Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

China Plans Manned Space Launch By 2005 211

Posted by timothy from the after-that-maybe-the-moon dept.
cosyne writes: "CNN.COM has this article on China's space program planning to send a man to the moon. 'The mission is part of Beijing's plans to create a space industry and earn the prestige of joining the United States and Russia as the only nations to have sent humans into space.' I wonder if they'll make it before the recently mentioned amateurs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Plans Manned Space Launch By 2005 More

China Plans Manned Space Launch By 2005

Comments Filter:

  • New product labels (Score:5, Funny)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Saturday November 24, 2001 @09:24AM (#2606651) Homepage
    So will most consumer products soon start bearing the label: "Made in Space" ?

  • Our Space Program (Score:5, Funny)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Saturday November 24, 2001 @09:24AM (#2606652) Homepage Journal
    Reminds me of the Cold War that stimulated our space program. There's nothing that can stimulate a space program better than a military advantage. Perhaps this little bit of competition will encourage Congress to give NASA the funding they need to do more than just crash probes into distant planets.

  • monkeys! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by TheM0cktor ( 536124 )
    lets see...

    China: billions of dollars, no need to get licenses to launch rockets (they own their own damn country), infinite supply of monkeys to test rockets on.
    Amateurs: finite (comparatively tiny) supply of money, have to jump through dozens of hoops to launch anything at all, no monkeys.

    What do you think?

    • Re:monkeys! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They have an infinite supply of monkeys? I wonder how many of them have typewriters.
    • Not so much jumping through hoops and regulations. One group (cant remeber which one) said that if the epa gave them any guff they would just go south across the mexican border, or somewhere else that wouldnt have soo many laws and regulations. But the money is still a huge advantage obviousely for china, although that may not be as important, look at NASA's successes/failures. The budget has been cut, yet they have basically been using scrap piles to find parts. But thats a fine balance of knowledge and money so this will be interesting space race between amatures and china?
    • I bet we have more slashdot-trolls than they have monkeys. Oh wait, monkeys can be trained ...

  • CNN.COM has this article on China's space program planning to send a man to the moon.

    Actually, they're quite cagey about the Moon thing.

    Sun Laiyan, vice director of the China National Space Administration, declined to give any details of the moon exploration plan other than that it was part of China's space industry plans.

    Of course, they dead set against "militarizing outer space". Oh yeah, such peaceful people; naturally they're against that. For us, anyway.

    1Alpha7

  • Exciting but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pigeonhk ( 42292 ) on Saturday November 24, 2001 @09:26AM (#2606660) Homepage

    How much resource and money would be spent on sending people onto the moon? Should they be spending on something else to solve other problems in China?

    • Re:Exciting but... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How much resource and money would be spent on sending people onto the moon? Should they be spending on something else to solve other problems in China?

      Yeah, kinda like the US. Literacy rate below any other supposedly civilized country. Social security almost non existent. Good education reserved for those who can afford it. More people in jail than anywhere else. Makes you wonder how reasonable it really is to burn $400M on every shuttle launch, for example...

    • "Should they be spending on something else to solve other problems in China?"

      Yeah, instead they should be focusing on something that can stir nationalistic pride in the people, something to help them endure the coming hard times for the good of the state. Wait a second...

  • Spending (Score:3, Interesting)

    by InnovativeCX ( 538638 ) on Saturday November 24, 2001 @09:27AM (#2606663)
    It seems to me that China really has no other reason to do this other than to say that they have done it, and they are spending giant amounts of money in the process. Think of what else that could be used for! Even if they succeed, that does not take care of their other problems such as hunger, poverty, etc. This whole plan is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984; It's all just to boost military morale.
    • Actually, they're doing it for two reasons.

      One is to be taken seriously by the other 1st world countries as a modern nation.

      Two is to boost the morale of the entire country, not just the miltary.

    • Re:Spending (Score:2, Insightful)

      by InnovativeCX ( 538638 )
      Even so, that still does not solve a major problem. I honestly won't look at China as a modern nation until I see some real, uh, modernization in their social structures. Sending a man into space is a novelty anymore, it's been done. Morale can only take a nation so far, it may help their people for a little while, but it will catch up with them. What I am saying is that their money could be much better spent.
      • Well gee, isn't that the argument against ALL space programs?

        "It cost HOW much? You know how many homeless people that could feed?!"

