Chinese Moon Base by 2012 - or 2006? 978
apsmith writes "Former congressman and House Science chairman Robert S. Walker has written some rather striking conclusions about Chinese intentions in space over the next few years, based on information received for the recent Commisison on the Future of Aerospace. Walker is convinced the Chinese are going all-out for a permanent settlement on the Moon within 10 years; apparently some closer to the situation in Japan think the first landing will be in only 3-4 years. Meanwhile the Economist says IT people are starting to focus on space as the next high-tech venue. Fortunately, despite NASA's neglect, we do have a few private missions to the Moon in the works."
Other older articles (Score:3, Informative)
One of the most interesting is: "Let's Challenge China to a Space Race"
http://spacepolicy.org/page_mw0100.html
But there are a ton of others, all very well written on many aspects of the space program's flaws, successes, interaction with congress, other countries' programs, etc.
Re:Good! Why do 'we' always have to be first? (Score:5, Informative)
It's amazing what people don't know about history isn't it. If the person that posted the parent to this thread wants to actually learn something about the Korean War and China's involvment in attacking a Western Power, this is a very good FAQ on the subject.
http://www.centurychina.com/history/krwarfaq.html [centurychina.com]
Re:Will a Sino-Lunar base be our Sputnik? (Score:5, Informative)
Err...that may well be how it was presented, but I think you'll find that the Russians had quite a lot to do with the defeat of Germany. Possibly more than any other nation (a hard thing for me to say, as I'm British), and they certainly earned their rest. And the scientists that helped with the American space programme were also captured German rocket scientists.
Cheers,
Ian
THIS IS VERY BAD. There I said it. (Score:2, Informative)
1) We have more than one very technically feasible plan for a mass driver, including one that we (US Gov) built proof-of-concept large scale models of. I will have to look up the acronym. The technology is more on par with firearms rather than spaceflight. That, and the technology is six times more powerful on the moon. It would be arrogant to assume that no one else can come up with plans on their own, if not much better plans. And there is no shortage of rocks on the Moon to throw.
2) You only have Mutual Assured Destruction if the other party believes it. If you don't believe in it, then it won't stop you. Probability never stops the gambler, it just decreases their ante.
So who has more to gain?
Re:Good! Why do 'we' always have to be first? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you remember the Korean War?
More to the point, do you remember the Korean War? It had little to do with China until the United States refused to respect China's desire not to have a repeat of 1940.
Remember that in 1940 Japan, under the guise of being neutral to China, fought their way up the Korean peninsula all the while constantly telling the Chinese to relax because all they wanted was Korea. The Chinese told them to stop at the end of the peninsula, to leave a Korean buffer between peninsular Japan and mainland China, and the Japanese said they would honor this. When they had taken the whole peninsula, they kept coming, disavowing the Chinese desire for a buffer. Still the Chinese waited and did not defend themselves. Once all of Korea was taken, the Japanese rolled over the Chinese border, and for five long years China was held by the fascist military regime of Japan.
So you'll have to excuse China for defending themselves when, scarcely ten years later, the United States announced that they were going to "help" the South Koreans recapture Korea. The US said that they would stop at the 38th parallel, and China said it would not get involved as long as the 38th parallel was respected. But when the 38th parallel was reached, the American troops kept rolling in a fashion reminiscent to 1940. They kept moving, and they were quickly approaching the top of the peninsula. Again, China said that they would not intervene so long as the US did not enter the mainland, and the US agreed.
So when American troops reached the top of the peninsula and kept on rolling, pardon the Chinese for thinking this looked a bit too much like the last time it had been invaded. America broke its word twice, at the same points at which the Japanese had broken their word. McArthur was known for hating the communist Chinese, at one point seriously suggesting that the US should rain 60-80 atom bombs down on China to make sure we get them before they could hit us. The American military was much too greedy and found the North Koreans too easy a target. The generals were (in typical American fashion) completely ignorant (that's different from being unaware) of Chinese perceptions of American action. While I feel sorry for the poor American soldiers who died, I also think the US got what it had coming when China struck back. The Chinese see their involvement in the Korean War as purely defensive, and I think that's a fair interpretation.
So yes, I remember the Korean War, and I would love to see the Chinese reach the moon second and build a moon base first.
Re:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (Score:5, Informative)
Never let anyone tell you it isn't worth it to go to the moon.
"then the badness starts?" -Gir (Score:2, Informative)
And what could the moon possibly do for an expansionist nation?
1) Return on Investment (ROI)
For an amount of capital, X. You have a base, a mass driver(s), and a powerplant(s) on the moon. Then, you control the Earth. There are many natural phenomena that distort our perceptions of near Earth space. A nice big Coronal Mass Ejection one day, and when the protons clear, there are 30 giant bolders in orbit awaiting a nudge to start their 60 second descent to the surface. Would the last act of Washington be to destroy the US in order to maintain our principles, by slamming the agressor nation before we're crushed from orbit? I don't think so.
Until we have the technology to make transport to and from the moon cheap, it's a useless pile of rock.
We? We who? I hope you mean We as a species and aren't excluding anyone else's scientists from having a good idea first.
I'm not some paranoid recluse, BTW, think of this as one big game of Alpha Centauri, Axis&Allies, or whatever. It's perfectly good sense.
