China Plans Manned Space Mission This Month

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Plans Manned Space Mission This Month

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday June 9, 2012 @11:06AM from the more-the-merrier dept.

jamstar7 writes "From an Associated Press report: 'China will launch three astronauts this month to dock with an orbiting experimental module, and the crew might include its first female space traveler, a government news agency said Saturday. A rocket carrying the Shenzhou 9 spacecraft was moved to a launch pad in China's desert northwest on Saturday for the mid-June flight, the Xinhua News Agency said, citing an space program spokesman. The three-member crew will dock with and live in the Tiangong 1 orbital module launched last year, Xinhua said. The government has not said how long the mission will last.' China, who is not an ISS partner, plans to see if its Shenzhou 9/Long March 2F system can get the job done like the Dragon/Falcon9 system can. They plan on two missions this year to dock with their Tiangong 1 module, which was launched in September 2011. Their eventual plans include building a complete space station by 2020, though one of only about 60 tons, compared to the ISS's 450-ish tons."

168 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nice summary! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:07 · Score: 0

compared to the ISS's 450-ish tons
Journalism! JOURNALISM! Where did it go? Someone, help me find my journalism! We lost our journalism!
1. Re:Nice summary! by GumphMaster · 2012-06-09 12:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The well-known journalistic suffix of "-ish" is used when quoting figures from Wikipedia, where you cannot be sure of veracity, or using woefully vague units like "ton". Wikipedia gives the mass as "approximately 450,000 kg (990,000 lb)", which is 450 tonnes (a non-SI unit acceptable in SI) or 495 short tons, the unit most commonly called "ton" in the US, 446 long tons, the unit used for the displacement of ships and in the UK. NASA, on the other hand, give the much less massive figure of "861,804 lb (390,908 kilograms)" or 391 tonnes, 431 short tons, or 395 long tons. Both sources approximate conversion from kg to lb, so there are four different figures to choose from even if you ignore the vagueness of "ton." Pick your poison.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
2. Re:Nice summary! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 16:14 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  What did the metric alien say?
  Take me to your litre!
3. Re:Nice summary! by KingBenny · 2012-06-09 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  nevertheless, the point i see here is the chinese go for it while the rest keeps slacking he who controls the skies etcetera, the american military still seems to think that's about stealth bombers then ?
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
4. Re:Nice summary! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  A ton is a megagram. Simple.
5. Re:Nice summary! by loufoque · 2012-06-10 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  woefully vague units like "ton"
  What the hell? The ton is 1,000 kg.
6. Re:Nice summary! by gl4ss · 2012-06-10 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  face it, nobody cares about the legacy units.
  for global 30 somethings a ton is a thousand kilos.
  metric tons would have been sufficient. kilo kg just doesn't have a good vibe to it.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
7. Re:Nice summary! by Stompehh · 2012-06-10 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  woefully vague units like "ton"
  What the hell? The ton is 1,000 kg.
  No it isn't, a tonne is 1000kg.
8. Re:Nice summary! by jamstar7 · 2012-06-10 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  1000 kg is 1,000,000 grams. AKA a 'megagram'.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
9. Re:Nice summary! by loufoque · 2012-06-10 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  A 'tonne' is the French spelling of 'ton', that some people use to make it non-ambiguous that they mean the metric ton.
10. Re:Nice summary! by loufoque · 2012-06-10 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Your point being?
11. Re:Nice summary! by jamstar7 · 2012-06-11 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  On top of my head, covered in fur. Thanks for asking.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Next in the News... by axlr8or · 2012-06-09 11:08 · Score: 3, Funny

USA legal teams develop relationship with patent troll Lodsys. Strategy? Wait for China to succeed in space and then sue their butts off for patent infringement.
Question... by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-06-09 11:14 · Score: 2

Does anyone have a clue why they want to do it by them selves?
I applaud the DIY mentality there, but it doesn't seem to be the easiest / cheapest thing to do. And on this level "because they can" is just seems ludicrous.
Anyone?

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
1. Re:Question... by Rakishi · 2012-06-09 11:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why did the US spend billions upon billions to go to the moon? Why did we strive so hard to beat the Soviets there?
  The answer to those are the same reason the Chinese are doing it alone.
2. Re:Question... by Cazekiel · 2012-06-09 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone have a clue why they want to do it by them selves?
  Why not? We did, and our economy sucks harder than theirs. Some things we've done are a combined effort, but in the beginning it wasn't just by ourselves, but a race. It may as well have been Space Olympics.
  But I do agree, everyone coming together would get more done. Maybe we'd actually learn to play nice, as well.
  
  --
  You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
3. Re:Question... by M1FCJ · 2012-06-09 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They don't want to. They wanted to join the ISS but a certain North American country said "get lost".
4. Re:Question... by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-09 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you try to do it with the US, it would never happen. Just ask the Europeans. It's not like they're on great relations with the Russians, the only other country that can put humans into space.
  So you're left with the Iranians, North Koreans and a couple of crazy amateur in Denmark.
  Sounds like solo is the best approach.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
5. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  Because they used to participate in the ISS project, until the other nations had received China's cash, then they were kicked out.
  So they are doing it by themselves now.
6. Re:Question... by Delarth799 · 2012-06-09 11:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Those damned Canadians and their selfish ways!
7. Re:Question... by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-06-09 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  One reason I can think of is that, as the summary mentioned, they want to show the world they can launch things into orbit safely and reliably. Sending up people is a good way to do that.
8. Re:Question... by cyfer2000 · 2012-06-09 11:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  China wanted to participate the ISS in 1990s, but China had no money and no technology at that time, and China could learn too much knowledge from participating the ISS at that time, so China was denied participating the ISS project.
  
  --
  There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
9. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and fuck Sweden too, why we're at it.
10. Re:Question... by Macrat · 2012-06-09 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Why did the US spend billions upon billions to go to the moon? Why did we strive so hard to beat the Soviets there?
  The answer to those are the same reason the Chinese are doing it alone.
  China is in a cold war with Russia?
11. Re:Question... by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-06-09 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  Because there was a cold war going on. Now we have the ISS (guess where I stands for :-)
  For scientific use, so no politics 'should' be involved. I mean... really... why? The only thing I can think of is something rather ironic:The CPR is doing it because that would make it more competitive, like in a capitalist system.
  
  --
  rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
12. Re:Question... by FleaPlus · 2012-06-09 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yup, the head of the House Appropriations CJS subcommittee in charge of NASA, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va) actually attached a clause to NASA's funding bill last year that explicitly prohibits any NASA collaboration with China. Of course, this was the same Rep. Wolf who raised a media ruckus back in 1995 when he demanded that the Clinton administration investigate claims that human fetuses were being sold in China as a health food.
13. Re:Question... by khallow · 2012-06-09 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  Does anyone have a clue why they want to do it by them selves? I applaud the DIY mentality there, but it doesn't seem to be the easiest / cheapest thing to do.
  
  Compared to mooching off of the ISS like the non-US participants do? Sure. But if you want to throw up a space station cheap, it's not a bad approach.
  
