Slashdot Mirror


China Just Launched Two Astronauts Into Orbit (bbc.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes the BBC: China has launched two men into orbit in a project designed to develop its ability to explore space. The astronauts took off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in northern China at 23:30 GMT on Sunday [7:30 p.m. EST].

The plan is for them to dock with and then spend 30 days on board the Tiangong 2 space station testing its ability to support life. This and previous launches are seen as pointers to possible crewed missions to the Moon or Mars.

NBC calls this evidence of "the intensifying U.S.-China space rivalry... With the current U.S.-led International Space Station expected to retire in 2024, China could be the only nation left with a permanent presence in space."

265 comments

  1. China should have been allowed to join the ISS by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the mid 1990s, China was not allowed to join the ISS over human rights concerns. Of course,that didn't stop us from welcoming Russia which also had a terrible history, and it isn't like he threat of not being in the ISS changed China's behavior at all. So the end result is that China instead has a very strong and fast growing space program of their own when instead we could be cooperating with them.

    1. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Russia's situation had materially changed at the time. Little in China has changed.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Because America is such a champion of Human Rights...

    3. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So playing nicely with them worked better than throwing a fit and refusing to play nice? And that's proof we should have thrown a fit and refused to play nice?

    4. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post-USSR states were not played with nicely.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)

    5. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      When have you been last time in China?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Each country defines "human rights" differently.

    7. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean there isn't a clear definition of "human rights" to aim for, eg. this one:

      http://www.un.org/en/universal...

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Russia had the stuff we wanted and were the only ones with more than a few months experience with space stations. We were doing missions with them before they had "materially changed".
      To be honest we wanted their material while we didn't want anything space related from China.

    9. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Have you read that document in its entirety?

      I consider myself a fairly laid back person, liberal (in a more original sense than is perhaps used today), with a strong live and let live attitude towards life, and yet I can't bring myself to see eye to eye with some of the articles and the overall wording of that declaration.

      While it is undoubtedly a 'good thing' (TM) I suspect you have to live with unicorns and smoke rainbows to fully jive with what it says...

    10. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Difficult to discuss your viewpoint further when you don't mention which parts you take issue with ?

    11. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Famously championed by an American (Eleanor Roosevelt), ironically.

    12. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Welcoming Russia had more to do with avoiding nuclear apocalypse than anything related to human rights or achieving some scientific goal.

      --
      entropy happens
    13. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooperating? What a laugh. The Chinese are thieves, pure and simple. It was also a mistake to work with Russia. Fortunately ISS is near the end. Russia will be locked out of the future US space program. Let them fly around din circles wit the Chinese.

    14. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no. Russia did not give us anything at all WRT space. Nasa did like Russia's ability to use lowend systems and make it work, but our main reasons for working with them was political. Hell, we even directlt funded their first 10 years of working with iss and have been indirectly funding them since.

    15. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Article 13 jumps right up. Basically, it guarantees open borders and then says that illegal aliens can not be prosecuted and booted out. So what nations have open borders to every one?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Fail.

      Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

      You're allowed to live anywhere within your own country. No segregation, no Apartheid. The black people can live among the white people (if they want to).

      Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

      Which part of that allows "illegal aliens"?

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of wiggle-words in there. For example, while it asks that everyone have the law applied equally, it doesn't define what can be in the laws, and some laws can be nasty or subject to wide interpretation by judges.

    18. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Best thing for them. Did you even read your own cite?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia did not give us anything at all WRT space.

      If "give" includes "sell", then yes, they did "give" us things WRT space. They gave us their nuclear weapons which we then used as fuel.

    20. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When have you been last time in China?

      In my case earlier this year I was in Guangzhou. I went up a tall tower, I brought some tourist crap and found my way back to the airport via public transport.

      To your point, it's evident that China is not inert.

    21. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      China is the new URSS, you know...

    22. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Which part of that allows "illegal aliens"?

      It's in the page 23... you missed it?

    23. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      It's called MAD

    24. Re:China should have been allowed to join the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking.

      Yes, it was inconsistent and hypocritical to allow the Russians to join the ISS and not China. You want the truth? You can't handle the tru.... oh wait, that's another thread.

      No, at the time:

      1). China could not offer any crucial space technologies to the ISS program;
      2). China was much smaller and weaker than they are today. It was clear they were rapidly growing and were likely on a tear to become a world level player, but they had not achieved it;
      3). We were trying really, really hard to 'win Russia over' to more westernized politics, economics, and standards of civil societal conduct, due to the fall of the USSR. We weren't doing so with the Chinese;
      4). We wanted China as a rival in space.

      That last one is a joke. Yet it may ultimately kickstart a lot more western activity in space, particularly in America. America hates "gaps" with any other country, and particularly with frenemies/enemies. The Space Gap will certainly be used to justify ramping up spending and effort in the space program. Count on it.

      Thus by ignoring China's need for validation and inclusion in the 1990's, vis-à-vis the ISS, we inadvertently started a space race that will reinvigorate western space development.

    25. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      that does NOT say of YOUR OWN NATION. It says of EACH STATE. IOW, whatever nations that you are in.
      NOWHERE does it say that to cross into other nations, you must get PERMISSION.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    26. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Look up "Mir Space Station" or ask a grown up about it.

    27. Re: China should have been allowed to join the ISS by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Right. If you're in a country legally, you aren't restricted to a particular area. If you're in a country, you can leave without permission from the country you're in. It says nothing about being able to enter any particular country, and therefore countries can restrict alien entry as they please.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wi Hai Flai, and Go Up Dang?

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ignorance is funny.

  3. Stop the Mars BS by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    The moon is 200 times closer and better suited for all visitation and logistics problems. Those have to come first. Mars is a toxic landscape requiring trips through space subjecting vehicles to millions of micro-asteroids and radiation bombardment which nothing similar has survived long term. Satellites hide in the magnetosphere, and Voyager is a light probe.

    1. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Pitiful idiots hiding in the shadows hide the truth they don't like to see.

    2. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is asking you to go to Mars. Calm down, sir.

    3. Re:Stop the Mars BS by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the moon is outside the magnetosphere too

    4. Re:Stop the Mars BS by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The moon has a fair amount of disadvantages for a permanent base. Hard to find water and CO2, for example, which are pretty abundant on Mars. The soil is very abrasive because the hard edges of small grains are not weathered since there's no atmosphere. Nights are 15 earth-days long, as apposed to around 25 hours on Mars. No protection at all from micrometeorites, versus at least a little bit of atmosphere burning up the smallest meteorites on Mars. Etcetera. It's not like all these people planning a Mars base have never thought about maybe making one on the moon first. Apparently they have their reasons.

      It would be cool, though, if SpaceX would send their spaceship to the moon first as a kind of test run to check whether everything is working properly. In a nonchalant way, because the moon is easy. That would be fun to see.

    5. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes 3 days to reach though not 3+ years

    6. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Surviving the trip is still problematic. Fantasy industry doesn't happen - without people there is no use and distance costs more than everything you claim is a Mars advantage. There is plenty of water on the moon in shadows and exploitation doesn't require years (more cost again in time) to start.

    7. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Problem: You can't grow potatoes using moon dist and poop.

      Mars dust works fine though.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Stop the Mars BS by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      If you take all the toxic metals out.

    9. Re:Stop the Mars BS by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Only in the movies.
      Meanwhile in reality (as shown with a very simple google search) both have been used:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538023
      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103138

    10. Re:Stop the Mars BS by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Mars also has an atmosphere apparently allowing a judicious mission planner to lower the delta V required for getting to the surface of Mars below the delta V required to get to the lunar surface (in one piece!). It also allows you to refuel for your trip back quite easily and also has a gravity more suitable for humans. (Of course, then there's the issue of the one-way trip to Mars lasting six months. The difference in delta V requirements could partly compensate for it, though.)

      Regarding micrometeoroids...interestingly, the opinion seems to be that these are much more unlikely to hit you in the interplanetary space. We're merely fueling the cislunar space with our own crap in stable orbits.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Stop the Mars BS by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What toxic metals?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The moon is 200 times closer and better suited for all visitation and logistics problems. Those have to come first. Mars is a toxic landscape requiring trips through space subjecting vehicles to millions of micro-asteroids and radiation bombardment which nothing similar has survived long term. Satellites hide in the magnetosphere, and Voyager is a light probe.

      Mars doesn't have a global magnetosphere.

      Why would you be talking about Voyager in the context of Mars? Voyager had fuck all to do with Mars.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    13. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you be talking about Voyager in the context of Mars?

      Jesus. Reading comprehension is hard, huh?

    14. Re:Stop the Mars BS by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Oops, not metals, I meant percholarates. (I knew there was something toxic in the Martian soil, but was too lazy to google what it was).

