanding how everything works.

      Considering the complexity of the technology in question, and the risks involved, simply reading through the documents, figuring out what can go wrong and what to do if some particular thing does, and training both crew and ground crew is going to take a lot of time. Then there's the fact that the Moon missions used technology which is decades old by now; simply getting the neccessary parts to build new ships might be a serious issue. And if you redesign using modern technology, then you have a new and therefore untested design, which needs to be tested, which takes time.

      The second reason is that at some point people got this crazy idea that space travel - strapping yourself to hundreds of tons of highly flammable liquid and setting it on fire to create a controlled explosion to ride its pressure wave to space, and falling back down in a blazing fireball - is safe. This idea is completely wrong. Spaceships are at the very limit of todays technology, and accidents happen. And when they do, there's a huge backlash against NASA and manned spaceflights.

      Quite simply, getting to Moon with todays technology is pretty much the same as trying to cross the Atlantic with an aeroplane made from wooden sticks and cloth. Possible, but difficult and dangerous. And all the while vultures are waiting and hoping for an accident, since it is a chance to score political points by telling everyone that spaceflights are too dangerous and should be cancelled.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the trade deficit is something completely different from either of those.

    30. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by jgmaynard · · Score: 1

      NASA doesn't even know how to do it with 1960's tech at all... ALl the plans for the Saturn Five were destroyed after the program ended. Besides, who would want to use the 1960.9 distro? lol JM

    31. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by jgmaynard · · Score: 1

      The other thing entering into this is that the value of Chinese Yan is tied to the U.S. dollar - it's not an independently valued currency.... JM

    32. Re:Taking Their Sweet Time by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      They want it that way. The US goverment wants the Yan to go up vs the dollar.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. China to Land on Moon Around 2017 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The correct subject has to be:

    2017 the Moon has landed on China.

  3. Helium-3 is great and all... by Krach42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But since it's a fermion, it can't become a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

    Sorry... too much Wikipedia :(

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    1. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Helium-3 is really just an excuse. We can make all the helium-3 we want here on earth for much cheaper than it would ever be from the moon.

      Helium-3 is a decay product of tritium (which has a reasonable half-life). Tritium can be produced by neutron bombardment of lithium targets. That's what it takes to make the stuff here on Earth

      What about on the moon? Its crust is only 20 ppm helium. That's just helium, though - He3 is 10 ppb. That's a tiny, tiny amount of He3. Given that mining, refining, and shipping costs in extraterrestrial environments are going to be preposterously high for the near future, realistic recovery is just right out.

      What about its applications? First off, first-gen nuclear reactors aren't going to be able to burn He3. You'd have to scale up something like ITER far beyond its already gargantuan size to think about getting that sort of confinement. Some potential reactors, such as inertial electrostatic fusion or focus fusion, should be able to scale to generate power from He3 (if they were able to pass break-even - a big if). Yet, such reactors could be similarly scaled to use B11+p fusion, which is a much better proposition than He3 fusion.

      So, I don't hold much credence for He3 fusion, and even less for getting it from the moon.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    2. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It may not be able to directly Bose-Condense, but it *does* form a superfluid. (see the Nobel Prize given to Lee, Richardson, and Osheroff). It was, I believe, the first experiment to observe fermions forming a condensate like structure. They're believed to condense via in a cooper-pair like method.

      Fermi condensates have now been made. Debbie Jin and her collaborators at JILA in Boulder made them a couple of years ago.

      Relevant links are here: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1996/press .html
      and here: http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~jin/introduction.html

    3. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Aenema · · Score: 1

      If we were to produce tritium we would be risking Doc Oc trying to steal it.

    4. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by umbrellasd · · Score: 1
      Maybe someday not too far away we might build a space elevator from earth to the moon. It could be like a ginormous game of tetherball. And then...well, I guess we would need a humonginous shuttle shaped like a paddle, too, and it would have to be much more reliable than the current shuttle or...

      Whoosh---------Whoosh-----Whoosh---Whoosh--Whoosh- -Whoo-Whoo-Who-Wh-W-CRUNCH.

      On the bright side, transport costs from earth to moon would then go way down...

    5. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by spdt · · Score: 1

      This got me interested, thank you.

      Helium-3 actually can, despite this intuition, assume a superfluid state. The atoms form cooper pairs at very low temperatures, effectively making them bosons.

    6. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that a space elevator the moon can not be a single stage due to the earth's rotation relative to the moon (whereas the moon always faces the earth with the same side). One end could be attached to the moon, but the other end would have to be left with a mass "hanging" in the earth's gravity to provide tension. From there, you would need some method to make up the difference in kinetic energy between cargo on the moon-anchored elevator and either orbiting harbors or an elevator anchored to the earth, which would whip around once every 24 hours.

    7. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by panza · · Score: 1

      In addition, if you DO want to mine for He-3 you are talking about strip mining thousands of square km for, say 1000 kg of the stuff. You would literally give the Moon a black eye that is visible from Earth..... There is actually not that much in resources that we would want to bring back to Earth. The Apollo data show that the moon is resource poor, there are large quantities of iron, titanium, and aluminium plus some various other minerals, but none of those are economically interesting to bring back. There is a now out of print "Lunar Source Book" (Heiken et al.) that has a very interesting compilation of Apollo area data. In situ lunar resources are interesting if you want to establish a base (oxygen from titanium oxides, radiation shielding, glassy regolith for building block, etc) but the wisdom and usefulness of a base is another matter.

    8. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      Well, the point is that the fuel is already there, so you can use it to power your moon base.

      However, don't get be started about using this self-powered moonbase as a springboard to Mars and beyond.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    9. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Krach42 · · Score: 1
      Yep, they're called a Fermion Condensate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion_condensate

      I like the warning at the top of the page:

      This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please expand it to make it accessible to non-experts, without removing the technical details.


      They need to put that on the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU(3)XSU(2)XU(1) I'll be damned if I can understand anything but individual words on that article, and I had just spent hours reading about that stuff.
      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    10. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Well, you could just put it on the far side of the moon, and then it would never rotate into earth view.

      Problem solved, let the strip mining begin!

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    11. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      That's right, let us act quickly and decisively to protect the moon against deforestation, overfishing, and air pollution.

    12. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Dollyknot · · Score: 1
      You say He3 is easy to make, how much would an ounce cost me? Would He3 give me a squeakier voice, than the ordinary Helium squeaking voice?

      --
      It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
    13. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that a space elevator the moon can not be a single stage due to the earth's rotation relative to the moon (whereas the moon always faces the earth with the same side).

      But that means that if you attached one end to Moon and the other to Earth, Earths rotation would pull the cable around the Earth, pulling Moon closer to Earth and making it therefore easier to reach. Just wait until its at 10 kilometers, use a passenger jet to deposit suitable personnel to it - personally, I think most of Earths economical, political and military leadership should get the honor - and cut the cable ;).

      One end could be attached to the moon, but the other end would have to be left with a mass "hanging" in the earth's gravity to provide tension.

      The majority of the cable would be in Earths side of the null-gravity point between Earth and Moon, so there would be no need to add extra mass beyond the cables own mass.

      From there, you would need some method to make up the difference in kinetic energy between cargo on the moon-anchored elevator and either orbiting harbors or an elevator anchored to the earth, which would whip around once every 24 hours.

      Why ? Just make the end of the cable a noose, and put a hook on the craft attaching to it. When you attach to the cable, it acts like a swing - there won't be any sudden stops, just a mild centrifugal force pushing you towards the floor of your craft.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      You still have to be moving the same speed as the cable. If it's lunar-synchronous, it will be moving about 1000 mph ground speed. You can't let it reach the ground, or even into the region of air-breathing vehicles because of drag, which would probably cause gradual fatigue of the cable due to continuous flexing. If you can work out a reliable transfer method, you can probably do it reasonably efficiently with a sub-orbital rocket. Low earth orbit sucks because you expend a ton of energy getting up to 17,000 mph only to give up 16,000 of that, and you start losing altitude as you lose speed.

      Probably the best option is to launch from an earth-anchored elevator somewhere just past the geo-synchronous altitude. That leaves you with about 3000 mph to lose (approximately 4,000 mph tangential velocity at that orbit), but you can probably accomplish it with a carefully planned slingshot manuever.

    15. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You still have to be moving the same speed as the cable. If it's lunar-synchronous, it will be moving about 1000 mph ground speed.

      That isn't impossibly fast for a modern airplane. Also, if the cable is light, you can (as I alrady stated) simply snap it on when moving past, and let it "swing" you upwards.

      You can't let it reach the ground, or even into the region of air-breathing vehicles because of drag, which would probably cause gradual fatigue of the cable due to continuous flexing.

      Cables can take continuous flexing quite easily. Normal elevator cables are a good example of this. So what did you mean ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Rei · · Score: 1

      I ran into one ref which said the "price per bottle" is $100-$300 (doesn't say how big a "bottle" is). I found a few places that sell it, but you have to contact them to get prices. It looks like their bottles are usually 1/2 or 1 liter in size, but that doesn't mean that the former ref's bottles were.

      This is present-day. If we were getting energy from the stuff, we'd produce a heck of a lot more tritium, which we'd use to produce helium-3 to power the reaction. :)

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    17. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Dollyknot · · Score: 1

      LOLLL

      --
      It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
    18. Re:Helium-3 is great and all... by Dollyknot · · Score: 1

      He3 is the incomplete work of God - go figure :)

      --
      It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  4. Territorial claims? by LeonGeeste · · Score: 0, Funny

    Americans landed on the moon first and put a flag there. How much of it would the government have to cede to China if it also landed there?

    --
    Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    1. Re:Territorial claims? by saskboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "How much of it would the government have to cede to China if it also landed there?"

      That's a trick question, no one owns the Moon, much like Antarctica isn't owned by any country either. Essentailly with the Moon, the people to own it, will be the first to colonize an area which will be off limits to other colonization attempts without co-operating. Unless we find that only select spots on the Moon are suitable for a habitat, then there's so much real estate to go around, that we won't have to worry about running out for several centuries. Good planning wouldn't hurt though, so we don't end up with a bunch of lunar cul-de-sacs like suburban sprall in North America. We want Lunar Children to be able to ride their moon bike to school without taking major moon-routes.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    2. Re:Territorial claims? by trevdak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that it would be logical for countries to establish bases within reasonably close proximity. There is too much that can go wrong for someone to risk establishing a 'loner' base.

    3. Re:Territorial claims? by agrippa_cash · · Score: 2, Informative

      "We come in peace for all mankind."

    4. Re:Territorial claims? by redmond_herring · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is not an entirely silly idea. Who would own what? Who decides?
      Will we eventually have to create a Moon government (think 200+ years from now), or will countries simply setup outposts?

      --
      Stephen Colbert on race: "While skin and race are often synonymous, skin cleansing is good, race cleansing is bad."
    5. Re:Territorial claims? by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat response: We didn't land there...it was Hollywood.
      More Likely:
      First, the US doesn't "own" the moon. We just thought the flag would be pretty, and is a good first measure of an outer space pissing match.
      Realistically, whoever is up there will pretty much be in control of what goes on. Or whoever sends those people supplies.

      The law of the land in the new frontier:
      Space Lasers.

    6. Re:Territorial claims? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      "That's one small step for man but one giant leap for mankind.", Neil Armstrong, 1969. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/j uly/21/newsid_2635000/2635845.stm

    7. Re:Territorial claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Possession is nine-tenths of law."

      Nobody currently possesses any part of the moon.

      Last one to the moon is a rotten egg!!!

    8. Re:Territorial claims? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "Americans landed on the moon first and put a flag there."

      Chinese then land on the moon and take the flag down and put up their own.

      "Flag? What flag? It was a hoax. There was no flag here. We are the first!"

    9. Re:Territorial claims? by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      Of historical note, the actual quote is "That's one small step for a man one giant leap for mankind." however the "a" was lost in the radio transmition.

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    10. Re:Territorial claims? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The Moon is sort of like the ocean past the territorial limits.

      It's open for everyone, however if you leave something there, it still belongs to you, for example the Chinese couldn't legally take any American or Soviet equipment left on the Moon.

    11. Re:Territorial claims? by ashitaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it wasn't.

      I heard it with my own ears when he said it and a thousand times since. There wasn't enough time between "for" and "man" for there to have been an "a". Also the way his diction moves through "for man" differs than that if he had said "for a man" which would have come out more like "fora man". (Say it to yourself a few times)

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    12. Re:Territorial claims? by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      ok ok, but you say this:

      i am we tod did.

      i am sofa king we tod did.

      do it outloud, go!

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    13. Re:Territorial claims? by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      t's open for everyone, however if you leave something there, it still belongs to you, for example the Chinese couldn't legally take any American or Soviet equipment left on the Moon./i?

      Doesn't international law only pertain to the Earth? How can you legally convict someone of a crime according to your country's laws when it happened on another planet (or moon)?

    14. Re:Territorial claims? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "no one owns the Moon, much like Antarctica isn't owned by any country either"

      No one county owns Antartica, but at least 8 countries claim oie slice sections of it. (Australia, Argentina, Chile,France, New Zealand, Norway and United Kingdom. They have all set up research stations there, as has the USA which doesnt recognise those claims.

      While UN treaties may be enforceable on this planet, it is difficult to see how they could apply to other planets, including the moon. The UN doesnt have any spacecraft.

    15. Re:Territorial claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You guys got it all wrong. China does not need to land on the moon to claim it. They did not set a foot on Taiwan and what's stoping them from claiming it as part of China?

    16. Re:Territorial claims? by nofx_3 · · Score: 1

      I've been duped, time to commit Hari-Kari.

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    17. Re:Territorial claims? by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 1

      Didn't you learn anything from human history? Have you at least played civ? Other humans will always be a greater danger than anything an environment can offer.