  And on this level "because they can" is just seems ludicrous.
  "Good enough" is the term I'd use in place of "ludicrous".
14. Re:Question... by samkass · 2012-06-09 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, the head of the House Appropriations CJS subcommittee in charge of NASA, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va) actually attached a clause to NASA's funding bill last year that explicitly prohibits any NASA collaboration with China.
  Of course, ITAR restrictions would have prohibited most of the collaboration even without this new clause.
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
15. Re:Question... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-06-09 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because they believe it to be a strategic long-term interest of theirs, and don't want to rely on other countries - which are neutral at best and potentially hostile at worst - to provide the technology that they can withdraw support for later?
  China has a DIY mentality in many areas lately. In the military, for example, they are steadily converting everything to their own designs and standards (which are often based on old Soviet tech, but developed further... a smart idea) - planes, tanks, even small arms and ammo.
16. Re:Question... by kermidge · 2012-06-09 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  "...not a bad approach" and "Good enough" I'll go along with.
  But mooching? You mean the other countries involved (what, 14 of them?) contributed nothing? No money, materials, modules, know-how, personnel, comms links, experiments, or launches?
17. Re:Question... by khallow · 2012-06-09 13:15 · Score: 2
  
  But I do agree, everyone coming together would get more done.
  I strongly disagree. Competition is more effective. Sure you need cooperating groups to do big projects like this. But having just one such group doesn't usually work. There's not much incentive to try harder, because there's little benefit to doing so. In a competitive environment, trying a little harder than your opponents might net you considerable gains over them. And you can always compare your progress to that of your opponents.
18. Re:Question... by khallow · 2012-06-09 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  But mooching? You mean the other countries involved (what, 14 of them?) contributed nothing?
  
  If I get a $40 meal, but only pay $10 of it, am I not mooching from the person who pays the rest?
  
  It's worth remembering that the key purpose of these participating countries was pork protection. Namely, international projects are harder to cancel. They can still be cancelled (for example, ITER and some astrophysics space missions), but it's more secure.
  
  For the people receiving the pork, that was money well spent. For the US and its interests which had to pay for the ISS, its many revisions, and the necessary flights of the Space Shuttle? It's of negative value.
19. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  Don't jump to conclusions. It was the Mexicans who didn't want their jobs to be taken away by cheap Chinese astronauts.
20. Re:Question... by poity · 2012-06-09 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's because the US Congress objects to the Chinese space program having access to the ISS. China has for years applied for access to the ISS, and the US has blocked it every time. That on the surface sounds pretty elitist and bigoted, but their reason is that the Chinese space program is still very much controlled through the PLA, and therefore not a civilian research organization like NASA, ESA, JAXA. I'm not sure why it would matter, though, since a civilian organization run by the government would still be able to secretly collaborate with the military.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
21. Re:Question... by Rakishi · 2012-06-09 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  And how did the Apollo program help the US win the Cold War? Why did Americans care so much about winning the space race? After all, it had no real military or economical advantages.
  Honestly though there's no point in continuing this conversation. Your question shows you have no concept of nationalism either person or theoretical. Which is in some ways rather sad regarding the state of whatever country you live in.
22. Re:Question... by Lisias · 2012-06-09 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  China is in cold (economic) war with the rest of the World!
  
  --
  Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
23. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  So, I guess it's safe to say you think the Chinese doing this, on their own dime, is a good idea, then? I wonder how much better/worse off the world would be without collaborative efforts like the ISS. Personally, I don't think the US would be up there at all, right now, without other countries flipping a portion of the bill. I mean, clearly, the Soyuz-U has been the a keystone of the ISS' success - it's lifted two ISS modules, and virtually every resupply flight. Did NASA even have the hardware & cash to fly that many flights any more? Based on what I'm seeing, this probably could have been done without NASA, but I suspect the US wouldn't want to be left out of something this important.
  Whatever the case, I do know this much : the culture that learns to thrive in space is going to be the culture that speaks for humanity. The fact that the "East" is doing it on their own, tells me that the "West" had better re-prioritize a few values pretty God damned soon, or we'll be fighting each other in the mud, and thinking we're doing well.
24. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  It's a good symbol of the governments mandate to govern, which is based on improving the lot of the civilisation/nation/people. Plus the leadership is mostly science/engineering educated, spending a little on a space program would appeal on a personal level. These guys are thinking and planning long term, accumulating useful skills and knowledge, trying to move everyone up the food chain.
25. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Because it has military uses.
  ALL space programs are, are a cover for military uses (eg spy satellites, missile launchers, etc), China blew up a satellite and sent a billion pieces everywhere, so now it's MORE hazardous to put a man into space than it was 10 years ago. Thanks China.
  China, to give it credit, isn't North Korea or Iran. We'll step back and let it go into space as long as they aren't saying "Taiwan War 2014" in the same breath.
26. Re:Question... by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-09 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone have a clue why they want to do it by them selves?
  You've hit the RIGHT question !!
  China had to DIY because nobody, not USA, not Europe, not even Russia, will permit them to join the ISS
  Ever wonder why the ISS was visited by a middle eastern prince but never any citizen from China?
  Because there is an unwritten, but strictly enforeced rule, that no citizen of China is permitted to step inside the confine of the ISS
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
27. Re:Question... by kermidge · 2012-06-09 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  "If I get a $40 meal, but only pay $10 of it, am I not mooching from the person who pays the rest?"
  Depends a bit, I think. As it stands, one could consider each gets a discount even tho one ends up out $30. If the person paying $10 is also helping you get a job done...
  Nice point about pork. Some of it, maybe, goes deeper. I recall some of the discussion at the time, and a few involved were looking further ahead - be it participation, collaboration in future endeavours, for instance. (Btw, I did spend some time trying to track down facts and figures before my first post, but didn't find all that I was looking for.)
  "It's of negative value." Hmm. Does ISS have any value at all? (At first blush, I could make an argument for answering no, not really. But I consider that the day is yet young. Or even ask, "Of what use is a newborn?")
28. Re:Question... by khallow · 2012-06-09 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  So, I guess it's safe to say you think the Chinese doing this, on their own dime, is a good idea, then?
  Absolutely.
  
  Did NASA even have the hardware & cash to fly that many flights any more?
  NASA has always had enough money to launch the ISS. Now should be easier than ever due to such companies as SpaceX and Bigelow. Frankly, I think they could replace the ISS and its valid functionality for a few billion.
29. Re:Question... by khallow · 2012-06-09 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Does ISS have any value at all? (At first blush, I could make an argument for answering no, not really. But I consider that the day is yet young.
  I consider the ISS to have three things of relative value. First, it is a demonstration of orbital assembly. Second, it is a fair test platform for technology development. Third, it's great for microgravity research. I sorted these into declining value as I see them.
  
  Unfortunately, most of its value has been exhausted with its completion and being one of the best (and likely, one of the most expensive) platforms for microgravity research this century just isn't that interesting compared to the cost.
30. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, well, why do we not just give them our technology for space and weapons as well?
31. Re:Question... by WindBourne · 2012-06-09 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, just with the west. They are working hard to take over the rest of the world via economic means, and when it fails, then they are using their military (right now, it is constrained to Asia, but that will change).
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
32. Re:Question... by WindBourne · 2012-06-09 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Give me a break. That was one time. We funded most of every other joint venture.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
33. Re:Question... by petermgreen · 2012-06-09 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  And they canned the "Centrifuge Accommodations Module" which was supposed to let us test biological reactions to "gravity" greater than microgravity but less than earth gravity as would be important for a long term moon or mars misson.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
34. Re:Question... by WindBourne · 2012-06-09 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  LOL; ROFL.
  We would have had a new space station up there around mid 90's. We had it designed and were starting to bend metal for it. In fact, one of the units is here in Colorado. We changed to bring on-board Russia and work with them, as well as EU. We helped EU a great deal. MOST of the modules up there were designed and launched by the shuttle. The fact is, that only the smallest modules were put up their by Russia. Likewise, we paid Russia to do this since their gov. would not do it.
  Had we built this, then the neo-cons hopefully would not have gutted private space. They would have been forced to allow it to happen. Basically, we would have multiple launchers there.
  
