Slashdot Mirror


Shenzhou 9 Sparks Renewed Debate On Space Race With China

MarkWhittington writes "With the flight of the Shenzhou 9, which includes the first docking between a Chinese spacecraft and a prototype space station module, a renewed debate has arisen over the implications of Chinese space feats. China is planning a large space station by the end of this decade. It has expressed the desire to land people on the moon sometime in the next decade. Scientists, foreign policy experts and journalists debate whether China has supplanted the U.S. as a space power and whether that matters. 'In reality, the implications of China's move could be a much cooler third option: a new space race between the Chinese government and U.S. startups. While China is 50 years behind the U.S. government, they are much more comparable to U.S. companies. It was only a couple of weeks ago that SpaceX made history by becoming the first private company to successfully dock a space module to a station in orbit. This means they are roughly 10-15 years behind the Chinese government, but they could gain fast.'"

283 comments

  1. Prediction by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China will land a man on the moon first, but SpaceX will win the race to Mars.

    1. Re:Prediction by spokenoise · · Score: 1

      China will colonise the moon

    2. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, they'll build their own knock-off moon.

    3. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which race to Mars? Given the duration of the travel to Mars, I do not see why a privately funded company should want to go there. Certainly not for tourism. And I would not consider research that much, as most companies would most likely not benefit from a trip to Mars, other than prestige. And that would be a quite expensive PR stunt.

      So, considering the next 20-30 years I do not see any private organisations going to Mars, unless there are some major breakthroughs in engines and life support to make it feasible for tourists or mining.

    4. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they'll build a big barrier around it and tell everyone it's the real one.

    5. Re:Prediction by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The bottom line, what on earth is spaceX's motivation to go to mars? The thing with corporations running things, is they have to be profitable. Hence why spaceX's missions are to deliver to ISS etc... China just has to get a guy there and put up a flag. SpaceX has to, find a resource on mars, figure out a way to obtain said resource, get good enough quanities of it, and bring it back and sell it, for roughly more money then the trip cost. Unless of course they can write it off as a multi-billion dollar marketing plan. But even that, marketing to whom? They aren't in a business where they can easilly increase their number of customers. Only governments, and multi billionares can even think of hiring them, and well, I'm pretty sure every government with interest in stuff from space, and person ritch enough to actually afford a space tourist trip, knows of them already. Maybe a tourist trip where they can bring along say 15-20 of the people on the forbes list who are brave enough to want to be part of the first trip to land on mars, that might fund it.

    6. Re:Prediction by ongelovigehond · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Right now, the only way to profit from space is to put satellites in orbit. Nearly everything beyond geostationary is a hobby.

    7. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if we build condos!

    8. Re:Prediction by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      And I would not consider research that much, as most companies would most likely not benefit from a trip to Mars, other than prestige. And that would be a quite expensive PR stunt.

      Did you think the same about docking with the ISS? There's not cash at the ISS. But that's going to be profitable for SpaceX, as is moving people to-and-from. They were testing the SuperDraco escape rocket engines a couple days ago for manned flights with the Dragon capsule... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/214831794103664640

      Lo and behold... the same profit model exists for Mars:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#.22Red_Dragon.22_Mars_mission_concept

      Meanwhile, Elon Musk has been talking quite a bit about manned trips to mars and eventual colonization. Last I heard he was estimating 10-15 years if things go well, at an eventual cost of about half a million per head.

      There are lots of people that make silly estimates. He has a knack for coming through, with a certain margin for error, on big-ass goals.

    9. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The money is in satellites. Even space tourism is stupid. There is no hotels in space. The SpaceX guys should work on delivering payloads to low earth orbit inexpensively and suborbital travel. You should be able to deliver people anywhere in the world in an hour with that. Now, that is something people will pay for.

    10. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for the love of...

      There is truth here, especially in general, but honestly its pretty apparent that Elon Musk does things because he wants to. Tesla is a long way from even breaking even, let alone any real return on investment. Much more so than SpaceX Tesla just doesn't make sense financially. That said, even looking to SpaceX, the company was started long before there was money on the table for orbital delivery. Sure, this stuff has been talked about forever, but to a very real extent the funding came about because SpaceX was available to accept such a large portion of it, not the other way around.

    11. Re:Prediction by zill · · Score: 2

      The current ferry missions to the ISS are paid by NASA. I imagine the mission to Mars will be paid by NASA as well.

    12. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 2, Informative

      We can't get people to Mars economically or technologically even. Anyone you send will just die from a number of factors including exposure to solar radiation, micrometeorites, lack of gravity, and we can't physically take enough oxygen, food, and water there and back. Plus, if anything else were to happen, they'd be dead too because nobody could reach them in time to help them. It's a fool's journey.

    13. Re:Prediction by crutchy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Elon Musk has been talking quite a bit

      yeah he does that. unfortunately he doesn't do much else though

    14. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 0

      Elon Musk has no credibility on going to Mars and talking out of his hat. What is required to go to Mars is a truly mammoth ship with rotating sections, radiation shields, sealed sections, and so on. It would cost trillions to send anyone with our current technology and many of those that went would have a very good chance of ending up dead. Bear in mind that going to Mars means leaving the earth's gravity well, magnetic field, travelling for two years there and back and so on. Without adequate supplies, artificial gravity, radiation protection, and so on, you are going to die. And even with that, there is a good chance a micrometeorite will kill you on the way.

    15. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. The money is in satellites. Even space tourism is stupid. There is no hotels in space. The SpaceX guys should work on delivering payloads to low earth orbit inexpensively and suborbital travel. You should be able to deliver people anywhere in the world in an hour with that. Now, that is something people will pay for.

      Lose 5 hours at the airport courtesy of the american SS and get to your destination in 1 hour. Yeah it doesn't make sense.

    16. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      You do realize many international flights are 16-18 hours plus in length. Try flying to Japan someday. I'm sure people would happily trade that for a 1 hour flight instead.

    17. Re:Prediction by bronney · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's no moon!!!

    18. Re:Prediction by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      The Dragon capsule is a tiny little thing. How is anybody supposed to land on Mars with that, and carry enough oxygen, water and food to survive for long enough to do anything useful? In addition, you'd need energy generators, communication equipment, scientific instruments, and some sort of Mars buggy. This will never fit, so it would have to be a much bigger capsule. Now, how is he going to land that monster safely ? The heat shield and parachutes are going to be mostly ineffective through the thin Martian atmosphere, so a lot of the braking needs to be done by rockets. This requires a lot of extra fuel (more mass), plus he needs to figure out how to keep the exhaust flame stable while it faces supersonic winds.

    19. Re:Prediction by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He doesn't do much else? Like him or not, I can't think of many people that have done more than he has. And it's not like he sets small goals.

      SolarCity, which apparently is the largest provider of solar systems in the US. That would be enough for any person to feel like they achieved something.

      Co-founded Tesla Motors, who brought the electric car back from the dead, and last I'd heard, is actually profitable. Also provides powertrain tech to other auto companies. Company is worth over a billion now, the Model S starts production this year and the Model X starts in 2014. I believe they already maxed out preproduction reservations.

      SpaceX. Started with $100m of his own money. Has $1.6 billion (minimum) to $3.x billion (max) in contracts for resupply flights to the ISS. Just made history as the first commercial company to complete one of those missions... and it was a nearly flawless one. Equipment to make the Dragon capsule safe for manned flight is in the works (as linked above).

      Of course there's Paypal (formerly his X.com). I imagine he did alright on that deal... which was no small feat.

      Sure he talks big, but the dude is only 40 and has already done a lot.

    20. Re:Prediction by Riceballsan · · Score: 2

      Certainly, and Elon Musk has a good budget to do things, but you still have to factor in, it is a finite budget. He cannot go toe to toe with china, purely funneling income from his other businesses and expect to come out on top. We can easilly get to where we've gone 50 years ago on a fairly small budget, especially with ex-nasa working for him. But actually doing the level of in depth R&D that is going to be needed to take us to new frontiers, I just don't think that can be done without a government being willing to throw ENORMOUS chunks of change into the project.

    21. Re:Prediction by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      I don't recall him (or anyone else) saying that they planned to use the Dragon capsule for manned missions to Mars.

    22. Re:Prediction by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      In the link you've provided it says they (maybe not Musk) plan to use the Dragon capsule. However, upon reading some I see they're only planning to use it for unmanned landings, which is of course a whole lot easier.

    23. Re:Prediction by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      None of his other businesses matter very much... sure they're successful and making money, congratulations, but really, if Paypal and Tesla never existed, we'd just be using Google Payments and driving Nissan Leafs, no big deal.

      On the other hand, SpaceX is a game-changer and completely different from anything else that came before. They're shaking the space industry to its very foundations and I think if they're successful with the Falcon Heavy, nothing will ever be the same again.

    24. Re:Prediction by progician · · Score: 2

      Let me tell you that the real deal here, that the only profit incentive for the private space industry, other than launching satellites to Earth orbit depends on government money. So, at the end of the day, this is a government founded market, if the govt pulls the plug on space exploration, the space industry with heavy launchers would disappear in a minute all together. Given the current attitudes to space exploration, there's no new profit incentive rising, and without any ground breaking new scientific or engineering discovery in space travel, I don't see how why would any govt finance a Mars expedition at all.

    25. Re:Prediction by edumacator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Elon Musk started SpaceX because he wants mankind to be a multi-planet species. He's not an idiot and wants to be profitable, but he is willing to sink a lot of that profit into doing something historic and necessary for our survival. It goes against every grain of my being to think someone is really willing to put his money where his mouth is, but it seem Elon Musk might be the exception that proves mankind's greed.

    26. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China will land a man on the moon first, but SpaceX will win the race to Mars.

      Second. The US got to the moon first (unless you wear a tinfoil hat and watch Kubrick films).

    27. Re:Prediction by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      My prediction : Google will be mining asteroids before China sends a human on the moon.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    28. Re:Prediction by stiggle · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk still has control of SpaceX, so it does what he wants it to do. He wants to go to Mars.
      SpaceX was created to get him to Mars.
      Tesla Motors was created to get him about on Mars once he's there. Why else would he develop an electric powered car?

      Martian rock - most major universities and science research institutes would buy some. Rich people would buy some just because they could.

    29. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People traded 3 hour transatlantic flights with cheaper 10 hour transatlantic flights when the Concorde was retired.

    30. Re:Prediction by Megane · · Score: 1

      There is no hotels in space.

      Not exactly, but pretty close:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace#Expandable_habitat_modules

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    31. Re:Prediction by progician · · Score: 2

      Not sure why were you downmodded, coz you have definitely have a point. If the flight-time was that much of consideration, the Concorde wouldn't be only one on the market, and would have been replaced right away by some rival. I'm fairly sceptical with the price of a suborbital flight compared to a jet-engine powered aircraft, like Concorde was. It makes more sense to run aircrafts with hybrid jet propulsion than heavy boosters for human space flights if the goal is only terrestrial transport.

    32. Re:Prediction by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3

      Google Payments and the Nissan Leaf wouldn't exist without the clear indicator that those products can succeed - neither was a precursor to the Musk products, and thus the Musk products had an impact on their creation.

    33. Re:Prediction by That_Dan_Guy · · Score: 1

      Docking with the ISS is like going where hundreds have gone before. This is the perfect place for a private business to go. The trail is blazed the risk factors known.

      Getting to Mars with people is a whole 'nother thing. I hope he can do it, but I think it will take a lot longer and require a lot more ground work than some people think. I don't doubt he is aware of it, but I do think he's generated a fan boy base that isn't. Because another thing he has said is he wants to go there with NASA. Therefore, his estimates of getting there in 10-15 years if things go well include going there with NASA. If he can't get NASA to help I think it is easy to assume it'll take a bit longer.

      Historically it has been governments that have sent out the trail blazers. Private businesses that can't estimate the costs and risks don't bother. They wait until the government has blazed the trail and then follow (East India company for example).

      Poke around Youtube for Neil deGrass Tyson for an expansion on that last point. He puts it together very well. And while you're at it, sign the penny4NASA.org petition so NASA has the money go to Mars with Elon.

    34. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't get people to Asia via the Atlantic economically or technologically even. Anyone you send will just die from a number of factors including sea monsters, sailing off the edge of the Earth, getting lost, and we can't physically take enough food and water there and back. Plus, if anything else were to happen, they'd be dead too because nobody could reach them in time to help them. It's a fool's journey.

      FTFY

    35. Re:Prediction by kryliss · · Score: 1

      That's no moon!!

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    36. Re:Prediction by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      SpaceX will be first on both the moon and Mars. Musk has repeatedly said he intends the manned version of the Dragon capsule to be capable of propulsive landing on both bodies, and he expects it to be flying by sometime around 2015. By that time he may very well also have his "Grasshopper" reusable Falcon launchers working, which would cut the cost by a couple orders of magnitude, but leave that aside for now. Even with a disposable Falcon, the availability of a human-rated Dragon will bring the cost of a lunar landing mission well below half a billion. Given that Space Adventures has already sold one of two $100M tickets for a free-return "slingshot" ride around the moon, how many would line up for a cheaper ride to the lunar surface?

      I fully expect to see a privately funded human mission to the moon, using SpaceX hardware, within the next 10 years, probably by the end of the decade. I can't think of a single entity on the planet, public or private, in a better position to reach the moon faster than SpaceX.

      As for Mars, that's a lot harder to predict. But again, at this point in time, who is in a better position than SpaceX? China's the only one even claiming to try at the moment. There are plenty of others in the US and elsewhere who are "working on" various aspects of Mars exploration and settlement, but to my knowledge, Elon Musk and China are the only two contenders for actually getting there first.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    37. Re:Prediction by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      SolarCity, which apparently is the largest provider of solar systems in the US

      Serously? They make solar systems? And I thought the Magratherans were ambitious!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    38. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Nissan leaf never would have happened. They had absolutely ZERO intention of doing electric. It was only when they saw the roadster that they realized that they had an opportunity. Basically, Tesla created the real electric car industry.
      It is doubtful that another company would have done what Paypal did. MS was hard at work at kill off the web, and pushing their applications only. Had groups like Apache, Mozilla/Firefox, and paypal not been there, MS likely would have won.

      Even on SpaceX you appear to be wrong. SpaceX is a game changer, but they were built on the foundations of many giants. In particular, private space was started in the 90's, but the GD neo-cons killed it. In particular, they want a gov. only space. It was Griffin that pushed COTS (which was actually NASA's plan from the mid 90's that the neo-cons killed), and allowed SpaceX to move quickly. What is needed now, is human launch COMBINED with getting Bigelow Aerospace going. Once we have multiple destinations in space, private space will take over. SpaceX's future will be that they built a LOW cost launch vehicle based on having vertical integration, combined with loads of tech developed from NASA. Smart moves. But, it was still NASA that has made the real difference. And that is in spite of GD neo-cons.

    39. Re:Prediction by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk doesn't need credibility with you, he has a net worth of $2 billion. And frankly, between you and him, I know who has more credibility with me.

      A couple of things... First, you need to update your notion of what is "required" for a Mars mission. Second, SpaceX is developing a line of reusable launchers which will drastically cut the cost of launching mass to LEO.

      Lots of very smart people have been working on this for quite a while, and they seem to think it can be done. After listening to their arguments, I tend to agree. We are on the cusp of a new "golden age" in space exploration. You may disagree, but I reckon you're in for a pleasant surprise, sooner than you think.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    40. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they'll build their own knock-off moon.

      That's no moon?

    41. Re:Prediction by ridley4 · · Score: 2

      We can't get people to the moon economically or technologically, even. Anyone you send will just die from a number of factors including exposure to the Van Allen belts, micrometeorites and low orbital debris, lack of gravity and plus, if anything else were to happen, they'd be also be dead then, because nobody could reach them in time to help them. It is a fool's journey.

      Oh wait...

    42. Re:Prediction by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      And face it--what's some more money compared to immortality?

