Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Launching First Space Station Module In September

Posted by Unknown on from the communist-space-zombies-attack dept.

arisvega writes "The Chinese Space Station's first module has been moved to its final testing location, and will soon be launched into orbit. Two manned missions are scheduled to follow after an unmanned mission checks out. The best part? A movie about China in space is already premiering."

57 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Competition is good. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is an unfortunate fact that in the current climate it is very hard to get people in the US interested in space when there's no big looming Soviet threat. This will be good for space in that it will help push people in the US to be more competitive, both because of our general competitive culture and because of the general, residual anti-communist attitudes (and yes, I know that the Chinese aren't really community at this point, but most Americans don't understand that.) So this will help encourage the US to be a bit more serious about space stuff. This is also good because competition is in general better. China might succeed at some things that the US and the various countries involved in the ISS have not done as well. Having different groups trying to tackle the same problems will often lead to different methods and technologies being applied, which in the long run benefits everyone. And of course, a space race is a much better form of competition than a lot of the alternatives like warfare.

    1. Re:Competition is good. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I'm not so sure it is good. The space race of the 1960's is not going to return - what may return is the arms race of the 1970's-1980's, into which the space race against the USSR inevitably devolved.

      We have already done the feel-good, man-on-the-moon part of aerospace that is within the realm of the feasible. (Whereas actually reaching other solar systems is not). Thus we will will not return us to the starry-eyed 1960's. So, what's left? A resumption of the cold war - spending billions on missile defense (whether for aircraft carriers, satellites, or the homeland) against new Chinese anti-ship, anti-satellite, and inter-continental ballistic missiles that will inevitably result from their space program, and the need for larger standing inventories of expensive high-tech weapons like the F22 (much like the F14 fleet that never saw any real action before being retired).

    2. Re:Competition is good. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      much like the F14 fleet that never saw any real action before being retired

      Now that's just BS. I distinctly remember an engagement where the communications ship SS Layton had become disabled and was drifting into hostile waters when it received aerial support from a squad of F-14s from the USS Enterprise. If I recall correctly, those F-14s saved the day.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Competition is good. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      > I'm not so sure it is good. The space race of the 1960's is not going to return China announced it was going to live on the Moon by 202(?), not a week later the U.S announced it also was going back to the Moon. Oh no the race is there, just different nations. Doing so is another matter for the U.S., this grandiose decision was made when money was there for the asking. It requires funding I don't believe the U.S. can afford at this time or in the near future.

    4. Re:Competition is good. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I remember that incident as well. But there is that issue of the fifth MiG...

    5. Re:Competition is good. by RandomStr · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your point, I'm not sure whether the general public being interested in space is really the issue; there are always areas of the public that are deeply interested in the space program, from kids to scientists, but if TV rating are governing these projects, we're all doomed!
      At the end of the day, all the cool and interesting things about space, are, at best 'the fat', and at worst just a guise for what really drives the space program...

      The aspect of issue that I think merits most consideration is that the military has driven the space program from day one. All the infrastructure that allowed NASA to do what they do/did, is derived from things that really aren't cool; von Brawn knew what I'm talking about. And I'm not talking politics or political affiliations... We may never have gotten to space if he had been more concerned where they 'landed', ask anyone who was in London in the 40's.

      But I digress, as far as Chinas new role, and the Space Shuttles retirement goes, it's a good thing, and a sign of progress. And anyway, don't forget, the cia has a bigger budget for space than nasa's entire budget, and has had for a long time; the US is not really 'loosing' capacity.

      So, when you say "alternatives like warfare", when talking about space and the budgets required, it's got to be an issue of "Hot" or "Cold" warfare, rather than alternatives to.

      But I do concede that the budgets for space are a pittance to the cost of what we see as war today; I heard that in the past two years, the US has spent more than the entire nasa budget since inception.

      It is nice too see that the ISS has provided a platform for everyone to work together though, and who knows, maybe one day a scientific body might take control of these budgets, and we might get some real science done!!

    6. Re:Competition is good. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      So this will help encourage the US to be a bit more serious about space stuff.

