What is Digg?46 Comments
- PPCG4, on 05/31/2008, -3/+13Imagine the US had spent the money from Iraq no space exploration...
- offthewagon, on 05/31/2008, -1/+10As long as they play nice, China can have as much space as they want. There is lots of it.
- adn6691, on 05/31/2008, -0/+7competition is always good.
- nullcodes, on 05/31/2008, -1/+8Well, we sent the Phoenix Lander to Mars with a microscope that lacks the resolution to see bacteria or even some spores. Nor did we bother sending a petri dish for trying to grow bacteria.
The equipment we sent to Mars would be inadequate to detect the microscopic life on Earth .. let alone Mars!
The only way life on Mars could be detect by Mars Polar lander is if it were huge. - PigGeneral, on 05/31/2008, -0/+6Imagine where we would be if we didn't squander our 40 year space know-how head start pissing around in LEO. First fixed wing aircraft to landing on the moon? 66 years. Thats an astounding number. 1969 - 2009? The Mars rovers are about all I can say about that.
What slowed us up? Was it our ambitions outran easily developed technology? Or the fact that NASA gets a slice of the pie so small they don't even know what flavor it is? - killdashnine, on 05/31/2008, -0/+5If real live were Civilization (3,4, whatever) you'd see how this is caused by wasting money on war and dropping the Research bar to almost zero. Time to change all that ...
- inactive, on 05/31/2008, -5/+10You do mean Aporro 2.0 right?
- gquaglia, on 05/31/2008, -0/+5Yeah, but too bad it wouldn't have been spent on that. Congress would have found some other pork project to spend it on.
- bravo1995, on 05/31/2008, -3/+8I think what NASA is going to have to realize is that conventional rocketry (which the Space Shuttle and Constellation both are) should not be the focus of a governmental space agency. This stuff is new for China; it's not for the US. We mastered low-Earth orbit, and already landed on the moon six times. If there's a need to do that again, let private industry do it.
NASA needs to start pushing the boundaries, exploring exotic propulsion and more ambitious robotic and manned missions. Let industry built and launch the rockets that we've been using for the last 60 years. Let NASA do the really cool stuff, the cutting-edge stuff that industry won't touch because it's not profitable. - inactive, on 05/31/2008, -0/+4Interesting that the article talks about the "fumbling US effort". I just watched a 2000 ton Space Shuttle Discovery launch for the 35th time to perfection, carrying yet another enormous habitation module to the Space Station on a 2 week mission. The US has under development the Orion spacecraft and the 120 ton to LEO Ares V launcher.
The Chinese have launched 2 Soyuz knockoff spacecraft for a combined 7 days in space. They won't launch again this fall. They will basically be repeating a modest Gemini mission that the US completed in 1964. The Long March 5 under development is a copyof the relatively modest Boeing Delta IV. That won't get China to the moon. If China is daring in space, they haven't show it. - inactive, on 05/31/2008, -0/+3The US, which has prices itself almost 20:1 out of the market of space settlement, can not win this competition. China can risk glassy-eyed ideologilized taikonauts like M&M's while the US is dragged into the crap by thousands of lobbyists, inflated corporations, shills and paid senators. While the US will muddle on with white elephants and subpar educated spoiled brats, China will reap the prize of having a first profitable colony in space, probably before 2020. Too bad western civilization can't get up anymore. We lost momentum of history.
- duckyinc, on 05/31/2008, -2/+5Obviously 2.0 can be applied to everything to make it look it look like it's innovating
- sanman, on 05/31/2008, -0/+3yes, I'll take that for $500, Alex
- cubicledrone, on 05/31/2008, -0/+3Industry couldn't build a case of hemorrhoids in this country. What the ***** planet are you on?
- PigGeneral, on 05/31/2008, -0/+3Nukes are banned in space. Least one owned by US and Russia. I dunno if we thought to sign China in on that one.
