Slashdot Mirror


Will China Beat the United States Back to the Moon?

MarkWhittington writes "During an address on the space economy to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the space age, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin made the assertion that China would beat the United States back to the Moon. 'Americans will not like it, but they will just have to not like it. I think we will see, as we have seen with China's introductory manned space flights so far, we will see again that nations look up to other nations that appear to be at the top of the technical pyramid, and they want to do deals with those nations. It's one of the things that made us the world's greatest economic power. So I think we'll be reinstructed in that lesson in the coming years and I hope that Americans will take that instruction positively and react to it by investing in those things that are the leading edge of what's possible."'"

74 of 482 comments (clear)

  1. Long shot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get to the moon? They can't even make toys!

  2. BACK to the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    But I thought we just shot that first landing in a studio!

    Damn conspiracy theorists.

    1. Re:BACK to the moon? by pikine · · Score: 2, Funny

      What this means is that China finally has the technology to shoot lunar landing in a studio, beating the US to its next shooting schedule. You know, production cost ain't cheap. NASA is just not as accomplished as Hollywood. Porn industry, on the other hand, might actually beat China to showcase some zero-gravity positions. Wouldn't that be a show!

      --
      I once had a signature.
  3. They SHOULD... by TomatoMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...they've got all our money.

    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
    1. Re:They SHOULD... by wilstrup · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually Americans have all their money. The US has been running a huge trade deficit for years, and it's all been financed through loans from other countries. China is one of the leading providers of capital on the international market, due to their enormous trade surplus.

    2. Re:They SHOULD... by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They own a huge chunk of US gov't debt. Which the gov't can repudiate at any time, or (as is the current case) pay off with inflated dollar bills.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:They SHOULD... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They own a huge chunk of US gov't debt. Which the gov't can repudiate at any time, or (as is the current case) pay off with inflated dollar bills. Funny how you might thank that about the US but if a foreign government tried it you would be up in arms. Maybe that is why the rest of the world would have bugger all sympathy if China did try and enslave you.

      The US needs to look at the rest of the world as equals rather than sneer down their noses at us. How much longer can the US keep up its huge military spending necessary to support an empire of it current size? We know from history that every empire falls eventually. You might not think of the US as currently having an empire as such but it does have the largest military on the planet and bases in an awful lot of other countries. Some of those countries are happy with the US presence but some are not.

      Will it be possible to support such a huge military when the worlds oil supplies run even lower.

      These are all questions that the US people need to ask in order to ensure that if they are no longer able to enforce their will overseas militarily no other nation tries looking for revenge against a weakened opponent.
      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    4. Re:They SHOULD... by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much longer can the US keep up its huge military spending necessary to support an empire of it current size? We know from history that every empire falls eventually. You might not think of the US as currently having an empire as such but it does have the largest military on the planet and bases in an awful lot of other countries.

      Military bases around the world does not an empire make. Personally, though, I think we should definitely remove ourselves from places that are capable of defending themselves now. We need maybe one or two supply bases in Europe to help protect our interests in the Mediterranean. We need something in the Middle East--be it an ongoing presence in Iraq or just in Oman--which can protect our interests in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean. And we need something in either Japan or South Korea--but not both.

      I don't think it would take that much money to support that military level. The rest of our troops should be at home. And when they're not training, they should be defending our southern border, helping build levees, etc. We need military readiness, but most of that can be domestic and put the troops to productive use domestically in peacetime.

      Will it be possible to support such a huge military when the worlds oil supplies run even lower.

      All the more reason to have a military. I personally do not think Iraq was about oil. I do not doubt, however, that there will be wars over energy in the future.

      These are all questions that the US people need to ask in order to ensure that if they are no longer able to enforce their will overseas militarily no other nation tries looking for revenge against a weakened opponent.

      The reality is that our military could be less than half as strong as it is now and there'd still be no other country (or reasonable group of countries) that could project a threat against the U.S. mainland in a conventional assault. Sure, there are some countries that could nuke us, but that's the case regardless of the size of our military.

      The threat to the future of the United States is not our military spending. We could easily afford the current military spending if it were the principle expenditure of the Federal Government. The real threat to the solvency of the United States is the social programs that have been instituted in the last 75 years and which are entirely outside what the Federal Government was originally designed to do.

    5. Re:They SHOULD... by JanneM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You also might find it more difficult to collect on the debts owed to you.

