Slashdot Mirror
China and NASA Shared Data About Historic Moon Landing (nypost.com)
hackingbear writes: "China exchanged data with NASA on its recent mission to land a Chinese spacecraft on the far side of the moon, the Chinese space agency said Monday, in what was reportedly the first such collaboration since a Cold-War-era-like American law banned joint space projects with China that do not have prior congressional approval," reports New York Post. "The Chinese space agency's deputy director, Wu Yanhua, said NASA shared information about its lunar orbiter satellite in hopes of monitoring the landing of the Chang'e 4 spacecraft. China, in turn, shared the time and coordinates of Chang'e 4s scheduled landing. He added that while NASA's satellite did not catch the precise moment of landing, it took photographs of the area afterward."
In response to the question about why would China allow this exchange given that the U.S. has put technological obstacles to China's lunar exploration program and refused to issue visas to Chinese experts, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said, "China could have chosen not to offer the relevant information to the U.S., but as a major country, we should act with the posture and bearing of a major country. I believe what Mr. Wu said has shown the confidence, openness, and broadmindedness of Chinese aerospace engineers as well as scientists and researchers and China's confident and open posture as a major country."
In response to the question about why would China allow this exchange given that the U.S. has put technological obstacles to China's lunar exploration program and refused to issue visas to Chinese experts, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said, "China could have chosen not to offer the relevant information to the U.S., but as a major country, we should act with the posture and bearing of a major country. I believe what Mr. Wu said has shown the confidence, openness, and broadmindedness of Chinese aerospace engineers as well as scientists and researchers and China's confident and open posture as a major country."
"China could have chosen not to offer the relevant information to the U.S., but as a major country, we should act with the posture and bearing of a major country. Besides, we just piggybacked all the space R&D, right? Seriously."
Especially in space, countries should share everything they can and set an example for the rest of humanity of how we can all work together - a great reason for all nations to continue exploring space BTW.
I realize there are very valid military reasons why some things like rocket technology maybe cannot be shared between countries that are at odds. However there's no reason at all we cannot all share data about what we find out there...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Happy luck space team is omnipotent! Western dogs of 1968, you will never... wait..
This is just some PR BS.
good reasons for the recent data exchange.
Reasons for the recent data exchange:
1. It serves the interests of all nations operating spacecraft within an area to exchange basic telemetry so they can, for example, avoid collisions.
2. In this case, it would serve the interests of China to have the US publicly admit and even photograph (if possible) one of their space successes - giving obviously solid proof of a far away event to a wold mostly unable to verify it for themselves, much as the Soviet confirmation of the American moon landings in the '60s and '70s did.
Reasons for the prohibitions:
1. The Chinese science and military space programs are one-and-the-same; they're completely unified - so there's no way any sympathetic politician in the west can offer political cover when encouraging supposedly peaceful cooperation.
2. The Chinese military has a long track record of thresatening to nuke the USA.
3. In the 1990s, several American companies (Loral, Hughes...) wanted their satellite customers to be able to use cheap Chinese launch vehicles (which were failing at an alarming rate) in place of American and European launch vehicles, so they illegally transferred a bunch of launch vehicle tech to China. This had two major effects: [a] it enabled the Chinese aerospace industry to damage the American and European launch vehicle industries, and [b] suddenly Chinese ICBMs became far more reliable and accurate.
An orbital launch vehicle is just a more capable ICBM. As anybody with an aerospace background knows, if you can accurately place a large payload into orbit, you can more easily place a nuclear warhead on a sub-orbital launcher and hit any city on Earth. What that transfer of tech did (in addition to making some executives and share holders of a couple of companies a bit richer) was to enable the Chinese military to more effectively threaten to kill all the American taxpayers who paid to develop the technology. As a military vet, I personally resent the fact that the executives involved were not tried for treason and executed by firing squad. The Chinese military, yet again, threatened to nuke the USA just within the past week - THANKS, Loral and Hughes!.
The Unites States and Russia do not, to this day, exchange complete information with each other. They cooperate with the tech data needed to make systems interoperable (like docking systems, atmosphere standards, and such) and if the cooperation with China could be limited to that then there'd be nothing big to worry about, however too many American scientists and businessmen have spent 20 years proving they will not self-limit their tech transfers to China (see: Apple, Google, IBM, Motorola, etc) Nearly every major American company has sold-out to China, as have most American universities.
All the "peaceful cooperation in space" drivel that is so often spread by idiots usually ignores the existence of nuclear warheads (which in the case of China are not constrained at all by ANY arms reduction or limitation treaties).
It won't click
If my memory hasn't failed me, there is a law prohibiting NASA to work with China.
That said, why is that NASA is allowed to work with China this time??