      --
      Fuck it
    18. Re:Territorial claims? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      No, there are treaties on Space and the Moon

      "Though several flags of the United States have been symbolically planted on the moon, the U.S. government makes no claim to any part of the Moon's surface. The U.S. is party to the Outer Space Treaty, which places the Moon under the same jurisdiction as international waters (res communis). This treaty also restricts use of the Moon to peaceful purposes, explicitly banning weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) and military installations of any kind. A second treaty, the Moon Treaty, was proposed to restrict the exploitation of the Moon's resources by any single nation, but it has not been signed by any of the space-faring nations."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Legal_status

      "Ownership of the Moon (and other celestial bodies) is governed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Agreement. U.N. legal experts state that the Moon falls under the legal concept of res communis, which means everyone owns it (the concept is also applied to International Waters). Article VI states The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. The effect of the Outer Space Treaty to restrict control of private property rights, in the way that the law of the sea prevents anyone owning the sea, is often disputed by those who claim the ability to sell property rights on the Moon and other bodies, but this dispute has never been tested in a court of law."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

      http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.h tml

    19. Re:Territorial claims? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      So, I reckon, by this the signatory states for all intents and purposes make this claim of res communis to the entire Solar System.

    20. Re:Territorial claims? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      IAAEM -

      It was definitly for man.

      For a man doesn't create the right response.

    21. Re:Territorial claims? by Rxke · · Score: 1

      " then there's so much real estate to go around, that we won't have to worry about running out for several centuries..."

      But the really interesting real estate is rather limited. Google for "peak of eternal light", that's the spot near the North pole, where there is continuous sunlight, great for solar plants, and very near that spot are the craters that are dark continually, where it is assumed deposits of water-ice have accumulated over the eons. Water, and especially hydrogen, will be the most important recource initially, because you can make propellant out of it, use it for supplying life-support (oxygen and water) and oodles of other stuff, for chemical plants.
      Very precious real estate, all located in a few tens of kilometers...

    22. Re:Territorial claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, it's like when you omit a few letters under your breath. The phrase remains the same. People might not hear it, but that doesn't change what was said.

      "fer" has a mild "a" sound built in. You don't have to perfectly ununciate it. Kids realize this at an early age. It's like saying "lil."

      His mind went through the speech patterns. His tongue did, too. But since the "a" sound is built in, some people (like me) typically don't blow hard enough for anyone but themselves to hear it. But he *did* say it.

      Clearly his "admission" was done jokingly and in a friendly "I agree that I can't hear it" manner, in that snopes article.

  5. Dibs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If China is going to land on the moon, then I call dibs on the land here on earth ...

  6. Not He-3 again! by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Frankly, I think this is a really stupid argument for lunar exploration. Yeah, it might be a good fuel - IF we had fusion reactors that could use it! It's not like bringing back a truckload of this stuff is going to instantly solve our energy problems.

    Exactly how much better than the usual DT mix would this stuff have to be to make it worth the expense of getting it and bringing it back?

    1. Re:Not He-3 again! by Krach42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think they're mostly going there to see how much there is there, not to start trucking it back.

      First you have to know how abundantly you can get a fuel before you start using all of it. It'd be stupid to work on a fusion reactor that burns He-3 when it would just run out of fuel when we stopped being able to get ahold of the stuff...

      you know... like coal, and gasoline.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    2. Re:Not He-3 again! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The world as a whole is consuming energy at a rapidly accelerating pace. The reserves of non-renewable energy are quite well known, and they aren't going to last long (in terms of where we'll be in 2050-2100). There are many ways to reduce the dependency on oil (fuel cells, natural gas, hybrid cars, electric cars) but they all require energy. Apart from the ever elusive fusion reactor, there really aren't any exciting plans to generate more energy. The renewable sources are fairly well known (sun, wind, water, wave energy) and don't amount to much. Remember that we are using up the natural supplies accumulated over millions of years in a few short centuries. That will not be easily replaced.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Not He-3 again! by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gathering He3 from the gas giants in our solar system would be a lot more lucrative. The Moon just happens to be closer. But frankly, there's a heck of a lot more resources on the Moon than He3. Almost all the platinium group metals mined on earth come from meteor impact sites. It costs a lot to mine these metals on earth as erosion has washed most of the meteor away and the only ores left are the ones that fused with earth rocks. On the Moon there's no such erosion, so densities of platinium group metals are expected to be much higher in the millions and millions of craters we see up there. Of course, we don't have the technology to mine this massive wealth today, and we won't have it by 2020.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Not He-3 again! by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck, man. Are you seriously worried about energy resources? Get real!

      --
      Fuck it
  7. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the Moon lands on you

  8. Just wait 'til they get there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait until they arrive and find out it's just a Hollywood set.

    1. Re:Just wait 'til they get there by uberjoe · · Score: 1

      No, they will get there and find nothing but cheese.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  9. China to Land on Moon Around 2017... by FIT_Entry1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's gonna take a lot of dynamite...and who's going to light the fuse?

  10. Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're taking the long view of becoming a super power.

    And leaving their enemies radiation free.

    1. Re:Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're taking the long view of becoming a super power.

      At first I was trying to get the joke. Then I realized, it's an incredibly brilliant insightful remark - joking or not. The Chinese have a much longer view than we Westerners. They are on their way to becoming a Superpower and they know it. What I'm concerned about is this and subsequent administration's (US) take on this. Hopefully this may mean a new interest in space exploration and NASA?

      If so: Whoo hooo!

      --
      Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
    2. Re:Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by technoextreme · · Score: 2, Funny
      They're taking the long view of becoming a super power. And leaving their enemies radiation free.
      First country to Alpha Centari wins!!!!! (Someone had to say it)
      --
      Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    3. Re:Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 1

      What I'm concerned about is this and subsequent administration's (US) take on this. Hopefully this may mean a new interest in space exploration and NASA?

      If our government takes this seriously, then yes, I expect you'll see a butt-load of new funding heading NASA's way. If there's anything the US government can't stand, it's the idea that any other country can trump us in any way. At least in this case, there's a constructive end to it.

    4. Re:Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Many believe the "long view" isn't very effective. There is the view that reality has so many layers of complexity, and that the further in the future you plan the orders of magnitude more complex calculating the posibilites are, that planning for the future beyond a certain threshold has diminishing returns. We have neither the information we need, nor the computing power to process that information, to really predict and plan for the future beyond a certain point.

      Witness the highly controlled and long term planned control economies of the U.S.S.R. and old China, which crumbled under their own weight... and the high chaotic, unplanned economies of the West far surpassing them. And then look at China, abandoning it's highly central planned economy for a market economy (a decentralized, non planned system), and now is thriving... while the U.S. is becoming more and more a centrally planned economy, and it is slowly declining.

      It suprises me that people who would laugh at "intelligent design" as the way life systems developed, want so much to believe that "inteligent design" is the way societies and economies arise, as opposed to evolution and natural selection.

      I, for one, don't put much faith in the Chinese "long view" of things. However, I have high hopes for Chinese, as they are moving out of that centrally planned "long view", towards the free society that we are working to get rid of.

    5. Re:Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      China isn't a Superpower now and I doubt in the next 25 years they will be.

      I wrote a small paper about this last month for a Grad School class, I'll spam it out here...

      I'm a military historian primarily who has spent the bulk of my studies on the American West (1860-1890), the Arab Israeli Wars (1956-1982) and the Second World War in both the Pacific Theatre of Operations (PTO) and Western European Theatre of Operations (ETO) and the strategic nuclear element of the Cold War.

      A piece in the Atlantic Monthly in June caught my attentions, How We Would Fight China by Robert Kaplan - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/kaplan, was of interest to me.

      I base my stance that the United States is a Superpower by its military strength. A modern Nation-State or Bloc cannot really be a Superpower unless it possesses the military might to enforce its will or act as the steel gauntlet under the silk glove.

      The PRC maintains the largest standing army in the world, although there is a general belief both within the PLA and among outside observers that numbers are of limited usefulness in estimating the power of a military. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) includes the PRC's Navy and Air Force. The PLA's official budget for 2005 is $30 billion, but this does not include money used for foreign weapons purchases, military-related R&D, or the paramilitary PAP. A recent RAND study estimates that the total military spending of the PRC is 1.4-1.7 times as large as the official military budget. By some estimates of true spending, the PRC's military spending, approximately $56 billion, is third after the US's of over $400 billion and the Russian Federation.

      The PRC, despite possession of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is widely seen both within and outside of China as having only limited ability to project military power beyond its borders and is not generally considered a true superpower, although it is widely seen as a major regional power. This is due to the limited effectiveness of its navy due to the lack of aircraft carriers and a limited air force with much less flight training time, and older planes.

      A large army and large navy do not make a Superpower. China lacks the ability to project power either with an air bridge as the United States did in '48, '73, '90-91 or sealift as the United States has done time and time again since the end of the Second World War. Where the United States can deploy tens of thousands of personnel and multiple combat Brigades in the air or by sea to any point on the planet, China will have a hard time moving units across the Taiwan Straights under the best of conditions.

      While the PRC does have a number of nuclear systems that can strike the United States or Europe, they lack the number to be an effective deterrent against the American nuclear forces. When I say a deterrent against the American nuclear force, I am drawing a line between the use of nuclear weapons against urban centers to kill people and the use of nuclear weapons to blow up someone else's nuclear weapons. The concept of MAD was not that both the United States and Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons to kill lots and many people; the concept of MAD was centered on both sides having nuclear weapons that could destroy both sides' nuclear weapons. China lacks the nuclear weapons to eliminate the American nuclear systems and so MAD will not exist between the US and PRC.

      It is estimated that the PRC has 400 nuclear devices of which 325 are deliverable. 24 of these are on the DF-5 series of ICBM that could strike the United States. The United States has 500 Minuteman III missiles and 288 Trident II D-5 missiles that can strike the PRC with over 3,000 warheads.

      Conventionally the PRC lacks naval systems for sea-lane control that are vital to any imperial designs. The French, British, American, and Soviet empires/hegemonies relied on large and capable naval forces to maintain control of the sea-lanes and

    6. Re:Chinese rail guns on the Moon. by Redwin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can someone pop into the planing office when they get there, just to make sure. :-)

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
  11. Obligatory quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new pointy-eyed, moonwalking overlords

  12. Glow or Go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A space race is more productive than an arms race.

  13. More Competition by msbsod · · Score: 1

    I like the idea of competition. China, the EU, US, or maybe even the UN (just joking), someone will eventually go back to the moon and start new missions from there. And I like the idea of a moon based telescope. Great times!

    1. Re:More Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are china, this is good. They are on the upswing and can afford to do this. America is in growing trouble.



      The first problem is our deficit. Between Reagan and GWB, it is now out of control. The ability to afford what we had in the 60's, 70's, and even the 80's, is no longer possible. Bush I and Clinton worked hard to balance the budget, but this bush pretty much has killed all shots at it for the next 15 years.


      More than 60 % of all oil is controlled by countries that are hostile to America. Venezula and Iran
      are increasingly offering discounts to everyone except for countries that they view as unfriendly, namely America. It is the same tactic that America has done for eons to others. Russia is increasingly so-so towards us. That leaves Iraq and Saudia Arabia. We will leave Iraq before the next presidential election so that the republicans can get back in. Sadly, the job will not be done. No doubt that means that Al Qaida will be taking over within 5 years. Before that time, they will be fighting hard with Saudia Arabia i.e. all OPEC countries will be at best neutral towards us, but most likely hostile. The only solution out of this, was to start moving towards nuclear and alternative over the last few years. Instead, GWB's policies have been to move us to being more dependant on oil. When Iraq and Saudia Arabia fall, America will be in a world of hurt.


      As much as I believe in NASA and the idea of getting us to the moon/mars, I fear that we no longer have the resources to do so. If for no other reason, than it has been 46 year since America has a true leader. And since him, there been only 2 leaders who did what was needed, rather than what they thought would help them or their friends. In both cases, we fired them.

    2. Re:More Competition by DerProfi · · Score: 1

      It's pretty funny that you try to come across like you've got all the answers, yet you can't even muster the balls to post as yourself. One can only assume that this is because you know you're full of crap!

      --

      3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
      Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
    3. Re:More Competition by nunchux · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of competition. China, the EU, US, or maybe even the UN (just joking), someone will eventually go back to the moon and start new missions from there. And I like the idea of a moon based telescope. Great times!

      That's well and good, but I'm afraid we're going to lose that competition. Perhaps because life is cheap in a communist society of billions of people, they will not be deterred by setbacks-- such as the death of a taikonaut.
      We, on the other hand, shut down progress for years with every shuttle disaster. Our hearts aren't in it.

      Not that I think our astronauts should be recklessly placed in harm's way, but we have lost the pioneer spirit that once made our country great.

      Maybe actual competition-- such as seeing a real tangible benefit from establishing a stronghold on the moon, or even Mars-- will spur us on. I hope so.

  14. Mine the moon screw up the environment by technoextreme · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let's just mine the moon of it's natural resources. It won't affect the earth in any way or will it... If we take off any sizable chuck of the moon it will affect the tides.

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:Mine the moon screw up the environment by Eightyford · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Let's just mine the moon of it's natural resources. It won't affect the earth in any way or will it... If we take off any sizable chuck of the moon it will affect the tides.

      That may be the dumbest fucking thing that I have ever heard... but of course, your'e joking!

    2. Re:Mine the moon screw up the environment by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, do the math. If we stripped off the first mile deep of mass all the way around the moon, its volume would only be reduced by 0.28% or so. That's a lot of mass, and not much of an effect.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:Mine the moon screw up the environment by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I should have pointed out that the inner part of the moon is much denser than the outer part, so the overall effect on mass would be much less than 0.28%.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Mine the moon screw up the environment by san · · Score: 1

      But think of the gravitational energy we can extract from that!

  15. and beginning in 2018... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0

    ...China corners the market on cheap imported green Moon cheese. Mmmm...green Moon cheese...*droool*

    Hey, where's the Chinese Tang? It'll probably be Green Tea Tang.

    1. Re:and beginning in 2018... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmm.. there's nothing like some good chinese tang.. :)

    2. Re:and beginning in 2018... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Hey, where's the Chinese Tang?"

      My guess would be in a geisha house in Hong Kong.

    3. Re:and beginning in 2018... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Moon cheese isn't actually that good. Once, I ate a brownie, then this little guy offered me some. It was really a lot like cheddar, but with less bite, and the color is more of a turn off than a turn on.

