China Scrubs Moon Mission Plans 390
Jim McCoy writes "CNN is reporting that according to China's state media, plans for a manned moon mission have been shelved due to cost. They are planning on a space station though..."
news: gotcha
Ha! They were right... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ha! They were right... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ha! They were right... (Score:2, Funny)
Common problem (Score:5, Funny)
Rots of ruck. (Score:2, Funny)
Such a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Such a shame (Score:2)
You think all that "we're going to Mars" stuff was a mistake or a coincidence?
It's all just the same "one-upsmanship" that's common in international politics.
Now that China isn't in the picture, I'll bet you a candy bar and a +1 Insightful that we don't go to the moon either.
Re:Such a shame (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that it probably had more to do with distracting the voting populous from the disastrous results of the american foreign policy because this is an election year.
Re:Such a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Such a shame (Score:4, Insightful)
What?
You mean, they *do* spend them here on earth? That they are going to pay people here on earth? That those people have jobs because of this?
Re:Such a shame (Score:4, Interesting)
The answer is that all the resources (capital, raw materials, and labor) that went into fixing the broken windows could have been used, in the absence of a hurricane, to build new structures, so that over the same period, you would have had more buildings, instead of the same number of buildings returned to pre-storm condition.
You can't simply count the money and claim that it is a net benefit to the nation's welfare (in the sense of happiness/utility). If we paid billions of dollars to dig a hole in the ground and billions more to fill it up, you should agree that is a net waste of resources, even if that money got paid to Earthlings. Sure, the hole diggers and fillers will claim all sorts of spin-off benefits (better technology to dig holes!) and "jobs created" by their efforts, but it doesn't make it a good policy.
Any government-mandated spending has the effect of distorting capital, labor, and resource markets, in ways which might (might: I'm not some die-hard starve-the-government type) reduce overall welfare.
Spending billions of dollars to place robotic go-karts on Mars, for instance, is not self-evidently the best way to spend the money.
Re:Such a shame (Score:2)
Next week... (Score:2, Funny)
Mod parent troll (Score:2)
Re:Mod parent troll (Score:2)
Still, you are correct about the parent poster being an ass.
Re:Mod parent troll (Score:2)
Shelved due to cost... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an International Space Station... why can't we all work together?
Re:Shelved due to cost... (Score:2)
If China were to ever clean up it's human rights record, I'm sure they'd have a lot more friends pushing to get them into the ISS.
But like that's going to happen anytime soon.
Re:Shelved due to cost... (Score:2)
unless they used Russian components? I dunno.
That or help the other countries get their stuff up in the ISS's orbit?
Re:Shelved due to cost... (Score:2)
Re:Shelved due to cost... (Score:2)
Well that does explain the whole International naming convention...
Space Station Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Give it 6 months or so and their space station will become some kind of probe, then a rocket, etc...
National Space Station (Score:5, Informative)
And I always thought the "I" in ISS stood for "international".
Re:National Space Station (Score:4, Informative)
It means 'International' not 'inclusive' which is what I think you're trying to get at. A contract between any two nations is international, regardless of how many other nations sign on, don't sign on, disagree, or are disallowed from participating.
There are varied reasons for not accepting the Chinese into the ISS as an equal. Arguing whether they are good reasons or not is probably pointless - there are doubtless people on many sides of this issue. It could be something as simple as they are unwilling to design their rockets/parts in a way that matches our safety standards. It could be something as complex as a long ago treaty on rocket usage they broke which 'we' are going to hang over their head until they give an apology. We, the public, will never know all the reasons, reasonable or not, because not only do our leaders not want them to be known, but the chinese gov't really doesn't want people to know.
-Adam
Re: (Score:2)
Pot, meet Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
there...
Pot, meet Kettle.
Uh, yeah. Like the space shuttle you mean?
Yes, that's right. Currently Russia is the only nation in a position to launch manned spacecraft. Without them we would already have abandoned the IIS and it would likely have already plummeted to the earth.
Meanwhile we can't even save Hubble, and it remains to be seen if we ever get our fleet back off the ground again.
Re:Pot, meet Kettle (Score:2)
Re:Pot, meet Kettle (Score:2, Insightful)
I love my country, but our manned space program sucks, sucks, sucks. The US has been just as much, if not more, of a difficult ISS partner as anybody else.