        Now, how about this scenario 20 years from now:

        Everyone goes to China for access to space. Why? Because of the control of the government over the country and disregard of international treaties have allowed them to make the most progress. Everyone goes to China because their space industry is the cheapest and most reliable. Most goods leaving the planet go though China, greatly enriching it like a seaport greatly enriches a city. (Think New York)

        This all depends on the success of their space program, after all, it's a huge amount of money and they can't afford to have too many failures.
    • The largest country in the world with a massive population that makes up a large share of the global population. Hum! I wonder why they wanna put people in space.
      My money and i suspect the chinese money is on the Chinese being the first to colonise the Moon.
      Sorry Yanks but you lost that one back in the 70's when you didn't go back.
  • What exactly is there to do on the moon?
    yeah, we could build a base or something, but if we are there for just a few hours or days, what can be said rather than "WHOOO!!! were on the moon!"?
    • I thought we discussed China's space program over a year ago. The head of their space program mentioned at the United Nations that they intend to explore the Moon and use its resources. Lunar mining implies a significant presence on the Moon, and unless they're going to use all the resulting material to expand their lunar bases, it also implies a lot of materials ending up in lunar orbit (a lot easier to achieve from the surface of the Moon than is Earth orbit from the surface of Earth) for construction in space.
    • Since there is this new continent in the way between Europe and India, the knowledge that the Earth is round is of little practical importance. To reach India from Europe one must navigate East, anyway. There is very little to be gained from building a base or something in this new "American" continent.
    • "What exactly is there to do on the moon?"

      Build a factory and tell the EPA and Greenpeace to go fuck themselves. Next question.
    • I've heard something about a helium isotop thats pretty interesting for fusion power research..
      On earth this isotop is very rare.
      The moon on the other hand is supposed to contain more of this type of helium.
      So... building mines on the moon might be one task to do...

      Have anybody else heard about this, or do I remember wrong?

      ----
      Go to moon and check out IF the US went there or not... Could be fun if they didn't.
      What shall we then belive in?

      - You've heard about the U.S?
      - Yeah!... but I don't really belive in it... It's just fairytale spread by aliens.

      Maybe the Earth IS flat after all....
      ------

  • Nice to see.. (Score:1, Troll)

    by zentec ( 204030 )

    that technology Bill Clinton allowed Loral to sell to the Chinese being put to good use.

    After all, if you can put a man in space, you can put a nuke in Washington.
  • Weren't they concerned about human rights over there in China? Why would the cooperate with a communist state? You would think with all the money they have they would develope their own space project rather than funding the Chinese.

    • Point 1) Before you talk about human rights, think about the fact that the U.S. is the country with the most death sentences. And frankly, when it comes to U.S. companys investing in China... This human rights thing is a fig leaf if you ask me.

      Point 2) Europe *has* a space program, called ESA [esa.int] (European Space Agency, d'uh). Together with the U.S., they have people up in the ISS (and a good part of ISS has been transported up there by ESA's Ariane). However, they have an eye on economics, and such a program is very expensive. I think the rationale is: "We want to be able to get people up in space, they want to be able to get people up in space, this is expensive, we are on good terms... Let's do it together." Oh, and about communism: It's not that much of red flag in Europe: Don't forget, Communism is a nice vision. The Soviet Union or China don't have anything to do with Communism (Read Marx' and Engels' book if you don't belive me). They are/were dictatorships.

      Side note: I'm not a communist, but I still think that labelling China as a communist state is unfair for commnuism.

      Greets,
      Anno.

  • Moon Landing (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Saturday November 24, 2001 @09:35AM (#2606680) Journal
    There were earlier reports from the middle of the week that China was planning to eventually go to the moon. Later Reports showed that this was not correct, at least not yet.

    They just want to get their feet wet, for now.

    New Scientist [newscientist.com] has a good story on this. And there is this page with links [usembassy-china.org.cn] on the chinese space program from U.S. Embassy Beijing Environment, Science and Technology Section.

  • I wonder if this will embarass the US government into mounting another of its great space adventures... Wishful thinking i suppose, but my grandparents got to watch a moon landing with their kids and i want to watch a mars landing with mine. (when i find a geek-friendly woman that is)
  • "I should point out that some powers in the world are on the way to militarizing outer space, not peacefully exploring outer resources," Huang Huikang, an official from China's foreign ministry, told the China Daily.

    "Another arms race in outer space has begun since 1998 and we should be watchful," Huang said.

