Slashdot Mirror


China Reveals Its Space Plans Up To 2016

PolygamousRanchKid writes "China plans to launch space labs and manned ships and prepare to build space stations over the next five years, according to a plan released Thursday that shows the country's space program is gathering momentum. China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time, although it lags far behind the United States and Russia in space technology and experience. The country will continue exploring the moon using probes, start gathering samples of the moon's surface, and 'push forward its exploration of planets, asteroids and the sun.' Some elements of China's program, notably the firing of a ground-based missile into one of its dead satellites four years ago, have alarmed American officials and others who say such moves could set off a race to militarize space. That the program is run by the military has made the U.S. reluctant to cooperate with China in space, even though the latter insists its program is purely for peaceful ends."

218 comments

  1. The final frontier by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    At this rate, if we want Star Trek to remain at all within the thinnest stretches of credibility, the next reboot of the series will have the Enterprise captained by Sulu and Kirk will be pitching manure in Iowa.

    1. Re:The final frontier by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Welll..... if it is going to be captained by Sulu I think the love scenes are going to turn out a bit differently.....

    2. Re:The final frontier by SteveFoerster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, except that Sulu is Japanese.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    3. Re:The final frontier by murdocj · · Score: 1, Troll

      Right... the Chinese are almost up to where the USA was 50 years ago, so they must be ahead.

    4. Re:The final frontier by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh Myyyyy....

    5. Re:The final frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    6. Re:The final frontier by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1, Funny

      They don't really use spacesuits, that silver uniform is just the duct tape holding the cosmonaut to the ACME rocket sticking out of the ground.

      The test launch should go well as long as the cosmonaut doesn't look down and make gravity kick in. Man, if he does, that rocket's gonna explode. People can survive the fall, but the explosions tend to leave them in disfigured in blackface.

    7. Re:The final frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "......to seek out new worlds and civilizations, and eat them."

    8. Re:The final frontier by mug+funky · · Score: 3

      to be fair, NASA is sitting about where NASA was 50 years ago. their idea of advancement now is a rocket just about as powerful as the Saturn V was.

    9. Re:The final frontier by macraig · · Score: 1

      You mean something like the ones in ST: Hidden Frontier and all the other Rob Caves ST fanseries?
      Apparently homosexuality isn't cured by crossing the magnetosphere, go figure!

    10. Re:The final frontier by russotto · · Score: 1

      the next reboot of the series will have the Enterprise captained by Sulu and Kirk will be pitching manure in Iowa.

      I'd watch that if the movie poster had Shatner posing with Nichelle Nichols in an "American Gothic" scene.

    11. Re:The final frontier by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 0

      They have no Rs either.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    12. Re:The final frontier by rust627 · · Score: 2

      My Mission
      To Camply go where no hand has set foot
      To explore new Vistas
      Quash new Monsters
      And make Space
      A safe Place
      For the Human Race
      For I, Am,
      CAPTAIN KREMMIN (He's so hunky)

      Thanks to the late Kenny Everett
      I know its off topic but after the eat them comment......

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    13. Re:The final frontier by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      They have their own copies of the Sokol and Orlan suits. The Orlan was based on a suit formerly intended for the first Soviet Cosmonaut. So they can do the spacesuits quite fine.

    14. Re:The final frontier by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      First Soviet Cosmonaut in the Moon that is...

    15. Re:The final frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know its off topic but after the eat them comment......

      Offtopic? Says you. China will grow larger!

    16. Re:The final frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sulu is Japanese. Unless Japan is part of China in that history...

    17. Re:The final frontier by wisty · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Studies show that Japanese speakers have great difficulty distinguishing between "r" and "l" sounds. Kind of like how English speakers can't even hear the difference between most Chinese words.

    18. Re:The final frontier by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1, Interesting

      For the fun: In Engrish please.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    19. Re:The final frontier by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There are entire syllable groups in the Japanese alphabet which begin with R. It is not an uncommon letter in Japanese.

      Of notable interest: teRiyaki, Roppongi, kaRate...the list goes on.

      It is the Chinese language that substitutes 'L' sounds for 'R' sounds, and the Japanese language that substitutes the 'R' sound for 'L' sounds.

      You will not likely see a Chinese person named Karakura, and will not likely see a Japanese person named Lipang.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    20. Re:The final frontier by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      What I meant is that the Japanese language does not contain any of the roman characters [a-z].
      The language is only made of two alphabets, hiragana and katakana, and kanji. Thus, again, the Rs and Ls and their other 24 friends are not part of the language.

      When it comes to provide an approximative western/roman pronunciation/spelling, the "closest" roman characters were selected.
      Regarding the "ra,ri,ru,re,ro" (and some other derivatives) the "r" was chosen against the "l" according to international conventions - sorry I cannot show the actual Japanese characters since they are filtered out by the /. scripts.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    21. Re:The final frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a few years. Everything's gonna be a part of China soon enough

    22. Re:The final frontier by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      lan and liang are pronounced the same from an English speaker's perspective, but someone learning Chinese will quickly learn the difference, even if they have trouble speaking new sounds they've never used before (much harder as an adult than as a child).

    23. Re:The final frontier by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Romaji is recognized as standard, and includes western/roman letters. And the letters were chosen poorly initially for Chinese, which is why Peking changed names to Beijing. Those living in Beijing always called it Beijing, but the people who first created transcription spelled Beijing as Peking (with very soft "p" and "k" lost over the years to the harder and worse present pronunciation of Peking, hence why the transcription was completely re written, resulting in pinyin (which officially codes Chinese into roman letters). And uses the letter "l" and "r" often. The loss of the letters is regional. Those in the north pronounce "r" and those who are native Cantonese speakers have softer (missing) "r" sounds and sound more like "L". The pinyin letters were chosen for he most "pure" northern Chinese (Han Beijing pronunciation, similar to Shanghai), and not the Hong Kong/Guangzhou pronunciations (Cantonese strongholds), so the deviation from expectations will increase with distance from Beijing, though officially written the same, even if pronounced diffferently,much like people in Boston drive a cah to work, while those in Texas drive a carrr. Those from England or Boston are worse about "r"s than the Chinese.

    24. Re:The final frontier by murdocj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. 50 years ago we were landing rovers on Mars. 50 years ago we had orbiters around Saturn and Mercury. 50 years ago we were sending a probe to Pluto. 50 years ago we had two spacecraft entering interstellar space. 50 years ago we had landed on an asteroid.

      The December Scientific American outlines a step by step program that makes small, incremental increases in our capability that eventually get us to Mars. Unlike the "invest tons of money and build a huge rocket" approach, this gradually increases our capability within our means to pay for it, so at no point are we going to lose ground, unlike the Apollo program where once the massive funding dried up, we were done.

    25. Re:The final frontier by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry but this is a pretty retarded point of view.

      Obviously they dont have the "characters" a-z.

      Hiragana and Katakana are sylable alphabets.

      And in contradiction to your post they habe "singel character" sylabales for a, e, i, o, u and n. And of course they have sylabales covering the R: ra, ri, ru, re, ro ... but what should that have to do with international conventions? The japaneese used them before Parry forced them to open the country? Why? Because they "speak" like that.

      Japaneese is one of the few languages where the transscription into "romanji" characters is done in a way that makes sense, as well for people learning the language and also for japaneese people learning foreign languages. (In other words: it is not an american english transcription but is done like the rest of the world, especially europe/scandinavia is pronouncing vovels etc.)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:The final frontier by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      When Gene Roddenberry originally created the character, he was supposed to stand for all of Asia and is named after the Sulu sea because it touches "all shores"... he's not supposed to be from a specific nation.

    27. Re:The final frontier by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      So all Asians are the same , huh? George Takei is Japanese American. How is this relevant to the Chinese space program? NOT funny.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    28. Re:The final frontier by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Stop getting your panties in a wad and learn to take a joke. When the character of Sulu was originally created, Roddenberry didn't have a specific country of origin in mind but instead wanted him to represent Asia as a whole... and last time I checked my map, China was a big part of Asia. The fact that the actor who came to play Sulu was ethnically Japanese came later and Sulu's own Japanese backstory was based on that actor.

    29. Re:The final frontier by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Enterprise captained by Sulu and Kirk will be pitching manure in Iowa.

      You say that like it would be bad.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    30. Re:The final frontier by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I can't recall a single StarTrek episode out of the entire franchise where China was even mentioned. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    31. Re:The final frontier by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unlike the "invest tons of money and build a huge rocket" approach, this gradually increases our capability within our means to pay for it, so at no point are we going to lose ground, unlike the Apollo program where once the massive funding dried up, we were done.

      We are losing ground though because we do everything as one-off projects. Rather than set a goal to do a certain things like we did with Apollo and then develop a means to do it now we come up with single missions that don't go anywhere. We launch a probe at Mars, it crashes and burns and that's it. Why not make another one and maybe correct the problem that caused the crash? When one doesn't crash why not build on it instead of starting a new project with a different team and almost from scratch?

      To be fair NASA has been getting better at doing that with the Mars rovers, but the ESA still seems to lack coherence and to my knowledge has never set itself any grand goals like NASA did with Apollo and the Space Shuttle. There are downsides to being focused too, such as having less diversity of technology because once something works you move on to the next problem keeping you from your goal, but in the end what you achieve is more ambitious.

      My vote would be a one-way trip to Mars for some brave pioneers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:The final frontier by Eunuchswear · · Score: 0

      Right. 50 years ago we were landing rovers on Mars.

      No you weren't.

      Fifty years ago was 1962.

      The first extraterestrial rover was Lunkhod, landed on the moon by the USSR in 1970.

      The first American rover was Sojourner, landed on Mars in 1997.

      You didn't even have landers on Mars in 1962:

      The first lander on Mars was the USSR's Mars 2, landed in 1973 (and dying after only one minute). The first American lander was Viking 1, landing in 1976.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    33. Re:The final frontier by readin · · Score: 1
      Japanese has one sound that is somewhere between the R and L sound. It isn't exactly either.

      It is the Chinese language that substitutes 'L' sounds for 'R' sounds

      assuming you mean Mandarin Chinese (the official language of the Chinese empire), there is an L sound, and there are multiple R sounds. Depending on where the speaker is from (which part of China, Singapore, or Taiwan) an R sound might come out sounding like L or it might not be pronounced at all.

      In terms of information theory, Japanese is like Binary, English is like Decimal and Chinese is closer to duodecimal. Japanese has very few consonants and vowels, and is limited in how they can be combined to form syllables. So just link binary where you have few symbols, you have to use more symbols to convey information. English has a lot of consonant and vowel sounds, and we have few limitations on how we combine them, so our words and sentences generally have far fewer syllables than the equivalent Japanese. Chinese has a lot of vowels and consonants too. They have some restrictions on how they are combined, but they make up for it by having four tones that can be applied to create different syllables. Chinese sentences and words are - in my opinion - generally slightly shorter than English, and it sometimes sounds like the speaker is having a hard time molding his mouth to make the complex syllables that come out slowly. Meanwhile the Japanese speaker is rolling out one syllable after another so rapidly I can hardly distinguish them - yet both communicate the same information.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    34. Re:The final frontier by bbecker23 · · Score: 0

      Whoosh

      --
      cat /dev/random > sig.txt
    35. Re:The final frontier by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      So how are the Ruskies doing these days? Their Mars mission is tumbling out of control in low Earth orbit, soon to rain 10,000 pounds of hydrazine down somewhere inthe world, while JPL's Mars mission is millions of miles away headed to Mars. The apollo missions were a greater technical accomplishment (in 1969) than the Lunkhod rover (in 1970)....but they was pointless. Manned missions are dangerous stunts and money pits performed by the ex-pilots that run Nasa in Houston. They seem to think that Star Wars / Star Trek was a documentary. The real science, at a fraction of the cost and no loss of life, has been done out of JPL at Caltech/Pasadena. Two separate branches of Nasa, but you have to love how the bureaucrats in Houston like to claim success when JPL accomplishes one breaktrough mission after another. The press does not seem to undertand this, alas.

    36. Re:The final frontier by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I guess because Kahn took it over in the 1990's and made it part of India.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    37. Re:The final frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a Chinese, there are both l and r sound in Mandarin, some dialects pronounce "l" at the place of "r", some other places have mixed "l" and "n". Anyway, no one can park the car in Harvard Yard.

    38. Re:The final frontier by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Whoosh

      My face is red.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    39. Re:The final frontier by murdocj · · Score: 1

      The whooshing sound you hear is my sarcasm going right over your head.

      What you are saying is EXACTLY my point. The post I responded to said nothing had been done by NASA in the last 50 years... and I said "right, 50 years ago we had ..."

      Got it?

    40. Re:The final frontier by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Yes, I get it now. Do you have any memers of the family Corvidae I could masticate?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    41. Re:The final frontier by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Panties definitely not in a wad here, thanks. The joke doesn't work on face value and the explanation just makes it more lame IMHO. And it is not a matter of 'taking' a joke. I 'get' the joke but it is not funny. I couldn't give a crap about political correctness and all of that bollocks, so don't get me wrong. Better luck next time. At least you still have your score of 5 intact and my opinion is relatively irrelevant!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    42. Re:The final frontier by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      An understanding of sarcasm. You lack one.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    43. Re:The final frontier by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      Sulu is American. He was born in San Francisco. See Star Trek IV.