  16. All Your Resource Base Are Belong to Us by Mulletproof · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Helium-3 is regarded by some researchers as the perfect non-polluting fuel source."

    We've had this discussion before. It takes MASSIVE amounts of raw material to harvest Helium-3, so much so that we're effectvely talking about strip-mining the moon. Me thinks that a LOT of people are going to be opposed to turning the face of the moon into one huge resource operation. Of course, you could try the darkside and mess it up to your heart's content, but that'll create huge logistics problems beyond just strip mining the moon.

    Sorry, but just don't see this as anything more than 'moon propaganda' on the part of whowever brings it, not just China. Of course, i tend to take their claims with a grain of salt anyway, but...

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:All Your Resource Base Are Belong to Us by belg4mit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah! We wouldn't want to scar it's face with craters or anything.
      Look, I'm greener than most but unless there's life on luna, I have
      no problem mining it for He3. Of course, lunar based PV would be a
      better power system.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:All Your Resource Base Are Belong to Us by Liam+Slider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it takes massive amounts of raw materials to get Helium-3. Luckily we don't actually need much Helium-3 (in theory). The overall mining operations will be small compared to a great number of Earth based mining operations. Even on the side facing Earth...you wouldn't be able to see mine pits from Earth.

    3. Re:All Your Resource Base Are Belong to Us by The+Lion+of+Comarre · · Score: 1

      Of course, you could try the darkside and mess it up to your heart's content, but that'll create huge logistics problems beyond just strip mining the moon.

      What huge logistics problems will strip mining the 'side' of the Moon facing away from Earth (the 'darkside') as opposed to strip mining the 'side' facing towards Earth, create?

    4. Re:All Your Resource Base Are Belong to Us by Lactoso · · Score: 1
      "It takes MASSIVE amounts of raw material to harvest Helium-3"

      So, basically, you're saying that even Chinese fuel will leave you feeling hungry after an hour or two?

    5. Re:All Your Resource Base Are Belong to Us by Lavaeolus · · Score: 1

      What huge logistics problems will strip mining the 'side' of the Moon facing away from Earth (the 'darkside') as opposed to strip mining the 'side' facing towards Earth, create?

      The only challenge I can see is not logistical but technical - communication with Earth is much more challenging from the other side of the moon. This could be overcome by a relay system: either a series of base stations on the surface or lunar comms satellite(s) would do the trick. However, this would mean increased setup costs.

  17. Obligatory Monty Python Song..... by segedunum · · Score: 0, Troll

    I like Chinese, I like Chinese, They only come up to your knees, Yet they're always friendly and they're ready to please I like Chinese, I like Chinese, There's nine hundred million of them in the world today, You'd better learn to like them that's what I say.

    1. Re:Obligatory Monty Python Song..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me Chinese, me make joke.
      Me go pee-pee in your Coke.

  18. They just want check... by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that they can see the Great Firewall from space.

    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
    1. Re:They just want check... by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 1

      Bravo!

      Good show :)

      --
      Fuck it
  19. Proving something? Anything? by carsamba · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since the days of US vs CCCP space race has passed and nobody seems to be interested in our very convenient stepping stone for some real exploration. We have become so much accustomed to satisfied with the warp drives and photon sails and whatever in the space opera shows we like so much, many people (perhaps excluding most /.ers) are overlooking the fact they are waiting to be invented and implemented. Since the Soviet Union is no more, the battlefield has shifted somewhere else, space exploration has served its temporary political purpose now the russkies are defeated (though it was very useful for technological advances as a side effect). We are living the days of land and resource grab (WMD anyone?), when nobody wishes to look ahead.
    China has been a world power for -let me see- all known history, and is chinese first and anything else a distant second. They are a pragmatic people, move with slow but sure steps. I certainly hope this move of theirs will have more real tangible benefit to humankind, and not just for political bravado.

    1. Re:Proving something? Anything? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      Well, if the "russkies" were defeated, then the ISS would be no more either. Let's welcome them all, including the French. :)

    2. Re:Proving something? Anything? by serutan · · Score: 1

      I really think this century will be to China what the 1800s were to the United States. Have your children learn Chinese.

    3. Re:Proving something? Anything? by mikapc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China has not been a world power for all known history and you only need to look at the 19th and early 20th century to see they were dominated by Europeans states like the UK. Furthermore the point should be made that the China nation that existed 2000 years ago is different enough from the modern state we call China, that they should be regarded as separate entities. The same could be said for other nations that claim a western civilization heritage with the ancient greeks. While it's true Britain and the United states existence has been strongly influenced by the ancient hellenistic greeks there certainly are plenty of differences including time, place, other customs that clearly differentiate them from one another. All I'm saying in a nutshell is that the modern, industrialized world we live today is so different then that of the ancient or medieval world, that the modern Chinese have more in common with modern Europeans and Americans, then they do with their 2000 year old ancestors. Also whatever you want to say about China's greatness, the fact of the matter is the Europeans were the ones who eventually brought about the industrial revolution and the modern world we live in today. Who knows, it's quite possible China may take the lead in 21st century in furthering the progress of civilization another step but only after it has embraced the modern world that western civilization has created (Which it is doing by the way, including it's current capitalistic reforms). The fact is all civilizations borrow and steal great ideas from one another and China is no exception. So get rid of your foolish nationalistic pride that everything that is good was derived from Chinese civilization. The world is becoming more globalized and internationl to the point where it's often not possible to associate a technological achievement with a country.

    4. Re:Proving something? Anything? by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      You think there will be a civil war in China?

    5. Re:Proving something? Anything? by Teancum · · Score: 1
      I don't think China will be that big of an influence, but it will be interesting to see what the competition to bring people into space will have. I wouldn't count out countries like Brazil or India as well, and both have the beginnings of national space programs.

      Nations I see having a major impact on space development would include:
      • USA
      • Russia
        (both obvious beyond doubt)
      • European Union (if they get their act together with the ESA)
      • China
      • Japan
      • India
      • Pakistan
      • Brazil
      • Iran
      • Israel
      • Australia (likely in joint endavor with NZ)
      • South Africa
      • South Korea


      There are other countries that may be major players in this next frontier as well, but for the most part they are not currently even considering any rocket technology to independently get up into space. Interestingly, these are all either nuclear powers as well or are actively persuing nuclear weapon development...showing in part the size of the economies of each of these countries. I seriously doubt that Niue, for instance, will become a space power if only because they don't have the financial resource to get there, even though they may have some advantages in being a launch site.
    6. Re:Proving something? Anything? by e-ville · · Score: 0

      carsamba wrote:
      "China has been a world power for -let me see- all known history, and is Chinese first and anything else a distant second. They are a pragmatic people, move with slow but sure steps."

      I think you may be forgetting something that happened in China within the years of 1959 and 1962. In an attempt to fast track the process of industrialization, China came up with the "Great Leap Forward". Factory, school, and hospital workers abandoned their work to smelt iron. China was trying to use their access to cheap labor to avoid having to import heavy machinery. As a result, it is said to be one of the worst economic disasters in history.

      This is one example of China's fast track solutions that failed. They do appear to be slow and have sure steps but history seems to tell a different story.

      Read more:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward/

    7. Re:Proving something? Anything? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      They are a pragmatic people, move with slow but sure steps.

      Oh yes, like "The Great Leap Forward"... What a slow, but sure, step that was for China...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  20. It was a crash program when we did it by Doug+Coulter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And, NASA was mostly all engineers -- good ones. Now it's mostly PhDs. This is a big difference when it comes to actually accomplishing something. An engineer solves several problems a week, and writes reports about them -- all in the same week. A PhD has solved one problem, took a few years, then took another few years to write the report. And oh yeah, his solution doesn't have to work outside the lab. As a result of working with ex-NASA employees (the good engineers who got chased out by the academic snobbery) I found the corporate culture to be pretty sick in recent (some years ago) days. Gosh, this IS rocket science, and some of it is dangerous (work out how many horsepower hours it takes to put a car into orbit, with 100% efficiency -- it's one heck of a bomb those guys ride), but they are too timid to admit that surely some folks will die playing with it. It seems China has a more healthy outlook here, and might go somewhere with it. Of course, if the academics weren't eating every last dime of the appropriations to "study stuff that can't be checked or proved", there might be money to get the job done, as there was last time. It's profitable to remember that these super smart academics missed Mars by failing to know the difference between metric and English units. Of course they are scared to attempt something most perceive as "simple". They'll want to study it for the rest of their careers and pass the problem to the next guys.

    1. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by carsamba · · Score: 1

      Here here! There is much to be said for just doing a project. I am all for bold attempts made by brilliant people, using good "hacks" to solve problems. An academicians first duty is to his resume and reputation, I guess that's why most never really work in the field (consultancies don't count, see duty). Yes it can be done and has been done, but this time around it will be done differently - maybe more cheaply or efficiently or with better results or even be more relevant historically. Who knows? Nobody, until it is done.

    2. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's profitable to remember that these super smart academics missed Mars by failing to know the difference between metric and English units.


      Actually, Lockheed Martin Engineering's team used the English system while Nasa was expecting Metric:
      http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric. 02/

      Besides standard being an idiotic system and that even England switch away from it's own system in measuring many things, most people learn in 6th grade science class to use Metric dealing with science.

      It seems engineers in Lockheed dropped the ball, not the Ivory Tower academics at Nasa.
    3. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      In the real world, a lot of engineering gets done in standard, particularly in the US. The reason? If I walk to the hardware store, they are gonna sell me a 2"x4" piece of wood, not 40mm X 90mm. The same is true for metal, screws, bolts, even the specifications for things like motors and sensors. When you work in a CAD program all day its easy to do all metric but when you want to actually build things (in the US) it is much easier to use standard. I personally prefer to work in standard, the conversions are easy to do in your head (for me) and your probably using a calculator anyway. I find that when using standard if you make a mistake converting it is really obvious, when using metric it can become obscured cause it might only move one decimal point. That said it was a communications fuck up on both sides to not specify the units correctly and engineering fuckup on both sides to not check the mathematics properly.

    4. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I walk to the hardware store, they are gonna sell me a 2"x4" piece of wood

      If you are building anything more precise than a tree fort, you might want to stick to metric. At least there you won't be off a half inch or so. As for slipping a decimal point, there's a fairly noticeable difference between a man 2m tall and one 20m tall. Finally, I would argue that it is easier to calculate 0.8+1.9 than (5/16)+(3/4). Of course, I grew up using both systems so maybe I am biased.

    5. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Informative
      In the real world, a lot of engineering gets done in standard, particularly in the US. The reason? If I walk to the hardware store, they are gonna sell me a 2"x4" piece of wood, not 40mm X 90mm. The same is true for metal, screws, bolts, even the specifications for things like motors and sensors.
      Well I'm an engineer in the real would and pretty much everything is done in metric. Look at your car sometime. It doesn't matter if it is an American car or not, every bolt in there is a metric bolt. Cylinder heads are measured in mm. Volume in cc's. The only time I have to use imperial is when dealing with a small machine shop that hasn't updated their equipment yet. In construction even a 2x4 isn't 2" x 4". It's a historical naming convention.
      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    6. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      surely some folks will die playing with it

      Like I heard somebody say once: "Play with alligators long enough, you WILL get bit."

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    7. Re:It was a crash program when we did it by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      and those engineers were mostly Canadians recruited when the US asked us to destroy the AVRO Arrow ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  21. We'll build more nukes. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We will operate under the same belief that served us well against the Soviet Union. We will build so many nukes and aim them at China that we will be able to destroy their entire country if they should ever attack us.

    The problem is that, this time, we'll be playing the part of the Soviet Union and go bankrupt trying to support an Earth-bound force when they can drop rocks on us all night. All of our satelites will be useless. All of our production facilities will be useless. But we'll still spend money on them.

    1. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      That's utterly ridiculous. If you think the moon is a static object in the sky that you can stand on like it's an elevated platform and just drop things on Earth, then you clearly are quite normal here in slashdot wrt your ignorance of basic physics.

      In order to launch something from the moon you'll have to give a projectile enough energy to:

      1. Escape lunar gravity (small as it might be, you still need a sizable amount of KE to clear it)
      2. Cancel out the orbital angular momentum of the moon wrt earth (part of which it gets by momentum conservation) without which it would merely dance around the earth in an elliptical orbit and have all the danger of a paperweight.
      3. Have enough KE to make it to the point between the moon and Earth where their gravities cancel, and coast along from there.

      Even if you use the mythical rail gun shown in crappy science fiction movies, the power requirements are too prohibitive. Far cheaper and easier to just launch nukes from LEO platforms and rely on good old air resistance to slow them down enough to drop in on the enemy.

      Nice attempt at being paranoid though.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    2. Re:We'll build more nukes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The problem is that, this time, we'll be playing the part of the Soviet Union
      Yes. We're just like the Soviet Union now.

      I'd love to analyze this further, but I've got a Big Mac with my name on it and tons of surfing of foreign news services to do before I get ready for my impromptu vacation to another state.
    3. Re:We'll build more nukes. by suitepotato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, we can build and loft transorbital weapons carrying vehicles at a rate that is truly staggering compared to China. Of couse, so could Japan for that matter. Ours though would carry some very well designed and very specialized nukes that would make any lunar base a thing of the past in short order. China can't militarize the moon. We could.

      Never mind that doing so would be insane given the nearly quarter million mile distance away. An orbital vehicle with tungsten rods deorbited by rocket would be much more effective and need no advanced materials technology in comparison to any "railgun" or other electromagnetic weapon. These can be lofted for a small fraction of a moon mission so forgo one moon mission and buy a small fleet of satellites that can pound any known ground force into dust and smoke in the blink of an eye.

      Going to the moon is ego polishing for China, irrespective of the communists who know how old and feeble they are getting and have only been playing for time against their shorter and more violent removal. They know China will become a multi-party democratic nation eventually, but that moon landing with always be a CHINESE event. Everyone who has ruled China back to the first emperor would find pride in it.