  And when it comes to the bulk of the equipment and supplies on their ISS, the shuttle has carried more than 3/4 of it. Progress was sent up quartly and would take up less than 4000 KG each trip. That includes the fuel, water, etc. OTOH, the shuttle would take up 24,000 KG each trip. We used to send up 4 a year, but it probably averaged about 3 a year due to being out. Still, just ONE shuttle takes up more cargo than all of the progress does each year.
  
  Even now, USA has the largest lifters capable of putting up these modules, and we are getting more. By early next year, we will have a launcher that takes up DOUBLE the shuttle. Yes, the FH will take up 54,000 KG. That is more than 10 progresses in just one flight.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
35. Re:Question... by WindBourne · 2012-06-09 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the problem is that the microgravity counted on the life centrifuge. When W/neo-cons canceled that, they killed one of the best uses of the ISS. That single piece would enable us to figure out how we will do on the moon and on trips to mars and elsewhere. It was stupid of that admin that they killed that.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
36. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  I dunno, seems like something as pricey as a space station would divert a lot of Chinese credit away from terrestrial military effort.
37. Re:Question... by Dodgy+G33za · 2012-06-09 18:30 · Score: 2
  
  The US doesn't want them to be part of the ISS due to perceived risk of technology stealing.
38. Re:Question... by khallow · 2012-06-09 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  Microgravity is microgravity, apparent accelerations no more than a few thousandths of what we experience on Earth. It's worth noting that the ESA piece has smaller centrifuges (which might help explain why they tossed that part). There's a lot less capability there, but some such research can still be done.
  
  It's also worth noting that many countries can launch unmanned and manned satellites for conducting low gravity research. But nobody is doing that. The neo-cons can't be responsible for why the current administration (or other governments for that matter) isn't fixing this hole in our knowledge.
39. Re:Question... by drinkypoo · 2012-06-09 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  They are converting things to cheaper designs, because only India can match their numbers, and the Indian people are not as willing to be thrown at a problem. China's tactic is the Zerg rush.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
40. Re:Question... by gl4ss · 2012-06-10 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  if you're paying 10 bucks out of a meal that costs 40 bucks.. and then someone else eats that meal in space as intented, it's not really mooching.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
41. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Why did the US spend billions upon billions to go to the moon? Why did we strive so hard to beat the Soviets there?
  The answer to those are the same reason the Chinese are doing it alone.
  China is in a cold war with Russia?
  To hit golf ball and take home movies? I don't think so.
42. Re:Question... by i · 2012-06-10 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  But allowed collaboration with Russia ??
  
  --
  Mundus Vult Decipi
43. Re:Question... by Teancum · 2012-06-10 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Both Russia and Japan (ISS partners) were very cold to the idea as well. It wasn't just the "North American country" that was the problem. About the only ISS partner that didn't have a problem with China joining was Brazil... a real power-house among the ISS partners.
  Another problem China faced is that they wanted to put up their own modules and wanted to do the docking on their own. A very real concern is that China, with their vast experience at in-orbit rendezvous and orbital construction being brought to the table, would likely end up taking out a portion of the ISS in any attempt to dock with it. The ISS was not envisioned to be a toy for inexperienced aerospace engineers trying to prove how their equipment works as a test article, and simply put didn't trust any of the equipment China was proposing to be used on the ISS including the capsules that would hold Chinese astronauts.
  China wouldn't put up with the high level reviews by the ISS partners like SpaceX had to go through in order to meet up with the ISS. Having to humble themselves down to that level is something that also just doesn't sit well with the Chinese psyche and worldview.
44. Re:Question... by Teancum · 2012-06-10 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, there is the Dragon Lab that is going to be conducting microgravity experiments being done by both European and American companies and a few governments.
  The problem is that at the moment (besides a few companies who are getting into the experiment aggregator business and offering much smaller prices for small experiments) any research laboratory who wants to conduct this kind of research must pay for the whole launch and build things to fit into the time scales and process of traditional orbital spaceflight systems. Those are extremely expensive, requiring all of the testing and environmental conditioning that you need for operating as an independent spacecraft.
  NanoRacks has a business model that seems to be making them a whole bunch of money to provide this "hole in our knowledge", particularly for commercial research that may end up making a profit in the future. Their manifest seems to indicate at least some people are interested in that kind of research and they have a backlog of customers waiting for the next flight.
45. Re:Question... by cheesybagel · 2012-06-10 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Russia has sold plenty of space technology and know-how to the Chinese. Orlan and Sokol suits, allegedly the Soyuz design, allegedly information on how to design staged combustion engines, etc. Going to the ISS is more problematic. You might remember a couple of years ago the US was dead set against the Russians carrying paying customers to the ISS (even though the customers would be restricted to the Russian modules of the station). The customer was even a US citizen IIRC. In the end they had to cave in and let the Russians carry paying customers to the ISS. The Russians probably threatened that otherwise they would have no budget to continue their ISS activities. Considering how the station is dependent on Russian flights today (Progress and Soyuz) it would be impossible to operate ISS without them. It would have probably ended sooner than predicted like Skylab. The fact is the longer ISS stays on orbit the better the chance of the construction investment paying itself off.
46. Re:Question... by cheesybagel · 2012-06-10 10:14 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The ironic thing is the Chinese have a better capsule than the Russians and in a couple of years their launchers will be top notch as well. Their satellite programs are also progressing at a brisk speed. At that point there will be little they will want to steal.
47. Re:Question... by iphinome · 2012-06-10 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Another way to say rocket that will take you to the moon is ICBM. Every time you launch a spacecraft you're showing that you can put something big and heavy (like cold war era nukes) into space and drop them anywhere on the planet.
48. Re:Question... by Rakishi · 2012-06-11 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, spend $20 billion on a Moon program instead of $100million launching a couple ICBMs to show you have them. Great use of resources. More to the point, cold war era nukes were neither big nor heavy. The W56, 1.2 MT yield, from 1963 was 17 inches wide by 47 inches long and weighed less than 700lbs.
  Earlier space missions you can argue about as they did use modified ICBMs and showed the reliability of the rocket. However by the time of the Moon program neither of those applied or mattered.
49. Re:Question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-14 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  The ESA centrifuge does not handle life. It is a small chemical centrifuge, nothing more. What is needed is one for dealing with life.
  O IS working on getting this going. In particular, he is pushing to have private space up there because Bigelow wants to put up another station and that includes a new centrifuge. The problem is that the neo-cons are hard at work trying to stop 1-2B flowing to private space, while making sure that 20's of billions flow to their Senate Launch System.
what an insane world by aheadinabox · 2012-06-09 11:18 · Score: 0

Hard to believe human beings would think it logical to duplicate an engineering feat such as a space station due to nationalism. You'd think the average educational norm could be slightly higher than the nationalistic primal urges, but no.
1. Re:what an insane world by benjfowler · 2012-06-09 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  If China want to be jingoistic and stupid and waste their money on 40 year old technology, then let them.
  They'll still steamroll the world through sheer economic might and weight of numbers, but this will delay the inevitable for a few days.
2. Re:what an insane world by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-09 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hard to believe human beings would think it logical to duplicate an engineering feat such as a space station due to nationalism. You'd think the average educational norm could be slightly higher than the nationalistic primal urges, but no.
  Mankind is not a rational animal.
  He is a rationalizing animal.
  Besides, there is a whole lot of useful engineering in being able to launch something into space. Materials science, engines, controls - hey, there even could be a military use.
  If all else fails, you can make it cheaper and sell it to the US.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:what an insane world by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  As was mentioned elsewhere too, China asked to participate in the ISS in 2007, but the US was/is against it. Nationalistic primal urges go both ways.
4. Re:what an insane world by khallow · 2012-06-09 12:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It also made sense to keep China out. There were valid concerns that they wouldn't contribute, but just suck knowledge and technology for their own uses. Mind you, that describes most of the participants to some degree.
5. Re:what an insane world by khallow · 2012-06-09 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Hard to believe human beings would think it logical to duplicate an engineering feat such as a space station due to nationalism.
  