    44. Re:The final frontier by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Talking about characters and alphabets is meaningless in the context of pronunciation. E.g. English has a character "y", which can be pronounced in (at least) three distinct ways.

      What GP was talking about was phonemes. They do not correlate with alphabets one-to-one. There's no way of knowing, just by looking at the alphabet, whether the language has a given phoneme or not, or whether it distinguishes any two phonemes.

  2. Uh, yeah by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA:

    China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time

    NASA went from the first manned spaceflight to walking on the moon in around seven years. China first flew a manned spaceflight eight years ago; what major breakthroughs have they made in comparison?

    1. Re:Uh, yeah by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, what all has NASA done since then? :)

      More than what China has done before or since? Not denigrating the Chinese efforts, but NASA hasn't exactly been sitting on their hands. How many Mars probes, Lunar orbits, or comet flybys has the Chinese space agency done?

    2. Re:Uh, yeah by Guillermito · · Score: 2

      A lot? For instance, I would say sending 3 probes past the orbit of Pluto is quite a feat.

    3. Re:Uh, yeah by youn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not denigrating Nasa efforts... discovery of water on the moon is awesome... can't wait for curiosity to land... but china is definitely moving forward for MANNED exploration... while the world is in a recession. When they announced they wanted 10 space stations in orbit (not a typo), i thought they were mad... now, I am thinking... hey it might not have been such a crazy announcement after all... all that because they were not allowed to participate in the ISS.

      It actually may be a good thing for Nasa too... because soon china space program will increasingly be doing more interesting stuff, there may be a new space race and therefore an incentive to increase the budget.

      The problem with Nasa is so many awesome projects get canceled every new election as its direction changes... and they keep reinventing the wheel... stalling the space program, wasting resources.

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    4. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the US merely built some big missiles based on captured German technology and found some nutcases from the USAF to ride them. they haven't gone back since because the budget was justified by the Cold War, not science & exploration.

      the ISS and defunct STS have always been massive financial black holes and i'm thankful the Aussie government has been smart (or stupid) enough avoid them and to remain a "user" rather than "provider" of space services.

      china will have their play and show the world how great they are, then realize how pointless it is, and put it all on the back burner. russia is probably the only country in any position to actually make some money from launch services, but they're smart enough to balance the risk

      until the "moron" gene is discovered and eliminated, humanity isn't ready for space. we are still a bunch of feudal states teeming full of all the seven sins. nothing we do in space could possibly be for the good of anything but self-serving corporate shareholders, and the more we go there the more we're likely to fuck it up for future generations.

      believe it or not i'm a space fanatic - i'm just a bit more pragmatic than the pathetic mars-roving wannabes

    5. Re:Uh, yeah by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Have you lived in a bunker all that time?

      if you really cared you would have Googled it.

    6. Re:Uh, yeah by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      NASA went from the first manned spaceflight to walking on the moon in around seven years. China first flew a manned spaceflight eight years ago; what major breakthroughs have they made in comparison?

      Made an iPhone clone.
      Invited WalMart to China.
      Relaunched a 1980's Ukranian Aircraft Carrier.
      Filed more crappy patents than anyone else.

      They sure are scary little folk...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Uh, yeah by stox · · Score: 2

      4 probes. Pioneer's 10,11 and Voyager 1, 2.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    8. Re:Uh, yeah by x_man · · Score: 1, Troll

      Everyone has forgotten that NASA landed a probe on frickin' Titan just a few years ago! That's a motherfuckin' moon way the hell out there orbiting motherfuckin' Saturn and we set a probe down on the motherfuckin' surface and took some pics in the process.

      And China has put a person in orbit. How nice.

    9. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 2, Funny

      pushing back our knowledge of the universe to mere instants before its creation.

      ...for what exactly? has it paved the way for a better toothbrush or something?

      But you just sit there and gripe.

      You must be new here.

    10. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      instants before its creation

      hahaha... before its creation

      definitely the moron gene right there

    11. Re:Uh, yeah by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Lol. Sadly, the progress of NASA is charted against which planet / moon they landed a human on recently.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    12. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be interested to know what positive outcomes the ISS has achieved, especially those breakthroughs that would be impossible without the expense and risk associated with a permanent orbiting space station. In this case Google wasn't very friendly. I found this page (http://www.iss.com/about/achievements.html) but its really just a list of things added to the ISS.

    13. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.iss.com/ is a website for an instrumentation company dipshit, but the rest stands to reason

    14. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're making breakthroughs in THEIR space program, not in ours. Yes, for us it just looks like catch-up, and it is. But they have to start somewhere, and the point is that they are catching up very quickly while we seem to be going nowhere.

      Case in point: NASA's 2010 budget was $19 billion. The Chinese Space Agency's annual budget is estimated by analysts at $1.3 billion. NASA has 14.6 times the funding and yet the technology gap is rapidly closing. China may not be doing things better just yet, but they're certainly doing it faster and cheaper.

      Let's also not forget that the cost of the Apollo program was $136 billion, adjusted to 2007 dollars. That's enough to keep the CNSA at current funding for the next 100 years. China is nowhere near committing itself to the level of funding that we needed to put a man on the moon; why would you even make the comparison to Apollo unless you are simply ignorant of context? If they manage to do it on their own terms within the next century, then they would have done it more smartly than we did. Personally, I think they have plenty of breathing room to make it happen, which is not very good news for 'patriotic' types clinging to something that happened over 40 years ago. I remember as a child of the 80s that WWII seemed like ancient history, but at the time it was also only about 40 years past. Does that put things in context? Children of today and tomorrow can't relate at all to the Apollo program. You might as well be talking about the thirteen colonies for all it means to them. Sure they'll see Neil Armstrong on hilariously old tapes, but they'll be seeing the Chinese space program in the here and now, streaming live on the interwebs (okay, with censor delay), something happening within their own lifetimes. No amount of "we got there first" is going to save NASA's reputation. Ford did it first too, and nobody cares now because Honda eventually did it better.

      Politically, China has the advantage that it's not involved in a dick-waving contest with some Soviet boogeyman, and instead of racing toward a symbolic goal that serves no tangible purpose, they're slowly and steadily building up a knowledge base to make the space program a sustainable benefit for their society. Instead of figuring how to get to the moon first, they're trying to figure out if the moon can be exploited somehow, and the best way to do so. Their goals are strategic and practical, compared to NASA's which seem to be made up mostly of unspecific ambitions fueled by the academic curiosity to study things far beyond our grasp, and being content to leave them there.

    15. Re:Uh, yeah by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      put together a space shuttle. Put up multiple space stations. Have numerous probes all over the solar system. Landed on 3 different surfaces with multiple probes on 2 of them. Flown a probe OUT of the solar system. Massive telescope in orbit. Have found numerous planets around our galaxy. etc. etc. Have funded multiple private launch systems which will carry cargo and shortly ppl. Got the ISS going with multiple other space organizations. Helped most of these other space organizations to make them a success with the ISS. Likewise, developed the VASIMR, Transhab which were taken private. Did the original nuke engines that are capable of sending us all over the solar system.

      But otherwise, nothing much.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 4, Informative

      Russia and the various allied countries after WW2 all used captured German rocket technology and China has basically purchased all their space related systems from Russia. The best US space based technology today is the X-37 orbital vehicle that can destroy or deploy satellites if necessary. Most of the newest US tech is targeted towards unmanned vehicles because we have reached the level that a human pilots cannot handle. For example the F-22 does not use it's full capabilities because a human pilot can not withstand the experience. Exploring the solar system is a perfect job for unmanned vehicles. If they discovery any thing really interesting a manned mission could be justified. Also the satellite China took out was in very low earth orbit. The really critical satellites are deployed in high orbits.

    17. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if by the time China started putting space stations in orbit SpaceX and Bigelow were doing the same.

    18. Re:Uh, yeah by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      They are also in the process of building an organic carrier group including missile destroyers, attack submarines.
      They reverse engineered the Su-27 and Su-33 into the J-11 and J-15 respectively.
      They made their first credible indigenous fighter the J-10.
      They showed a stealth fighter-bomber prototype the J-20.
      They launched the Tiangong-1 space station module which will be docked probably next year.
      They are in the process of becoming the largest space launching nation in the world in the next decade once Long March 5 comes online and they start increasing the quantity and quality of their satellite systems..

    19. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than what China has done before or since? Not denigrating the Chinese efforts, but NASA hasn't exactly been sitting on their hands. How many Mars probes, Lunar orbits, or comet flybys has the Chinese space agency done?

      The real (and much more sobering) question is, will the Chinese surpass us while we continue to use these same tired old excuses and continue living vicariously through our grandparents' accomplishments, and our economy collapses into dust?

    20. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      It's inexcusable that an RTG hasn't been present on every probe, satellite, & rover present in space. There is going to be a time in the very near future where more energy is going to be dedicated to un-fucking the earth's gravity well from debris than will be dedicated to leaving it.

      The dick measuring of the USA's & China's anti-satellite tests should be treated as Crimes Against Humanity same as if they were deliberately bombarding the planet with asteroids. God help us if we can't figure out a way to un-fuck the mistakes of the past and move towards the future in time to form a self-sufficient colony before we get wiped out by the next big fucking asteroid.

      Most people seem to be apathetic about the future beyond the term of their own lifespan. Clearly our culture has failed somewhere along the way that respect has faltered for the legacy we have inherited from our ancestors from the past 65 million years.

    21. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually may be a good thing for Nasa too... because soon china space program will increasingly be doing more interesting stuff, there may be a new space race and therefore an incentive to increase the budget.

      Budgets are great - but there's NO MONEY!

    22. Re:Uh, yeah by Teancum · · Score: 2

      The problem with the American spaceflight effort wasn't the construction of the STS or ISS, it was the notion that they were the ultimate and final product and the pinnacle of what human spaceflight could ever achieve. More specifically, it was the problem of putting "all of the eggs in one basket" and hoping that a high flight rate would keep costs down for individual missions.

      Just as important, once these programs were seen as fiscal black holes (which I will openly admit), they should have been shut down with other alternatives serious considered.

      The jab at "capturing German technology" is patently unfair. Yes, the German rocket team that helped to develop the V-2 was brought to America and put to work for the U.S. Army (it wasn't even the Army Air Corps, it was the Artillery branch that ended up getting the missile program), but there were very much indigenous efforts for building rockets in America as well. This remark completely dismisses the efforts of Robert Goddard, not to mention the tens of thousands of engineers who ended up working for NASA and NASA contractors to help build the rockets that ended up going to the Moon and elsewhere.

      For those so clueless to think that all you need is a modified ICBM in order to go into space, I need to point out that the problem domains are really quite different, and the "advanced" spaceflight rockets really can't be used for ICBMs or the other way around either. Yes, when rocketry was first being established you could have a "dual purpose" rocket that could both deliver a heavy warhead and put somebody into space, but even then it was design compromises that ultimately were unsustainable.

      What needed to happen with both the ISS and the STS program was a series of iterative programs that would build upon the successes and failures of the previous designs. In other words, there should have been a Shuttle Mark II, version 3, 4, 5 and so forth. It also should have been a much smaller vehicle and there should have been an operational tempo to have many more flights removing the ego of having the perfect design.... which it never had. The Skylab program ended up putting into space a station that had about half of the volume of the ISS (and about the size of MIR) for a substantial fraction of the cost of the ISS. The question should not have been why the ISS, but why there wasn't a Skylab II mission built in the 1980's. Oh.... of course the Saturn V, arguably one of the most successful rockets produced by NASA, was dumped down a rat hole too in favor of the "one true program" that redid everything.

      Otherwise, I'm trying to figure out why this post was modded anything but "troll" and "flamebait". It certainly deserves it.

    23. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They launching their GNSS system.

    24. Re:Uh, yeah by emilper · · Score: 1

      how is this informative ?

      German rocket technology was crap, even with 20 years of research in US it could not be fixed to be useful at something else except throwing rocks at a city (yes, the payload of a V2 during the war was more often than not a chunk of concrete, and they could not hit a target smaller than London) or suborbital ballistic missiles.

      The soviets were building rockets since the late 20s and had better designs. They built only two rockets based on the V2 design (R1 and R2, used only for suborbital ballistic missiles), and abandoned it when they reached the limits. Sputnik did not ride a "V2" clone.

    25. Re:Uh, yeah by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      AFAIK they did not lose one man during it.
      And if you consider 8 years Space flight not a break through, you are a moron.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Case in point: NASA's 2010 budget was $19 billion. The Chinese Space Agency's annual budget is estimated by analysts at $1.3 billion. NASA has 14.6 times the funding and yet the technology gap is rapidly closing. China may not be doing things better just yet, but they're certainly doing it faster and cheaper."

      Well yeah, their rockets are made in China.

    27. Re:Uh, yeah by assertation · · Score: 1

      I thought your tone was a bit curmudgeonly and made you seem like a crank, but I have to agree with your points 100%.

    28. Re:Uh, yeah by assertation · · Score: 1

      Politically, China has the advantage that it's not involved in a dick-waving contest with some Soviet boogeyman, and instead of racing toward a symbolic goal that serves no tangible purpose, they're slowly and steadily building up a knowledge base to make the space program a sustainable benefit for their society.

      I think the U.S. has been in a cold war - lite with China. Seeing them land someone on the moon will be a big shock that will either motivate the U.S. to make manned flights again ( regardless of how practical it is ) or demoralize Americans into believing our time has past.

      Given the way our corporations have sold our country out I think the later is more likely.