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    43. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      You do realize there is a HUGE difference between a 1 hour flight and an 18 hour flight don't you? Also, the Concorde was not significantly faster compared to a slower transatlantic flight. And I'm not claiming it would be inexpensive, but they are already building this stuff for space tourism. Why not employ it to get you somewhere instead? That at least is a worthwhile national goal.

    44. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      First, Mars Direct is a pipe dream. Anyone going on that death trap is going to die. It doesn't even pretend to address the big three problems that is going to kill anyone going to Mars (the lack of gravity, radiation from the Sun, and micro-meteorites). Second, LEO is not Mars. It isn't even the Moon. It is so far beyond any concept of what we have ever thought about doing that it is ridiculous. Third, Elon Musk is rich and wants to spend trillions of American tax payer dollars on space. All that tells me is he is a rich idiot, nothing more.

    45. Re:Prediction by crutchy · · Score: 1

      richard branson is in a similar position with virgin galactic

      commerical space has been talked about for years, but wall street investors don't buy it, instead ventures like virgin galactic and spacex require dick waiving billionaires

      if space tourism was ever going to be profitable, boeing and lockheed martin would already have gone there because they have been in the best positions for years to take advantage of it

      space tourism will eventually happen, but not in the current global political and economic environment. profiteering corporations will never be able to raise enough money to sustain the financial momentum for long term space research and development programs, which is why success in space has been the ballpark of government agencies in the past

      from what you say, the only thing that musk is good at is selling, which is a fine talent to be sure, but it will take more than that to get you or me into orbit

    46. Re:Prediction by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Not mention, rockets don't even work in a vacuum! I read it in the NYT!

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    47. Re:Prediction by tragedy · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even pretend to address the big three problems that is going to kill anyone going to Mars (the lack of gravity, radiation from the Sun, and micro-meteorites

      Ummm, haven't those three big problems been addressed? People have survived for years in microgravity on space stations. It's not terrific for their long-term health, but it's nowhere near fatal.

      As for radiation, it's not as if the approximate amount of radiation the astronauts would be exposed to is a mystery. Various probes have been travelling to Mars since before I was born and most or all of them have had various kinds of radiation detectors. Barring some very bad luck with an unprecedented massive solar flare or a nearby supernova, the levels of radiation the astronauts would be exposed to should increase their chances of getting cancer by a few percentage points at worst.

      The micro-meteorites threat is the most ridiculous one you mentioned. Once again, plenty of spacecraft have been sent to Mars and micro-meteorites haven't been a significant problem for them either in transit or on the surface. The various Mars rovers seem to have done quite well and not been destroyed by micro-meteorites. Also, since Mars has an atmosphere, micrometeorites are a non-issue. Bigger meteorites maybe, but a meteorite the size of a grain of sand entering the atmosphere of Mars is either going to burn up or be slowed down enough that it's not going to strike hard enough to do any damage when it reaches the surface.

      Honestly, where did you come up with this nonsense?

    48. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
      1) Astronauts that travel for a year without gravity to Mars (which has gravity) will be non-functional in a gravity environment. They will need to be exposed to a gravity environment to be able to perform their mission. Otherwise, they'll be bed ridden when they get to Mars.
      2) Robots are not people. The astronauts will be travelling outside of the Earth's magnetic field for the period of a year and they will be exposed to many solar flares during that time. It is not a matter of luck. There is a 100% chance they'll be hit by high doses of solar radiation from these events. This is not a large concern within the Earth's magnetic field. However, this would be deadly to anyone travelling outside of that field and was exposed without significant radiation shielding.
      3) Micro-meteorites. Again, this demonstrates you have no clue that you know what you are talking about. The craft we have sent were robotic unpressurized vehicles designed to survive in the harsh environment of space. The problem is that we aren't talking about sending a robot. We are sending people in a pressurized capsule. People aren't designed to take hits from micro-meteorites. If a micro-meteorite goes through the capsule, it de-pressurizes. If it goes through a persons head, heart, or major artery or vein - they'll die. Get the picture? Also, you didn't understand my comment about Earth's gravity well either. The space around Earth is relatively empty of these micro-meteorites because the Earth's mass pulls them in like a huge vacuum cleaner. That is not true once you leave the Earth's gravity well.
      So honestly, where did you get your expertise and not know a damn thing about anything?

    49. Re:Prediction by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

      Wow. Ok.

      1) Astronauts that travel for a year without gravity to Mars (which has gravity) will be non-functional in a gravity environment. They will need to be exposed to a gravity environment to be able to perform their mission. Otherwise, they'll be bed ridden when they get to Mars.

      Valeri Polyakov was able to walk within a matter of hours after returning from his 437 days in space. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a single astronaut who has actually ended up "bed-ridden" after any stay in space. There's a short period of adaptation, then they're fine. Your musings on this subject might be worth listening to if humans had never gone into space. Indeed, before we actually put anyone into migrogravity for a prolonged period of time, there were perfectly valid theories that the human body would simply stop working and all astronauts in low-G would die. Then we actually started putting people into space and those theories were disproven. We have 51 years of data on humans in space to look at. So, while your theory about what would happen to Mars astronauts due to prolonged microgravity would have been something to consider decades ago, at this point in time, it is simply ignorant.

      Also, Mars has about 1/3rd the surface gravity of Earth. That's going to reduce the adaptation/recovery time for the astronauts even more.

      Now, I'm not claiming that the micro-gravity issue isn't a problem for astronauts. The long-term health effects are something to consider. The astronauts should be doped up with bone loss medication and on a strict excercise regimen for the entire trip both to ensure their health immediately after landing and also long after their mission as they age. But it's not going to magically make space travel impossible.

      2) Robots are not people. The astronauts will be travelling outside of the Earth's magnetic field for the period of a year and they will be exposed to many solar flares during that time. It is not a matter of luck. There is a 100% chance they'll be hit by high doses of solar radiation from these events. This is not a large concern within the Earth's magnetic field. However, this would be deadly to anyone travelling outside of that field and was exposed without significant radiation shielding.

      Sigh. I know that robots are not people. The point was that the robots have made the exact same trip and carry instruments for measuring radiation and therefore the expected radiation doses for such a trip are not a mystery. As it turns out, these known quantities of radiation are well within the levels human beings can survive. We've been actively working with radiation for at least 100 years and even though many stupid things have been done with it (actually, it might be because of all the stupid things that have been done) we now have a pretty good idea about the health effects of radiation.

      The protection of the Earth's magnetic field is nice. Even without it, however, astronauts inside a flying tin can with a dedicated "storm cellar" for strong solar flares are going to be just fine. Barring an extremely unlikely massive solar flare aimed precisely at them the astronauts could stay out of the storm cellar during flares and be just fine on the short term with nearly 100% certainty but with mildly increased cancer risk later in life.

      Your concerns about radiation belong with your concerns about microgravity back in an age before we'd actually sent plenty of people and machines into space to measure and experiment. Radiation is a real health concern, but even the most cautious scientists (who actually know what they're talking about) have to concede that the typical radiation levels for such a mission are extremely unlikely to be fatal during the mission itself. Your radiation panic is founded in ignorance.

      3) Micro-meteorites. Again, this demonstrates you have no clue that you know what you

    50. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      I carefully read your response and it boils down to dismissal, a lot of denial, and some delusion.
      1) Your assumptions about long term exposure to micro-gravity is mostly a denial of the problem. Not a working solution. We know that people react differently to different factors and to state that everyone, in particular the people landing on Mars, will be just fine after such a prolonged period of being in micro-gravity is simply a dismissal of the problem. If you've seen video of people that have returned from long term micro-gravity exposure experiments, you'd realize they are non-functional. They can't move. They can't stand. They need to be carried. While I'll admit, the effect may be less in a lower gravity environment like Mars, I don't believe you have any idea how long it will take for the each of crew to become functional again after such a long exposure. And it may be deadly to have the crew non-functional too in case there is an emergency.
      Also, don't forget it is a year back too. The long term effects of a 2 years of micro-gravity exposure could be deadly if the crew actually made it back to Earth alive too.
      2) You basically have conceded this point. You state the crew can go to a storm cellar. What's the difference? It will require radiation shielding. You are basically admitting that the ship will need heavy radiation shielding (which is large, bulky, and expensive to put in place).,
      3) I really don't think you know the odds of the ship getting hit over such a long time. I don't think anyone does. They may be pretty good, so the question is - how many dead astronauts are acceptable on a mission like this (provided they don't get hit with a rock bit enough to depressurize the capsule completely and kill them all)?
      ----------------
      In summary, I think any attempt to go to Mars on the cheap is a recipe in disaster. It glosses over serious problems which only means more people will die The only way to minimize losses would be as I stated - rotating sections to expose the crew to a simulated gravity, many sealed sections in case of puncture by micro-meteorites, and a heavy radiation shield. The ship would be massive, expensive to build and fuel. It could easily cost a trillion or more to build such a craft, send it to mars, and retrieve it. And even in that case, there is still a good chance a few of the crew would die. It simply is not practical in today's world or anytime our lifetimes.

    51. Re:Prediction by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I carefully read your response and it boils down to dismissal, a lot of denial, and some delusion.

      I'm not in a very good mood today, so I'm just going to blunt, rude, and not sugar-coat anything. You're an idiot. I'm not delusional. I am dismissing and denying your claims, however. I'm dismissing and denying based on solid empirical evidence, however. Unlike you, I'm also not moving my goalposts, you explicitly stated "anyone going on that death trap is going to die". You don't seem to be sticking by that statement, now you just seem to be saying that a mission to Mars might be dangerous. Well duh! Do you think it's a revelation that human spaceflight can be difficult and dangerous? We know that. The three problems you mentioned are real problems, they're just not such large threats that they guaranty death for anyone going on such a mission. Not by a long shot. Death from equipment failure is far more likely.

      1) Your assumptions about long term exposure to micro-gravity is mostly a denial of the problem. Not a working solution. We know that people react differently to different factors and to state that everyone, in particular the people landing on Mars, will be just fine after such a prolonged period of being in micro-gravity is simply a dismissal of the problem. If you've seen video of people that have returned from long term micro-gravity exposure experiments, you'd realize they are non-functional. They can't move. They can't stand. They need to be carried. While I'll admit, the effect may be less in a lower gravity environment like Mars, I don't believe you have any idea how long it will take for the each of crew to become functional again after such a long exposure. And it may be deadly to have the crew non-functional too in case there is an emergency.
      Also, don't forget it is a year back too. The long term effects of a 2 years of micro-gravity exposure could be deadly if the crew actually made it back to Earth alive too.

      My "assumptions" about long term exposure to micro-gravity are not assumptions. Forty years ago they would have been assumptions. Today they're pretty solidly proven facts. Astronauts returning after a long time (or even a short time) in microgravity do indeed have trouble standing/walking/etc. I'm not denying that. But it's only for a short period of time. None of them have ended up bed-ridden and most are walking within a few hours. After months in space the astronauts are out of practice in balance and the coordination of all their muscles required to stand and walk. Just like riding a bicycle, it all comes back quickly. The astronauts muscles are weakened, but not enough that they don't have the strength to stand. Even in the unlikely case that the astronauts can't walk for days after landing, so what? Yes, if an emergency occurs, it could be bad for them, but they're going to be in a situation where that kind of emergency will be fatal no matter what they do. If they have to lie around for a few days before getting up and walking, then so be it, that can be part of the mission. It's just not very likely.

      Astronauts travelling to Mars on the Mars Direct mission would spend about 1 year in microgravity, not two. And that 1 year combines the trip there with the return trip. The plan is for a 6 month flight to Mars, then 18 months on the surface, then 6 months back. So the astronauts arriving on Mars would have spent less time in microgravity than many other astronauts have already survived. The surface of Mars is not a microgravity environment so the 1 year they would actually spend in microgravity is still less than other astronauts have survived. Your attempt to spin it as if it would be two continuous years in microgravity is either ignorant or dishonest and possibly both. There is an open question of whether the lower gravity of Mars might also cause health problems, but it seems unlikely that it would be as severe as microgravity and might well be entirely mitigated by the simple use of arm and ankle weig

    52. Re:Prediction by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      I'll make this short. You ARE delusional. No pressurized craft can get to Mars in 6 months. We just don't have the technical know-how to build rockets that energetic (or the energy sources/fuel) to go that fast. The best case of a Hohman transer orbit is 9 months. The most likely case is 11-12 months. After that I just ignored the rest of what you had to say because it is clear you don't have any knowledge about this and live in a world of science fiction. Let me be clear, we will never successfully go to Mars in our liftetimes (the next 50 - 100 years). You may be right and some bonehead nation or corporation will try to do it and everyone will die in the attempt. That will end all attempts until we are technilogically and economically capable of such a flight and dealing with the real problems you just ignore. There isn't likely to be men on Mars in the next few centuries. But, please continue in your delusions. They have no bearing on reality.

    53. Re:Prediction by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'll try to make this short as well. Spirit was launched on the 10th of June and landed on Mars on the 4th of January. That's six months and 24 days. Opportunity was 7th of July to 25th of January, so six months and 18 days. There's nothing special about a pressurized craft that would cause it to magically take longer. It's obvious that _you_ have no knowledge about this and can't be bothered to do the most basic research. When you're declaring something to be impossible it's a good idea to at least check to see if it's been done. You remind me of sophists back in the 19th century claiming that a human travelling faster than a horse would die (body can't take the stresses, air sucked out of lungs, etc.) while ignoring the fact that, thanks to sports like skiing, humans have been surviving those kinds of speeds for millennia.

      Sadly, there's a very good chance that we won't go to Mars in our lifetimes as you say, but it's not due to technical infeasibility or microgravity/space rocks/radiation. It's due to lack of will, and the existence of wilfully ignorant naysayers like you.

  2. The Space Race by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

    Why the hell can't we progress unless there's some bogeyman to 'win' against. It seems like the same people who want to cripple funding for the sciences and technology suddenly get interested if someone else puts bigger phallic-shaped rockets into space. Oh no! The Chinese might establish a space station! Well good for them. I hope they continue doing well, as that seems to be the only thing that will drag us out from our caves.

    1. Re:The Space Race by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Because we are human beings and that is what we *do*. The desire to compete with those in the same "group" as you and win are wired into our brains, even our cousins the chimps form teams and engage in competition...though in their case eating the losers babies is always a possibility.

    2. Re:The Space Race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, there were no *free roaming* chimps in Miami, yet some face eatin' was going down there, I hear.

    3. Re:The Space Race by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Because we are human beings and that is what we *do*. The desire to compete with those in the same "group" as you and win are wired into our brains, ...

      Oh, is it? Is the FOSS movement really only motivated by "Let's compete with the closed source"?

      Maybe I'd agree with you only if you would have limited the scope to "That's how politicians are wired"... but even then I'd have some doubts.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:The Space Race by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 2

      Well even FOSS is primarily copying applications that existed firstly as proprietary ones. E.g. OpenOffice vs Microsoft Office, GIMP vs Photoshop, Scribus vs InDesign, etc... Even Gnome is ostensibly a copy of a windowed OS. Most of the first motivations of writing GCC was to provide a toolchain to replace and be better than the proprietary ones.

      Plus FOSS has always claimed to be better (ethical, practical, whatever) than closed source.

      Competetion is part of our nature, it works. It is sometimes called evolutionary pressure, survival of the fittest.

    5. Re:The Space Race by progician · · Score: 1

      Just to let you know, there's no such thing as human nature, hence competing can't be a part of our nature. On the other hand, there's an natural pressure on every living being is to become more successful in adaptation and that is at the root cause of competing in nature, including humans. But as humans, we tend to be more subtle than this. We recognize that it is not only our genetic heritage that must survive, at least not only on personal level, but our groups, our nations, and our species as such for being successful. In fact, we know already, that unlike many other living being, we can consciously prepare to expand our access to natural resources, and we could even reach the state (though it can't be permanent) where we don't need to compete over natural resources because we can get past of scarcity and keep expanding with the rate of our biological expansion.

      On this basis, we are able to cooperate, and we recognize that it is more efficient on the long run, than competing, because competing means too much destruction and too much redundancies. This forced liberal ideology of "economic competition is always good" goes against any rational sense.