Kinda would like that to be rewritten so nuclear propulsion in space would be permitted tho. Standard fare chemical rockets are a bit limiting. - inactive, on 05/31/2008, -1/+4Isn't it the truth? I keep looking for something, anything original in their design. Shenzhu must mean Soyuz in Chinese. The March 4 has exactly the same booster configuration as a Soyuz - 4 outboard boosters and 1 sustainer. Can anyone name some unique Chinese innovation in their space program?
- PigGeneral, on 05/31/2008, -0/+3I never said it would be easier, cheaper, or safer. We stopped seriously trying. Why scrap the Saturn V?
Or, for thought. We said we are going to build a moon base 20 years from now. Kennedy said we can put a man on the moon, within a decade, in 61 after we can barely put a man above the atmosphere. We need 20 years to take a significant step, with all our space know how we have accumulated in the last 40 years with the Russians? Simply put, we need to man up somewhere.
Maybe China putting people on the moon is what we need. Americans can't get behind politicians that want to push space exploration, or experimental technology unless there is another nation threatening our possible stability.
China might beat us back to the moon, which is scary it can even be called a race, seeing how we already did it once. It's like sailing to America and back, then burning your boats and shooting every shipwright you have, then deciding 40 years later that wasn't so smart.
Maybe I'm simple, but as I peruse through a little bit of history, the dominant nations are either A) Explorers, ie The British Empire even though there was a fair chuck of "B" happening, or B) Imperial nations, conquering everything they can get their hands on, until they run out. If I were to attempt to look over current events as they could be viewed 100 years from now, I would rather it be A). - fakekevinrose, on 05/31/2008, -3/+5What is this "beating us back" stuff? No matter what, they still come 2nd.
- datastorageguy, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2No idea why you are being dugg down. You are completely correct. When is the last time you saw anything new invented there? Firecrackers?
- gquaglia, on 05/31/2008, -4/+6Guaranteed China beats us back to the moon. They will be the on the moon while we continue to ***** off in low earth orbit with our POS death trap space shuttle, if we are even in space at all.
- Wartz, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2if you fight smart, you can win by war. You need plenty of courthouses and a good trade network and some money making resources though.
- BeefBaron, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2The Soviet Union fell, so the US no longer had anything to prove. The space race was all about one-upmanship.
- jimminy, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2Mankind could do basically whatever the hell we wanted if all people on earth would work on it...
- PigGeneral, on 05/31/2008, -0/+2Everything we have? How so? We spent that time developing (then) next generation aerospace and weapon delivery advances, which shared in what NASA did. After we landed on the moon, that wasn't "everything we had". We continued making huge strides during the cold war continuing weapon advancement for 20 years following. NASA, got at most, 5% of our budget during the space race, which I agree is absurd to maintain when our goal is LEO. If you say "this country is going to have a permanent presence on the moon" you need to move to give them the resources to do it.
My major gripe, is this time, we promised a run at a permanent moon base, however we aren't seriously pushing it. Every time someone says "for the children" pushing for votes, our country's space program eats the axe. The one part of this country that has done amazing things for mankind the last 50 years.
I highly doubt china will quit at the moon. They understand if they want to beat us, they have to take away our technology advantage, which we gained pouring amazing amounts of our economy towards weapons that stand on the shoulders of research done for the space race.
As a side note, I am enjoying this debate.
- Trixrox, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Wasn't there articles saying China is developing an EMP to disable an enemies satellites during time of war? I think they want to do more than explore, which forces the US to do the same. What a shame :(
- gquaglia, on 05/31/2008, -2/+3Maybe so, but this time they will stay.
- innerpenguin, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2HA HA. Yes. Spade Shuffle, if they build their spacecraft the way they build their cars... and hell, everything else.
- cubicledrone, on 05/31/2008, -1/+2Yeah well we sure as ***** ain't going to do anything in space. We're too comfortable sitting with our giant coffee mug and doing a pie chart budget for our new lawn. The symbol of this country is a dumpy, fat-assed t-shirt-wearing, shorts and flip-flops house husband staring at sink fixtures at Fistful of Cash Depot. Oops, his $1200 phone is ringing again! Its his SUV-dragging wife over in appliances! She found the $6000 titanium refrigerator she wants because it goes with the pans.