      No it won't!!!!!!!

      Here's a reality check. The US space race was a complete farce; top to bottom.

      The US could have beaten Sputnik into orbit but wanted to allow the Russians to establish an international precedence on space overflights. Their plan worked perfectly except for the unexpected public backlash. This is important because the US was already developing manned spy satellites so as to observe the Russian's nuclear deployments and development. Basically what kicked off the space race was the nuclear arms race. At the time, weaponization of space was still on the table.

      Next came the development of long range ICBMs. They needed a cover to justify their massive spending. This is where the moon shots came in. It was all a ploy to develop long range, reliable, MIRV warhead delivery mechanism, to target anywhere in the world. This is what fueled the arms race. The ignorant like to pretend this was about getting men on the moon. Realistically, it was about delivering massive nuclear payloads so as to level the world's largest cities. Getting men on the moon was just a footnote which allowed for international bragging rights.

      For China, this is absolutely no different. Showing orbital launch prowess is really about flexing nuclear delivery capabilities. Space really only has a handful of things to offer; like communications, accurate time and location, spying, modest research, and nuclear weapons delivery. Everything else, for now, is fanboyism, elitism, and bragging rights.

      So ask yourself, given that the US already has all of its check boxes checked, aside from a cold war, which is the only likely box to become checked from China's progress? Here's a hint, and it has nothing to do with civilian space exploration - unless of course they can hide their military agenda with civilian clothing.

    7. Re:Competition is good. by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      My second post in this thread with the same links:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_Systems_Estimates

      The Chinese already have ICBMs, and have had them for a very long time. They also already have anti-satellite weapons:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test

      Manned space flight is not a pre-requisite for these things. If there's going to be an arm race, it will happen with or without a space programme.

  2. oh noes! by waddgodd · · Score: 4, Funny

    We'd better hurry up and launch then, don't want China to steal our Alpha Centauri victory

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    1. Re:oh noes! by FhnuZoag · · Score: 2

      It's okay, the US is clearly going for the cultura... oh. The diploma... oh. Maybe the military victory, then?

    2. Re:oh noes! by TWX · · Score: 1

      Mr President! There cannot be an Alpha Centauri Gap!

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. We already had a movie about China in space by hellfire · · Score: 2

    It was called Serenity.

    Stay Shiny!

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:We already had a movie about China in space by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Technically, they were all Chinese.

  4. Who says the U.S. can't afford a space program? by PinchDuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the stuff we buy from China proves we have more than enough money to finance one. Theirs.

    1. Re:Who says the U.S. can't afford a space program? by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the stuff we buy from China proves we have more than enough money to finance one. Theirs.

      Two points.

      1. The U.S. chooses to finance wars instead of space.
      2. The space shuttle, while "cool" and inspiring to the public, demonstrated that government involvement in space exploration has moved beyond helping -- especially in terms of corralling financial resources -- and into hindering. The political compromises in the space shuttle design ended up with a $1.5b/launch cost and a crew cabin mounted laterally to the fuel instead of on top of it, directly causing two fatal catastrophes. It's not just a soundbite -- it's time for the private sector to take over.
    2. Re:Who says the U.S. can't afford a space program? by gatkinso · · Score: 2

      In all fairness, a lot of the money is coming from Europe.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    3. Re:Who says the U.S. can't afford a space program? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      For what purpose do we need to inject billions of dollars into space for right now? Beside satellites everything else in orbit or cruising around the solar system are basically technology test platforms. We are no where near realistically able to create large scale habitats or orbital manufacturing platforms and the impetus to do so just isn't there right now. Space R&D will continue so when a real need or goal presents itself we can take address it. The US has by no means abandoned new space related projects. The X-37 is the latest NASA/DARPA sponsored space vehicle that gives the US a whole range of capabilities that other countries are not even close to acquiring.