    6. Re:The Space Race by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Do you even bother reading comments, or do you just respond to what you want to read so you can feel all self-righteous and indignant? Did I say that every single human being does everything in the name of competition? Didnt I specifically mention in groups and out groups(for which OSS is mostly made for the in-group, and they often times like to compete with the 'out-group', the proprietary software vendors). Monkeys also cooperate for the common good, that does not preclude them also competing and fighting as well. Next time, actually READ what someone says before responding, makes you look like less of a dumbass that way.

    7. Re:The Space Race by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      A human being may possess reason (or be of rational nature), but it doesn't mean they always act rationally. I never mentioned that competition is good, simply that it exists. In fact competition of itself doesn't guarantee any outcome, and not every natural selection necessitates the extinction of other options.

      If there is no such thing as human nature than what is this human being that you are talking about?

    8. Re:The Space Race by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Competetion is part of our nature, it works. It is sometimes called evolutionary pressure, survival of the fittest.

      You misunderstand "survival of the fittest". It means species that fit their environment survive, those that don't, die. Gazelles that run faster than lions survive, because lions are part of their environment.

      Take a herd of them. The least fit (the old, etc) will likely be eaten, because lions are part of the environment, and they don't fit the environment. The fastest gazelle will be at the front, where another pride of lions may be waiting. The gazelle with the greatest chance of surviving is the one that's closest to average, halfway between the fastest and the slowest; the one in the center of the herd. He is the one who fits his environment best.

      I'd call the "need to compete for competetion's sake" a mental illness, because I've never met someone like that who was ever happy. Humans are social creatures, and like all social animals, do best when cooperating. I mean, look at Europe after WWI or WWII. Look at the US after the Civil War.

      Cooperation is part of our nature; it works. Nobody could have made it to space by themselves, with no help from anyone. The "self-made man" is a myth.

  3. It's a space "RACE" because that's what US wants by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China had wanted to cooperate with the world in the space venture

    China had wanted to join the ISS

    The United States of America objected, and barred the Chinese from ever stepping into the ISS

    That left China with no other alternative but to construct their own space station

    In other words, the space "RACE" has become a race because that's what USA had always wanted

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  4. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought everyone wanted competition? Otherwise there'd just be a multi-national monopoly... blah blah snore...

  5. Is China even behind at all? by mpoulton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "While China is 50 years behind the U.S. government..."

    Um. No they aren't. The US government did these same things 50 years ago, but is no longer capable of easily repeating its past feats. The first US moon landing program took less than 10 years from conceptual announcement to a giant leap for mankind. How long would it take for the US to do the same thing again? I'm not confident we even could. I'm not sure we could even replicate China's docking-to-a-station performance in 10 years, now that we've abandoned all of our previously successful manned spaceflight programs.

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    1. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      We don't need to go back to the Moon. We went there, planted a flag, and left. There is no reason to go back to the Moon or to Mars. If China wants to waste a few hundred billion dollars on space, let them. That is one expensive flag planting ceremony.

    2. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      I won't be counting out the USA with such a broad brush

      Remember, when they sent out the astronauts to the moon, the computing power of the entire space module is less than a 386 chip

      Today, even a not-so-smart phone has computing power much more than the 386

      In other words, if USA wants to go to moon today, it no longer has to do it from scratch

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Is China even behind at all? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The first US moon landing program took less than 10 years from conceptual announcement to a giant leap for mankind.

      Only because work on key components had started as early as 1956, and because design and engineering on pretty much everything involved was already well underway when Kennedy made his speech. Without that running start and all that prep work, the goal of "the end of the decade" would have been unreachable. Kennedy didn't make his choice of stunts in a vacuum.
       

      How long would it take for the US to do the same thing again?

      That depends entirely on how much money the US is willing to spend.

    4. Re:Is China even behind at all? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      China is behind, I'm sure, but not by 50 years. Their achievements are maybe what the US did 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean that they are technologically that far behind.

      NASA has learnt a lot from the moon landings and the shuttle program and everything else they did, a lot of that knowledge is published and the Chinese will definitely learn as much as they can from it. They can buy rocket technology from US companies if they want, too. They will be behind, the most state-of-the-art tech NASA has will be kept as state secrets, but that doesn't make them 50 years behind, more like 10 years. And they're learning still.

      What China is mostly behind in is general organisation and management. They just don't have that kind of expertise, the experience as can be found in NASA. Again that is something they are catching up with fast, too, and the current mission is definitely a big experience, and if successful, a great success. A manual docking is really tough to achieve in space.

      The Chinese are doing with their space program the exact same as what the US was doing 50 years ago, during the moon race. They want to show their people and the world that they are a country to recon with, that they are as advanced as the other major economies. And of course for the glory of their government and the communist party - which of course was exactly what the then-US government tried to do for themselves.

    5. Re:Is China even behind at all? by frosty_tsm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I won't be counting out the USA with such a broad brush

      Remember, when they sent out the astronauts to the moon, the computing power of the entire space module is less than a 386 chip

      Today, even a not-so-smart phone has computing power much more than the 386

      In other words, if USA wants to go to moon today, it no longer has to do it from scratch

      Correct, but modern engineering is plagued by over-engineering, design by committee, and (when the government is involved) pork. For example, Congressional funding for NASA and the military specify which districts the components are made in. We also demand better safety and testing (which takes time) where sometimes the gadgets broke. Safety isn't a bad thing. But in 1969 we were willing to risk 3 men's lives with a reasonable probability they would 1) crash 2) get stranded or 3) overshoot the moon and keep going (all of which results in them dying).

      There was a time when the right mix of brains, creativity, and guts came together. Since then, we've gotten smarter but (with respect to NASA) less creative and more risk-adverse.

    6. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is every reason to go to the Moon. It's a stepping stone to everywhere. It's a giant ball of raw resources, with 1/6 the surface gravity of the Earth, and no atmosphere, and it is always sitting at more or less the same distance from us. To ignore such an enormous asset is just about the silliest thing any long-term space exploration plan could possibly do.

    7. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Quadraginta · · Score: 2

      Depends what you mean by "no longer capable." No longer capable in the sense of lacking the technical know-how? Of course not. No longer capable in the sense of not having the assembly lines actually set up this moment, not having the raw aluminum and ceramics already sitting on the loading docks, not having the techs already hired and trained in operating the special lathes and die presses? Sure.

      I don't see why this is a very interesting definition, however. If you hire a programmer and say he's "not capable" of generating a nice SQL program, you probably don't mean he isn't capable of generating one instantly, on the spot -- that it would take a few hours, say, to write it and debug it. You probably mean he lacks the know-how -- he's got to read books, do a little experimentation. So saying the US isn't "capable" of landing on the Moon, should it decide to do so, seems a peculiar if not deliberately inflammatory use of the phrase. It's a little like saying Magic Johnson can't sink a basket any more, because he is presently retired, probably a little out of shape, and let us say at the moment asleep or at Disneyland with his granddaughter. I mean, yeah, technically, right at the moment, sure, but let's be serious.

    8. Re:Is China even behind at all? by crutchy · · Score: 2

      i think the op was speaking economically, not technically

      technical obstacles are rarely difficult to overcome in a suitable work environment free of political, legal and economic obstacles.

      politics, bureacracy and corporate profiteering are nasa's biggest obstacles. the same obstacles existed 50 years ago, but now they are much more significant.

      the moon race was fuelled largely by fear of communism driven by a massive amount of propaganda. nowadays the united states is probably seen as being the boogyman that other nations fear, so its much more difficult for the us government propaganda machine to recreate the same level of fear in its own citizens required to justify multi-billion dollar political objectives like planting a flag on the moon first.

    9. Re:Is China even behind at all? by c0lo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't need to go back to the Moon. We went there, planted a flag, and left. There is no reason to go back to the Moon or to Mars. If China wants to waste a few hundred billion dollars on space, let them. That is one expensive flag planting ceremony.

      (groan) ^This coming less than 50 years after... :

      We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    10. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 0

      What resources are you talking about? There are rocks, and lots of dust and maybe some water. WoW!!! We have that here. And it only costs a couple of hundred billion to get there to get those off the Moon. Do you even have any idea what you are talking about? Despite what you think, the Moon is not made of cheese or gold.

    11. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in China. I do not have the impression that this is to glorify a bunch of leaders. At least where I am that is not the sentiment. People see it as important, because China is advancing technologically and it is a natural next step to do space exploration. Other than that, the reactions are very balanced. It is not really a matter of national pride.

      By what I know and see, the Chinese are doing it right. They don't rush anything. My guess is that China has as much experience with ballistic rockets as the US and if they wanted they could probably build a heavier launch vehicle in 5 years. Doing it right is probably the safety margin of that extra five. Don't underestimate their general organization and talent. This is a country with virtually unlimited resources of people and that helps to get things done.

    12. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      Unlmited resources to waste apparently on foolish national projects. Why don't they pour that money into cleaning up their environment? Last time I visited China, the air was polluted, the water was polluted and the whole place stank. China is really a modern cesspool of manufacturing pollution. It's really is a dirty, filthy, polluted third-world country with delusions of grandeur.

    13. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so was the US when it went through it's own industrial revolution. just because you visibly cleaned up your act first does not grant you the right to pretend it didn't happen or to boss anyone else around for going through similar motions.

    14. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they pour that money into cleaning up their environment?

      Does the clean air on the Wall Street helps you much?

    15. Re:Is China even behind at all? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 0

      Depends what you mean by "no longer capable." No longer capable in the sense of lacking the technical know-how? Of course not.

      In the 1990's, it was estimated that the US would take twice as long to get to the moon as it did the first time. Constellation was meant to have it's first (LEO-only) hardware flying by 2014. When cancelled, it was burning a couple of $billion/yr and falling one year further behind schedule every year. And the stripped down successor program, SLS, won't launch a human until after 2021 - if it stays on schedule. And will cost almost as much as the Apollo program. That's just to launch the rocket and capsule. And there's no program to build any mission hardware anyway. (Plus many space activists, and many at NASA, don't think SLS will ever fly.)

      So yes, the US currently lacks the technical know-how to create a space program capable of getting to the moon, even when the President Bush (both of them, in fact) challenged them to do so. Not just the will, or the funding, but the know-how. I believe it would take at least a decade of solid development, probably longer, just to build up a workforce with the technical skill to begin to do a lunar program. And it seems that NASA isn't currently capable of running such a skills-development program, or even recognising the need, nor would Congress fund them even if they did.

      SpaceX, otoh, seems to be copying the incremental development of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program. Other new.space players are also trying. So it's possible that US private space can develop the technical know-how, and has the will. But not US government space.

      This is not your father's space program.

      It's a little like saying Magic Johnson can't sink a basket any more,

      No. It's like saying that Magic can't compete at the national level any more. Not "doesn't want to". Not "currently isn't". Can't.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    16. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 0

      So what? The Chinese are so stupid they can't learn from anyone else so they have to repeat every other country's mistake? Have fun in that polluted hell-hole you've created for yourselves. Most civilized people know not to take a dump where they live. The Chinese decided to take a collective dump on their whole country. Maybe that is why they are going to space? Because they haven't polluted it yet and their own country is unlivable.

    17. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 0

      Despite Chinese propaganda, only speculators were hurt in the economic meltdown on Wallstreet. The real US economy wasn't affected and only people that lost jobs worked in the speculative bubble of finance and real estate. BTW - China has a real estate bubble 100x larger, with whole cities and apartment blocks built that are empty. Can't wait for that bubble to implode and see the millions of chinese out of work as a result. Maybe that will deflate their ego a little.

    18. Re:Is China even behind at all? by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      Corporate profiteering is actually helpful to the space race. If going to space is profitable, I'll bet my shirt that commercial companies will be rushing to build a space shuttle replacement without wasting taxpayer money. Oh wait, that's already happening now.

    19. Re:Is China even behind at all? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps more appropriate, his Rice U speech:

      So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.

      As soon as the US got to the moon, they rested, they waited. While space will be conquered by those who are moving forward.

      "The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space -- each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision." – XKCD

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    20. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Teun · · Score: 2
      You have a very limited view of the future.

      Because of the lower gravity the moon is a potential space port that'll make other space-based ventures much easier.
      When the raw materials to build the equipment for such ventures are also present it becomes even more interesting.

      But you have to be able to understand/appreciate humanity is not ultimately bound to earth.
      As a matter of fact, there is even debate if we (life) originates on this earth!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    21. Re:Is China even behind at all? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you stupid, or trolling.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    22. Re:Is China even behind at all? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      What else was there to do ? All you can do is walk around in a space suit, do a bit of science, and come back. The science can be done much better by unmanned rovers, and we're still doing that.

    23. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      So what? The Chinese are so stupid they can't learn from anyone else so they have to repeat every other country's mistake?

      It's not about "repeating every other country's mistake"

      It's about the very fact that there is simply _NO_ way to build up any serious industrial program without having any pollution

      And ...

      The West (including Japan) aren't helpful in that regards either

      When China was progressing ahead in the 1980's and 1990's, the West (and Japan) already had technologies that they were already using, that can produce the same amount of products while drastically cutting down on the pollution

      If the West (and Japan) offered those technology to China and China refused to accept those technologies, then you are right - China is so stupid and they can't learn

      But the truth is, during 1980's, 1990's and the early 2000's, the West (and Japan) were holding all those technologies close to their chest, and refusing to share them with China

      The fact is - In 1990's, the technology an average China factory was using, was actually at the same level as technologies that the West (and Japan) were using during the 1950's, the 1960's and the 1970's

      Average level of tech China's factories are using now is equivalent to the level of technology the West (and Japan) were using in the 1980's and early 1990's
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    24. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 2

      Go where exactly? You are clearly deluded by too much science fiction in your diet. There is nothing out there and we are so technologically backward, it will be literally centuries till we have the technology to go anywhere economically in our own solar system. After we develop economical fusion power, can feed and cloth all the people on the planet, and have a stable world political and economic system - then MAYBE that might be the time to start thinking about exploring with manned missions. Right now, we are nowhere close to any of that and it will be centuries (if we don't blow ourselves up first) till we are.

    25. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous parent replying...
      They are making efforts to clean things up. A lot of old steel smelters have been closed. The central government is pushing for cleaner production and respect for the environment. It has been hard to align all the local governments to actually monitor.

      But you are right. China is dirty, filthy, polluted and some people (mostly Shanghai) do have delusions of grandeur. Where I am Sichuan province, people are a bit more mellow. It's not exactly cleaner though:).

      In all honesty, 40 years ago, the US was a cesspool of pollution. It's not because you don't notice it any more, that the pollution is no longer there.
      By my standards, the US is also a third world country... Depends on what you are used to...
      And now mod me down all of you:).

    26. Re:Is China even behind at all? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      What else was there to do ? All you can do is walk around in a space suit, do a bit of science, and come back. The science can be done much better by unmanned rovers, and we're still doing that.

      That's economically sensible, indeed.

      I bet the Chinese will discover what else is there to do before the US.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    27. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all Chinese people have big ego's. I actually live in China and have met horrible people and very nice people.
      Same can be said about Americans. Hope you all continue to go bust and have your fat carcasses sink to the bottom.
      Now, that did make me feel better. (only replying to this ignorant prick. For the rest of you normal Americans, I wish you nothing but good. Even if you are a bit on the heavy side...)

    28. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      This is completely inaccurate. The problem with your supposed analysis is that China it is literally sitting on trillions of dollar of foreign capital reserves and they can easily buy the manufactured products and servies necessary to clean up and modernize their plants and infrastructure from the West. The fact is, the US and other western countries (including Japan) would be eager for the business. The real reason China doesn't do this is because they want to build it themselves (or bring in partners and steal the technology that way). All Japanese companies and many successful western companies realize this is a recipe for disaster and that is why China doesn't have the needed infrastructure. No company is going to partner with a Chinese firm nowdays that understands what China is doing and has a technological advantage. It is better not to do business with China at all then lose their technology to China.