  I think the problem here is that you use "belief" instead of "reason". The space station was pretty cheap and the nationalism benefits fairly concrete, a morale boost for more than a billion people. The logic isn't perfect, but it's a good deal more solid than you believe.
6. Re:what an insane world by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-06-09 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  China will "suck knowledge and technology" from the ISS? Unless the ISS has a secret military purpose (does it?), I don't see it as much of an issue. There might be some secrets to "steal", er, copy in the robotics department, but the stuff that stays up in space appears to be more ancient than the W3. Since the Shuttle retired, there isn't any more launch technology for an undercover taikonaut to observe at docking range. That leaves only the life support systems and radiation hardening, which the Chinese can probably acquire from the Russians, who until recently held the most important endurance records in space.
7. Re:what an insane world by khallow · 2012-06-09 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  China will "suck knowledge and technology" from the ISS? Unless the ISS has a secret military purpose (does it?), I don't see it as much of an issue.
  It has TRDSS, which is a secret communication technology. I believe the Russians have similar secrets in their sections. Further, a lot of the sections contain private projects that are expected to remain the IP of the organizations doing the work.
  
  Point is that while most participants didn't have to give very much, they are expected to contribute and to honor various NDAs. There's a legitimate worry that China wouldn't be a useful participant and would take secrets from the other parties doing work on the station.
8. Re:what an insane world by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-06-09 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  Further, a lot of the sections contain private projects that are expected to remain the IP of the organizations doing the work.
  And here I thought the ISS was for the good of humanity and all that warm and fuzzy stuff. However, don't American fears of Chinese industrial espionage also apply to the Russians?
9. Re:what an insane world by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  The stuff that stays up in space may be ancient; but leaking the codes contained on those ancient satellites/spacecraft would be on par with leaking unchangeable, active nuclear launch codes for every ISS-participating nation in the world.
10. Re:what an insane world by khallow · 2012-06-09 13:59 · Score: 2
  
  However, don't American fears of Chinese industrial espionage also apply to the Russians?
  Why would they? The Russians stay bought.
11. Re:what an insane world by shiftless · 2012-06-10 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  There's a legitimate worry that China wouldn't be a useful participant and would take secrets from the other parties doing work on the station.
  So to prevent that, they've taken action to ensure that China, feeling scorned, will go off on its own path. They will develop/steal the same technology anyway through other means, all on their own and independently....then in the end there will be the same outcome, except now the Chinese have good reason to dislike and mistrust us.
  Nice job, assholes.
12. Re:what an insane world by Teancum · 2012-06-10 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  One of the goals for building the ISS was also to transfer knowledge (at a price) from Russia to the USA over how they were able to build MIR and to get access to the engineering history of MIR and the Almaz and Salyut programs. While in theory Skylab could have had two crews docked at the same time, such a task was never actually performed, nor were any "resupply" flights like Russia did with the Salyut program and subsequently done with MIR and the ISS. That whole process started with the Shuttle-MIR missions where engineering technology and knowledge was shared between the two countries on an extensive basis where Russia certainly had a whole lot to bring to the table.
  What China brings certainly is doubtful. Japan at least had a pile of money, and while they did build the Kibo, Japan used American and European launchers for putting up most of the pieces.
13. Re:what an insane world by khallow · 2012-06-10 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  So to prevent that, they've taken action to ensure that China, feeling scorned, will go off on its own path. They will develop/steal the same technology anyway through other means, all on their own and independently....then in the end there will be the same outcome, except now the Chinese have good reason to dislike and mistrust us.
  Needless to say, I consider that a better outcome. And no, the Chinese don't have "good reason" to mistrust us. They might have good reason to dislike us, but I think they're pragmatic enough to realize that there's a limit to stupidity even in the developed world.
  
  Nice job, assholes.
It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:29 · Score: -1

Maybe not that bit about Lodsys, I'm not sure.
But, regarding China, it's all they know how to do. They can't innovate anything, they can only replicate.
And, unfortunately for those of us in the west, they're damn good at it.
1. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You do realise this exact same shit was said about Japan years ago. All they do is copy... not innovate...
  China is copying to catch up. Once they catch up they will go shooting past - and all the MBAs, financial instruments and lawyers that the US has wanked away its educational estasblishments and brainpower on producing won't be worth a piss in a wind storm.
2. Re:It's true.. by PAKnightPA · 2012-06-09 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  So, I was a little confused by your Japan example. I could be missing something, but it seems like you are saying they are a model China should try to imitate.
  Japan is an economic joke! Their economy has been in recession or barely growing since the early nineties. They've basically stagnated for the last 20 years. Their government is so in debt (230% of GDP) that they make Greece (165%) and Spain (69%) look fiscally responsible! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)
  China should not aim to be like Japan.
3. Re:It's true.. by dreamchaser · 2012-06-09 13:13 · Score: 0
  
  You do realise this exact same shit was said about Japan years ago. All they do is copy... not innovate...
  China is copying to catch up. Once they catch up they will go shooting past - and all the MBAs, financial instruments and lawyers that the US has wanked away its educational estasblishments and brainpower on producing won't be worth a piss in a wind storm.
  I can't find a link to any web based version but there was an interesting story on NPR about two months ago that I heard while driving home from a business trip. It went into how Chinese youth are being raised and trained in a fashion where they do exactly what the GP stated. They do not learn how to innovate, they learn how to copy and be good cogs in the machine. Now, that might change in the future but it is ingrained in their culture at the moment. You will not see much innovation out of China anytime soon. That is not meant to be disparaging; it's just a simple fact.
4. Re:It's true.. by ToadProphet · 2012-06-09 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure the GP was talking about Japanese innovation and not their economic model.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
5. Re:It's true.. by Alomex · 2012-06-09 13:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Japan is an economic joke!
  Japan's GDP per capita is only $4K less a year than the USA and higher than Germany's. Some joke!
6. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  That describes most Southeast Asian (and increasingly, American) educational systems in general. Rote memorization is so heavily pushed that creative thinking is discouraged. (ie. If you ask how or why something is done the way its being taught, you'll simply be told "thats the way its always been done")
7. Re:It's true.. by TheGratefulNet · 2012-06-09 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  china will always be a 2nd choice, in terms of goods quality. well, for as long as it took japan to get their act together (20 years or so, roughly).
  china simply does not understand customer satisfaction, long-term company reputation, local support, customer service or any of the other things that western businesses assume and take for granted.
  unless you stand over them, the quality of goods from china is less than putrid. as someone who services the broken shit from there that is sold to us, I've about had it with buying their junk. its dangerous in so many ways its not funny. electrically, chemically, you name it.
  japan was never this bad, at least as far back as I can remember (I'm in my 50's). china stuff is mostly to be avoided and I see zero slope in the improvement curve. zero. no desire. just keep selling shit and screwing the customer. customer won't be back but another sucker will! they figured this out and they're OK with it! fully ok with this ethic.
  its bullshit. as if they capacitor syndrome was not bad enough to fuck over the world (world supply of bad electrolytics still is an issue, even 10 years after it happened).
  no, they will not surpass the west for a LONG time. not with the quality attitude they have. and they total lack of business ethic.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
8. Re:It's true.. by khallow · 2012-06-09 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Japan is an economic joke! Their economy has been in recession or barely growing since the early nineties. They've basically stagnated for the last 20 years. Their government is so in debt (230% of GDP) that they make Greece (165%) and Spain (69%) look fiscally responsible! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt)
  