      Not to come off unpleasantly, but there is no shortage of foreign countries that already are nearly impossible for the US to collect debt from. It's considered 'a serious crisis for the third world' by many handwringers. Which was sort of the point. If a country reneges on its debt it's not the external lenders that suffer heavily (in a sense, it's money they weren't using at the moment anyway), but the country itself, and the internal lenders. Nobody wants to lend more money until they've cleared off the current defaults, but getting the ailing economy going again needs a lot of funds - funds they can't raise since nobody is willing to lend them any. Just like people or companies that default, they get trapped in a hole that is very difficult to get out of again.

      Defaulting on your debt payments is not something any country would want to do. And no, the pain would not be on the same order of magnitude for the lenders as for the country.
      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    6. Re:They SHOULD... by nido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These are all questions that the US people need to ask in order to ensure that if they are no longer able to enforce their will overseas militarily no other nation tries looking for revenge against a weakened opponent. It's not like The Populace itself chose the path of empire. Joe & Jane American have always been trying to 'just get along'. No, the problem is that a bunch of criminals ('Neoconvicts') carjacked the Republic and have been going on a joy ride for the last 140+ years.

      The Neoconvict's goal has always been to concentrate wealth & power in the hands of the few.

      Most of us are just along for the ride, and only recently has awareness of how we're being used reached mass consciousness. But even now, some people prefer to cling to the illusion...

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    7. Re:They SHOULD... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the US did either of those, they would hurt themselves more, china's economy works by selling crap they made in a big factory, it doesn't mater what values their currency is or what currency they use, they can still sell shit really cheap. The us on the other hand, makes money through venture capital, services, brand names, all kinds of shit that relys on a nice stable successful economy, they whole US system relys on the dollar being a safe currency.

      The ideas you suggest are terrible anyway, the trade between china and the US is immense, most us companies rely on it, if the US government just said they would not payback their debt, the Chinese would retaliate against US companies and destroy the US economy pretty much instantly. If the US used hyper inflation to pay off the debt, they would destroy their economy themselves.

      Of course the US and Chinese economy would both go down together, as would most of the world economy, but the US has further to fall, and in it's post industrial state, would have a big problem getting back up, china would fall back too, but wouldn't have far to go to get back to where they were and the US would have lost it's advantage.

    8. Re:They SHOULD... by encoderer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A dozen replies to this post and nobody pointed out the obvious fallacy: The US dollar never fluctuates vs. the Yuan.

      The Chinese artificially peg the Yuan to the Dollar. Dollar goes up, yuan goes up, so on.

      This is one of the big contentions in US/Chinese economic relations.

      Also, if the US defaulted on its debt, a worldwide economic collapse would occur. All of a sudden, the trillions of us T-Bills on the books of investors large and small become significantly less valuable, or even worthless. So, if you have a net worth of $50,000,000, what do you think you'll do if you wake up the next day and only have $25,000,000. Chances are, you're going to pull-back a large chunk of at-risk assets, such as any stocks and bonds, back into more concrete securities (like the Euro, for example).

      This would cause a massive drop in worldwide markets, precipitating more pullback, and so on.

      It's not really something that we could EVER let happen. The government will (have to) cut social security and medicare before they could stop servicing the debt.

      Some say this is exactly what the GOP is after by running up these huge deficits.

  4. Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cold War ended twenty years ago did it not?

    1. Re:Does it really matter? by Tango42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but the standard definition of "terrorist" isn't "one who terrorises". What China does is called "human rights violations", not "terrorism". The key difference is that China is a sovereign state - doesn't make much difference to the people being abused, but it makes a difference to how you deal with it.

    2. Re:Does it really matter? by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And now it's with China.

      China has shown a great deal of ill-will toward other nations, including America, as well as China's own people. Despite this, we happily build KFCs and Walmart's in their country and contract work and outsource jobs to them for pennies on the dollar. They are coming into their own in the global capitalist market, but without the included democracy of most other nations. This gives them the added benefit of have mass amounts of money and a lot of nimbleness. They don't have to deal with the red tape we do when they want to shift directions or enforce changes to industry.

      We blew our wad last century. Our infrastructures are built and in place and done with. China is just now getting started and will have the benefit of building theirs with a new economy and the technology of the 21st century, instead of the 20th. In our lifetime, they'll probably become the real super-power; trumping the US.

    3. Re:Does it really matter? by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Informative

      The key difference is that China is a sovereign state - doesn't make much difference to the people being abused, but it makes a difference to how you deal with it.

      Or not, as is the case with China and the U.S.

      U.S.: "Hey, China, you're violating human rights! Umm...but that's okay, because I want to grow up to be just like you! Here, let me show you what I've been doing ... (lists Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.) ... What do you think? Cool, huh?"