    15. Re: Stop the Mars BS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Please stop your own BS. First, the west will have ppl on the moon by 2022, if not sooner. Bigelow is desperate to go there due to needing lots of customers. Secondly, when BFR hits the market around 2021-2022, they need to fly at least monthly. What will they launch? Well there is not enough large sats needed (esp if 300 tonnes ). So spacex will support the lunar base. Afterall they will be the cheapest launch system going, likely by a factor of 10 fold. Third, nasa will no doubt be first customer at that base. However, it is nothing major to them since private space will do it. As such, nasa should continue to be devoted to helping private space make space stations, landers, in-situ processing, nuke engines, etc. Esp since this equipment can be used on both moon and Mars with slight changes.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    16. Re: Stop the Mars BS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Mars can be done in 3-4 months with chemical engine and 1 month with nuke engine.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re: Stop the Mars BS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Well, like Mars, plenty of easy solutions to those issues. In general, be at North and South Pole. Put base in the ground where temp is fairly level. Solar will work for most, but will still need nuke power. Mars also has issues, but easily solved.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You have been feeding on faux news too much. When u hit college take a science degree and you will realize what an idiot you are currently.

    19. Re:Stop the Mars BS by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Technically Viking was called Voyager in its early days when it was a much larger more ambitious lander/orbiter that was to be launched on a Saturn V. Costs escalated, Saturn V availability was limited and it was recast as the more modest Viking program. The Voyager name was reused for the 2 Grand Tour missions

    20. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Voyager 1 and 2 had fuck all to do with Mars. Can you comprehend that much?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      You are just a fucking idiot. That is all.

    22. Re:Stop the Mars BS by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Where the hell are you getting 3+ years from?

      The Mars rovers were launched in the summer of 2003, and were on the Martian dirt in January of 2004. Do you think that NASA used some kind of massively over-sized rocket for the payloads in order to get them there 6x faster than your timeline you pulled straight from your colon?

      You do know that if it took 3 years to get from Earth to Mars, you would only be traveling at ~2,077 km/h. You also know that it takes an escape velocity of 40,270 km/h just to leave Earth's sphere of influence, right?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    23. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Influences of gravity from multiple bodies. Launch timing. Look into these things and realize the mass differences involved between probes and someting even as small as the Space Shuttle.

    24. Re:Stop the Mars BS by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Find a rocket that can launch from Earth, travel to Mars, land and then lift off again, and complete the return trip. All without maintenance except with supplies it carries, plus cargo and people with all supplies required for the entire trip. They don't exist, and the heaviest lift existing rocket Delta IV doesn't come close. The shuttle boosters were barely able to reach orbit with its weight given the infinite resources available at a launch site developed for that purpose for decades on Earth.

    25. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      My god you are a fantasy fueled idiot. I hope you are a kid in school, otherwise you are just retarded.

    26. Re:Stop the Mars BS by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      calm down you two! (and maybe get a room)

    27. Re: Stop the Mars BS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, just a guy that worked on MGS, Boeing, ULA, and Jeppesen.
      And what kind of a fucking idiot are you?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    28. Re: Stop the Mars BS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hell, you can not even get length of travel time down. It is WT like you that has fucked up our nation.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    29. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You inbred faggots need to learn about mass.

    30. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you need to learn about science and engineering zipperhead. .

    31. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greater mass means you need more force to accelerate to a velocity; this means you'll never get to orbit with a weak rocket. God damn you are a fucking idiot!

    32. Re: Stop the Mars BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and that has nothing to do with our getting to mars . Only you fuck heads continue to rant about somebody else work to get us to mars and the moon. But you dumb fucks that do not work in the Industry, or even in our nation, believe that you have the right to tell individuals or our gov. What to do.

  4. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't the first time China has sent people into space, they've been doing it since 2003!

  5. There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A rivalry can only exist with two roughly equal adversaries. China is no rival of the USA in space exploration. China is about 50 years behind the USA in just about any indicator of space progress or achievement. Even in 50 years they will still be behind the US, and maybe even ESA or the Japanese.

    China is still a vastly inferior, backwards nation. They have advanced a lot since realizing communism sucks, but they still have a lot way to go.

    1. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's nice, but what launches of American rockets are currently putting American astronauts into space?

    2. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China is no rival of the USA in space exploration.

      Right, there is no rivalry: China can send people into space and the USA cannot. Also, China has its own space station, and the USA can only pay Russia for a lift to the ISS, which is international.

      So, the capabilities are not the same.

    3. Re:There Is No Rivalry by peragrin · · Score: 1

      50 years ago is 1966

      In 1969 we had the tech to send people to the moon. Being 50 years behind isn't bad since 50 years ago they were 100 years behind us. At that rate growth, and our lack of growth I give China 25 more years to surpass us.

      The n you should be scared.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:There Is No Rivalry by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking Christ, it's a temporary situation that will be amended in fairly short order. The pro-China types would have everyone believe that the US is capable of virtually nothing.

      When China can send probes to Pluto, and put Rovers on Mars that work for over a decade, you let me know.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scared of what? We're out of ideas, maybe they have some. We've more or less demonstrated that launching people into space is pointless (no, I'm not trolling, I actually helped do it. It's nothing like tv or movies).

    6. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      China is no rival of the USA in space exploration. China is about 50 years behind the USA

      Pretty sure that's what I heard a certain hare say about a certain tortoise right before he went to sleep and lost the race.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the hostility towards science in the US these days, I am not very confident in how "temporary" a situation it is that america is unable to perform their own launches into space these days.

      Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity were fantastic achievements, but do you really feel the that the current environment in america politically will allow for such continued brilliance? Fear what is becoming of your country.

    8. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "China is about 50 years behind the USA in just about any indicator of space progress or achievement...."

      In my own lifetime, China was noted primarily for starving to death. Now look at their rate of progress. I wouldn't be surprised to see them reach Mars ahead of us.

    9. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      An incalculably complex problem methodically broken down into millions upon millions of mind numbing, soul crushing, number crunching accounting exercises. In triplicate.

    10. Re:There Is No Rivalry by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The US is almost 50 years behind the US at this point. How long would it take the US to launch a manned moon mission?

    11. Re:There Is No Rivalry by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "Given the hostility towards science in the US these days, I am not very confident in how "temporary" a situation it is that america is unable to perform their own launches into space these days."
      Thats why Russia, India and China put so much effort in keeping their production lines working at any cost over the decades.
      Most smart nations can lift something into space. The real effort is in getting just the perfect design for every complex, sensitive payload. Humans, sensitive science without risking epic shake apart.
      The metallurgy has to be nurtured and kept in house and staff kept working, passing down skills. A start up 20 years later is just a huge problem trying to relearn what was lost and never well documented due to "security" or "no bid" or just the thought that the company would always have the skills for every step. Test a new design that might never offer the features needed.
      Stopping the budgets of a set of rocket systems tends to really slow later rocket making skills.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "current environment in America " This is 100% BS. Science and technology advances still out pace any thing any other country does. Ask yourself what does the US spend billions of dollars on every year? If you guessed the military you would be correct. Designing and building a B-2 stealth bomber requires a fairly good R&D staff. GPS was US military technology that got passed down to the masses. The cutting edge computer technology is being built for military applications and that technology will also trickle down to the commercial market. Advances in material sciences and medical advances can also be attributed to the military and those advances will also work their way into the public sphere. These are just some examples of technology advances in the US but there are plenty more.

      Oh the US uses Russian rockets because it is cheaper than building there own right now. It's not that they cannot be made it is just cheaper to pay the Russians and use the saved money on some other advances. The US does have rockets to fly military satellites when needed. The US Air force has also been flying a reusable drone capable of reaching orbit. A space plane that could provide both offensive and defensive operations in orbit. And I am pretty sure this endeavor also uses home grown technologies.

    13. Re: There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is science, not alchemy.

    14. Re:There Is No Rivalry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      China can send people into space and the USA cannot.

      USA has rovers on Mars, just did a flyby of Pluto, and now has a probe heading into the Kuiper Belt. China does not.

      Which will have a bigger long term impact, the 6.5 meter James Webb Space Telescope, or this manned Chinese space station that is just as pointless as the ISS?

    15. Re:There Is No Rivalry by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The US is almost 50 years behind the US at this point. How long would it take the US to launch a manned moon mission?

      Probably less than the last time. We have some pretty good rockets again now. Now our corporations are capable of going to space, it doesn't even take our government any more. Let me know when China or Russia make it to that point.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:There Is No Rivalry by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Funny

      How long would it take the US to launch a manned moon mission?

      Well, it is going to take 30 years to finish the BART extension from Fremont to San Jose, and a moon landing is more complex than that. So it could be a while.

    17. Re:There Is No Rivalry by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      So, the capabilities are not the same.

      Capabilities or will? (politics, budget, priorities, debt, mumble mumble mumble...)