    29. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Teun · · Score: 1
      It's proven we can go to the moon, it's a relatively minor step to upgrade the existing and proven technology for robot travel to Mars to enable human travel.
      Why would you stop there?

      The problems here on earth like feeding large parts of the population are political, not technical and that's a big difference...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    30. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      Yes, it costs hundreds of billions of dollars to go to the Moon. Great. The US doesn't have hundreds of billions of dollars to waste on a pile of rocks in space. Don't be completely ridiculous.

    31. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 0

      Ah, so this is all a supposedly educated Chinese can muster? No counter argument. No reponse. No denials. The only thing you can do is call me names? I guess everything I said China is true, in particular, what I said about the Chinese people. And I'll add that they are extremely dimwitted too.

    32. Re:Is China even behind at all? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      In what way is the upgrade from robot travel to Mars to human travel relatively minor ? There's only existing and proven technology for relatively light weight landers with a mass of a few hundred kilograms. The latest Mars Science Lab is a bit heavier at 900 kilograms, but still needs to be proven. There's no technology for anything close to the mass of a human lander.

    33. Re:Is China even behind at all? by meilaok · · Score: 2

      We chinese have many problems but we also have many achievements.Every country has its two sides of a coin.

    34. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      This is completely inaccurate.

      [citation needed]

      FYI, I have businesses in China, and I have them since the 1980's

      I am not a Chinese, I am a foreigner, when I am in China

      Even though my company, legally speaking, is an American company - I was (and still am) not permitted to use certain technology inside China, because of the official, - and often unwritten - embargo

      There were technologies that my company has legally purchased, and were being used, in other factories in places like Indonesia or Thailand, but we can't use the same technology in our factories inside China

      Some of those technologies are much more ecologically friendly and produce much less waste

      It's okay to scold China when they fucked up because of their own fault

      But it's patently unfair when it's the West (and Japan) chose not to cooperate with China

      When the old technologies China is using bellowing out tons and tons of toxic waste - whose fault is that?
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    35. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 2

      Again, if China would change its policies and let foreign companies operate freely in China, there wouldn't be the need for these restrictions (imposed by the companies themselves). The restrictions mostly have to do with China since your company undoubtedly has a Chinese partner and there is a concern they will simply take the technology (a very legitimate concern). Obviously since your company operates outside of the US and you can easily get the technology in other countries this is the case. It is disingenous to blame the US (or any other country) when this is the real reason that companies are doing this. My own company has a sales office in China and I regularly go there, but no one in our company would ever consider opening plants or facilities in China because of their partnership requirement. It is simply a license to steal technology and in today's world, that is a sure way to end up out of business in a few years.

    36. Re:Is China even behind at all? by jandersen · · Score: 5, Funny

      There was a time when the right mix of brains, creativity, and guts came together

      There still is - it's called haggis.

    37. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Again, if China would change its policies and let foreign companies operate freely in China, there wouldn't be the need for these restrictions

      Again, [citation needed]

      And those protest by "American Chamber of Commerce" not included, because of their own self-serving whinings

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    38. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Ever seen Los Angeles?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    39. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      And why can't I cite the American Chamber of Commerce exactly? You obviously are aware of what they have to say about this matter, so it is completely biased of you to disregard an organization actually dedicated to promoting American business don't you think? Certainly it is disingenous to demand a citation and then state known citations that strongly disagree with your position as being off limits.

    40. Re:Is China even behind at all? by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      Just a FYI. Los Angeles isn't a country. China is.

    41. Re:Is China even behind at all? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure but I think they were referring to the upgrade post-moonbase.

      The simple fact is that the journey now is ~6 months minimum, but if you can stage the launch from the moon where you start off with 1/6 gravity you can get there a hell of a lot faster.

      Yeah there are still issues regarding radiation and such, but when you're now talking about a few weeks instead of months the issues are far easier to deal with.

      Even assuming that target velocity only scales linearly with gravity, you're looking at instantly cutting a 6 month trip to 1 month. The truth is though that it's closer to an exponential increase since you can carry the same amount of energy but only use 1/6th or less getting out of the gravity well, and then "nearly 100%" of your energy expended is converted directly into speed.

      So assuming that the GP was talking about a minor jump after a moon base is established, they're right. Taking away most of the gravity allows you to make much quicker journeys, that alone brings Mars missions about a bajillion steps closer to immediate reality.

    42. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We waste it on war now, why not waste it to inspire man to higher goals?

    43. Re:Is China even behind at all? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      I think that after you add the cost for a moon base, it will be cheaper and quicker to launch from Earth instead.

    44. Re:Is China even behind at all? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      Why not spend it on useful projects here on Earth, like a working fusion plant, where we can also inspire man to higher goals ?

    45. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Danathar · · Score: 1

      The moon would make a nice stable platform for launching nukes toward earth. Sure, we would have some time once they launched but that's small comfort.

      Those who have the high ground in warfare win. The Moon is the ultimate high ground in that regard when it comes to space based attacks.

    46. Re:Is China even behind at all? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Cheaper on the whole perhaps, but definitely not easier... doing a manned mars mission from Earth is insanely complicated. By comparison doing it from the moon is like walking down to the corner store in a metropolis.

    47. Re:Is China even behind at all? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      You must be joking. In what sense is building a Moon base not insanely complicated ? If you go straight to Mars, you don't need to build the Moon base.

      And your calculations about the gravity well make no sense. You should compare delta-v for Moon->Mars and Earth->Mars and then apply the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, to find out how much fuel you'd need.

    48. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      There is no reason to go back to the Moon or to Mars.

      We will do it for the lulz.

    49. Re:Is China even behind at all? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we could even replicate China's docking-to-a-station performance in 10 years, now that we've abandoned all of our previously successful manned spaceflight programs.

      Hmm, didn't SpaceX just do that last month?

      Unmanned, admittedly, but the Dragon is basically designed to be manned, it just hasn't been approved for such use by NASA.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    50. Re:Is China even behind at all? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The simple fact is that the journey now is ~6 months minimum, but if you can stage the launch from the moon where you start off with 1/6 gravity you can get there a hell of a lot faster.

      Not necessarily. It's certainly possible that you can do it that way, but the main advantage you get from a moon launch is that you can do a gravity slingshot around Earth.

      Plus, there's the whole "we don't have to lift most of the mass of the spacecraft into LEO" thing - if you're using H2/O2 rockets, 80%+ of the mass (the O2 part) can be manufactured on Luna, obviating the need for launching from Earth....

      Yeah there are still issues regarding radiation and such, but when you're now talking about a few weeks instead of months the issues are far easier to deal with.

      Even assuming that target velocity only scales linearly with gravity, you're looking at instantly cutting a 6 month trip to 1 month. The truth is though that it's closer to an exponential increase since you can carry the same amount of energy but only use 1/6th or less getting out of the gravity well, and then "nearly 100%" of your energy expended is converted directly into speed.

      Umm, no.

      deltaV scales as the natural logarithm of the mass ratio of the spacecraft, mass ratio being defined as the ratio of the takeoff mass to the mass after you've burned the fuel.

      Which means, among other things, that it doesn't even scale linearly.

      Much less linearly with surface G, which is largely irrelevant - last I checked the numbers, you basically wasted about 1.5 km/s of deltaV getting into LEO. Of the 9+ km/s deltaV required for same.

      So assuming that the GP was talking about a minor jump after a moon base is established, they're right. Taking away most of the gravity allows you to make much quicker journeys, that alone brings Mars missions about a bajillion steps closer to immediate reality.

      No, it doesn't do that. What it mostly makes for is much cheaper flights to Mars. Which is also a good thing.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    51. Re:Is China even behind at all? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      You should take at least high school physics before commenting on such things...

    52. Re:Is China even behind at all? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      well let's see:

      ln(mi/mf) is the same for both rockets, which leaves us with pure multiplication.

      Of course that's not counting that you don't have to fly through an atmosphere, or that because your fuel/lift ratio is so much higher and gravity much lower you can carry many times the amount of fuel in the first place, or any number of other reasons the moon makes a great launch pad.

      You're in over your head.

    53. Re:Is China even behind at all? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You should take at least high school physics before commenting on such things...

      Obviously, that physics degree didn't amount to much...

      So, describe my mistakes. In reasonable detail.

      Or would you prefer that I put the numbers out?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    54. Re:Is China even behind at all? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Glancing at the rest of your discussion, it seems to me that you are arguing really, not that there's no point to going to the Moon (or elsewhere), but that what you can do there wouldn't be worth the price of admission. If it costs a trillion dollars to tool around on Mars, then it's not really worth getting there.

      If getting to Mars were as complicated as going to the local store, then you'd have been there already. You'd have found something to do, even if it were just to snap a couple of pictures or visit a friend.

      I think a fundamental difference between most people who think we'll eventually go to such places and those who don't is the assumption that transportation costs and the effort required to live on Mars will go down immensely. It's worth noting that there is considerable precedent on Earth for both cheaper transportation and people living easier in harsh climates. Obviously, the difficulty starts much higher for anything having to do with the Moon or Mars, but there's no reason to assume that it will always be too costly and difficult to think about.

      At some point, as transportation costs and living costs go down, it makes more sense to go some place directly than to send a proxy. You don't stay in bed and send an unmanned rover to pick up your groceries or vacation for you. Well, maybe you do, but most people don't.

    55. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have too much crumbling infrastructure and debt to to things just for the challenge at this point. The challenge is now getting the country back in shape.

    56. Re:Is China even behind at all? by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you're making hundreds of trips to Mars, it may be cheaper to build a base on the Moon.

      I question that we'll be making hundreds of trips to Mars. If humans ever make it to Mars, it will be a flag planting publicity stunt. There's just not much appeal to a cold and empty desert.

    57. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the technology is better, the know how has largely died off.

    58. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget 4) fire on launch pad w/ locked doors.

    59. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>As soon as the US got to the moon, they rested, they waited

      I object. We have multiple probes sent to every major body in the solar system and some of the minor bodies and even comets. We have multiple robots operating on the surface of Mars, had a probe dropped onto Titan, high res full-globe imagery of the Moon and Mars. If you mean manned space flight, then yeah, we 'rested and waited'...while the robots do the necessary first-tasks.

      When we're really ready for manned stuff to the moon and mars, we'll have the maps and information we need on-hand. The moon landing was very lucky and could just as easily have failed. Screw up a moon base or manned mars mission and we may be done. We're just doing our homework first.

    60. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will be changing soon the textbooks:

      Yuè (Moon)
      Capital City: New Beijing

    61. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      As soon as the US got to the moon, they rested, they waited. While space will be conquered by those who are moving forward.

      You call what we're doing today resting? Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, Spirit, Opportunity, and soon Curiosity. Yeah, we're totally waiting, completely stopped all space exploration after reaching the moon. /sarcasm

      Let me draw a tech analogy. When I was in my 20s, flush with cash from a new job, I wanted a new gaming computer. I didn't want a regular computer like my parents would use, I wanted a badass gaming computer which would blow all others away. I looked at everything which was available and put together a list of parts I wanted. Top of the line CPU, SCSI drives instead of RLL or ESDI, this new thing called SDRAM which was a few % faster than regular RAM, etc. The guy at the shop where I ordered the parts looked at the list, gave a whistle, and said "Damn this is going to be a nice system." And it was. It set me back $3800, but it totally beat everything my friends were using to game on.

      For 6 months. In 6 months, technology had progressed to where it was no longer top of the line. In 12 months, the average computer you could buy for $1500 could beat it. In 18 months luddites like my parents could buy a faster system for $1000 at Best Buy. And in 24 months a $750 discount system would blow my computer away. I learned a very expensive lesson about living on the bleeding edge.

      Getting to the moon in the 1960s was all about living on the bleeding edge. We paid a crapload of money to beat the Soviets to the moon. It was an interesting high water mark, especially for the time, but not a very productive one. You don't like manned space exploration being deprecated so you deliberately pick definitions which show us slacking ("number of people who have walked on another world"). You completely ignore the other things we're doing in space.

      I remember as a kid looking at blurry photos of Jupiter and Saturn shot from the Palomar telescope (at the time the largest telescope in the world). You could make out the bands, some structure in the clouds, and a few gaps in the rings. That was it. Better than what you could see through a backyard telescope, but not by much. The first photos from Pioneer and Voyager were mind-blowing. Like the focus knob on a badly adjusted slide projector had been turned and suddenly everything was clear. Each successive mission answered long-standing questions, and some we hadn't even asked. Why was Iapetus sometimes black, sometimes white? What exactly were the rings of Saturn? Did Titan really have an atmosphere? There are volcanoes on Io!?! Then Hubble was launched and everything in the night sky was new again. And just when I didn't think it could get any better, we had rovers on Mars taking microscopic photos of rock samples, a lander taking photos from the ground on Titan, and multiple spacecraft visiting comets and asteroids with one even managing to land. In a few years we're even going to get data from a probe visiting Pluto. The furthest planet which was barely more than a dot in even the largest telescopes when I was a kid.

      The last 3 decades of space science and exploration have been the most productive, most exciting in the few thousand years of civilization. I count myself very fortunate to have lived through them. But because we're not on the bleeding edge anymore, spending nearly 1% of GDP on sending a test pilot to plant a flag on the moon, you claim we're resting, waiting, not moving forward. Well, there's no pleasing some people I guess.

    62. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      OK. We're just going to have to disagree on that. All that you say about Constellation is true, but I haven't heard anybody who knows something about the aerospace business claim this is the result of void in technical know-how. Everybody says it's a management failure, or insane project goals from Congress, or both. Which has absolutely nothing to do with technical skill.

      Going back to my Magic Johnson analogy -- it would be as if Johnson was asked to sink baskets, but then the baskets were randomly moved to differet locations, the ball was deflated at random intervals, the lights were suddenly turned out in the arena, or his manager told him the wrong time to show up to play. No surprise that under those conditions he finds it hard to hit the basket.

      And if you think the issue is genuinely technical know-how -- then why is it SpaceX is achieving things faster than Constellation, and for amazing less money? Are they importing technicians from China? I think not. They're working with the exact same technical base (people and industries) as NASA. They're just managing it far better, and have a perfectly clear and logically consistent blueprint from the top. NASA doesn't. And, IMHO, that's all there is to it.

    63. Re:Is China even behind at all? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      No, the moon is not made of cheese, it's made primarily of Oxygen (40%), Silicon (20%), Iron (12%), Calcium (8.5%), Aluminum (7.3%), Magnesium (4.8%), Titanium (4.5%), Sodium (0.33%), Chromium (0.2%), Manganese (0.16%), and Potassium (0.11%), among other things. And since it has such a shallow gravity well (with a reasonably efficient rocket you only need about 25% of payload mass in fuel to reach orbit) it's not hard to build a business case for delivering these goods to customers in orbit. One could argue that it's less "speculative" than the Planetary Resources venture that was launched last month by James Cameron et.al..

      You may argue that this "on-orbit" market is not ready for prime time yet, and I would agree with you. But that's no reason to sit back and wait. If you have a "vision" in mind that you want to follow (like Elon Musk) and you happen to have oodles of money to play with, then you can be the one to enable that market.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    64. Re:Is China even behind at all? by jschottm · · Score: 1

      High ground has little meaning in the world of ICBMs. It's all about (theoretically) firing them fast enough to kill your enemy before they can counterstrike.

      The moon is an average of 380,000 km from the earth. The LGM-30 has a maximum speed (which it only reaches at the terminal phase of flight) of 24,100 km/h. Even if we theorize that without having to break gravity that the missile is 5 times as fast (pulling that number out of the air based on the fact that escape velocity from the moon is roughly 1/5 of earth), you're still looking at over 3 hours to get close to the earth.

      The LGM-30, on the other hand, starts deploying the payload towards the target about five minutes after launch.

      If there _had_ to be nuclear war, the powers that be would be *delighted* to get a three hour headstart for the bunkers (and time to properly target incoming missiles with defensive measures).

      Lunar missiles would also be subject to ridiculously high maintenance costs, damage from the hazards of space, and would either have to have human operators living there (again, incredibly expensive) or you'd have to trust remote control of launches.