    29. Re:Uh, yeah by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      Quite big expectations for human race there for our current level of progress. To be able to ruin the whole universe, with our current level of technology or near our current level.

    30. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If labor costs in China are 1/10 the labor costs in the US, it would be closer to compare $19 billion to an adjusted $13 billion ($1.3 billion * 10). Of course, adjusted for inflation, I believe the US costs are lower than during the cold war.

    31. Re:Uh, yeah by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of money. You just need to stop wasting it all on overseas wars and no-strings bailouts for banks that are "too big to fail".

    32. Re:Uh, yeah by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    33. Re:Uh, yeah by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Did the original nuke engines that are capable of sending us all over the solar system.

      I think this calls for a "pics or it didn't happen". Sorry, some nuclear engines on a drawing board somewhere amount to nothing if they're never built.

      Have funded multiple private launch systems which will carry cargo and shortly ppl.

      Still waiting on this one. I'll believe it when it happens.

      Got the ISS going with multiple other space organizations.

      Last I heard, they were planning on scrapping the ISS in a couple of years and letting it fall back into the atmosphere because there's no funding, since we need to spend all our money on wars.

      put together a space shuttle.
      Flown a probe OUT of the solar system.
      Put up multiple space stations.

      These don't count, they're all from 40 years ago. When are the NASA-cheerers going to stop talking about the accomplishments of our grandparents like they're recent news? The ancient Romans did some really impressive things too, but you don't see the Italians running around talking about how great their aquaduct-building expertise is or how advanced their volcanic-ash concrete is.

    34. Re:Uh, yeah by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      i'm thankful the Aussie government has been smart (or stupid) enough avoid them and to remain a "user" rather than "provider" of space services.

      Space can be quite profitable. India's space programme makes money and is done as a commercial venture. Space is as much a commercial venture as scientific and national pride one for China too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Uh, yeah by khallow · · Score: 1

      German rocket technology was crap, even with 20 years of research in US it could not be fixed to be useful at something else except throwing rocks at a city

      The primary German innovation wasn't in the technology, though the technology was better than you claimed (almost everyone has gone through a suborbital phase equivalent to the V-2 before developing a rocket capable of reaching orbit), but in the process of developing, manufacturing, and launching rockets on an industrial scale.

    36. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pics: KIWI and NERVA

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

        - numerous pics via links of engine tests...

    37. Re:Uh, yeah by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Politically, China has the advantage that it's not involved in a dick-waving contest with some Soviet boogeyman

      Right, they're in a dick-waving contest with the US, and pretty much the rest of the world for that matter.

      and instead of racing toward a symbolic goal that serves no tangible purpose, they're slowly and steadily building up a knowledge base to make the space program a sustainable benefit for their society.

      I don't think launching a Chinese space station or landing a Chinese citizen on the moon is going to benefit their society, other than the immense propaganda rewards for the CCP, which is the entire point of the exercise. China has no shortage of mineral resources already; there is nothing on the moon that would benefit them economically.

    38. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the satellite China took out was in very low earth orbit. The really critical satellites are deployed in high orbits.

      Nope. The satellite that China destroyed in 2007 was at an altitude of 537 miles, which is *far* above low earth orbit. 500 to 600 miles up is where the best U.S. spy satellites are, including the Keyholes (the KH-12s).

      Why do you think the U.S. raised such a big stink about that kill? Because it proved that U.S. satellite reconnaissance -- and probably the space-based part of the U.S. command and control system -- will not be secure in any future conflict with China.

      Sure, the U.S. put out some story about dangerous orbital debris, but anybody who thinks about it for more than a split second will realize that it's bullshit. The small amount of debris that high up is simply not much of a problem. No, you Americans are upset because some of your most important assets in space are now threatened by China.

    39. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The US destroyed a P78-1 satellite using an ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite missile in 1985. China is about 23 years late to the party. The US or Russia would not publicize their space based weapon systems because of treaty obligations and for making future opponents unsure as to what capabilities they actually have.

    40. Re:Uh, yeah by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      Labour's really far from the main cost in space research.

    41. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's little doubt that the U.S. can destroy China's assets in space if a war broke out.

      The point of the 2007 destruction of FY-1C in Medium Earth Orbit is that China can do the same to the U.S. thus complicating the calculations of every American war monger. This is why the U.S. was so mightily pissed off by that satellite kill.

    42. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Corporations are making money in space. All governments that provide any kind of service (be it launches or academic) are wasting money in space on a grand scale and have been for years.

      The problem with any government sponsored program is that taxpayers pay twice; once for the grants and subsidies, and then as consumers when the corporations turn their government-funded research and development into commodities.

      On the flip-side, its difficult to justify a large R&D budget in any private company because if you come up with something truly innovative, it will be plundered by other companies to the point where its impossible to defend your rights to the IP and recover your costs.

      Such is capitalism.

    43. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the ingenuity of stupidity.

    44. Re:Uh, yeah by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I think this calls for a "pics or it didn't happen". Sorry, some nuclear engines on a drawing board somewhere amount to nothing if they're never built.

      The Rover/NERVA program accumulated 17 hours of operating time with 6 hours above 2000 K.

      Still waiting on this one. I'll believe it when it happens.

      Lets see. The Falcon 9 has made 2 launches without any major issues. The dragon capsule has done 1. In med feb., they will be launched for doing cargo to the ISS.
      OSC is everybody else's equipment put together. Not likely to fail except for the parts that OSC actually built. And considering that they are not carrying a climate sat, I suspect that they will do just fine.

      Last I heard, they were planning on scrapping the ISS in a couple of years and letting it fall back into the atmosphere because there's no funding, since we need to spend all our money on wars.

      Currently slated for 2020, though extensions are being sought for 2025 or later.

      put together a space shuttle. Flown a probe OUT of the solar system. Put up multiple space stations.

      These don't count, they're all from 40 years ago. When are the NASA-cheerers going to stop talking about the accomplishments of our grandparents like they're recent news? The ancient Romans did some really impressive things too, but you don't see the Italians running around talking about how great their aquaduct-building expertise is or how advanced their volcanic-ash concrete is.

      The shuttle was from the 70s'. That is true.

      HOWEVER, the probe that JUST went out of the solar system was launched 40 years ago. But New Horizons which launched in 2006 and will hit pluto in 2015. It is moving MUCH faster than voyagers and will leave the solar system around 2029 (i.e. a relatively short 23 years compared to the nearly 40 years for voyager).

      Skylab was put up in the 70's. ISS in the 90's (actually, mostly 00's). Bigelow has 2 inflatable 'space stations' up there based on the work from NASA (more like coffins). If CONgress will quit screwing up, NASA will back Bigelow and other private space companies and get multiple space stations up there.

      The problem is NOT NASA. It is CONgress. And for the last 20 years, it is the neo-cons that are NASA and their ability to accomplish things. THey are the ones that gutted NASA over and over.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    45. Re:Uh, yeah by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If CONgress will quit screwing up, NASA will back Bigelow and other private space companies and get multiple space stations up there.

      The problem is NOT NASA. It is CONgress. And for the last 20 years, it is the neo-cons that are NASA and their ability to accomplish things. THey are the ones that gutted NASA over and over.

      Yes, but I don't see that changing any time soon. Our federal government is getting worse, not better.

    46. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 1
      I think the progress made is space during the cold war was remarkable (if unsustainable). Its certainly not that NASA and the CCCP didn't achieve great things, but they were essentially military projects with budgets will never again be justified. Its pretty hard to expect RTGs in the first satellites, and I think Earth's gravity well is safe for the foreseeable future. I also don't think the space junk problem is as bad as some people make out, as everything floating around the Earth is in a decaying orbit, the only variable being how long it takes to reenter the atmosphere. The only points that are safe from a fiery plunge (or a lunar crash landing) are the lagrange points where the gravity from two bodies (Earth/Moon, Earth/Sun) balance each other, and it isn't a piece of cake to remain at these points either. For small applications solar is probably the way to go. The problem with RTGs is what happens when they reenter the atmosphere. If they land near some farmer's tomato and tobacco fields, he may end up growing tomacco if there is a radiation leak from the RTG.

      God help us if we can't figure out a way to un-fuck the mistakes of the past and move towards the future in time to form a self-sufficient colony before we get wiped out by the next big fucking asteroid

      I think the best we can do is work on the problems facing us here on Earth. Renewable energy to eliminate the reliance on oil, coal and gas, population control or some means to feed everyone adequately and fairly, economic stability and cooperation (most likely requiring economic meltdown of the current competitive systems), political unification (most likely requiring the disbanding of the UN Security Council and more authority to the General Assembly), global military disarmament, and religious rationalization (religious organizations should be limited in their scope of operation so as to prevent abuse as a political tool). There are many other problems too, and many answers and challenges, but simply moving into space with our current attitudes will only shift the problems. No venture would last longer than a few years due to civil unrest, crime and terrorism.

      Most people seem to be apathetic about the future beyond the term of their own lifespan. Clearly our culture has failed somewhere along the way that respect has faltered for the legacy we have inherited from our ancestors from the past 65 million years.

      You can thank human nature for that, but Adam Smith certainly didn't help (though if not him it would have been someone else).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

      Perhaps the solution to renewable energy lies in permanent magnets. Just pick up two plain old bar magnets and have a play. They have uncanny properties, and I think their potential as apparent storage devices of one of the most fundamental energies is yet to be unlocked. There aren't too many places in the known universe lacking in the energy required to keep electrons perpetually orbiting their nucleus, so permanent magnetism may be the source of future "nuclear energy". There are a lot of crackpots out to try make a buck and secure all sorts of ridiculous patents from ill-thought-out contraptions, and I know about the laws of thermodynamics (I'm an engineer), but anyone who believes that the universe is limited by a bunch of laws surmised by man are idiots. Such laws are made to be broken, and will be (just not by the idiots limited by them). "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." - George Bernard Shaw

    47. Re:Uh, yeah by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I don't see that changing any time soon. Our federal government is getting worse, not better.

      It will remain this way for the next year. The good news is that there is an election next year. The problem is that we need to kill off all of CONgress which will likely not happen.

      In the mean time, my guess is that paul allen is working to support private space. In particular, I would suspect that his recent stuff will give spacex the money to focus on human launch. I am hoping that either he or other billionaires will focus on private space and get human launch going. At that time, Bigelow Aerospace will jump all over it.

      Sadly, Boeing has ZERO intention of doing this on their own.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    48. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Sadly, Boeing has ZERO intention of doing this on their own.

      Boeing has the corporate level-headiness that the new players lack. It's not ingenuity or enthusiasm that is needed, its finance, and the new players will run out of it eventually. Paul Allen is a businessman, so you can be sure his intentions have little to do with the greater good of humanity.

      Congress is actually the best thing you have going for you as far as controlling financial black holes. The US is straining under 15 trillion dollars of debt and a failing reserve currency. Your public health system is a shambles and the military hardware corporations continue to lobby for the pointless wars being carried off in far flung places that have little meaning to the common citizen. The Congress represents the people and is the symbol of the democracy and freedom you all so faithfully and blindly defend. Reigning in the pointless bureaucratic and academic paper shuffling inside NASA is something positive that Congress could achieve right now. Do you really need to still be spending $400 of taxpayer money on a spanner for some spacecraft that at most could offer a bunch of PHDs something to write a paper about when ordinary people can't even afford to own a home?

    49. Re:Uh, yeah by emilper · · Score: 1

      "in the process of developing, manufacturing, and launching rockets on an industrial scale"

      that another problem: they spent more money in mass producing two useless rocket designs than US spent on the entire Manhattan Project ... not to speak of the lives wasted or the resources wasted on them.

    50. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The US Military R&D establishment doesn't get pissed off about this kind of stuff. Most, if not all, US Military R&D comes from the private sector. When any new threat (real or imagined) presents itself they use it as a means to continue the R&D and make more money. The capability to capture a satellite and modify it's operations is a far better tactic than just destroying them outright and only the US has the technology to accomplish this type of operation.

    51. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 1

      ...not to mention funding your competition via interest payments on an impossible-to-ever-fully-repay national debt

    52. Re:Uh, yeah by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      what major breakthroughs have they made in comparison?

      For example, the shuttle.

    53. Re:Uh, yeah by khallow · · Score: 1

      that another problem: they spent more money in mass producing two useless rocket designs than US spent on the entire Manhattan Project ...

      This sort of statement ignores the nature of total war. Conserving resources has to be secondary because it can lose a war. And no leader in such a war ever has incentive to save resources for their conquerors to use.

      It's also worth noting that V-2 rockets were the target of a special intelligence effort by the allies. For a "useless rocket design", the Allies worked hard to reduce its effectiveness in a variety of ways. First, they had a disinformation campaign that issued lies about where V-2 rockets landed in the UK. They explicitly targeted V-2 infrastructure, both the mobile launch platforms and the manufacture plant. And as we know, they gobbled up the V-2 research personnel after the war.

      And why did the Allies do this? Because every time a V-2 worked, an area the size of a city block blew up without warning. The V-2 didn't work well only because it wasn't being aimed well. Change that and it would have become a very effective weapon.

    54. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bet the Pentagon was majorly pissed off by China's satellite kill. At one stroke the entire U.S. constellation of space-based assets had become obsolete (except possibly for the GPS satellites, which are at nearly geosync altitudes).