Re:Pot, meet Kettle (Score:4, Informative)
Robotic unmanned Atlas rockets, with an unmanned station?
Without the Russians, we would've had to abandon the station, and then constantly shove it upwards (for over a year now!) with technology we don't have. Keep in mind that several portions of the station have failed already, and needed repair.
Don't mock the Russians. We have three shuttles left - Atlantis, Endeavour, and Discovery. The reason NASA's not willing to use them isn't insane - we've almost lost half the fleet already. You wouldn't want to keep losing them, especially as you still need to last 6 or 7 more years.
We desparately needed the Russians to keep the ISS up. They had the technical expertise, and they had the technology ready to go. Could we have done it without them? Maybe - definitely a maybe.
As an aside...
Despite all this, Congress was still a total bunch of jerks, and refused to actually pay the Russians even when they went above and beyond what their responsibilities were. No wonder the Russians started talking to the Chinese rather than continuing to talk with us.
What would have been the point.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What would have been the point.. (Score:2, Funny)
At least *they* realized it in time
Re:What would have been the point.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of this parallel: Pakistan tested a nuclear weapon several years ago, knowing full well that doing so would bring them international scorn and economic sanctions. They did it for "pride." They did it to show the world that they had mastered atomic knowledge, despite the fact they have great difficulty in feeding their population. Pakistanis were tremendously proud of their achievment.
Likewise, the Chinese would become only the second country *ever* to put a human on the mo
Re:What would have been the point.. (Score:2)
It would be nice to have our nation rally around something which doesn't (intentionally) involve killing people.
It would be nice to have people talking about science that doesn't involve CGI in movie production, weight loss tec
Cost outweighs benefits? (Score:2)
Besides which, I think this whole thing was just a space pr
No moon for China... poo (Score:4, Funny)
Can I visit there space station? (Score:2)
Support for the "INTERNATIONAL" space station (Score:3, Insightful)
"China has welcomed international cooperation in its space station."
Headlong goes the project forward as money spent on our people here on Earth is of far less importance than showing the rest of the World that we alone can build and support a space station diplomacy be Damned...
It was unclear if plans to forge ahead on its own were influenced by recent signs the United States might not want China to join the 16-nation, $95 billion International Space Station.
What signs were these? If as is stated in "16-nation" is correct, it is not only the United States' decision on who does or does not join the project...
Chinese space officials were "shocked" the United States had not done more to welcome them into the small community of space-faring nations, a leading U.S. expert said last month after a trip to China.
Again, if this is a 16-nation project, it is not just the United States who should be "welcoming" anyone, nor is the United States sole choice in who joins or not.
The United States harbors concerns that the army-run Chinese program could some day pose a threat to U.S. dominance in military satellite communications.
And finally the "truth" comes to light.
I am NOT looking to be "Flamebait" here, but just look at what this article is saying and Think about the political climate we live in right now and who has the "power" to extend or retract a hand!
Re:Support for the "INTERNATIONAL" space station (Score:3)
space station? ugh. (Score:4, Interesting)
china could do well with planetary probes. you get a lot of bang for the buck -- look at what the recent NASA mars probes accomplished.
something like a couple chinese venusian landers (rovers?) would be easily within the chinese monetary and technological budget, and would put them on the map. venusian exploration has been extremely sparse, despite how easy it is to get there compared to mars.
or how about a mercurian orbiter/lander? nobody's been there yet.
Re:space station? ugh. (Score:2)
a mission is already in the works though
Re:space station? ugh. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu
Re:space station? ugh. (Score:3, Informative)
The MESSANGER [nasa.gov] probe will launch in June and is expected to arrive in 2011.
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
It appears that energy is a major factor that is pacing Chinese economic development. Have the Chinese established some other energy sources through R&D(say some results in some other form of hot fusion) or diplomatic arrangements(i.e. a deal with the Russians or Islamic oil exporters)?
Re:Why? (Score:2)
We want to sell them a bunch more CANDU reactors.
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
"The United States harbors concerns that the army-run Chinese program could some day pose a threat to U.S. dominance in military satellite communications."
I can understand the concern. A billion plus people, a huge army, an economy that is growing rapidly and will probably soon trounce the US's to become the next Superpower.
