First Commercial Mission To the Moon Launched From China

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Commercial Mission To the Moon Launched From China

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday October 26, 2014 @06:08PM from the there-and-back dept.

mbone writes with news about the first privately-funded spacecraft to travel the Moon. Cold War competition between superpowers dominated the first decades of space travel and exploration. Individual governments took the lead, bankrolling most of the process in the name of competition and nationalism. Ultimately international cooperation and collaboration took root, and the landscape is already very different. The present and future of space exploration is more collaborative, more international, and involves both space agencies and private companies. One such project is the combination Chang’e 5-T1 and Manfred Memorial Moon Mission (4M), which launched together last Thursday. Both projects are testbeds for ideas: Chang’e 5-T1 is a prototype for a robotic probe intended to return samples from the Moon to Earth, while 4M is a simple communications experiment encouraging amateur participation. But the intriguing bit is that 4M is a project of the private Luxembourg-based company LuxSpace, while Chang’e 5-T1 is a Chinese project, and the whole endeavor was launched on a Chinese rocket.

73 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

China is more capitalistic than the USA by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-10-26 18:15 · Score: 3, Informative

I am from China. At the time I left China it was really deep in communism, so deep that the entire society went upside down and a lot of people died because of it
But the China of today is very different. China of today is much more capitalistic than the United States of America --- since I am from China and that I am a citizen of the United States of America after staying in the US for decades, if I am to compare the two I would say that the USA is becoming more and more socialistic (turning more and more pinko) while China has turned blue, deeeeep blue

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by amplesand · 2014-10-26 18:26 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Maybe so. But UK and Japan will prevail too, whence the Weyland-Yutani Corporation is a British/Japanese conglomerate. If you've seen the documentary you would know that Weyland-Yutani is even more daaark deeeeep blue; not that anyone would hear you scream that anyway.
2. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  But is that inherently a good thing? I mean, yes, the US pretty much dominated the later part of the 20th century and the space race, but let's not forget the USSR accomplished much as well.
  I guess what I'm saying is that there are intelligent ways to pursue socialism (which the US is failing miserably at) as much as there are intelligent ways to pursue capitalism (which China is failing at as witness by their pollution).
  Somewhere amidst these two, there has got to be a better way.
3. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by andy_spoo · 2014-10-26 18:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Let's just hope that the Chinese never find life on another planet, because the first thing they'll do is eat it!
4. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by macraig · 2014-10-26 19:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You don't say overtly that it's a bad thing that the United States has socialistic constraints on its capitalistic economy... and it's not. Socialism - NOT Communism - done well is a far better economic system for advanced societies than capitalism. Better to call it mutualism or voluntary socialism. In the context of any advanced society pure capitalism can never be done well; it reaches a peak benefit - the United States has passed that point - and then begins to cause irreparable harm that leads to eventual economic and social collapse. It's a cyclic process that repeats as long as capitalism is the economic law of the jungle. We must evolve our species to more naturally cooperate rather than compete and combat.
5. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Dahamma · 2014-10-26 19:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You are equating socialism with communism ("pinko")? Really?! You'd think with a vested interesting in understanding the governments you'd have learned more by now...
  Communism is a joke, there are no actual "Communist" countries. China is a capitalist totalitarianism (and interestingly Russia has basically become that as well, though through a very different path). The US is a capitalist democracy (and calling it socialistic is a joke as well - look to Europe for socialist democracies, some of which are doing pretty damn well).
  And while the US may be poorly functioning with its democracy (as in deadlock), I'm still going to stand by a belief that mass idiots electing random idiots is still better than a few idiots telling everyone else what to do and imprisoning those that disagree with them.
6. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's more faux capitalism in China, that appears capitalist on the surface because of the rampart consumerism and wild west corporate behavior. Unlike in the West most major banks in China belong to the state, lend money to the vast complex of state owned enterprises and take direct orders from the state. Where in most cases the state = the party. These companies play in an entirely different playing filed as they are owned and thus protected by the state. Private and international banks play a minor role, so does private industry when you look at all the big players on the Chinese market you will see that most belong to the state, such as Sinopec, ICBC, China Telecom, China Unicom, etc.
7. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 20:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think you're quote correct that capitalism is not applicable to advanced society. And it's because a society with the modern level of complexity violates one of the fundamental precepts of capitalism: that individual actors are knowledgable about what they're in the market for.
  It's difficult to speak of certain points (since the behavior of Society since the industrial revolution up to the present has been a highly dynamic, non-equilibrium process, unlike the feudal era preceeding it) but it is clear that once you reach early 20th century levels of technology, the variety of goods wanted and needed start to exceed the average person's ability to be informed. How can one speak of a market efficiently allocating resources, if people don't even know what resource requests to make?
8. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by macraig · 2014-10-26 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  That is certainly a significant part of it, an aspect I have observed and described in the past. There's more to it than just that. Socialism gets a bad rap because humans aren't yet evolved to make it naturally work voluntarily on a massive scale; it works well enough at an intimate village scale, but not for an entire nation. That it is voluntary is critical, because what's the point of an ethical economy if unethical force is required to establish and maintain it? That is why Communism fails miserably.
9. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by Tablizer · 2014-10-26 20:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Let's just hope that the Chinese never find life on another planet, because the first thing they'll do is eat it!
  LOL! If this remark doesn't end up +5, I'm gonna eat slashdot (please, no Dice-already-has jokes).
  Seriously, Chinese are obsessed with food and cooking. It seems almost half their conversations are about food. (I took Chinese language courses once.)
  Maybe that's a good thing. In the US we typically ignore food until we are really hungry, then grab a quick Greaseburger to satisfy our hunger. It's not working well. Planning may do us better.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
10. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by dwywit · 2014-10-26 20:38 · Score: 2
  