      You Americans are now forced to replace the whole constellation. Any money you spend on that -- and it will have to be a serious amount of $$$ -- will have to be squeezed from other military projects, whose managers will not be overjoyed.

      Yes, the U.S. was totally pissed off by the 2007 satellite kill -- which of course was why your government raised such a huge ruckus about it.

    55. Re:Uh, yeah by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Boeing has the corporate level-headiness that the new players lack. It's not ingenuity or enthusiasm that is needed, its finance, and the new players will run out of it eventually.

      Really? So you think that a profitable company like SpaceX will run out of money? In 2015, they are launching more than once a month and that is without the FH. They have prices below what every other player in the industry does. And you think that they will be gone? What do you base that one?

      Paul Allen is a businessman, so you can be sure his intentions have little to do with the greater good of humanity.

      Actually, Paul has a great deal of humanity in his decisions. For example, when gates was pushing satellites, he was saying that internet over cable was the way to go. The industry wanted NOTHING to do with the internet. So, he created Charter Cable and had it target internet. The rest is history.
      Likewise, he invested into Scaled Compostes to get them into winning the X-Prize. Even now, his new craft probably has more to do with pushing forward the industry than anything else. Is it based on business? I am not certain. BUT, it will allow Scaled to move into orbit, and it will help move a lot of money into spaceX as well.

      Congress is actually the best thing you have going for you as far as controlling financial black holes. The US is straining under 15 trillion dollars of debt and a failing reserve currency. Your public health system is a shambles and the military hardware corporations continue to lobby for the pointless wars being carried off in far flung places that have little meaning to the common citizen. The Congress represents the people and is the symbol of the democracy and freedom you all so faithfully and blindly defend. Reigning in the pointless bureaucratic and academic paper shuffling inside NASA is something positive that Congress could achieve right now. Do you really need to still be spending $400 of taxpayer money on a spanner for some spacecraft that at most could offer a bunch of PHDs something to write a paper about when ordinary people can't even afford to own a home?

      You must be kidding. CONgress is our nightmare. Much of our deficit is due to these bastards. When Boehner/O had a deal to drop spending 5 or 6 trillion (4-5 trillion in cuts and 1 trillion in tax increases), cantor jumped in and scaped it. When O had his bowles-simpson group coming up with a balanced budget plan, Cantor again prevented it by having his house members vote against it. Now, he prevents it from coming to the house floor for a vote.
      Likewise, it was the neo-cons in the 90's that gutted NASA;
      then ordered that NASA drop the shuttle, start Constellation, but provide no funding;
      Then when Constellation was dead with a focus on multiple launchers from private space, Cantor pushed into place SLS.
      Now, Cantor et al. are hard at work at killing off private space.

      Why do they do this? Because they have the Constellation/SLS jobs located in their districts. SLS is NOT what is best for NASA. It is what is best for those scum buckets.

      The one good news is that SpaceX will likely have human launch available around 201[45] regardless of what CONgress does. The reason is that between the likes of Allen and Bigelow and I am going to guess we will shortly see at least one other billioniare jump in, will want this up ASAP. And for them, they NEED multiple space stations in orbit as well as pushing for the moon.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    56. Re:Uh, yeah by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Plus in mid 2015 the New Horizons probe will join that illustrious clique.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    57. Re:Uh, yeah by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Just to remind, Apollo program at its peak was drawing 4% of the entire federal budget of U.S. For comparison, PRC budget expenditures this year are 1/3 of US expenditures - and we're in an economic downturn, while at the time of Apollo, economy was booming.

    58. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 1
      SpaceX isn't generating revenue, so how can they be profitable? Breaking even to recoup R&D costs is also a long way off. Their entire website is basically a big advertisement for milestones they are yet to achieve. From their "launch manifest" it appears many of their projected customers are government-based (subject to Congressional budget cuts no doubt). Billionaire support will get them so far, but even billionaires will eventually expect a return on their investment. SpaceX will also never be cheaper than the Russian system, which is about an mass-produced as spacecraft can get at the moment. The SpaceX craft aren't reusable, they are refurbishable, which is similar to the old STS, and will always be more expensive than mass-producing ballistic capsules like Soyuz. I would be interested to know where you're getting your info from. If your only source is SpaceX itself, you are rather gullible.

      Paul has a great deal of humanity in his decisions

      You know him personally do you? How do you think he got rich in the first place? Microsoft isn't exactly a model corporate citizen. Billionaires have more money than they need for their lifestyle, so they blow some of it on dickwaving like SpaceX. You can be sure that after Allen has his vacation in space to give him plenty to talk about with his billionaire mates, the technology that enabled it will take a back seat. You will obviously disagree, but only based on speculation and unfounded faith in those that have done nothing for you. Morons who get suckered into religious cults suffer from a similar mental incapacity.
      Scaled Composites achieved a great milestone (relatively cheap access to suborbital space for trained test pilots) and I've sat in on a presentation by Burt Rutan who is a very smart man and an inspirational speaker, but no amount of finance from Dick Branson or Paul Allen will help get you or me closer to a holiday in Low Earth Orbit.

      Much of our deficit is due to these bastards. When Boehner/O had a deal to drop spending 5 or 6 trillion (4-5 trillion in cuts and 1 trillion in tax increases), cantor jumped in and scaped it.

      Do you have any idea what 4-5 trillion dollars in cuts actually means? Just because some politicians says his great plan will balance the budget doesn't mean it actually ever could. Money has to come from somewhere, and while funding NASA will satisfy the space fanatics, it may mean cutting the secondary education budget, which will affect a lot more people. Congress is by necessity a bureaucracy, but all its members are voted in and represent their constituent voters to some degree (if they wish to keep their seat at least). Congress can and will always fuck things up, but would you have some dictator come in and sort it all out? I'm sure you could get in there and make America grand again, although you'll probably need a much bigger soapbox than Slashdot.

    59. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Like I mentioned in my previous post the US has been able to destroy satellites since 1985 so the technologies involved are not hard to deploy if a country is willing to incur the financial cost. And do you really think the US would just sit around and watch someone destroy their satellite network? Do you think that the US military has not run war games based on scenarios where they lose satellite capabilities? There were no satellites used in WW2 but the countries involved were more than capable of reeking total destruction but it just took longer to carpet bomb entire cities because of the lack of bombing accuracy. Do you think the US has not positioned certain types of satellites in places where surface based weapons would be ineffective? The US also has the ability to quickly redeploy any satellite destroyed using existing rocket technology and it's X-37B re-usable orbital vehicle. In then end non of this really matters. China, Russia, and the US would not attempt this type of attack because it would escalate the conflict and make nuclear weapons part of the equation once again. If an enemy is destroying your ability to launch and control missiles then you best use them before you lose the capability to do so.

    60. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ne... Is it really impossible for some other country to develop without this USAmerican sentiments of besmirching and looking down upon? It is all i have been reading in these comments thus far. Your mention of a 'space race' only reveals to me how threatened you are by anyone developing, as if to say you don't want to live in a world where other people are achieving the same things you are.

      Any normal person would be pleased that there is more attention on space. It's a triumph of humanity. But you don't seem to entertain such thoughts at all.

    61. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China won't start a war with the U.S. If the big fight happens, it will be provoked by the proven war monger, the country that spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. So the satellite destruction would only start if major conflict was already underway.

      And as I wrote previously and you continue to belabor, there is little doubt that the U.S. could wipe out China's assets in space. The point of the 2007 kill was deterrence: an announcement of mutually assured satellite destruction if the U.S. were ever evil enough and stupid enough to start a war with the big Asian country.

      From China's point of view, the best part of this deterrence mechanism is that it's nearly invulnerable. I have little information on the Sino ASAT weapon, but I'm almost certain it's mobile. After all, if the U.S.'s ASAT can be launched from an F-15, China should have little trouble with deploying its equivalent on a truck. So this is the message: if you Americans start a war, there is no way for you to avoid kissing your satellites good-bye.

      (You keep mentioning the X-37's anti-satellite capabilities. You cannot be serious. It rides on top of an Atlas V, a Delta IV, or similar heavy lift vehicle -- and that is neither cheap nor capable of frequent operation. What a joke.)

      China has managed to totally obsolete the U.S.'s current satellite constellation by spending perhaps one thousandth of America's outlay in space. The U.S. knew even in 2007 that its financial position was precarious; you could ill afford to spend another few hundred billion dollars replacing your satellite fleet. And even if you were crazy enough to do it, China would counter by spending perhaps a few million dollars, which is a pittance in comparison. Eventually the U.S. will bankrupt itself, just as the USSR did.

      The U.S. has undoubtedly wargamed all the possible scenarious, and I'm sure the generals hate the results. Which was why your government was so royally pissed in 2007!

    62. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The X-37 vehicle development was started in 1999 as a classified DARPA project that the US Air Force then took control of once the basic design was laid out. It does use the Atlas V rocket to launch but the key point is that it can accomplish it's mission and return to earth to be used again. The turn around time is much faster than the old Space Shuttle. Unlike the shuttle it can actually fly in the atmosphere and conduct orbital maneuvers much better than the old space shuttle could ever hope to do. It's main purpose is military applications and they have been running ops for the past 3 years while everyone else is busy lamenting the shut down of the Space Shuttle project. Let the Russians supply the space station (when their missiles don't blowup on the launch pads) so the US can concentrate on things that actually matter. The current design is also unmanned which means the risk of killing people is not a factor. So which country can deploy this technology? As far as "warmongering" goes it's always better to be feared than liked when it comes to international relations. With the coming US election cycle all of the candidates from every party are supporting a reduction or elimination of foreign aid along with outright military disengagement in any international conflicts. Of course the US arms industry will continue to sell to those looking for equipment. When that is done the real wars will start and those bleating about US interference will be lining up for US help and the US will and should just ignore them. As long as those who are fighting stay within their own borders why should the US give a shit? Do you see China or Russia rushing in to provide aid to these countries? If the fighting does exceed their boarders and threaten US interests they can always be convinced to return home with a few well placed missiles.

    63. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (By the way, do you understand the concept of "paragraphs"?)

      The turn around time is much faster than the old Space Shuttle.

      If the X-37B continues to need a heavy lift launcher, the turnaround time will suck. Which is why I wrote that your shiny new toy will be incapable of frequent operation. So it will be a total non-factor in any U.S. / China war.

      You can blather on as you like about the mighty U.S. arms industry. But the point is that China has totally obsoleted your country's space assets -- and you can't afford the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to replace them. Which is why, as news of China's satellite kill started spreading around the world in 2007, heads started exploding all over the Pentagon.

    64. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "China has totally obsoleted your country's space assets
      Do you live in a different universe? Your proclamation shows both the level of your stupidity and ignorance all rolled up in one compact package.
      I have been to China multiple times and found their population very friendly and have not encountered any hostility towards the US. I have worked with Chinese engineers for over 20 years and have not encountered any animosity towards the US. There is no reason for China and the US to start a war. And even if there was a war China cannot project thier military power outside of the south Asian region unless they use their ICBM capabilities which they will not do because of the retaliation they would certainly face.
      And please do a little research on the X-37 program and technologies and contrast the turn around times and other capabilities versus the old space shuttle.
      The US is the number one seller of military weapons in the world. However they don't sell the really good stuff like the F-22. And I would not be surprised in the least that the US technology sold had back doors built in that would prevent any of those assests to be used against the US. As an example look at the French missiles that Argentina deployed against the British. Margaret Thatcher ended up getting the necessary missile codes from France needed to make those missiles ineffective after the first few strikes. US military sales contracts also make sure that buyers remain dependent on the US for replacement parts and upgrades. And finally China has not obsoleted any of the US military technology. It's funny that back in the 80's and early 90's their dispute with Taiwan would have required a million man swim just to get soldiers on the ground.

    65. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I have said several times already, China will not start the war. You apparently didn't understand that, so I will say it again: China will not start the war. Is that clear enough now, even for you?

      But the Chinese leadership would be stupid not to plan for conflict with insane warmongering countries like the U.S. China's ASAT weapon is one aspect of this preparation.

      As for the X-37B, you can glory all you like in your new toy. I focus on the important fact about that system: that it's totally dependent on heavy lift launchers like the Atlas V. Which means the turnaround time of the X-37B + Atlas will really suck, as heavy lift launchers are extremely expensive (more than $100 million each) and their production rates are low. So the X-37B will be a total non-factor in a U.S. / China war.

      Of course China has obsoleted the American satellite fleet. If I demonstrate that I can kill your assets -- so cheaply that I can keep doing it forever -- and you have only a few of them, and they cannot hide nor move away, and you cannot afford to update them, you are totally obsolete. You can insult me all you like, but you are still obsolete. You may not realize it even now, but the Pentagon definitely did in 2007, which is why they were so pissed off.

    66. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "Of course China has obsoleted the American satellite fleet"
      Just one more example of your idiocy and total lack of facts to support your claims.
      "heavy lift launchers are extremely expensive" When has cost ever been a factor to the US military, especially when any threat presents itself?
      Your ideas are very dangerous. By not honestly analyzing US military capabilities you make war seem plausible. The US could have left Iraq and Afghanistan barren of life if they wanted to without using any nuclear weapons or ground troops. The only thing holding them back is political compromising coupled with a healthy amount of political bullshit. In Iraq the fight in Basra could have been settled in a day or less with a few B-2 bombing raids and a couple of cruise missile strikes. Instead they used tanks, targeted artillery, and ground troops because everyone would have went ape shit over civilian casualties. The Allied victory in WW2 was achieved by killing and destroying anything in their way. There was no difference between non-combatants and combatant's. England actually let entire cities be destroyed just to hide the fact they knew in advance an attack was going to happen because they did not want to let Germany know the enigma system had been compromised. Every military strike based on decoding the enigma code required creating a secondary and plausible source of intel to hide the real source before the operation would be launched. They even sacrificed some of their own naval vessels to maintain the secret. In essence they put winning as their main focus. One of the greatest weaknesses of the US military today is that political decisions are ranked higher than actually destroying whoever they are fighting at the time. China has a strong military but they cannot project that power outside of the South Asia region. One other thing they lack like most of the countries in the world is real life combat experience instead of risk free military war games.