    I would like a few more facts and less fundumentalist tone to be interested in this. A satallite program for China makes perfect sense for communications and survey for the billion(s) of people. I sure the US will be paying attention to the launch activites of our future olympic hopefuls, but an arms race in outer space is not econmically nor politiclly fesiable to begin with. Talk is cheap and that is all this is, political grandstanding: US bad--China good.

    "The Proples' rocket is going to lay the smack down on the evil american capitalist pigs!"

    Please don't take this article as being newsworthy.

    • Re:The Peoples' Rocket (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      but an arms race in outer space is not econmically nor politiclly fesiable to begin with.

      I think that the Chinese are being overly generous with this 1998 thing. Killer satellites have been under test a lot longer than this. In fact a good 25% or LEO trash is debris from killer satellite tests that were conducted at least 20 years ago.
  • Chinese Manned Space Program: Behind Closed Doors [friends-partners.org] is a very interesting read. It details not only a large chunk of the history of the Chinese space research, but also describes the secrecy that has shrouded most of it.

  • Those were the days (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Saturday November 24, 2001 @09:37AM (#2606686) Homepage

    How well does this translate into Mandarin?:

    "We choose to go to the moon, and to do these other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

    Cynical old bastard that I am, those words actually choke me up every time I hear them. Space exploration (not arsing about in low earth orbit) exemplifies everything that is great about the human spirit. Our reach should exceed our grasp.

    We in the west have forgotten that, and now it's all about the bottom line. Sounds like China still gets it. Good luck to them, I reckon.

  • Very Cool (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DiSKiLLeR ( 17651 )
    This is extremely cool, and a good thing for all of us.

    Hopefully it will kick start another space race, and get the americans off their butts. Bush has done nothing but slowly kill NASA with its budget cuts.

    In 2005, Russia may become the only country with access to the ISS. (find the story on space.com somewhere -- With all the budget cuts the US no longer has a HAB module or Crew Return Vehicle. Russia's obligations supplying Soyuz Rockets ENDS in 2005 leaving the USA totally stranded.)

    With China sending men and women into space on its own, and making plans to build its own Space Station and sending men to the moon, EVEN if it doesn't wake up the US govt. and inject more money into NASA, at least we are making progress and reaching for the stars.

    Communist regimes are very good at certain things. The Soviet Union was a powerful military country, and built 9 space stations. (Salyut 1-7, Mir, and now the ISS).

    Hopefully China can also achieve some amazing things.

    I want to live on Mars someday. I don't care how it happens, or who gets me there, i just want to be there.

    D.
    • The Soviet Union was a powerful military country, and built 9 space stations. (Salyut 1-7, Mir, and now the ISS).

      IIRC (which I might not, and I'm not going to check, because I'm a lazy, lazy man), Salyut 1-7 were just missions to a single space station (brought up with the first of the flights). Can someone confirm or deny this?
      • You are correct. They're was only one Salut station. Much like there was only one Skylab. We still had Skylab 1, 2 and 3 though.
    • Bush has done nothing but slowly kill NASA with its budget cuts.


      No, Bush has begun reigning in a beaurocracy that was out of control, even their own, and is reintroducing the concepts of fiscal responsibility and sensible management.

      The current issues with ISS are due to their own mismanagement and setting of unrealistic goals. When someone blows their budget again and again and again, the last thing you should do is give them more money! Yes, it will be harder in the short term, but if you don't, the waste and corruption will kill you in the long term.

      Bush is, typically, going in and actually fixing the problem, instead of boasting about "reinventing government" then covering things up.

      The amazing thing about Clinton/Gore is that their ethical lapses, bad as they were, were completely overshadowed by their utter incompetance as leaders and managers.

      Jon Acheson

      • Er, I thought the ISS was a pure political project. With Capital hill forcing NASA to build it using international partners. You know, keeping Soviet rocket scientists employed and out of Iraq?

        Gee, aren't we all having a wonderful time together?

        And I wish people would stop acting so surprised that NASA acts just like a huge government agency.
      • is reintroducing the concepts of fiscal responsibility and sensible management.

        Let me, as a scientist doing basic research, to interpret this for you. What you mean is:

        "smothering the skill and imagination of skilled scientists and engineers by chaining them with red tape and oppressing them with fiscal goals set by people who have no clue as to what the research concerns and how long it will take to get meaningful results"

        Science is art. Fiscal responsibility and sensible management, taken to the extreme form the bureaucratic rats want it, kills the creative mindset.