  We've a lot of evolving to do before socialism can work on a national scale. At the point where it becomes a government function to weigh in and distribute the wealth (e.g. with over-generous welfare handouts) it becomes a disincentive to work, i.e. if I can get free money from the government, why should I work?
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
11. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 20:51 · Score: 0
  
  What are you bringing UK and Japan into it for? He was talking about China versus USA.
12. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by CRCulver · 2014-10-26 21:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  At the point where it becomes a government function to weigh in and distribute the wealth (e.g. with over-generous welfare handouts) it becomes a disincentive to work, i.e. if I can get free money from the government, why should I work?
  
  Even in the Nordic countries with their generous welfare states, the great majority of people get up and go to work everyday. Even among the people who don't work and get some kind of public support, many are pursuing a degree, or in fact working some small job under the table. A lot of people would be bored without some routine, and most people want the nice amenities they could buy beyond what a basic income scheme would provide.
  In any event, as we move towards increasing automation, at some point we will have to stop thinking it a bad thing when a person chooses not to work, if the only jobs he/she could do would be artificial makework. In the past, retraining redundant workers allowed them to stay productive, but now so much of what people were retrained to do is being automated away. While the new "creative economy" or "internet economy" has offered some new markets, the world only needs so many Perez Hiltons, for example, and it would be unreasonable to expect the masses of unemployed workers around the world to become professional bloggers just for the sake of "not being unemployed".
13. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 21:17 · Score: 0
  
  Guess what, voluntary interaction of the market participants is called capitalism.
  There is no voluntary socialism, I know, I live in one!
14. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 21:42 · Score: 0
  
  I recall a Chinese proverb from some exotic cooking show. It was something like "if its feet are on the ground and its back to the sun, you can eat it"
  I guess the only question is if it has to be our sun or does whatever star the alien planet in question is orbiting count?
15. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by dwywit · 2014-10-26 21:50 · Score: 2
  
  Whoops, forgot about Scandinavia (blame my newly-acquired homebrew kegging system). I'm expressing dismay about the size of the welfare budget here in Oz, and my experiences with people who game the system. I've known professional tertiary students who were smart enough to claim and collect 2 or even 3 student allowances by using fake identities. They liked student life so much, it was preferable to going out and actually getting a job.
  I receive some welfare myself, mainly an income supplement for dependent children, but I wish we could work out a better system.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
16. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by drinkypoo · 2014-10-26 22:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Socialism gets a bad rap because humans aren't yet evolved to make it naturally work voluntarily on a massive scale; it works well enough at an intimate village scale, but not for an entire nation.
  And that, friends, is why some of us fear a massive centralized government. I am not afraid of government, I am afraid of government not under citizen control. There is no representation in our supposedly representative democracy, and thus precious little democracy as well.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
17. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Europe maybe?
18. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  That joke went so far over your head, it is going to orbit for years.
19. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by GTRacer · 2014-10-27 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Convenient that, as orbit's the best place to nuke from. Or so I've heard...
  