      :-(

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    4. Re:Does it really matter? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but China has no problems sacrificing millions of people to starvation or bad quality resources if they need them for something more important to the furthering of China. They've had disasters of flooding that dwarf New Orleans... where they simply didn't bother to even try to evacuate cities and just let their people take their chances. When the US had it's "golden age" in the 50's and 60's we had vast untapped potential with both human and natural resources and plenty of security both food and military to allow us to persue them. We didn't divert funds from anywhere for things line the A-bomb or Moon landing. It was just use of resources lying around untapped. China is much different, they will have to fight for everything as they don't have vast natural resources untapped, but in their case people are cheap so they will get into space but be much more reckless and they'll kill (thru accidents from rushing or removing resources) a lot of people in the process. With the stuff they make for the USA they have more than enough technology, they don't have experience in space travel... but that's nothing recklessly launching rockets until they work can't fix. They don't have attention to detail in manufacturing, to get things precise every time, but then again the USA spends far to much time worrying about "safety" and budgets instead of launching rockets and reaching as far as we can because we are in front and not pushed to reach.

    5. Re:Does it really matter? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the irony in this is lost on the majority.

      How did a communally funded waste of money like the space project (apollo, etc) help fight communism?

      So lets rephrase this. Taxes are forcefully appropriated fractions of a man or woman's property or just remuneration (payment) for services or products. Communists say that your labor is not your own, but the state's, and the state can use it to build, spend, destroy, dispose of it in any way it so desires, so long as they can pretend it is "for the good of the people", and the people are the state, and the state's desire is what the people desire (if you object, a "reeducation" team will escort you to your nearest gulag "resort").

      Now, lets see, so in America, they taxed people, thus forcefully stealing the products of their labor (basically their labor itself!) and they used it to fund a feel good public project. They gave it a fancy Greek name. Eventually when it was done, it was done not to reimburse those it robbed, nor to produce anything of importance (except perhaps, Tom Hanks movies), but "for the greatness of the nation" or "to beat the Communists into space".

      I don't see how "beating the communists at their own game" is "defeating communism"... did we succeed merely by "being more communist than the communists"???

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    6. Re:Does it really matter? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think that if the Chinese government had lost power during the June Fourth Movement, their country would have experienced similar hardships, on a larger scale, and would not be the world power that they are today.

      Do we WANT China to be a world power?!? As bad as some of the things which the USA has done, at least there's some accountability and a fairly open media. Information about abuses Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib Gaol was leaked fairly quickly. If China had the same power in the world, you'd see more abuse with more secrecy added to the game. A fun thought for some, no doubt, but I'd rather not live in a world like that.

      -b.

    7. Re:Does it really matter? by jandersen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China has shown a great deal of ill-will toward other nations

      How so? Oh, you mean they got unreasonably upset about what the British did to China (Opium wars), and what Japan did before and during WWII - and they totally misunderstood USA's intentions when America's rhetoric was all about 'Rolling Back Communism' and their actions included such things as the wars in Korea and Vietnam? I think they can be excused for thinking that the West wasn't trying to be their friends. And just to remind you - China has never gone out and invaded other nations or tried to undermine the democratically elected leaders of a sovereign nation. Yes, yes, I know you're going to say 'Tibet', but that is even at best a contentious issue - the argument that Tibet has 'always' belonged to Chinese territory is not entirely without merit, whereas nobody has ever thought that Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq and probably several others are part of the US.

      They don't have to deal with the red tape we do when they want to shift directions or enforce changes to industry.

      This is another common misunderstanding. It is true that a large part of the industry and property in China are state-owned, but even the Chinese government has to follow the laws. The law in any society is not about what you can or can't do - it is also the 'Great Masterplan', the way all parts of society expect things to move. It makes it possible for everybody to make plans and predict the outcome of your actions; if the government doesn't follow it's own laws, everything breaks down.

      It is a funny sort of argument to make, really. Just around the time of the breakdown of the Soviet Union everybody talked about how Communism was never going to be as efficient and progressive as Capitalism; and now you say that the Communism of China is much more efficient than the Capitalism of America? I think the truth is that it doesn't matter one bit whether your society is one or the other - it is fully possible to have a largely Communist society, where everybody is motivated and happy, just as it is possible to have a Capitalist society that is stagnating, and where people are despondent and depressed. America has had it easy in the 20th century; it would seem the good times are just about over for the US. The solution, as always, is to adapt, and the best way to adapt is by looking at the successful nations and learning.

  5. Richard the Rocket Engine by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have to admit, red spaceships are going to be pretty cool.

