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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Two Views On a China-US Space Race 239

Posted by michael from the shuttle-power dept.
An anonmous submitter writes "While there has been recent discussion about China and India engaging in a space race, most people are still focused on a potential race between China and the US in near future. The Space Review recently published a pair of essays on this topic: the first argues that China-US space race is both unlikely and undesirable, given the aftermath of the US-USSR space race thirty years ago. A followup article suggests that a China-US space race is vital, so long as it takes a more commercial, long-term approach than the US-USSR one. Food for thought..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Two Views On a China-US Space Race More

Two Views On a China-US Space Race

Comments Filter:

  • Bring it on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @02:57PM (#6320728) Homepage Journal
    Anything to helps to get the human race off of this death trap of a planet is a Good Thing(tm). In the long run I don't really care if they're Chinese, Indian, American, or even French. If everything goes tits up here on Earth (and when you talk about long-term that becomes a statistical certainty) we damn well better not have all our eggs in this supremely fragile basket. Just MHO.

    • The Chinese are exploiting off-the-shelf [moontycoon.com] software to figure out how to develop an ideal lunar colony. The US must stop the commercialization of valuable scientific knowledge so it doesn't fall into the hands of rogue nations or terrorist groups.

    • Re:Bring it on (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Death trap of a planet?

      It has a breathable atmosphere and a good supply of water.

      Something that you won't find on Mars, which really is a deathtrap, quite literally.

      Maybe we should figure out how to live in harmony with the one planet we have, rather than follow our technological noses to the most inhospitable places in the solar system?

      • Re:Bring it on (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Cassius105 ( 623098 )
        Actualy regardless of how we treat this planet our sun will explode eventualy destroying earth with it

        sure all of us will be long dead by then but at some point we will need the ability to leave earth behind or face extinction
        • The Sun has another 4 billion or so years left. I'm more worried about a planet killing comet or asteroid. They seem to hit about every 100 million years. The Earth is a nice place, but the human race has all its eggs in one basket.
        • If we survive that long as a technological society, we will have the technology to leave our planet whether we explicitly develop it or not. Putting people into tin cans now won't make any difference.

          But by that time, perhaps, humanity will also have acquired the wisdom to realize that to every thing there is a season, and a time to die. If humanity survives that long, it will have lived an enormously long, full life, and we can just be grateful for that.
    • Last time I checked, we landed on the moon in the 60's. They're only 40 years behind in the race.

      Now if I hear word about going to Mars, then there's a race. Otherwise, hogwash!

      • Re:What race? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rxke ( 644923 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @05:27PM (#6321582) Homepage
        That's exactly the point. It's been 30+ years since... All the know-how has been rotting on the shelves, resulting in one sad fact: NASA wouldn't be able to put a man on the moon in a sort timespan, it's even conceivable they would be hard pressed to beat China to land (again) on the moon even if they wanted to... secondly: it's like if the brothers Wright flew around for a bit and call it a day; mothballing their plane and go home; 30+ years later some chinaman flies again, but everybody says: 'what's the point, we've done that before' but THIS guy does not call it a day, heck no, he's dreaming of passengerplanes et.c... You get the picture. China seems pretty determined to go to the moon TO STAY THERE. Something NASA isn't even considering in their long term plannings, Mars being the more sexy target, at least in the eyes of the (funding guys of the) government. the moon is relatively easy. Mars is Not.
        • Ok, here's the punch line:

          We're sending vehicles to space weekly. The concept that we couldn't turn around and send a man to the Moon within 5 years is nonsense. The issue is that there's no point to; we've already been there.

          3 Payloads worth of Space Shuttle flights would be plenty sufficent material and fuel to put a human on the Moon... again. Probably more efficient as well.

    • Re:Bring it on (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cmacb ( 547347 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @04:50PM (#6321342) Homepage Journal
      "Anything to helps to get the human race off of this death trap of a planet is a Good Thing(tm)."

      I too support the exploration of other planets, but I find it amusing that we would escape off this "death trap" to planets where it is so cold that the carbon dioxide is in solid form.

      If ultimately we learn to terraform planets such as Mars, then we will have much sooner than that developed technologies to bring our own ecosystem back into balance (assuming you believe that it is significantly out of balance as it is).

      If on the other hand the "death trap" refers to interactions between people, then maybe it would make more sense as was done in Hitchhiker's Guide to send the trouble makers on ahead.