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    18. Re:There Is No Rivalry by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      Tell us about China's probes to all the planets, their sun observatories, the exoplanets they've found, their probe that's left the solar system....

    19. Re:There Is No Rivalry by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Tell me when our corporations start outdoing government space agencies and not just retreading old ground but in a cheaper, less reliable, fashion. Corporations have yet to actually LEAD the way in space.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    20. Re:There Is No Rivalry by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      By that logic, America can't even put someone in the air.

    21. Re:There Is No Rivalry by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Corporations are the ones who really do the R&D. NASA is mostly a funding agency.

    22. Re:There Is No Rivalry by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The Chinese were likely the first to observe the sun and space in a rational manner. As for current sun observatories, they're working on it.

      They also landed on the moon a couple of years ago. We haven't been able to go there for over forty years.

      Largest telescope in the world? The Chinese FAST single aperture radio telescope is more than 200,000 square meters, around three times as much as the second largest (Arecibo in Puerto Rico).

      I think it would be wise to not rest on our laurels and dismiss the Chinese space program. It's rapidly overtaking NASA in more and more areas.

    23. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You owe me a cup of coffee and a new keyboard. Well played, sir, well played!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    24. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The USA is perfectly capable of landing a probe on the moon at any time. It's a lot easier than Mars, where we've landed numerous probes/rovers. There simply hasn't been any interest in doing so -- the USA's current interests in the moon have been better served with orbiting probes and intentional impacts.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    25. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      China's new FAST radio telescope on the ground could be nearly as important as James Webb, but I do wish they'd focus more of their space launches on that kind of science.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    26. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Tell us about China's probes to all the planets, their sun observatories, the exoplanets they've found, their probe that's left the solar system....

      Just because they started late doesn't mean they can't overtake you. Just sayin'.

      --
      No sig today...
    27. Re:There Is No Rivalry by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Also, China has its own space station, and the USA can only pay Russia for a lift to the ISS, which is international.

      Actually, it's more than half-owned, half-built, and half-launched by the US. Just because it's called "international" for PR reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a mostly-US project (it is).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:There Is No Rivalry by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      There's always an exception for military research. But the crazy mix of a significant part of Americans, half of them brainwashed with post-modern bullshit and the other half brainwashed with religious bullshit, are definitely not the people you'd go for to politically support modern science.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    29. Re:There Is No Rivalry by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In terms of time or in terms of money? At this point it seems that less money but more time is required (because even the technological progress and related savings haven't outstripped the funding cuts yet).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re:There Is No Rivalry by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    31. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Funny. Almost the same was said in the 1990s about their manufacturing ability.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Putting men into orbit and on the moon had no immediately applicable results. No, we didn't get rich off the moon rocks we got home. But what happened during this time caused the US to lead the economy for decades after. It forced us to come up with new solution to new problems, the US made progress that's been seen before only in times of war when innovation was crucial for survival. And all that without the bloodshed.

      There were huge leaps ahead in metallurgy, propulsion, computers, electronics, medicine and a lot of other fields, but this also marked the beginning of key elements that we today consider cornerstones of efficiency, from process management to risk management and disaster recovery procedures.

      So believe it or not, launching people into orbit has its merits. It forces you to solve problems that do have very real applications down here on our planet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:There Is No Rivalry by idji · · Score: 1

      Who put a rover on the moon in the last few years?
      Who made the components in the computer that you wrote your post on?
      Which country just launched a satellite in August 2016 to perform quantum entanglement experiments over 1000's of miles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Notice it's the Austrian Academy of Science involved here, not a US based institution.
      Travel around Los Angeles, measure the air pollution, look at the state of the roads, ask people how many hours a day they spend on transportation, find out who has healthcare, look at what people eat, and then tell me that isn't backwards. That city has a long way to go to being a pleasant place to live.
      You might wake up in a few years and realize what was going on around you but you refused to notice
      The smartest people in America are helping Tech Companies deliver ads and make you post your breakfast publicly. This is a scandal of wasted human resources? Where do you think China is investing it's brains?
      Who just bought Lexmark, leaving Xerox the only copier maker in the US?

    34. Re:There Is No Rivalry by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Why replicate what others have already done? Did the US have to land on Venus just because the Russian did?

      China has specific goals, to get their own space station up and running and then on to the moon. They have also been at it for much less time than the US or Russia, which took many decades to get all those probes out there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:There Is No Rivalry by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we've never sent anything to Mars before. Tell me about something that is not just a cheaper version of something that's already been done. I'm talking about LEADING the way. It's much easier to do something once the costs and issues are known and you can estimate profits - and Mars is well known. Still waiting on corporations doing something completely unknown.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    36. Re: There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, we have not had the capability, for at least 16 years.we have designs, not the actual metal, to launch. We have 1 said as in one system capable of launch, a military system. It's not man capable, in private industry, we may be getting close, to one system. But I believe the EPA gods will shut them down after their first launch. Ah, but our businesses, have helped,they are slowly letting us relegate to a third world country. Neat eh!. China, good going boys! Take the high ground, invest a little more each year on space exploration, your nation need to get more involved in the dream of science. But good going.

    37. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US and the Soviets pioneered the technology that got humanity into space. China is re-treading that ground. Putting humans into space and having them return alive is an impressive feat, no doubt, but let's keep this in context.

    38. Re: There Is No Rivalry by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      China is not, and never has been, a communist nation. It is a totalitarian nation with a command economy, that has introduced capitalism into fields that deal with exported goods. The rest remains under control of the gov.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    39. Re: There Is No Rivalry by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hillary backs nasa and nukes. We will see science expanded again esp once FH and dragon V2 fly.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    40. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > new solution to new problems

      This makes no sense. It's either one or the other. Otherwise it's just line noise.

    41. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mistake a lack of interest with a lack of capability.

      If the US is zipping probes past Pluto and sending pack photos, what makes you think they couldn't land a rover on the Moon in 6 months if they wanted to? NASA could take basically any ULA lifter and put a duplicate rover from any of the Mars efforts on top of it and have it there in no time at all, just by blowing the dust off the binders left over from the 1970s.

    42. Re:There Is No Rivalry by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I forgot that NASA manufactured all the hardware used for Apollo. No wait, it was McDonnell Aircraft, Douglass Aircraft, Boeing, Grumman, Rocketdyne, and North American Aviation that designed and built the hardware to the specs that NASA put to bid.

      Most of those are now just Boeing, by the way.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    43. Re:There Is No Rivalry by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      False equivalence.

      NASA doesn't need to deal with the bureaucracy of right-of-way disputes in order to go to the Moon. That shaves 20 years right there.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    44. Re:There Is No Rivalry by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Don't mistake a lack of interest with a lack of capability.

      Don't mistake a lack of money for a lack of interest.

    45. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, it's new problems that were not existing in such a way before, and for those problems new solutions had to be found, because old solutions did not apply.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    46. Re:There Is No Rivalry by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Yes, Chinese civilization was impressive...but then they stagnated for centuries with bureaucracy. A warning there for everyone to be sure.

      They "landed on the moon" but we haven't gone there in 40 years?? If you call putting down a rover "landing" then we landed on Mars AGAIN four years ago. Their rover on the moon broke the 2nd day. U.S. rover on Mars is still going four years later! Which is more impressive and takes the most advanced tech?

      FAST is 2nd largest S.A. telescope, Russia's is biggest. While inferior for some tasks, Arecibo can also do some things FAST can't since it has transmitters for radar astronomy, and it's part of the Very Long Baseline Array

      As for off-world exploration, Chinese space program has yet to overtake the US in any area at all.

    47. Re: There Is No Rivalry by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we put a rover on Mars in 2012 and you claim we don't "have the metal" to put probe on moon?

    48. Re:There Is No Rivalry by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that yes, it would be worthwhile to put lander on Venus by the USA as the tech now exists to capture much more data than the very impressive Russian program did decades ago.

    49. Re:There Is No Rivalry by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The US is almost 50 years behind the US at this point. How long would it take the US to launch a manned moon mission?

      Depends on how long it will take for SpaceX to get the Falcon Heavy up and running (~2017) and then man rated or for the ULA/Blue Origin to get their kit up and running (~2018) and man rated (perhaps further along than SpaceX)

    50. Re:There Is No Rivalry by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I tend to think of basic research as adding to the bank of unused human knowledge, and applied research as drawing from it to solve problems. Whenever you reduce basic research by having your best minds doing applied research, you're drawing more from the bank than you're putting in. This means that, in the future, you're not going to have as much research in the bank, and things will progress slower. Since devoting all the best minds to applications means you get lots of impressive applications, this is normally mistaken for progress.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    51. Re:There Is No Rivalry by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What do you have against doing things cheaper? If we can cut the cost of sending stuff to low Earth orbit considerably, all space missions are easier. Consider it an investment.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    52. Re:There Is No Rivalry by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's another thing that happened with the moonshots. Because that "bank of knowledge" was essentially empty in the areas that were required for the flights we were finally forced to do some fundamental research, and there was suddenly also money available for it.

