NASA Willing To Team With China; Rumors of a Budget Cut 200
eldavojohn writes "2009 has been an interesting year for NASA — from a new strategy to even closer ties with an old enemy. So it's perhaps no surprise that NASA has publicly stated that they are ready to team up with China. NASA Chief Charles Bolden said, 'I am perfectly willing, if that's the direction that comes to me, to engage the Chinese in trying to make them a partner in any space endeavor. I think they're a very capable nation. They have demonstrated their capability to do something that only two other nations that have done — that is, to put humans in space. And I think that is an achievement you cannot ignore. They are a nation that is trying to really lead. If we could cooperate we would probably be better off than if we would not.' While the budget of the China National Space Administration is a fraction of NASA's, partnering with them has been considered since 2008. In possibly related news, rumors are circulating of the Obama administration cutting NASA's budget by ten percent for fiscal year 2011 despite the success of Monday's Atlantis launch. Considering the Augustine panel's recommendations, such a cut could halt US human space flight for a decade."
You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
*Congress
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not team up with Russia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to diminish China's achievement, but Russia is definitely way ahead of them or anyone else. Plus AFAIK China's space technology is mostly licensed from Russia. Is politics getting in the way? Well then doesn't it make even more sense to team with Russia since they are now significantly "less communist" than China (even if mass media may not reflect that)?
Don't be ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
As if we have any classified advanced US technology China doesn't already have.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Space rocket technology has been around since the late 50's. It's not like there's any major secrets, and if there is, we simply don't include those in designs, doing it the older way. Plus, they probably already have Soviet designs, which have proved more reliable than our stuff. In fact, many of our satellite rockets use engines purchased from Russia.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
And, as long as their government is structured as it is and behaves as it does, I say the answer to that is no. In fact I think a space partnership with China would be disastrous for the United States.
There is a solution (Score:3, Insightful)
The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles, Delta and Atlas, but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with.
Re:Sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets outsource national defense! Much higher opportunities to cut costs there.
Re:Just 10%? (Score:1, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
1% of the budget to ensure the continued survival of our species is entirely too much to spend. I mean, sure, one fortieth of our current military budget, one twentieths of our human resources budget, or one tenth of our general government budget could easily pay for NASA. But who needs that when we can just gut the program and let someone else take care of the issue!
Who cares if this is your responsibility, government! Several of my friends, who are currently against this government, fully applaud this decision. Sure, we normally complain about "socialism" and letting other people take care of our responsibilities.... ... but in this scenario, it's OK. Let the Chinese take care of our responsibility to ensure the long-term survival of our species. We've better things to spend our money on, such as waging a war on personal freedoms and producing guns.
I'm just saying.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
People make such a big deal out of China owning the US debt. They do so to act as a currency reserve because historically (meaning over of the last 50 years) the US has had significantly lower inflation and instability than most other nations. But the primary reason the Chinese have purchased US debt is identical to the reason the Japenesse continue to invest billions of Yen in the Debt, and that's to keep the US dollar artificially elevated.
These governments are intervening and unbalancing currencies to artificially keep the dollar high and cause imports to be cheaper in the US to wipe out US industrial production. Eventually the market will correct, but because of the intervention the correction is going to be much sharper than had it been allowed to happen naturally. Once the dollar drops to reflect the actual real value of the dollar US exports will rise and the system will re-balance but the pain level for the US consumer is going to be very very high. But we can't compete when we allow foreign governments to manipulate the value of currency to keep it high. Currency manipulation is a serious issue with China, it should be the top priority of any negotiations with China.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
First, you have it wrong. America is one of the cleaner countries in the world. And in terms of GDP and square km, we remain towards the top of that clean list. CHINA remains at the total bottom of the POLLUTION LIST.
Secondly, I am guessing that you are thinking in terms of CO2. Well, China surpassed America in terms of total CO2 emissions in late 2006. And they have accelerated even faster. They currently add 1-2 NEW 500 MW COAL PLANTS EACH WEEK WITHOUT ANY CO2 OR POLLUTION CONTROL. OTH, America adds one ever couple of months (actually, I think in the last year, we have added only 1-2 new coal plants) and these have most of the pollution controls and even have ways to lower CO2 emissions.
If China wanted to hurt the US it would start shifting its dollar. It isn't a stable currency anymore anyway. The only thing that keeps it alive are foreign investments and that the OPEC trades its oil in $. No one in their right mind seriously thinks the US could even touch China military wise. You are thin stretched as it is fighting some small 3rd world countries. I guess the situation with the oil producing countries isn't that clear, you seem to be picking fights with those who don't want to follow your lead anymore.
The dollar has been hurt BECAUSE of china tying their currency to it. And that is starting to do some major damage to Euro, the yen, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Mexican peso, etc, etc, etc. As to 'touching china military wise', did I suggest that? Nope. That is your demented thoughts. I thought that we were insane to have elected W the first time. I was opposed to our invasion/occupation of iraq (and backed by my posts).
I really hope the world will, some distant time in the future maybe, refuse to pay the debts of the USA. All the money you spend without possessing it does not come out of thin air you know, wouldn't other countries stabilize your currency (read: Pay your debts) you'd completely fuck yourself by just printing more money as you do now.
Oh, China and japan are the ones buying our debt to force their money lower against the dollar as well as ALL OTHER FREELY TRADED MONEY. Unless you come from China, or from one of the many 3'rd world countries that have their small money fixed against ours, you will find that when we go into bankruptcy, it will have devastating effects around the world. As it is, America bailed out EU numerous times, and other countries around the world. Each time, America absorbed not just the costs, but the impact of those. When we go under, the western world will not have the ability to absorb that. And china has ZERO desire to do so. As it is, they are far more interested in gaining control.
Re:Chinese requirements (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. A better way would be funding NASA at Apollo levels, continuously. We most certainly have the money, and always did. The problem was that we decided instead to waste it on other things, namely "defense".
For instance, NASA had several other moon missions planned, which were cut even before the first one flew, because their budget got cut in the mid-60s. Why? The Vietnam war. Where would we be now if we hadn't wasted all that money in Vietnam, and kept NASA properly funded instead?
Remember, one common figure is that for every $1 spent on Apollo, we got $7 back in our economy due to all the technological spin-offs, like GPS, printed circuit boards, etc. Spending on space exploration is an investment in the future, not a sinkhole for money like most wars (especially recent ones) are. If we want to stay ahead technologically, we need to invest a lot of money again. If we don't, we're going to be surpassed by those who do. You have to spend money to make money.
Even now, we have far more money than we need to fully fund NASA. The problem is that we're wasting it all in Iraq, Afghanistan, on "cash for clunkers", on bailing out rich bankers who made bad real estate investments, etc. None of those things are going to get us any return on our investment. Space exploration will.
We could easily fix our economic woes by ending all these money-wasting schemes and wars, downsizing our military (such as by closing the 100+ bases in foreign countries), quadrupling NASA's budget, ending the failed "war on drugs", and then returning the leftover money to the taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes, which will spur more economic activity. Heck, we could even create a healthcare system for not much money that would take care of everyone's health needs, but it would require many things that monied interests won't like: eliminating bad doctors, reducing malpractice insurance and litigation costs, eliminating health insurance companies, etc. The problem is that NONE of these things will be done, because the powers-that-be don't want it, since it would end the gravy train for many people who are living large off our corrupt and bloated system, and our politicians work for them, not for regular Americans.