  It's worth keeping in mind that if Japan had the same quality of fairly ruthless leadership that it had in the 50s through to the 70s, it probably would have rebounded quickly. The severe recession of 1990-1991 was a good time to weed out the failures and allot the weaker performing keiretsu among the remainder (likely in the process encouraging new players to enter the ranks). That didn't happen and is in large part why things haven't improved very much for a long time.
9. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  As far i remenber the capacitor syndrome ocurred in taiwan (for a bad formula) not in China, they already moving in the value chain and they already automatizating more, if you subestimated them they will eat you.
10. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's taking a little naive look at it. Japan's debt is domestic dept, and their can print their own money. So their debt problem is not the same as Greece (who is on hock to foreigners, and can't print their own money), Spain, Italy and Ireland.
  Ironicly, Ireland is one of the countries Americans create shell corporations in to hide their assets. Go figure. Raise the tax rate in Ireland and the that solves one of America's problems automatically.
11. Re:It's true.. by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-09 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  You do realise this exact same shit was said about Japan years ago. All they do is copy... not innovate...
  China is copying to catch up. Once they catch up they will go shooting past - and all the MBAs, financial instruments and lawyers that the US has wanked away its educational estasblishments and brainpower on producing won't be worth a piss in a wind storm.
  I can't find a link to any web based version but there was an interesting story on NPR about two months ago
  I support NPR, with my money and my time in volunteering
  But I do understand that NPR is not perfect
  NPR is not that much different from many other Western media - that their report on other part of the world routinely tinted with the Western bias
  I am not from China but I do have businesses in China - and in my many trips to China, I have to say that the average Chinese are way more innovative than the average American
  While it is true that if we compare the top American researchers the Chinese have nothing to compare to - their top researchers are still light years away from the West - but that does not mean that the Chinese people are a dumb bunch
  The lack of innovativeness in China is caused by the damage done by the Cultural Revolution in the 60's and 70's. Two generations of top Chinese scientists were wiped out (many were forced to suicide)
  China is still suffering the consequences
  But if you talk about Chinese - as a people - they are not dumb
  Go to Hong Kong or Taiwan or even take a look at the Chinese Americans - they are way more innovative than the average Americans
  It's time you guys stop deceiving yourself. The Chinese are playing catching up, and once they are at par with America, you guys will eat dust, literally
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
12. Re:It's true.. by newbie_fantod · 2012-06-09 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  unless you stand over them, the quality of goods from china is less than putrid.
  Oh really?
  I think it's the other way around. China will manufacture products as cheap and as nasty as their clients request. If a Mattel subcontractor specifies lead pain for children's toys, Chinese manufacturers will supply the product. It's not their fault if American marketers have no qualms about poisoning children.
13. Re:It's true.. by metlin · 2012-06-09 17:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sigh, here we go again.
  You should read the Myth of Japan's Failure --- a great piece on perception vs. reality of Japan's economy. Hopefully, this will clear your misconceptions and not have you spewing forth silly rubbish.
  Slashdot, where geeks who do not know or understand economics talk about it, and sound like idiots doing so.
14. Re:It's true.. by Teancum · 2012-06-09 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Japan had twice the per capita GDP over America... twenty years ago. While substantial, they are dealing with some very tough problems.
  One of the largest problems Japan has been facing is that they have a huge population of senior citizens compared to the number of children that have been born. It has forced Japan to deal with very different issues than many Islamic countries are facing which have a large youth population. These issues are also going to be facing America relatively soon, particularly when the Baby Boomers finally start to hit retirement age (they already are right now and are arguably a part of the housing price collapse).
15. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  *It went into how Chinese youth are being raised and trained in a fashion where they do exactly what the GP stated.
  and this is EXACTLY the same shit you heard about Japan. There's nothing new. Keep kidding yourself that American innovation will save you. Incidentally... US industries started out copying pretty much everything they did from Europe - until they caught up and surpassed them.
16. Re:It's true.. by Jeeeb · 2012-06-09 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Decent enough article although a lot of hyperbole and ignores a lot of inconvenient facts.
  Firstly to say that the lost decade (or twenty) years has been a creation of western psychology is silly. There's a lot of pessimism in Japan among Japanese about the last twenty years and with generally good reason. The system of lifetime employment has collapsed and a new social underclass of non-permanent workers has been created. The number of families relying on government assistance has massively increased and the 4.4 or 5% unemployment rate is only being maintained because the government is literally paying companies to keep people employed. Government debt has ballooned to 200% of GDP and shows no signs of slowing down. Meanwhile the healthcare and pension systems are lumbering towards collapse requiring evermore government (debt) funds to make up the massive funding shortfalls.
  To say that there was any policy choice to decrease the birthrate is silly. Policy makers have spent the last decade or more worrying about and doing nothing about the low birthrate. I think decreasing the population is eventually a good thing but to say that there has been a deliberate choice and that Western commentators have missed that is silly.
  Trade pressure has eased on Japan in part because the markets have opened up somewhat and in part because production has shifted overseas. The Japanese current account surplus these days is much more based on earnings from overseas assets. However the pressure is not completely gone. Just go have a look at the TPP talks..
17. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 22:39 · Score: 0
  
  Innovation is more than a slogan. It seems like many people assume innovation/invention equates to mere imagination and making things up out of thin air. You need much more than good fundamental, basic knowledge and, unfortunately, to be good at playing the patent game these days.
  If anyone or any country manages to begin from scratch, jump through the learning/imitation phase, and start innovation right away, it might as well try to patent that, as this has never happened before, not Europe, not USA, not Japan, not Korea.
18. Re:It's true.. by DeBaas · 2012-06-09 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot, where geeks who do not know or understand economics talk about it, and sound like idiots doing so.
  And this differs from any financial forum, financial institution, TV news show how?
  
  --
  ---
19. Re:It's true.. by drinkypoo · 2012-06-09 23:40 · Score: -1
  
  China is copying to catch up. Once they catch up they will go shooting past
  All the same shit was said about China years ago, and nothing has changed. It changed for Japan, but it didn't change for China. They're still copying furiously. They still aren't making anything new. How many thousand years has it been since a significant technological development came out of China? Every time I see a news release on something important coming from China, there's another one within a month explaining that it was deliberately falsified. Is that just because of news bias? It's true here and not just in the wider media, so I don't think so.
  China's contribution to the modern world is cheap manufacturing of inferior copies. Prove me wrong.
  Say, since you have all the answers, what do you expect China is going to do with 50 million excess men?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:It's true.. by Alomex · 2012-06-10 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Japan had twice the per capita GDP over America.. [citation needed]
21. Re:It's true.. by PAKnightPA · 2012-06-10 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just read it. Fair points, I wouldn't contend that the people of Japan are all running around in poverty. It's not an across the board awful country or something.
  That said, your article basically says, yeah, GDP isn't great but look at all these other good things! My point is that their GDP isn't growing. They are in ludicrous amounts of debt. Their companies are losing their competitiveness (have you seen how much money Sony has been losing lately?). They are facing serious long term demographic challenges related to their population aging. Hell, they can barely keep the lights on! (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/japan-power-minister-idUST9E8EM02G20120425). Heck, we can trade articles, I think this makes my point quite clearly: http://www.economist.com/node/21556596.
  It has been bad for them lately, and things are only going to get worse if (when) interest rates on their debt rise.
  As for the ad hominem, I double majored in Mathematics and Economics at a top 10 school in the US; I graduated with high honors. I wrote my thesis on sovereign bonds. I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about. Do you?
22. Re:It's true.. by shiftless · 2012-06-10 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  So basically, it's exactly like the U.S. educational system.
23. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  If it were true, it would be published in places I didn't need to log in.
24. Re:It's true.. by AmiMoJo · 2012-06-10 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yet there is far less poverty in Japan (and Germany). The US might have a high per capita GDP but that's just an average, the spread is very unevenly balanced. It also doesn't account for the fact that both Japan and Germany have universal healthcare.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:It's true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  well said. lol sad but true America seems to be a dying empire. How will our economy function when we run out of elderly to steal retirements from and minorities no longer buy our adjustable rate mortgages.
26. Re:It's true.. by axlr8or · 2012-06-10 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with the others. An interesting article. But I lost my warm fuzzies after several paragraphs and no where finding something about how that in Japan you really care about your neighbors. Bummers. I mean, here in the US the main focus amongst your peers is how to take what your peers have. And all the tricks there between. Ah, it would be refreshing to have a society that actually cared for each other despite their differences. Don't troll me back damnit, you know its true you guys. There is generosity but its Freudian. Except for me I'm perfect.
Anybody care to provide a link that isn't wall'd? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:33 · Score: 1