      A lot of scientists would, given the chance, opt for basic research because they, too, know that this is where the groundbreaking leaps in progress are. You know the saying, applied research gives you results but basic research leads to revolutions. And this is also where the Nobel prizes are. But it's usually quite hard to get money for it. It usually takes decades (at least) until basic research can be monetized. But this program pretty much finally forced management to cough up the dough for basic research, and scientists jumped on it.

      The outcome was that the US was well into the 80s and even early 90s the leading nation in pretty much all related technology fields. That was money well invested. And, also important, it created domestic jobs because something so critical for national security cannot be sent abroad.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    53. Re:There Is No Rivalry by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that has no bearing on the amount of money available to the USA to spend on space program, irrelevant.

      by your reasoning the government can't buy office supplies, but they do

  6. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by geekpowa · · Score: 1

    Not sure if trolling....

    FTFA: "China is only the third country - after Russia and the US - to carry out its own crewed space missions. "

    Also being doing it since before 2006: Chinese Astronauts

  7. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Jzanu · · Score: 1, Funny

    China put their first man in space in 2003, with a completely independent program rather than scraps of Russian hardware. It was decimated by 100 years of industrial warfare against the entire western world, putting even the Soviet Union to shame for their significantly slower recovery from a paltry German invasion.

  8. General Tso by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    That's the thing about Chinese astronauts. A half hour after you launch one, you want to launch another.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:General Tso by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Thanks, now I can't resist the Panda Express left overs in my fridge. Shit.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    2. Re:General Tso by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you had Chinese for launch, you sure don't want any to diner.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they are only of only two who can send humans into space now. Russia and China. Nobody else can do it at this time, so anyone who wants to go to space needs t ask for a ride from one of them. Most people pay the Russians to get there.

  10. Life imitating art by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    Firefly's backstory contains an element about the US and China being the powers that drove into space:

    "The show blended elements from the space opera and Western genres, depicting humanity's future in a manner different from most contemporary science fiction programs in that there are no large space battles. Firefly takes place in a multi-cultural future, primarily a fusion of Western and East Asian cultures, where there is a significant division between the rich and poor. As a result of the Sino-American Alliance, Mandarin Chinese is a common second language; it is used in advertisements, and characters in the show frequently use Chinese words as curses. According to the DVD commentary on the episode "Serenity", this was explained as being the result of China and the United States being the two superpowers that expanded into space."

    -- Wikipedia on Firefly

    1. Re:Life imitating art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.... although it looks more likely to be Russia and China, both of which have manned space programs. The US has not had a manned program since the retirement of the Shuttle many years ago.

       

    2. Re:Life imitating art by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      "many years ago" ?
      5 is a very odd definition of 'many'. (5 years, as of this writing)

    3. Re:Life imitating art by Mogster · · Score: 2

      "many years ago" ?
      5 is a very odd definition of 'many'. (5 years, as of this writing)

      It's the Troll form of counting = One, Two, Many, Lots - Men at Arms, Terry Pratchet

      (Yes I know it's not the exact quote but I don't have the book in front of me)

      --
      ACK NAK RST
    4. Re:Life imitating art by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Especially since there was a 6 year interval between the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975 and the first flight of the Columbia orbiter in 1981.

      Was there as much much hand-wringing about not being able to launch a guy ourselves then? No.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Life imitating art by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Especially since there was a 6 year interval between the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975 and the first flight of the Columbia orbiter in 1981.

      Was there as much much hand-wringing about not being able to launch a guy ourselves then? No.

      Actually, Yes, there was.

      It just wasn't on twitter (which didn't exist yet). 8-P

  11. Solve problems on Earth first by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I don't know if anyone remembers, but at the time the space station was being constructed many scientists complained that there was no clear purpose for the project.

    It was said (at the time) that there were no compelling experiments that needed to be done (in long-term weightlessness), and that the money could be better spent on other more interesting astronomical projects such as rovers, off-Earth exploratory missions, orbital telescopes, and such.

    To date I still don't think any really ground-breaking science was done at the station. Yeah, little PR things like how cats cope with zero G, and how spiderwebs look in space, but basically nothing very useful.

    Now we have this provocative headline "China could be the only nation left with a permanent presence in space!" and... yeah? So what?

    We haven't lost the ability to put things into orbit, and space stations are enormously expensive.

    Let's solve a couple of our problems down here on Earth first.

    1. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I, for one, think we should stay in the trees. We have enough problems to solve here before we go roaming the grasslands in search of denser food sources.

    2. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by quenda · · Score: 1

      Earth? We should never have come down from the trees before we solved the problems there first!

      Some say even emerging from the oceans was premature.

    3. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we have this provocative headline "China could be the only nation left with a permanent presence in space!" and... yeah? So what?

      I think it's China' tendency to mount an awful lot of military hardware on their "peaceful, civilian installations" that has people at least somewhat concerned.

    4. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by bmo · · Score: 2

      The space station and manned programs are a drop in the bucket when it comes to the military-industrial-complex budget.

      Solve problems here on Earth? A *single* Zumwalt class destroyer costs 4 billion dollars.

      We could be building our own infrastructure instead of blowing up other countries infrastructure. Instead of Lockheed building more F35s, which will be obsoleted by drones in 10 years, they could be building comms infrastructure, smart roads, and other actually useful things.

      But no, we have to build more things that go zoom zoom boom boom because blowin' shit up is sexier. We /don't/ need stealth planes. We /don't/ need to spend so much more money on "modern" buggy armament. There are good reasons why the Russians still tool around in their Tupolev TU-95s bombing ISIS and we in our B52s. Because they are just fine in the conventional wars we get involved in. There aren't any nation-states out there that have anything even approaching the 60 year old technology these planes represent.

      Not even China.

      And a war with Russia is laughable. Only the lunatics of the PNAC/FPI and the assholes lining up behind Hillary think that a new cold war between the US and Russia and/or China is in the works. Mostly because they're the ones that intend to create one.

      If we only stop propping up the awful Saudis and the likes of them, we could be paying attention to our own problems right here.

      The hilarious thing is that there is probably more money to be had by companies like Raytheon and Lockheed in building infrastructure instead of building weapons systems, because there is that much more work to do.

      Complaining that the space program costs too much when you look at the other stuff is like complaining about some single mom getting food stamps while Goldman Sachs gets handed a trillion dollars to bail them out.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To date I still don't think any really ground-breaking science was done at the station.

      Really?

    6. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be fair (concerning your F-35 point), there is no point on the near horizon in which manned military jets will be obsoleted by drones. Namely because you can't jam a human. Until you can get to the stage where drones do not need real-time command streams in order to be fully effective - that is, drones making their own decisions on who to kill - you need humans. People always forget electronic warfare when it comes to military conflict, yet it's one of the most important aspects of a modern battlefield.

      There is some interesting potential for drone-human synergy, however. Look at the F-35 and its main strengths and weaknesses. Its main strengths are that it's very hard to detect / target, and that it has a very high level of sensor integration, including multi-aircraft sensor integration, designed to distribute a wide variety of data to make decisions about what responses to make with the hardware on hand. Its weaknesses include limited internal payload capacity (it can carry external payload, but at the cost of its stealth) and limitations on how much EW it can do on its own (either due to built-in capabilities, limited capacity for extra payload, or the risks of being targeted while carrying out EW).

      Pairing F-35s with drones however seems to meet the best strengths of both. F-35s could have sensor fusion with drones, allowing them to take part in EW and carry significantly more armament than the F-35 itself can carry,. The drones can afford to be more visible, since the loss of one is not as significant. Meanwhile, having it in formation with an F-35 makes it much harder to jam communications. You have a no-lag, relatively short distance mesh network (that can close distance as-needed), with a human in the local decision-making loop.

      Re, Russia: A new Cold War with Russia is lining up whether the US wants one or not. It only takes one side to start one. Re, China: no, not really. There are some clear conflicts, mainly these days centered around the South China Sea. But the overall conflict level is no broader than it's been on average than in the past several decades.

      Re, "bombing ISIS": Russia is not bombing Daesh. Russia is bombing JaF and to a lesser extent FSA. They were only doing about 10-20% of their bombing runs on Daesh before, and since the failed Tabqah offensive haven't focused on Daesh at all.

      You are correct that space programs are cheap, on the overall scheme of things.

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    7. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      This is a classic argument over general science and applied science. They learned so many things and recorded so much data that we'll be sorting through it for the next century. Did it specifically come up with the next Velcro? I am not sure one way or another, but the tools and life support systems and preventative maintenance routines, as well as best practices on corrective maintenance are all so unbelievably invaluable for future space exploration.