      Pride is a powerful motivation and one the west seems to be forgetting in an orgy of nonsensical "the west is responsible for all evil" self-loathing. The Chinese don't loathe themselves or their nation or their people. Neither should we on the other side of the planet loathe ourselves. We've all done some amazing things in a short period of time and have a right to hold our heads up and continue driving forward. Us here in the west AND China in the east. If more people understood that the evil that men do does not make the men inherently evil and unworthy of continuance, we might already have lunar colonies. Instead we sit here on this limited ball of rock crying our beer about the past. We have a future to get on with and we shouldn't throw it away. China isn't.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    4. Re:We'll build more nukes. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      You're incredibly astute, and pick up humor and sarcasm extremely well.

    5. Re:We'll build more nukes. by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually al-quada seems to be doing that very well. They simply make some threats and the US spends tons of money trying to secure things. Whether it's the superbowl or the new years at times square all big events now cost several times more to secure then before. I don't see it ever ending either do you?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    6. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      It's hard to tell on slashdot, hence the tags.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    7. Re:We'll build more nukes. by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Astute my A$$, NASA had a project considering rail guns on the moon for launching
      material into space, and possibly back to earth .

      It is always easier to say it can't be done, than to support the harder mission
      of trying to do it .

      Lots of ppl like to line up as the naysayers over and over .

      http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-driver

      I swear to god this place has become the home of ppl that can't even do a simple
      damn 'google search' on something before spouting of some egotistical rhetoric, and some
      pocket monkey friend chimes in with agreement .

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    8. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      Erm, the truth hurts for delusional people it seems. I happen to be a theoretical physicist, and NASA is a cabal of idiots desperate to get funding after the post cold war world axed their cash cows. They'll make up any old "study" to dig into the pockets of taxpayers, diverting them from legitimate research into real problems. All this pseudo-scientific rubbish about mass-drivers belongs strictly in Arthur C Clarke books, not in the real world. Mass drivers and rail guns are theoretically possible, but practically pointless. There are far cheaper and more efficient ways to kill somebody using present-day technologies.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    9. Re:We'll build more nukes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're right. Google is a gold mine for a wealth of top-notch scientific information. Let us look at an example...

      I hear it would be easy to power our rail guns by exploiting "zero point energy (ZPE)." What is ZPE? Well let us Google it. Yes indeed, every hit on the first page save the Wiki entry is clearly chock full of knowledgible information and experts on quantum physics. In fact, I find their novel theories and ideas so interesting that I would love to subscribe to their newsletters. Why, every entry on that Google page has very good things to say about ZPE, so it must be a great idea!

      I don't know if you noticed, but in the link you provided regarding the use of rail guns to bomb a planet, all the mentions of this technology for this purpose, including the link within that page, all talk about how it was done in this or that science fiction story. Not a very compelling argument on its feasability if the only things that can be said for it is that it works great on TV.

      It is indeed much easier to say something can't be done; however, it is even easier to say it can because they do it all the time in Hollywood or SF books. On the other hand, it is much harder to actually make the case using real physical concepts from the real world, and that is the kind of thing that can be quite hard to find on Google.

      I remember seeing a post a while back where one person stated their stance on a topic, and someone else retorts by saying that stance is the same argument used against Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. Are you kidding me? Your argument is bad because that is what they said against a fictional character and he proved them wrong?! Christ people, the line between the real world and fantasy is not at all blurred; in fact, it is pretty damn obvious.

    10. Re:We'll build more nukes. by Criliric · · Score: 1

      If were all lucky they'll only have enough money left over to send up one man with a .22 cal and a box of shells.....

      Lets pray thats hes not a good shot

    11. Re:We'll build more nukes. by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      ...and go bankrupt trying to support an Earth-bound force when they can drop rocks on us all night.

      I suppose statements like this are not to be taken literally but I wonder if it is generally understood how completely contrary to a basic understanding of physics it is. What do you think happens if you drop a rock from orbit? Here is a hint: it does not fall to the ground. If you are in orbit you are already in free fall so anything you drop will just keep zipping around the Earth with you. It takes a great deal of effort to cause something to cease to be in free fall. Then it has a sort of bad habit of being incinerated when it re-enters the denser parts of the atmosphere.

      Depending on where you looked for predictions of the future you could get solemn advice throughout the 70's and 80's that the Japanese were going to inevitably be dominant in coming years and as Kent Brockman might say "Ï, for one, welcome our new Rising Sun overlords". If you listened to bitter alienated French intellectuals as far back as the 60's you would have gotten an earful about how the Chinese were already on the verge of sweeping aside those unworthy American pipsqueaks. Lots of noise, not a lot of accurate vision.

      I hope the challenge of new contestants will re-energize the pursuit of science in the US. I just wish the noisy jeremiads didn't have to be so prominent in discussions of the topic.

    12. Re:We'll build more nukes. by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah, your so much more brilliant than anyone that has ever worked at NASA, and
      I really doubt you are a working published physicist of notable worth .

      Why don't you list out your protfolio of accomplishments or is it all BS and you
      just like to play pretend because your real life sucks and this is the best you can
      do with your time .

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    13. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't feed the troll, but if I have to list my academic achievements to justify the truth, then slashdot has truly descended into the muck of religious mania.

      Your resentment and bile are patently obvious from the tone of your little troll ie a typical slashdotter. The truth is difficult to swallow, but
      the absurdity of "mass drivers" in practical military combat is verifiable by simple classical mechanics that any undergraduate in physics or engineering can verify by using some simple results from a textbook (The only long-term use I can see is in perhaps interplanetary mining, where EM launchers can be used to send ores mined from other planets on a slow but steady orbit to earth, but that is in the very distant future, and, of course, there are natural "rail-guns" such as the Aurora Borealis).

      Only someone who knows he has no logical or scientific basis for his claim will resort to flaming insults instead of offerring a logical argument. Someone whos knowledge of physics comes from watching Hollywood movies and the occasional program on PBS with pretty pictures of clouds with colors.

      BTW my views of NASA are not singular by any means. I work in a department where I have been taught and graded favourably by a Nobel Laureate (have you? I doubt it) and my supervisor is an APS fellow, the director of the Complex Systems group, has more APS publications over the course of 20 years than even he remembers, and is the chief editor of a major periodical in Chaos Theory, AND has written several textbooks relating to dynamical systems. If you are a physics student you have undoubtably taken a graduate course where you have had to study or refer to at least one of them ( I know of no one who hasn't).



      Most of the above share my views, as do most physicists of any repute from any of the departments I have visited in the US and Europe. You want to see THEIR creds? Just open any textbook in Quantum Field Theory or Advanced Many-Body Field Theory.



      So there, you see? Bringing penis-waving into science doesn't look so good when you're facing the business end, does it?

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    14. Re:We'll build more nukes. by 955301 · · Score: 1

      "spends tons of money"

      What do you mean by this exactly? Have you noticed that the US has sole-sourced a lot of this spending, and that almost all of this spending goes to American contractors? If the money is "spent" by running security contracts, research, and tactical response services companies that are US based who then pay employees that pay the taxes funding this "spending", is it really spending? Or spinning?

      Let's start calling this churning instead okay? When the US is threatened, the churn rate goes up. The risk is assumed by lenders to the government. If the government defaults, it's the lenders which lose. And at this point, most of the lenders are foreign.

      It would be different if the majority of the money was passed out of the country to companies from other countries. And if the majority of the money used to fund this was ultimately US. But neither is the case.

      Massively simplified, but you get the idea. It's actually with purpose that Haliburton, SAIC, Loc-Mart and these other co's are taking in massive revenue. The US is fascist, there's not much difference between the government having the money and the companies having it. An enemy looking to bankrupt the US thinks their making progress, but their not.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    15. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1


      > belongs strictly in Arthur C Clarke books,

      Like geostationary satellites.

      You're wrong, NASA isn't a cabal of idiots. This dispute smells of a engineer v/s theoretician catfight.

    16. Re:We'll build more nukes. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      1) All this "churning" you speak of add friction to the economy. Sure haliburton is making a lot of money but the US is also running a huge deficit which impacts the currency, inflation, and all kinds of other factors. All that friction slows the economy down.

      2) It makes businesses less willing to take risks. That's a biggie because it stunts innovation.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    17. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1


      >Like geostationary satellites.
      One lucky break does not mean all his 'predictions' are legitimate. Mr Paedophile also said that , by now, we'd have cities on Mars. Do we? Will we ever? Not likely now that the USSR is gone and nobody cares about space travel anymore. Clarke was a chap who rode with the trends and fads of his generations, nothing more.

      >This dispute smells of a engineer v/s theoretician catfight.

      Sorry, but that won't wash.I'm an IIT alumnus, so my training background has a fair amount of engineering in it. I"ve taken core and ESO-BSO courses with engineering students. I am, in fact, very engineer-friendly. Just not NASA engineers. NASA is a political organization, not a scientific one.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    18. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      One is all it takes to break your analogy.

      Clarke is a sci-fi author.

      Your claim that the most successful space organization so far is populated by idiots, is an impossible one.

      Studying at an engineering-focussed IIT, instead of, say TIFR or IISc, may have helped develop 'snobbish theoretician syndrome': familiarity breed contempt.

    19. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      >Your claim that the most successful space organization so far is populated by >idiots, is an impossible one.

      Possible and easily verifiable. Name one famous result (in the academia, not in National Geographic) out of NASA since the CMBR stuff from KOBE.


      Furthermore, the very concept of a organization dedicated to space exploration is a spectacular waste of resources. It's based on the idea that space is worth exploring at great cost, and there is no proof of that.

      There are more challenging problems that can be tackled on this planet with fewer resources (like the back of an envelope and the human mind).


      >Studying at an engineering-focussed IIT, instead of, say TIFR or IISc, may have >helped develop 'snobbish theoretician syndrome': familiarity breed contempt.


      Nonetheless, the top students in the country (statistically)graduate from my Alma Mater and her sisters. I think we can be truthful in such matters andhave a clearer and wider perspective thanstudents from places like TIFR, which is very isolated from anything other than mainstream academia, is pedagogically lacking and has an ivory-tower ambience.

      I think that you are enamoured by the glitter of NASA from watching too many Kennedy speeches and National Geographic programs than by looking at any real progress, which has been negligible for NASA since the cold war ended.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    20. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      It's 'Cosmic', not 'Kosmic'. COBE, not 'KOBE'

      Regarding your love of 'academia':

      Now we see it:

      > Name one famous result (in the academia,
      > not in National Geographic)

      Now we don't:

      > clearer and wider perspective thanstudents from
      > places like TIFR, which is very isolated from anything
      > other than mainstream academia

      Don't play both sides of the court at the same time.

      > > Studying at an engineering-focussed IIT,
      > > instead of, say TIFR or IISc, may have
      > > helped develop 'snobbish theoretician syndrome':
      > > familiarity breed contempt. ...
      > top students in the country (statistically)
      > graduate from my Alma Mater and her sisters

      Sure, if you want to ride the coattails of all departments in all IITs. In your area - physics - TIFR and IISc are more successful than IIT Kanpur, based on the list of Indian Physics Assoc. awardees.

      In any case, the reason money flows the way it does is more benefit to this world comes from applied science, not by endlessly funding theoretical paper-pushers like yourself. Don't misunderstand -- both have their place -- but you aren't 'better' in any meaningful way.

      > Name one famous result (in the academia
      Your request for a 'famous result' is laugable - the primary aim for NASA isn't funding research that is sufficiently theoritical to meet your tastes. Here is a concrete result from NASA materials science:
          http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news93.html
      Famous enough for you? It's useful too

    21. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      >It's 'Cosmic', not 'Kosmic'. COBE, not 'KOBE'

      Oh! Gee! You can spell! I tremble before greatness. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have postdoctoral offers to ponder over and job offers from CYSCO to reject.






      >Don't play both sides of the court at the same time.

      But I can strike a middle ground. There's another sports metaphor for you.





      >Sure, if you want to ride the coattails of all departments in all IITs. In your >area - physics - TIFR and IISc are more successful than IIT Kanpur, based on >the list of Indian Physics Assoc. awardees [tifr.res.in].

      Sure, sure. Dream on brother.


      >In any case, the reason money flows the way it does is more benefit to this >world comes from applied science, not by endlessly funding theoretical >paper-pushers like yourself. Don't misunderstand -- both have their place -- >but you aren't 'better' in any meaningful way.



      Never said I was. Physics is, at it's roots, an experimantal science. It's all good so long as we don't have crooks like NASA who defraud taxpaying citizens off of their money and give little actual results in return (this excludes the JPL, though it's connected to NASA. They're all right).


      > http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news93.html [nasa.gov]
      >Famous enough for you? It's useful too


      See above.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    22. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > Oh! Gee! You can spell! I tremble before greatness.

      No need to shiver child - just be more careful with your piercing insights next time.

      > postdoctoral offers to ponder over and job offers from CYSCO to reject.

      So you're not joining the hoi polloi working class? No worries, perhaps CYSCO one day opens a full department on self-similar network research. :-)

      > >Don't play both sides of the court at the same time.
      > But I can strike a middle ground. There's another sports metaphor for you.

      Net!

      > > [tifr.res.in].
      > Sure, sure. Dream on brother.

      Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?

      > > but you aren't 'better' in any meaningful way.
      > Never said I was. Physics is, at it's roots, an experimantal science.

      This thread and the one before it display of your problem ego.

      > excludes the JPL, though it's connected to NASA. They're all right). ...
      > > http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news93.html [nasa.gov]
      > >Famous enough for you? It's useful too ...
      > See above.
      The JPL isn't connected to NASA - it belongs to NASA. as in "NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory"
      Injecting late qualifiers to somehow redeem wrong argument fools no one except yourself. It takes a true man to admit he was wrong and carry on.

    23. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      >Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?


      Man, your inferiority complex regarding iitians is really strong. I suppose I should get used to such things. This will follow me around forever.

      Get this: we do better. Live with it. You'll be a happier person.


      >The JPL isn't connected to NASA - it belongs to NASA. as in "NASA's Jet >Propulsion Laboratory"

      I'm a physicist, not a politician.

      >It takes a true man to admit he was wrong and carry on.

      It takes an even better man to admit he's fighting a losing battle.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    24. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > > Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?

      > Man, your inferiority complex
      No.

      I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement to most IIT-ians. It doesn't make me a better or worse person. How can I have a inferiority complex then?