    65. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be great for an independent moon colony that is not associated with a country on Earth. It may be hard to nuke the moon, but it's really easy to nuke anywhere on this globe.

    66. Re:Is China even behind at all? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      "And if you think the issue is genuinely technical know-how -- then why is it SpaceX is achieving things faster than Constellation, and for amazing less money?"

      They hired smart people, they gave those people a series of smaller incremental projects to work on, building up their experience and know-how, culminating in Falcon 1. And they are now scaling up to more ambitious projects, building on their experience. And while they are bringing in more people, those will learn at the feet of the old-hands while developing actual new hardware, not merely operating existing systems.

      Does that remind you of anything? The Government programs in the '50s and '60s, right? Captured V2's to ICBMs to Redstones to Mercury to Gemini to Apollo. Incremental development, building up the necessary understanding and experience. Learning their trade, developing their know-how. Pointedly not how the shuttles were developed, nor anything since.

      A giant space-plane, 100 tons, reusable, side-mounted. It was like nothing they'd ever done. Clearly not a mere step up from Saturn/Apollo hardware, nor from the X-plane programs. Instead of learning how to build and operate reusable space-planes as they'd learned how to build expendable rockets - starting small and building up - they jumped right into the final full-sized version. And they did it! It was rubbish, horrible design, but they actually did it. Which gives you an idea of how powerful, how generalised the know-how of those Apollo guys was. But those guys retired, the know-how was lost.

      So NASA operated the shuttles for 30 years. Not "continued to develop", operated. Eventually there was no one who had worked on developing shuttle technology. None of them had the technical know-how beyond that required to operate the shuttle in its existing configuration. Just a decade later, NASA tried to build a smaller space-plane, to be launched on EELV, called HL-20. Even though it was based on the unmanned Soviet BOR-4, and even though NASA had already built a space-plane that was ten times larger, they couldn't do it. Think about that. This is not to say they were dumb, or unmotivated, or any other knee-jerk perception of insult, it's just about experience. They knew how to operate the shuttles, in that single configuration, but they no longer knew how to design or build shuttle-type vehicles in general, nor any other manned launcher.

      Then take Ares I. A small man-rated launcher, plus a capsule. Basically, Gemini, but using flight-proven hardware. It's the sort of thing that every freshman batch of engineers at NASA should be doing in their first year as an orientation exercise. But the agency couldn't do it, even when it was the principle HSF program for the entire agency, even though they knew the shuttle was cancelled.

      Yes, it's a management issue. Management at NASA makes the same assumptions that you, and Congress, and everyone else makes, that because NASA once-upon-a-time built the Saturn V, then they must somehow still know how to do that. That because NASA built the shuttle, they know how to recycle shuttle components into a new generation of heavy-lift launchers. You hear paid-for Congressmen going on about "Preserving the existing experience of the shuttle workforce". But experience can't be "preserved", it is used and developed and renewed, or it dies. At NASA, it has died, decades ago.

      What really scares me, though, more than the dumb corrupt Congressmen trying to kill NASA's only chance at changing the system (commercial crew), more than the money being wasted on SLS, is that this pattern of failure is infesting the unmanned space-flight development. The unmanned programs did have some level of incremental development. But now they are following the pattern of HSF. Neither MSL, and particularly JWST, are incremental developments of their predecessors (MER/HST). Which means that when NASA gets handed two perfectly good Hubble-class telescopes, they don't know how to cheaply develop them. They are scared to start, because they

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    67. Re:Is China even behind at all? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      commerical companies have been rushing to build a space shuttle replacement for years. spacex is doing nothing new. they ALL waste taxpayer money; spacex may be privately funded to some extent, but the majority of funding comes from government grants and contracts.

      space is profitable, but a space shuttle replacement is not and will never be, because the original space shuttle wasn't profitable.

      space companies are profitable because their business model is based on wasting tax payer money. sure they build the odd spacecraft and make a few public announcements about what they plan to do, but companies have been doing what spacex is doing for years.

      two of the best examples are boeing and lockheed martin

      i'm not saying it won't ever happen, but spacex is just a precursor to the next tax-wasting commercial space venture, each one contributing a small amount to the overall picture.

      eventually someday, when the global political and economic conditions are right, and critical mass is achieved to the point when wall street investors are convinced that the risk is low enough, perhaps a company will be lucky enough to stand on the shoulders of giants and make a buck from space on their own without wasting taxpayer money, but i actually don't think that lucky venture will be a profiteering corporation, but will be a multinational non-profit organisation that doesn't require wall street investors at all but leverages mass marketing and consumer sentiment in a way that corporations could only dream of.

    68. Re:Is China even behind at all? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Not nukes, kinetic weapons. Multi-ton spears of lunar iron, accelerated by a lunar rail gun to hundreds of km/s. Armour-piercing bullets to a nuke's sledgehammer.

      Then campaign to globally ban nukes, voluntarily surrendering your own to embarrass the others.

      But that rail-gun on the moon? Oh no, that's not a weapon, that's just to launch low-cost material into orbit for next generation space programs. (Which it is.) We're happy to sell you lunar materials, fuel, etc, to your own space-program.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    69. Re:Is China even behind at all? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      the powers that be would be *delighted* to get a three hour headstart

      How detectable would a launch from the moon be? I assume the individual warheads would be covered in stealthy-tech. At most, you would see a launch flare (maybe). And you could time it so that it replaces a scheduled crew-return launch.

      However, from what I understand from the US military planners looking at the idea in the '50s and '60s, the idea of a missile base on the moon was never about first-strike, it was about guaranteeing second-strike. "If you hit us, it doesn't matter how effectively you destroy our country, you will also die. You cannot win, therefore don't attack." Instead they went with the three prong model, ICBMs, subs and bombers, any one capable of killing the enemy even if the other two (and the C&C structure) are destroyed.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    70. Re:Is China even behind at all? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      We chinese have many problems but we also have many achievements.Every country has its two sides of a coin.

      True, but also don't forget: keeping one's eyes only on achievements and forgetting one's problems is one sure way to get busted (see the current US situation. Works the same for individuals).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    71. Re:Is China even behind at all? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I question that we'll be making hundreds of trips to Mars.

      Why? We make hundreds of trips to Mount Everest and there's not that much appeal to a cold and empty mountain right?

    72. Re:Is China even behind at all? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Mercury capsules massed just a little bit more than the Mars science lab. There seems to be no good reason you couldn't land supplies, habitat, etc. in separate loads and even completely separate missions then land the astronauts packed in a sardine can roughly the size of the Mars Science Lab.

    73. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Very easy - those belly-aching "American Chamber of Commerce" are there to provoke tensions

      The practice of "restriction of commerce" isn't a one-way street

      There are tons and tons of restrictions we've placed on Chinese companies in the West - and I can't help but wonder why there isn't any belly-aching on the part of the "American Chamber of Commerce" regarding this matter?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    74. Re:Is China even behind at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you, sir, win the internet

  6. An echo in an echo chamber is still an echo by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a renewed debate has arisen over the implications of Chinese space feats

    Well, no. Not really. A couple of pundits and usual suspects lobbing blog entries back and forth at each other, and an article from a third string news service (Yahoo!) does not a renewed debate make... Most because the pundits and usual suspects have never shut up in the first place. If they weren't "debating" China, they'd be "debating" commercial space, or Mars missions, or something else they have no power to influence.
     
    It's a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing.
     

    In reality, the implications of China's move could be a much cooler third option: a new space race between the Chinese government and U.S. startups.

    If it's anything like the last space race (a bunch of sterile stunts), I can't see why anyone with any sense would think it was cool. Not that China has shown any interest in such a race, or in any other manner of giving wood to the space fanboy crowd.

  7. SpaceXXX by Nipun · · Score: 0

    China sends its first female astronaut to space. Now they wont hire people from mainland china for future missions. Before SpaceX reads this, they might also make a human chain from beijing to the moon.

  8. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by c0lo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The United States of America objected, and barred the Chinese from ever stepping into the ISS

    I was about to put a "[citation needed]".
    Then, changed my mind and went after the info myself (is posting it "karma whoring"?)

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  9. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The US had plenty of good reasons for barring China from the ISS, the most conspicuous of these being that China would likely not contribute much, if anything, to the program and would end up trying to steal as much technology as they could for their own benefit.

  10. Re:Do you mind ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, real issues... Will China ever create a television show as good as "Star Trek: The Next Generation"?

    Because, if not, nobody will care about their manned space program.

  11. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by petsounds · · Score: 1

    I think that's what most of us wanted, considering China is a communist country who is rapidly increasing the size and technical capacity of their military. And of course the nuclear warheads they have. Why would we want to give them cutting-edge missile technology?

  12. Re:Do you mind ? by spokenoise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do mind. I seriously think China will get up there and stay before the US unless the US pimp it up as a face saver. China will do it for a tiny proportion of the budget with less fanfare and make it work. Eventually. 'To infinity and beyond'

  13. Safety by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2
    I think the real difference is nothing to do with computer power; after all the Russian space program used drum timers (rad hard and easy to test). The difference is that, to Western countries at least, immediately after a war, casualties in non-military exploits are more acceptable. As time goes on and the threat of war recedes, they are less so. The Moon landings were possible for the US because it was still involved in Vietnam and still perceived the Soviet Union as a credible threat; the risk to the lives of a few astronauts was nothing compared to the 70 000 US dead in Vietnam.

    In 2012, the perceived risk to a relatively few individuals dominates. The Shuttle disasters were nothing compared to the number of people killed on the roads, but were high profile. The result is that any manned expeditions have a huge safety overhead not present in the past, making them more expensive and harder to carry out. The Chinese government won't care. Their internal propaganda still has lots of stories of heroic cadres killed spreading Communism, and the like. A few dozen deaths getting to the Moon will not matter compared to the national prestige.

    Incidentally I think we are right. Prestige is not worth killing people for. The Mars rovers and the probes sent to outer planets are in reality a far greater achievement than putting people on the Moon, and there is a point to them; for instance, we are now aware of the dangers of asteroid/cometary collisions and are starting to think seriously about averting them, and the ability to study weather and geology on other planets has huge implications for climate modeling. It may not be practical to get the human race off this rock (I happen to think the economics are completely against it), but what we are learning about the rest of the Solar System could have a huge impact on how long we are able to keep inhabiting it.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Safety by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      As time goes on and the threat of war recedes, they are less so.

      You do realise you're at war now? And have been continuously at war for over a decade.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:Safety by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      As soon as terrorists announce their plans to hijack the moon, America will return.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  14. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    What gets me is, the article claims the Chinese are going to build a 'big space station'. Actually, the current plans are to have a 60 ton station in orbit by 2020. The ISS, on the other tentacle, weighs approximately 450 tons.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  15. Number of years don't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is a dumb statement that china is supposedly 50 years behind with respect to the US. It is an irrelevant statement. Much more important is the fact that China's development is rising rapidly while the development of the US is in decline.

    1. Re:Number of years don't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...while the development of the US is in decline.

      ...it seems there's a limited stock of stupid people to fool out of their money in this world.

    2. Re:Number of years don't matter by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It is a dumb statement that china is supposedly 50 years behind with respect to the US.

      Let's see, they're doing in 2012 what we did in 1966. Not quite 50 years, so perhaps we should be saying they're 45 years behind us.

      It is an irrelevant statement.

      I agree here.

      Much more important is the fact that China's development is rising rapidly while the development of the US is in decline.

      If you're talking about space, then I disagree here. China's development in manned spaceflight is proceeding at a glacial pace. In nine years they've managed four manned flights, with a total of seven different astronauts (one of them went up twice).

      US spaceflight, on the other hand, is on the decline (if you're talking about the US government), but seems to be on the rise if you're talking private spaceflight.

      I'm looking forward to watching a Dragon deliver seven men to orbit. Which I expect to see within five years.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  16. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by GNious · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the average Chinese person is smaller than the average American person, it could be argued that the average Taikonaut is smaller than the average Astronaut - so while the station may be physically smaller, it will appear bigger!

    uhm, or not...

  17. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That left China with no other alternative but to construct their own space station

    With blackjack. And hookers.

  18. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    What gets me is, the article claims the Chinese are going to build a 'big space station'. Actually, the current plans are to have a 60 ton station in orbit by 2020. The ISS, on the other tentacle, weighs approximately 450 tons.

    Consider the tone of TFA, and then consider the real aim of TFA, and you can understand all the necessary exaggerations

    I won't be surprised if those behind TFA has something to do with the defence industrial complex - after all, it's the defence industrial complex stands to gain the most if the people scared enough to demand their congress representative to "revive our space program before the Chinese overtakes us"
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  19. China wants to pass the US by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    Simple: Being the world's top economic (and possibly military) power includes being the top dog in space.

  20. Re:Do you mind ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    I do not think the Chinese wants to stay up there for long if the ROI doesn't materialize

    The Chinese are pragmatic people

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  21. Not so behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpaceX have the Dragon capsule. Big elbow have the inflatable Genesis modules based on the NASA Transhab design. Declare the Drgon as man-rated, dock the two (or rather, dock with the BA 300, the Genesis do not have the correct airlocks), and private companies are on a level with China and at a significantly lower cost

  22. Re:renewed space race (1950 america) by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

    I do not understand why parent is modded to -1 (Flamebait)

    It does cost BILLIONS to send human beings to space and keep them alive up there

    While I do not agree with stop funding NASA, I do agree that NASA has to re-organize its priorities and stop wasting tax-payers' money on un-necessary mission

    Especially during times where many tax-payers are feeling the impact of the economic crisis

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  23. The Chinese like pyramids, too. by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Your first point is well put.

    I think you're wrong about the second, however. The Chinese appear to have the same general interest in space stunts that the Soviets did: to convince their own population that progress is amazing, that the future is Chinese, and that all those peculiar rumors about brutality and privation in the countryside, or crashing real estate prices on the coast, or high-speed rail roadbeds cracking because of shoddy and corrupt construction, or the wild male/female imbalance in 20-year-olds are just...the mutterings of wreckers, evil propaganda from jealous foreign devils, et cetera.

    I would like to say the retreat of the United States in the 1970s from building Pyramids -- big showy Ozymandias looky look projects -- was a sign of social health, and perhaps it was. It may have been that Nixon and Reagan (ignoring the brief and futile interludes of Ford and Carter) rationally turned away from gargantua, and thereby turned loose American ingenuity, technological talent and tech-oriented capital to give us the computing revolution of the 80s and 90s. If I had to choose, I would take the Internet, Unix, and GPS-enabled smartphones over a base on the Moon supplied, at enormous cost, by an aging fleet of Saturn Vs. And it is possible that we did have to choose -- that there was only so much technological talent and capital available in 1976, and if it went into a robust rockets to the Moon program it would not have been available elsewhere.

    1. Re:The Chinese like pyramids, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese are fascinated by Eiffel towers for some strange reason. These metal structures are on a lot of tall buildings as gigantic lightening rods. I even spotted one on their rocket launch tower.

    2. Re:The Chinese like pyramids, too. by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      The Chinese appear to have the same general interest in space stunts that the Soviets did: to convince their own population that progress is amazing

      [citation needed]

      It's much more likely that your imagination had run wild

      In China, there were no "China is great because we go to the space" slogans blaring across TV screens, nor anything like that

      The average Chinese look at the space program thing as a natural progression - for them, it could be the Taiwanese or the Hongkongnese who done it, they don't really care, as long as _someone_ from East Asia is doing it
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:The Chinese like pyramids, too. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong about the second, however. The Chinese appear to have the same general interest in space stunts that the Soviets did: to convince their own population that progress is amazing, that the future is Chinese, and that all those peculiar rumors about brutality and privation in the countryside, or crashing real estate prices on the coast, or high-speed rail roadbeds cracking because of shoddy and corrupt construction, or the wild male/female imbalance in 20-year-olds are just...the mutterings of wreckers, evil propaganda from jealous foreign devils, et cetera.