I'm all for sharing. I think you have to have ground rules with those who you share with. That's all this is, China wants to make all rules. I'm not saying the US doesn't also, but then again, the rules are definitively better.
They already have a wall.
The summary you need:
"Why did you cooperate with the Americans in space when they are being so rude in other ways?"
"Because we are sensible adults".
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
It's not the first collaboration. I distinctly remember watching a documentary about them collaborating to get Mark Watney home.
> but as a major country, we should act with the posture and bearing of a major country
Shame the other major countries aren't doing this, eh?
...That China watched the movie 'The Martian.
And took some international law advice from it. /s
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm told that Mutually Assured Destruction is good for peace. In that case, shouldn't the US have simply given the Chinese their space tech? Just to keep everyone even, and dissuade anyone from launching.
Seriously though, China got most of it's early space technology from Russia by simply buying it. Then they put vast resources into building their own talent and technology up too. Basically the same as the US after WW2, starting out with Nazi tech and expertise and then developing their own off the back of it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Probably as fake as the clothes you are wearing and the cell phone or pc you post this from.
FYI, the Clinton administration approved the transfer in 99.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/0...
Life is not for the lazy.
Bullshit. These are the people who just threatened to execute a prisoner in revenge for an extradition request against a crooked businessman. Yeah, that's not sensible adult. These "sensible adults" are committing genocide against the Rohingya and Tibetans, but I guess that's "sensible".
I'm told that Mutually Assured Destruction is good for peace. In that case, shouldn't the US have simply given the Chinese their space tech? Just to keep everyone even, and dissuade anyone from launching.
There's a saying "speech is silver, but silence is gold", in other words, it's better to know what to say, than say what you know:
- list of nuclear close calls
- Stanislav Petrov, a man, who saved the world from WWIII
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
It has blood on it!
ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
Lunar Eclipse this Sunday evening. Is that red shadow light always there, or does it fade in as NatGeo and WashPost show?
Nat Geo Eclipse 101
... to take the lead over the US and America is helping by doing nothing of significance.
We've read of other countries deferring to China and making remarks that America no longer in the apex position.
Nationalism, isolationism, anti-immigration, climate denial, science denial, poor educational systems, deregulation of air pollution, coal mine support and "drill baby drill," all demote the US as a world leader and more toward third-world status.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
China is expanding but as a major country it is generous but as a major country to let America to peek at it but as a major country doing what the second place country could have done, but NO, because but as a major country China is replacing the US, not as anti-globalism but as a major country .
So, scientists and professors, abandon the anti-science former major country and embrace the new but as a major country .
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Please cite where China's military has threatened to nuke the US, or stop with the bullshit. Unlike the US, they have a no first use policy, and have stuck to it for several decades when it first developed nuclear weapons.
I'm told that Mutually Assured Destruction is good for peace. In that case, shouldn't the US have simply given the Chinese their space tech? Just to keep everyone even, and dissuade anyone from launching.
No, because (on an earthly, relative scale, of course) China's government is in fact bad and we are in fact good.
I know that gives some folks the vapors, but oh well.
Its not like any random dude couldnt do that. half a billion would do it... Governments are left the dust nowadays when it comes to space.... its not their place anymore. lol
[($)]
China has no first use policy. However, many in the PLA have publicly stated of hitting US Navel assets to keep it away from Taiwan. If they did take out a carrier, the fur will fly sort of speak. Not sure it's worth taking out a few hundred or billion people in the process however.... But, human beings are irrational creatures.
Life is not for the lazy.
No, you're a troll, you're not Canadian. And they tried and sentenced the guy long before they decided to murder him for political points. You're a weak troll.
Did everyone forget that the US government is partially shutdown at this time. The shutdown happens to include NASA.
I'm told that Mutually Assured Destruction is good for peace. In that case, shouldn't the US have simply given the Chinese their space tech?
It is, and that is not what it means. Not by a long shot.
If you have a stick and your adversary does not, it makes no sense to give a stick to your adversary because you already have peace. MAD is for when your adversary has a stick and you need to make sure they are dis-incentivized from using it. Sure, it's resulted in a few close calls over the years, and sure it'd be nice to live in a world without any nuclear weapons. Still, I would rather live in a world where the USA and USSR were at each others throats and nearly caused the destruction of the planet, than a world ruled by the USSR because the USA voluntarily threw away their stick in the face of the USSR's stick.
The PLA has stated that they could hit US Naval assets, but they didn't say they would use nukes to do so. They have supposedly carrier killers (DF-21D and DF-26), that would use conventional warheads to destroy them, not nukes (although heads could be replaced with nukes).
Even if they were to use nukes against US carriers, that's a FAR cry from repeated statements that they would nuke the USA. These carrier killers have a max of about 2600 miles, and implies more of a defensive posture. In other words they are weapons that state that the US should probably mind their own business closer to their own shore, similarly to how a porcupine shows its quills as a defense, but doesn't go around offensively using their quills.