    8. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      How many Zumwalt destroyers are there? Two. Project costs with research are very heavy outlay, construction (minimal), then maintenance (largest cost). With more ships over time by default cost per ship lowers because the others still are in service (until maintenance cost increases, see the mothball fleet). That isn't the case with space equipment because it has a generally one-way trip out for a single-use lifetime. The shuttle was a costly mistake with too little of everything it needed including both cargo space and safety systems. Soyuz is effectively disposable but has limited lift capacity for future heavy satellites that turn it into a Vespa. Delta IV is the only delivery mechanism suitable for all near future needs.

    9. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many Zumwalt destroyers are there? Two. Project costs with research are very heavy outlay, construction (minimal), then maintenance (largest cost). With more ships over time by default cost per ship lowers because the others still are in service (until maintenance cost increases, see the mothball fleet).

      There were supposed to be 32, but the things were so goddamned expensive the Navy settled for 3.

    10. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      To be fair (concerning your F-35 point), there is no point on the near horizon in which manned military jets will be obsoleted by drones.

      this depends on how you define "near". As a fraction of the time in which we've had military aircraft? True. As a fraction of the time in which we've been making war? Minuscule.

      Namely because you can't jam a human.

      It's harder, but it's not impossible.

      Until you can get to the stage where drones do not need real-time command streams in order to be fully effective - that is, drones making their own decisions on who to kill - you need humans.

      For some missions, yes. For others, provably not. Cruise missiles are drones which are fully effective. They do make decisions on who to kill, but not in the way you probably meant it, which is to say target selection. But they are aspect-tracking weapons, and you literally provide the fancy ones with imagery for target recognition. Frankly, it is not a large step from where we are now (way beyond that, of course; that was 1980s tech) to making drones capable of handling a secondary mission objective like defending an area from airborne attackers who fire first, or eliminating any SAM site which fires upon them and which is outside of a friendly operational zone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1496 Spain had a lot of problems...

    12. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      You can jam the pilot's radar, comm and targeting systems. You can blind a pilot. You can therefore jam a human.

    13. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by bmo · · Score: 1

      A sufficiently agile drone can do high-G maneuvers that can kill a pilot. Indeed, special care is taken with the flight envelope that a pilot doesn't red-or-black out. There are limits to humans that machinery can surpass and with autonomous drones actually /happening/ now, the days of the human pilot are numbered. I expect this to happen in the near future if it's not already in the skunk-works.

      >Drone-f35 synergy

      Can be done with AWACS and ELINT equipped aircraft. A C-130 can carry a lot more ELINT equipment than any f35 can. This is especially true since the F35 is supposed to be an over-the-horizon capable weapons system - the pilot never actually sees the target with is own eyes and is far enough to ignore most threats anyway.

      And ELINT is better when you have a high-loiter-time aircraft, which is /not/ the F35.

      --
      BMO

    14. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [Not] any really ground-breaking science was done at the station. Yeah, little PR things like how cats cope with zero G, and how spiderwebs look in space, but basically nothing very useful.

      A $100-billion cat video. That certainly beats a $500 military hammer.

      One of the few important findings from the station is medical problems created by living without gravity, some permanent. A smaller station perhaps could have been used for that research, though.

    15. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Riiight, you DO know we've been having to cripple our planes for damned near a half a century...right? You see starting waaay back with the F-14 our planes could take more g-forces than the pilots and this issue has been coming up in flight since the 1930s which is why the Stuka had automatic flaps, so the plane would pull out of a dive if the pilot blacked out. the plane would be fine of course but the pilot? Snooze city. This is why its stupid to continue making piloted aircraft, our tech is so far beyond what a puny meatsack can take its not even funny.

      And lets be honest the ONLY thing the F-35 is good for is making defense contractors a shitload of cash, its been nothing but a giant fucking dud. Its ironic as we've become the Axis in WWII, ignoring tried and true weapons systems like the F-15, F-16, and F-18 for "wonder weapons" that just like the ones in WWII are too expensive, unreliable, and spend more time in the shop than they do in the field. Oh and if you want "stealth" which has been proven to be easily defeated simply by changing the bands used by the radar? Look up "F-15 Stealth Eagle" which you can buy last I checked FOUR of them for every one of the techno turkey, and unlike the techno turkey the F-15 actually flies and doesn't have everything from the oxygen system to the software crapping out every other week.

      As for the Russians bombing ISIS? Frankly after the Wikileaks drop showing just how fucking corrupt so many in the current administration is and how in bed Hillary is with Saudi Arabia and Qatar? I would want a second opinion if they told me it was raining, I sure as fuck ain't gonna believe a word they say about Russia with Shillary going "Ignore the corruption behind the curtain, its all Russia's fault I'm a scheming witch!".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's solve a couple of our problems down here on Earth first.

      OK. Name two problems you would like to have solved.

    17. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      The GRIP experiment studies the long-duration spaceflight effects on the abilities of human subjects to regulate grip force and upper limbs trajectories when manipulating objects during different kind of movements: oscillatory movements, rapid discrete movements and tapping gestures.

    18. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It was said (at the time) that there were no compelling experiments that needed to be done (in long-term weightlessness)

      With respect, that was said by complete and utter fucking idiots. Unless your field is computer science there is stuff in whatever field of science you pick that is going to act differently in microgravity.

      Let's solve a couple of our problems down here on Earth first.

      Microbiological research in space for example seems to be giving us plenty of insight into solving problems down on Earth.

    19. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by dbIII · · Score: 2

      current administration is and how in bed Hillary is with Saudi Arabia and Qatar

      It's every administration since Reagan at least and is not changing any time soon. I'm not saying it's a good thing, in fact it sucks so much that we even lost the twin towers for being in bed with Saudi Arabia.

    20. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      But space exploration and experiments are needed to solve problems on earth. You must be ready to have spaceships before it's too late. What if an asteroid is about to hit the earth and wiping it clean? if you have no capabilities to evacuate people to other planets then you're in big trouble.. So yeah, we need to solve problems on earth, but we certainly need more research and development in space exploration etc..

    21. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horizontal gene transfer was good enough for our bacterial ancestors, and by Dobbs, it should be good enough for us!

    22. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "You can blind a pilot."

      Since one idiot on the ground can potentially blind a pilot with a cheap laser pointer, I wonder if the military has so sort of laser pointer weapon that they can track and aim at aircraft and disable pilots.

    23. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by sandmaninator · · Score: 1

      Cute comment, but, it masks the reality - modern humans were molded by the force of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to be well adapted to tribal life here on Earth. Not only should we NOT leave earth, we should seriously re-consider the radical departure we've made in the last few hundred years from the tribal life 99% of our ancestors experienced to the bizarre un-reality we all experience as "normal" today.
      I am becoming a conservative at the evolutionary-time scale.

    24. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      We could be building our own infrastructure instead of blowing up other countries infrastructure. Instead of Lockheed building more F35s, which will be obsoleted by drones in 10 years, they could be building comms infrastructure, smart roads, and other actually useful things.

      Oi. Why do you hate America? Can you even imagine having the same jackoffs who are designing the F35 involved in something that's actually important like roads and bridges? This would suddenly become real (after approximately 40 years of generating nothing but a pile of paper).

    25. Re: Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time slashdot was inhabited by technical people with half a clue. I miss those days.

    26. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by erapert · · Score: 1

      Leave and go join the tribes in South America or sub-Saharan Africa.
      If you don't do this immediately then you're a hypocrite, aren't you?

    27. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's silly. I guess you think in absolutes? I, as someone raised in western culture, lack the skills, mind-set, immune system, relatives, etc, etc.
      No, I would only gently nudge our culture away from this space fetish and towards the things that our bodies and minds are meant to do. More walking would be a good start. Next, more walking in green spaces. Then, try to bring back tribalism. It's in our blood already, let it express itself. Watching sport is not sufficient.
      Meaningful work for all humans would be great.

    28. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... - modern humans were molded by the force of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to be well adapted to tribal life here on Earth. ...

      True. But evolution is not over yet.

    29. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by sandmaninator · · Score: 1

      You may be right. But evolution requires there to be selection pressure. Does such pressure exist today? Any human living in a Western democracy can have offspring without worry of the birth canal being too narrow; one or more members of the family being eaten by wolves; Diseases; I mean, the environment in which modern humans presently exist is just so radically different from that which nearly _ALL _ our ancestors evolved in. Maybe evolution is over!

      Maybe you are imagining a future where selection pressure returns - the earth scorches and only those living off-planet survive. But those surviving humans will not have physical characteristics that are well-adapted to their new environment because there were not thousands of years of evolution to mold them.
      They will simply have brains that contain the memes (thoughts, skills, behavior) that were needed to get them off-planet.
      Personally, I cannot imagine a catastrophe on earth that would make ANY known place in the universe an improvement!