    67. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. An insane warmongering country must have some insane warmongering citizens, of course. And you are a perfect example. Bye.

    68. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Not warmongering just not overloaded with a lot of people deluding themselves about the way meaningful changes have always been implemented throughout human history. Today people tend to judge our society based on our technological advancements not on any advancements of basic human nature. We just have bigger clubs to whack each other the head with today. It is the failures of Diplomacy that has create wars and then used to clean up after the war with varying degrees of success until the next war thier bubbling around starts. The Versailles Treaty after WW1 is a perfect example. A more recent example was the politicians stopping the first Iraq war before the military finished the job. That diplomatic nonsense deserves the vast majority of blame for 9/11 (it required extended foreign military presence in an Arab country), the 2nd Iraq war ,and helped divert assests deployed in Afghanistan which might have might have lead to a much shorter conflict. "Diplomacy " on the international level is worthless without the ability to enforce the terms agreed to during the diplomatic talks.
      There is no harm in making sure the military is ready before the next conflagration breaks out. And sooner or later that conflagration is coming.
      Nuclear weapons in the hands of the major world powers has so far saved us from another globe spanning war similar to WW2. The countries looking to obtain nuclear weapons today are just weakening the MAD doctrine. The US and other world powers don't really give a shit about Iran building nuclear weapons they are worried about Iran providing these weapons to one of their proxy non-state military organizations. And if this was to happen the source of the nuclear weapon could most certainly be tracked back to the manufacturer but it would take some time and by then the worlds leading political morons would get involved arguing that a reprisal strike is unwarranted. In other words it creates doubt that the provider would suffer total destruction. Iran knows that if they directly used a nuclear weapon their country would be turned into a shiny glass filled crater. Any damage Iran would inflict would be relatively limited. A few cities at most. If they went after Isreal they would still face Israels second strike capability. If the US or Russia ever started lobbing nukes at each other the entire world would most likely be ruined if not outright destroyed.

  3. Qeng Ho beginnings? by ridgecritter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Feels odd to be living through the prequel to a Vernor Vinge novel....

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

    1. Re:Qeng Ho beginnings? by motiebrown · · Score: 1

      We've had reference to Star Trek and now Vinge. Does anyone remember the story by Cordwainer Smith, where China colonized Venus by parachuting people in. I'm told his stories were political allegory and although that method seems a little over the top, there is little doubt of his understanding of China.

    2. Re:Qeng Ho beginnings? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I read a story by Frank Herbert (and his son) years ago called "Man of Two Worlds". Wasn't the greatest book, but it did have a part about the Chinese and French fighting a small war on Venus. The soldiers wore an armor made of a fictional material called "inceram" which was resistant to the heat and pressure on Venus's surface, but if this armor became damaged, the soldier inside would very quickly be liquified.

    3. Re:Qeng Ho beginnings? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Feels odd to be living through the prequel to a Vernor Vinge novel....

      Except that the names in that book weren't distinctively Chinese; if anything they look more Vietnamese: Vinh, Nuwen (i.e. Nguyen), etc., plus one character named Park, which I believe would be Korean. More importantly, the Qeng Ho was essentially a quasi-libertarian interstellar trading consortium, not an authoritarian government. If anything, a closer analogue to the modern PRC is the Emergents (whose ethnic background is never specified, but probably mixed).

  4. Re:We should have nuked them 30 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    we should start nuking nascar events. biggest concentration of retard mutants I can think of.

  5. US Plans also announced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch what the Chinese are doing. Also the Indians. Maybe the French and the rest of Europe.

    Try to beg nickels out of Congress.

    Plan Neil Armstrong's funeral video.

    Drink Tang.

    1. Re:US Plans also announced by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      hey, how come i can't get no tang round here?

  6. Private Space Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The private sector may be about to take the space torch and run with it. In which case, they'll soon outdistance every govt, whether American, Chinese, or otherwise.

    1. Re:Private Space Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least in their press releases. But once the cutbacks and layoffs come in, the workers will be out of oxygen while in orbit around Ceres.

    2. Re:Private Space Ventures by crutchy · · Score: 0

      The cost of insurance and regulatory compliance will be what kills them, along with short-term shareholder apathy.

      "[investors] will finance space systems built with existing technology, but [investors] will not finance systems built with promising revolutionary technologies - not at any price"
      Source: TESTIMONY OF PETER B. TEETS, President and Chief Operating Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SPACE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION, May 20, 1999, Page 2

      If the likes of Lockheed Martin and Boeing (VentureStar) can't get it right even with significant government backing, what hopes have the little guys like SpaceX got? Their little wanking party will be over soon enough.

    3. Re:Private Space Ventures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boeing wasn't involved in the VentureStar or X-33 programs. AFAIK it was the skunk bunker all the way.

    4. Re:Private Space Ventures by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Oh please. The only way the private sector will do anything in space is under hefty government contracts. The "private sector" builds all our military hardware too, and that stuff isn't cheap and massive cost overruns are commonplace. As soon as the contracts dry up, these companies will fold as there's no short-term profit in space at the moment.

    5. Re:Private Space Ventures by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      Problem is that there isn't much money in it, so the private section won't do much. Bransen is at least trying, but unless we start seeing space tourists I think we've already reached our limit.

  7. Re:We should have nuked them 30 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because the world needs mutant hillbillies running around...

  8. Lunar Water Not Discovered by NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to correct, but it was the research team led by Carle Pieters of Brown University which discovered water on the Moon, using the M3 instrument on the Indian-launched Chandrayaan-1 space probe.

    NASA just followed up with a bunch of announcements after the fact, to drown out that landmark announcement with their own also-ran announcements.

    1. Re:Lunar Water Not Discovered by NASA by youn · · Score: 3, Informative

      My apologies, it was Chandrayaan indeed... Though, it is interesting to note Nasa did contribute the M3 mineral maper module that made the discovery... I may be wrong but without it, I do not think that without this instrument, it would have been possible to make the discovery (not to diminish in any way Chandrayaan's accomplishment... awesome to see a new country doing something interesting, Kudos to the Indians). To be fair, I was more referring to the Nasa LCROSS mission which actually settled for sure there water was present in big quantities... before that, there was a lot of speculation

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    2. Re:Lunar Water Not Discovered by NASA by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, no. What it did was CONFIRM that it was water. Clementine and Lunar Prospector actually found the water. It was Chandrayaan-1 that confirmed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Lunar Water Not Discovered by NASA by Convector · · Score: 1

      This kind of error in reporting is very common. The media will typically credit any discovery in astrophysics, planetary science, and related fields to "NASA" or "NASA scientists", regardless of who the actual discoverer is. Often the project is funded by a grant from NASA, but the science team are rarely employees of the agency.

  9. American funded space programs ... by drnb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well at least one of the American funded (Walmart shoppers, etc) space programs has a plan. Too bad its not the US based one.

  10. What the hell is wrong with you? by sabernet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, not even going to post this anonymously.

    Whatever you think of how China's gov't works. No matter the motivations. How is this anything other than an overall good thing? Seriously? We have a space agency in the world right now with both the government funding, the will and potentially the skills to advance manned spaceflight again!

    Worse case scenario, things don't work out and remain as they are(not counting deaths here since that's always a possibility with these and NASA as well as the Russians have had their fair share).

    Best case scenario: They pull off something here and either succeed or encourage this awesome spirit of competition we've been sorely lacking since the Soviet Union and the US fought over the moon.

    Please, keep your racist, xenophobic, nationalist or just plain ignorant bile to yourselves and enjoy what MOST people who admire the stars have been wishing for for a very long time: a renewed interest in space travel.

    1. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Karlb · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      When all else fails, you've won.
    2. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You need to take five minutes out of your day to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Z05xyGB0c

    3. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Worse case scenario, things don't work out and remain as they are(not counting deaths here since that's always a possibility with these and NASA as well as the Russians have had their fair share.

      Worst case scenario is actually: they mount weapons on space stations (nuclear, most likely) and start an arms race that ends in all out war. But the aggressive expansionist Chinese government surely wouldn't do anything like that. It's not like they expanded their military budget by 12% last year or anything.

      Unlikely? Maybe. Possible? Yes.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by sabernet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a) Repeat after me: China will NOT shoot at the US any time soon. The two nations are connected at the hip economically. They'll continue to play games with each other, for sure. there will be some sabotage, some espionage, some tensions, but China and the USA have the dollar bill version of Mutually Assured Destruction.
      b) Both the Russians AND the USA have weapons in space regardless of treaties. How's that World War with Russia going?
      c) How much did the USA expand their military budget last year? Or the year before that? Or before that? Heck, when's the last time it DIDN'T? How did that affect the ability of the last space race to allow a man to walk around on the moon?
      d) Doesn't the tinfoil hat itch?
      e) Given current sentiments(as demonstrated by your post) and the fact that the USA owes all the money, it's technically more likely the USA would act first. but again, see point a) for why this won't happen any time soon.

    5. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      Maybe if China has some success, that success will be "transferred" to the USA in much the way China has transferred western technology to itself. In other words, everyone wins but the person in the pissing contest.

    6. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Are you kidding me??? The only expansionist and aggressive government on this planet is the USA! And so what if China is expanding their military budget by 12%? It is still nowhere near what US is spending. USA is spending more on their military budget than all others combined!

      Which is more worrying? The country that spend the most on offensive military and has a history of attacking where ever they please, OR a large country concerned with building their economy and with no interest in attacking anyone, least pf all the US!

      What is worrying is that the US will mount weapons (if they haven't already) on the satellites as a "preventive" measure for it surely is not acceptable that anyone else is allowed to do that... and then act all indignant when China/Russia do the same....

    7. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both the Russians AND the USA have weapons in space regardless of treaties.

      Whoa whoa whoa, what? What weapons do the Russians and the U.S. have in space?

    8. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by drnb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Both the Russians AND the USA have weapons in space regardless of treaties.

      Whoa whoa whoa, what? What weapons do the Russians and the U.S. have in space?

      A fixed blade knife in a survival kit maybe?

    9. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      http://www.thespacereview.com/article/826/1

      i think there was one USSR spacecraft that may have been designed to carry weapons, but i think it failed during takeoff and i'm not sure it actually carried any weapons. unfortunately i couldn't find a website that mentions it.

      one country stationing nukes in space would be a sure fire way to trigger global space race though. too bad science would take a back seat

    10. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      Umm.... a long time ago they apparently had 23mm cannons on space stations..... tested them successfully as well. Would likely have been able to shred an Apollo capsule quite nicely. Or the later Space Shuttle.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut#Salyut_3

      Salyut 3
      OPS-2 (Salyut 3)
      Main article: Salyut 3

      Salyut 3 (OPS-2) (Russian: -3; English: Salute 3) was launched on June 25, 1974. It was another Almaz military space station, this one launched successfully. It tested a wide variety of reconnaissance sensors, returning a canister of film for analysis. On January 24, 1975, after the station had been ordered to deorbit, trials of the on-board 23 mm Nudelman aircraft cannon (other sources say it was a Nudelman NR-30 30 mm gun) were conducted with positive results at ranges from 3000 m to 500 m.[1] Cosmonauts have confirmed that a target satellite was destroyed in the test. The next day, the station was ordered to deorbit. Only one of the three intended crews successfully boarded and crewed the station, brought by Soyuz 14; Soyuz 15 attempted to bring a second crew but failed to dock. Nevertheless, it was an overall success. The station's orbit decayed, and it re-entered the atmosphere on January 24, 1975.

    11. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Teancum · · Score: 2

      I don't buy the economic arguments. Here is some food for thought:

      In the year 1938, who was the largest importer of goods from Germany? Would you believe France? #2 was Russia and #3 was Britain.

      And in the same time period, who was Japan's largest trading partner? America, followed by China.

      Yeah, all of those economic ties did a whole lot of good in terms of convincing the leaders of Germany and Japan to not bomb and destroy their leading customers.

      If a country will go to war, they will have their reasons for doing that which has absolutely no relevance as to what economic ties may exist. Still, in regards to China, I think they are more likely to get involved in a conflict with India than to deal with America. At least they share a common border with India (even if it isn't all that large).

    12. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      You were clear and blunt, I shall also be. It's not xenophobia that makes me concerned about the Chinese program, it's simple geopolitical self-interest..

      Nations conflict; that's human history. They conflict in many venues - on the ground, sea, and air militarily; in media culturally; in commerce economically - and the next venue will be space. I think that's almost inarguable.

      There's a reason that the otherwise-economically-worthless islands in the Pacific were fought over so bitterly in WW2 - they were unsinkable aircraft carriers, allowing their owner control of the region that was durable and extremely painful/complicated/expensive to break.