Communist China showed the world its thinking about the USA during the Korea and Vietnam wars.
China got its early space technology from the Soviet Union and the USA.
ie it put vast resources into spying for technology.
Expecting the Soviet Union just to give away all its space tech.
The problem with spying for tech or using anther nations engineers is the nation doing the spying never learns very much.
Spying never gets the needed generational educational methods needed. A copy is often a few failed generations behind and then all the unexpected problems have to be worked on.
The copy of the advanced tech then drifts further behind advanced nations as all efforts go into perfecting a failed copy.
A generation later all the engineers know is to what to do with the next results of spying.
Smart nations educate their students in freedom and with merit.
Communist nations demand spying is used to get results. People get really good at taking tech and making a perfect copy.
Until the spies get the wrong plans or do not get all the plans.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
“If anyone wants to separate Taiwan from China, the Chinese military will safeguard the national unity at all costs so as to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” -General Li Zuocheng
"At all costs". You can interpolate that any way you want. But taken to the nth degree, one could postulate the CCP/PLA would be willing to die in nuclear fire over it. Or, we could just take it for what it is, meaningless rhetoric.
Life is not for the lazy.
Exactly. Nothing states that they would use nukes first, especially when they have had a no first nuke policy for the last 50-60 years. The point is that whoever initially wrote the first post in this thread, stated that they REPEATEDLY state that they would nuke the US. You are going to have to dig hard to find someone who had such a policy and was in power to actually threaten to do so. Even Mao who was pretty crazy was stating that he was WILLING FOR THE US or USSR to nuke China, and he didn't care, but he didn't say he was going to nuke the US.
It's pretty clear though that China is willing to get into a hot war if a country interferes and tries to separate Taiwan from China, but a hot war is different from using nukes, when it's clear they have a no nukes first policy. It's pretty obviously you can have a conventional hot war without nukes.
BTW. Gen. Li Zuocheng I don't think has the power to use nukes. He's not in control of the PLA's Rocket Forces.
"No, because (on an earthly, relative scale, of course) China's government is in fact bad and we are in fact good."
I don't think "in fact" means what you think it means. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, having shown to all how little you know.
Based on what scale you used? Except for the Brits, the US has toppled more governments than China It's also common for US foreign policy or proxies to have cause civil wars indirectly as well, see such places like Japan, Iraq, and Iran (in concert with the Brits). The US has gone to war directly with China. I don't recall China ever directly save Korea The most recent foreign war the US was involved in killed half a million civilians in just one of two countries the US invaded. When was the last time China did that?
You honestly look at WWII and after, and can honestly say the US is better? Pfft. The two governments are different, they serve different ends and means, they exist for different reasons and contexts. What you value, they may not and vice versa.
Honestly, I don't recall a single time where millions of US lives were lost because of the consequence of actions of China. The Chinese can with regards to the US and their citizens.
That's what people with an aerospace background with Dunning-Kruger and no actual knowledge "knows". In reality, launch vehicles and ICBM's are very different beasts - launch vehicles can't be readied on a moment's notice and when they are ready, can't stand ready indefinitely. Both of these things are critical for an ICBM.
I feel like I read a Breitbart article, oft-repeated full of half-truths.
"2. The Chinese military has a long track record of thresatening to nuke the USA."
Well, yeah. The US on two occasions backed foreign governments invading or influencing greatly China, including the US violating its treaties. Both occasions resulted in tens of millions of deaths of Chinese citizens each, plus a third consequential civil war. The first was on the back of an opoid epidemic in China devastated its population and knocked it from being the greatest economy of the world, something China in modern times has been aiming to regain.
A consequence of that was lost of land in China to foreign powers, and freedom of religion. An offshoot of the major US religion resulted in a Chinese civil war that was unrivaled until WWII's death counts.
And the second was of course WWII, where like the Soviets supplied the Germans, the US supplied Japan.
We've set up nukes on their borders, far closer than Cuba. And we back, rightly, a breakaway nation/territory of theirs.
You might want to be more aware of our ills before you choose the moral scale you'll be weighing our "good" against.
"An orbital launch vehicle is just a more capable ICBM."
Yeah, sure. I guess. Except for the orbital part. And the 'I' part. And the delivery. Or the re-entry requirements, if that's even needed.
So, what you're really saying, China didn't really need that satellite delivery tech since they already had lesser capable ICBMs.
But, big bad China, right? Your argument is they needed precision satellite orbital delivery tech to deliver thermonuclear devices to the US, because those thermonuclear device deliveries have to be so pinpoint accurate, right?