- Hangly, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1All people on earth should work on getting me a mamosa and a scalp massage.
- SteveCk7, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1The big picture behind this story is that China wants to be first to setup on the moon in order to mine the Helium-3 enriched moon rocks on the surface for it's safe and environmentally friendly fusion power potential. One ton of He-3 is worth $4 billion and 25 tons of it would power the US for an entire year. There's less than 100kg on Earth, but over 1,000,00Tons on the moon. Another scary thing is that Obama if elected is planning on cutting NASA's funding by a lot putting us even farther behind China in the race for the moon.
- Hangly, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1dot-zero releases are usually pretty buggy.
- dadguy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1and they would be correct.
- erocsteady, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1How ironic. I'm just reading through "2010: Odyssey"
- schnippy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Ashley Tellis at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace testified recently before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on the strategic implications of China's Space Power rise to the U.S. Few of the key points here:
http://spacedebate.org/citation/3444 - ChileanGoD, on 05/31/2008, -2/+2They are sure to gain all my respect if they manage to lunch any kind of spaceship made entirely out of plastic molded parts.
- edelay, on 05/31/2008, -5/+5Ah yes the Chinese space program... using old Soyuez technology bought from the Russians and information stolen from the Americans.
- Hangly, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1Space is China's shashoujian. Disable America's GPS and she's helpless.
- mijelh, on 05/31/2008, -1/+1Yeah but imagine how high the gas price would be on that case!
- SunAlex, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0One of my dreams to see space from another planet) I hope in future I'll can do this.
http://newworkspaces.net/discover_capture.html
http://www.sunayana2007.org
http://toyotaemployeepricing.com/
http://jossh.game-host.org/
http://sooslic.com/?id=523
http://search.ashtech.info/space - M2Mills, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0space wars coming to reality!!!
- inactive, on 05/31/2008, -2/+1orbiting platforms with nukes pointed at everyone?
- BossKey, on 05/31/2008, -3/+2You are making the same mistake that society did in the 1950s, assuming that since the first 50 years of flight was easy, the next 50 years was going to be just as easy, that spaceflight was going to be a natural extension of aviation that would accelerate in a Moore's Law-like fashion, or that progress would at least be linear.
The reality turned out to be the opposite: With current technologies, cost, time, complexity, and difficulty don't go down exponentially as you get farther from Earth, they go UP exponentially.
The moon mission didn't turn out to be the beginning of a new era of exploration, it turned out to be the end of an era. This was because getting to the moon basically took everything we had in terms of technology and money. It drained us so much we couldn't even finish funding the rest of the moon missions that were originally planned. (Not to mention we were spending billions on a war we didn't even need to be fighting; we shouldn't make that mistake again. Oh wait...) - BossKey, on 05/31/2008, -2/+1"Or, for thought. We said we are going to build a moon base 20 years from now. Kennedy said we can put a man on the moon, within a decade."
We did, and it took everything we had. It cost an incredible amount of money. After that, it was either simplify the space program or don't have one at all. That's what I mean. Step 1 was so big Step 2 could not scale up from it. We can't do more than "everything we have."
We did not stop exploring. We're on Mars and Saturn now. Sure, they're robotic, but it was the only way we could expand exploration...and afford it.
China will make it to the moon. And then, they will be faced with the same scalability problems. As they develop their country's infrastructure, they will be faced with the same maintenance problems we now have. They're already seeing them after the earthquake. When that happens, they're not going to be that much further ahead of us in space unless they want to give space a ridiculously high budget priority. Which they could choose to do. - Licurgo, on 05/31/2008, -1/+0like 2 rockets of them fall onto flames and kill a lot of people,so those are crap,they only show the test that succeded,china is the new soviet union,the excuse for keep the inmense millitary spending on the US
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is