      Actually, you and I are in 111% percent agreement on that. Their program exists to a) provide propaganda and proof to the world that they're a Real Nation, and b) provide propaganda and proof to their citizens that they're a Real Nation. And the thing is, they can do that with a program pretty much like the one they have... they don't need to be in a sterile 'race' because (unlike the situation in the 1960's) there's nobody to race. (Much to the dismay of space fanboys and xenophobic alarmists.)
       

      And it is possible that we did have to choose -- that there was only so much technological talent and capital available in 1976, and if it went into a robust rockets to the Moon program it would not have been available elsewhere.

      Yes, there was only so much talent available - and it was busy doing both. It's not a zero sum game because of the sheer size of the pool. Or, as a friend of mine used to put it, "it's humbling to realize that both the Manhattan and Apollo Project's were run on scraps [compared to the size of the economy at the time]".

    4. Re:The Chinese like pyramids, too. by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      You know, at least I only claimed to deduce the goals of the Chinese government, based on the preferences revealed by their actual policy choices over the past 20 years. I'm impressed that by contrast you claim to have direct insight into what the average Chinese individual thinks. (And in that context your request for a citation for my observation is hilariously ironic.)

      Don't you find reading the minds of 1 billion people distracting? How do you sort out their feelings about their space program from whether they have to take a dump at the moment? Inquiring minds want to know.

    5. Re:The Chinese like pyramids, too. by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      I don't really agree with your last point, and that's because I lived through that era. When I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, it seems every smart kid wanted to grow up to be a scientist-astronaut or design nuclear-powered starships. There was a huge push in the schools, from elementary on up, on physics and math, with a direct eye on the "Space Age" careers of tomorrow. Maybe you will have a job on Mars....better learn calculus and quantum mechanics! Nobody every said anything about learning PL/I or how to grow bacteria in a petri dish. Take a look at your iconic geek TV shows and movies from the period. What kind of job does the generic yellowshirt on Star Trek do? Something to do with physics, you can be sure. Did you ever see a programmer or biologist glamourized in 1960s or 1970s TV or movies?

      These things matter. They influence the career choices young people make, and where capital flows, and we most definitely do have a finite supply of both brilliant young people and capital.

    6. Re:The Chinese like pyramids, too. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I don't really agree with your last point, and that's because I lived through that era.

      And what makes you think I didn't?
       
      Not that your anecdotes refute my point anyhow. You're mistaking your worms eye view for the big picture. Just because programmers or biologists weren't being glamorized doesn't mean that the work wasn't being done. (Not that aerospace engineers are interchangeable with either...) Just because a vanishly small number of movies and TV programs (out of the total) of the period are SF, doesn't mean that society as a whole was focused on SPACE, SPACE, SPACE to the exclusion of all else. Etc... etc...

  24. Re:Mind cut out all the racist garbage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoosh

  25. Motivation is a funny thing by englishstudent · · Score: 0

    I'd rather an emotion other than fear drove us to space, but if that's what it takes then that is what it takes.

    --
    We'll never make it.......oh! we made it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWf3iJjqYCM&list=FL7kKrE4eTs17mQl7eyvJIOg
  26. US dick waving contest again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why do the USians always need to be in front or behind somebody? Do they even consider any reasons for space exploration and science other than to race with someone?

  27. Re:Mind cut out all the racist garbage? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously?

    Futurama.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  28. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already had cutting-edge missile technology...
    They just applied it to something new:)

  29. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ISS is probably a bit bloated to begin with.
    Nice to have all that space, but every participating nation needed its own module to feel good.

    Don't think it is a matter of size of people. Some Chinese people are bigger than me and I'm a tall guy.

  30. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think that's what most of us wanted, considering China is a communist country

    Umm ... Last time I checked Russia is a communist country too

    How come there was no similar battle cry over Russia (and the previous USSR) involvement in the ISS?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  31. Re:Do you mind ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we also have "Face" which is along the same lines as Pride but depending on who you ask, more or less vacuous. CCP will do whatever that saves their face.

  32. Re:renewed space race (1950 america) by c0lo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nasa is not a provider of real jobs, .

    This would qualify as either totally dumb (the poster didn't know better) or flamebait/troll (that is: ignoring on purpose the reality for the sake of controversy).

    Poe's law would offer an explanation why the mods chose the second.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  33. A cat is a cat and a fact is a fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter, had citation?

    1. Re:A cat is a cat and a fact is a fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter, had citation?

      For some purposes (e.g. homicide suits), the intent matters (murder/manslaughter)

  34. Re:Do you mind ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When the Japanese sent their spacecraft to a comet, collected some comet dusts, and then brought those space dusts back to earth, I don't see CCP immediately sent their own spacecraft in doing the same thing

    It's more likely that the CCP really does not care what others think - they just do whatever they do on their own schedule
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  35. Oh Mr. Spammy. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    How much for a rocket ship?

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  36. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by YttriumOxide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Umm ... Last time I checked Russia is a communist country too

    It's clearly been a LONG time since you checked... it's been a Federal Republic with a multi-party representative democracy since the 25th of December 1991...

    You could of course argue back and forth that they're not a very good democracy, but that's a matter of each person's own opinion.

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  37. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    It's clearly been a LONG time since you checked... it's been a Federal Republic with a multi-party representative democracy since the 25th of December 1991...

    Umm ...

    I didn't say anything about democracy, did I?

    I was saying that Russia remains a communist country - and it still is , in more ways than one - despite being a so-called "democracy"

    BTW, "Federal Republic" doesn't really mean anything other than it has no "king"
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  38. Re:US heading to the past by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    with its creationism, rejection of science and education, whilst China looks forward.

    But no worry

    Whilst US has its own bout with Creationism, the China has Confucianism to content with

    And Confucianism is actually worse than Creationism in many ways - it is very very limiting
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  39. Re:Do you mind ? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They also like their propaganda, and beating the US to something this prestigious would do great things for national pride. Remember why the US went into the space race in the first place - because they couldn't let some bunch of dirty commies get there first.

  40. The racing mentality by FunkyLich · · Score: 1

    I really don't understand why there always has to be a mentality of racing, someone has to win, the need for a looser whom the winner can bully and exploit.

    Many have pointed out that this "space race" term is a coined one. And even the title of this submission, suggesting that some long asleep 'debates' have now reawakened: "OMG, my moment has come. You shunned me when the cold war was over, but now there's a new enemy/risk and my arguments breathe a new life on your face again".
    Call me what you will, but I honestly think that some undertakes are beyond the scope and mentality and benefit of private sectors, or free market sort-of-BS. One of these undertakes is the space programs and missions. Another one is healthcare and most of what goes on in medicinal research.
    Space exploration, currently, is in its infancy, and so it will remain even for the next 100 years. Whatever is achieved today, regardless of who does it, is bound to benefit the entire Earth population as a whole. Having these debates on who is first and inventing races and yacking about privatizing space. And there comes this moment when there comes a nation other than corporate America, which sees things in a completely different view which could be anything else but corporate. I'm not saying whether it is better or worse, but just different. And when this yields results, all of a sudden there emerges the "racing challenger".

    It's a shame that a country like the US is more and more falling to the "four legs good, two legs bad" mentality. Win-Win situations are much more feasible and real than many are willing to admit.

    1. Re:The racing mentality by Megane · · Score: 1

      Because 50 years ago, the big thing was the Cold War, and how to deliver nukes. If you could launch a manned rocket to orbit, you could launch one with a nuclear warhead, too. (This is why people aren't too happy about what North Korea has been doing.) The moon was just one-upping the Russians getting the first satellite and first man in orbit, and following through with it. It wasn't just the US that gave up on the moon after that; the Russians gave up on it, too.

      As for now, I guess it's just a way for "journalists" to feel like they're justifying their existence.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  41. What this is about by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

    Basically, this is about whether the moon will in future display a gigantic Coca-Cola sign or yellow stars on an equally red background.

    Personally, I don't really care.

  42. Mars500 'nauts didn't starve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    (...), and we can't physically take enough oxygen, food, and water there and back.

    So what did the six cosmo/euro/taikonauts eat in their sealed Mars 500 experiment? They had pizza only once, it was reported they made it themselves rather than phoning the nearest Moscow pizzeria for a take-away.

    1. Re:Mars500 'nauts didn't starve by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      A few problems with your little theory. It was a simulation. I think you missed that point. It was in full Earth gravity. It was inside the Earth's magetic field. And so it wasn't realistic at all. The problem you failed to recognize is that sitting in micro-gravity for a year is very deterious on the body. The other problem is once you leave the Earth's magnetic field, you are bombarded by high energy particles from the Sun and need a radiation shield which would undoubtedly be lead. That is extremely heavy to get into space. The whole ship would have be enormous to even have a hope of carrying all the supplies, protection, rotating sections (for artificial gravity), and other things required. It simply isn't technologically practical any time in our future. Maybe in 500 years it will be.

    2. Re:Mars500 'nauts didn't starve by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      A few problems with your little theory.

      The problem you failed to recognize is that sitting in micro-gravity for a year is very deterious on the body.

      Hmm, current record for a stay in space...437.7 days. Seems a bit longer than the eight months to Mars.

      And that's ignoring that there are ways to provide spin gravity that are currently feasible.

      The other problem is once you leave the Earth's magnetic field, you are bombarded by high energy particles from the Sun and need a radiation shield which would undoubtedly be lead.

      Seems to me that the transhab (which was designed for a Mars mission) used water as radiation shielding. And since you're carrying water along anyway, why not use it as shielding?

      The whole ship would have be enormous to even have a hope of carrying all the supplies...

      etc...

      Yah, you have to take a lot of stuff with you. On the order of 10-15 kg per man-day. Which adds up to somewhere around 50 tons for a free-return trajectory for six men.

      Assuming that you don't find some way to recycle - perhaps hydroponics to make oxygen and some of the food, as an example.

      Note that you don't actually need to carry all the supplies with you for the entire mission. Supply shots can be delivered to Mars orbit in advance of the mission, along with things like the lander(s), ground base, that sort of thing.

      Maybe in 500 years it will be.

      500 years ago, they were saying the same sorts of things about sailing around the world.

      There are NO insurmountable technical obstacles to going to Mars. It's just a matter of putting enough stuff in orbit, and assembling an assortment of space vehicles there for the trip to Mars.

      The only question is how much it will cost, and who is going to pay for it.

      Note also that getting launch costs down will make it easier or cheaper or both - we can build the same expensive spacecraft and loft them cheaper, or we can build cheaper spacecraft that have more mass, or some combination.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Mars500 'nauts didn't starve by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 2

      Ok, you can survive 437.7 days in microgravity. You do realize they have to land on Mars and it has gravity. They will be in no shape to land or do anything after that long without having been in a gravity environment along the way. The other problem is lets suppose they use water. Water isn't exactly light and for the same amount of protection, you will probably have to put up 15 times as much water as lead making the vehicle even bigger. Also, your estimate that the vehicle would be 50 tons is ridiculous. Anything with rotating sections, a large radiation shield, and the fuel alone is going many times heavier (probably on the order of 1,000 tons). It is a simple fact this is all purely science fiction and nobody will go to Mars in our lifetimes.

  43. Obligatory Neil DeGrasse Tyson by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This should put things in context: "We Stopped Dreaming"

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6b4_1337136397

    And despite all the criticisms of the details of NDT's claims, I strongly believe that the underlying theme remains valid. Americans did in fact stop dreaming. The pursuit of science, engineering, and technology, the VALUATION of these things as a foundation for a competitive, progressive, and forward-looking society, is now almost entirely lost upon the American public, replaced by willful superstition, fear, and ignorance. Replaced by doubts about man-made climate change, irrational religious fervor for creationism and other Biblical dogmas, and indeed, an active distrust and suspicion of scientific and critical thinking.

    This is not about what China is doing, folks. This is about what America once did on the belief that anything was possible, and about what America no longer does because that attitude has been replaced by a sense of complacency.

    1. Re:Obligatory Neil DeGrasse Tyson by EdgePenguin · · Score: 0

      These things happens to empires. Don't worry, as a Brit I can assure you there is life after world domination.

    2. Re:Obligatory Neil DeGrasse Tyson by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      I think you are too harsh on the Americans

      The Americans never stop dreaming - it's their dreams that have changed

      Instead of having a collective dream - of a nation going forward - the collective spirit of Americanism had collapsed

      And the American dreams went with it

      Nowadays, if you ask any typical American kids what their dream is - most will tell you about materialistic stuffs, like iPAD or iPhone or stuffs like that

      This is not new, for some 20-30 years ago, the materialistic dreams had pervaded the American psyche

      In the 1980's/1990's, if you ask average American kids what their dreams was, they will tell you about $200 Nike shoes

      No wonder many American dreams have turned into American nightmare
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Obligatory Neil DeGrasse Tyson by bored · · Score: 1

      Its not that we stopped dreaming, its that politics is blocking the dreamers and business can barely see past the next quarters results much less a 10 year research project.

      Now days, the only kind of research you can get congress to fund is weapons related. Of course the original space race was founded this way too. Its wasn't about sending probes to venus, or men to mars, It was about lobbing bombs around the world, and putting men in space fighters.

      A lot of that stopped when the outer space treaty started banning things. Which allowed the politicians to sleep at night.

      Today, if you wanted to get the government to fund research into a star trek transporter, you would have to pitch it as a way to send bombs into foreign peoples houses rather than as a way to provide food aid. In the first case congress would shove more money at you than you needed, in the second you wouldn't get a penny.

      Its the same thing with the war on terra, if you come up with a trillion dollar method of saving a hundred rich people from dying a violent death, then game on. But if you come up with a way to save ten thousand poor peoples lives a year from an illness, it doesn't really matter what it costs, it won't get funded.

  44. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by thechanklybore · · Score: 1

    Umm ...

    I didn't say anything about democracy, did I?

    I was saying that Russia remains a communist country - and it still is , in more ways than one - despite being a so-called "democracy"

    BTW, "Federal Republic" doesn't really mean anything other than it has no "king"

    Are you trolling? How can a democracy, even one where the incumbent party uses dirty tricks to stay in power, ever be communist? I don't think you know what the word means, apart from some sort of "like the evil old USSR" attribution. Please go and read something about politics before spouting off on subjects you are clearly extremely ignorant of.

    As for democratic politicians using dirty tricks, if I can assume you are a US citizen for a moment, you may want to look back at Fox calling votes for Bush Jr when in fact no such thing had occurred. Corruption and dirty tricks happen wherever there is power, not just under communism and certainly not just in Russia.

  45. Let us hope this doesn't get ugly by EdgePenguin · · Score: 1

    After Planetary Resources was launched, I blogged about potential issues of who gets what in space:

    http://edgepenguin.com/content/asteroid.html

    TLDR version; I am not sure that there will be enough public money to create the demand needed to make asteroid mining work, but it will probably open a can of worms regarding who owns stuff in space, and if it isn't sorted out amicably, everyone will get screwed by space war and the resulting Kessler syndrome.

  46. Minerals / mining (in short: money) by captainpanic · · Score: 1

    The bulk price of iridium (to take a random example) is 23,000 $/kg. A small asteroid of 1 km3 contains 1 million tons of material. Even if it contains merely 10 ppm iridium, such a space rock is worth 230 million $, and that's excluding other materials.

    However, getting your process up to an asteroid (or getting the ore down to a factory) is still quite hard. That's where your "stepping stone" comes in. That's when it's convenient of you only have to deal with a fraction of earth's gravity.

    Hell, perhaps the moon even has some valuable ores itself. It's big enough. If you build products that have sufficient value, you can ship them back to earth and still make profit.

    1. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      You do realize it would probably cost a trillion dollars or more to build facilities on the Moon. Just to go back to the moon would cost a few hundred billion by itself. I think we can find a lot of iridium on Earth for that price.

    2. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by captainpanic · · Score: 2

      You're right and wrong at the same time.
      Yes it's expensive. But chemical factories are expensive anyway. Don't forget that for example Shell have built a gas-to-liquid factory in Qatar at a price tag of 24 billion (google for Pearl GTL). And that's not for fancy minerals, but for ordinary liquid fuels.