"As anybody with an aerospace background knows, if you can accurately place a large payload into orbit, you can more easily place a nuclear warhead on a sub-orbital launcher and hit any city on Earth."
Which totally misses the point you were trying to make. Because with ICBMs carrying nukes, there's the thermonuclear devices, which don't give a F about accuracy if you're talking city wiping, nation devastating attacks.
The delivery doesn't have to be accurate or finessed like a satellite. It doesn't have to be accurate due to the blast range of fusion bombs, the size of the US and cities in general, or the multiple MRVs involved.
China has had the tech for decades before the mid 90s.
A lone ICBM with multiple MRvs resulting in a blast diameter of 60 miles does not matter what alphabet street name it lands on when you have multiple ICBMs and their design accounted for high MRV fail and re-entry burn up rates.
You act like an ICBM of the scale and type that you are saying you are worried about is like a partial limited strike and will be delivering Davy Crockett sized payloads. Hell no.
"As a military vet, I personally resent the fact that the executives involved were not tried for treason and executed by firing squad."
Well, that speaks volumes of you that you think like that.
Satellite launch tech upped reliability but that was overcome in the past with bomb size and redundancy (more ICBMs). I guess you're the type to think that nuking something that's already dead is better, which is why there are so many damn nukes in the world..
But really. You want to kill for the transfer of satellite launch tech. Meanwhile, the US had no criminal charges and gave a state funeral to Joe McCarthy, the person responsible for jump starting China's nuclear, missile, and space program?
Ever see the movie The Martian? There's a reference in there about the JPL. Look up who the members were. They're not all US citizens. There's one who was working with us, who we falsely accused (and did again the 90s as well under the Republicans again), alienated, and drove away. He went on to now only father China's ICBM and space tech, but plan their entire nuclear program (largely Russian tech). There are "father
No American president has ever deliberately murdered 70,000,000 of his own people, after stripping them of their personal identities first and renaming them with numbers.
No American administration has yet tried so hard to control the population that it caused so many of its baby girls to be murdered that there are now not enough women to match-up with the men. This huge demographic and societal problem was a deliberate act of the communist dictators of China.
Get back to me when you can find an example of Communist China expending the eqivalent of trillions of dollars in war to free OTHER PEOPLE from tyrants, and then walking away from all the gained territory, handing it back to the defeated nations and then handing them huge piles of money to rebuild themselves and letting them be free to decide their own political futures (see WWII and the Marshall Plan).
When has China invented any new beneficial technoloigies and then allowed those to be spread across the world for the benefit of others? How often do the Chinese respond to international emergencies in which the response will cost a pile of money and provide no "payoff"????
Was China's majority population ever willing to fight a civil war to end slavery and oppression of a significant minority? Remember: Slavery in America was NOT invented by the US government - it existed in North America a century before the United States formed, having been introduced by the European powers that ren the place back then. China effectively still has slavery to this day, as do many other countries.
Hell, China would not even exist today, had the American not saved it in the 1940s. Sadly, the idiot Jimmy Carter ended our official alliance with the free people of China (now referred to as Taiwan with whom we were allied in WWII) and shifted the US Government recognition to the Communist pigs of chairman Mao who even now desire to absorb and subjugate the Taiwanese. Ol' Jimmy the moron (who also gave the American-built Panama Canal back to Panama, who predictably transferred it to Communist China) remains the worst President in US History; even Obama could only underperform him to a limited degree.
And orbital launch vehicle needs to produce a given thrust with a given efficiency (rocket people call this "ISP") and have enough propellant to lift a mass to orbital velocity. A ballistic missile needs needs less thrust and can have alower ISP because it need not achieve orbital velocity (it's "sub-orbital" by definition). Both launch vehicles need accuracy (in one case to place a payload into a precise orbit, in the other case to get a warhead to a target).
Peaceful uses like satellite launches typically use liquid fuelled launch vehicles for several reasons: Easier to handle and transport, safer to work on (since they are generally unfuelled) and they can be more efficient. Military users prefer solid-fuelled because there's no fuelling time before you fire them (ready on very short notice), the launch procedure is shorter and simpler, and they are effectively shelf-stable (can sit in a silo for YEARS in flight-ready state).
The fact that the two uses lead to two diffrerent preferred solutions does not mean that either cannot do the other's job. Indeed, all the early Soviet and American ICBMs were liquid fuelled, and the Early manned American and Soviet spacecraft flew atop liquid fuelled ICBMs (The American Atlas and Titans, and the Soviet R-7 variants/descendants)
The reason the Soviet orbital mission of Sputnik stunned the west was because it meant they could hit any target on the Earth with a nuke --- if they could place a satellite in orbit (a harder, higher-energy task) then their rocket could place a warhead on a lower and slower trajectory. It's the physics that matter, NOT the aesthetics or the fuel type of the launch vehicle.