      In near-earth space, there are some important points of geography - low-earth orbit, geosychronous orbit, the Lagrange points, and the moon. Considering them militarily, all of these except the moon suffer from the significant handicap of all space operations: extreme vulnerability. On the moon there are precisely two points that have nearly permanent visibility to both the sun (for power) and earth (for communications). Two. Whoever gets there first and plants a base will enjoy a positional advantage FOREVER.

      Certainly the US government is inept, inefficient, and a host of other negative adjectives. But the Pax Americana has laid relatively lightly for the bulk of the world; for a number of reasons I wouldn't expect a Chinese one to be quite as benign.

      --
      -Styopa
    13. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst case scenario is actually: they mount weapons on space stations (nuclear, most likely) and start an arms race that ends in all out war.

      Lemme give you this:

      US has already deployed weapons that can strike anywhere on earth, from ((* SPACE ***, within one hour.

      Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have done that.

      Who's the bad guy here?

    14. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not xenophobia

      Your last blurb betrays you.

      ...Pax Americana has laid relatively lightly for the bulk of the world. I wouldn't expect a Chinese one to be quite as benign.

      You're assuming the US is superior and/or China is inferior. If not xenophobia, it's still prejudice.

    15. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look at facts. Pax Americana has led to things like the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War... so by "bulk of the world", you mean "the western world and its allies"? Then yes, I agree fully.

      The Chinese civilization, on the other hand, as started a total of... hmm. 0 wars? You can argue about its participation in Vietnam or Korea, in which the USA was the other major player. Apart from that, and an episode called Genghis Khan (who is actually Mongolian), China looks pretty happy living peacefully with others as long as its rights are respected. In fact, one would argue that after they've handled the humiliation of the Opium War fairly well, and for a number of reasons, I wouldn't expect the US reaction to be quite as benign.

      When you believe other nations can't manage geopolitical self-interests as well as you can, that's called xenophobia.

    16. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, history repeats and economic ties are the same as pre-ww2 Europe. Our social, political, and economic systems are exactly the same. You're right. You're expert scientific prediction must also be right.

    17. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      a) That means very little. Also, I'm talking ten years down the line, when the situation might very well be quite different
      b) [citation needed]. I know of the Russian 23mm autocannon and their Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, but have never heard a single example of a US space based weapon. Ever. Nothing on Wikipedia, either. The US does have an ASAT system, but then again so does the Chinese.
      c) 2.8%. Or about inflation. The budget expanded previously to cover the active wars. Whereas China has no such involvement, and has spiked their military budget suddenly.
      d) Tinfoil? Nah, I don't bother. The mind rays can't penetrate the 20 meter concrete bunker I live in.
      e) I'm aware of this. You think I trust the US leaders to act rationally? Also, why do you think that is my "sentiment"? I was pointing out the actual worst case scenario as a devil's advocate, not what I thought would happen. I even made that pretty clear. Even there I was wrong: real worst case they preemptively nuke everyone out of paranoia.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    18. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      What I'm complaining about here are people who buy into the kool-aid of establishing trade relations with countries and thinking that solves all potential problems..... just at the GP post was trying to suggest that there was no possible way that China would become a significant military threat or even flat-out enemy to America in a declared war with China capturing and holding American territory.

      The sarcastic reply here could be countered as such: you really know how the social, political, and economic systems we have in place today are going to turn out in terms of "preventing war" in the future? Do you really think you have such a wonderful bead on reality that you are convinced that "peace on Earth" is going to break out with some sanity in terms of relations between groups of people with completely different cultural, social, and economic customs?

      What has happened in the past is a very good indication of what can happen in the future, and you are simply a fool to think such patterns that happened in the past won't be repeated in the future. I won't promise that they will happen, but nobody can promise that global war between major countries is a thing of the past either.

    19. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I wouldn't say China is peaceful. It's just that their wars are mostly fought amongst themselves, deciding who gets to rule China.

    20. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by assertation · · Score: 1

      I am one of the people "who admire the stars".

      My dreams are of a world like Star Trek, not like the stories Robert Heinlein wrote of strip mining and slave labor being exported to other worlds.

    21. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but you're just throwing out truisms without actually inspecting history.

      If you want to talk about what has happened in the past, then China's got a much better record of not being an aggressor than the US. China's wars are mostly with themselves, whereas the US only had one major war amongst themselves - the rest are all wars against other nations.

      Recent history also shows that the US started more wars than China (and many other nations) did.

      Recent history (though we only have a dataset of one) shows that Communist regimes will collapse on its own before a major war breaks out, even if it appeared to be strong for a long time.

    22. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by dbkluck · · Score: 1
      You know, I've heard the "China and the US are too interdependent to go to war" theory a lot, and while on the whole I'd say you're probably right, there's this nagging doubt at the back of my mind. The exact same sort of hubris-filled sentiment was very common in the run up to World War I: the great powers are far too economically entwined, war would be catastrophic for businesses, no one would let it happen. The fact that it did is still so mind-boggling that almost a century of the best minds have struggled to explain what caused it. Take a look at the "further reading" section on Causes_of_World_War_I. So while I agree that it would be suicidal, a war between the US and China can't be completely ruled out just because it would be so colossally stupid. Off the top of my mind, I could see things deteriorating if some or all of the following things happen in 2012:
      1. China's massive property bubble collapses; China's new middle class, whose life savings is mostly tied up in real estate, loses everything; instability ensues.
      2. China botches the planned handoff in leadership from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping.
      3. A pro-independence candidate wins in the 2012 elections in Taiwan.
      4. North Korea collapses; refugees stream across the border; US crosses the 38th parallel to secure nuclear materials, then decides to stay a while.
      5. One or more EU countries is forced into an unplanned, unmanaged exit from the euro, disrupting the global financial system.
      6. US passes significant protectionist trade policy targeting Chinese imports and/or currency.
      7. Some quasi-state supported cyberterrorists in China exceed the scope of whatever authority they're given by the murky command structure and hack a high-profile US company or defense institution.

      To reiterate, I think war is unlikely, even if all of those things were to happen. But I think it's important to realize that just because war is not a rational decision doesn't mean it can't happen. Things have a way of spiraling out of control when you don't expect it.

    23. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      everything also costs more for the US military.
      Soldiers @ China are tremendously cheap as well.

    24. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      agree 100%. There's a lot of flag waving horseshit going on in this thread. I don't care WHO does it, I'm just glad that SOMEONE has picked up the manned space flight flag since we (the U.S.) have decided to let if fall (sorry, engineering studies and crap on the drawing board that will never be built don't count).

      Great! NASA did some awesome manned stuff 50 years ago! Now what? Don't get me wrong, I'm a space nut. Just had a lovely weekend trip to Johnson Space Center a couple of months ago. I remember the first shuttle launches as a kid and how amazing they seemed. It was like a REAL spaceship! Then the disappointment when they just went in neat little circles in LEO for 30 YEARS! 30 years guys, 3 times longer than they spent getting to the moon. Think of everything that has changed in that time, except for our #1 people launcher.

      Just because our leadership has given up doesn't mean it should stop. It's nice to see the Chinese taking a long term, methodical approach to this, they don't seem to care if it takes 50 years. Back here in the U.S. our leaders are poisoned by the Wall Street mentality that says if something spectacular doesn't happen by next quarter it was a waste of money. Yes, there has been some amazing stuff from Hubble and the rovers and various probes, but let's face it folks, what sells the space program is manned flight, not wall-e.

      Anyway, stop with the flag waving and just be glad someone is doing it and has a plan. If nothing else we may see what NOT to do when (if) we ever decide to go back to space.

    25. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The reason why China has typically not been "the aggressor" is mainly because there was no need: they controlled almost all of the territory, resources, and people that they cared to have. There was the invasion of Japan in 1281 that resulted in a dismal failure (and how the mysticism of the Kamikaze started in Japan) as well as ongoing bumping up against Russia in terms of control of Siberia, but for the most part they have been the top dog in their end of the world holding what amounted to be essentially a monopoly in terms of governance.

      BTW, from a Chinese perspective, the invasion of Japan is recent history. They think in terms of millennia and not mere decades for what is history. Furthermore, I wouldn't put China's hands as exactly clean in terms of lack of wars... they just tend to be more territorial in nature and much closer to home. Going to war against Tibet, Vietnam, Russia (more than a few times), Japan, and for that matter even against the United States of America (in Korea) sounds like quite a bit of adventurism. It could even be argued that particular war against America was one that China initiated. And that is just wars involving China in the 20th Century. Their involvement in Afghanistan (which they share a border BTW) is something I suspect but that I don't think the U.S. State Department wants to emphasize.

    26. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      You know, I've heard the "China and the US are too interdependent to go to war" theory a lot, and while on the whole I'd say you're probably right, there's this nagging doubt at the back of my mind. The exact same sort of hubris-filled sentiment was very common in the run up to World War I

      In a dugout, somewhere on the western front:

      Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

      Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

      Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

      George: What was that, sir?

      Edmund: It was bollocks.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    27. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      The Chinese civilization, on the other hand, as started a total of... hmm. 0 wars?

      Tibet, 1950.

      India 1962,

      Vietnam, 1979.

      Seems to add up to more than zero to me.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    28. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by readin · · Score: 1

      Well, I wouldn't say China is peaceful. It's just that their wars are mostly fought amongst themselves, deciding who gets to rule China.

      And of course "themselves" always includes their latest conquests (China didn't get so large by fighting "amongst themselves") and next conquests "xxx has always been an integral part of China and is strictly an internal affair".

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    29. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason why China has typically not been "the aggressor" is mainly because there was no need: they controlled almost all of the territory, resources, and people that they cared to have.

      Sure, but that still means that China's history record is cleaner than the US (I'm pretty sure US has a lot of resources of its own too on their own land... they just find it cheaper to make their stuff in China ;p)

      There was the invasion of Japan in 1281

      Which was led/started by the Mongols.

      BTW, from a Chinese perspective, the invasion of Japan is recent history.

      Preaching to the choir, bro. The Chinese Communist Government may be scary and engaged in quite a few conflicts in its ~80 years, but look at the long term and China isn't an aggressor.

      Furthermore, I wouldn't put China's hands as exactly clean

      I'm not either. I'm just saying comparatively, China's record is cleaner

      Tibet, Vietnam, Russia (more than a few times), Japan, and for that matter even against the United States of America (in Korea) [plus Afghanistan]

      All those except Tibet were on the US list as well. You can also add to US other proxy wars it fought in the Cold War. Then add the first Gulf War. That too, is also only the 20th century (then you add the War on Terror for the 21st)

    30. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after the US banned oil exports to Japan. They didn't like that.

    31. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha.

      Sure, comparing a murderer and a thief, and suggesting that the murderer is worse is "prejudice"?
      Really?

      The US record isn't spotless, but to look at the US actions in the 20th-21st centuries, compared to (from wiki)
      "...Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949â"53.[38] However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution",[39] the number of deaths range between 2 million[39][40] and 5 million.[41][42] In addition, at least 1.5 million people,[43] perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million,[44] were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished.[44] Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas,[45] which were often exceeded.[35] He defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.[46]..."
      That's 4 years of Mao, and exceeds the worst possible actions of the US by at least two orders of magnitude over the entire CENTURY.

      Moreover, if we talk about deaths resulting from inept policy, the Great Leap Forward (alone) is believed to have starved between 23-42 MILLION people.

      And these were China's own people, who one would believe would at least be somewhat better treated than any subject/dominated/Finlandized peoples.

      Please, enlighten me on how China would prove a far more benign imperial hegemon than the US has been over the past 60 years.

      --
      -Styopa
  11. Or Korean by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Depends on which Star Trek you watch (John Cho, Sulu in the new Star Trek, is from Seoul).

  12. Hmm by lightknight · · Score: 0, Troll

    You know, it does occur to me that part of the reason they are releasing this information is as a ruse. They know the American economy is in a bad spot, and they are also aware that Americans are disastrously bad at math. So, we demand improvements / money allocated to a space program to chase after a phantom or exaggerated threat, and we blow up our economy in the process. It would be something like what happened to Russia with Reagan and the SDI program, with the US playing the part of Russia in this contrived scenario (why not, we've been implementing sooooo many of the USSR's failed policies lately, one more can't sink this ship!). .

    And our Congressmen appear stupid enough to totally go for it. It's a jobs program, right? And we own our currency printing press, right? If it's a disaster, we can just inflate away the damage, like Russia did with the Ruble.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:Hmm by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The first problem with your scenario is that you are so disconnected from reality that you fail to understand that most Americans just don't give a flying fuck about space - and that includes Congress.

      The second problem is that you fail to comprehend that the amount of money required isn't a drop in the bucket, it's the evaporation off a drop in the bucket.

      Your scenario isn't so much 'contrived' as it is 'a drug addled hallucination'.

    2. Re:Hmm by lightknight · · Score: 1

      "The first problem with your scenario is that you are so disconnected from reality that you fail to understand that most Americans just don't give a flying fuck about space - and that includes Congress." -> Ad Hominem attack which fails to address my point. Anything flying under the guise of national security these days gets allocated a nice fat budget. Any regular /.er wouldn't have noticed the TSA article not a few posts earlier that despite massive amounts of negative press and a huge infringement on civil liberties, the TSA got everything they wanted from Congress, and more.