    • Clinton cut it in real dollars most of his two terms. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. Bush is trying to fix another one of Clinton's many mismanagement messes.
    • Hopefully it will kick start another space race, and get the americans off their butts.

      I hope it will *not* start another space race. Like the last one, as soon as the artificial 'goal' is reached, the program will be over, with little left to show for it. Getting into space, and staying there, means finding an economic reason for being there. Economics and immediate threats to survival drives human expansion, not some mythical 'spirit of exploration'.

      Bush has done nothing but slowly kill NASA with its budget cuts.

      Um, insisting that someone live within their budget is not 'cutting' the budget. NASA has overspent and Bush refuses to pay for the overruns. (Actually the biggest cutter of the NASA budget of all time is Clinton.)
  • One of the military connections to the US space program was the development of huge missiles. A missile that can launch a payload to go to the moon can also be used as an ICBM.

    China may be interested in things like this.

    • ICBMs were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, well before the space programs of the USA and USSR. It was the technology in the ICBMs that was used for going to the moon, not the other way round.

      • I doubt this. (Score:2, Informative)

        by Krapangor ( 533950 )
        I don't think all scientist who were working and the first ICBM really wanted to create ICBMs instead of real "space rockets".
        I think some of them tried to build "space rockets" and used them for military purposes.
        Take von Braun for example. He always wanted real space flight (well known fact) but build military rockets for the Nazis and the US first. But when the US were searching for space flight rockets after the sputnik shock his project succeeded at once unlike to navy's whose blew up very impressively. The navy used ICBM based designs. I suspect that von Braun always kept space flight capable rockets in mind and created the rocket stuff this way. Therefore his success.
  • I think this is a great idea. I think China should be strongly encouraged to expand its space program. In fact, I would be happy if they became the leader in space exploration. As soon as they announce plans to colonize Mars, it will scare our government into funding plans for the same, and then our space exploration work will be back on track.
    • Oh yeah, great idea. Lets let China colonize "the Red Planet". Friggin' pinko commies. What would McCarthy have to say about that, eh?

      Then again, if all the Chinese up and moved to Mars...

  • They still have a long way to go (Score:3, Funny)

    by LibertarianCrackSmok ( 536453 ) on Saturday November 24, 2001 @09:51AM (#2606704)
    From the article: A monkey, a dog, a rabbit and snails were sent into orbit aboard the second Shenzou launch but scientists say that more unmanned tests will be necessary.

    Translation: The monkey, dog and rabbit died together or one of the animals died. China isn't ready to go to space.
  • China wants space-based military capabilities to compete with the US, including killer satellites to knock out US spy and GPS satellites.

  • Fox? (Score:1)

    by flewp ( 458359 )
    Who wants to bet Fox is already working on creating a show stating how the China mission was all a big hoax?
  • I think that I speak for many when I voice my concerns over China in space. This is the same country that constantly threatens to invade Taiwan and is very militaristic in general. What happens when they militarize space? Do we let them hang out with a bunch of nukes hanging over our heads?

    I thought I'd never say this, but Bush's missle defense plan is looking better and better every day...


    • I think that I speak for many when I voice my concerns over China in space. This is the same country that constantly threatens to invade Taiwan and is very militaristic in general.


      Hm, is America jealous that someone may become more violent and invade more countries than they do.

      :-)
  • It's about time someone kicked the US in the pants and got them going. In the past, we've complained about China's policies regarding "subversives", their willingness to exploit child labor, and their lack of hesitation to cane the crap out of American teenagers that
    think that they can get away with being obnoxious in someone else's country. But unlike us Americans, they're actually interested enough in space to get back into orbit and possibly to the moon. They're going to get results. Can we, as Americans, stand to see space dominated by the threat from the East? Maybe we'll see something other than talk from American politicans now. Maybe we'll see a push into space.

    This pleases me greatly. I was frightened that
    we'd never seriously get back into space in my
    lifetime. Come on, George. Respond to the yellow threat! Get us back into space where we belong.

  • I just finished re-reading "Voyage" and "Titan" by Stephen Baxter. Spooky. Chinese space program (including the objective of landing on the moon) and the death of the US manned space program figure in Titan, while the goals of the US space program are a big part of Voyage. If you haven't read any of Stephen Baxter's fiction, try Voyage first.

