Slashdot Log In
Will China Beat the United States Back to the Moon?
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Sep 22, 2007 03:27 PM
from the they'll-make-the-trip-from-the-earth-to-the-moon dept.
from the they'll-make-the-trip-from-the-earth-to-the-moon dept.
MarkWhittington writes "During an address on the space economy to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the space age, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin made the assertion that China would beat the United States back to the Moon. 'Americans will not like it, but they will just have to not like it. I think we will see, as we have seen with China's introductory manned space flights so far, we will see again that nations look up to other nations that appear to be at the top of the technical pyramid, and they want to do deals with those nations. It's one of the things that made us the world's greatest economic power. So I think we'll be reinstructed in that lesson in the coming years and I hope that Americans will take that instruction positively and react to it by investing in those things that are the leading edge of what's possible."'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Long shot... (Score:3, Funny)
There's one major difference... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
They SHOULD... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They SHOULD... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They own a huge chunk of US gov't debt. Which the gov't can repudiate at any time, or (as is the current case) pay off with inflated dollar bills.
Funny how you might thank that about the US but if a foreign government tried it you would be up in arms. Maybe that is why the rest of the world would have bugger all sympathy if China did try and enslave you.
The US needs to look at the rest of the world as equals rather than sneer down their noses at us. How much longer can the US keep up its huge military spending necessary to support an empire of it current size? We know from history that every empire falls eventually. You might not think of the US as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You also might find it more difficult to collect on the debts owed to you.
Not to come off unpleasantly, but there is no shortage of foreign countries that already are nearly impossible for the US to collect debt from. It's considered 'a serious crisis for the third world' by many handwringers.
Which was sort of the point. If a country reneges on its debt it's not the external lenders that suffer heavily (in a sense, it's money they weren't using at the moment anyway), but the country itself, and the internal lenders. Nobody wants to lend more money until they've cleared off the current defaults, but getting the ailing economy going again needs a lot of funds - funds they can't raise since nobody is willing to lend them any. Just like people or companies that default, they get trapped in a hole t
Does it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
China has shown a great deal of ill-will toward other nations, including America, as well as China's own people. Despite this, we happily build KFCs and Walmart's in their country and contract work and outsource jobs to them for pennies on the dollar. They are coming into their own in the global capitalist market, but without the included democracy of most other nations. This gives them the added benefit of have mass amounts of money and a lot of nimbleness. They don't have to deal with the red tape we do when they want to shift directions or enforce changes to industry.
We blew our wad last century. Our infrastructures are built and in place and done with. China is just now getting started and will have the benefit of building theirs with a new economy and the technology of the 21st century, instead of the 20th. In our lifetime, they'll probably become the real super-power; trumping the US.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How did a communally funded waste of money like the space project (apollo, etc) help fight communism?
So lets rephrase this. Taxes are forcefully appropriated fractions of a man or woman's property or just remuneration (payment) for services or products. Communists say that your labor is not your own, but the state's, and the state can use it to build, spend, destroy, dispose of it in any way it so desires, so long as they can pretend it is "for the good
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Richard the Rocket Engine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Richard the Rocket Engine (Score:5, Funny)
Sure but how will they handle the recall [cpsc.gov] when the Moon People find out there is lead in the red paint?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Come to think of it, that's the space race we should be considering here. Never mind the Moon; who'll be first to Europa?
Private space flight (Score:5, Interesting)
If a private company tries, they could get to the Moon in 10-15 years, by my estimate, which could easily beat the various government projects (even assuming they stay on schedule, which we all know won't happen). The big question is whether or not any company will see the point in trying. I hope they do...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Virgin Galactic are expecting to be doing regular sub-orbital flights within a year or two, soon after that, they or someone else will start of orbital flights. That could be done in 5-10 years, quite easily. Getting from LEO to the Moon is easy compared to getting from the ground to LEO, so I would expect more than a few years for that.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, however I'm more interested in your second one. The article "Suborbital spaceflight: a road to orbit or a dead end? [thespacereview.com]" discusses how much harder LEO is than sub-orbital. "If you accelerate in a vehicle straight up and reach Mach 5 or so, you can coast up to X Prize territory and cross the generally accepted threshold of space. However, you will immediately fall back to earth like a dropped cannon ball. Staying in space requires that you also accelerate to a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We tried very hard. It took 10 years (starting with Mercury / Gemini etc..) with the involvement of 400,000 [amazon.com] people in Apollo on what was basically an initiative mandated by the president. Dozens of the best and most advanced private aerospace companies were funded by lucrative government contracts to the tune of about 19 bil
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, here you go. (Score:4, Interesting)
- In 1959, we had no real knowledge of rocketry. The billions that were spent was about learning what worked and more importantly, what did not work.
- In 1959, and in fact, in 1969, there was no market for commercial rocketry. All the sats that we had put up in the sky by 1970, is less than how may go up every year, currently. Now, there are not enough rockets to take on the load.
- Spacex has done 2 shots; the first was a major failure (it went boom). The second was a lot more interesting. The first stage registered an issue prior to launch, so the team drained and refuelded with warmer fuel (and in 20 minutes). They launched. The first stage was a total success. The second stage lost is fuel just at the end due to lack of baffles in the tank. All in all, they are fixing it and expect (hope?) the next flight to have no more issues.
- Spacex will be profitable by 2010 if the next flight works as well as falcon 9. They will have paid off ALL of their development cost by then.