    1. Re:Richard the Rocket Engine by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have to admit, red spaceships are going to be pretty cool.

      Sure but how will they handle the recall when the Moon People find out there is lead in the red paint?

    2. Re:Richard the Rocket Engine by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If the Chinese call their first interplanetary ship Tsien, a million nerds will jump for joy.

      Come to think of it, that's the space race we should be considering here. Never mind the Moon; who'll be first to Europa?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Richard the Rocket Engine by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not a problem. You forget that in China, the people are a consumable resource.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
  6. Private space flight by Tango42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing I'm more interested in is the chance of a private company putting the next person on the Moon. At this point, the only feasible industry is space tourism - there are no fusion reactors for the He-3, after all - but that might be enough. Virgin Galactic are expecting to be doing regular sub-orbital flights within a year or two, soon after that, they or someone else will start of orbital flights. That could be done in 5-10 years, quite easily. Getting from LEO to the Moon is easy compared to getting from the ground to LEO, so I would expect more than a few years for that.

    If a private company tries, they could get to the Moon in 10-15 years, by my estimate, which could easily beat the various government projects (even assuming they stay on schedule, which we all know won't happen). The big question is whether or not any company will see the point in trying. I hope they do...

    1. Re:Private space flight by Seumas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since Branson and Virgin have spent millions of dollars to invest in their planned orbital trips and space hotels (in the very near future), I would presume they have done a great deal of such market research. Personally, I would not take such a space trip, because - like evolution - gravity is "only a theory". I wouldn't want to be up there in my space hotel and have it plummet back down to the earth! Not to mention, since the earth is flat, I would be worried we'd miss the edge of it on our return and be lost forever!

    2. Re:Private space flight by vrmlguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Virgin Galactic are expecting to be doing regular sub-orbital flights within a year or two, soon after that, they or someone else will start of orbital flights. That could be done in 5-10 years, quite easily. Getting from LEO to the Moon is easy compared to getting from the ground to LEO, so I would expect more than a few years for that. I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, however I'm more interested in your second one. The article "Suborbital spaceflight: a road to orbit or a dead end?" discusses how much harder LEO is than sub-orbital. "If you accelerate in a vehicle straight up and reach Mach 5 or so, you can coast up to X Prize territory and cross the generally accepted threshold of space. However, you will immediately fall back to earth like a dropped cannon ball. Staying in space requires that you also accelerate to about Mach 25 horizontally so that you fall around the earth rather than back onto hard ground. This speed is five to six times greater than the typical maximum speed of an X Prize vehicle. This means that you need at least twenty-five times more energy for orbital flight than suborbital, since kinetic energy goes as the square of the speed." Virgin Galactic's (or their contractor's) abilities would have to increase at Moore's Law-like rates to get to LEO in 5-10 years, and I suspect that won't happen. For one thing, there is little incentive to reach incremental goals. There could be an X-Prize for a trans-Atlantic flight that reaches 100 km, but then your RLV is stuck thousands of miles from home. (OK, maybe FedEx could use it, but how many packages need to cross the ocean in thirty minutes or less?)
      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    3. Re:Private space flight by GreggBz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Private space enterprise has not even matched Yuri yet. Not even close. The Russians poured money into the space race just to determine that a manned moon landing was not even realistic.

      We tried very hard. It took 10 years (starting with Mercury / Gemini etc..) with the involvement of 400,000 people in Apollo on what was basically an initiative mandated by the president. Dozens of the best and most advanced private aerospace companies were funded by lucrative government contracts to the tune of about 19 billion dollars (in the 1960's & just for Apollo, not Mercury or Gemini). If you add Mercury and Gemini and the remainder of NASA's programs it's about $150B. (in 1996 dollars)

      I fail to see how a private company could commit comparable resources and not vanish from lack of profit immediately after the first orbital test flights. Or even do it in 10-15 years with a fraction of that. There are companies with the money, perhaps, but few with the talent and the infrastructure. I don't think Boeing has a spare $150B laying around. I think you'd need lots of big powerful companies working together, or some as yet unforeseen commercial space gold mine.

      We do have the knowledge, but really, I don't think that would be a huge advantage and I'm not so certain we'd aim for a straight repeat of Apollo anyhow.

    4. Re:Private space flight by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sub-orbital vehicles are not a particularly useful stepping stone towards orbital vehicles from an engineering standpoint, certainly, but from a business standpoint, it's very useful. Along with the sub-orbital vehicles being developed, there's a spaceport, various legislation, lots of research on what people want out of space travel, and, soon, a source of income. All of those will greatly help in the development of orbital vehicles.