      • If on the other hand the "death trap" refers to interactions between people, then maybe it would make more sense as was done in Hitchhiker's Guide to send the trouble makers on ahead.

        Or what happened in the 16th and 17th Centuries. All the crazy psychos from Europe wanted to escape because they were being 'persecuted' so they went and pushed the American frontiers. This is why European countries have had no major problems with each other from the 1600s onwards to now.
        • Yep, no major problems. 30-years war, Napoleonic wars, Franco-Prussian war, WW I and II, enslavement of eastern europe by the Soviets. Dozens of other conflicts.

          Hard to imagine a more peaceful time, really. Damn good thing those troublemakers left though, so they could come back and save your asses twice and hold off the Soviets for 50 years.

    • Yes please let's colonize the moon.

      We also need to get nuclear powered spaceships into orbit. That is we need to build them in orbit because that is the only way we're going to create anything that we'd want to fly to mars or eurpoa in.

      -Craig.

    • In the 15th century both Europe and China developed deep sea fleets. The Chinese fleet was government run for the glory of the Emperor. The European fleet had scattered government financing, but was basically run by greedy mercantilists. The Emperor lost interest. The Chinese fleet was burned. The greedy Euroean merchants continued to expand their fleets leading to Europe's domination over the entire world.

      Do we really need another "space race"?

      Or is time to allow space development to proceed without

  • This can only be good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by couch_potato ( 623264 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:01PM (#6320753)
    Competition spawns innovation, right? Maybe the Chinese can spur NASA on in a way similar to the Russians, you know, light a fire under their butts...

    You need a license to have a dog, but any fool can have a child!

    • Re:This can only be good (Score:4, Interesting)

      by KewlPC ( 245768 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @08:00PM (#6322382) Homepage Journal
      Knowing the way this country works, we'd probably land a person on Mars, the populace would "Ooh!" and "Aah!" for a few months, then lose interest. At which point, the unscrupulous members of Congress would whine, "Yeah, we beat those dirty gooks to Mars. But now that we've done it, why waste money by going back? Those damn scientists are just going to give whatever knowledge we acquire to the slopes and every other two-bit country anyway, so why not just spend some of their funding on some nice pork barrel that'll get us re-elected instead?" After which NASA's budget will shrivel, more Aegis carriers that the Navy doesn't want because they don't have enough personel to crew them will be built, and it'll be the same shit all over again.

      At least, until the private sector catches up. That is, unless corporate interest wanes once the low-orbit version of the Concorde becomes a reality.

  • Missiles my ass (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The article talks about China using the spinoff tech of their space program to improve their ICBMs. Well, sure, of course...but what nobody's considering is the military effect of a permanent moonbase. With a mass driver. Read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress if you don't know what I'm talking about.

  • Space is big (Score:5, Insightful)

    by f97tosc ( 578893 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:04PM (#6320770)
    Healthy competition is good.

    It is only unfourtunate if China and the US try to do exactly the same thing, and don't share their experiences.

    If they set different, ambitious goals it can extremely fruitful for mankind. And there seems to be no shortage of interesting projects.

    Tor
    • What you said.

      Witness what happens when two countries share their knowledge: The International Space Station. The US couldn't easily build it alone financially or scientifically without the years of experience and some finances from Russia, which had made space dwellings old hat.

      Imagine China doing a similar share. You could almost hear another block from their wall going down.

      And if you think that's pipe dreams--remember that the ISS is international property. No one ever saw the old USSR and US really

  • I thought.... (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by jimius ( 628132 )
    ...that the space elevator was the new way to go? Except for the massive production of the required carbon tethers it all seems feasible and why not give it a try? If it works out the race will be won.
    • The technology isn't quite there. Nasa is apparently primarily waiting for the private sector (though they are doing their own research into the issue, and doubtless infusing some cash into various companies as well) to solve the materials science problems.

      I agree that the space elevator is the solution. Once it is built, it will remove the need for rocket fuel. It will make asteroid mining feasible and thus lucrative. We won't have to build insanely expensive and only partially reusable launch vehicles.

    • [I thought] that the space elevator was the new way to go? Except for the massive production of the required carbon tethers it all seems feasible and why not give it a try?

      They are [highliftsystems.com].

      Just have to get the actual material first. Only have aout 1.5 orders of magnitude to go before the nanotube-epoxy composite is strong enough...

