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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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!
As usual, The Onion provides an insightful and thought-provoking retrospective on China's astronautical policies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPQH60bhFdA
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.
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".
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?
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.
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
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
"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
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.'"
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.
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....
You can jam the pilot's radar, comm and targeting systems. You can blind a pilot. You can therefore jam a human.
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.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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++
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.
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.