    5. Re:Private space flight by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Two things significantly reduce the cost: We're not starting from scratch this time. A lot of the development work has already been done and the costs absorbed in other space missions and non-space inventions. Secondly, the reduction in bureaucracy.

  7. That's alright by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We can still claim a victory, even if our government gets beaten getting back to the moon. All we have to do is be the first nation with a private space industry to land on the moon, that's way cooler than having a government land there. We may need a 'permit to land on the moon,' but can you imagine what sort of permits a private company in China would need to land on the moon?

    --
    Demented But Determined.
  8. Would not be bad if it comes to pass. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know if China would really beat us in the back to the moon race, but if it does, it would have a very positive impact on America. After the end of cold war, America has become somewhat lethargic. If this serves to unify behind some kind of scientific goal, it would really be great.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  9. The US is like the Microsoft of the world by mind21_98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mostly only innovating when they're threatened... (see: US manned space program after the Soviets sent someone into Earth orbit)

    ...and bullying everyone else in the meantime.

  10. Who Cares? by moehoward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    We got first post! I mean on the moon, not Slashdot.

    We went there and there was nothing there. Just pride and Cold War points. Me? Loved it. Still recall watching the launches and Apollo 13 as a youngster. I was so into it as a 6-10 year-old. Definitely made a huge impact on the direction of my life.

    While we Slashdotters often mock "If they can put a man on the moon...", there really is something to that. Look at the technology at that time. Look at the mission and the time frame. Amazing stuff. The politicians (mostly) kept their noses out. Even more amazing...

    I don't want us to go back on tax bucks. I don't want another stupid political race, this time with China. I want the private sector to make money in space. We went there for the glory, let's go back for cash. I honestly mean it. If there is a return to be made, let's have the private sector do it, and let's give incentives for that.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Who Cares? by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We got far more from the moon landings than just bragging rights. The government funded research created much of the tehnological economy we enjoy today. I would support a new space race for this very reason. It's been too long since the US invested heavily in basic research.

  11. Who's the daddy? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "In a carefully stage-managed meeting in Beijing with a senior Chinese official, which, unusually, was open to the media, Thomas Debrowski, Mattel's executive vice-president for worldwide operations, read out a prepared text that played down the role of Chinese factories in the recalls."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/99b42156-683a-11dc-b475-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F99b42156-683a-11dc-b475-0000779fd2ac%2Cdwp_uuid%3D9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html

    So... Who needs who more?

    Yeah, China will be on the moon before the USA.

    --
    Deleted
  12. There's one major difference... by Locklin · · Score: 5, Funny

    In space, lead PROTECTS you!

    --
    "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    1. Re:There's one major difference... by sherms · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate to say this, but the real logical answer is "Who cares!"

      Great if they or the US does.

      Hopefully some other new technology will come out of it again.

      Just Share it! like Open Source.

    2. Re:There's one major difference... by BootNinja · · Score: 2, Informative

      You say the left is for restricting freedom, but I'm afraid the facts are against you. It wasn't until we had a right wing congress sitting pretty next to a right wing president that we became a police state.

  13. What a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What, is the moon race a "do over"?

    We go there in 1969, period, dot.

    China beating us back is a false challenge. It would be like if the Soviet Union had landed a man on the moon in September of 1969 and claimed it "beat us back" to the moon because they got there before Apollo 12.

    1. Re:What a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's exactly this type of complacency, brought on by arrogance, that transformed classical China into a dystopia. Just because "we" -- by which I assume you mean our grandfathers' generation -- was the first to do something doesn't give us any claim to it x years later. America invented the automobile and look what happened there. If you're happy to let the aerospace industry follow in those footsteps, then you deserve to live in what America is turning into.

      So America went to the moon in the 60s and 70s. I'd wager that most of the readers here weren't even alive then, or were too young to appreciate it. Nobody is denying the fact that the US got there first and some 40 years before anyone else. But that isn't the question, nor is it the challenge. We're talking about going to the moon, today. That the US can't do it anymore, and barely remembers how, is no excuse to start tossing sour grapes.

      Another thing is, if you are looking at this from the perspective of a race, then the US beat only one challenger, and that country doesn't even exist anymore. Are you trying to say that defeating one opponent entitles the US to own the championship belt forever, or is this just another incarnation of the American "World Champion" mentality in which no one else gets invited? Also, what makes you think the moon is the finish line?

  14. *back* to the moon? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By my calculation, by the time the Chinese make it to the moon for the first time, we'll have already been back to the moon five times. Been there, done that, brought back rocks.