    4. Re:Who says the U.S. can't afford a space program? by stiggle · · Score: 1

      They could revive some of the cancelled projects like JIMO - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
      The basis of this craft (Prometheus) would be able to provide a delivery system travelling around the inner planets to deliver cargos & satellites

    5. Re:Who says the U.S. can't afford a space program? by Darfeld · · Score: 1

      Eventually, tourism might have been able to get us on Mars... slowly and not tomorrow but still... In fact I still think it will, because space tourism will need to do more than just 15 minutes in space to continue existing...

      But right now, Getting a man foot on Mars seems more doable with China than any other country. I won't hold my breath, but I'm definitely hopping they'll keep their effort at least until there.

      --
      (\__/) This is Lapinator
      (='.'=) copy it in your sig
      (")_(") so it can take over the world
    6. Re:Who says the U.S. can't afford a space program? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      That's a weird statement, as it's not money that finances space programs, it's productive output - production capacity.

      Sure, capital is required, but capital is used only to get the necessary tools, instruments, materials and people, but if there is nowhere to get these components from, then there will be no program.

      USA borrows half of what it spends from US bond sales (and today, those are mostly bought up by the Fed), but China is one of the countries who finance USA by buying counterfeit US dollar for Chinese made goods, then China buys US debt with those dollars, to do this, Chinese print their own currency out of existence, then they need to finance the program, so they use some of the money for that, but the parts and tools and man power, it's Chinese, so how is US financing them? By providing monopoly money?

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  5. I wouldn't want to RMA that thing. by dicobalt · · Score: 1

    The shipping cost would be crazy.

    1. Re:I wouldn't want to RMA that thing. by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      I'll say it... No tickee... no workie!

  6. Re:Wow by turgid · · Score: 1

    Boldly going where the West and Russia were decades ago.

    And since the West and Russia haven't been anywhere else since 1972, it's not inconceivable that the Chinese will be on the Moon before anyone else goes back.

    But, hey, the West (USA) went there 40 or so years ago.

    Then China will go to Mars and the West won't go, because, hey, what's the point?

    Before you know it, the Chinese will have invented and developed a whole load of new and powerful technology that the rest of us don't have and can't afford. But, hey, that's OK, we can provide them with cheap labour and outsource their manufacturing for them...

    --
    Stick Men
  7. Sounds to me like the top is in by Roachie · · Score: 1

    The only reason for manned spaceflight, at this point, is to study manned spaceflight- or to study black holes, black-holes of money.

    Like the aircraft carriers and stealth fighters , this is just flag waving "me too'-ism.

    Apparently the Chinese have so much dough from selling us crap at Walmart that they need to watch some of it burn by launching toiletries into orbit.

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    1. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by tloh · · Score: 1

      ...... Like the aircraft carriers and stealth fighters , this is just flag waving "me too'-ism.......

      Carriers are *NOT* trivial money black holes. One of the main reasons America can pursue its current foreign policy on the world stage today is because of the capability of carrier task forces to project power globally. The United States currently have 11 nuclear powered carriers in service. The current plans are for new units of the next generation Gerald R. Ford class carriers to replace current ones (starting with USS Enterprise) on a one-for-one basis as they become operational. Contrast that with reductions and cutbacks in other defense expenses. Like, for example, how Virginia class attack subs were developed as a more economic alternative to continued development/building of the more expensive Seawolf class. Carriers are one aspect of the US's defense capacity that will become more vital as emerging powers approach parity with the US in all aspects of the world arena.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    2. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by aekafan · · Score: 1

      One of the main reasons America can frantically pursue its current policy of destroying its own wealth is because of the capability of carrier task forces to project power globally.

      FTFY

    3. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Just don't try to use them against an adversary with decent subs.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    4. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by tloh · · Score: 1

      That is a nice start, but won't you please finish expressing your thought? Which adversary has decent subs and what makes them decent? I'm genuinely curious.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    5. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      Apparently the Chinese have so much dough from selling us crap at Walmart that they need to watch some of it burn by launching toiletries into orbit.