  • Slashdot Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Knunov ( 158076 ) <eat@my.ass> on Saturday November 24, 2001 @10:31AM (#2606788) Homepage
    If any post mentions the U.S. govt's plan to build a missle defense system, it gets modded down into oblivion, usually with associated comments dismissing the threat as being unlikely or impossible.

    But China is getting ready to put men in space, and it is widely cheered as a Good Thing.

    How so many people miss the correlation is beyond me.

    A rocket is far more complicated than a missle, and the technologies are remarkably parallel.

    You see a country that doesn't like the U.S. developing technology that can easily be used to deliver a nuclear payload and you cheer, while simultaneously objecting to the very plan that can protect us from the developing threat.

    If the idea of another cold war appeals to you, by all means, cheer on.

    Now, go ahead and mod me into oblivion as 'Flamebait' or 'Offtopic'. What /. really needs is a 'Doesn't Buy Into Liberal Utopian Ideologies' or 'I Don't Like The Way You Think' negative mod option. It would be closer to the truth.

    Knunov
    • Point granted: Just as the European Union, China is no longer willing to accept the U.S. as the world's single most important power.

      Question: Despite that, the USA and the EU seem to get along quite well. The EU and Russia get along well. Do you _need_ a different big bad enemy in the world? Or is China scaring because it works so very different from Western culture?

      I don't think China wants to actually attack the U.S. Much too dangerous, too much common econmic interests, and much more of those ahead. Globalisation really makes wars between industrial states akin to economic suicide. Why does it scare you that China is developing a military potential which can match the USA? The idea is to lower America's single biggest influence in the world, not to bomb it into oblivion. And the EU is working on that too, by the way, they just don't shout it out loud.

      (Side note: Human Rights have been proven to be a Good Thing for Western cultures. What makes us so sure they work for cultures which are not in any way comparable to ours?)

      Greets,
      Anno.

      • Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Knunov ( 158076 )
        I'll respond in reverse.

        "Human Rights have been proven to be a Good Thing for Western cultures. What makes us so sure they work for cultures which are not in any way comparable to ours?"

        I've thought about this, as well. What I always come up with is this: Why doesn't China have an immigration problem?

        Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no". Ask Asians living in China if they want to live in the U.S. I suspect the answer will be different.

        Another experiment would be to temporarily transplant people into the opposite culture. This is done already in the form of exchange students. The people visiting the U.S. and living like an American will probably want to stay. The people visiting China and living like the average Chinese citizen will be counting the days to get home.

        I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom.

        "I don't think China wants to actually attack the U.S."

        I don't either, actually. But it's still a better feeling to be the only kid on the block with a gun. It's nice to not worry. I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them.

        This being said, the same argument won't hold up for all countries. If Iraq had ICBMs, I don't doubt for a second they would use them.

        Knunov

        • To continue this:

          "Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no". Ask Asians living in China if they want to live in the U.S. I suspect the answer will be different."
          I don't know about U.S., but I've lived in a flat with Chinese studying here. They came here to study and planned to go back to China after that, and, from all I've heard from them, quite liked it over there. Granted: They're from Shanghai, a city which is currently implementing the Chinese-Western society, so it may not be representative of other cities, or (especially) the poor mainland regions. They also admitted that while Shaghai is quite typical of the large and booming Chinese coast cities, the mainland is another world altogether. It depends on who you talk to, I guess (as always).

          "I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom"
          I think so, too. Point taken.

          "But it's still a better feeling to be the only kid on the block with a gun. It's nice to not worry. I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them."
          Take into account that this feeling is one that was reserved for Amricans. Europe, during the cold war, knew it would be the place where the Big Clash(tm) would happen, should it happen. So I, as an European, can sympathize with China striving to have a gun, too. To paraphrase you: If there is a kid on the block with a gun, and you are not that kid, it will be better for you if you get a gun, too. In an ideal world, nobody would have a gun. But human history doesn't point in that direction.

          "This being said, the same argument won't hold up for all countries. If Iraq had ICBMs, I don't doubt for a second they would use them."
          True. And this is what really scares me. Think about the fact that the Cold War never turned into a hot one because both parties knew they could only loose. The nukes were just too powerful. I think we can trust China that *if* another cold war should break out (Which is definitly a possibilty, although I don't think it will happen. Think in terms of money here, too.), they would be sensible enough not to do Stupid Things. However, with other states, you cannot be sure about this. And these are the ones we should be concerned about, not China.