    Of course, it's a question who will be the first to get back the sixth time.

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    1. Re:*back* to the moon? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2, Informative

      We went there first in the Apollo 11 mission.

      Then we went back on Apollo missions 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. We would have been back for Apollo 13 also, but there were equipment problems that were not detected until after launch.

      I calculate we've been back five times. You might have a different way of calculating.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    2. Re:*back* to the moon? by tm2b · · Score: 2, Funny

      My first reaction: What a pedantic bo... oh.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  15. NASA Budget is 2800 Google Lunar X-Prizes by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NASA's budget for 2007 was $16.8 billion. The Google Lunar X-Prize is $0.030 billion with a duration of 5 years. Assuming NASA budget remains approximately the same that means NASA's budget could renewably fund the equivalent of 2800 Google Lunar X-Prizes.

    1. Re:NASA Budget is 2800 Google Lunar X-Prizes by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To put the $30m prize in perspective, launching the shuttle costs around $450m, and launching a Saturn V cost around $430m in 1967. The prize is likely to be less than 10% of the launch cost. Unlike the suborbital X-Prize, there is no real prospect of commercial exploitation either.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Big Deal by skam240 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The question we all need to ask is why do we even need to go back? We're not building moon bases anytime in the near future and extracting resources is way to expensive for the foreseeable future.

    Some one please tell me what possible reason we would have for even wanting to waste billions of dollars on another trip to the moon for. It's a big floating rock.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Big Deal by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To prove that you can?

      Are you an engineering nation, or a flop?


      Exactly.

      Do you want to be an advanced country that does bold, huge engineering megaprojects that push the envelope of technology and what humankind can do, or do you want to be like Mexico, where people just sit around doing nothing useful all the time and never accomplish anything noteworthy?

      I'd rather be the former, but it appears many of my countrymen would rather be like the latter, and some actually want to join our country with Mexico so we can all live under one big, corrupt government and get nothing useful done while making life easy for a few rich people.

    2. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure the Mexicans want to join a country as corrupt as the U.S. is now.

    3. Re:Big Deal by deblau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some one please tell me what possible reason we would have for even wanting to waste billions of dollars on another trip to the moon
      The most important reason: because it's there. Why do so many people try to climb Everest every year? After all, we've already climbed it...

      If we don't continue to challenge ourselves socially, artistically, technologically, we stagnate. Then we crumble. That's why.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    4. Re:Big Deal by Iron+Condor · · Score: 2, Funny

      The question we all need to ask is why do we even need to go back?

      First we let the Chinese go there. They'll be bringing a lot of paint and they'll be painting the whole thing red.

      When they're finished, we'll land some guys with a couple buckets of white paint. They'll write on the red moon "Coca Cola".

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
  17. Shallow money grub, but, I'm sold... by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think the USA needs to invest big time in nuclear rockets, and at the same time, wrap up its Constellation program.

    --
    This is my sig.
  18. They have an unfair advantage... by xednieht · · Score: 3, Funny

    They don't have to calculate everything in metric AND our system.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  19. So here's all they have to do... by sweet_petunias_full_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All they have to do is go up to the moon and remove the original Apollo lander, the flag, etc., then claim they found nothing there.

    Then if they tell their own people they were the first ones on the moon, who could prove otherwise?

    --
    You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
  20. ...back to the moon? by Smight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doesn't China have to get to the moon on seven different occasions if they want to beat the US back?

    --
    IOU one (1) signature
  21. he is probably correct, if talking about the feds by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But the West will be on the moon by 2015 with private enterprise. The only way that china will be there sooner than that is to team up with Russia, which is a remote possibility (though it is a possibility). I agree with his comments about America and our technical proweness. Our leaders (both gov and business) have been shipping it foolishly overseas, in particular to china. That is going to come at a VERY high price. The sad thing is that by the time that American fully realize that our feds have cut far too much into research (during reagan's time it was cut in half; in W's time, it was cut again), we will also be in extreme debt (we all ready are) AND have lost the very business that made it possible in the first place.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. Riddle me this... by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who is going to be better at risk management inherent in technology development: Someone who is spending their own money or someone who is spending other people's money?

  23. Re:Moonbase Alpha by JohnBailey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apart from Yasuko Nagazumi you mean..

    --
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  24. Re:What will the Chinese find on the moon? Rocks. by ckotchey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great point and great post.
    We've been there, done that.
    It's time for some other country to take their turn at coughing up the money and effort to do some outer space exploration and research for the "benefit of all".