      Why isn't it NASA's main thrust yet? Gotta prove that it's possible first, with a real material.

  • Us (US) versus Them (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amerinese ( 685318 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:10PM (#6320794)
    The articles seem to have opposing points of view, but let me add a perspective that says they're both the same. I needlessly mention that we live in a highly interdependent world, yet still, we maintain a tribal mentality--it's always us versus them, in this case the US versus China. Both essays, regardless of their conclusions pits the US against China, but why need that be the case?

    The United States purpose in the world is not to remain the sole superpower and go around and do whatever it wants. Today, our position in the world as the sole superpower is indeed unique. Instead of going around trying to squash the competition, why don't we try to improve the plight of other countries, and if other countries become both powerful and good, we should welcome them to the club with open arms.

    Practically, with China, this means not letting greedy coorporations dictate foreign policy, and even more important, considering China a strategic _partner_ for the future, and not this bullshit strategic _competitor_. In an interdependent world, there are no enemies, only parts of yourself that you can improve.

    • Re:Us (US) versus Them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brian_Ellenberger ( 308720 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:39PM (#6320937)
      Instead of going around trying to squash the competition, why don't we try to improve the plight of other countries, and if other countries become both powerful and good, we should welcome them to the club with open arms.

      Wouldn't it be nice if it was that easy. Give grants or loans? Well, that feeds dependency and often goes to the hands of dictators or warlords. Build factories? Your being "economic imperialists" and using the people for cheap labor. Take out murderous dictators? Your trying to "conquer the world". Do nothing? Your being selfish "isolationists". Heck we can't seem to get it right even when we try to feed starving people (see Somalia).

      The problem is that very few people in this world want to "cooperate". Most people are out for themselves. And most people generally have to succeed or fail for themselves. That is why restricted competition works so well in this world.

      Practically, with China, this means not letting greedy coorporations dictate foreign policy, and even more important, considering China a strategic _partner_ for the future, and not this bullshit strategic _competitor_.

      There is nothing that corporations love more than peaceful cooperative foreign policies. The less barriers the more trade and the more markets to sell goods to. There are a heck of alot more corporations selling butter than selling guns.

      Brian Ellenberger
      • Wouldn't it be nice if it was that easy. Give grants or loans? Well, that feeds dependency and often goes to the hands of dictators or warlords. Build factories? Your being "economic imperialists" and using the people for cheap labor. Take out murderous dictators? Your trying to "conquer the world". Do nothing? Your being selfish "isolationists". Heck we can't seem to get it right even when we try to feed starving people (see Somalia).

        He's talking not opposing new major powers out of a desire to

      • Re:Us (US) versus Them -- OT (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dcmeserve ( 615081 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @04:03AM (#6323902) Homepage Journal
        Heck we can't seem to get it right even when we try to feed starving people (see Somalia).

        Just an off-topic note, we didn't mess up in Somalia until we did two things:

        1. Try to mess with the political landscape (i.e. take out the "warlords").

        2. Underestimate Al-Qaeda.

    • There are a lot of countries i would be happy to welcome to the superpower club with open arms. However China is _not_ one of them. Not given their (relatively) recent record of fascist politics and (lack of) human rights.
    • Does anyone remember the waves of economic fear that ripped through American culture when faced with the Japanese Juggernaut of the 80's? If the fears of the day had come to pass we'd all be working for Shogun overlords, eating rice, and speaking a patois of several asian languages. Fortunately, the Japanese imported american work ethics and their economy went to pot.

      China is a little different though. First of all, they have about 7 times the population that Japan did. Most of them have yet to join th
  • U.S has placed robots on Mars, Venus and landed a satellite on Eros the asteroid but China has yet to place a man in space. This is hardly a race, yet.
    • I think it's clear that china has strong intentions. The issue is whether we want to wait and see if they make any progress or make a start now.

    • Re:is there really a race? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bj8rn ( 583532 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @04:56PM (#6321389)
      Look at it as a race between Achilleus and a turtle. The turtle gets head start, so that he's already run half the way when Achilleus finally wakes up and starts running. When Achilleus has run half of the distance, the turtle is already at half the final half (Achilleus ain't actually trying). And so on. And Achilleus can never catch up with the turtle because every time Achilleus gets to a point where the turtle has been, the turtle is already gone. Ergo, there's no movement and where there's no movement there can't be a race (how can you race when nobody's winning?).
      • Most under graduates clearly understands that the race between Achilleus and the turtle has nothing to do with racing and everything to do with math concerning singularities (dt-> zero).