      Scale matters, and if you make your operation big enough, and you produce long enough, it will have a payback time.

      The costs of using a Space Shuttle to get a kg of payload into LEO was around 5000 $/kg. So, for trillions of dollars, you can get 200,000 ton of material into LEO using Space Shuttles. China and SpaceX will do that for a fraction of the cost. And incidentally, a full scale chemical factory will be heavy, but not that heavy.

      So, I conclude that you're exaggerating the costs of getting stuff into space and/or on the moon. And I also conclude that you're underestimating the scale and costs of chemical processes.

      (But I admit that it's probably not yet economically feasible to do some moon based asteroid mining).

    3. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      There is nothing to mine in LEO. We are talking about an operation on the Moon, not LEO. The costs aren't nearly going to be the same. We are talking about facilities, mining, food, water, shelter, transportation, fuel. It cost $250 billion to get the moon with the Saturn rockets. It is going to cost at least that to get back to the Moon, and then you have to prospect it since all we know about on there is dust, rocks, and maybe some water. If there is nothing there, you are out easily hundreds of billions, then you have to build all that stuff. It'll cost easily a trillion or more just for that. There is no way the American public is going to support a prospecting mission/mining operation to the moon for that amount of money. Not in our liftetimes at least.

    4. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      And you also mustn't forget that the moon has lots of metal already. In reality if you're willing to do some automated assembly and don't mind it taking longer (for gathering/smelting/forging) you can actually get a large part of what you need right from the moon itself.

      Perhaps more to the point, the first factory you'd probably send up the typical way, but there's nothing stopping you from building the second, third and fourth for free (by comparison) once you get setup.

      That brings the cost/unit down to actually surprisingly reasonable numbers.... it's just a hell of an upfront.

    5. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Actually, just based on simply astrophysics we know very well that there is lots of delicious stuff on the moon ready for the taking.

      You can know that much with nothing more than the facts that it is differentiated, and has volatiles present.

      So while you are correct that LEO != moon, there's no chance of getting there and finding nothing of value.

    6. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by Megane · · Score: 1

      Hell, perhaps the moon even has some valuable ores itself.

      Perhaps? So we should send humans to the moon on a "perhaps"? Let's get some robotic missions up there first to look around. If we can do that on mars with the 15+ minute round trip time, we can certainly do it on the moon.

      Until then, it's just a gravity well with useless rocks, nasty dust, and a little bit of water that's only useful to manned bases. LEO/L4/L5 is a much better place for a base of operations.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by halo_2_rocks · · Score: 1

      Factories and forges that assemble themselves from raw materials automatically (even with a starter factory) do not exist anywhere but in science fiction. It would probably take 30 years (who knows - maybe a 100 years) or more to design such a system that actually worked (and that is if you had the materials in ready supply). This is the kind of delusion that all people that want to go back to the Moon engage in. I'll give you my prediction, all of this is going to blow up in people's faces when they understand how truly expensive this is and 50 years from now - the only thing that is going to be on the Moon is the American flag and maybe a Chinese flag. Each having cost hundreds of billions to place there.

    8. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you put 10 tons of iridium on the market (2.5 times yearly global consumption), prices will plummet, and so will your profits. If you feed the market slowly, with 1 ton/year, and you manage to keep the prices the same, you only make $23 million/year.

    9. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by AdrianKemp · · Score: 0

      I'm so glad people like you are the minority... we'd be absolutely fucked as a species if you weren't.

      Enjoy your idiocy while the rest of us try to make your life better.

    10. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      I'm still referring to the space race between US commercial start ups and China's space agency. Of course NASA wouldn't build some mining colony. It's not in their interest to earn money. With NASA out of the picture, the US tax payer won't feel a thing, and nobody needs their support.

      Did Shell ask the US public for support when they built their factory in Qatar? Nope.

      If there's money to be made, it will happen. And in fact, certain daring entrepreneurs are already looking at asteroid mining.

    11. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. Being pragmatic and calculating is much better for our species than wasting our resources on pie in the sky projects that aren't going to pay themselves back.

    12. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Hell, perhaps the moon even has some valuable ores itself. It's big enough. If you build products that have sufficient value, you can ship them back to earth and still make profit.

      You don't have to ship them to Earth to make a profit. Raising, for instance, rocket fuel into LEO cost ~$10K per kg. If it's cheaper to mine O2 on the Moon and deliver it to the ISS to be used as the oxidizer for rocket fuel, then you'll be able to sell lunar oxygen and make money.

      Ditto aluminium. And iron. And magnesium.

      It's not all that hard to foresee a time in the not very distant future when you can build a spacecraft with Earth-manufactured rocket engines and computers, but the rest is made on the Moon. And 80+% of the fuel comes from the moon.

      Which would make going places comparatively VERY cheap.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      There is nothing pragmatic about shunning exploration and invention based on arbitrary political states.

    14. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      It is very pragmatic not to sink trillions of dollars into a project without sufficient economic or scientific return. Exploration can be done by unmanned rovers for much less. I'll gladly support an unmanned Moon rover mission. I'd also like to see a sample return mission to Mars.

    15. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      In fact, that is the worst ROI possible.

      There is no reasonable return for doing such missions, we pretty much know what Mars is about and any further robotic exploration is merely because people aren't willing to do the real thing.

      I'm also for extra Mars missions of any sort, because they give the private industry a chance to cut their teeth on such things... But to suggest that rovers are a better ROI than long-term habitation on other planets/moons is a joke.

    16. Re:Minerals / mining (in short: money) by ongelovigehond · · Score: 1

      We haven't explored Mars well enough to say if there was any past life, which would be quite interesting to find out. The rover missions are also quite affordable, at about $1 billion a pop. The return on investment is to satisfy our curiosity, which is a perfectly good reason.

      It is long term habitation that is a joke. It's cold, near vacuum, hardly any water, and the entire planet is covered in dust and rocks. On top of that, you get bombarded with deadly radiation. Why would anybody want to be there ? We stopped going to the Moon for the same reason. Everybody lost interest, because there's only so much you can do on a dead rock in space.

  47. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by progician · · Score: 4, Informative

    Communism: * No capital (private, or state) -> Russia has state, has private capital. -> Russia isn't communist.
    * No market (state planned or unregulated) -> Russia has a partially regulated market as most of modern capitalist countries, including the USA. -> Russia isn't communist.
    * Private property (under private or institutional control) -> Russia has all the protection for private property, the right to buy, the right to sell, with the obvious exception (as in market regulation). Russia isn't communist.
    * Wage work -> Vast majority of people in Russia are working for wage, for a minority that owns all the means of production (capitalist). -> Russia is definitely capitalist.
    * Government and the state exist: No capital and private property could exist without a central (national) enforcement. -> Russia has a strong, nationalistic, government which upholds a law for the rich, bash the poor. In Russia there's also a widespread, highly organized criminal secondary rule, for the same reason.
    * Capitalists are making profit, while the working class is exploited. -> While this is true all over the world, in Russia, due to the corruption of the state, many health and safety regulation is circumvented, and unions are threatened by criminal organizations, resulting one of the most unregulated capitalism in the world. -> Russia isn't just capitalist, but the social consequences of barely regulated exploitation are devastating.

    Any question to elaborate further?

  48. East is going to find what West dropped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "While China is 50 years behind the U.S. government, they are much more comparable to U.S. companies."

    I do not agree with the above statement. China is where U.S. was 50 years ago, if you define the place as "we plan to be on the Moon within 10 years."

    But.

    But I think, that this is not that far from the place where U.S. government is right now. If you (I'm not American) happened to get a visionary president elected (any candidates?) and he would say "I want this nation back on the Moon by the end of the decade!" would you be able to do this?

    Funnily enough, China now has a better starting position in the new race to the Moon (if it happens) than U.S. Or EU. Or the Western world at large. They have vast manpower, great intelligence (military and technology), capable research and are a tightly controlled and disciplined nation. Risk, incidents and catastrophes are inseparably connected with Icarus dreams of humanity. They will happen, because there are no 100% error-free and fault tolerant devices. And today's society is conditioned to deny the risk of death. Even if thousands die on

    If a new Moon race program starts and three Western crew members die in a prototype vehicle as they did during Apollo project (Apollo Saturn-204 / Apollo 1), I sincerely doubt that 18 months later an improved version would be launched. I predict blood-hungry press demanding heads of the responsible, politicians founding their careers on opposing "shedding blood of Nation's best in a lunatic race to the Moon" a number of commissions made out of lawyers and English majors to judge the finer points of rocket science and the suspension (read: cancellation) of the project until "inherent risks are assessed and goals re-evaluated". OTOH if three (or ten) taikonauts perish in similar circumstances we will never know. Chinese public won't. And the, probably, improved successor to the burned vehicle will be launched within 12 months of the disaster.

    Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I'm afraid, that there's a good chance, that when first American space tourists lands on Moon he'll be politely asked to present a valid visa by a smiling and very polite Chinese immigration officer.

  49. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by progician · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find this astronaut, cosmonaut and taikonaut so embarrassing for fuck sake. It's the same fucking thing. A person is space (or anywhere for that matter) isn't defined by the nationality but what she/he does and in what quality.

  50. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think that's what most of us wanted, considering China is a communist country who is rapidly increasing the size and technical capacity of their military. And of course the nuclear warheads they have. Why would we want to give them cutting-edge missile technology?

    Ignorance is bliss, although a scary one. You (US) already gave China its own missile program long time ago thanks to McCarthy fearmongering,

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

    I, for one I'm glad that US barred China from the ISS, thanks to that the world has a third viable space program and one that will probably move fast. Of course as soon as China make their own permanent station the fearmongering probably will run rampant and US probably will resume the space race.

  51. Re:Do you mind ? by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 2

    I agree, if you broaden the definition of ROI to include the non-financial benefits of having a space program. For one thing, it's likely to be good propaganda in the future if the Party can brag to its citizens that they are in space, while the other guys aren't. It's also a great way to stress test military-grade hardware without the other countries raising a hoot. People would think differently of Iran and North Korean if these two supposed wannabees already have a space station in orbit or in the Moon.

  52. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by progician · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you ask me, I don't refer to China as a communist place (note that being a communist country is a contradiction), but as a state-capitalist country, meaning that the state is the major owner of the national resources and therefore the biggest capitalist of them all. Never the less, you can see how the Chinese capitalism is compatible with the "Western" version of it, given that China is bailing out the EU, also developed private industry and so on.

    Capital can be concentrated or highly distributed, but as long as the society runs on the principles of market available property (public or private does not matter, since if nobody else, Chinese government can sell national assets), on the internal mechanism of investment, exploitation and market valorization, than we're still talking about the roughly the same social organisation, that is, capitalism.

    Monopolization is a natural process within capitalism, so even the so called free markets lasts only as long as the state power regulates the economy (anti-trust laws, anyone?). But as political and economical power always tend to merge because people with considerable wealth are commanding over larger amount of economy, hence they rule over larger proportion of people, directly or indirectly, the state is always central to the capitalist system, either in the framework of the western style indirect market manipulation, or with being in charge directly over the economy, like in China. These are different politico-economic management styles, not entirely opposite social organisations. Monopolization can take charge through economic power, or political. But the end-result is the same. As an anecdotal side note, I'm from a country, which was considered as socialist/communist for 40 years, until 22 years ago. I've seen both management styles, through the transition and now living in the west, and I have to tell you, that the ideological differences are just rather covering up the converging features of the two political and economical management, than actually creating differences on a social level.

  53. Musk and Von Braun by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    Wernher von Braun, designer of the Saturn V, also wanted to go to Mars and had even written a fairly detailed book on how to do so. But von Braun knew that to get there, he had to take small steps and not a single giant leap toward the Red Planet. Maybe this is what Musk and von Braun have in common (beside both being naturalized Americans), their willingness to go after intermediate goals (the Moon or LEO) while keeping their ultimate goal (Mars and beyond) still within sight.

  54. Behind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >While China is 50 years behind the U.S. government

    Funny definition of "behind" when the Chinese government is launching it's own people into space on it's own hardware and the US government is trying to regulate commercial space travel into oblivion while hitchhiking on foreign rockets.

    1. Re:Behind? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Not funny.

      China is doing now what the US government did 50 years ago: in 1962 we were launching people into orbit, just as China is now doing. China is doing it on foreign (Russian) hardware it bought and copied.

      Meanwhile the US is using foreign launch HW in a partnership that is far beyond what China is capable of either technologically or politically. Meanwhile the US regulations have actually created a private space industry that investors are pouring into, while protecting both safety and the public investment.

      You, Anonymous carping Coward, are the definition of "behind" - especially in the colloquial sense of the word.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  55. Re:renewed space race (1950 america) by progician · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. "Nasa is not a provider of real jobs" -> Flame bait. Presenting a highly debatable statement, like this needs argument. You know, extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence. Now, he did not provide a tiny bit of argument here, so he is clearly ideological troll. Since NASA do have products, somebody has to work there, thus NASA provides jobs where people do real work.

    2. "Especially during times where many tax-payers are feeling the impact of the economic crisis". Well, there's already a false presumption when somebody talks about "tax-payers" in general. There's no general interest between citizens, tax-payers or whatever. Some tax-payers want to disarm the enormous offensive capacity of the USA, and some want to invest even more money in to it. The military budget is magnitude greater than the NASA budget all together, and remember that NASA isn't only works on space missions, but there are other aeronautical, technological projects running along with the space tech. NASA had its budgets slashed since the space race. The military spending however... you know the money that governments invest in order to spy on, and kill other people, and destroy their stuff. Any space agency could do miracles with even the half of that money. So much for the crisis. Not to mention the bailout of banks, and other stupid shit.

  56. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

    You keep using that word... I don't think you know what it means.

  57. Not about technology by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't about technology. It's about national will. To quote Londo Mollari in Babylon 5, we've become decadent, obsessed with arts and trinkets. Gone is Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" too. The USA is a nation of pussies now. Everyone wants a handout, and no one wants to contribute to an endeavor greater than themselves. It's all, gimme gimme gimme. We could've been on Mars by 1980 easily. Instead now we can't even get to low Earth orbit. It isn't because we don't know how. It's because our own navels are much more interesting. Yes, I'm disgusted.

    1. Re:Not about technology by downhole · · Score: 1

      True. How many kids now want to be artists, writers, musicians, actors, sports players, and other entertainment jobs that mostly add no value to society? How many want to be scientists, engineers, inventors, physicists, mathematicians?

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
  58. If the Chinese "claim" a Lunar Pole by Danathar · · Score: 1

    " There is no mechanism to enforce the 1967 Outer Space Treaty except for a given country’s unwillingness to undergo international opprobrium. Moreover, a country can withdraw from the treaty at will. China tends to do what it wants to do, unless the economic or political price is perceived to be too high. The potential of the Moon and cislunar space may outweigh their sense of geopolitical risk or concern about international ostracism."

    BS. It would not be that hard to launch a nuke towards a lunar pole. Dark side might be a little more difficult since I'm assuming once you launch it would be hard to change the trajectory.

    Plus...

    Other than killing/destroying whatever is at the pole, detonating a nuke there would have no real consequences here on earth like fallout.

    1. Re:If the Chinese "claim" a Lunar Pole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is that they'll have 3 days to walk out of the nuke's way.

    2. Re:If the Chinese "claim" a Lunar Pole by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      BS. It would not be that hard to launch a nuke towards a lunar pole. Dark side might be a little more difficult since I'm assuming once you launch it would be hard to change the trajectory.

      Plus...

      Other than killing/destroying whatever is at the pole, detonating a nuke there would have no real consequences here on earth like fallout.

      Hitting a target on the moon is nothing like lobbing a nuke at a country half a world away.

      It took a rocket the size of a Saturn V to send a few tons to get to the moon in 3 days.

      More recently, the Japanese sent SELENE to the moon on a rocket half the size and a third the mass of a Saturn V. It took 5-6 days.