But China has never really been an expansionistic type country. It's seems throughout their history, they're usually the ones attacked, or the fighting is domestic (power struggles etc).
Here's where I contradict myself - I could see all of that changing however, a growing economy with a billion++ people will probably need a lot of resources...especially oil.
I wonder if this whole Iraq war is really about safeguarding the middle east from future chinese aggression. I mean, we can't have a communist nation invading a democratic nation! Or even an areas around it as it would cause the domino effect and all the countries around it would fall to communisim as well (SEE Vietnam War).Re:Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fear (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fear (Score:4, Informative)
Tell that to the Tibetans [freetibet.org].
Re:Fear (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about that. The huge boom in the chinese economy has been due to the the US outsourcing - in effect a huge chunk of the market was transfered out of the US into China, and they got all of the sales that went with it, for free. But this is quickly reaching an end. Just about everything that makes sense to outsource to China has already been outsourced. Proof of this can be seen by the fact that the growth rate has dropped from 36% at the peak of outsourcing to around 8% today. Furthermore, most economists (including the chinese) think that large sectors (like textiles) are becoming overexended and will crash if they don't put the brakes on investment soon. Most analysts expect their growth rate to come down to a normal 5-6% soon.
This makes sense. In order for your economy to grow, you need to have someone to buy your goods.
As I mentioned, there isn't much opportunity for growth due to outsourcing. The current exports to the US are limited by US economic growth. Lastly the thing that allows 1st world countries (like the US) to continue to grow is that we can purchace everything we produce. However, the recent growth in China has been very disproportionate and the vast majority of the people are still dirt poor, which causes difficulty in this regard. Basically China has gotten all the free growth they are going to get, and from here on out it they will have to work hard for it the old fasion way, just like everyone else.
That said I also think that the US (or WTO or whoever) needs to force China play fair. With the free trade should come the obligation to play by the rules, and that includes not manipulating currency, and not getting unfair advantages from human rights violations.
Ming (Score:3)
Had they continued on that path, they might have easily have gotten to a very backward Europe and we would all be speaking Mandrin today.
There's nothing wro
Oh great.... (Score:3, Insightful)
( This will undoubtedly get modded as a troll by some Bush-loving republican, but who cares?
Now Bush will undoubtedly follow by canceling the new moon & mars missions.
Why do I say this?
He was killing off everything he could with regard to NASA, cutting their funding to the extreme... until China announced their plans.
He immediately did a 180 and said we have to go to the moon and mars.
Why?
We haven't been there in over 25 years, it's up for grabs!
Whoever gets there 1st will end up claiming it like a poor mannered brat in a sandbox.
Why should anyone care?
Because the moon has resources that can be used to launch further missions... watch educational TV some time (Discovery, TLC, Science channel, etc.) and you might see what I'm talking about.
Re:Oh great.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh great.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would also like you to justify the claim you made about Bush cutting NASA spending. Even if he did, I would say NASA needs a bit of redirection, as their big spendy program, the ISS, accomplishes nothing. I built all 20 of the Space Station Emergency Lighting Power Supplies and battery packs. It kept me employed for 3 years. But really, it doesn't do anything up there. At least giving them a goal accomplishes something. In the past, setting goals lit the fires under our scientific community and got development of new tech started. Even if we fail, it's better to fail with a goal than to meander aimlessly with a multibillion dollar budget.
Future cooperation unlikely (Score:2, Informative)
Chinese space officials were "shocked" the United States had not done more to welcome them into the small community of space-faring nations, a leading U.S. expert said last month after a trip to China.
Space coorperation is one of the few cards the US has left to play against China's authoritarianizm and human rights abuses. They are in the WTO but practice slave labor. They are belligerent to Taiwan. They prop up a monster in North Korea.
The US has nothing to gain technologically by cooperating. I
Shocked? (Score:2)
It's Expensive (Score:5, Informative)
As an employee for a large aerospace corporation, I'm beginning to recognize why space is so difficult. On the parts level, parts must be "space-qualified", which limits selection to a few choice vendors who, in applying rigorous mil-spec requirements to parts testing and screening, mark-up the price 15x. The only alternative is privately "up-screen" the part according to program requirements, which is also a lengthy and time-consuming process. When dealing with space, so many new concerns must be addressed. Radiation effects, outgassing, vibration impact from launch, severe thermal excursions, redundancies, etc. Each hi-tech subcomponent has to be built twice -- one for flight and one for intense qual unit testing. Close scrutiny of reported industry design flaws must be adhered to. There's been quite a stir relating to some flawed algorithms in Actel FPGAs.