        This is a case of "who bother answer because the question is wrong"

        • Other kind of undergraduates might even remeber Zenon from Elea and his aporias, where he proved that movement is impossible... Please, somebody, mod me down or something, I don't deserve that "Insightful"!!!

  • What race? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mlg9000 ( 515199 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:11PM (#6320802)
    China is about to do what the US/Russia did in the 1960's. Even then there are pretty much using a copied Russian design. They aren't developing any new technology. How is that impressive? I'll be much more impressed if someone manages to get a commerical fight into space by years end. They don't have the budget of a government like China's so they've had to do some real inovation. China hasn't had an original idea since gunpowder.

    • Re:What race? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mangu ( 126918 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:29PM (#6320887)
      Well, of course, Americans didn't create any new design either. It was the German engineers brought from the V2 project who designed the rockets that went to the Moon. After the German engineers and scientists retired or died, NASA became the bureaucratic mess it's today.

  • But... but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:11PM (#6320803) Homepage
    Neither one of those articles mentions the race among Jupiter's moons between the Chinese spacecraft Tsien and the U.S.-Russian spacecraft Leonov, and how the Tsien crash-lands on Europa and gets devoured by a huge green bloatbeast from the alien waters, and how the Leonov meets up with an old American spacecraft and oh god I need to get outside. Open the front door, Hal.

    • Your post reminded me of something that I have always wanted to say regarding the space programmes --one that involves Arthur C. Clarke's work.

      According to '2001: A Space Odyssey', we should have moon-bases, space-lifts, major manned orbital stations by now.

      But, also according to '2001: A Space Odyssey', the Soviet Union should still be in their former 'suer-power' position now.

      One wrong assumption and the whole timeline goes out the window. LoL.

      Thank you.
      GrimReality
      2003-06-28 22:03:38 UTC (2003-06-28

    • but I cannot do that
  • 1. If all goes as expected, some time late this year--perhaps November--a Long March 2F booster will lift off
    2. This fall, barring any last minute hitch, China will launch its Shenzhou spacecraft with people inside...

    1. This flight will make China only the third nation, after the United States and the former Soviet Union, to send humans into space.
    2. ...thus joining the very exclusive club of nations that have sent humans into space.

    They're regurgitating the same information, just with a different slant.
    Rea

  • This race wouldn't be like the last one. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roumada ( 684718 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:14PM (#6320822)
    Nuts like Rumsfeld would rather have nasa working on ways to shoot each others' spacecraft down. I'd worry that given the current administration, a space race wouldn't have exploration as a goal (or even a wanted side-effect).

  • Double Standards (Score:4, Insightful)

    by silverbolt ( 578120 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:15PM (#6320830)
    China's ascendancy as the sole superpower, helped along by her space activities, would be a horrific development, threatening freedom and world peace. Even without reference to China's lunar ambitions, the military implications of Shenzhou should give one pause. The integration of technologies achieved by Shenzhou , including recoverable satellite capability, implies the ability to hit targets in the United States with nuclear warheads with a great deal of accuracy. Also the same low-power propulsion technology used to adjust a spacecraft's orbit could also be used to alter the path of offensive missiles, helping them evade proposed US anti-missile defense systems

    I will try to say this without being a flamebait. It is fine for USA to have space technologies with many military applications, or to have the ability to hit targets around the world accurately. But if another country does this, it threatens world peace.

    Why ? Is it because we are the only country with "God" on our side ? :-)

    • Re:Double Standards (Score:3, Insightful)

      by f97tosc ( 578893 )
      I will try to say this without being a flamebait. It is fine for USA to have space technologies with many military applications, or to have the ability to hit targets around the world accurately. But if another country does this, it threatens world peace.

      I agree that foreign military power is no more threat to peace than US. But issue is not only peace, but what kind of peace. I much rather have US superiority than Chinese. I happen tho think that the US way of governement is possibly the best in the wo

    • Re:Double Standards (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Jerf ( 17166 )
      Because no matter what bombastic rhetoric the left may try to throw at us, the fact is the US is on the whole relatively responsible with that military power, and does not use it to repress people as we would be afraid China will.