          Anno.
          • Yes, the Iraq situation would be far more dangerous, because it is a fundamentalist state. The main danger with China is that if it's population keeps growing, it will get to a point where they they are far beyond the carrying capacity of their country, and, having nothing left to lose, could demand aid with the threat of global annihilation.
            • Iraq is not fundamentalist. They are dictitorial and have a major "cult of personality" problem, but they are not as fundamentalist as Iran or even as Saudi Arabia. They're dangerous because the center of power is completely power hungry and all around crazy, not because of religious influences. They're used as a cover to get support from others to help Iraq.

            • Actually, that's backwards. Iraq was one of the most secular Middle Eastern states before they were on the outs with the U.S., and even though they're currently ruled by a despot, he's not really a religious despot. Communism in China is more of a state religion than Islam in Iraq.

              As far as missile defense goes: it would not be a sufficient defense against an adversary with more than a few warheads, and so wouldn't prevent attacks by China at all. And as we've discovered, smaller adversaries don't need ICBMs at all to cause mass destruction in the U.S. We need a jetliner shield and a realistic chemical/biological threat prevention mechanism more than a missile shield at this point.

              • As far as missile defense goes: it would not be a sufficient defense against an adversary with more than a few warheads, and so wouldn't prevent attacks by China at all.

                This is an often misunderstood point behind BMD. It's not designed to completely stop an incoming attack, that job is almost impossible. But what BMD does do is introduce an enormous amount of uncertainty into the attack. The attacker will no longer be able to calculate 'I can launch x amount of my missiles (knowing they have y reliability) and have a z percentage chance of destroying my targets'. A new and difficult term has been added to the equation, and even though subtle it's important to military planners and politicians.

                And as we've discovered, smaller adversaries don't need ICBMs at all to cause mass destruction in the U.S.

                And? So? The events of 9/11 don't change the fact that many nations inimical to the US are close to obtaining ICBM's. The threat exist and are growing. Also from a military point of view, jetliners and biochem attacks are rather unpredictable and undependable in their effects, not a good thing. Also threats of those types of attacks can not be used in advance to influence the behavior of the target nation, because once the threat is issued, security gets stepped up, and the window of opportunity closes. Nations and militaries *don't* build offense to execute bolt-out-of-the-blue attacks, but build capabilities that allow them to influence events. (There are exceptions to the rule, but they are just that exceptions.) International diplomacy isn't Civilization, but is far more complex and subtle.
        • That's funny. ~ 70% of the Chinese grad students in the CISE department of my university are not willing to stay here or go anywhere but back to China once they graduate.
        • "I don't either, actually. But it's still a better feeling to be the only kid on the block with a gun. It's nice to not worry. I'd rather see no one have nukes than see everyone have them."

          "Nobody has nukes" is an unstable condition, eventually somebody will make one. It is also an impossible condition, as somebody already made a lot of them. "Somebody has nukes" is stable but undesirable condition, as one of those countries might use them against others (USA and Russia already agreed on using tactical nukes with reservations) which is one of the worst crimes that a country can (and one actually did) commit. "Everybody have nukes, and plenty of them" is a much better case, as long as every country in possesion of them is sane enough not to use them. I belive every country, including Iraq, Afghanistan and other "terrorist states", qualifies as sane in this respect. Iraq did not attempt to attack USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia or Turkey by chemical or biological means during gulf crisis remember? That is not because they were incapable to do so, nor because they wouldn't like the immediate results; rather it was because in middle term their country would be totally destroyed. The same goes with nukes too.

        • I've thought about this, as well. What I always come up with is this: Why doesn't China have an immigration problem?

          It's a trick question. China does have an immigration problem, with N. Korea. They don't have as much of a problem as the US, because their borders aren't as exposed.

          Ask Asians in America if they want to move to China. You'll get a resounding "no".

          Most non-Chinese don't want to move to China, sure (-; Seriously, besides the mainland-Chinese, most of the Asian students intend to go back home.

          I think if people are exposed both to cultures that grant or restrict human rights, they will choose overwhelmingly to live in the culture that promotes individual freedom.

          You're starting to sound like Timothy. You're confusing affluence with freedom. People from industrialised countries (eg Singapore) or sem-industrialised countries (eg Malaysia) that have repressive governments aren't as interested in immigrating.

      • I don't think China wants to actually attack the U.S.