      Both of these were low energy approaches to save fuel, and used Earth's gravity well to add to their speed (i.e. needed a couple of orbits around Earth first). Apollo, they had to get there faster because life support only lasts so long, so they had to use and bring along more fuel, hence the Saturn V's much larger size and mass.

      You will not launch a moon-bound nuke, either from Earth or Earth orbit, and have it get there in less than a day or two (faster = more fuel = more mass to bring up = even more fuel = ridiculous large launch vehicle). It will be in full view of everyone on Earth. That's lots of time for the country whose lunar assets you launched against, to retaliate against you.

  59. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by risom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    find this astronaut, cosmonaut and taikonaut so embarrassing for fuck sake. It's the same fucking thing.

    Me too. So let's call all of them cosmonauts from now on, as that notation clearly was the first in use (applied to Juri Gagarin).

  60. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Communism is an economic system, whereas democracy is a political system.

    --
    SSC
  61. kirk is better by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    kirk is better

    1. Re:kirk is better by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Kirk vs Picard is debatable, but as someone who saw the original Star Trek at age 14 when it originally aired, saw the reruns as an adult, then saw STNG, I have to say the STNG is far better than STOS.

      As to the various Starship captains, I like Sisko. His character (which is nothing like the character Brooks played in Spencer For Hire) is kind of Kirk-like when... he's... trying... to... control... his... temper! And he does it better than Shatner did.

  62. Shenzhou = Soyuz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China's rockets would still be exploding mid-air if it wasn't for the Russian tech that they've bought. During these space adventures they didn't do anything new that this Russian tech wasn't capable of.
    I'm not impressed at all with their space program.

    "In 1994, Russia sold some of its advanced aviation and space technology to the Chinese. In 1995 a deal was signed between the two countries for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft technology to China. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support systems, docking systems, and space suits."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_%28spacecraft%29

  63. China is not 50 years behind the U.S. by jgeorger · · Score: 1

    Yes, the U.S. did some amazing things in the past, but the real question is what have we done since? From my standpoint it seems that progress at NASA since Apollo got ground down by bureaucratization and a lack of will on the part of the populace and politcians. We have turned our collective gaze from upward to inward. The country is full of short-sighted people who can't see beyond their own little lives. I've long held the opinion that the *only* possible salvation for our governmental space program (and our nation) would be a space race with another nation. Articles like this, with its pre-masticated "don't worry the U.S. is still #1" drivel does not help. We have rested on our laurels long enough. Time to take some risks, push the technological envelope, get some national pride back. Incidentally I don't believe that private corporations will make much progress because 1.) they are motivated by profit and such profits are likely to be so long in coming that investment will be hard to come by, and 2.) they are still subject to much of the bureaucratic overhead that NASA was.

    I would say that China could easily surpass U.S. accomplishments within a decade if they wanted to.

    1. Re:China is not 50 years behind the U.S. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      NASA has landed several missions on Mars, even as Russia and China have tried and failed over and again. The US continues to launch and maintain both space telescopes and other kinds of probes. Most recently NASA has fostered development and launch of a private space industry, with quite a lot of work by the government to get it going.

      The US has done quite a lot, even without a credible foreign competitor. A foreign competitor, as well as private "coopetition", will sharpen NASA's strong work even more. The problem for NASA has been that Republicans, from Bush/Cheney through their rump Congress that still sets the agendas, have hijacked NASA for military/spy work that doesn't spin off to anything, except some actual security and a lot of blowback.

      So really you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you'd say a lot more, too. But you shouldn't say anything until you learn what is actually going on.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  64. Re:Do you mind ? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    They also like their propaganda, and beating the US to something this prestigious would do great things for national pride. Remember why the US went into the space race in the first place - because they couldn't let some bunch of dirty commies get there first.

    Now days the dirty commies make just about everything we buy. We wouldn't want to offend them, else the shelves at Wallyworld and Apple stores everywhere could go bare!

  65. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Communism is an economic system, whereas democracy is a political system.

    Not in parrochial American lingo, it is not. Here we proudly chew a blade of grass or wheat and with clenched teeth we call communist whatever doesn't fit our simpleton pick-up truck world view. Why do you use sound logic and bring up historically accurate hippy facts? Why do you hate America?

  66. Space Race is Good by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The best scenario for Americans is one where China and private US corps compete to best exploit space. While the American people continue to run NASA for the science and public interest that neither China nor corps will share with anyone else. NASA can be a tool of US industrial policy, just as all of China's government and private businesses are for China.

    The American people should make sure that we keep the advantages US businesses have, like tight connections to NASA and other American investments. When US corporations are bought up by Chinese businesses, investors or government actors, those corps should lose their American advantages that Americans pay (and have paid) for.

    Playing it that way is also best for humanity as a whole.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  67. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Any question to elaborate further?

    Yes, given your definition of Russia along with your assertion that Russia isn't communist How can China be anything but also not communist?

    It isn't. It is a capitalist nation governed by a one-party rule bent on total control in the name of stability, not much different from right-wing capitalist LATAM dictatorships of old. In fact, China stopped being a Communist country before the fall of the USSR.

    In the name of God, stop. Go learn what Communism is before ever again touching the subject. In this time and age where educational information is free up for grabs, with the Internet and public libraries, it is absolutely unjustifiable to be so ignorant about such basic things.

  68. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communism: * No capital (private, or state) -> China has capital available ONLY to companies that export. Otherwise, Chinese gov. limits and controls who can gain access to capital.
    * No market (state planned or unregulated) -> China has a partially regulated market for products that export. However, things like food, Coal, Natural Gas, etc are controlled by the gov.
    * Private property (under private or institutional control) -> Nobody owns land in China. Chinese can buy buildings/flats, but the land is owned/controlled by Chinese gov. Few rights for Chinese and esp. for Foreigners. For example, no foreigner is allowed to own more than 49% of a business, and MUST BE MINORITY OWNER. If 2 Chinese owners and one westener, then westerner owns less than the top Chinese owner. So, Chinese own 26%, then the most that Westerner can own is 25%, with 2'nd chinese owning 24%.
    * Wage work -> China sets minimum wage for any companies that have foreign investors. For all others, they set a MAXIMUM wage, which is always less than what others make. In addition, for none-manufacturing jobs, Chinese gov. sets the wages.
    * Government and the state exist: No capital and private property could exist without a central (national) enforcement. -> China has a strong, nationalistic, communistic, government which upholds whatever law they want. In the Chinese constitution, minimal rights are spelled out for citizens, and the state owns everything else.
    * Capitalists AND Chinese gov. are making profit, while the working class is severely exploited. -> This is true all over the world, in China, due to the power of the state, many health and safety regulation are circumvented. There are few unions in China and they have ZERO power, due to Chinese govs control.


    China absolutely is NOT Capitalistic or Democracy. It is a totalitarian nation, which allowed SOME capitalism to pull money, tech, and western military secrets from greedy western companies (mostly republican owned ones who have little loyalty to America).

    Chinese Gov. is in a cold war with the west. Putin simple wants to get back to where USSR was. It is very doubtful that Russia will go to war with the west. OTOH, China's intention is to target the west, mostly America. They are trying to do it economically, but are preparing for a hot war.

  69. China reminds me of US in in 1950s and 60s by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, after WWII the US had an enthusiastic pro-science culture. I grew up in this era of the Jetsons, Star Trek and Space Odyssey. Then the US lost its science mojo from assaults from both the far left and right. The left believes the main goal of government is solving social problems. Science spending detracts from that. The right thinks science conflicts with its Christian culture and unbridled capitalism. I had to painfully watch first Bush radically alter the US manned space program, then Obama terminate Bush's solution, each for their own ideology. I almost cried when the year 2001 arrived and it was nothing like Kubrick's movie. Expect for HAL, the rest of the movie was technologically possible.

    I lived in China several times. I find its enthusiasm for science and technology to resemble that of US in the 1950s and 60s. Ditto most of the east Asian countries, except they dont have the capital to develop a manned space program like China does. I am glad some countries BELIEVE IN THE DREAM and follow it. Ruguo nimen gen wo tongyi, nimen yixue xuexie Zhongwen.

  70. Communism is both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Economics is the organization and usage of resources (including people in the form of labor). Politics is the organization of people.

  71. Re:Do you mind ? by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 0

    I do mind. I seriously think China will get up there and stay before the US unless the US pimp it up as a face saver. China will do it for a tiny proportion of the budget with less fanfare and make it work. Eventually.

    Really? Less fanfare? Everything is fanfare, there. Everything is face-saving. Much, much moreso than even American politics. There will be momentous fanfare from China when they land on the moon, and that will include everything from rants of the superiority of Chinese culture, government, and willpower to supplanting the US as the dominant superpower. Their moon-landing will be a godsend for their propaganda machine, especially as China will likely be facing some serious structural and cultural challenges in the coming years--right at the same time that they're going to be shooting for the moon.

  72. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US had plenty of good reasons for barring China from the ISS, the most conspicuous of these being that China would likely not contribute much, if anything, to the program and would end up trying to steal as much technology as they could for their own benefit.

    Learning for their own benefit is fine. NASA is very open to helping others learn. The specific reason that China was not allowed into the project, though, is because there are laws in place since the Tiananmen Square massacre that prevent exporting military technology and arms to China. Space technology very much helps the military, and there are very good reasons why most western countries still do not arm China with the most advanced weapons and rocket technology on Earth.

  73. Re:Mind cut out all the racist garbage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he meant racist against robots, or bending units specifically. It's a stereotype that they're only interested in blackjack and hookers. And never mind the blackjack.

  74. 10-15 years behind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is SpaceX 10-15 years behind China? They just pulled off the same thing, docking one spacecraft to another in orbit. Am I missing something?

  75. chasing something that really doesn't exist? by k6mfw · · Score: 1
    An interesting pic from this website that talks about space travel of how was perceived (science fiction fans relate more to human beings than to silicon chips). http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/macguffinite.php which has some interesting mentions, and something to think about with all this fanfare of "Man Will Conquer Space Soon."

    Manned Space Stations
    There actually was a pretty good MacGuffinite back in the 1950's: Manned space stations. Werner von Braun had it all figured out in Collier's magazine.
    [snip]
    Ironically NASA destroyed this. NASA's push for computing power led to the development of the transistor and integrated circuit. Suddenly you could make weather satellites, communication satellites, and spy satellites "manned" by a few cubic centimeters of electronics. Bye-bye MacGuffinite.

    and another [space launch vehicles]

    If you build it, they will come:
    This approach is an expensive leap of faith, but it actually might work. The basic idea is to just assume that there is some marvelous MacGuffinite out in space. So you create a company that provides affordable surface to orbit transport service. With such services available, suddenly you'll have an entire planet full of entrepreneurs trying figure out a way to make it pay.

    You don't have to figure out the MacGuffinite(s), they will. All you have to do is make a reasonable profit off the people who have figured it out (or think they have). Remember, in the California Gold Rush of 1949, it was not the miners who grew rich, instead it was the merchants who sold supplies to the miners.

    Another from the site:

    Politics
    I recently came across an amusing variation on the "If You Build it" argument. The subject was the US transcontinental railroad, with construction starting in the 1860s. In his book Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America, author Richard White points out that there was no economic reason for building the railroad. The motivation was mostly political. Which is a plausible motive. After all, politics was the main driver behind NASA's Apollo moon program.

    It seems to me we are chasing fables. There is the Pirate and the Cowboy as portrayed in the movies but what they portrayed really never existed. Now it seems who will join that group is the Spaceman.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  76. Re:US heading to the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think Confucianism is worst than creationism, but the majority of Chinese follow Buddhism and Taoism two Religions that are focus in the individual.
    But most are atheists or a least Agnostic.

  77. Re:Do you mind ? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    It is based on an historical novel rather than sci-fi but I liked watching the Three Kingdoms TV series (2010).

  78. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Space Race? a Race needs at least two contenders.

  79. Because they couldn't, perhaps. by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Let's recall Hayabusa was a very complex robotic mission, and that the Japanese are phenomenal at such things. The Chinese...not so much. China specializes in heavy industry and cheap assembly. It's the Japanese that specialize in complex programming and technical perfection of expensive products. I think it's very likely Hayabusa was beyond the capabilities of the PRC, then and now.

    1. Re:Because they couldn't, perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you must be too young to know.
      Even in the seventies, a lot of people(much like yourself ironically) considered Japan to be mere producer of cheap knockoffs of western goods.

      Although the Japanese space program is in fact heavily dependent on US and European technology (as are the Japanese military; most key technology, even complete systems are licensed western products with new designations).
      The Chinese are well ahead of the Japanese as far as indigenous space technology is concerned.

  80. Re:Do you mind ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    It's more likely that the CCP really does not care what others think

    CPP does, however, care about what the Chinese people think about it. You know, "social harmony" and all that - trust of the governed plays a big deal in it, too, despite them not being a democratic society. And Chinese seem to care quite a bit about "face", and generally asserting their dominance after a century on the back burner.

  81. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I was saying that Russia remains a communist country - and it still is , in more ways than one - despite being a so-called "democracy"

    *facepalm* (I'm a Russian).

    Russia is not a democracy, true. Or rather it is, but it's a pretty authoritarian one with elections that aren't really fair to anyone but the government party. But it's not communist today in any meaningful sense of the word. It has private property on everything, including land and capital. It has a lot of people with multi-million estates. It has some public welfare services ran by the government that were inherited from the Soviet era, but those are already below what most European states offer in quality, and they are steadily reduced even further as years go by.

    Is Russia an authoritarian country with imperial ambitions? Yes. Does that make it communist? No.

  82. China's Big Lift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has the capacity to think long term. Their goal is dominance of space and there is no reason to think they cannot pull it off. In the mean time everyone in the US will produce nothing while working finance related jobs.

  83. Re:Do you mind ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup, just take a look at their 5 year plans, they always have one

  84. Re:It's a space "RACE" because that's what US want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well seeing as we're comparing it with China, where does China fall in your categories?

  85. Re:Do you mind ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [...] CCP [...]

    Actually it's CCCP.

  86. one thing is for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    chinese takeout has reached new heights

  87. wholesale jerseys from china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you like NFL game? If you are a NFL fan, if you want to have a good quality NFL jerseys cheap, if you have not enough money, then you may go to buy a replica cheap jerseys, many of the cheap jerseys are all have good quality, but where to buy the jerseys with high quality and cheap price? In fact, you can search the cheap jerseys wholesalers from china, our company is a professional wholesale the cheap and good quality jerseys, at cheaplakersjerseys.com, there are all kinds of cheap jerseys: cheap mlb jerseys, nhl cheap jerseys, soccer jerseys, nba jerseys,etc. cheapest price, high quality, fast free shipping!

  88. wholesale quality cheap jerseys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wholesale wholesale cheap jerseys from china material used is light weight and the numbers are painted on instead of sewn on. If you are on a tight budget but want a wholesale NFL jerseys cheap for a current player on your team, a good quality NFL cheap jerseys should be your choice. There are a lots of quality cheap NFL jerseys from china that you can avail of, Celebrate your love for the game with these cheap MLB jerseys. If you are a player yourself, wear these cheap NBA jerseys and play like the pros as the NHL cheap jerseys can help keep you dry and cool no matter how heated the game goes. Welcome you come visite our shop and clip your favorite cheap jerseys, cheap mlb jerseys, NHL cheap jerseys, wholesale jerseys from china, NFL jerseys cheap.

  89. wholesale discount cheap nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-soccer je by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wholesale cheap jerseys from china material used is light weight and the numbers are painted on instead of sewn on. If you are on a tight budget but want a wholesale NFL jerseys cheap for a current player on your team, a good quality NFL cheap jerseys should be your choice. There are a lots of quality cheap NFL jerseys from china that you can avail of, Celebrate your love for the game with these cheap MLB jerseys. If you are a player yourself, wear these cheap NBA jerseys and play like the pros as the NHL cheap jerseys can help keep you dry and cool no matter how heated the game goes. Welcome you come visite our shop and clip your favorite cheap jerseys, cheap mlb jerseys, NHL cheap jerseys, wholesale jerseys from china, NFL jerseys cheap.