      Here is my jibe explained plainly: the IITK computer science team who obtained that pathbreaking result above _aren't_ physicists.

      Hence, your attempt to claim superiority (which you did) over TIFR and IISc physics post-graduates by standing on the shoulders of other IITK departments and your 'sister' IITs is laugable.

      > I suppose I should get used to such things.
      > This will follow me around forever.

      The only thing that follows you around is your pride - manufacturing enemies where none exist.

      > Get this: we do better. Live with it.

      You keep coming up with easy to defeat generalizations: "NASA is populated by idiots", "I do better than you". Again, in our specific case, if you don't earn deep into 6 figures, you are wrong.

      > > in "NASA's Jet >Propulsion Laboratory"
      > I'm a physicist, not a politician.

      Good. Don't bellyache like one then.

      > >It takes a true man to admit he was wrong and carry on.
      > It takes an even better man to admit he's fighting a
      > losing battle.

      Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".

      You're the undoubtedly the most foolish IITian I've come across. Kill your pride before it does you in. I mean you well.

    25. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      >I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement to most IIT-ians. It >doesn't make me a better or worse person. How can I have a inferiority >complex then?


      You're not inferior, and you know this consciously. Subconsciously, it is another matter altogether. "Inferiority complex" does not necessarily mean a conscious feeling of inferiority. While I'm no Alfred Adler, your obssessive pathology in this regardis obvious, comes from some deep rooted resentment you have against iitians, and is common among many of the intermediate tier in Indian students. I've seen it before, and it's getting rather boring.

      We are not elitist or superior (in fact, many professors and students in iitk have a Marxist bias, or at least they did when I was there). Just that we are better trained so we have a competitive edge, even in the pure sciences. The leading String Theorist in India (Ashoke Sen) is one of us for a reason.




      >ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".

      Charming. Not only do you not know the true meaning of the phrase "ad-hominem", and use it like some leftist hippie, but you misstate all of what I said in a desperate attempt to smell clean (For whom? Nobody's reading this thread anyway).


      A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

      1. A makes claim B;
      2. there is something objectionable about A,
      3. therefore claim B is false.


      My argument:

      1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me).
      2. There is something objectionable (C,D &E) about A
      3. If at least one of C,D or E are true, then claim B made by A is unreliable at best.
      4. Therefore, claim B is unreliable, unless somebody who does not have the same problems (C,D &E) other than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect.



      You know that the above is true, but your argument is more like"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" and that's juststupid.

      I never said "I do better than you" (look at my posts carefully), just that iitians do better on a statistical average than others, and this is a fact. In the academia, physics for instance , 85-90% of the best students in any high ranked physics department willconsist of iitians (there are some honorable exceptions, of course, but they're few and far between). You can blame this on whoever you want (the sadstate of Indian Universities etc etc) but the facts remain.


      >unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching
      If every theorist of repute is 'bellyaching', then go with the flow.

      >You're the undoubtedly the most foolish IITian I've come across

      Now whos resorting to implicit ad-hominems?
      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    26. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > > I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement
      > You're not inferior, and you know this consciously. Subconsciously, it is another matter

      I said I was inferior in _intellectual_ achievement to most IIT-ians (which is true.)You seem blinkered enough to accept intellectual inferiority as something meaningful.

      > comes from some deep rooted resentment you have against iitians,
      No

      > > ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".
      > misstate all of what I said

      Then lets state it again:
      "Get this: we do better. Live with it. You'll be a happier person."

      You made an unsuccesful attempt to run down a person (me) instead of their assertion.

      > A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
      >
      > 1. A makes claim B;
      > 2. there is something objectionable about A,
      > 3. therefore claim B is false.

      See above.

      > My argument:
      >
      > 1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me).
      > ...
      > than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect.

      Convoluted rubbish.

      > You know that the above is true, but your argument
      > is more like"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
      > and that's juststupid.

        your latin is useless - Speak English.

      > I never said "I do better than you" (look at my posts carefully),

      So lets look at it again...
        > "Get this: we do better.Live with it. You'll be a happier person."
      "_We_ _do_ _better_ ... _you'll_ be ... happier": an easy to disprove blanket assertion about all of IIT-ians.

      And the usual clarification:
      > just that iitians do better on a statistical average than others, and this is a fact.

      > In the academia, physics for instance , 85-90% of the best
      > students in any high ranked physics department willconsist of
      > iitians (there are some honorable exceptions, of course, but they're
      > few and far between). You can blame this on whoever you want (the
      > sadstate of Indian Universities etc etc) but the facts remain.

      Yeah, sure. 80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes will soon be awarded to ex-IIT physicists too.

      > >unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching
      > If every theorist of repute is 'bellyaching', then go with the flow.

      'Every' theorist of repute? You know them all, or do you just intend redefining repute?

      > > You're the undoubtedly the most foolish IITian I've come across

      > Now whos resorting to implicit ad-hominems?

      You - see above.

      But why not me?

      Because:
      (a) I firstaddressed your assertions
      (b) I supported this, my final assertion, by fact:
      Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".

    27. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      >> My argument:
      >>
      >> 1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me).
      >> >...
      >> than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect.

      >Convoluted rubbish.

      No. It's called the truth.


      > your latin is useless - Speak English.

      My latin is the product of an activity called reading. You might want to do it sometime. Trust me it's very rewarding:

      Translation: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.

      Except here they only SEEM equally predictive, and that is because of your clever abuse of the English language, not because of the nature of your (il)logic.



      >an easy to disprove blanket assertion about all of IIT-ians.


      I also mentioned "statistically" in a previous post. In case you need to read even more than I had anticipated, this means the following:


      The peak of the Gaussian curve of the achievements of iitians is at least one standard deviation above that of wherever you came from. This is a fact, not a blanket generalization. Again, you're just abusing the inadequacies of the English language to try to force your fallacious point of view.



      >80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes


      Well I doubt you can take the higher ground since whatever the percentage may be for iitians, it will be lower for your ilk.

      >You know them all, or do you just intend redefining repute

      I know at least 20. Each of them know an average of 30 (incl common-counts) and so on in regression. The 20 I do know personally agree with the 30 that each of them know and so on. Thus, my claim still stands.

      >Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who >probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of >a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a >succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the >JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, >finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".


      You know nothing about me, yet you say the things above.That's not a fact, that's a rant.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    28. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > >> 1. A (you) makes claim B to J (me). ...
      > >> than J provides more reliable information to the opposite effect.
      > >Convoluted rubbish.
      > No. It's called the truth.

      No. Convoluted rubbish. Reread Ockham's razor.

      > Translation: Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.

      Practise what you preach.

      > Except here they only SEEM equally predictive,
      > and that is because of your clever abuse of the
      > English language, not because of the nature of your (il)logic.

      Another evidence-free assertion.
      If it walks like a duck, behaves like a duck in every way... wishful thinking won't make it a swan.

      > >an easy to disprove blanket assertion about all of IIT-ians.
      > I also mentioned "statistically" in a previous post.

      Yes. Perhaps in your reality, words tunnel between paragraphs using wormholes.

      Lets inspect that 'mention' of yours:

      > > top students in the country (statistically)
      > > graduate from my Alma Mater and her sisters
      > Sure, if you want to ride the coattails of all departments in all IITs.
      > In your area - physics - TIFR and IISc are more successful than IIT Kanpur,
      > based on the list of
      > Indian Physics Assoc. awardees

      You ignored this, and subsequent retorts, I see you still insist on clinging to the coattails of your sister departments and institutes.

      Lets inspect your later outburst:

      > > >Sure bro, hey - pass on my regards to the "primes are in P" , er, physicists?
      > > "Get this: we do better.Live with it. You'll be a happier person."
      Here we see those famous coattails again. But now, with a "_We_ _do_ _better_ ... _you'll_ be ... happier": an easy to disprove blanket assertion on all IIT-ians: and in our specific case, if you don't earn deep into 6 figures, you are wrong.

      > The peak of the Gaussian curve of the achievements of iitians
      > is at least one standard deviation above that of wherever you came from.
      Beyond your tortured phrasing... Can't you recall what I said a few posts earlier: "I well recognize my inferiority in intellectual achievement to most IIT-ians."

      > >80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes
      > Well I doubt you can take the higher ground
      > since whatever the percentage may be for iitians,
      > it will be lower for your ilk.

      It's hard for 0% to exceed anything.

      Lets not take our eye off the ball, shall we? We were discussing your absurd claim:
      > > In the academia, physics for instance , 85-90% of the best
      > > students in any high ranked physics department willconsist of
      > Yeah, sure. 80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes will soon be awarded to ex-IIT physicists too

      If 80-90% of the best physics students worldwide are IIT-ians, there is surely some big discrimination going on, starting all the way from the Nobel prize committee all the way down to the Indian Physics Association.

      > > You know them all, or do you just intend redefining repute

      > I know at least 20.
      > ...
      > agree with the 30 that each of them
      > know and so on. Thus, my claim still stands.

      You claim to have personal knowledge that all 600 (or fewer) exant physicists-of-repute share your view: "NASA is filled with idiots".

      Liar.

      Lets see: you go abroad, unhesitatingly imbibe the biases of people who probably are just bellyaching, propagate those on Slashdot with the fervency of a true convert. When they're proven wrong, you desperately throw in a succession of clarifications and exceptions ("not since KOBE", "except for the JPL") to somehow salvage your hopeless position and when that doesn't work, finally lauch ad-hominem attacks "I do better than you".

      > You know nothing about me, yet you say the things above.That's not a fact, that's a rant.

      These observations are on your behavior exhibited here publicly in this thread.

      Kill your foolish pride before it does you in. I really mean you well.

    29. Re:We'll build more nukes. by XchristX · · Score: 1

      >No. Convoluted rubbish. Reread Ockham's razor.


      Like I implied, Occam's Razor is a dangerous philosophy usually employed by those fighting a losing battle.


      >Yes. Perhaps in your reality, words tunnel between paragraphs using wormholes.


      Like I said again, reading helps a lot.

      >I see you still insist on clinging to the coattails of your sister departments and >institutes.

      and I see you still insist on clinging to your little delusions of grandeur. Well, you're not alone.

      >It's hard for 0% to exceed anything.

      Like I said again, you're in no position to take the high ground here, since it's 0% for you as well.

      >here is surely some big discrimination going on

      Yes, it's called "selection by merit". A method of discrimination that's led to the worldwide defeat of Communism.


      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    30. Re:We'll build more nukes. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > >No. Convoluted rubbish. Reread Ockham's razor.
      > Like I implied, Occam's Razor is a dangerous philosophy
      > usually employed by those fighting a losing battle.

      No.

      > > Yes. Perhaps in your reality, words tunnel between paragraphs using wormholes.
      > Like I said again, reading helps a lot.

      My additional reading can't make up for your poor writing.

      > > It's hard for 0% to exceed anything.
      > Like I said again, you're in no position to take
      > the high ground here, since it's 0% for you as well.

      I remind of your own words:

      > >80-90% of the Physics Nobel prizes
      > Well I doubt you can take the higher ground
      > since whatever the percentage may be for iitians,
      > it will be lower for your ilk.

      > > here is surely some big discrimination going on
      > Yes, it's called "selection by merit".

      Consider then the implication.

      > of discrimination that's led to the worldwide defeat of Communism.

      A defeat I welcome.

  22. But why? by Red+Samurai · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What exactly is the point? It was already done over 30 years ago, why waste time and money doing it again? Note: This comment is assuming, of course, that the moon landings were actually real, which they weren't.

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

      Why not? Is it impossible?

      They just don't have the motivation nowadays.

    2. Re:But why? by msbsod · · Score: 1

      You are right, just going to the moon for fun is waste. I think we should forget about the 3He idea (even ITER will be more difficult than current press releases tell). But building telescopes to gather knowledge about the universe is IMHO worth the trip. Those telescopes would certainly not only cover the optical spectrum. Radiotelescopes, Tera Hertz receivers, high energy particle detectors, these are just a few possibilities to extend the range of a telescope and there is no better place than the moon to do this kind of astronomy. That is at least better than to tell the next administrator that she or he has to pay for a ticket to Mars, without stating the reason.

    3. Re:But why? by Alderin1 · · Score: 1

      Extend the range of the telescopes so that we can see further into areas we can't get to... this is valid research for what exactly? Will it help us with our power concerns? Will it help us with lower cost housing? Will it help us prepare to defend our planet from an astonomical event? A full survey of our own Solar system to identify as many Earth threats as possible would be more worthwhile, and would not take extended range. It just would take more current-power-level telescopes with extra-atmospheric positioning and a nice networked database. But that won't happen because all the astronomy research money is spent trying to figure out how old the universe is (like that matters) and other equally purposeless adgendas. "That asteroid is in an orbit that might hit us, but boy that nebula 20,000 lightyears away is pretty."

      --
      No conformist ever made history.
    4. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement is quite ironic. If we listened to you a couple centuries ago, when galileo was looking into the heavens, we would have no idea that there exist things like asteroids.

    5. Re:But why? by Alderin1 · · Score: 1

      There are things we can see that can affect us, and there are things we can see that cannot affect us. Don't get me wrong, those pursuits are just fine, as long as they are prioritized. I personally would like to see our own neighborhood mapped properly before attempting to map the whole galaxy (or universe). If my tax dollars are being used for astronomical research, I'd prefer them to be portioned more locally and less "universally". Gallileo was self funded and self published (IIRC), so his groundbreaking work was not made at the expense of the taxpayers.

      But if you want to get personal, Mr (or Ms) Coward, if people were listening to me for most of my life, we would have an alternative to bullet-style aerospace, and many wonderful glittery things like orbital hydroponic farms with year-round growing seasons to feed the hungry, orbital forges and Lunar mines making alloys that are impossible at the bottom of a gravity well for better structures, etc. But, obviously, people haven't. I guess if you want it done right...

      --
      No conformist ever made history.
    6. Re:But why? by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      Shagging Brad Pitt has already been done. But I wouldn't mind doing it myself too, just to be sure it wasn't faked by Hollywood.