- Bigelow has already launched 2 space stations. Yes, nobody is on them (nor will ever be). By 2009 or 2010, they will launch a 3 man space station. By 2011, they will launch a 6 person space station. By 2013, they will have multiple space stations in orbit. There goal is not to provide for hotels (but they will), but to provide space stations to nations. I expect that they probably extend the ISS with their 3 person unit and then later with the 6 person unit. Why? Because nations will want to take advantage of a an orbiting station. That means that EU, Japan, Brazil, India, Russia, USA, and private enterprise will be able to test equipment and get their launch system perfected.
- Spacex is looking at building a BFR by 2014. If they do, they will have re-invented roughly the same capability that USA had in the 1970 time frame, though this time it should be quite a bit cheaper.
No, this will be easy for companies to be profitable from the git-go.Parent
That's alright (Score:5, Interesting)
Would not be bad if it comes to pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is like the Microsoft of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
We got first post! I mean on the moon, not Slashdot.
We went there and there was nothing there. Just pride and Cold War points. Me? Loved it. Still recall watching the launches and Apollo 13 as a youngster. I was so into it as a 6-10 year-old. Definitely made a huge impact on the direction of my life.
While we Slashdotters often mock "If they can put a man on the moon...", there really is something to that. Look at the technology at that time. Look at the mission and the time frame. Amazing stuff. The politicians (mostly) kept their noses out. Even more amazing...
I don't want us to go back on tax bucks. I don't want another stupid political race, this time with China. I want the private sector to make money in space. We went there for the glory, let's go back for cash. I honestly mean it. If there is a return to be made, let's have the private sector do it, and let's give incentives for that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who's the daddy? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/99b42156-683a-11dc-b475-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F99b42156-683a-11dc-b475-0000779fd2ac%2Cdwp_uuid%3D9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html [ft.com]
So... Who needs who more?
Yeah, China will be on the moon before the USA.
What a load of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
We go there in 1969, period, dot.
China beating us back is a false challenge. It would be like if the Soviet Union had landed a man on the moon in September of 1969 and claimed it "beat us back" to the moon because they got there before Apollo 12.
NASA Budget is 2800 Google Lunar X-Prizes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Riddle me this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Some one please tell me what possible reason we would have for even wanting to waste billions of dollars on another trip to the moon for. It's a big floating rock.
Re:Big Deal or two (Score:4, Insightful)
* astronomy unfettered by an atmosphere and complexities of zero-G environment
* unlimited vacuum and little concern for pollution for industrial processes
* lots of sunshine for power generation
* tourism
There's longer term, and more altruistic goals as well, like getting our eggs out of one basket.
I'm imagining you looking out at the ocean from the beach, and saying "why go sailing? There's water in my bathtub."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we don't continue to challenge ourselves socially, artistically, technologically, we stagnate. Then we crumble. That's why.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you an engineering nation, or a flop?
Exactly.
Do you want to be an advanced country that does bold, huge engineering megaprojects that push the envelope of technology and what humankind can do, or do you want to be like Mexico, where people just sit around doing nothing useful all the time and never accomplish anything noteworthy?
I'd rather be the former, but it appears many of my countrymen would rather be like the latter, and some actually want to join our country with Mexico so w
Shallow money grub, but, I'm sold... (Score:5, Interesting)
They have an unfair advantage... (Score:3, Funny)
...back to the moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
he is probably correct, if talking about the feds (Score:4, Interesting)
Send it back to the moon (Score:4, Funny)
Great. Now we have to worry about deadly moon microbes in the pet food and toys.
Maybe. But it would be irrelevant. (Score:3, Informative)
NASA, and the United States in general, can see no benefit in a manned mission to the moon without a specific purpose. Seriously, what would be the point? To show that the U.S. can do it? Well, the U.S. already has, wayback in 1969.
What NASA is more interested in at the moment is the possibility of using the moon as a launching point for missions to Mars; perhaps building a lunar base of some kind and also to explore the moon and Mars using automated methods. Just look at the NASA SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) requirements http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbirsttr2007/solicitation/Chapter_912.html [nasa.gov] and look at the topics. Exploration systems and space operations are a huge topic of interest, far surpassing any need for a current manned mission.
(Disclosure: The author worked recently on a NASA SBIR Grant under the Exploration Systems category.)
Conclusion not consistent with the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
This Griffin surely and funding ploy for NASA. The facts suggest China's program is grossly overrated.
Based on the facts how can you conclude that China will get there first? Indeed, it is not clear that they will beat Japan as the leader in Asian spaceflight.
Re:Conclusion not consistent with the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, I don't know why people bother posting things like that. It doesn't nothing but soothe our pride. Either we make it our goal to return to the moon before the Chinese or just shrug it off and say we've already done it in the 60s. If we're are going to go to return, then let's take the Chinese seriously and put some real effort into it. The worst thing for us to do is to put in a half ass effort and waste resources.
Parent
I'm sorry - we're worried about...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Griffin is just trolling for a patriotic boost.
It's China's century (Score:5, Interesting)
So here's all they have to do... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then if they tell their own people they were the first ones on the moon, who could prove otherwise?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We've been there, done that.
It's time for some other country to take their turn at coughing up the money and effort to do some outer space exploration and research for the "benefit of all".
Re:What will the Chinese find on the moon? Rocks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Goodbye GPS. Goodbye launch-detection-systems. Goodbye spy satellites.
There's also a lot you can do with rocks. For starters you can throw them. Go read some Heinlein.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We went there first in the Apollo 11 mission.
Then we went back on Apollo missions 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. We would have been back for Apollo 13 also, but there were equipment problems that were not detected until after launch.
I calculate we've been back five times. You might have a different way of calculating.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)