  25. Let's just do this... by E++99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's set the location of the 2050 Olympics to Tranquility Base. Any nations who want to participate had better start working out their transportation now. Also, kiss goodbye any existing records in high-jump, long jump, javelin, etc.

  26. Send it back to the moon by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great. Now we have to worry about deadly moon microbes in the pet food and toys.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
  27. Re:Big Deal or two by wmorrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just one? Pick your favorite:
    * astronomy unfettered by an atmosphere and complexities of zero-G environment
    * unlimited vacuum and little concern for pollution for industrial processes
    * lots of sunshine for power generation
    * tourism

    There's longer term, and more altruistic goals as well, like getting our eggs out of one basket.

    I'm imagining you looking out at the ocean from the beach, and saying "why go sailing? There's water in my bathtub."

  28. Maybe. But it would be irrelevant. by damneinstien · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASA, and the United States in general, can see no benefit in a manned mission to the moon without a specific purpose. Seriously, what would be the point? To show that the U.S. can do it? Well, the U.S. already has, wayback in 1969.

    What NASA is more interested in at the moment is the possibility of using the moon as a launching point for missions to Mars; perhaps building a lunar base of some kind and also to explore the moon and Mars using automated methods. Just look at the NASA SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) requirements http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbirsttr2007/solicitation/Chapter_912.html and look at the topics. Exploration systems and space operations are a huge topic of interest, far surpassing any need for a current manned mission.

    (Disclosure: The author worked recently on a NASA SBIR Grant under the Exploration Systems category.)

  29. Re:What will the Chinese find on the moon? Rocks. by RodgerDodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except you need to think about the military situation. However controls the moon will control the space around Earth. Without control of space, and near-Earth-orbit, much of the US's military might just vanishes.
    Goodbye GPS. Goodbye launch-detection-systems. Goodbye spy satellites.

    There's also a lot you can do with rocks. For starters you can throw them. Go read some Heinlein.

    --
    "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
  30. We like the MOOOOON! by Zymergy · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...All together now! SING! http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/

  31. numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...pulled out of you know where. The Chinese have easy, no hassle access to 99% of our best R and D and tech already. They have hard but doable access to 1/2 of the remainder 1%, and are working on the last half via espionage. Between student access and corporate give away access, they have two nations combined expertise to pull from, and that leaves out all the other sources they have, europe in general is giving away the store as well.

    This competitive edge, designed and implemented to make western millionaires into billionaires in a very short time frame, and sold/shilled to the middle class west under the illusion that cheap goods for a few years is worth destroying manufacturing for, will result in their becoming the dominant player in the 21st century, space and every place else. It is inevitable now. Nothing will stop it short of global war, and even there they are rapidly catching up in force projection, leapfrogging decades in years, something the DOD and CIA finally admitted to last year in some redacted but accessible studies. By around 2015 or so, they will have the largest economy on the planet, based on actual produced wealth. and rough parity in military force with any western military, and superiority if you count asymmetrical warfare capability.

    These studies were presented to congress in the last few years and have been updated, one might have to google a bit, but you can find them. Even if exaggerated somewhat to help insure military budgets, other studies have come up with similar findings.

    A hundred years from now, historians will wonder why the western economies allowed such traitorous business leaders and politicians to gut their own nations for personal profit. Or maybe not, given the rate of success and sophistication of mass brainwashing, starting in the corporate government run schools, there might not be much mention of it along with heavy revisionism of events that lead to the "second worlding" of the west.

    If you are middle class now and enjoying it, get out of debt as soon as possible and be prepared to live a much more modest and frugal lifestyle soon, so you can enjoy being just "normal" poor and not OMG poverty poor. The big bank/wall street credit boom and sell-off of generations of hard work by the previous generations that fueled cheap goods for a few years is just about over. The only stuff left the business traitors have to sell off is national infrastructure, roads, waterworks, ports, etc, and they are fast tracking that right this second. Again, google is your friend there.

  32. Conclusion not consistent with the facts by amightywind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This Griffin surely and funding ploy for NASA. The facts suggest China's program is grossly overrated.