  23. You really have an odd sense of history by technoextreme · · Score: 0
    China has been a world power for -let me see- all known history, and is chinese first and anything else a distant second. They are a pragmatic people, move with slow but sure steps. I certainly hope this move of theirs will have more real tangible benefit to humankind, and not just for political bravado.
    China a superpower for all known history????? No. Not even close. China has always been a poor farming country until recently.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:You really have an odd sense of history by fitchmicah · · Score: 1

      Every other country was also a "poor farming country" for a while as well.

    2. Re:You really have an odd sense of history by HungWeiLo · · Score: 4, Informative

      China has always been a poor farming country until recently.

      Poor farming countries tend not to be able to carry out voyages with a fleet of over 300 ships of which some are the size of a small aircraft carrier, halfway around the world (and some say all the way around the world) nearly 100 years before Columbus.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    3. Re:You really have an odd sense of history by carsamba · · Score: 1

      I still beg to differ: It is wrong to evaluate different cultures with your values. Yes, they have never been colonial like the British or the Spanish were once, or culturally and politically invasive as the U.S. is today. But for thousands of years now they have been culturally stable, very large and very powerful though pretty much "dormant" -as we like to call it-. Just because they do not strut this around, does not mean we should be blind to this.

    4. Re:You really have an odd sense of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the occupation of Tibet was not colonialism? The grabbing and occupation of disputed islands (Spratley, Paracel etc.) is just a figment of my imagination? The claim over Taiwan is not colonialism? Which planet have you been living on?

    5. Re:You really have an odd sense of history by Xeriar · · Score: 1

      The size of those ships is considered to be... slightly exxagerated, considering they make no comment about the techniques needed to build ships that big.

  24. Hmmm by sundancekid503 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bought many of acres of moon land through the "Lunar Registry". I assume that China will check with me before picking a landing spot? I don't want any of my prime real estate damaged by their rockets.

    I didn't pay $32/acre just to let anyone use it. That would be stupid!

    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sundancekid503 : "Hello, this is sundancekid503, I like to inform you that your lunar landing is encroaching my property on moon... I would like $5 billion dollars please."

      Hu Jintao : ".....solly, won moment poleese..." (hangs up the phone, and turns around to the second artillery general)

  25. Allegiance Anyone? by theseeria · · Score: 0
  26. oh crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it seems like same ol, same ol, same old diatribes on going back to the moon.

    My Rant for the Week:

    1. Saturn V plans still exists, it's the infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt.
    2. NASA speaks mostly of contracts and budgets, I wonder how many badged employees (civil servant and contractor) understand the rocket equation.
    3. To get money to build the CEV and CLV, they have to cancel other programs and layoff people (not a good way to build consensus).
    4. A "light year" is a unit of distance, NOT time!!!!

    Mike

  27. How dare they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...want to go to our moon. We had it first.

  28. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt! by Munta · · Score: 1

    Using helium! Any chance of sending Richard Branson up with them? In fact, I think he may have tried it already. Virgin Moon Landing

    --
    Karmady is the best medicine.
  29. So.. by Omnieiunium · · Score: 2, Funny

    NASA is out-sourcing as well?

  30. Can we still be proud? by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Troll
    Can we as Americans still be proud when the Chinese finally land on the moon? What frontier shall we be left with to brag about? The sad thing is that, even with technology, we seem to have no answer to IEDs in Iraq...so much so that it appears we are being whipped over there!

    Never mind that Dick Cheney said that increased insurgent activity is characteristic of kicks of a dying horse! This he said almost a year ago! Take a look http://icasualties.org/oif/. The picture looks ugly.

    1. Re:Can we still be proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we as Americans still be proud when the Chinese finally land on the moon?

      I'd be more worried about air and water in 2018...

    2. Re:Can we still be proud? by mikapc · · Score: 1

      It's only a matter of time before the U.S. military adopts technologies that will reduce ied effectiveness. I doubt we'll ever be able to complete eliminate all ied from exploding succesfully on their intended target but I think it's very possible that we could develop technologies that could render them largely ineffectual. Militarily on a strategic level ieds already are currently ineffectual as the number of casulties we have sustained in proportion to our population of 300 million is miniscule. Just to provide examples of one technology that one day I'm sure will be introduced, one need only look to the recent winner in the Darpa grand challenge, in which a robotic vehicle navigated a difficult course completely on it's own. One day we will have robot controlled military transport trucks, reducing the number of U.S. soldiers having to be put in harms way. I also belief technology could help in terms of improving survellance of roads and hopefully enabling us to kill more of these bomb layers before they set up their ieds. All this will take quite some time to develop so things might get worse before they get better but I have no problem believing that U.S. has the capacity to negate anything the current slew of insurgents throw at us. We just need to remember that it takes time for the U.S. military to adapt it's infrastructure and tactics to be able to effectively defeat this threat as it is very different from the cold war threat of facing another modern military.

  31. So they'll be there first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    China - 2017
    USA - 2018

    not of course counting: Hollywood - 1969

    1. Re:So they'll be there first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

  32. Vapor hardware by amightywind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It notice that is 1 year before the first planned landing for NASA's new lunar lander. For China to land on the moon by 2017 Apollo style they would have to have at least a 100 ton class booster and a huge, visible effort. The planned Long March 5 booster is only 25 ton class (like Arianne V or Atlas V). Development isn't even approaved yet and it will take 7 years to develop. I doubt if the Russians will be helping them. If you ask me I'd say the Chinese spokesman was smoking crack.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Vapor hardware by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      They only need a 100 tonne rocket if they do the single shot the way that we did. They will probably elect to use a vehicle that is launched into space for the sole purpose of serving as a transport between the moon and earth. They will also send a small space station to orbit the moon. And finally develop a small craft to go between the station to the surface. It is very feasible to launch a large number of small crafts this way. In fact, cheaper in some ways (better use of the facility; if you lose a craft, you do not lose as much).

      With that said, if we redisign the shuttle, then we can send a great deal more to the moon on each shot. Fast way to build a station up.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Vapor hardware by amightywind · · Score: 1

      And finally develop a small craft to go between the station to the surface. It is very feasible to launch a large number of small crafts this way.

      It is not at all feasible. Each craft would have meet basic mission requirements and be autonomous and storable in orbit or lunar orbit for months. A tall order for a country that has never docked spacecraft or developed high energy stages.. Then it would all have to come together perfectly at the time of the mission. Not likely.

      if you lose a craft, you do not lose as much).

      An absurd statement.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    3. Re:Vapor hardware by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's assuming they do it the same way that NASA did--namely, one big rocket to heft everything up into orbit.

      Suppose, instead, that they lift the rocket engine and fuel into orbit on one Long March. Then send the crew up in another Long March with the lander, etc. The crew gets into orbit, docks with the rocket engine, fires the engine and heads to the moon.

      NASA didn't do it that way the first time around, though I believe they're going to do it that way this time around.

    4. Re:Vapor hardware by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      I doubt if the Russians will be helping them.
      Why not? Chinese have the money, and are willing to pay. Plus the general feeling in Russia these days is that they are "strategic partners".
    5. Re:Vapor hardware by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It is not at all feasible. Each craft would have meet basic mission requirements and be autonomous and storable in orbit or lunar orbit for months. A tall order for a country that has never docked spacecraft or developed high energy stages.. Then it would all have to come together perfectly at the time of the mission. Not likely."

      You could have said the same about the United States when Kennedy said we would land a man on the moon before the end of the decade back in 1961. We had a nine year deadline (well eight-and-a-half, I suppose). The Chinese have set themselves a 12 year deadline. I'm sure that, with those extra few years, they can figure out how to build a better lunar lander than what we built in 1969.

    6. Re:Vapor hardware by amightywind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When Kennedy announced the Apollo program he was prepared to develop an enormous rocket (Saturn V) at the outset. The Chinese are clearly taking half measures. Even if the Lander mass was reduced by half it would still take a rocket 4 times as large as the one they are planning to land it on the moon. Nothing in the Shenzhou design suggests that kind of sophistication. Believe Chinese propaganda if you insist, but please don't pretend you are making any sense.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    7. Re:Vapor hardware by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I think you miss just how much in proportion to the overall economy that the Apollo Project cost the USA. Of course that was with 1960's technology and some concern that it could be done at all, but still it was one of the most expensive single research programs since the Manhattan Project. Certainly justified in the game Civilization as a "Great Wonder" in terms of raw resources needed to get it accomplished.

      At one point, even during the height of the Vietnam War, NASA had close to 15% of the Federal Budget. Now it doesn't even get mentioned in the budget except for some occasional pork programs to some fairy god-senators. I would suspect that a similar kind of program would require a similar proportion of the GDP of China. Of course, China also has a tradition of major engineering projects made for national prestige, so it may not be that big of a deal either for them.

    8. Re:Vapor hardware by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      I think you miss just how much in proportion to the overall economy that the Apollo Project cost the USA. Of course that was with 1960's technology and some concern that it could be done at all, but still it was one of the most expensive single research programs since the Manhattan Project.
      One notable difference the Soviet/Russian space programme had compared to NASA was the significantly lesser cost of most (all?) missions of comparable size. It is still a lot, of course; but I think not quite as much as the USA spent on it.
    9. Re:Vapor hardware by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      ...meet basic mission requirements and be autonomous and storable in orbit...

      Go back and read the specs of their orbital modules again. This is exactly what they have designed - and one is orbiting us right now.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    10. Re:Vapor hardware by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      "[...] Even if the Lander mass was reduced by half it would still take a rocket 4 times as large as the one they are planning to land it on the moon. [...] Believe Chinese propaganda if you insist, but please don't pretend you are making any sense."

      Well, then, what would keep them from launching it in four pieces? That's what I don't understand, and perhaps you can explain it to such a dolt as I.

      As I look around the Internet, I see the Apollo CSM weighing in at 30 tons. I see the LM weighing in at 16 tons. We'll add another 14 tons for the engine and the fuel of the Apollo Saturn V third-stage--I can't find any details--to make it a grand total of 60 tons.

      China, if all goes according to plan, will have a vehicle capable of lifting 25 tons in 7 years.

      So we'll say that they send up three pieces. First, they send up the engine. After that, they send up the LM. After that, they send up the Service Module. Then they send up the astronauts. The astronauts dock with the service module. Then they go pick up the LM. Then they go pick up the engine. Then they head off.

      I'll admit, I don't think anybody's ever done this before, but what's to say that China can't have a space "first"?

      Again, maybe I'm missing something. I'll admit, I'm not an expert in these things. But is there anything that's keeping them from running a mission this way other than the fact that nobody has ever done it this way before?

    11. Re:Vapor hardware by amightywind · · Score: 1

      There is a bit of a difference between a discarded service module that can maintain its attitude for a few months and a fully fueled translunar rocket stage with docking capability. You do not know what you are talking about.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    12. Re:Vapor hardware by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      That difference is about 12 years...

      And I do know what I am talking about...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    13. Re:Vapor hardware by Teancum · · Score: 1

      As a proportion to the economy of the USSR, I would say that the Russian effort was very comparable. They had to economize simply because Russia didn't have nearly the same size of economy as the USA did at the same time. Also, the raw costs of both programs were largely hidden within military budgets as well, although in some cases there were military programs that were hidden within the NASA budget as well, so trying to come up with exact monitary figures is going to be difficult at best.

      Besides, the USSR never did send anybody to the Moon. They built a lunar lander, trained cosmonauts to do the job, and tried to build the booster but the last real effort blew up on the launch pad in the first part of 1969 and they were not able to make the necessary repairs to the launch facility not to mention the rocket design itself until well after the July 1969 landing of Apollo 11. As to if Russia could have gone to the moon in the next couple of years is IMHO likely, but for political reasons they choose not to do so. Early Russian spacecraft designs were quite hazardous and took quite a bit of brute force engineering (where people die first) before they finally have perfected the current Soyuz spacecraft design.

      I think the Chinese are going to discover that going to the Moon is going to take a major 1st world economy to accomplish. They are borderline there right now and it will be interesting to see just how far they go, or if it will go down in flames like the Indian attempt to get to the Moon as well. At least China has sent somebody into LEO to start with, something that India has yet to accomplish. In this space race, I think it will be more India vs. China rather than China vs. USA.

  33. Asians in Space. by natedog44 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They don't even know how to drive a car, and they're going to land on the moon? Good Luck... Hopefully they don't dent up the ISS while en route =P

    1. Re:Asians in Space. by greatwall · · Score: 0, Troll

      idiot!

    2. Re:Asians in Space. by jdragon · · Score: 1

      Screw the moon, let's go to Mars instead!

    3. Re:Asians in Space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Face it dude. The days of the West are almost over. Asia will take the lead. It's full of ambitious, intelligent hard working people who want a piece of global wealth, and they are going to get it. Retards like you are clearly unaware of this. Keep feeling superior sucker.

    4. Re:Asians in Space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, maybe they should, on the way up; it'll raise it's orbit ;)

    5. Re:Asians in Space. by natedog44 · · Score: 0

      You're right, how thoughtless of me.

      I guess the only question left is; Will they use a "Rice Rocket"?

    6. Re:Asians in Space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the eagle has randed.

    7. Re:Asians in Space. by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Ouch. Having spent several weeks in China a year ago, I'd say that those who DO drive, do so in conditions much, much more strenuous than anything in the States. Although the traffic laws aren't enforced at all (the only thing we saw people fined for was not wearing seat belts, whereas traffic lights are just pretty decorations on the streets), the fact that people DO get around, and have very few accidents (that I saw), speaks volumes about the abilities of many of the drivers.

            The Chinese I've met here in the US aren't (or weren't) good drivers, but the ones in Beijing, Shanghai, Xi'an, etc., are VERY good.

  34. ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesnt the moon help keep us as a planet in orbit? if so, what happens when they mine it to a crumb?

  35. an easy mix-up... by lortho · · Score: 1

    I have Slashdot and The Onion right next to each other on my RSS feeds... I clicked this article thinking it was from The Onion...

  36. LBJ by Jerrry · · Score: 1

    "I do not believe that this generation of Americans is willing to resign itself to going to bed each night by the light of a Communist moon".

    Maybe LBJ's words still ring true to the current generation...

    1. Re:LBJ by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      never happen. China's communisim OWNS our economy. Russia's was never even close.