    30. Re:Solve problems on Earth first by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Isn't it pretty hard to jam a drone as is?
      https://www.quora.com/Are-military-drones-affected-by-jamming

  12. Re:Taikonauts by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    I always thought this was so silly. In China, they do not call their space travelers Taikonauts. That's an English word. Why should we have different words for an astronaut based on their nationality? If we were talking about a garbageman, no one would bother making up a new English word for that occupation that is specific to each nationality. The whole thing seems like a backwards legacy of the cold war and the original space race, where we wouldn't dare refer to the competition using the same nomenclature used for NASA's astronauts.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  13. Congratulations To China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice work! Looking forward to see what is next.

  14. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last I heard about the Chinese space station was that they lost control of it and was on a collision course for some place on earth - yet to determine where it will actually crash into, but this is news for next year I suppose.

    1. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different space station. This is their second one.
       

    2. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a victim of biased reporting. the last one was scheduled for decommission because a new one has just be launched. but the report spinned it like a failure. credulous public suck it up as another reinforcement of the china == garbage stereotype.

  15. Brain damage by no-body · · Score: 1

    appears to be a certainty doing this, if they go out above the Van Allen Belt.

    Dunno....

    https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/28427...

    1. Re:Brain damage by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      To protect from radiation beyond that point, the ship needs 5-foot-thick walls full of food, water, fuel, and/or sewage. As the trip progressives, it becomes less food and more sewage.

      It's a little scary flying through space surrounded by walls of shit. You have to have your shit together, both figuratively and literally.

  16. Re:Taikonauts by _merlin · · Score: 2

    Can you stop posting this bullshit on every article about the Chinese space program? The Chinese for astronaut is "yuhang yuan" (literally "space-navigating personnel") and official English-language media releases from the Chinese space program use the word "astronaut". "Taikonaut" is some bastardised Chinglish abomination invented by English-speaking novelists during the cold war.

  17. Put a stop to rivarly by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let China do what it wants to do, speaking as an american we need to rethink the space program and stop being nationalistic over it.

    I'll applaud China, or Russia, or The EU landing on Mars first as heartily as I would America.

    I just wish all of the space nations would stop doing it for dick measuring, and instead worked together and made sure we as the world got the best bang for the buck.

    Until then, I'm all for not participating in any race to the stars.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Put a stop to rivarly by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      China's program is about only one things: China. Which is only appropriate, because that is all any space program is about - national pride. Single exception is the ESA which is about pan-European pride. Cooperation is also not a magic answer - it can often cost more to cooperate meshing organizational structures on Earth and technical networks, plus the hassle of making sure everybody measures things the same way. Sci-fi is fantasy like Harry Potter, it isn't real. We aren't going to become a United Federation, and there are no Ewoks.

    2. Re:Put a stop to rivarly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing it for dick measuring

      There are very few other reasons.

    3. Re:Put a stop to rivarly by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, dick measuring is probably the only motivation right now to do it, so...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Two willing astronauts by bosef1 · · Score: 2

    As usual, The Onion provides an insightful and thought-provoking retrospective on China's astronautical policies.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPQH60bhFdA

    1. Re:Two willing astronauts by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Much as I love the Onion, this kind of thing seems to encourage the worst on Slashdot. The story is tagged "dimsuminspace".

      Sad that once we would have had discussion about how cool it was and China's future plans for a permanent space station, but now it's military dick measuring and racism.

      --
      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:Two willing astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      racism

      Oppressive communism is a race now?

  19. Re:Taikonauts by _merlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In casual speech in Hong Kong and Taiwan, astronauts are often called "taikong ren" (literally "space people") - this is probably where "taikonaut" comes from, a weird portmanteau of that with "astronaut". But no-one actually uses the word "taikonaut" besides novelists as far as I can tell. English releases from Chinese companies always use "astronaut".

  20. Re:Taikonauts by quenda · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chinese space travelers are Taikonauts, much as Russian space travelers are Cosmonauts.

    So what do you call a Chinese-born American resident who travels on a Soyuz spacecraft to work in the Italian-built ESA module of the International space station?

  21. Re:Taikonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucky.

  22. To "explore" space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By going 120 kilometers up? How does that help to "explore" space?

    www.distancetomars.com

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...

    Note the distances. No one is "exploring" anything better because they are in a tin can in the upper atmosphere...

    1. Re: To "explore" space? by joh · · Score: 1

      Space isn't about going up. Space is about going fast and orbit is half the way to everywhere in the solar system.

    2. Re: To "explore" space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solar system is mostly an empty sucking void with nothing in it.

    3. Re: To "explore" space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solar system consists of the Sun, Jupiter, and assorted debris.

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

    Did Donald grab them by the pussy?

  24. Wow! Just wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    If it were 60 years ago!

  25. Well played! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    I, for one, think we should stay in the trees. We have enough problems to solve here before we go roaming the grasslands in search of denser food sources.

    That gave me a chuckle.

    Well played, sir!

  26. Oblig xkcd quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    Alt text from https://xkcd.com/893/

  27. Fresh Air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just wanted to get some fresh air.

  28. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And they are only of only two who can send humans into space now.

    As far as you know.

  29. Re:Taikonauts by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Hard working, more likely.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  30. Re: Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guarantee that if was absolutely necessary, the US Air Force has some man-capable system sitting around..."just in case". Not for a casual trip to ISS. Boeing showed plans for a "crew" section of their mini-shuttle years ago.

  31. RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSNBC tells me that you are racist and sexist for that comment! Go apollogize to Our People b4 id 2 lade

    1. Re:RACIST! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Put the label on the pile back there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Re:Taikonauts by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I was taught "hangtianyuan" or "taikongren" but my wife confirms that "yuhangyuan" is also perfectly acceptable (but usually seen only newspapers and the like, according to her).

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  33. Re:Taikonauts by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Dunno, but I'd be interested in learning if he can eat borscht with chopsticks in zero-G.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  34. Re:Taikonauts by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    Also, Russian astrologers are called kosmonomers.

  35. What annoys me by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

    What annoys me more is that such Chinese activities are almost a secret to the rest of the world, I don't know if they or us are to blame for that. I guess the majority of us did not even know they had two space stations, astronauts doing space walks, and what about that probe they sent to the moon? I mean, this achievements are so important for human kind in general, they should at least share the non-strategic details with the rest of the world.

    1. Re:What annoys me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What annoys me more is that such Chinese activities are almost a secret to the rest of the world, I don't know if they or us are to blame for that. I guess the majority of us did not even know they had two space stations, astronauts doing space walks, and what about that probe they sent to the moon? I mean, this achievements are so important for human kind in general, they should at least share the non-strategic details with the rest of the world.

      China's space program has never been a secret. You just haven't been paying attention. Every launch has always been in the news, like the BBC and the Guardian and CNN too, I think. And slashdot! The first taikonauts into space and subsequent manned space missions. The Yutu robot to the moon. The 1st experimental space station and the manning of the station. These were all headline news in the non-Chinese news channels where I get my news.
      So if you didn't know, the cause of your annoyance may be your news sources, not the alleged secretiveness of the Chinese.

    2. Re:What annoys me by m.alessandrini · · Score: 0

      Really? It must be my sources, but right now for example I find it very difficult to find on the web more than 2-3 *actual* photos or videos of the moon surface from their rover. It seems there are not even dedicated sites to that. Man, a rover on the moon! Which you could control almost in real-time, unlike Mars. We're not talking about kittens on youtube.

    3. Re:What annoys me by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I can only say that it sure ain't the Chinese that are trying to keep their space achievements a secret. Quite the opposite. It's true that they do it in a similar fashion the Russians did, i.e. only announce them when they succeed and try to hush up everything that bombs (literally or figuratively), but the have never been shy to broadcast whenever they passed a wind that made it into orbit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:What annoys me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try:

      http://720yun.com/t/70b2cjpvwur?pano_id=280919

      For panoramic images. :-)

  36. Should read "the intensifying Russia-China space.. by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Should read "the intensifying Russia-China space rivalry"
    The USA do not have a way to get people into orbit apart from asking for a lift.
    Can we get back from here or will it be like the British rocket program that just fizzled out and was never restarted?

    All we can do currently is something like the Mercury project of 1958. We don't have the launcher ready for anything bigger and may not for years.

  37. Temporary is not equal to 40 years by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Jesus fucking Christ, it's a temporary situation that will be amended in fairly short order

    Temporary is saying that under the Ford administration and not under the Obama one.

    1. Re: Temporary is not equal to 40 years by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Eh? It was O that pushed ccxdev while the GD GOP worked to kill it off and push more money to their districts. As it is, spacex will likely have V2 ready next year.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  38. Just shows Wheedon is paying attention by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Just shows Wheedon is paying attention - the Russian economy is still tied to resources so while they have the technology it's China and the USA that have the money to use it. Russia has had a century to get to where it is now while China has surpassed it starting from a low base around 1970.