Just ask the Europeans.
Thanks, buddy. Waste of a click. Thankfully, _they_ haven't decided to tax those yet.

NASA pulls out of astrophysics missions
The material you are trying to access is available to subscribers only.
Subscribers must be logged in AND have entered their Subscriber/Customer Number in their Account Profile for the site to recognize your status as a subscriber, which will enable you access to subscriber only content.
If you are not a subscriber. Subscribe Now
If you are a subscriber, please either login (see upper right hand of this page), or create your account (and have your subscriber number handy).
Note: Once you create your profile, you must enter in your unique subscriber/customer number into your profile for our site to recognize you as a subscriber. If you have just subscribed online in the last 24 hours, you should have received a temporary pin number to enter into your profile which will enable your access to subscriber only content.
Anybody care to provide a link that isn't paywall'd?
Meh by VonSkippy · 2012-06-09 11:34 · Score: 1

Meh.
Might have a women crew member.
Won't disclose how long the mission will last.
Just another long line of China BS disclosing just the bare minimum to garner some "face" for their "great" space accomplishments.
Of course nothing that goes wrong will be reported. They're barely a step above NK for their PR releases, but wait, they prop up the US economy so lets all give them a rousing pat on the back.
So golf clap for China, they've stolen enough IP to duplicate what US/USSR did back in the 80's.
1. Re:Meh by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-06-09 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, with Apple's WWDC approaching, maybe they're taking a page from Apple's playbook and keeping things under wraps. Try to get some buzz going...
2. Re:Meh by Progman3K · 2012-06-09 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, can't wait for another one of their space "accomplishments"
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
  We should send them a load of SCUBA gear, that'll probably help 'em get it done faster.
  
  --
  I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
most pertinent question by rubycodez · 2012-06-09 11:36 · Score: 1, Troll

this female astronaut, will she be hot
google search for candidates seem to indicate, hell yeah!
1. Re:most pertinent question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, youre just sayin' that 'cause all Chinese look alike to you...
2. Re:most pertinent question by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-06-09 11:46 · Score: 2
  
  Meh.
3. Re:most pertinent question by martin-boundary · 2012-06-09 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Go ahead, knock yourself out. I do have to wonder about the 80s big hair obsession with the Americans though.
4. Re:most pertinent question by SteveFoerster · 2012-06-09 12:16 · Score: 2
  
  Wahhhh, we're halfway there
  Wahhhh, livin' on a prayer
  Take my hand and we'll make it I swear
  Wahhhh, livin' on a prayer
  Seems perfectly in line with being an astronaut to me.
  
  --
  Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
5. Re:most pertinent question by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-06-09 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that while Americans are launched into space from Florida, most of the manned spaceflight program is run through the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
  So I'd imagine that it's an occupational hazard. If you're a woman and you get your hair done in Texas, it's gonna be big.
6. Re:most pertinent question by rubycodez · 2012-06-10 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  no, I can assure you there are plenty of butt ugly chinese women in the world
7. Re:most pertinent question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-11 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  ...there are plenty of butt ugly chinese women in the world
  And they wouldn't touch you either. Suggest you do what comes natural and keep your lips on daddy's cock.
Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by ModernGeek · 2012-06-09 11:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

What I find most interesting is the difference between the Chinese Space Program and organizations such as the ESA, NASA, and POCKOCMOC (Russia) is the amount of secrecy. Whenever any of the other space agencies makes a manned launch, you normally hear about it years before the actual mission flies, and the crew assignment is normally announced shortly after the mission is. With China, you hear about it almost days before launch day!

--
Sig: I stole this sig.
1. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by khallow · 2012-06-09 12:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I consider this a symptom of a serious, but by no means unique problem with the Chinese space program. Namely, that the leaders responsible for the program are extremely risk adverse. Various governments manifest this problem in various ways. The US government, for example, does a great deal of soul-searching and blame-finding when things go wrong.
  
  Here, China, much as the Soviets did, attempts to hide failure. They don't mind killing people, but they do mind greatly any negative publicity.
2. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by Gavagai80 · 2012-06-09 13:52 · Score: 2
  
  China has been publicizing their space station plans for years though, with a timeline. The exact dates of launches isn't that important.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
3. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by longk · 2012-06-09 15:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Are you kidding me? The mission was announced in 2002. With the date being narrowed down as time passed. The use of a female astronaut was announced in 2004. Nothing secret about it.
4. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That simply isn't true. They have a (public) plan and (AFAIK) are following it. Here, I even found you a link: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/30/016203/china-reveals-its-space-plans-up-to-2016/
5. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by WindBourne · 2012-06-09 17:40 · Score: 2
  
  In fact, their space stations is never to have citizens in it. It will ONLY have military personnel in it. Basically, their space station is our MOL, but they see a reason to build it, while we never built it.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
6. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by AmiMoJo · 2012-06-10 10:23 · Score: 2
  
  Back in the day all US Astronauts were ex military pilots too. The Chinese system is similar.
  Also note that they wanted to join the ISS, but the US blocked their participation.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  POCKOCMOC (Russia)
  It's RosKosmos. Some Cyrillic letters resemble Latin ones, but that doesn't make them the same letter.
8. Re:Secrecy of the Chinese Space Program by WindBourne · 2012-06-14 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  You mean back when we did not know what was in space, or when rockets subjected astronauts to a continuous 4Gs ?
  
  What does our blocking them from the ISS have to do with their creating a military base in space? We showed all aspects of our launches and systems. China hides everything, just like any military would do. Their space group reports ONLY to the PLA. It would like NASA reporting to the space group of the USAF. If NASA was put under the command of the USAF, would you then consider them to be a military group, or would you say that it was done because the chinese did not want us to see their tech?
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's just China.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 13:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's not really that it's the Chinese Space Program being secretive, that's just China.
And I'll form the head! by Cazekiel · 2012-06-09 13:39 · Score: 1

Competition is good for some things, but not all. For instance, there are ideas which can't be done by just one group/country due to massive amounts of $$$ needed, amongst other things. An expedition to Mars would need a collaborative effort, going by what it'd take to get there.
I think it's a little sad to think that a figurative dick-waving is what you have to do in order to get anything done, the idea that "haha, we're better than you!" urging us on instead of, "OMG, if we'd all stfu and combine resources, we could be on Mars by such-n-such a year!"
Remember, if Keith, Princess Allura, Pidge, Hunk, Sven and Lance had this attitude, they never would have been able to fight off the Robeasts. Amirite?