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

      They weren't communist then, and they're not now, so uhh, no.

  37. He-3 Not Feasible by LordMyren · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:He-3 Not Feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that's right it's impossible, for americans to conceive anyway...

  38. Travelling to the moon... by TheTranceFan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Travelling to the moon ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations they could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova, and that would end their trip real quick, wouldn't it!

  39. moon cheese is yellow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that moon cheese is yellow.

  40. China is NOT party to that treaty... by Danathar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China has NEVER signed either the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 OR the updated Moon Treaty of 1979.

    If they want to claim it there is no international legal mumbo jumbo to say it's not theirs.

    1. Re:China is NOT party to that treaty... by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1
      I, have signed neither the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 nor the Moon Treaty of 1979 and as such claim ownership of the moon!

      Further more, you can purchase an acre of land on the moon from me for the super special/one-time-only(!) price of
      $19.99
      +$1.51 (Lunar Tax)
      +Shipping and handling of $10.00.

    2. Re:China is NOT party to that treaty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      China has NEVER signed either the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 OR the updated Moon Treaty of 1979.

      And the US can always point to NAFTA as an example of "but we had our fingers crossed". The only way a treaty with the US is going to have any impact is if you wrap it around a brick.

    3. Re:China is NOT party to that treaty... by AttilaSz · · Score: 1
      --
      Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.
  41. lunar self-determination by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would think that, when the time comes, when there are enough people, then it would be those folks living on the Moon who would want to create their government. And they're not likely to be asking us for any advice.

    1. Re:lunar self-determination by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, as has been discussed in old sci-fi novels for decades, the moon is much farther up the gravity well from us and they'll have lots and lots of rocks.

      I think you'd only need a handful of resourceful people up there with a big slingshot and they've got us all by the short-curlies.

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
  42. 'the West' better smarten up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some reason everytime there is a story about China in space the hairs on the back of my neck stick up.

    What are we (the West) doing to maintain (let alone expand) our presence in space? It seems like we're falling back to Earth. If it weren't for Russia (which really isn't part of 'the West') we couldn't even get back up to our little tincan spacestation.

    I hate to see the democratic nations losing any advantage to China; if they treat their own people with such little respect, we need every edge we can get to keep them respecting us. But when the advantage is space I'm even more concerned; maybe this thought is too Jurasic, but to whatever capacity the despots have a certain technology, the free world better be at least as capable, and probably more so.

    To many bright minds are in Western society are going into business and marketing; too little respect is paid to scientists and engineers (unless they build something that is immediately good for business and/or marketable).

    1. Re:'the West' better smarten up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right now we are exploring with mars with robots. is that really not good enough for you?

  43. don't panic yet by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Luckily, we have a biosphere that continually turns sunlight into fuel. It's mostly just a question of processing, you know. It's convenient to have the hydrocarbons reduced to an easily pumpable fluid, but it isn't strictly necessary. When the time comes, it will be easy enough to grow plants and convert them to various forms of chemical fuel.

    1. Re:don't panic yet by srleffler · · Score: 1

      How much energy does that processing take? If it takes more energy than you get from the fuel produced, you're SOL.

  44. well said by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Well said.

  45. The Armstrong Irony by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    "That's one small step for a man one giant leap for mankind."

    The fundamental irony in this statement is that it was not a small step for a man, it was a 250,000 mile step for the individual man. And the entire moon-landing program didn't really amount to much for the vast majority of people on earth. It wasn't a 'giant leap'.

        This 'Armstrong Irony' is mentioned in the 1986 book Nature's End by Whitley Streiber and James Kuneka. A wonderful sci-fi book, highly recommended, and still probably available at your local library.

    1. Re:The Armstrong Irony by a302b · · Score: 1
      A wonderful sci-fi book, highly recommended, and still probably available at your local library.
      That is, until librares aren't allowed to hold books for breach of copyright! (seems to be the way things are going....)

      --
      Unity in Diversity
    2. Re:The Armstrong Irony by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The fundamental irony in this statement is that it was not a small step for a man, it was a 250,000 mile step for the individual man.

      I thought the fundamental irony way that he screwed up the quote, even though he'd practiced it - One small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  46. repeating history? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    The Chinese...are on their way to becoming a Superpower....

    Wait a minute....didn't the Chinese start out as a superpower, say about 800 years ago or so? I'm always hearing that the Chinese were civilized and inventing paper and fire and logic and stuff when my ancestors were grunting around a campfire eating raw antelope with their fingers.

    1. Re:repeating history? by tftp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China is the largest regional power; it was such for thousands of years. All this is well documented. However it was never a global power (=superpower); Emperors just minded their own business and practiced calligraphy. Now is the time to change that. A base on the Moon, armed or not, will be a very strong statement, and China has resources to do that. USA does not have money (all it has is a huge debt to, for example, China...) So USA can compete only if China allows it, in form of investing into more green pieces of paper.

    2. Re:repeating history? by 808140 · · Score: 1

      Dude... the Yuan dynasty? The largest empire the world has ever seen? Stretched all the way to Poland? Made the USSR look small in comparison?

      Not a world superpower... Yeah, right.

      Here's a map of China from 1300-1405. Yeah.

    3. Re:repeating history? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      The Mongols gained fame in the 13th century when under Chinggis KHAN they conquered a huge Eurasian empire.

      And if you look closer at the file you linked to, you might notice the filename "mongol_dominions.jpg" :)

    4. Re:repeating history? by 808140 · · Score: 1

      Um, yes. Believe it or not, I knew that. The link to that file on Perry-Castaneda also refers to it as the Mongol dominions.

      Genghis Khan was no doubt Mongolian, and the Yuan dynasty was founded by Mongolians -- one of the many ethnic groups that have existed in China since, well, forever. Mongolia (outer, that is) was a part of China essentially up until it became a part of the USSR. It hasn't been an independant state for long.

      Their capital was in Beijing. The Mongolian horde was large, but not large enough to administer an empire that size. Like most people that have invaded China, within in a generation, they were sinicized.

      The Mongolia/China distinction is essentially a modern one. Not arguing that they're ethnically and culuturally different, though, from other Chinese ethnic groups (hint: China has lots, all different from each other).

  47. First Take Away to Open 6 months later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tsk tsk

  48. TANSTAAFL by efuseekay · · Score: 1


    Heinlein's grave moved a bit I think.

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
  49. Oblig. by Alias777 · · Score: 1

    Technology has changed so much. I never knew they can move a whole country to the moon!

  50. why not? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Well, the reason you can do heart, liver, kidney et cetera transplants successfully is because of the anti-rejection drugs developed in the United States.

    The reason you can tell whether your child will have Down's syndrome in time to abort and try again is because of genetic analysis developed in the United States.

    The reason you solve certain crimes is because of DNA analysis invented by an American scientist.

    The reason people with diabetes can have more normal lives is because of recombinant human insulin produced in bacteria colonies, a method developed in the United States.

    The reason AIDS is not automatically a death sentence anymore is because of powerful antiviral therapies developed in the United States.

    The reason breast cancer survival rates are far higher than they were 20 years ago is because of new chemotherapies, including tamoxifen and herceptin, developed in the US.

    And, finally, the reason you can ask this question and get an answer is because of a nifty idea called the Internet, invented in...well, you get the idea.

    1. Re:why not? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The reason you can tell whether your child will have Down's syndrome in time to abort and try again is because of genetic analysis developed in the United States.

      That's a step backward for humanity just as much as it is a step forward. Many parents of Down's syndrome children thank God every day that they did not abort.

    2. Re:why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many parents of Down's syndrome children thank God every day that they did not abort.
      Why would they God and what use is a child with that horrible defect except sucking in millions to dollars in government aide to it alive... I just don't see the point.
  51. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is EXACTLY the sort of analysis I've been trying to google. None of the usual fusion sites have anything close to solid math about He3 fusion.

  52. sorry guys... by Null+Perception · · Score: 1

    Its not 1969 anymore...

    --
    Great new book on Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
  53. Owning the moon by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1
    "How much of it would the [U.S.] government have to cede to China if it also landed there?"

    That's a trick question, no one owns the Moon, much like Antarctica isn't owned by any country either.


    It's more than a trick question. It's also an ethical/philosophical question:

    What gives someone the right to a piece of ground that was there long before them and long after them, and is in no way theirs any more than they can muster violence to hold it? Do we have a right to deprive others from that which isn't even ours? Since land is not property --even in the loosest sense-- until you can put up a fence, then it seems like if China goes to the moon, and founds bases there uncontested, the moon is de facto theirs. What would be a coup is if they could get the Americans to call it Yueqiu or something (sorry if that's wrong, I've never seriously studied Chinese).

    Often quoted: "Men did not make the [Moon]... It is the value of the improvements only, and not the [Moon] itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." (apologies and attribution to that radical Thomas Paine (Agrarian Justice, 1795-6))

    (and here is the context:)
    There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made.

    The value of the improvement so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that time, as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But there are, nevertheless, distinct species of rights, and will continue to be, so long as the earth endures. (from http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html
    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  54. 2017 china vs. 2018 usa by chocotofferts · · Score: 1

    wowooo! get the popcorn, we got a spacerace.

  55. He-3 too booku baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me chinese, me play joke. Me put He-three in your Coke.

    Fizzle Fizzle long time baby!

  56. Yeah, And I'm Landing On Mars In 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk is cheap, especially big talk.

  57. Standards by srleffler · · Score: 1
    In the real world, a lot of engineering gets done in standard, particularly in the US. The reason? If I walk to the hardware store, they are gonna sell me a 2"x4" piece of wood, not 40mm X 90mm.

    Actually, a "green" American 2 x 4 is 40 x 90 mm. Dried they end up a little smaller. Measure one some time if you don't believe me.

  58. You'll have to refresh my memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For China to land on the moon by 2017 Apollo style they would have to have at least a 100 ton class booster and a huge, visible effort.

    What was the name of the US 100 ton booster launched in 1957?

  59. I for one.... by zardo · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.

  60. What about Cassini and stuff like that? by zardo · · Score: 1
    Moon base is one thing, I don't see the Chinese, Europeans or anyone else sending probes to Jupiter, Saturn, we're already well on our way to Pluto. Huygens was a nice collaborative effort, but so far all the ESA has done is earth, moon, and sun observation.

    Putting people on the moon is easier in some respects than sending a probe to Jupiter. I say China try something unique, how about a race to the nether regions of our solar system? Lets explore these Kuiper belt objects, that seems way more interesting to me than the friggin MOON!

  61. Where is it? by bucky0 · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to where the He is being stored on the moon. He is inert, so it's not bound in molecules. It's also really light, so it escapes the earth's gravitational pull (meaning it'll fly away even quicker from the moon). Are there a lot of radioactive materials undergoing beta decay leaving pockets of He?

    --

    -Bucky
  62. Oh for 'heavens' sake! by Demorepublicrat · · Score: 1

    I'm sick of this 2015/2020/2025 BS! Will someone just go there already afterall we did it with very limited technology in the 60's in a very short amount of time WHY the hell can't we do it in a shorter amount of time with less money, has society stopped progressing since the 70's?

  63. If I were you I'd keep quiet by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Wait until they build the base, then let them know you ow the land - your moonland is going to be worth quite a bit more than $32/acre once someone puts the sewer lines in for you! What are they going to do, tear all the plumbing out and start going outside?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  64. Doesn't jibe with landers or other sucesses by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Your account of Nasa being all air and no space doesn't really seem to fit to well with the pretty stellar track record they have enjoyed, not just with the landers of course but also with the Cassini probe.

    If the PHd's don't know how to get things done, someone at NASA sure does.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  65. Whatever happened to India? by heroine · · Score: 1

    Last year it was India and China as the 2 largest competitors in the space race. Now India seems to have dropped out. Both countries have over a billion people. Both have the highest educated population in the world.

    1. Re:Whatever happened to India? by Liveandletlive · · Score: 0

      India is still in the race. All set to launch by 2010.

      --
      I know the world exists because I exist.
  66. Arthur C. Clarke Foresaw This by Schwarzchild · · Score: 1

    He wrote about the Chinese being the first to one of Jupiter's moons in a short story that I think was the inspiration for 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm not sure why Clarke saw the Chinese as being trailblazers into space from way back in the 50s but he did.

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  67. 1968 vs. today by heroine · · Score: 1

    In 1968 there was one country which controlled 90% of the world's
    resources and 100 other countries recovering from WWII. Today all the
    world's countries are competing for the world's resources, each making
    sacrifices to share with the others. It would take an equally
    unanimous sacrifice of hundreds of countries and a desire of each country to survive a
    war of technology to repeat the 60's.

  68. They will be Hungry again... by ArthurT · · Score: 1

    30 minutes after lift off? How much Chinese food can you take to the Moon? They dont have Teng? ( Orange Drink?) This will give new meaning to the words: Rice Burner... After Rice Burner? Edgar Rice Burner?

  69. think again by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    I think you're wrong. Because of the test, parents have a choice. Parents who choose not to abort believe they have taken a deeply meaningful step, made a profound act of affirmation of life and hope for the future. They have freely chosen to accept the child as he is, knowing his handicaps. Their act would be less meaningful, less an act of grace, if it were not the free choice which the genetic test makes it.

    1. Re:think again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying that a test to detect Jews in attics is good because when the Nazis find the Jews and don't kill them, it makes their act more meaningful. Perhaps that's true, and perhaps that's a consolation to the Jews who are found by Nazis who used their free will to make a different choice.

    2. Re:think again by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Not in the least. Jews would be hiding in attics because they were hiding from deliberate attacks from other humans. A "test" to find them would be a betrayal of them to their attackers.

      Down's Syndrome is not a deliberate attack on babies by anything. It's just a tragic accident when the DNA doesn't divide right. So a test to detect it isn't a betrayal of the child to his attackers.

      Unless you are saying that a child's parents should generally be regarded as its attackers, because they will kill him if they can find a reason why he isn't perfect. In that case a test for Down's does betray the child to its attackers -- its own parents. And in that case, your analogy is apt.