      "The second problem is that you fail to comprehend that the amount of money required isn't a drop in the bucket, it's the evaporation off a drop in the bucket." -> *Shrugs* I have seen different estimates, when compared to the GDP of the economy at the time, that suggest a second attempt to land on the moon today would bankrupt us. Wikipedia is quoting somewhere around the $40 billion dollar mark, while other places imply that the total cost was much higher. By the way, this is coming from someone who wants to visit other planets. I just don't want to kill what's left of the economy in the process.

      "Your scenario isn't so much 'contrived' as it is 'a drug addled hallucination'." -> An another Ad Hominem attack.

      Seriously, mods, Score: 0 Troll?

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    3. Re:Hmm by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Ad Hominem attack which fails to address my point.

      No, it's not an Ad Hominem attack, it's a brutal statement of fact. American's don't give a flying fuck about space, which means it's not going to be identified as "important to national security". Period.
       
      And the same goes for your second program, you've got no clue as to how big our economy (even in it's currently reduced state) is if you think 40 billion is anywhere even *close* to the bankruptcy line.
       
      It's not trolling to point out that you're utterly clueless.

    4. Re:Hmm by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is an Ad Hominem attack: you made various insinuations that I am disconnected from reality, and then, if the previous slur could be considered ambiguous, you went so far as to suggest I had a substance abuse problem, and it was affecting my judgement. You did not, however, attempt to address my argument in a meaningful manner.

      Ad Hominem -> "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

      Finally, my statement pointed out that while ~$40 billion is the amount quoted by Wikipedia for the cost of the space program, other sources have indicated that the cost, in current dollars and as a measure of our GDP, would be cost prohibitive today -> the cost is much higher than reported. I do not mind the use of Wikipedia in an argument, but its accuracy tends to wax and wane (especially when dealing with numbers) more than other sources.

      "It's not trolling to point out that you're utterly clueless." -> but is is trolling to purposefully misread / miss the point of my argument, in order to prolong a discussion and / or elicit an emotional response.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:Hmm by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You did not, however, attempt to address my argument in a meaningful manner.

      Yes, I have. Twice. So I'll repeat it a third time in the hopes that you'll be sober enough to understand it: Americans do not give a flying fuck about space. Period. It's not going to become a national security priority because, as much as you and idiots like you would like it to be so, it's not 1960 anymore. If you'd been paying the faintest attention over the last twenty years, you'd have figured out that despite repeated announcement of Brave Bold Plans by Russia and China - there's been no panic, no claims to spend megabucks, etc... etc... American's don't care about space spectaculars. It's not 1960 anymore. Grow the fuck up and deal with reality.
       

      Yes, it is an Ad Hominem attack: you made various insinuations that I am disconnected from reality

      No, stating outright what is as plain as the sun in the sky is not an attack. (I.E. as yet more proof of your utter fucking cluelessness you can't even tell the difference between insinuation and something stated as clearly as a boot to the face.)
       

      "It's not trolling to point out that you're utterly clueless." -> but is is trolling to purposefully misread / miss the point of my argument, in order to prolong a discussion and / or elicit an emotional response.

      ROTFLMAO. How many times do I have to respond directly to your argument before it sinks through your skull? The first reply wasn't an attack, but the second and subsequent ones are because you're so fucking ignorant that writing insults is the only thing of interest you provide because your too dense to provide interesting conversation. It's now abundantly clear however that your abysmal ignorance is not a consequence of ill education, but a state you've willingly entered into and remain in. Since you're amusement value is now, nil, I'm done with this conversation.

  13. What a joke by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    "China always adheres to the use of outer space for peaceful purposes, and opposes weaponization or any arms race in outer space," Thursday's white paper states.

    And yet, ppl will ignore the fact that this SAME PEACEFUL SPACE PROGRAM shot a sat out of the sky.

    But even this article missed some interesting points by China. The Chinese government on Thursday (Dec. 29) issued a broad statement on its five-year space program, saying top priorities include developing three new launch vehicles — including a rapid-response launch system —
    Basically, they want their civilian launch system to be able to launch on short notice. The west's DOD units want that as well. But none of the civilians systems make that a priority.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:What a joke by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      I could have sworn I watched a similar test of an American anti-satellite system when I was a kid on TV..... and I was right.... back in the 80's we shot down a satellite or two. Launched from an F-15. Stop treating people like barbarians for developing the same tech we love and enjoy because we won't sell it to them. And if we did, it would have a remote kill switch. Not that I want to live in China... but just sayin... they have rights too and that includes developing tech that is equal to or better than ours to defend their homeland and their interests just like we do. I'm not a big fan of communism but apparently a lot of them are pretty ok with it and they can be governed however they wish. If we didn't like the current regime we could have helped the RoC out. We have no qualms interfering in other nations these days.... you know.... ones smaller than us....with no nukes....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon#US_programs

      Their space program is funded from the same pot as their defense. Big deal. The Air Force kept NASA at arms length as well, it was just less official.

    2. Re:What a joke by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Ours was done during the cold war. China supposedly has no cold war. In addition, we picked one that was low enough (345 miles) AND SMALL so that minimal parts. In fact, the sat parts are already cleared out of there. In 2002, there were only 2 known pieces left and they came down already. And this was because USSR had spent 30 years developing their IS system (apparently starting in the 50's). They took out a number of satellites, though it is unknown exactly how many. In fact, USSR had a full blown production military system designed to take out larger number of sats and esp. the shuttle. But that was the cold war.

      China's target was monstrous large and high (550 miles). It was bigger than all of the previous sats put together (well, the ones known). China's ASAT will have 60-90% of its mass in space in 100 years. As it is, USSRs multiple targets and USA's single target (excluding the malfunctioning sat that was taken out close to the edge of space) are no longer in space.

      And no, their space program is NOT just 'funded' from the same pot as their defense. Their space program is 100% part of their PLA. It answers directly to their military structure, not their president or even their party. Their is no arms length between PLA and CNSA. That is the reason why CNSA is developing quick response rockets. USSR's space program was arm lengths between military and space program, but USA's was totally 100% separate systems from USAF. Like USSR's, it did some items for USAF, but that was in the cold war. China is not supposed to be in a cold war with the west. Or have they formally declared it?

      BTW, I agree with your criticism of our nation as far as interfering in other nations. We should not be doing that. We had zero business getting involved in Iraq, Libya, and now iran. As it is, the only nation that we had any business getting into was afghanistan. And W should have completed that before deciding to screw up so many other places. We really are too deep into messing with other nations rather than paying attention to our own business (reminds me of the USSR before its collapse).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:What a joke by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      Yes! China's action was irresponsible because it endangers other satellites and manned missions by polluting that orbit with tons of space junk traveling at very very high speed. Space junk is an increasing problem; at least one shuttle was hit, but luckily it was a tiny piece of debris, and many sats have been hit. China was warned about this but they ignored the warnings. A dumb macho thing I guess.

    4. Re:What a joke by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, USSR/Russia, America, ESA, Japan, etc have all done their fair amount of pollution. In addition, none of us are doing enough to stop future debris.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. Bah China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm as "Who cares about China" as the next /. poster, but I think it's a waste of money for China to put anything in space that isn't a domestic satellite. A few reasons:

    a) Reinventing the wheel, given they can't steal American or Russian IP if they aren't involved with American or Russian space programs, just proves that China steals more IP and really doesn't know how to invent. This is the only field where they have to put their own research money and people on the line. Maybe they'll do it right for once.
    b) Even Russia and the Americans were making reusable launch orbiters at the same time, The Russians didn't use theirs due to cost ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran_program ) and collapse of the USSR.
    c) The Americans and the Russians have done the "Satellite, Moon Landing, have something survive to Mars" already. If China wants to impress the world, they need to do something different.

    Suggestions:
    - If they build a space station, they should build it from the beginning as a tourism target for reusable launch orbiters. The hard part is figuring out how to get people to it safely, something China has a terrible track record with.
    - Land and build a "base" on the Moon, like the space station point, if they could make it a tourism target, that would win, but safety matters here too. Nobody has put a permanent settlement on the moon yet.
    - The next target would be permanent settlement on Mars, but I don't see this happening within my lifetime, primarily since we have yet to establish that Mars is safe to land on (given all the other failed Mars missions.)

    Not much else is interesting that hasn't been done that doesn't require some kind of FTL travel.

    1. Re:Bah China by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Not much else is interesting that hasn't been done that doesn't require some kind of FTL travel.

      There is room for a lot of improvement even in the slower than light spectrum. Currently we are hovering around 1/30000 the speed of light, if we could get that up to maybe 1/2 the speed of light, it would cut travel time to some of the nearest stars down from millennia to decades. Basically bring the nearest stars as "near" as the planets of the solar system, at least for unmanned probes.

    2. Re:Bah China by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Oh, and the other room for improvement is price of course

      c) The Americans and the Russians have done the "Satellite, Moon Landing, have something survive to Mars" already. If China wants to impress the world, they need to do something different

      If someone came up with a way to sent a Moon or even Mars probe with a budget that perhaps a singe university could afford for a scientific project that would also be pretty impressive, despite having technically been done before.

  15. You know what else they'll catch up to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    They'll conclude the same things we (well, the West and Russia) did decades ago. Manned space is a waste. It's a show, a stunt, nothing more. China is just going through the "due diligence" of becoming the next world power. Geeks need to settle down, physics and engineering won't be different in Cantonese. There won't be orbital colonies, offices on the Moon, bungalows on Mars or Wal Marts on Jupiter.

    It'll be the same cramped tin can with not very much useful going on. Sure, many papers will be published, a few billionaires will get their equivalent of a "billionaire merit badge" to show off to their millionaire friends.

    Get over it, geeks. China is re-living our past. Let them. The future is all about energy, adapting to our new expensive-energy future (you don't think we'll ever see the Concorde again, do you?). It's also about bio-tech and the thousands of little things we'll be discovering about biology.

    Space? It's dead. It's nothing but a cargo cult now.

  16. What is "space technology"? by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time, although it lags far behind the United States and Russia in space technology and experience.

    Other than the considerations of zero gravity environmental safety, radiation protection, and atmospheric preservation, I can't think of anything special about "space technology." Sound engineering practices and safety standards come from long established research and experience and are applied to space exploration by NASA and others.

    It seems trite, but even rocket science isn't rocket science any more. The nations have shared too much data and information for anyone to really be starting from scratch.

    China has some pretty aggressive schedules tabled. It's interesting how much more can be done by a government which supports a space program than one that lets the bean counters cut such budgets. But it's not surprising -- China has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to tackle huge long term projects that would never even get approved in the US or Canada over the bleating of NIMBYs and environmentalists.

    It's a subtle difference, but Chinese society has always emphasized the importance of the nation over the rights of an individual. I realize it's shocking to North Americans, but the Chinese immigrants and exchange workers I've talked with over the years think it's a good idea for the government to restrict the activities of protesters to quell dissent and social unrest. Most seem to consider it an honour to make a personal sacrifice in support of a big government program, rather than doing their best to stop the government from proceeding because it would inconvenience them.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:What is "space technology"? by crutchy · · Score: 2

      there are a few notable differences between terrestrial and space tech; one being that most of the time is has one chance to work and one only. with such a low frequency and high cost of launches, there is no room for infant mortality or MTBF data or consumer grade crapware. its a good industry for QA people to refine their knowledge. as with aviation, everything is MIL spec (or equivalent) and traceable back to the billet of origin material, with dozens of inspections at various levels. its also an industry that demands the highest performance-to-weight ratio. in the good old days (before the financial black hole space programs of today) plastics and microchips were technologies that came about due to the needs of space programs, and what starts out as space-tech can find its way into everyday life such that it loses its "space-techiness". the Lexan cutlery you can get now started life in the helmets of the astronauts that walked on the moon for instance.

      there are technologies in waiting for the next generation of space programs. aerospikes, aerogels, nanotubes, biosteel/silk, etc.

      when the world wakes up and realizes that corporations and governments will never have the money to tinker in space with anything more than flying washing machines, and that non-profit cooperation is essential for large-scale colonization, these technologies will go to space and new ones will join them as new challenges are met and overcome. the problem with today's space programs is that they aren't really coming across technological challenges that haven't already been solved. there are a lot of studies of effects of long term microgravity environment on the human body to justify the cost of the ISS, but even much of this stuff was already studied on Mir.

      the real challenges like cheap, safe, reliable and regular access to low earth orbit (the true enabler of space colonization) is being tossed into the too hard basket (especially with the economic failure of the X-33), but when someone finds the answer, you can bet that patents, copyright and a even a healthy head start won't save them from the corporate copycats. just don't be stupid enough to buy tickets on the first 100,000 rides in a corporate-sponsored SSTO space shuttle.

      putting a man on the moon was an awesome achievement, but the challenge there that will require development of new technologies will be mining and smelting ore to create structural materials that can be used in lagrange point space stations. aluminium cans and inflatables aren't going to be enough to permit large-scale colonization.

    2. Re:What is "space technology"? by msobkow · · Score: 2

      I think you overestimate how special NASA technology is. The same high-quality "must not fail" principles have applied to the entire aerospace industry for decades, particularly for any company working on missile and aircraft technologies.

      The only thing "special" about a mil-spec part is that it's tested to tighter tolerances than the regular commercial product. It's not inherently more reliable or produced by a different manufacturing process -- it's just been tested more stringently before being shipped to the customer.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:What is "space technology"? by msobkow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's a "mil-spec" tidbit for you. Back with my first job at SED Systems in Saskatoon, SK fresh out of university two weeks before I started with them, I was assigned to work on a project delivering to the Canadian military.