    • China has never developed a spacecraft from scratch. They modified a Soyuz.
    • Thay have never developed anything larger than a 10ton launcher, the Long March, which is also similar to a Soyuz They will need a rocket 10x as large to land on the moon.
    • They have launched two times since 2003. Their next mission is not planned until fall 2008. Between 1963 and 1968 America developed Apollo and flew around the moon
    • They are way behind Japan which has just launched an ambitious moon mission, Selene.
    • The US has a highly credible architecture for moon missions in Ares I & V and Orion. The vehicles are being built of existing parts.
    • The US has the experience developing,launching, and assembling the 1,000,000lb ISS
    • The US has >10x China's space budget for the foreseeable future

    Based on the facts how can you conclude that China will get there first? Indeed, it is not clear that they will beat Japan as the leader in Asian spaceflight.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Conclusion not consistent with the facts by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're wrong on two accounts. Long March is indigenously developed. Also, the US having a space budget with more dollars doesn't translate into 10x the resources. You have to consider price parity. What I mean is that China doesn't pay dollar to its workers and things are cheaper over there. If you only use the exchange rate to compare the budgets you won't get a fair comparison. You have to find the relative cost of products in each country, which is how price parity came about. Once you take that into account the difference is not nearly as great as you think.

      More importantly, I don't know why people bother posting things like that. It doesn't nothing but soothe our pride. Either we make it our goal to return to the moon before the Chinese or just shrug it off and say we've already done it in the 60s. If we're are going to go to return, then let's take the Chinese seriously and put some real effort into it. The worst thing for us to do is to put in a half ass effort and waste resources.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  33. I'm sorry - we're worried about...? by jpellino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Being first and being beaten out for second?

    Griffin is just trolling for a patriotic boost.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  34. It's China's century by SiliconEntity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The 21st century will be China's turn to be the world leader. All the talk and excuses we see here from Americans about how they don't care if China does beat us back to the moon is very much like what other countries said as they changed from being 1st rate to 2nd rate. Spain has had its turn, England, and now the U.S. is moving into China's eclipse. And of course we Americans will be able to lie to ourselves for quite a while that we're still the best "where it counts", just like the English and French and Spanish and all the others that were once great.

    1. Re:It's China's century by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides, my money's on a plague (bird flu, or maybe a bioweapon) depopulating China before they ascend again.

      Then again, maybe a few hundred million less poor mouths to feed will be an advantage.


      No, no it would not! Thanks to mass airline transportation, any plague would be a global plague. And millions? Think more like billions. After the flesh rots, you would see massive geo-political reconstruction unprecedented in human history. Nations will rise and fall; other will be born out of the fires forged in war. Basically, Hell-on-Earth.
      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  35. Ok, here you go. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. In 1959, we had no real knowledge of rocketry. The billions that were spent was about learning what worked and more importantly, what did not work.
    2. In 1959, and in fact, in 1969, there was no market for commercial rocketry. All the sats that we had put up in the sky by 1970, is less than how may go up every year, currently. Now, there are not enough rockets to take on the load.
    3. Spacex has done 2 shots; the first was a major failure (it went boom). The second was a lot more interesting. The first stage registered an issue prior to launch, so the team drained and refuelded with warmer fuel (and in 20 minutes). They launched. The first stage was a total success. The second stage lost is fuel just at the end due to lack of baffles in the tank. All in all, they are fixing it and expect (hope?) the next flight to have no more issues.
    4. Spacex will be profitable by 2010 if the next flight works as well as falcon 9. They will have paid off ALL of their development cost by then.
    5. Bigelow has already launched 2 space stations. Yes, nobody is on them (nor will ever be). By 2009 or 2010, they will launch a 3 man space station. By 2011, they will launch a 6 person space station. By 2013, they will have multiple space stations in orbit. There goal is not to provide for hotels (but they will), but to provide space stations to nations. I expect that they probably extend the ISS with their 3 person unit and then later with the 6 person unit. Why? Because nations will want to take advantage of a an orbiting station. That means that EU, Japan, Brazil, India, Russia, USA, and private enterprise will be able to test equipment and get their launch system perfected.
    6. Spacex is looking at building a BFR by 2014. If they do, they will have re-invented roughly the same capability that USA had in the 1970 time frame, though this time it should be quite a bit cheaper.
    No, this will be easy for companies to be profitable from the git-go.
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. Re:That's great, but we need a better metric by Iron+Condor · · Score: 2, Informative

    It would be much more useful if we knew how many Library's of Congress that would fund!

    The budget request for FY 2008 (which starts in two weeks) was for a little over $M703 - about 23.5 times the Google prize.

    --
    We're all born with nothing.
    If you die in debt, you're ahead.
  37. As Chinese, I'm happy because of those replies. by humaniverse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As Chinese, I'm happy because of those replies! Not because of China going to the Moon. You know what? After reading some replies, I realize that you guys are so arrogant and blinded. That is exactly the dawn of every empire collase. Chinese had that. But now we learn. British had that. It's too soon that they haven't learnt. Who will be the next? I can smell that. Lol.