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
1. Re:And I'll form the head! by khallow · 2012-06-09 13:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  An expedition to Mars would need a collaborative effort, going by what it'd take to get there.
  Based on what? Fantasy estimates from NASA? My take is that with a cheap, heavy lift launcher (such as Falcon Heavy which is claimed to be able to put 50 metric tons into LEO), we could do an indefinite series of manned missions to Mars (say one to two manned missions to Mars every two years) on what the US pays for the ISS, roughly $2 billion a year. That's a bit too ambitious for private groups (who could do a scaled-down version of this), but easily affordable by a number of government.
  
  I think it's a little sad to think that a figurative dick-waving is what you have to do in order to get anything done, the idea that "haha, we're better than you!" urging us on instead of, "OMG, if we'd all stfu and combine resources, we could be on Mars by such-n-such a year!"
  I don't really care, if "peen" is what it takes to go to Mars. Seems good enough a reason for me.
2. Re:And I'll form the head! by BanHammor · 2012-06-09 21:43 · Score: 2
  
  Apollo was 119 metric tons into LEO, if I am not mistaken. It definitely should be bigger.
3. Re:And I'll form the head! by ongelovigehond · 2012-06-09 22:36 · Score: 2
  
  50 tons isn't nearly enough. The Saturn V had a 119 ton capacity to LEO, and managed to land a tiny lander on the Moon. Mars requires a much heavier capsule, heavier lander, and much larger delta-V, even for a one way trip with short stay on Mars.
4. Re:And I'll form the head! by khallow · 2012-06-10 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's 2.5 launches of the Falcon Heavy for a small fraction of the cost of a Saturn V. I heavily favor multiple launches and orbital assembly over larger rockets.
5. Re:And I'll form the head! by khallow · 2012-06-10 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  As we saw with the International Space Station, one can assemble a larger structure in space than one can launch from Earth. NASA put up a 450 ton structure with launches from a vehicle that could handle less payload than the Falcon Heavy can lift.
  
  One of the claimed features of the Falcon Heavy is that it is vastly cheaper than anything that has ever flown, something like $2500 per kg to LEO in 2010 or so dollars (for max payload of 53 metric tons). Even if we completely ignore inflation, that's a factor of 5 better than the Saturn V was doing in the early 70s (roughly 1.5 billion USD to launch that 119 ton payload). And there was a lot of inflation since then (roughly a factor of three by the GDP deflator).
  
  To put up 500 metric tons of vehicle (let's say mostly chemical engine propellant and supplies) at that cost would be roughly $1.25 billion. For two such vehicles every two years (when there's good trajectories directly to Mars), that's $2.5 billion. It's most of the $4 billion a year budget, but manageable.
  
  You aren't doing a lot of R&D and reusing existing vehicle designs. You might even be able to reuse the vehicles themselves, which would greatly reduce the mass lifted from Earth. And you might have better propulsion/power technology combinations such as solar-electric or nuclear-electric propulsion.
6. Re:And I'll form the head! by ongelovigehond · 2012-06-10 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  While it is possible to assemble large structures in earth orbit, it is much less complicated to assemble the stuff on earth, and launch it with a super heavy lifter. Even if it's not feasible to launch the entire Mars vehicle in one time, you should at least try to minimize the number of parts, so it's better to use a 100 ton lifter than a 50 ton one. Given their track record, I'm pretty confident that SpaceX can design a Saturn V competitor that requires less than $1.5 billion per launch. But actually I would much rather see more unmanned exploration of Mars. We get more science per dollar, and quicker results too.
7. Re:And I'll form the head! by khallow · 2012-06-10 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  While it is possible to assemble large structures in earth orbit, it is much less complicated to assemble the stuff on earth, and launch it with a super heavy lifter.
  You have the complication and the cost of the super heavy lifter ("SHL") which is required only for that project and has little other use. You also put an additional constraint on the vehicle (namely, that it has to fit inside the SHL and be subject to mass and volume constraints). It's only much less complicated once you ignore the design and cost burden that you just put on your vehicle.
8. Re:And I'll form the head! by ultranova · 2012-06-10 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really care, if "peen" is what it takes to go to Mars. Seems good enough a reason for me.
  
  It isn't. A dick-waving contest was enough to go to the Moon. When was the last time anyone went there? Where are the moonbases and space habitats?
  The problem with dick-waving contests is that the goals tend to be symbolic gestures with little actual value. No, putting a man on the Moon wasn't a "giant step for mankind". It was a PR stunt. Perhaps if the moonflights would had been sustained... but they weren't, because once the contest was over, the interest - and funding - dried out. And the same will happen to any prestige-driven Mars mission.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
9. Re:And I'll form the head! by hackertourist · 2012-06-10 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you're willing to irradiate the crew all to hell, yes. Spending 2 years outside the Van Allen belts is no picknick.
10. Re:And I'll form the head! by Teancum · 2012-06-10 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  It is interesting that you are talking about a Saturn V competitor from SpaceX, as Elon Musk is working on an engine design called the Merlin 2, which is claimed to have a similar thrust rating as the F1 engine built for the Saturn V 1st stage. The idea behind the engine is to build something where the Falcon 9 only needs a single engine, yet these engines could be clustered for a much larger rocket.
  The problem that SpaceX is facing for building such a vehicle is that Elon Musk (in an interview that I've long since lost the link to, but you can dig it up) estimated that it would somewhere between $1-2 billion to develop, which is a bit more than the company can afford with their current revenue stream. If Elon says it is going to cost about $2 billion, I can't even imagine what NASA says such a thing would cost. NASA isn't even developing a new engine for the SLS, where they are simply reusing the SSMEs from the Space Shuttle (with apparently a slight "upgrade" for some future flights once they burn through all of the engines left over from the Shuttle program).
  It should noted that besides the Merlin engine, the last engine built for orbital spaceflight in America was the engine used on the Delta IV, and the USAF (with its contractors) had to pull engineers out of retirement in order to get that one built. Big engines aren't easy to be built, where a whole lot of things that can go wrong and where lessons learned on much smaller engines don't easily translate to the larger scale size.
  Even Russia had a problem building the huge engines like the F1, where instead they chose to cluster 30 engines in what I think is the most amazing plumbing job ever in the history of mankind with the N1 rocket. The business end of that rocket is a sight to behold. Even that was something that the Soviet era engineers could never really resolve either, and is the primary reason that the Soviet Union never made the trip to the Moon.
  Regardless, there isn't a market for rockets that size. If space tourism takes off in a big way and telecommunication satellites start to be built to be human serviceable so crewed flights are needed for upgrades and repairs (something of a possibility I might add), there might be an ongoing need for a larger rocket. In the meantime almost everything needed in space including a trip to Mars can be built with smaller rockets more along the line of the Falcon Heavy or even launchers like the Atlas V and Delta IV. Something like the NAUTLUS-X can easily be built with vehicles in that size, where the task of mating pieces up together in orbit is an already proven technology, thanks to MIR and the ISS (with a little help from "Dr. Rendezvous" Buzz Aldrin).
11. Re:And I'll form the head! by khallow · 2012-06-10 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  If you're willing to irradiate the crew all to hell, yes. Spending 2 years outside the Van Allen belts is no picknick.
  Of course, I'd be willing to irradiate the crew. But at levels that are relatively safe. Remember "dose makes the poison". We have effective to reduce radiation exposure.
12. Re:And I'll form the head! by hackertourist · 2012-06-10 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  We have effective to reduce radiation exposure.
  No we don't. There's no way we can launch enough shielding to be effective, and a magnetic field of effective size also requires more mass and power than we can launch.
13. Re:And I'll form the head! by khallow · 2012-06-10 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  No we don't. There's no way we can launch enough shielding to be effective, and a magnetic field of effective size also requires more mass and power than we can launch.
  If that were true, then you'd have a point. It's not. I didn't claim we'd reduce radiation exposure to zero. Just that we have ways to reduce radiation exposure so that it's not a serious health issue on the flight.
14. Re:And I'll form the head! by hackertourist · 2012-06-10 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't claim exposure needs to be 0. I said 'effective', which for the purposes of initial Mars exploration can mean 'survivable'
  Do you have any better data than this study?
15. Re:And I'll form the head! by khallow · 2012-06-10 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  NASA has done its own studies on the matter. The issue is exaggerated.
Check your math by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 14:26 · Score: 0