  --
  Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
20. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-10-27 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Before we begin to stop thinking that, we'll have to consider a few hard questions. In the Netherlands, there is a growing group of people who have no intention to ever apply for a paying job; they are happy to get by on state benefits, some odd jobs on the side, and a more simple lifestyle. For some this is a life choice, but for others it's a matter of financial incentives: these people could perhaps find work, but would you get up early 5 days a week to work for a tiny increase in your income? In fact, the net family income may in some cases actually be lower compared to being on the dole, as workers lose municipal benefits and tax exemptions that the unemployed enjoy. Our labor participation rate stands at around 65%; at some point this system simply becomes unsustainable. If we would provide a basic income to everyone, I suspect that a great many people would still want to work, but they'd work a great deal less, and productivity would drop. Then you'd end up having to raise taxes for the remaining workers, reducing the incentive to work even further.
  
  So:
  - How would we make the economics of this work? Do we tax differently? And how do we then ensure that we remain competitive as a nation? Or would we move to a socialist model in which the state runs a couple of (highly automated) businesses, and using the proceeds to provide for its citizens? I'm no socialist, but Marx' question about the ownership of the means of production will become an important one in an extremely automated society.
  - How big a slice of the pie would non-workers get, what do we consider to be basic necessities? A home, 3 squares a day, and education and health care, sure. But dish washers, cars, holidays, day care?
  - Which leads to another important question: what perks and privileges do tax paying workers get? For one, I would say the right to vote; at least voting on budgetary matters should be reserved to those footing the bill, and perhaps the right to vote in general as well.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
21. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-27 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not socialism that's holding is back, but our fear of science and its applications. China romps because it has a number of engineers in high government positions, so its overall policy is that Big Things Get Built.
22. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Xordan · 2014-10-27 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Mutualism is a real economic theory (though inconsistent with reality, being based on the LTV). As for 'voluntary socialism' - I think the category you're looking for is 'anarchism' - which wouldn't even be recognised as 'socialism' by most of today's population (largely because it isn't - volunteering the capital you create for the social good is different to the capital you create being owned by society).
23. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Naw, even with some Americans fellation everything European, the same types of problems plague both countries. It's not like Europeans have better economies or less human rights violations.
  And at least for a time, America did capitalism and sense of freedom rather well. It has only been in the last 30 years or so that America has faltered dramatically in this regard.
24. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Socialism - done well - succeeds to the extent that allows the capitalism it's riding on to flourish. Socialism is really just a way for certain people to leech undeserved economic benefits from free trade.
25. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by itzly · 2014-10-27 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even know that it works voluntarily on an intimate village scale. I would expect that people who misbehave in small communities to be punished in one way or another.
26. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by itzly · 2014-10-27 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of people would be bored without some routine
  Sleeping, eating, fucking and playing on the Xbox constitute a routine, right ?
27. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, this is pretty easy.
  As far as basic income goes, you peg it to a percentage of GDP, cut everyone a check, and leave them to their own devises. As the leech to productive citizen ratio grows, everyone gets a smaller check, requiring them to work to meet their needs. You get equilibrium eventually.
  I'd end all taxes except for land value tax just for simplicity's sake. That eliminates a lot of overhead for businesses to form and puts an absolute limit of the amount of taxes that can be collected, which is tied to productivity.
  And since we are going all utopia, I'd push for limited demarchy as well, and set the bar as tax payers in order to hold office.
28. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-10-27 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  In principle that sounds like a good idea; the nice thing is that it accounts for robotic labour as well since that adds to the GDP. But before you can distribute part of the GDP as a basic stipend, you have to collect it as taxes first. Then how to account for a largely robotic factory that contributes greatly to the GDP but generates only very little tax revenue from income taxes and corporate tax? Raise the corporate tax too far, and that factory will take its business elsewhere. Your tax model would need to reflect that.
  