      As a Chinese, I'd say it's mostly a result of Chinese government plundering from the citizens rather than selling you cheap crap.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    6. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by tloh · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily disagree with you just yet, but would you please justify your "correction"? How does projection of naval power have anything to do with a perceived "policy of destroying it's own wealth"? There is, in fact, much to argue the opposite. Any student of economics or military history would be familiar with the work of Alfred Thayer Mahan. The ideas outlined in his seminal work "The Influence of Sea Power upon History" is as influential today as it was when it was written more than 120 years ago. Politics aside, the requisition needs of the US Navy for bleeding edge defense technology keeps critical industries healthy in the United States. By comparison, the Chinese are trying to leap frog the competition through domestic efforts in defense, space, etc., but they just don't have the tradition of innovation or resources to do so effectively. The result is that they have to resort to importing the necessary tech or settle for copycat knock-offs - often of outdated and/or embarrassingly inferior quality. In any case, the point still stands: Carriers are non-trivially important.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    7. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Ah! yes I had not considered that. Good point, I worked with a Chinese gentleman whose brother, still in China, had starved to death. Seems like he and his family would have preferred food over an orbiting monument.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    8. Re:Sounds to me like the top is in by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      as my two cowardly siblings post, any half-way modern diesel-electric sub with a couple of moderatly capable torpedos can put a serious dent in your day. A diesel-electric might not have the range, or submersion capabilities of a nuclear sub, but given the lack of always-on coolant pumps (which is a must for nuclear reactors), a good DE sub can pretty much become undetectable once submerged and running silent.

      my siblings links to a chinese sub which reportedly could stay submerged for up to a week, even thought its speed is crippled running fully electric, you could easily lay one of those in an ambush

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
  8. Icon by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Why does the icon for the China articles look more like a zipper than a wall?

    For that matter, why do all the icons look like cartoony crap?

  9. JFK wanted to *kill* Apollo program ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    The space race of the 1960's is not going to return

    I would not be so sure. Chinese progress in space could get quite a few US politicians to reverse their course. It has happened before.

    The "patron saint" of the Apollo program actually started off wanting to kill the program. JFK was against Apollo as a senator and at the beginning of his administration. VP Johnson got him to delay his decision to dismantle Apollo. Then the Russians sent up Yuri Gagarin and Kennedy completely reversed his opinion on Apollo and became its champion.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_space_policy

    1. Re:JFK wanted to *kill* Apollo program ... by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      I would not be so sure.

      I am sure. China just clarified our budget priorities for us yesterday. Last week China helped with our diplomatic prerogatives.

      In the next few days we may have a budget deal. Where do you think Treasury will be looking for the next few hundred billion of financing? Or rather, how many hours will it take for Geithner to arrive in Beijing (for the third time) after the limit gets bumped?

      We're not going to be engaging anyone in any aerospace competitions. Not merely because we can't afford it, but also because they would rather we not.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    2. Re:JFK wanted to *kill* Apollo program ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      We're not going to be engaging anyone in any aerospace competitions. Not merely because we can't afford it, ...

      The last 50 or so years of US history clearly demonstrates that is no impediment to the US government.

      ... but also because they would rather we not.

      You are using an erroneous and simplistic model of the US dollar trade. Given China's exports based economic strategy and their desire to manipulate their currency to maintain an export advantage they have to acquire US dollars from exporters. They can't use these dollars in any normal market because that will send their currency in the "wrong direction". Buying US bonds gets rid of these dollars without affecting their currency. Cheap labor only supports the export of products of a simplistic nature with commodity pricing. For higher end products where labor is a much lower factor in the overall cost it is the low relative value of their currency that drives the exports. So if they want to export beads for Mardi Gras parties they can dump dollars as you imply. However if they want to export iPads and Android tablets they can not do so. China wants to manufacture and export the high end so they will not go the route you imply. When they have an economy based on domestic production and consumption we can revisit all of this.

    3. Re:JFK wanted to *kill* Apollo program ... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      China just clarified [thehindu.com] our budget priorities for us yesterday. Last week China helped [reuters.com] with our diplomatic prerogatives.