]3
Re:Water's not the only liquid in universe (Score:5, Informative)
The Soviets also considered a nuclear pre-emptive strike on their nuclear weapons plant before their first test.
In the meantime the PLA's missiles have not been extended in range save for a very few missiles. They do have some Submarine base missiles but that would be tracked/destroyed by the vastly superior US Navy. They only have 3 or 4 subs.
The US government's assesment of Chinese nuclear capability is classified but there are lost of info on the net. They do pack a punch but their delivery range is very limited.
Re:Guys, perspective!! (Score:5, Informative)
The ONLY way the Chinese can short cut technologically to get to the Moon is to use someone else's rocket design, modernize the design, and build it for such a mission. Given the fact the Chinese have been warming to better relations with the Russian Federation lately, I wouldn't be surprised that China has bought the plans for the old Soviet N-1 rocket and using plentiful Chinese expertise modernize the design for vastly improved reliability, plus design a modernized version of the Russian lunar lander. The Russians were on the right track for a lunar mission but the lack of funds doomed their lunar mission projects.
Meanwhile, Read This... (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the theme: NASA's human space flight efforts have been going downhill since the end of the big Apollo budget bubble (1966) and need to be replaced by an agency that concentrates on enabling private sector human space flight.
Best quote: " After wasting three decades (and a perfectly good Cold War), frustrating the dreams of a whole generation of space enthusiasts, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, NASA's net achievement is a space station that has no definable purpose except to serve as a destination for shuttle flights.
We would not need the shuttle missions if we did not have the station, and we would not need the station if we did not need something for the shuttles to do. The entire human spaceflight program has thus become an exercise in futility."
I take this with a grain of salt: There's money to be made, maybe, doing things in LEO and on the moon, but we'll still need someone to fund and operate the necessary but unprofitable initial human explorations of the planets. An analogy might be drawn to the efforts directed by Prince Henry the Navigator.
The Russians (Score:5, Informative)
No flag, but they did have the first landing [wikipedia.org], 2 rovers [wikipedia.org], and 24 unmanned probes which even returned samples.
In a lot of respects they beat us pretty well on the moon. I think the technical details of unmanned rovers and returning samples all remotely are very cool.
Re:"Fortunately" ??? (Score:3, Informative)
There really are lots of ways to respond to that statement. I think the first thing to point out, though, is the difference between the Moon and Antarctica. The Moon hosts a wealth of potential resources that a colonizing nation or corporation could exploit, irrespective of any vague agreements and conceptions regarding its international status.
The technical challenge of sending spacecraft and humans to the Moon may necessetate advances in engineering and material science. The Lunar surface would provide an excellent base of scientific exploration for a number of fields (meteorology, astronomy, astrobiology, etc). A Moon colony could prove to be an economic resource (if you don't like the idea of mining minerals [slashdot.org] through the gravity well, then consider the potential as a communications center or an energy source [slashdot.org].
Also, not to be forgotten are the political ramifications of a successful Chinese base on the Lunar surface. Space and lunar exploration in the US is often funded according to political sentiment. The Apollo missions were fueled by anti-Soviet Cold War mentality. Aside from the possibility of a Chinese Lunar military base, watching China successfully execute a moonshot and construct a colony is a blow to US technological and military superiority - and that is something US citizens and politicians don't like to see.
So, in light of all this, whether you view a non-US Moon mission as a problem is a matter of opinion. But the Moon is a much more valuable prize than Antarctica, so it is easy to see how the US's nationalistic desire to claim political, military, economic, and moral superiority over everyone else will lead many people to conclude that a non-US plan to get to the Moon is decidedly unsettling.
Wrong (Score:1, Informative)
There is specific wording in the document that asserts the soverignty of both Iraqi and Kuwaiti territory. Note that Resolution 678 grants ONLY the ability to enforce Resolution 680: "Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
There is NOTHING in there that says the US or any international force will move into or occupy soverign Iraqi territory in the event of non-compliance. Note in resolution 687, which ended the war: "Demands that Iraq _and_Kuwait_ respect the inviolability of the international boundary and the allocation of islands" and that it "Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990)"
UN resolution 1441 specifically states that in the event that Iraq is found in material breach of the final resolution "to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security". There is NO WORDING in 1441 that says the UN or any other force will attack when faced with noncompliance.. only that the matter will be considered again. In fact, 1441 has wording specifically AGAINST an invasion: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,".
There is no legal basis for the war - it simply happened, and everyone scrambled to get out of the way.
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Informative)
I don't want to sound paranoid, but there's something amiss when Halliburton gets a huge contract.
Re:Good for them! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good for them! (Score:3, Informative)
It seems like that today, reasonable observations are so far away from the contrived reality that the media and the Bush administration is pushing that they start to sound "far out" and "left wing".
These crazy "left-wing" rantings are what pretty much what the rest of the rational world thinks.
Re:"Fortunately" ??? (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously don't know about the dozen or so competing claims [fotw.net] to various parts of that continent. Just because the US is one of the countries that doesn't recognize any of them doesn't mean the Australians, the French, the New Zealanders, the Chileans, the Argentines, the British, and even the Norse don't think they own it.