  I can see a few other economic issues as well. In an economic downturn, basic income would drop along with the GDP, slamming the brakes on consumption, thus pushing the economy further into a recession.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
29. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by macraig · 2014-10-27 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Voluntary, yes, but not at all ethical. Currently you have to pick one or the other, can't have both.
30. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Again, end all taxes except for the land value tax.
  Luckily, this idea is starting to gain more ground in conjunction with basic income as a means of providing welfare with as little market distortions as possible. It has been champion by the likes of Milton Friedman, and in practice ends up being a progressive tax on the wealthy. Of all the taxation schemes, it has the least amount of drawbacks.
  The only part I am hesitant about is it essentially becomes a tax on a type of wealth, which I have misgivings about.
  And as far as economic downturns, you still have credit. Not to mention most market downturns are re-evaluations of capital, which is exactly when you should put the brakes on consumption.
31. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by ananamouse · 2014-10-27 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  >I recall a Chinese proverb from some exotic cooking show. It was something like "if its feet are on the ground and its back to the sun, you can eat it"
  In heaven you have American House, Japanese wife and Chinese food............
32. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by smithmc · 2014-10-27 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it is; in fact it's the only way to be sure.
  
  --
  Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
33. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by AmiMoJo · 2014-10-27 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  It's a trade off. The more checks and security you put in, the harder it is for legitimate recipients to claim what they are entitled to. While I'm all for reducing fraud, I'd say it's only worth it if it doesn't negatively impact the majority of honest claimants too much.
  In the UK pensioners get a winter fuel allowance. It isn't means tested in any way, so even the rich get it. There were mumblings about making it only for people below a certain income, but then some people who need it wouldn't get it and might die in the cold, or at least need expensive medical treatment. Giving it to everyone probably saves money, by allowing pensioners to live in their own homes longer without going into care just to stay warm.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
34. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  The first problem is who set's the land value. How often is it re-evaluated. What will be done about the inevitable concentration of land ownership into the hands of the entity that can easliy afford to bribe, er um... lobby, special exemptions for itself. When everyone else becomes a renter, we are all worse off.
35. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  You accrue capital, not create it.
36. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by jellomizer · 2014-10-27 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  You are confusing increasing growth, with bigger.
  China has been so far removed from capitalism for so long that small-medium steps in that direction cause major changes. In China there is still the Government overhead to make sure you don't cross the line, which is rather rigidly set. In the US we hear about the rise in socialism but it is just because we had so little before.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
37. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by TangoMargarine · 2014-10-27 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Naw, even with some Americans fellation everything European
  The insult becomes much less clear when you accidentally the verb. I wasn't aware the U.S. or the E.U. were either in a particularly fellatin' mood these days?
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
38. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  Game Over man!
  you win!
39. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by thunderclap · 2014-10-27 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Weyl... Aliens franchise my friend.
  
  The Weyland-Yutani Corporation has had several different origins in various media. While it was not the first to be portrayed, the origin established in Prometheus is now considered the canonical version. In the film, the company is preceded by Weyland Corp, established by Peter Weyland on October 11, 2012.
40. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by drinkypoo · 2014-10-27 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  At the point where it becomes a government function to weigh in and distribute the wealth (e.g. with over-generous welfare handouts) it becomes a disincentive to work, i.e. if I can get free money from the government, why should I work?
  You have it completely and totally backwards. As long as the tax system does not interfere with making more money resulting in taking home more money, there will always be incentive to make more money. Granted, it may fall off after some point, but that point is well above the point at which citizens of the USA stop gaining more happiness with more money, around 60k/year. Once your needs are met, which includes being able to have some fun, money doesn't make you happier.
  On the other hand, as long as the wealthy can vote themselves lower taxes, there's no incentive to pay them. That's how you've got it totally backwards.
  Even at our highest rates of taxation of the rich, we still had rich people, and it coincided with one of our periods of greatest economic prosperity. There's simply no currency to the idea that socialism demotivates workers. Now, if it's some fake-ass socialism where a couple fucks at the top get rich, then yeah, that's demotivating. But that's also not socialism.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
41. Re: China is more capitalistic than the USA by Tablizer · 2014-10-27 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  In h*ll you have Chinese wife, American food, and Japanese house.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
42. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by catprog · 2014-10-28 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  And the more checks you put in the money you have to spend making the checks and less money on the people who need it.
  