  39. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Maritz · · Score: 1

    It was decimated by 100 years of industrial warfare against the entire western world,

    Uh, no.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  40. No Coldwar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re, Russia: A new Cold War with Russia is lining up whether the US wants one or not.

    No, there is little chance of another 'cold war' but there is every chance that Russia becomes a sort of North Korea style pariah state that exists to draw a disproportionate amount of attention to itself in a bid to remain relevant.

    Russia does not have the demographics or population to engage the west in another head-to-head arms race. Remember, what made the cold war feel like a real war, was that the two sides were roughly equal in technological capability, and there was a genuine fear that one side might gain an advantage that would render the MAD equilibrium inert. People were fighting for their lives to try to ensure that equilibrium was not disrupted against them, because most people felt the other side would be effectively compelled to use a significant technological advantage if that became available to them.

    I just don't see how we could get back to that situation with the technological lead and relative economic might the west has now. More likely, the west would quickly be able to 'contain' the Russian threat in an asymmetric way - i.e. west can take out the whole country in the time Moscow can take out 2-3 european capitals. At that point neither side will 'win' by doing anything, and then we enter the North Korean situation: Putin periodically rattles his sabre to get some more aid money to buy caviar and luxury cars.

  41. Re: Taikonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dunno... A man?

  42. Re:Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spac by SuperDre · · Score: 0

    The US is not renewing their contract with the russians (which will expire end of 2018 if I'm not mistaken), and will rely on commercial flights by SpaceX, Boeing etc.. NASA (read, US) will not have it's own rockets for sending people into space. Just like the ISS, yes they will abandon it in 2024, but it will be taken over by commercial entities, that's why they are already letting commercial entities create and test modules for connecting to the ISS..

  43. In honour of by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Is it true the astronauts' names are Laika and Gordo?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:In honour of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are Go 'King Hi and Kum Bak Soon.

    2. Re:In honour of by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      LOL

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:In honour of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crew for the next mission have been named as Wi Go Moon and Fuk Wi Kan.

  44. Re:Taikonauts by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Long distance?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. Re:Taikonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kevin

  46. Re:Taikonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So what do you call a Chinese-born American resident who travels on a Soyuz spacecraft to work in the Italian-built ESA module of the International space station?"

    Confused.

  47. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Coisiche · · Score: 5, Informative

    from a paltry German invasion.

    Paltry? I don't think I have ever seen that adjective applied to the Eastern Front. I'm more used to seeing it described along the lines of "The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history."

  48. Re:Taikonauts by turp182 · · Score: 1

    Typhoon = Hurricane, only difference is the Ocean. And those are the US English versions. In Missouri, we refer to 1,500 feet tall hills as mountains...

    It's cultural bias to some degree, it's differentiation as well. It could also be respectful or derogatory (racism for example), depending on implicit meanings.

    And from a US perspective, people in Russia that go into space are Cosmonauts, so there's a third English example for people that go to space.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  49. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 2

    Have you read that document in its entirety?

    I consider myself a fairly laid back person, liberal (in a more original sense than is perhaps used today), with a strong live and let live attitude towards life, and yet I can't bring myself to see eye to eye with some of the articles and the overall wording of that declaration.

    While it is undoubtedly a 'good thing' (TM) I suspect you have to live with unicorns and smoke rainbows to fully jive with what it says...

    As individuals we may disagree over whether certain things should be considered universal rights--personally, I often disagree with decisions about whether someone should have a right. But that document is a core part of the accepted definition of human rights.

    The definition of human rights is an artifact of public international law. Most lawyers, scholars, and diplomats consider the primary documents to be the "International Bill of Rights," which includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Eleanor Roosevelt's legacy after WW2), as well as two other treaties--one on Civil and Political Rights (The ICCPR), and one on Social and Economic Rights (the ICESCR). Of the two treaties, each has about 160 states who are parties. The United States is one of the outliers in that it has signed but not ratified the one on Social and Economic Rights, which means the treaty is not entirely binding in domestic law of the United States, although it is incorporated into United States law indirectly under something called the "Charming Betsy" doctrine.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Your sig is hilarious man!

      * but I didn't read the post: it's too long :P

  50. Re: Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your delusion is that the government is powerful and competent. Probably you'll go a whole 30 seconds before arguing the reverse. Any spacecraft that is "just lying around" would not be particularly useful without a launch facility, a lift vehicle, and fuel. Even if your spacecraft magically needed no maintenance and was otherwise ready to go at a moment's notice, you are not going to improvise a manned launch. We need the lift vehicle, and maybe you haven't noticed the trend where everyone is trying to reuse anything that even looks like a rocket no matter the age or condition. We have no manned launch capabilities at the moment, and even if it existed on paper, it would not be practical. And you would also bitch about the waste of your tax dollars.

  51. To Jing Haipeng and Chen Dong by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    God speed on you on your way.

  52. nope by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    Chinese space program is part of their military. The fact that none chinese were NOT allowed to see the inside of these space stations says a lot. The answer is absolutely NOT.
    And Chinese space program is NEITHER fast growing or STRONG (yet).

    OTOH, America has not only brought in multiple partners and brought them up to speed with working together in space, Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, etc have some level of experience
    And to this add that America now has multiple launch companies and is moving forwards with multiple private space stations. These will be used to not only help more nations develop their space programs, BUT, also get us to the moon and mars.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  53. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    LOL. How was CHina fighting the west?

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

    "Taikonaut" isn't a portmanteau. The suffix -naut comes from the Greek word for "sailor". We call our space men "astronauts" and Russians call theirs "cosmonauts", both essentially meaning "space sailors". It may be strange to mix a Chinese word ("taikong") with a Greek suffix ("-naut"), but we didn't create it.

    Rumor has it the word was invented in Malaysia, but Americans probably use it because of sources like Xinhua. Here's an example of them using it in 2008:

    Taikonaut Zhai's small step historical leap for China

    dom

  55. Re:Taikonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I, for one, do like the sound. But is does not seem fair to leave out the ESA spacefarers, they should have a word of their own. How about aethronauts? Has a nice steampunk-ish sort of ring to it.

  56. timberland pas cher 2016 by zhenbenhan · · Score: 1

    Les franges sont partout : bottines, sneakers, sur nos sacs ou nos petits hauts. Les franges accessoirisent une tenue et apportent un côté ethnique, branché. Pour toutes les fanatiques, voici un tuto pour apprendre à customiser vos chaussures avec des franges sur clips, amovibles à l'envi. Rien de bien compliqué, en quatre étapes c'est bouclé !Pour information, les mesures sont à titre indicatif car elles sont adaptées aux chaussures, à vous d'adapter en fonction du résultat que vous souhaitez. On vous conseille de commencer par mesurer l'espace entre la bride de cheville et la lanière du devant du pied. bandes de 14 cm de hauteur et 4,5 cm de largeur. Ensuite coupez 6 rectangles 10 cm de hauteur et 4,5 cm de largeu timberland Homme ..

  57. Re:Taikonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that person a one-legged Chinese-born American resident who travels on a Soyuz spacecraft to work in the Italian-built ESA module of the International space station?

    If so, Ilene.

  58. Re: Brazil beat you by 10 years by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    In addition dragon 1 can go. Likewise, V2 could easily go in under 6 months or less if needed.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  59. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    You kids need to learn more history. Just because your primary school didn't cover it doesn't change the facts of relentless Russian Japanese (western in all but location) British, German, Portuguese, etc. all fighting China and stealing territory continuously. Britain took Hong Kong 1841-1997, and Portugal took Macau 1557-1999. During this time the unequal treaties, general partitioning of all of coastal China like a plaything, multiple British wars so they could usurp Chinese government and sell opium, etc. Spend some time reading something besides twitter.

  60. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Oh please. We have 3 launchers in SLS, Atlas, and falcon. Yes SLS is not quite ready, but will be next year. Falcon has an issue with the helium tank which is being sorted out. Then have 3 capsules, of Orien, cst100, and dragon. Orien and cst100 hold 6 ppl while dragon can hold 7. Orien is ready. Dragon will be ready by end of 2017, while cst100 will be ready by mid 2019, if not early 2019. And none of this includes, SNC or BO , both if which should have orbital vehicles by 2020.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  61. Re: Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither the mini shuttle, nor the rocket it rides is man-rated.

  62. Re:Taikonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be spelled "loong".

  63. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Not one of these launchers is man-rated yet. Russia has two man-rated launchers right now.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  64. Re: Brazil beat you by 10 years by fubarrr · · Score: 1

    >scraps of Russian hardware. Shenzhou is Soyuz with a bigger service module

  65. In Soviet Russia... by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    ... China does the rework!

  66. Insensitive clod by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    oh, my sweet illusion gone!

  67. Re:Taikonauts by fizzup · · Score: 1

    It totally is a throwback to the cold war, but here we are living the real world where some nations get their own separate English term for the job of working in space.