      Even the inevitable replies yelling about Iraq are off the mark; no matter how you slice it, we didn't off Saddam so that we would have the priviledge of repressing Iraqis.

      People in the world do not seriously worry about American planes coming tommorow night, unless they've openl

    • Because (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Synn ( 6288 )
      We're a stable democracy and China isn't. As an American I wouldn't lose any sleep at night if all of Western Europe had the power to blow me off the earth. Because they're stable democracies, which means the masses of people generally run the show.

      I DO worry about countries where the people that live in the country don't have a say in how it operates though, because you're more likely to end up with a rogue nut in power that stupid enough to pull the trigger and there's no one to stop him.

    • Re:Double Standards (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Zebbers ( 134389 )
      its because
      now get this
      its gon seem hard to understand
      despite all the wars we fight
      democracies dont goto war with other democracies.

      • Re:Double Standards (Score:3, Insightful)

        by epiphani ( 254981 )
        Thats because there are no "democracies" in the world anymore. If the US went to war with the brits, and the brits won, the US would be a Corrupt Republic or even an Ogliarchy. If the US won, the brits would be called an outdated monarchy.

    • ... Even without reference to China's lunar ambitions, the military implications of Shenzhou should give one pause. The integration of technologies achieved by Shenzhou , including recoverable satellite capability, implies the ability to hit targets in the United States with nuclear warheads with a great deal of accuracy. ...

      [etc. etc.]

      It is fine for USA to have space technologies with many military applications, or to have the ability to hit targets around the world accurately. But if another country d

  • The sooner you all get off my planet the better. Its like when you throw a party and 50,000 years later people are still passed out in your living room. -God

  • Why... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pjdepasq ( 214609 )

    But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

    We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone,

  • Sorry, Jeff, you are nuts. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by twitter ( 104583 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:34PM (#6320910) Homepage Journal
    The 1960s space race created institutions and bureaucracies that needed to be served after the race was over and warped expectations of what a realistic space program was for the worse.

    Public ignorance is no reason to stay away from space. Knowledge is there for those who seek it and realistic programs can be made. What are we going to gain from sitting on our hands, drawing up slow and cautious nothings like he accuses NASA of? Blah!

    Oh yeah, knocking NASA for all our space woes is pathetic. It's not NASA's fault hydrogen peroxide and even model rocket engines are hard to get your hands on. There are plenty of other large slow, careful offices making sure we sit on our hands so no one gets hurt.

    A space race is a good thing. VonBraun got to live half of his dreams because we were afraid of the USSR. He and many others showed us a cheap way to the stars on top of mild steel rockets. It's not his or NASA's fault we terminated those programs and now have to rely on USSR boosters for heavy lifting. Did NASA kill Nerva? I don't think so. The blame lies squarely on those who want to take things slow and careful.

    China has a hard time keeping it's submarine fleet from sinking, but that won't keep them from putting rockets up. They don't care as much as we might over a few heroic, and needless, deaths. Fine, bring it on.

    Why do we need to go to space? Because the Earth is limited. People need the resources space , which is limitless, has to offer. We can go get those resources or we can sit on our hands and fight over petty differences, like who owns Jeruselem suburbs, and wait for the next large scale extintion event to settle everything for us.

  • A little naive and a little alarmist (Score:5, Informative)

    by fname ( 199759 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:36PM (#6320924) Journal
    Well, I read both articles. The first seems naive in its complete analysis of why China may be going into space. Of course they have a military interest, just as the US had and continues to have. The second article begins by being a bit alarmist with talk of China developing the ability to accurately hit the US with nuclear weapons. What!?! Geeze, China already has long range missiles, and I'm sure their guidance systems are top-notch. Bringing up the spectre of nuclear war only serves to undermine the entire article.

    Another point which shows a lack of understanding (or intentional obfuscation) of the US space program is this,

    The problem is that the United States is not following a free market approach in space flight. NASA is still insisting on running its own space line, rather than going to the private sector for launch services, for example.
    Ummm, NASA only developes manned launch vehicles, specifically the space shuttle. All the unmanned launch vehicles (Titan, Atlas, Delta, Pegasus) are developed and maintained by private companies which compete for launches. With the EELV program, the government (mostly the Air Force) has taken a much more hands-off approach in the development of these launch vehicles (Delta IV and Atlas V). Further, shuttle is mostly maintained by private companies; for the Orbital Space Plane in development, the intention is to build the manned section of the vehicle to sit atop one of these Heavy Lift Vehicles.