  --
  My Transformation Website
  Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
  Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
43. Re:China is more capitalistic than the USA by redlemming · 2014-10-28 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Socialism gets a bad rap because humans aren't yet evolved to make it naturally work voluntarily on a massive scale
  Not true. Socialism involves group ownership of the means of production (i.e. wikipedia "Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system").
  The problem is that this removes the element of individual incentive that is necessary to deal with the complexity of the world.
  This isn't something we can evolve to deal with on any reasonable time scale. Even with computers we have only limited means to deal with that complexity: the real world is non-linear and non-digital, even chaotic, and computers aren't good at dealing with any of those! Things simply get worse, of course, when you factor human contrariness into the mix.
  Thus, socialism has a bad rap not because of evolutionary issues, but because it doesn't work, and we can't expect it ever to work!
  This is clearly shown by the failures of socialism in the Soviet Union, in India, and in China. The failures of socialism are well documented in history. Look at the history, and one clearly sees how presumably well meaning individuals created disasters for their people because the systems could not deal with the complexity of the world.
  Every socialist I've ever talked to doesn't have a clue about how complex things really are! The "means of production" of even relatively simple technology (such as the computers and cell phones made years ago, now obsolete) involved an enormous number of people doing all kinds of difficult stuff, subject to only limited automation. By "difficult stuff", I include not just design of technology, but logistics, manufacturing, test, distribution, all of which are far more involved than most people even begin to understand (there's other tricky stuff beyond that list, such as how law plays into things).
  For that matter, go back and look at how complex a WWI warship was, or a WWII military aircraft! The number of parts and machining steps that went into these incredibly simple (by modern standards) machines is staggering!
  Over time, things have only gotten more complex, and ever more specialized, and the socialists are too lost in their childish view of the world to see the implications of this. This leads them fundamentally astray in their reasoning, and they end up being highly delusional (a cause for a bad rap in itself!).
  Note that the Nordic countries do not practice socialism. Instead, they heavily tax capitalist enterprise to pay for social welfare programs. This relies on the capitalist systems producing a sufficiently large surplus on resources to be practical, of course. Further, a strong case can be made that these countries are to some extent free-riding on other nations productivity: it is far from clear that every nation could adopt identical programs without everybody suffering.
  Thus, rather than advocating socialism, an experiment that has been tried many times and failed disastrously every time, we should recognize that successful capitalism is necessary to effective social welfare, and focus on improving the social welfare programs we do have. Similarly, to the extent that a society has issues with over-concentration of wealth, or unethical practices in law or business, or corrupt politics, and so forth, then it needs to address those problems directly, rather than wasting time on an approach that is never going to work.
Regulations, regulations, regulations by the_Bionic_lemming · 2014-10-26 18:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Is it any surprise that when you regulate everything and anything - It pushes people who have money someplace else?

--
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
1. Re:Regulations, regulations, regulations by Tablizer · 2014-10-26 20:40 · Score: 2
  
  But China is also getting all the bad sides of de-regulation: pollution, poor and unsafe working conditions, long work hours, growing inequality, and crony-capitalism. It's kind of like the USA during the late 1800's when the down-sides of unfettered big business started growing to extremes.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
2. Re:Regulations, regulations, regulations by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather live in a clean city, thanks to those "evil" regulations than choke on the fumes wherever you go. I bet the Chinese would want a lot more EFFECTIVE regulation and it will slowly get them. You should move there.
3. Re:Regulations, regulations, regulations by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-27 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's why in the Communist era everyone loved the sparkly clean environment of East Germany and industrial Poland, not to mention that unique Ukrainian nuclear game preserve.
Yawn by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 19:11 · Score: 5, Informative

The summary and article call it "the first privately-funded spacecraft to travel the Moon", but it appears to be nothing more than payload that will be dumped off a Chinese (publicly-funded) rocket in an orbit that will take it around the moon and then back to earth.
It would be more accurate to call it the first privately-funded piece of cargo carried to lunar orbit by a publicly-funded rocket, but I suppose that would kill the capitalism boner all the Randroids got upon reading this story.
Nope. by khasim · 2014-10-26 19:20 · Score: 1, Interesting