The Science Lite ISS boondoggle will weigh a lot less once it de-orbits.
Thought they'd been up already? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-06-09 14:27 · Score: 1

China Launches First Willing Manned Mission Into Space - YouTube
Which of course means... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 14:44 · Score: 1

ALL YOUR SPACE STATIONS AND MOON BASES ARE BELONG TO US!
Which they will proclaim were always in fact a part of Communist China, eh JC?
Just like Tibet... And everyone in China is SO FREE or else... ;-)
GreekGeek
SAAAY WHAAAT? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:29 · Score: 0

China, who is not an ISS partner, plans to see if its Shenzhou 9/Long March 2F system can get the job done like the Dragon/Falcon9 system can
Let's just say the Dragon/Falcon can only aspire to catch up with the Chinese.
The Chinese already performed automated docking a few years ago, whilst the Dragon had to fly to within the reach of the CanadaArm, and it's up to the arm operator to exercise some mad joystick skillz.
And of course the Chinese trample on other's IP rights.
They're just getting even for gun powder, and paper.
1. Re:SAAAY WHAAAT? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-09 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  They're just getting even for gun powder, and paper
  .... and compass
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Obligatory Onion: by drkim · 2012-06-09 15:31 · Score: 1

Obligatory Onion:
" China Launches First Willing Manned Mission Into Space "
http://www.theonion.com/video/china-launches-first-willing-manned-mission-into-s,14273/
Re:Anybody care to provide a link that isn't wall' by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-09 15:32 · Score: 2

Anybody care to provide a link that isn't paywall'd?
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/04/19/nasa-pulls-out-of-astrophysics-missions
Google is always very helpful
Don't you think so?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Mod parent DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:34 · Score: -1

M...o...r...o...n...
It's a terrible precedent. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 15:37 · Score: 0

We need to bring China in on the ISS. I'm not saying that I am not excited by the prospect of competition possibly spurring innovation in space travel, but rather I don't want nations excluding others from vital human frontiers. Today we're ahead, tomorrow they may be and if that means only China going to Mars, why would they transport our people?
China could be a paper tiger and the U.S. may drastically improve.
Or the opposite. Or something unimagined.
(If Canada ever becomes a super power, I'm offing myself.)
Who knows how the next several decades will unfold.
1. Re:It's a terrible precedent. by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-09 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  We need to bring China in on the ISS.
  China was / is specifically banned from joining the ISS program
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I think this is great by Karmashock · 2012-06-09 16:07 · Score: 2

Less because I think china will do anything meaningful in space exploration at least for a long time to come. But Americans in particular take space more seriously when they think they're competing for it. So this could mean a serious reprioritization of resources in favor of space exploration by the US.
Again, I think it's great the chinese are interested and I wish them the best. I think it's great that more countries are getting involved. I just think in the short term the best news here is that it's likely to get more established countries more involved as well.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Homefront by Cito · 2012-06-09 16:41 · Score: 1

It's all a ruse!
Just like the pc game Homefront :) except with China instead of North Korea...
The "space station" will detonate a massive EMP over the U.S. disabling much of the nation's grid preparing the way for invasion.
Most all our national debt is owed to China and they are coming to collect.
At least let me make sure my tinfoil hat is on straight.
1. Re:Homefront by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  Most all our national debt is owed to China and they are coming to collect.
  At least let me make sure my tinfoil hat is on straight.
  Don't think China wants your tinfoil hat
2. Re:Homefront by zippthorne · 2012-06-10 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Their plan to collect... is to destroy all our stuff?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
3. Re:Homefront by Cito · 2012-06-10 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  thats how it usually works
  if you don't pay the irs they destroy your life by other means :P
  don't pay the loan shark he breaks your legs.
  If China don't get paid, they'll break our legs eventually.. starting with sanctions, shutting off trade to the U.S. would destroy what little economy we have left, next would be a takeover..
  if you don't pay IRS they take your shit,
  eventually if we have no money to pay China, they'll come take our land in lieu of payment just like a foreclosure works if you don't pay your house payment they take your land.
  that's usually how an occupation works out
Weight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 16:47 · Score: 0

The neither of these space stations "weigh" anything, they only have mass............
Of course. by Animats · 2012-06-09 17:27 · Score: 2

They previously put a small habitat into orbit. Now they're sending some people up. The US had Skylab, the USSR had Mir, and China is now doing something in roughly the same scale. Why not?
America must beat the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-09 17:31 · Score: 0

but we can't spend any money to do it.
So, um, get to it. For country and for free, nerds.
Not just Russia by Immerman · 2012-06-09 17:41 · Score: 1

They're in a cold war with every major power on Earth. It's an economic and technological war rather than a shooting war, but the principal is the same - you beat on your chest and shout "We are mighty!" to inspire your own people and make your opponents nervous. China has been an also-ran in the world for a long time, significant only because of the sheer size of their population. Their development and economic growth has been phenomenal over the last several decades, but they started out so far behind that it's been hard to take them seriously on that front. That's starting to change. They still have a long way to go improving their per-capita numbers, but if you look at the just the top 25% of the population you get a very different picture, and they still outnumber the entire US. They're starting to become a major player, and they want to make sure everyone knows it.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The next Tang, Teflon and Velcro . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-06-09 19:27 · Score: 1

So does this mean that the Chinese will be the ones who will invent the next Tang, Teflon and Velcro?
. . . and even more exciting urban legends?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
hateful post by Fuck_this_place · 2012-06-10 00:57 · Score: 0

I hope they burn up. That would be some karma for them.
heh heh "Overrated" mod by drinkypoo · 2012-06-10 01:15 · Score: 0

If I had fifty cents for every time someone abused moderation against me...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Uh oh - space wars looming by cheros · 2012-06-10 01:25 · Score: 1

AFAIK, one of the drivers behind the man on the moon mission was because Russia was busy with the same thing, so this may actually restart the NASA funding.
However, I'm concerned because every nation "up there" has been amusing itself with saturating the place with satellites for various purposes (not in the least military), and now another club is joining - one that now holds all the cash.
It's getting uncomfortably crowded up there, and if something gets out of orbit a hard hat won't exactly be enough. That "out of orbit" could be accidental or deliberate.
*Not* good.

--
Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
Best wishes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-10 02:24 · Score: -1

I wish them great success in finding every piece of debris from the rockets and space craft after it blows up.
Broadcast live? Ha! by Squidlips · 2012-06-11 01:35 · Score: 1

Don't you love these Soviet Style missions?
What the hell is a... by DarthVain · 2012-06-11 03:36 · Score: 1

If only they built the Falcon 12 years ago!