        You are correct, they don't want to actually attack, they are doing something far more subtle:

        They are attempting to create the impression that they might attack. That impression then changes how the US and the EU and everyone else treats them. (They've got ICBM's, we've got to be careful how far we push them...) They want to use that pressure to influence events in their favor.

        It's called 'deterrence' among other things, and it does have an enormous effect in international politics.
    • Hey. I don't think there is a direct correlation between putting men in space and the beginning of a cold war. A few too many points you make are incorrect. Such as:


      "A rocket is far more complicated than a missile, and the technologies are remarkably parallel."


      While it may be true that both require propulsion of some sort, they are hardly parallel. The USA's missile defense system, in all it's glory, is to have a missile hit another missile (or other flying target) while the targeted object is still in flight.


      China wants to send people into space... With things like lunar landing gear and scientific equipment.


      Hardly what I would call "parallel."

    • Ah yes, the increadable arrogance of the Chinese, doing something that may not be in the US's best interests, and the arrogance of those here on Slashdot, many not even American, who think that countries other than the US should be able to shape a space program if they wish to. What are they, Unamerican or something?

      I say China should be forced to follow America's way of going about such things.

      We should take all the Chinese, and all the Americans, and make them *vote* on what China can, or cannot, do.

      That'll show them who's boss.

      KFG
      • You're right.

        The top dog shouldn't wait for those weaker than him to approve their own destruction, as it will never come.

        He should just indiscriminately eliminate threats while they are weak, much the way adult male lions kill the male cubs in a pride so as to limit future competition.

        We, the U.S., should simply snuff out anyone, be it a country, race, religion or individual, on Earth that might be a threat one day.

        Fair play is overrated, especially when your life hangs in the balance.

        Knunov
  • I read this article last night and just shook my head. Yes, it is very intersting that China plans to send humans to the moon. That makes an impressive headline for CNN.com. Actually, it's in the sub-headline. But where does it say that China will send a man to the moon within the article itself? Nowhere. Reading the piece from beginning to end left me bewildered. They announce something, give some background facts, and never investigate the chief fact of the article, not mentioning it even a single more time.

    This is an important development. The world's most fearsome tyranny is attempting to take the lead in the space race. We deserve better reporting on these plans than this amateurish effort.

  • It's a shame that China is taking the classic police state stance of "We'll tell the press about it once it's over successfully, or not at all if its a failure" with these launches. Because the People's Army Navy has to send specialized tracking ships to around the world in order to keep in contact with the capsule, both foriegn intelligence and foreign news agencies know of a pending launch long before the rocket is put on the pad. And I haven't even mentioned NORAD yet.

    With all that going against them, if there is a failure it will be all over the internet long before the state officially confirms or denies that there ever was a launch. That can't be good for their credibility...
  • So china plans on sending a human into space... Hmmm Oh my god! The Chinese are catching up on american technology, they're only 40 years behind our space program!!
  • Now is the time to go to Mars.
    Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

    Send a bunch of equipment first,
    then a large party of humans, one way.
    Let them explore the planet,
    and then figure out how to change the planet, plants, animals and humans to be able to live there, selvsufficiently...

    Everone who would like to become the first martians, raise their hands...
  • Sounds like China is trying to get the jump on us! We all know what we must do...

    We must be the first country to send a Chinese man to the moon!
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • The US seems to be ignoring this market-
    people who'd pay a hundred grand for a week in
    orbit. Perhaps a clever competitor like China
    will figure out how to do this cost effectively.
    • The US seems to be ignoring this market-
      people who'd pay a hundred grand for a week in
      orbit.

      Not really, their are a dozen or more groups working on serving just that market.. The core problem is that none of them have been able to attract funding because the market is so small at the hundred grand level.

      There are also a few groups working on the 20- to 50- grand/week market, but it also questionable if the market is even big enough at that level.

      Perhaps a clever competitor like China will figure out how to do this cost effectively.

      Cost effectiveness is not the problem, getting the ticket price low enough and the service reliable enough and attracting enough riders to amortize your costs is. ('Cost effective' does not 'cheap'.)
    1. The space race might start up again, and that might be a good thing, but don't let it get your hopes up. The goal I (and many others) would like to see achieved is a permanent, independant manned presence in space, because only then will we as a race truly be able to survive whatever happens to our planet.