      The Chinese government whines about stuff like this all the time; they're notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to perceived international slights. Most of the time it doesn't have much of an effect; they were furious when Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but in the end only about 19 or so countries were convinced to boycott the award ceremony (and if you look at the list, most were places that have an equally thuggish attitude towards dissent). Their blustering is primarily aimed at intimidating smaller and less-developed nations that are far more dispensable to the Chinese than the United States is, and which might otherwise be disinclined to back China's imperial ambitions. While I'm not at all enthusiastic about the prospect of going even further into debt, their ability to really screw us over remains very limited, because continued economic growth keeps the CCP in power, and crashing our currency would be suicidal. They may be authoritarian bureaucrats, but that doesn't mean they're stupid.

  10. Re:Wow by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "But, hey, that's OK, we can provide them with cheap labour and outsource their manufacturing for them..."

    That outsourcy thingie has worked rather well for China, why not the US?

    Let's not forget nations are built on cheap labour, ALL of them.

    Americans expected the post WWII MegaBubble to last forever. Not happening. Let OTHER COUNTRIES blow megabucks advancing US for a change. The point of exploring space is that it gets done, not that Americans do it

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  11. Re:deaths of astronauts will be covered up like US by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 1

    Okay, My eyes are opened, I see no link to support you assertion.

  12. A bit disappointed by arisvega · · Score: 1

    I should be glad that my 'scoop' got posted, but I still cannot enjoy it; with the exception of few posts (yeay! ./ moderation works!) there is so much trolling, bitterness and even anger - seriously, is everything a competition to you people?

    Am I wrong in reading at '-1' ?

    These are new exciting times; and you are worried that China will be pissing on you from orbit? Or that superpower leaders are stupid enough to go to war?

    If you are afraid that China will colonize low Earth orbit and "force" you to conform to some twisted communist standards in order to share the spoils, then go there too; stay with them; show them how you think it should be done, help them out if they ask, and perhaps learn a thing or two yourselves (and about yourselves) in the process.

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    1. Re:A bit disappointed by sconeu · · Score: 1

      These are new exciting times; and you are worried that China will be pissing on you from orbit?

      No, we are pissed off that we don't seem to have the testicular fortitude to actually fund a decent space program.

      Or have you missed the news this week about the last Shuttle flight, with nothing to replace it. Now granted the Shuttle turned out to be a clusterf**k, but there is no clear direction on what to do next.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:A bit disappointed by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      I see the direction prettly clearly - it just takes some time to get the companies up to speed (private companies is the direction forward for NASA)

      --
      This is blinging
    3. Re:A bit disappointed by tloh · · Score: 1

      No, we are pissed off that we don't seem to have the testicular fortitude to actually fund a decent space program.

      Or have you missed the news this week about the last Shuttle flight, with nothing to replace it. Now granted the Shuttle turned out to be a clusterf**k, but there is no clear direction on what to do next.

      And of course the Chinese are to be blamed for that.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    4. Re:A bit disappointed by tloh · · Score: 1

      Welcome to slashdot my friend.

      The average /.er is usually above average in technology literacy. However, a large overwhelming majority is hopelessly retarded in the area of cultural awareness and social maturity. I'm as curious as the next guy about what other nations are up to scientifically and technologically. But any time anything related to China comes up, I cringe at the embarrassing displays of stupidity and ignorance that this majority is capable of unleashing. Unfortunately, it comes with the territory on slashdot, so instead of asking our cohorts to go and educate the Chinese, I make an effort to post an intelligent counterpoint or two to educate my fellow /.ers. Most of the time it falls on deaf ears or result in more trolling, so I've become more conservative over the years.

      America declining, China rising.... sign of the times.

      Forget the dimwits among us. Think and act for yourselves.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    5. Re:A bit disappointed by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Way to complete not read the thread.

      I said I wasn't pissed at the Chinese, I was pissed at the US.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:A bit disappointed by tloh · · Score: 1

      Dude, the post you're responding to was about disappointment over trolling on a post about the Chinese in space. How is it logical that it is actually about being pissed at the US? Funny logic you subscribe to, but if that's your intent, the whole damn discussion ought to be modded "offtopic". I'm in agreement with the original poster, a little perspective and open-mindedness goes a long way in "learning a thing or two".