... if I am to compare the two I would say that the USA is becoming more and more socialistic (turning more and more pinko) while China has turned blue, deeeeep blue
You might want to compare the limits of freedom for individuals in both countries.
And then look at "Totalitarianism" and "Authoritarianism" in addition to "Socialism" and "Capitalism".
European Democracies tend toward Socialism without the "pinko" label.
Or, to put it another way, who ran against China's current President in the last election and how many votes did s/he get from the public?
1. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse Democracy with Economics. You can have a democratic socialist state and you can have a totalitarian capitalist state and there are numerous examples of all possible combinations.
2. Re:Nope. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  No, you really can't. Capitalism is a bit of a biased term; laissez faire, or free trade, implies the ability for every citizen to freely choose all aspect of their own economic behavior. That can't happen inside a totalitarian government, any more than true free speech can't happen. The government couldn't survive it.
  Free trade is simply part and parcel of human freedom, and totalitarian governments need to control it along with other freedoms in order to maintain their grip. What you're probably thinking of, in terms of capitalism existing under totalitarian rule, are mixed economies such as socialism or crony capitalism. China is an example of this. There are not commercial companies in China making space advances... they are firmly under the control of the government.
Good to see China and India involved in Space by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 19:32 · Score: 1

Let's face it, without some competition, the USA would sit around with its thumb up its ass.
1. Re:Good to see China and India involved in Space by jandersen · 2014-10-26 21:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Let's face it, without some competition, the USA would sit around with its thumb up its ass.
  Well, what could we expect, when the space programmes of the US and USSR were, in large parts, no more than dick-waving? The Chinese are quite naturally milking their space program for its publicity value, but they have their eyes firmly on the commercial and political power objectives in the long term. I wish them all success with it - it can only benefit us all, if space exploration becomes sustainable or viable or whatever the word is. And hopefully this will spur the West and Russia on to try to do better.
2. Re:Good to see China and India involved in Space by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-10-27 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. The space programs weren't "much more than dick-waving". They were capitalism vs. communism, writ large for the whole world to see. Had the communists won the space race, it would have been proof positive that their way was better, socialism was inevitable, we'd better all change to their ways, etc. etc. etc. But the bad guys won so we shit on their accomplishment and great victory in the war of ideas.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Correction by wonkey_monkey · 2014-10-26 21:02 · Score: 4, Informative

It's the first deliberate commercial mission to the moon.
I forget the details but there was a commercial satellite that ended up in the wrong orbit, and the easiest way to fix it was to send it out around the moon and back. Okay, it didn't do any actual science or anything, but still.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Correction by Richard_at_work · 2014-10-26 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Considering normal moon missions need a significant boost to get to the moon, how did a commercial satellite do that?
2. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 23:13 · Score: 0
  
  You forget the details because it never happened. Rudimentary orbital mechanics and all that.
3. Re:Correction by wonkey_monkey · 2014-10-26 23:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ORLY?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
  Okay, the article's not clear if it actually went around the Moon, so it probably didn't do that, but it got to within 6,800km, which is 99% of the way there.
  So, what was objection based on rudimentary orbital mechanics, then?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:Correction by FireFury03 · 2014-10-27 01:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Really? Considering normal moon missions need a significant boost to get to the moon, how did a commercial satellite do that?
  Inclination changes are really expensive. By comparison, a Hohmann transfer orbit to the moon and back can be cheaper and can use the moon's gravity to change inclination. The Apollo missions used a free-return trajectory rather than Hohmann transfer orbit since they needed to get to the moon quickly (don't want a bunch of astronauts spending a few months in deep space), which is why they needed significantly more delta-V. Its worth noting that a commercial satellite generally has a significant amount of station keeping fuel since its expected to stay in service for many years - sacrificing a few years of service is reasonable if the alternative is to completely abandon the satellite because its in the wrong orbit.
  I think in the incident in question, someone (Lockheed?) ended up patenting the manouver...
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
5. Re:Correction by TangoMargarine · 2014-10-27 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  AMC-14 was the 36th A2100 spacecraft and was expected to provide more than 15 years of service life. SES and Lockheed Martin explored ways to attempt to bring the functioning satellite into its correct orbital position, and subsequently began attempting to move the satellite into geosynchronous orbit by means of a lunar flyby (as done a decade earlier with HGS-1). In April 2008, it was announced that this had been abandoned after it was discovered that Boeing held a patent[5] on the trajectory that would be required.[6] At the time, a lawsuit was ongoing between SES and Boeing, and Boeing refused to allow the trajectory to be used unless SES dropped its case.[6] Another company has expressed interest in purchasing the satellite, however SES have begun procedures to expedite the satellite's immediate de-orbit.[6] While it is expected that the patent would not stand up to legal challenge, SES intend to de-orbit the spacecraft in order to collect the insurance payout.[6] If this attempt had been successful, the extra use of fuel needed to correct the orbital error would have significantly reduced AMC-14's originally expected service life of 15 years to just four.[7][8][9]
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
  Freaking patents. So a perfectly good, probably multi-million-dollar satellite goes to waste because two companies are squabbling over intellectual property. Ugh.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
6. Re:Correction by catprog · 2014-10-28 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently it ended up under the control of the DoD
  