Anyway, my point is that space is difficult and costly -- as evidenced once again by this cancellation. My primary fear is that the USA lacks the monetary dedication to see such a large and bold endeavor as the moon/mars mission through to fruition. As for me, I'm just hoping the TPF and JWST survive.
instead of a Mars shot... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:instead of a Mars shot... (Score:3)
They Realized That Space Exploration Is Worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
China has a lot of problems that must be taken care of prior going to the Moon. Unfortunately, so does the United States.
Being a geek and a vivid phyiscs fan, it hurts me when I see space missions cancelled. However, I am a human being as well; I realize that there are billion dollar price tags associated with these goals. It is wise not to spend money if you cannot afford doing so, wouldn't you agree? If we *really* want to continue space exploration, maybe we should stop world-wide safaris first.
I really hope that the United States comes to the same conclusion and stops hoping to be the first on Mars. It would be nice if we spend more money on education and creation of affordable healthcare. Once we get these -- and many other things -- fixed, we shall fly. For now, I'll read science fiction and dream.
Was a manned mission to the moon ever planned? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wang told a gathering of high school students on Sunday
That's not a Space Station... (Score:3, Funny)
space cooperation (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. (Score:2, Insightful)
You need to get away from your keyboard a bit more, sir. The need to explore is a funamental component of what makes humans, well, humans. Part of that drive to learn involves risk, and frankly I'd give anything to have a chance to take that risk.
Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. (Score:2, Insightful)
i work(ed) in IT and computers just create work.
if we didn't have computers, think of what it would be like.
more farming
less industry, no just-in-time ordering, no internet
and a bunch of bored people playing outside.
instead we have lots of paper pushers that are just spinning their wheels moving papers and numbers around to acheve... something...
What doesn't make sense about it? (Score:4, Interesting)
From my perspective manned space exploration does make sense. Surely, a rover on Mars is a very cool thing, and can accomplish a lot on it's own. Yet, a human can accomplish so much more on a much shorter time.
Further, isn't it just human nature to want to go?
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd prefer we wait until the country has a budget that is not in the red and we have a society that isn't full of poor and destitute people who are dying of random diseases because we are afraid to tell the insurance and oil cartels to fuck off.
Yes, this will likely never happen. My point is made.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
By the basic logic, then I should not sit and read SlashDot until my house is paid off. But my house will not be paid off for 30 years. Perhaps I should not purchase internet access, as the $50 per month that I spend would do better paying off my house, regardless of what other benefits internet access might give me.
Seriously, if you want universal healthcare... tell your congressman and representative that you will vote for whomever is willing to support it. Tell your friends that this is what you are doing. Then, actually vote that way. Same idea for big oil... Vote green, ride a bicycle.
In the mean time, some people (at least me) think research is usefull and worth some tax dollars.
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
We've been fighting wars for all of human history. It's unlikely that'll happen anytime soon.
The biggest problem people have on
I also enjoy this theory that's so popular on
Re:What doesn't make sense about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to balance the temptation to blow all our money on current wants
Re:Good, let's hope Bush follows. (Score:2)
Re:Welfare (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:money (Score:5, Informative)
Re:money (Score:2)
Provide medical care and education for those who want it, and control population growth, otherwise, leave them to themselves.
Re:money (Score:2, Informative)
This makes it sound like all Chinese people are impoverished across the country. China != North Korea. Many people in the coastal region and Beijing live fine and aren't even close to starving to death.
The people in the rural areas, of course, are the ones who are impoverished. But Beijing is giving them the shaft in all ways imaginable anyway. After all, in China, if you're born in a rural area, then in most cases you aren't allowed to move into
Re:money (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:money (Score:4, Insightful)
Spending in science (space exploration) is always money well spent, specially with unmanned, redundant (two identical spacecrafts or more) missions.
Re:money (Score:2)
Agreed. It's quite impossible to compare the USA's deficit and debt to anything else on this planet.
Have those numbers reached the googol yet?