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  13. Re:deaths of astronauts will be covered up like US by grumbel · · Score: 1

    It's one of those headlines I think even chinese will doubt.

    There is not much to doubt really, unlike the space shuttle, the Shenzhou has an escape system and on the Soyuz, which the Shenzhou design is based on, they actually had to use it when a rocket exploded on the launchpad.

  14. The master returns.... by mevets · · Score: 1

    It will be Bruce Lee's grandson, in orbit with feet and nunchuks flying as he fights the evil criminals in zero gravity. Pufff. This is going to be awesome!

  15. google by macshit · · Score: 1

    Looking at slashdot headlines in my rss reader, at first I mixed up several different headlines and read this one as "Google Launching First Space Station Module In September."

    ... and it didn't really seem particularly surprising...

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
  16. Re:deaths of astronauts will be covered up like US by BLToday · · Score: 1

    ahhh.... sure dude. I think I'll take the official explanation of lousy engineering/planning for the Apollo 1 death over any conspiracy theory.

    When choosing between human stupidity and an elaborate conspiracy theory, I'll go with human stupidity every time.

  17. Re:Channeling Lyndon B. Johnson by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    I am familiar with Proverbs but I don't recall that the Chinese were mentioned.

    Carry on.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  18. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That outsourcy thingie has worked rather well for China, why not the US?

    It doesn't work that well to the majority of the Chinese population. When work is being outsourced to you, it's great to help build your economy, but it does also mean that you are behind the people outsourcing to you. After all, if the population in the US were willing to work for the salaries of the population of China and India, there'd be no outsourcing.

    Let's not forget nations are built on cheap labour, ALL of them.

    And after the nation has been built, you should never go back.

    Americans expected the post WWII MegaBubble to last forever. Not happening.

    Not at the rate we're going, unfortunately.

    Let OTHER COUNTRIES blow megabucks advancing US for a change.

    How is THAT beneficial? Let me put this to you in MMO turns. If I'm at level 60, and you're at level 3, I might be spending tons of money to help level you up quicker. That does not mean that you're superior, in fact, it means the quite the opposite: the only time other countries will spend money on your country is if they're ahead of you. If that's happening, you're on the losing side, you just so happen to be not be falling too far behind because you're more useful to them if you don't.

  19. Re:all is not lost by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    I read here on /. that Bob Lutz from General Motors says as soon as The Chinese start graduating MBAs from 40 new business schools into their system, their industrial capabilities will head straight into the the toilet like ours did.

    But if the Chinese know this, they will only allow 39 new business schools to be opened, and we are doomed anyway.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  20. Re:hope they respect history by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    Hey, finally a good motive for the USA to get back to the moon! Protect the footsteps! :-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  21. Re:Channeling Lyndon B. Johnson by Patch86 · · Score: 1

    They already can (as can most nuke-wielding nations):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_Systems_Estimates

    We've been able to move bombs into orbit for half a century and more; space bombs have been around longer than manned space flight.

  22. Re:Channeling Lyndon B. Johnson by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    Whoosh!

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  23. Re:Wow by turgid · · Score: 1

    Wow, delusional and paranoid much? If it were possible to have all this "powerful technology" from space, why didn't the West or Russia do it in the last 40 years? Is it because it's simply not possible?

    No, it's because Russia couldn't afford it, and in the West where the Market is God, the market chose not to do it (because there was no competition).

    Now there may be some competition, but the West (in the form of the USA) has let itself slip.

    I'm British, and I'm extremely ashamed to say that the UK actually had its own space rockets and launched 3 satellites in the early 70s but canceled the programme because there was "no future" in launching things into space. Once again, the ignorant pointy-hairs scuppered our technical achievements... but that's a whole nother rant.

    America should have had a semi-permanent moon base by 1980 and should have been on Mars by 1990, in my humble opinion.

    If you're perfectly happy only having human presence on this rock, that's fine, that's your blinkered opinion and you're entitled to it. I prefer to look a bit further.

    --
    Stick Men