      We failed a mil-spec inspection because some valves we were shipped were the commercial versions. The difference between the mil-spec and commercial versions? mil-spec meant they were spray painted Canadian military olive green; the commercial version was spray painted black.

      We took out the valves, spray painted them green, and put them back. We passed the next inspection.

      You wouldn't believe how much extra the company charged to spray paint the valves green instead of black.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:What is "space technology"? by crutchy · · Score: 2

      the difference between commercial & mil spec has nothing to do with the paint color; it's the guarantee you supply with your product. if your valves caused an accident and you were caught out, you're in deeper shit than if you were making valves for commercial applications. indemnity insurance won't cover you for criminal negligence.

      if the mil spec valves were painted a different color to indicate a certain material used or to indicate certification for use in certain temperature range, and the commercial versions you spray painted don't meet the same standards, then both you and the inspector who passed them wanna make sure you have good lawyers if something fucks up as a result. mil specification involves a paper trail that doesn't come with commercial products, so even if the only difference was the color, just spray painting a commercial item to look like a mil spec item isn't usually enough to make it mil spec.

      thank goodness i don't fly with the canadian military

    5. Re:What is "space technology"? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      mil specs have been around a long time, but a lot of mil specs were developed or at least refined as a result of space programs, so you can at least thank NASA for providing impetus and raw data for some of the quality standards that go into modern aviation. just have a look at the amendment histories of FARs 23 and 25 and see how they have changed. standards for new material grades, dynamic response, electronics interference, lightning protection, etc. have been influenced by space programs of mid last century.

      mil specs are more than tolerances and material data based on so many tests. its an entire quality system and a papertrail of accountability. manufacturing processes may not vary much, but the supplier of mil spec parts will be required to purchase higher quality manufacturing equipment and use more highly skilled labor than a supplier of commercial quality parts (merely to meet the tolerance requirements without a crippling amount of waste). even civilian standards and regulations are being influenced more and more by mil specs, so much so that for an equivalent application, a mil spec part would probably be accepted as complying with the requirements of any other standard around the world.

      mil specs are the only reason why people feel safe flying on commercial jets

    6. Re:What is "space technology"? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      By "inconvenience" do you mean getting sent to a "re-education" camp? I will have respect for the Chinese space program when they let the Free World's media in on the launches, flights, and pre-launch activities. Until then it is propaganda stunt at best and militarization of space at worse. As far as China developing space technology, it would appear they did what they do best: they stole it: http://seclists.org/isn/2008/Feb/53 http://www.vancouverite.com/2009/07/17/chinese-spy-who-stole-b-1-bomber-space-shuttle-secrets-is-convicted/ and cyber attacks on satellites: http://www.itproportal.com/2011/10/31/us-accuses-china-cyber-attacks-nasa-satellites-china-denies-allegations/

  17. Lovely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China's plans through 2016: Dropping failed launches and tonnes of space junk from fucked-up missions onto random countries, blame the U.S. for it.

    1. Re:Lovely. by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      No, that would be the Ruskies.....Phobos-Grunt is due to rain down on us a couple of weeks. Mars-96 dumped 200 grams of plutonium on Boliva and the Kosmos-... spy satellite dumped uranium on Canada

  18. SDI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod up!

    Excellent! I was about to suggest the same. The Reagan SDI scam was a beautiful killer. There are more costly scams around. The hunt for peace in the Middle East is another example. It would surprise me if the US troop's presence in that area has created more badwill than goodwill.

    1. Re:SDI by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. While I am not a history major, I have a passing understanding of how a number of the "Great" Civilizations fell, the policies they employed before they fell, and a general idea of where they stood when they were at their best and at their worst. It is by no means a complete understanding, but a careful search for a handful of patterns that always seem to appear in groups, and tend to correlate with that civilization's destruction.

      A quick review of Rome implies two different stages of their civilization -> when they received their primary income through trade, and when they received their primary income through conquest. The United States has soured the usage of the dollar as a worldwide reserve currency, which is impacting its value and income through trade. Additionally, we've got quite a bill from the use of military overseas (warranted or otherwise), never-mind some of the things at home. As such, we may be reaching a point where the US cannot be supported primarily through trade, and will result to conquest for its income (if it gets that far, if this derived pattern holds). There is a somewhat popular belief among a small number of people that we are already there.

      Me thinks that my earlier comment, with a mere mention of Reagan and a dim view of our printing of currency, has offended someone, as elections are coming up, and they believe they know my ideology / political affiliation. You'll notice the prevalence of ad hominem attacks in the other commentor's reply, which implies they lack any real evidence to counter my points, and are instead attempting to shift focus to my person. ^_^

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  19. With China it's always big plans and intentions by satuon · · Score: 1

    It's always plans of what China will do after 10 years, 20 years, 100 years. China seems a lot bigger on plans and intentions than on things it's doing right now. It's like the hunter bragging how much game he's going to kill, or a fisherman saying he'll catch the entire lake. Well, I say why don't we wait untill after you've come back and see what you've got. Let's not put the oil in the frying pan while the bird's still in the forest.

  20. Why so reluctant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the program is run by the military has made the U.S. reluctant to cooperate with China in space, even though the latter insists its program is purely for peaceful ends.

    Aren't it Americans who coined the phrase "peace through superior firepower"?

  21. Chine needs the USA less and less as time goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your point (a) is changing with time.

    As time moves forward, China becomes less dependent on trade with the USA BUT the USA becomes more dependent on China.

  22. Tsien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when do they plan to go to Europa?

    (2010 the book, not the movie)

  23. Why China won't take the lead in space by Teancum · · Score: 1

    The largest problem with the Chinese space program is mainly one of operational tempo. Other countries; notably Russia and even America.... if you consider commercial enterprises like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and other endeavors; are launching vehicles on a regular basis. The Soyuz rocket is flying at a rate of about one launch per month, and in the case of Virgin Galactic they are hoping for weekly flights when they get going. Contrast that to the Chinese who are launching one of their manned spaceflight rockets about once every year or two. When the Space Shuttle was being flown, it was at least flying at the rate of about 4-6 flights per year, with as many as eight in one year.

    The reason why this matters is because you need to have people who are doing this kind of stuff the ability to practice their craft. Yes, rehearsals and "dry runs" are useful in some situations, but until you actually do it you won't really know what is going to be needed. Simulations can't substitute for the real thing, and without actually getting stuff done you won't know if your ideas will work or not.

    I'm not saying that it is impossible for China to catch up or to even become a major spacefaring nation, but at the moment they aren't showing the commitment necessary to really pull it off. I see a whole bunch of press releases coming from China like this which can be used as a sort of "Red Menace" to try and scare people into action, but until the Chinese government stops flapping their jaws and decides to fund a real space program, I will continue to be underwhelmed by their capabilities. The current flight rate and operational tempo of their space program is soon going to be hitting the hard cold reality of physics that doesn't care about political philosophies or what the will of the "great leader" wants to have happen. Ultimately that means a commitment of a large amount of money and manpower to see that it happens.

    By far and away I'm more impressed with the European spaceflight efforts, and I think it will be European countries that are ultimately going to be the real challengers to American and Russian efforts in space. No, I'm not talking just ESA (which is pretty impressive in its own right), but much of the commercial activity in Europe doing things in a very European way where I think more than a couple of those efforts are going to succeed. China might make it to the Moon before Europe, but I wouldn't count out a bunch of crazy Danes from making the trip to Mars before anybody else.

    I guess ultimately the issue is an open society that is willing to tolerate a little bit of risk and let its citizens try new and crazy things. China is following the rocketry development cycle that America and Russia did in the Cold War and are trying to duplicate those efforts. Sadly, that is the most expensive and least productive way to get things done. Perhaps China will discover that for themselves, but I wonder how many Yuan are going to be dumped into that effort before they finally notice?

    1. Re:Why China won't take the lead in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying that it is impossible for China to catch up or to even become a major spacefaring nation, but at the moment they aren't showing the commitment necessary to really pull it off.

      I take it that you come from a country where the only commitment from your el presidente regarding space is to assist Islamic countries into space.

      At the very least the Chinese have a much better common sense.

    2. Re:Why China won't take the lead in space by Teancum · · Score: 1

      You completely missed the point I was trying to make, and perhaps I could clarify it a bit. If China wants to be in space, if they want to get something happening, they need to have an operational tempo including financial commitments from the government to make it happen. That financial commitment can happen in a number of ways, but most significantly they need to have a high flight rate doing whatever it is that they are doing.

      China isn't doing that at all, and instead this whole thing is just a pure propaganda ploy where I'm not really convinced they even care to get into space at all. They love the idea of being in space and showing their citizens that they are one of the leading nations of the Earth from an economic and scientific viewpoint by being in space, but they aren't showing that they have a commitment to remaining in space and doing things in space. That is my point.

      More significantly, China is being a non-player here. With their current operational tempo they will never, and I repeat never become a major player in space. It is more like they are hedging their bets for the future with the thought that there might be a future for humanity in space, but at the moment they are only doing a half hearted attempt at staying in the game. I will acknowledge that China is building the infrastructure to get a space program going, but the launch towers are going to rust to pieces before they get used.

      BTW, the comment here is a thinly veiled jab at Charles Bolden and his comments about being more open and friendly to Islamic countries in terms of space policy and in cooperating with countries in the Middle East on projects happening in space. While I can admit I'm disappointed in Obama's space policy on a number of levels (as it is pretty much the very last thing his administration seems to care about), America is going to emerge in the 21st Century as the leading country technologically in part because of what the people of America are doing in space. I am more hopeful than ever that America is going to lead the rest of humanity out to the stars, but it is going to be done in a uniquely American way, rather than trying to get that accomplished through some sort of crash Socialist program paid for at government expense. If anything, I think the Office of Commercial Transportation will become "The Space Agency" in America rather than NASA, and it is just a matter of time before that fact is recognized. I just hope that NASA remains relevant in the future for their own sake.

    3. Re:Why China won't take the lead in space by Olorion · · Score: 1

      Continuity is more important than high tempo.

      A country need only do enough to keep the engineers in practice and the aerospace infrastructure healthy. More than that is unnecessary -- it's nice to have, but not strictly needed.

      Lack of continuity, however, can be fatal. Due to Congress's unreliability, NASA has no launchers left. The space shuttle is gone, and so is the Saturn V. Probably permanently gone, as a lot of knowledge has been lost. The U.S. is like a manic depressive: it's unstoppably giddy one year, suicidally gloomy the next. As I look back at all the lost decades since Apollo, I conclude that slow and steady, a continuous progression, would have been better by far.

      Slow and steady is what I see from China. In the end, they may win.

  24. Re:We should have nuked them 30 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey... I make it to at least 1 NASCAR event a year be it Atlanta Motor Speedway, Talladega Superspeedway, or Texas Motor Speedway. I live 20 miles from Atlanta Motor Speedway that is in Hampton Georgia. It is some of the best Tailgating, partying and boobfest that one can imagine. When I am there at these events and the things that we do there..... Well... Hey wait.... Maybe you are right.

    Nathan

  25. Re:Whomever controls space, controls it all by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    Manned space missions are a joke. Just a stunt by the flyboys who run NASA out of Houston. The real science is done by unmanded probes from JPL out of Pasadena.

  26. So what? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    As long as we all can enjoy the fruits of this labor, who cares, if the russians, chinese, koreans, or americans, make this happen, IT WILL HAPPEN, just make sure to be part of it, so extend the arm of friendship and become a partner already.

  27. resembles US science rise in 1940s by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Before 1940s most US scientists would do grad school or postdoc in Europe. There was a language requirement in many US grad schools well into the 1970s.
    After WWII the US got many immigrant scientists and permanent government S&E funding. They started winning the bulk of Nobel prizes then. And led way in major engineering projects like the space programme.
    China may be the dominant S&E country by 2030, if not earlier.

  28. So by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

    I guess this explains who will employe all those layed off Nasa workers after the space shuttle was scrapped

  29. China didn't fall, gravity did. by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    If a space station falls to earth, China didn't fail, Gravity did.

    1. Re:China didn't fall, gravity did. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      If a space station falls to Earth, I'd say gravity is doing its job pretty well.

  30. Chinese character? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Was there ever a Chinese character in Star Trek series? I only remember a Korean (Ensign Kim) and Japanese (Sulu).

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  31. Kind of sad ... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

    Kind of sad that a dictatorship where people can be jailed for criticizing the government is doing more in space than the US and that we are dependent on the Russians with a 40 year old design to bring astronauts to the ISS.

  32. suing China for debris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about every single human on Earth could go and sue China's Government for all the debris they have left from their experiments on the different layers of the exo-atmosphere. The litigation would be "the potential damage that a debris could cause on my house, my car, or even myself if those finally come to Earth and project towards us". If this litagation goes, and every single American could sue China's Government, maybe our debt to this Country could even be reduced to zero; while other countries like in the Africa (or even Greece, Portugal and Spain), they would be benefitted from that extra money; finally, the Chinese government would also have pressure in (a) cleaning their mess, and (b) to balance their currency / inflation by distributing their extra cash ... a very great scenario for the 2012 ...

  33. Chinese Space Race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, with Chinese making fools of the America, maybe that will let Congress actually get NASA stick to one plan not have politics monkey around with it. Chinese layed these plans 20 years ago and here we are 10 years into it and their going strong.

    I can only hope the private space companies can keep up their momentium and keep hard charging into the future.