    The etymology of astronaut is from Greek astron (star) and nautes (sailor), and the assonance with argonaut - a sailor aboard Jason's ship called Argo. It was coined by a Belgian, mirroring the French aeronautique. Cosmonaut is from Greek kosmos (universe, in Pythogorean usage) and nautes. Each of these words would seem out of place if used in translation - one would almost certainly find it as "Chinese astronaut" or "Chinese cosmonaut" in every actual usage.

    I find taikonaut to be a very cool word that blends eastern and western language history in a modern, globalized reality. I like it, even though the Chinese don't use the term.

    None of these words are conspicuously English, though. Spacefarer and spaceman probably have the most grounding in English, with etymologies going back to at least Middle English. All of the root words are still quite recognizable in their meaning (unlike astron and nautes). I think it's interesting that the actual Chinese term in use is closest to spaceman, which would probably never be used in translation because of the dismissive, even comical, connotation the word has in English. It's also unlikely that the term would ever be left as taikong ren, because it has no meaning for English speakers. Taikonaut it is.

  68. Re: Brazil beat you by 10 years by I4ko · · Score: 1

    Not being man-rated doesn't mean it can't actually take a human into orbit.
    Do you think the rocket Gagarin was on was man rated, or the rocket that took sputnik out was satellite rated?
    No, they weren't yet they did their job. Any country with ICBM has the capability to get a man in space. Now, the length of survival and safe return may be an issue, but in some cases those aren't important. We are 7 milliard people on this planet, some are by definition expendable - unmarried man without children over the age of 35 definitely are.

  69. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by erapert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Britain took Hong Kong 1841-1997

    Yes, and Hong Kong became a titan of industry, finance, and overall standard of living.
    Why didn't the rest of China? Oh, that's right, because communism destroys and ruins everything it touches. Not to mention Mao and the millions he murdered and starved to death.
    If I were Chinese I would do everything in my power to get to a "colonialist" hub so that they could "abuse" me to their colonialist heart's content. Far better than the patriotic zeal from Mao and co.

    You kids need to learn more history....
    Spend some time reading something besides twitter.

    Seems like it's you who should pick up a history book and stop gulping down regurgitated propaganda from your leftist professor's mouths.

  70. Re:Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA can't put a man into orbit? The fuck are you talking about

  71. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    All 3 our launchers, SLS, Atlas V, and F9, are man-rated.
    Only 1 capsule, orion, is man-rated. However, dragon and cst-100 will be rated in 1 and 3 years, respectively.
    Finally, add on Blue Origin and SNC's vehicle happening 4 years.
    And Russia has only 1 man-rated launch system.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  72. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    you said that this was for the last 100 years. Yet, the fact is, that ALL OF THAT took place PRIOR to 100 years ago. For the last 100 years, CHina has been to itself, and the west has had very little to do with it, EXCEPT help them when Japan was raping and pillaging you.
    So, lets try again. EXACTLY what warring has China had to do with the west? Keep in mind that prior to WWII, that Japan was not part of the west, and that Russia never has been.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  73. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faggot, read again. I said 100 years that is a time span you slack jawed ignorant hick.

  74. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    You are a god damn retard, you spew that shit like it is truth, but it isn't remotely correct in any way shape or form. You need to spend more time reading real physical not on fucking twitter.

  75. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Yes - Atlas launched the Mercury project of 1958. The others are a step backwards on Titan, which we no longer have.

  76. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by dbIII · · Score: 1

    All 3 our launchers, SLS, Atlas V, and F9, are man-rated

    Two of those are not ready and do not appear that they will be ready for a few years so that leaves what I mentioned above - Atlas as used in the Mercury project of 1958.
    Von Braun's body is a mounderin' in the ground and we aint got the moon no more.

  77. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Hongkong prospered by fleecing China's trading with the west before it opened up. And Hongkong was never an industry titan. Most of its easy money went into real estate, finance and entertainment. Living standard of common men is actually abysmal. Ever heard of pigeon cage housing? Now that China has fully embraced global trading, Shanghai retook its place as the far east trading hub it used to be and Hongkong is fast losing its luster. But those Hongkongese are sure still delusional in its soap bubble glory.

  78. testing its ability to support life by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Yikes!

    Only in China. Perhaps they should have phrased the missions objectives a bit better.

    Mission Control:"OK were ready for you to put you into orbit and conduct some tests!"
    Human Meat/Astronaut: "What tests will we be doing in orbit?"
    Mission Control: "Well you'll be the first to test our life support systems for the greater glory of China and the Party!"
    Human Meat/Astronaut: "What are the test parameters? Are we to adjust the climate control for efficiency?"
    Mission Control: "Well if you die, we'll know it isn't ready to support life yet, and that we still have some bugs to work out!"
    Human Meat/Astronaut: "..."
    Mission Control: "What?"
    Human Meat/Astronaut: "ACHOO! I think I have some sniffles coming on..."

  79. Re:Brazil beat you by 10 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow. you think that China's issues stem from 200-300 years ago?
    What a dumb fuck. You do not even understand your own history. You assholes were invading nations all around you.
    Get back to work on Xi. He likes your little mouth.

  80. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    F9 is man-rated according to NASA. Just because it has an issue at the moment, does not remove the man-rating from NASA. You know that.
    However, you are correct that SLS is not man-rated yet. So, we have 2 that are.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  81. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Atlas 5 has nothing to do with the original Atlas. It has over twice the payload of the Titan II GLV used in Project Gemini (Project Mercury is tiny in comparison). Atlas 5 has almost as much payload as a Titan IV. Had they produced the Atlas 5 Heavy version it would have even more payload than the Titan IV, which is a contemporary rocket to the Space Shuttle, and would look not too dissimilar to a rocket named Rus-M the Russians at one time proposed to replace the Soyuz for launching the PPTS manned capsule. Problem with Atlas 5 is that it uses Russian RD-180 engines on the first stage. Which is why ULA is developing Vulcan to replace it.

    The Falcon 9 has even more payload than an Atlas 5 though and all the major components are built in the US.

    The engine technology used in both those rockets is easily better than what was available in the late 1960s anywhere in the world. The engines might be smaller than the Saturn V engines but the tech is better. Even the Falcon 9's Merlin-1D engine is better than the Saturn V's F-1 at everything but thrust. Be it ISP, chamber pressure, thrust-to-weight-ratio, reusability, etc. The thrust could have been increased by simply making the engine bigger. SpaceX instead chose to design the Raptor engine which is going to be a state of the art engine better than anything else available right now for the purpose it was designed to do. With technology which was not available during the space race and arguably more advanced than the Space Shuttle Main Engines.

  82. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The Falcon 9 has even more payload than an Atlas 5

    Yes but it's not going to be launching people into space this year or the next. Atlas is what we have now.

  83. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Will the F9 really be launching people in the next couple of years?
    If not I stand by what I wrote, since as you may recall I used the word "currently" but I'm willing to give "soon" a pass even though that's not what I wrote.

  84. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    I would almost be willing to bet that Falcon 9 will put people in space first.

  85. Re: China should have been allowed to join the IS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    So what happens when somebody enters illegally? It says they have the right to wonder freely. No where did it say that to wonder freely , you had to be legally there.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  86. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It is supposed to launch next year with a crew.
    I think that it will depend on if SpaceX REALLY has solved the helium tank problem.
    However, it should be noted that the launch abort worked perfectly and had the V2 been on the last launcher, it would have survived.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  87. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    atlas 5 will not launch a single person until they have a vehicle to take up. And CST-100 will not be ready until end of 2018, or possibly into 2019.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  88. Re: China should have been allowed to join the IS by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    It doesn't say the country they're in can't kick them out again, if they're there illegally. You'd make more sense arguing that the rights of convicted criminals serving jail or prison sentences are violated.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  89. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China spa by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Good point then. I was unaware that it was so close to completion.
    Still only 1/8 of what a Saturn V can do and barely better than the European Space Agency can do though. Dust off the Titan IVB plans if you want something with the same capacity. I really do not get all the fuss. "Commercial Space" is not a new thing and Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Douglass etc etc have done better.

  90. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China sp by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think that you have missed things: the Falcon 9 can launch ~13 tonnes to leo on a reusable, but 23 tonnes to leo if f9 is expendable. IOW, it is close to the DIVH, only a fraction of the costs. And the FH will not do a xross-over, but will still get 54+ tonnes to leo. The falcons are currently volume limited, so supposedly, SX WAS working on new fairing. I'm sure at this moment that those ppl are working on F9's situation which appears to be their helium tank.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  91. Re: Should read "the intensifying Russia-China sp by dbIII · · Score: 1

    but 23 tonnes to leo if f9 is expendable

    That is what I was referring to - the ESA can do the same if you want to send your dollars into their "Commercial Space". The Titan IVB can do the same if you want to pay a US company enough for them to start building it again.