    Finally, the government is still heavily involved with these unmanned vehicles, but it is the DOD, not NASA, that funds their development. NASA's budget is about $15 billion, have of which is for their manned and unmanned programs (the rest is for aviation stuff & general research). The DOD space budget is also $15 billion, $0 of which supports ISS or the shuttle. The DOD has funded the developments of just about every launch vehicle for the last 30 years, with the obvious exception of shuttle.

    And the shuttle is a remarkable piece of technology, the likes of which we may not see again for 20+ years. A heavy-lift, man rated vehicle which launches as a rocket and lands like a plane. It's had some obvious problems, but NASA took a big bite (given the constraints imposed from the outside by non-engineers and DOD officials) and came up with a great system. Sadly, NASA has not had the chance to apply a lessons-learned to build a Shuttle II. Maintenance is too expensive, and our materials are much better now than 30 years ago,so Shuttle II would be 2-3X less expensive than Shuttle I. Reduce it's lift capability in half, and it'd be much more capable of fulfilling its core requirements.

    injecting some market force into the space race sounds great, but the fact is, the field is wide open to anyone to develop a launch vehicle w/o government help. Many have tried and failed. A big reason the government has funded the development of every lauch vehicle in the US is simple-- it's not cost-effective to develope one without government help. When Teledisic wanted to luanch 243 satellites into low-earth orbit, do you think anything prevented them from going outside NASA? When Iridium and Globalstar launched their constellations, do you think NASA was involved in any way other than ensuring the safety of those on the ground?

    There's so much more to space in this country than 99% of the population realizes. It is largely private, and guess what-- we've had more success with the pure NASA and DOD programs.

    Back to the point. China obviously seeks to improve their use of space for commercial and military purposes. They see the US as dominant in space, and I'm sure they would like to have better communication and geo-location capabilities. Going to the moon seems to be more about prestige, and thinking 100 years ahead, not 10 years. Eventually, we will have outposts on Mars and the Moon, maybe even colonies.

    As the Europens sailed off into the unkown 500 years ago, so to do the Chinese fly off into the unknown today. The fruits they bear will not be realized for decades, but the eventual impact is undeniable. I say good for China for pushing into a new frontier, and I hope the US also decides to push ahead into the unkown, despite its dangers.

  • They've already The Biggest Step - (Score:3, Informative)

    by kremvax ( 307366 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:38PM (#6320935) Homepage
    which is, to quoute Dr. Strangelove:

    "In order to build such a device, you must first have the will to do so."

    They do.

    The leaders of a very shame/reputation-conscious society have committed to some very bold statements about technology and progress. Good for them!

    For all our wealth and WMD's, it's more than the US has been willing to ventur in decades.

    Kremvax

  • Second space race unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xihr ( 556141 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:38PM (#6320936) Homepage
    It's a priori pretty unlikely that there could even be a second space race between the US and China. You only engage in a space race if you have something to prove; since the United States beat the Soviet Union to the Moon and won the Cold War, the only country with something to prove is China, and as it stands they're way behind in the game. One could perhaps start talking about a renewed space race after a large amount of concerted effort by China -- say, China sets up a space station, goes to the Moon, and has plans for a manned mission to Mars -- bu that could only happen after a decade or more of successes by the Chinese.
    • Although in principle I agree with you that the U.S. and China will not enter into a space race, I think that they could start a serious one if they take a bigger step than we did. Right now the current layman's attitude about the moon is that it's a big rock that reflects the sun at night to help with lighting conditions. If they made an ambitious first step on the moon by setting up a colony for long-term low gravity testing then there could indeed be a new race. If they don't make us look inferior by

    • say, China sets up a space station, goes to the Moon, and has plans for a manned mission to Mars -- bu that could only happen after a decade or more of successes by the Chinese.

      I don't think it would take as long as you think it would. All you really have to do to stay in space, once you have expressed a willingness to go there, is spend the money necessary to do so. The problems in getting into space are fairly well known now, and if they are essentially using russian technology as has been suggested

  • I wish the goal were not space, but cancer, or nanofabrication, or such. It would mean more to the lives of their citizens and eventually the world if they spent the money on bioengineering, medicine, genetic modification of crops, training their people in science and engineering, IT, and such. Space is a less efficient expenditure of resources, despite how cool and prestigious it is. Certain other technical objectives as the goal for the race could have greater rewards than Space.
    • Good news!