  70. Still need that aid money? by PetrusMagnusII · · Score: 1

    So if China is doing so well that they can start a space exploration program, I guess they wont be need 50billion dollars a year form Japan in aid money any more then will they?
    Oh wait, no, see, that money they're supposed to use to feed their people is what's feeding their space program. Japan threatened to pull the aid, and the people ran to the streets destroying anything Japanese they can find.
    Somehow I think the people that are actually paying for China's space program will soon be pulling the plug, and China will collapse on-top of itself when the fact that it's been spending other people's money for the last 60 years catches up with them.

    1. Re:Still need that aid money? by fussili · · Score: 1

      I posted something like this the last time this topic came up and was modded down as a Troll.

      It's fundamentally disgusting for a country to spend an estimated $18 Billion US on a space program when they still receive $20 Billion in aid.

      Nice to know we're financing this - now how about upping the standard of living over there? Guangzhou =/= The rest of China.

    2. Re:Still need that aid money? by bobbo69 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, sort of like all that aid the US needed from the rest of the world after Katrina then eh?

    3. Re:Still need that aid money? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Seeing as Japan's ODA budget was 8859 million dollars in 2004, I'd say you're confusing dollars with yen. 50 billion yen is roughly $424 million, hardly enough to pay for a space program, even taking into account the much lower costs in China. Japan has been decreasing it's aid to China since the beginning of the century, the reasoning being that China doesn't really need the money anymore. And I don't think the Chinese would start rioting because "Japan threatened to pull the aid", more likely they are happy that they don't need aid anymore, getting foreign aid can't be anything else than embarrassing for a country.

  71. Where is Helium in Moon stored? [Re:Where is it?] by tuomas_kaikkonen · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quoting Wikipedia on Helium:
    "On Earth it is created by the radioactive decay of much heavier elements (alpha particles are helium nuclei produced by the decay of uranium). After its creation, part of it is trapped with natural gas in concentrations up to 7% by volume. It is extracted from the natural gas by a low temperature separation process called fractional distillation."

    Perhaps the Helium in Moon is trapped similarly in natural gas. OTHO, if there is natural gas in the moon, wouldn't that be a better source of fuel (with current technology)?

    Quoting Wikipedia on Moon:
    "The lunar crust is composed of a variety of primary elements, including uranium, thorium, potassium, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, titanium, calcium, aluminum and hydrogen. When bombarded by cosmic rays, each element bounces back into space its own radiation, in the form of gamma rays. Some elements, such as uranium, thorium and potassium, are radioactive and emit gamma rays on their own. However, regardless of what causes them, gamma rays for each element are all different from one another -- each produces a unique spectral "signature", detectable by a spectrometer.
    A complete global mapping of the Moon for the abundance of these elements has never been performed. However, some spacecraft have done so for portions of the Moon; Galileo did so when it flew by the Moon in 1992. [3] The overall composition of the Moon is believed to be similar to that of the Earth other than a depletion of volatile elements and of iron."

    Wikipedia does not even mention Helium, but it mentions hydrogen. Is Wikipedia's Moon article up to date?

  72. Re:Where is Helium in Moon stored? [Re:Where is it by tuomas_kaikkonen · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the Finnish Wikipedia on Moon, 25% of the Moon's athmosphere consists of Helium gas. I do not see how this gas could be "mined". Perhaps they could just somehow collect it?

  73. Call me flamebait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In the real world, a lot of engineering gets done in standard, particularly in the US.

    It's worth pointing out that what you call "standard" units are actually "Imperial" units. That's "Imperial" as in "British Empire". You know, the guys you fought a war to escape from, a little while back?

    And here you are, still following their old units, while most of the rest of the world has moved on to more rational SI/metric units.

    Could that be one of the reasons the US is falling behind technically and scientifically these days?

  74. Why China Will Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A large army and large navy do not make a Superpower. China lacks the ability to project power either with an air bridge as the United States did in '48, '73, '90-91 or sealift as the United States has done time and time again since the end of the Second World War.


    Wrong answer. Sure, if it came to an all-out war, the US might have a chance against China. But that isn't likely to happen. Sheer military power is the one remaining area where the US still remains dominant in the world, but it's the one area that's becoming less and less relevant in world affairs.

    The US won the Cold War against the USSR without launching a single nuclear missile or dropping a single nuclear bomb in anger. It won simply by outgrowing the Soviet economy, to the point where the USSR could no longer keep up.

    And guess what? The US is no longer the dominant economy in the world that it once was. Other areas are growing faster, and showing more prospects for long-term growth. Even US culture is no longer as dominant in the world as it once was (the world's biggest and fastest-growing movie industry is based, not in Hollywood, but in Mumbai). And we all know where science and technology is going...

    My prediction is, China and India will become dominant in the world without a single shot being fired.

    1. Re:Why China Will Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The US is no longer the dominant economy in the world that it once was.

      With approximately 5% of the world's population, that's probably fair enough.

      My prediction is, China and India will become dominant in the world without a single shot being fired.

      If these countries do become dominant, I bloody well hope so. I dunno about you, but I really don't particularly want a war, especially amongst nuclear-armed countries.

  75. Democracies helping dictatorships take over by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    The actual worth of America's massive debt to the People's Republic of China is a secondary consideration to the CCP leadership. What matters to them is how that control of America's finances can be used to knock the USA off its sole superpower perch so that the People's Republic of China (aka the Middle Kingdom to which all other nations are historically subservient) can reassume their role as the most powerful nation.

    Even if the value of the US currency would go down, it'd just make it more attractive for the Chinese to buy up US-based assets considered strategic to their objectives. Unlike the cash-rich Japanese in the 80's, the Chinese wouldn't care much about the largely symbolic real estate but would go for targets which would allow them to gain control of the US economy and production.

    All in all, it's strange how the ruling classes of America (large corporations and their political friends) seem to doing everything in their considerable power to help an expansionist and aggressive dictatorship to grow into an uncontrollable behemoth. Tibetans, Uighurs and ("Inner", huh) Mongolians are left to their own devices to cope with the sinister sinization of their lands while the Taiwanese live under the constant fear of invasion by the CCP's military arm, the euphemistically titled "People's Liberation Army".

    Bush, Blair & Co tout their invasion and occupation of Iraq as a "moral duty" while they're bending over backwards to roll out the red carpet to China's totalitarian rulers. Blair, who refused to even meet the exiled leader of the Tibetans last year will be kissing Chairman Hu's butt next week, hell-bent on resuming the sale of military technology to the aggressive dictatorship! They're trying hard to reach Putinist Russia's high moral standards apparently.

    How is this all related to PRC's ambitious space program? Well, were we rejoicing when monsieurs Hitler and Stalin made progress on their respective paramilitary programs while building up ultranationalist fervour among their under-critical populations?

    If this was about a peaceful and democratic China which wasn't committing genocide against its defenseless neighbours or oppressing its own people over "thought crimes" I'd be happy as a clam. I know there are good people in China; I've met such people myself. But too many, especially of those with knowledge of english and access to the 'net, are ultranationalistic stooges supporting their unelected regime with total disregard to the crimes they've committed.

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  76. Goal of Chinese Lunar Base is set AFTER 2025 by tuomas_kaikkonen · · Score: 2, Informative
    According to the People's Daily English Edition of May 20th, 2005 the original goal was to go to Moon in 2010. They also write more in details of what they are planning on mapping.

    "The satellite is to be launched into lunar orbit for comprehensively probing into rich resources on the moon such as He3, Fe, Ti and water-ice, as well as its surface condition, landforms, geologic structure and physical fields through remote sensing. "

    Later that article mentions the three step goals as:
    "Another two deputy chief designers of Shenzhou III spacecraft revealed a three-step plan of China's first manned spaceflight:
    [1] Take Chinese astronauts into space;
    [2] create a space laboratory;
    [3] and establish China's space station and establish a connection with international space stations. "

    Looks like the Moon base and telescope were recent additions to the three step plan. In November 8, 2003 the Xinhua News Agency reported these four goals for Moon program:
    " For the first goal, there will be three-dimensioned graphs of the lunar surface.
    Basic structures and physiognomy units of the lunar surface will be defined precisely. Researches on the shape, size, distribution, and density will be made on the crates on the moon. These researches on the crates will produce data for identifying the age of the surface and early history of terrestrial planets and provide information needed to select the sites selecting for soft landing on the moon surface and for the lunar base.

    The second goal is concentrating on the distribution and types of elements.
    It will be focused on the content and distribution of 14 elements such as titanium and iron which can be exploited. A map of elements distribution around the moon will be sketched. Graphs for lunar rocks, mineral materials and geology will also be drawn respectively. The area rich in specific elements will be identified. And prospects of the development and exploitation of the mineral resources will be evaluated.

    The third goal is to detect the depth of the lunar soil through microwave radiation.
    In this way we can calculate the age of the lunar surface and distribution of the lunar soil on the lunar surface. This lays a foundation for the further estimates of the content, distribution, and quantity of helium-3 which is power generating fuel caused by nuclear fusion.

    The fourth goal is focused on the space environment between the earth and the moon.
    The average distance between the earth and the moon is 380 million km, which is in the earth's far magnetotail. Here the satellite probes solar energetic particles, plasma in solar wind, and the interaction between the solar wind and the moon and between the tail of the magnetic field of the earth and the moon. " Then of course we have to look at Chinanews 2005-11-01 article that sums up the most recent plans: "China will consider manned lunar landing after 2017". ...
    " As for when the first Chinese astronaut will set foot on the moon, Ouyang said China will be capable of realizing manned lunar landing between 2020 and 2025. After that, China will also plan to build a base on the moon. "

  77. He3 is the key by Dollyknot · · Score: 1

    Exploring space is horrendously expensive especially when America does it. I remember reading years ago, that the Russian space achievements during the cold war period were achieved at a tenth of the cost of the American achievements. Yes America reached the moon but what have we got to show for it? Apart from an inflated ego zilch! that was up until about twenty ago, when a lab in the University of Wisconsin discovered with little fanfare, something remarkable.

    Read

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1283 056.html?page=1&c=y/

    Shmitt (The only scientist to visit the moon) reckons that He3 is worth about $40000 an ounce or $1428 dollars a gram , gold is worth around 15 dollars a gram. If Shmitt is correct in his estimate of the value of He3, this makes He3 nearly a hundred times more valuable than gold. Had the astronaughts have struck gold on the moon, I have little doubt that we would be living on the moon by now.

    There are many news articles about He3 here http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/

    The science of He3 here http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/he3.html/

    The thing that will make human endevours in space viable, is when space makes a profit.

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  78. The real agenda... by TenLow · · Score: 2, Funny
    They just want to put up a bigger flag than ours. Once they get that done, russia is going to need to put up an even bigger flag.

    One day, someone is going to build a flag so big, it will destroy us all.

  79. Crafty Chinese playing fast with history by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 1
    Dude, those were guys operating the empire extending from China in the east and India in the south to eastern Europe were Mongolians who had invaded China and operated it as one of their four imperial domains. After overthrowing the foreign Mongolian invaders' Yuan dynasty, the crafty Chinese emperors that followed chose to co-opt the Mongolian empire as belonging to them!

    The Mongolians also invaded Tibet in its entirety, being the only foreign power to do so before the Chinese communist army in 1950, and that invasion by the Mongols is used by the supposedly anti-imperial and anti-feudal Chinese communists today as a key argument as to why the Tibetan nation is theirs, and only theirs, to occupy, rip off and commit genocide as they please.

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  80. Walmart plans to build on moon in 2018 by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    In a unanimous uproar of praise, bill 2347-g passed congress today to allow Walmart to build the first ever outer-space SuperCenter on the moon in 2018. Walmart HMFIC had this to say: "It's so exciting!! There will be so many new resources and people to exploit, we are just giddy as school girls!!"

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  81. Your Head's Still Higher by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    Can we as Americans still be proud when the Chinese finally land on the moon?

    Well, you can still be proud of the little things like democracy and freedom of speech. They may seem trivial and perhaps in decline in modern America, but you're still light (years)^2/metre ahead of the Chinese, whose last emperor, Mao Zedong, has built a nation which looks like it's going to be an authoritarian oligarchy for some time into the future.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Your Head's Still Higher by bogaboga · · Score: 1
      > Well, you can still be proud of the little things like democracy and freedom of speech.

      Remember that in this land of the "free", ambassador Wilson's wife was exposed as a CIA agent just because he questioned intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and that slavery flourished for centuries too. For decades and even up to now, the land of the free still has second class citizens just because they were not born by the "right" parents.

  82. Re:Where is Helium in Moon stored? [Re:Where is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25% of 0.000000000003 mB... wow.
    You'd have to mine a HUGE amount of moon gas to get anything out of THAT.

  83. Helium-3 as fuel ? by ultranova · · Score: 1
    So, taking into account that Helium is a noble gas and therefore extremely difficult to get to react chemically, and Helium fusion both requires higher temperature and pressure than Hydrogen fusion and produce less energy, would someone please explain how it can be used as a fuel ?

    Or did they perhaps mean using it as reaction mass of rockets ?

    Also, since Helium is second-lightest element (and Helium-3 is presumably even lighter than normal Helium-4), why would there be significant amounts of it in the Moon, whose gravity field is weaker than Earths ?

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    1. Re:Helium-3 as fuel ? by Dollyknot · · Score: 1
      The moon has no magnetic field and virtually no atmosphere, helium gas streams from the sun, about one in ten thousand helium atoms lacks a proton, hence helium 3. The earths ionosphere and atmosphere stop the helium in the solar wind reaching the earths surface.

      Google '"helium 3" value'

      --
      It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  84. These kinds of prestige projects are obsolete by redmoss · · Score: 1

    By obsolete prestige projects, I mean the Chinese orbit/moon missions, the American Mars/moon missions, the International Space Station, etc. I'm guessing the first space elevator is going to be built 10 to 15 years from now. This will quickly open up space to the familiar menagerie of capitalists, settlers, and adventurers. So "prestige" missions like this which consist of temporarily transporting a few native-born sons onto a piece of nearby space rock won't get much news. Average people will already be doing much more than this.

    I still think nations will have prestige projects and space races like before, but the scale will be much different. Instead of "let's send 3 men to the moon for a few days", think "let's send a probe to Alpha Centauri".