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.'"
China will land a man on the moon first, but SpaceX will win the race to Mars.
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.
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 !
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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'
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."
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.
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.
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...
That left China with no other alternative but to construct their own space station
With blackjack. And hookers.
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 !
Simple: Being the world's top economic (and possibly military) power includes being the top dog in space.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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 !
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.
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?
Seriously?
Futurama.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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 !
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.
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 !
How much for a rocket ship?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
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
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 !
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You keep using that word... I don't think you know what it means.
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.
" 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.
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).
Communism is an economic system, whereas democracy is a political system.
SSC
kirk is better
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.
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!
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
It is based on an historical novel rather than sci-fi but I liked watching the Three Kingdoms TV series (2010).
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.
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.
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.