Re:money (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending money on the 'people' will not lead to useful change, even if it's spent on the 'right' things (food, housing, education, etc [valdosta.edu]).
They can't feed their own people without educating them.
They can't educate their people and expect to remain in power.
So they spend it in PR stunts so the uneducated can, if they want, take national pride in a nation which does not treat them well.
And they spend it in military/police funding to keep the powerful in power.
And they limit the flow of information, again, to limit education and to keep the powerful in power.
Until there is a radical change in societal structure/governmental structure, nothing is going to change, regardless of where they put their money.
IMO.
-Adam
Re:money (Score:2)
Hmm, sounds very similar to another country I know pretty well.
Re:money (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality, though, is that if you think we have it bad in America, you should really read up on what it's like elsewhere in the world.
Think of it as competition, in the same vein as Linux vs Windows.
Right now America is the undisputed 'king of the hill' or monopoly in world economics and most other areas you'd care to graph. Many other nations work just as well, but they simply don't have teh incredible wealth that the USA has.
Were you aware that the USA spends 1/3 of the money spent around the globe? The GDP of the US is over 11 trillion [US Dollars]. The GDP of the entire global economy is merely 32 Trillion.
The global economy is changing that - we see it as outsourcing, other countries see it as getting US dollars so they can increase their GDP.
If you want to change the monopoly status of the US then you agree to outsourcing, and you should seek to bring other nations to the level the US has rather than bringing the US down.
This, of course, covers nothing about the humanitarian crisis in china [amnesty.org]
It really is striking to see the level of elitism among americans. I include myself when I say that many in america get a paper cut and don't think about the mere availability of the bandaid as a striking contrast to life elswhere.
So yeah, I laugh when I see the posts asking me if I'm talking about needed gov't change in America vs China. It's really funny to me.
-Adam
Re:money (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush is not Emporer Nero, fiddling as Rome burns, nor are we living in 1984, but our government does share some traits with the bad societies of history and fiction. Our duty as citizens of the country and the world is to correct these problems, not to sit idly by and say "it could be worse."
In November, we have to make a pragmatic choice - is A better than B? But the rest of the time we have the freedom to be idealists - to complain, to demonstrate, to write to our leaders, and to campaign to change things. Don't tell me I can't point out the flaws in my country - that is one crucial trait that does make us better than China.
Re:money (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep patting yourself on the back. Just because America was and is wealthy doesn't translate in to it continuing to stay that way.
The E.U.s GDP is approximately the same as the U.S. About $10 trillion if I recall. One reason for the E.U. is to create a unified economy to compete on the global stage with the U.S. and one of its goals is to displace the dollar with the Euro as the currency used to value oil.
China's GDP was around 6 trillion last I saw and growing at a furious pace as in double digit annual growth. At that rate, at the rate at which misguided western executives are pumping capital, jobs and intellectual property in to China at the expense of the U.S., and with the huge trade deficits the U.S. runs with China it will eventually pass the U.S. and not in the so distant future.
Its true the U.S. GDP is growing again but that is almost entirely due to very low interest rates and the massive fiscal stimulus the Federal government is injecting in to the economy by running more than a half trillion dollar budget deficit, borrowed money being put in to the pockets of the wealthy with tax cuts and borrowed money being poured in to massive defense spending, especially thanks to Iraq which has consumed nearly $200 billion alone in a year. This deficit spending is leading to near term prosperity at great future risk. Greenspan, Warren Buffett, the IMF and the World Bank are all raising red flags over the danger inherent in current U.S. economic policies.
The U.S. is the world's largest debtor nation with a 7 trillion dollar national debt which is exploding. The projections for the next ten years thanks to the Bush tax cuts, retirement of the baby boom etc are truly scary unless there is another dot com bubble to dramatically increase revenues or dramatic Federal spending cuts, whil in fact Federal spending is exploding under the Bush administration.
It remains to be seen if the trend continues but one reason the DOW is declining is foreign investors dumped a record $13.5 billion in U.S. stock in March. Warren Buffet is likewise betting heavily against the dollar and the U.S. economy.
On the news last night it was reported that outsourcing is running at a rate 40% higher than previous estimates and accelerating rapidly.