      But there's a reason for the opposition to private manned space missions expressed by the government: the government opposes an independent manned presence in space. The reason is that such an independent group would wield much more power than the U.S. government does, because it could (if it wished) threaten to drop small asteroids anywhere on earth with relatively high precision. It's only when the U.S. government has an adequate defense against such an attack that it will truly allow a manned presence in space.

    2. Another cold war might be good for the United States, in terms of freedom and such. Didn't anyone here notice how quickly our freedoms started to erode once the cold war with the Soviet Union ended? Without an "enemy" that exemplifies traits that are in direct opposition to the ones the U.S. ostensibly stands for (liberty, justice, etc.), it seems we move quickly away from what we stand for -- we forget who and what we are. If we get into another cold war, we might get some of our freedoms back. Because it would not do at all for us to look so much like the enemy.

      Of course, that's probably wishful thinking: we'll probably wind up in another cold war and lose more freedom all at the same time, and in the name of that cold war to boot!

    Sigh... The world seems like such a hopeless place right now, because there's no place left on earth that I know of where real liberty isn't on its deathbed.

  • How hard would it be to retrofit a Space Shuttle for a Lunar mission? Could the cargo bay hold an Apollo-style LEM and enough fuel for the mission? Perhaps the shuttle could rendezvous with some kind of booster, although I imagine you'd have to EVA to bolt them together. Really, I don't care how they do it, it would just be really cool to see the Shuttle in Lunar orbit, with a lander coming out of the cargo bay.

    If the Chinese are serious about this, they should swallow their pride and establish rescue plans with the US and Russia. Even if we can't fit a lander in the cargo bay, we might still be able to rescue them from Lunar orbit.

    It seems like this whole business might actually be done best by combining Russian and US technology. Use the US lander technology, and the Russian disposable rockets to launch fuel modules into low orbit. Link up with the fuel module and away you go! Come to think of it, why bother just using it to rescue the Chinese? Why not just go there ourselves? Oh wait... there's not much reason to go, and establishing a permanent presence would be EXPENSIVE.

    So, unless the Chinese find something really valuable to mine up there, I don't see the rationale for a permanent presence at this time. Then again, maybe they know how to make rockets really cheaply, but based on my experience with cheap metal products made in China, I wouldn't want to ride one.

    If there is stuff to mine up there, we should send robot mining units. Why risk people for such a prosaic activity?

    • How hard would it be to retrofit a Space Shuttle for a Lunar mission?

      Extraordinarily difficult. (It would take *5* Saturn V's to boost *1* shuttle into Lunar orbit.) You could develop a shuttle carried LM and CSM, and bolt them together in (earth) orbit, but the shuttle can't lift the tran-lunar injection stage.

      So, unless the Chinese find something really valuable to mine up there,

      There is *no* mineral so expensive and unobtainable on Earth that it makes any sense to go to the moon for. (Even using the most optomistic estimates of the Cheap Acess to Space crowd, the moon simply takes to much fuel to get to and return.)

      • It would take *5* Saturn V's to boost *1* shuttle into Lunar orbit

        That's totally not what I had in mind. I was thinking of launching the shuttle with an empty bay and a skeleton crew. The lander and the fuel would come either from one big (separate) launch, or perhaps part of an "emergency supply" attached to the ISS.

        • That's totally not what I had in mind. I was thinking of launching the shuttle with an empty bay and a skeleton crew. The lander and the fuel would come either from one big (separate) launch, or perhaps part of an "emergency supply" attached to the ISS.

          It would still take the equivalent of *5* Saturn V's to boost the shuttle into lunar orbit. The Shuttle is big and heavy and takes a lot of fuel to put into trans lunar coast, a lot of fuel for lunar orbit injection, a lot of fuel for trans earth coast and a * lot * of fuel to slow down. (It's a toss up whether the wings would rip off before the tiles failed, neither will stand up to the forces of a reentry from a lunar trajectory.)

          • I see your point. I guess you have to compare the size of a CSM+LEM to the size of Shuttle+LEM. I was thinking that most of the energy was expended simply getting into low Earth orbit, and that once you were there it wasn't that bad to reach escape velocity. I mean, they are already going 18,000mph and escape is 25,000 so it didn't seem that bad. Where do you get your 5 Saturn figure though? I'd be interested in seeing some equations.

            • Where do you get your 5 Saturn figure though?

              Rough memory from working it out in the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup years ago. (2 SV's to refuel the ET for TLI. Another to boost the LOI stage, another to boost the TEI stage, another to boost the retro stage..) Something like that.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Close