      At the levels that public funds are spent on either cancer research or space exploration having a space race of any kind will make no difference. An engineer or scientists with all of his training and work experience in aerospace sciences does not quit his job one day and go into cancer research the next. Furthermore, cancer research will continue to a greater or lesser extent independent of public funding. Space exploration, at this point probably still needs some artificial support in the f
    • Real space industrialization will not only bring scientific advances that will dramatically impact every one of the fields you mention (with space industrialization, do you think the number of trained IT people needed will go down?), but will make possible zero-g manufacturing techniques which will reduce prices for the most sophisticated technological products required to provide the services you are asking for.

      Do you have any idea what defect-free semiconductor crystals the size of basketballs would do f

  • Let's go together (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hao Wu ( 652581 )
    A china man, indian, and american are a super team for space race, all of them together. Why have 3 seperate moon races when we can do it together on just one trip?
  • a 'space race'? True, the arms race did happen during the cold war (of which the space race was just a part; the part responsible for creating ICBM's).
    But to now say that China et al (not to mention Japan, which has some big money and even more creative dreaming (ie pretty CG :) ) will now go into a competitive race is kind of silly. They have no reason to, all they want is not to have to depend on the US and the EU for satelite capabilities. Which is a very sane idea, considering the strange things happeni

  • Hallelujah for the Chinese (Score:3, Interesting)

    by whitroth ( 9367 ) <whitroth@[ ]ent.us ['5-c' in gap]> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @04:41PM (#6321285) Homepage
    Why do we need a space race? To get the US to put up or shut up. After Johnson, every Republican administration has cut every penny they can from civilian NASA - or don't y'all remember how Newt and his Grinches tried to kill the Station in '95? Billions for SDI, and nothing for civilian uses of space.

    With a race, maybe we can clean up NASA's management - the current structure, according to folks on the inside at KSC, has more managers than techs...and some of those managers don't even have engineering degrees. And, yes, I *do* have the evidence to back this up.

    mark

  • one world? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rezza ( 677520 ) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @05:47PM (#6321703)
    *sigh* its this "us vs. them" mentality which depresses and scares me. i live in England, but do i want what's best for England? nope. do i want whats best for Britain, or Europe, or even "The West"? nope. i want whats best for HUMANITY... why is there so much competition about this sorta thing? to gain a military and economic advantage? why are people so damn selfish? why does anyone want their country to succeed at the expense of others? as far as i can see, any form of nationalism is just a tribalistic throwback from our evolution, and is more of a hindrance to progress now than anything else... why can't countries SHARE their tech? and everything else, for that matter? it would sure make it a lot easier for us to do stuff like establish permanent bases on the moon, because we wouldn't all have to research the same stuff... ahh well, call me a naive hippy dreamer if you like, but i think a completely nation-less utopia would a nice base to build scientific research on...
  • Hey. Face it. If either of them is better it will get the jobs.
    It's a good opportunity to privatise the heavily funded NASA.
    Welcome to the world of economy and the market model. A bit of competition should work well.
    Now only hope nobody changes to the M$-model (build first, debug later) to save money.

  • Space Race = Good Thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @12:08AM (#6323385) Homepage
    Competition is good. Look at all the technology that came out of competition between the free world and the communist block... You can't follow up to this post without using several hundred innovations that resulted from nationalistic competition.

    Now if we could figure out how to compete without having wars and stuff...
  • That some nation or corporation or group of nations and corporations will go to the moon and mars is not really in question.

    Sooner or later, someone will go there.

    Be it due to reasons of national pride or corporate greed, someone will go there. The dream of reaching out to the stars, exploring and living on strange worlds for fun and/or profit is huge in mankind.

    From a rational, cost conscious point of view, there is no real reason for humans to go to space. If the exploration of space is purely for scie
  • The second article is way off because of various assumptions it makes about the relative capabilities and potential of the two nations. First the author quotes one Rand Simberg:

    "a true free-market approach (of which, under the current regime, I suspect they're incapable) will leave them in the dust. That's why I don't even consider them relevant to our species' future in space, unless they display some dramatic change in approach."

    Later he says himself:

    The United States cherishes its traditions of human

  • They're bloated, sloppy, and aimless. Some competition whould do them good. Albeit, much of NASA's woes are due to a Congress that cant make up its mind.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close