Re:money (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess it depends on who you believe and most economic statistics are lies or damn lies, thanks to currency fluctuations, accounting differences etc. For the EU once source I find says:
"The European Union surpasses the United States in population and exports and rivals it in GDP. Its population was 377 million on Jan. 1, 2001, and its aggregate GDP for 2002 was US$ 8.591 trillion, compared to 10.365 trillion for the US and 715.4 billion for Canada."
And that was in 2002 so it probably it must easily be over $10 trillion now considering the extent to which the Dollar has cratered relative to the EU since then. You need to allow for the fact the Euro is something like 20% higher than it was versus the dollar before Bush came to town and if you are estimating GDP in dollars that does factor in.
Another more recent estimate:
"According to figures from Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities, the EU's combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will grow to 12.1 trillion dollars, slightly higher than the 12.04 trillion dollar GDP of the United States, which will thus lose its position as the world's leading economic power."
Your number for China appear to be more accurate than mine. 6 trillion was thrown out in an article I read a month or two ago. It appears certain China's GDP is around 11 trillion Yuan and it has been growing at just under 10%. The tricky part is how you value the Yuan. One rate I find is about 12 cents for a Yuan which yields maybe a $1.3 trillion GDP. The problem is everyone knows the Yuan is being pegged at an artificially low exchange rate which makes Chinese goods artificially cheap on foreign markets which is why they sell so well and a source of muttered fair trade complaints. To accurately value their GDP the Yuan should be floating and set by market forces, though if it did that it would dramatically alter their financial position relative to the West across the board.
Well that's enough about the US... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:money (Score:2)
Re:money (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, in the words of Mohammud, 'the poor will always be with us.' If we'd waited for utopia to spring into existence here on Earth we'd never have gone to the moon, never have launched a space shuttle or never done anything else worthwhile.
Re:money (Score:2)
Not having your fellow man live in horrid conditions is not worthwhile?
I find it amazing that the majority of people here will kick and scream about having "free and open" software, yet will put future space travel over feeding his brother.
Re:money (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does this perverse notion come from that all of human endeavour must be about making a profit or being immediately productive or solving all the world's problems? It's incredibly short-sighted.
Re:money (Score:3, Insightful)
If they did this, they would not be 'spending it on the moon'.
Re:money (Score:2)
Re:money (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact of the matter is that NASA's budget is a pittance. It's hardly enough to maintain four stinking Shuttles, much less develop a follow-on vehicle. The ISS is International because the government wouldn't fund NASA to the point of being able to build it ourselves.
And unmanned missions aren't worth the trouble. If we aren't going to go there ourselves, why bother? So we learn that Mars had water once? Whoop-de-do! Doesn't matter a hill of beans what there is to be learned in space if men aren't going to go there. If the manned space program dies, then the rest of it might as well die as well - since we'll be deciding to sit back and play video games till the next asteroid smacks us.
The way people look at space these days is getting to me....
Re:money (Score:4, Insightful)
This goes back a long ways. Hunters and gatherers couldn't spend time doing things like art, science, literature, because they didn't have the resources to do it. As soon as people realized they could farm and raise stock, we had extra resources to partake in more civilized endeavours.
I'm not saying the Chinese are hunters and gatherers, but they simply don't have the resources to take adequate care of their populus and spend the massive amounts of money for manned space missions.
We do.
Now you can move the line back and forth as to what defines "adequate" living conditions for people, but if any country has enough resources to go to space without hurting it's citizens, it's the US.
If you're going to argue that no money should be spent on space exploration, then I can't really say anything to change your mind, but many good things have come from science and research that wasn't absolutely necessary for our survival.
Re:Guess the Communists decided (Score:2)
By the way, wanna have a guess at what kind of labour was used to build the Capitol building in DC?
Re:Why tell everyone? (Score:2)
Re:A slight downer (Score:2)
Re:Liberal erosion of rights...? (Score:2, Funny)
Something seems backwards about this statement
Re:Space Stations are Much cheaper.. (Score:2)
Re:2010 Space Odyssey (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope so. It might give the Western world (aka the US) a sorely needed kick in the pants.
If we leave aside exploration - which is important for it's own sake - there's the fact that domination of space would be a military trump card; witness the huge impact that just intelligence satellites have made.
Treaties or no, a solid launch/travel capability in space has been and is going to be one of the next contentions for superpower status. Having weaopnry in orbit that can strike within two hours of an