  --
  My Transformation Website
  Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
  Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
7. Re:Correction by catprog · 2014-10-28 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Deliberately moving to the moon to fix problems in their orbits but not planned from the start.
  
  --
  My Transformation Website
  Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
  Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Crowdfunding by pablo_max · 2014-10-26 21:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

I would think that something like a moon hab or station would be perfect for crowd funding.
I think that space is one thing that tons of people are willing to spend money on. I would be willing to put up a few hundred bucks, even if I get nothing in return. So long as the idea is realistic and gets us going in the right direction.
Maybe I will never be able to go into space. At my age, it is likely I won't, but I can at least dream that my kids will go.
1. Re:Crowdfunding by AmiMoJo · 2014-10-27 00:28 · Score: 2
  
  Crowd funding will only get you a few million tops, you would need billions to do a manned mission to the moon, let along a habitat.
  Lobbying your government is the best bet.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Crowdfunding by Xordan · 2014-10-27 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  I've wondered about the viability of crowdfunding for a wider range of space science. I would be pretty excited about handing over a few thousand $ to help fund a mission like Kepler (even better if I could additionally direct some of my taxes that way - similar to a charitable donation). I'm not sure that there would be enough interested people though; people really willing to cough up the $, not just express interest in someone else doing that.
3. Re:Crowdfunding by pablo_max · 2014-10-27 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  hmm, I am not sure that is really true.
  I mean, a video game was able to get 59 million so far. A video game!
  I would expect it is possible to get much, much more than that for something awesome.
Meanwhile...in the USA. by Chas · 2014-10-26 23:55 · Score: 0

The US government and NASA sit there with their collective thumbs up their collective asses.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The US is finished, lower the flag by gelfling · 2014-10-27 00:50 · Score: 1

We are officially done. Welcome to the second tier status of states, like Argentina, Iran, Greece and so forth.
For real? by MagickalMyst · 2014-10-27 05:34 · Score: 1

Is this moon landing supposed to be real?

Stanley Kubrick is no longer alive.

--
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 13:57 · Score: 0

so there have been accidental commercial missions to the moon?
that doesn't seem likely
Nope. Not even close. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-28 07:51 · Score: 0

First, you are comparing a political system to an economic system.
Secondly, China is NOT Capitalistic. PARTS of China are. Any part that deals with exports, is capitalistic because China entices ( many time, forces ) western businesses to come in, and then give up their technology and/or business information. This is then passed on to Chinese companies, many of which are owned by the Chinese gov. Heck, for western businesses, there is a minimum wage that they must pay locals, while the Chinese companies have a MAXIMUM wage that they can pay and it is less than the aforementioned minimum wage.
Third, the MAJORITY of China remains under PARTIAL to FULL control by the Chinese gov. To move into a zone that has Capitalism, you must get permission from the gov. In many cases, the gov will deny citizens the ability to move into areas, unless there is upwards wage pressures.
Fourth, the Chinese gov. tells the Coal miners how much they will earn, the utilities how much they will charge (for chinese companies, it is a fraction of what they charge western companies), etc. etc. In addition, they subsidize their own and then dump heavily on foreign markets until the local production is destroyed.
Fifth, China is one of the top nations with large numbers of tariffs.

Capitalist? Not even close. They remain a strong backer of centralized economy which is being used fully as a cold war weapon.