Book Reviews
Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:
- Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis Learn to turn Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude.(Jack Herrington's review.)
- Nagios 3 Enterprise Network Monitoring A great book for anyone using Nagios as more than a casual user.(jgoguen's review.)
- Schneier on Security Schneier argues that security is not something you can buy; it is something you must get.(Ben Rothke's review.)
Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
7081676
story
Comments: 200 +- Politics: NASA Willing To Team With China; Rumors of a Budget Cut on Tuesday November 17, @03:42PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday November 17, @03:42PM
from the let's-dance dept.
from the let's-dance dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicnasa.gif); width:74px; height:67px;
nasa
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicspace.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
space
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
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."
Related Stories
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
*Congress
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if Obama was made an offer he couldn't refuse.
Somehow I don't think the Chinese are crazy enough to try and blackmail a nuclear armed state. It would hurt them as much as it would hurt us anyway. In the long run it might even be worse for them, as it would bring their economic growth to a screeching halt.
What pisses me off is that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have on health care "reform" that isn't and hundreds of billions more on invading countries that never attacked us but we can't find the money to fund NASA. The last r
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.
Parent
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (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 i
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, in terms of efficiency of CO2 per say $1000 GDP, China is at the absolute bottom. That is related to the fact that they are cutting corners on everything that they can. And if we look at the idea of just CO2 per-capita, then we are all screwed. Nations will cheat on the ppl count, and more importantly, you will find that if everybody on the planet emitted at the level that China CURRENTLY emits it, it will be MORE emissions than we currently do. Worse, China is working to NOT control their emissions. They keep saying that they will lower it, but they do not want to commit to it. Of course, many nations, including CHina, simply break their treaties.
Parent
Re: (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.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
A political race is unsustainable. If we were to enter another 60s style space race, we would spend incredible amounts of money to do more flags and footprints and then sputter around for 40 or 50 years afterwards, again.
While Apollo was an impressive feat, I can't help but wonder where we would be now if we had stuck to an Eisenhower-esque slow and steady approach, and not gotten drawn into the space race. It certainly would have taken longer to get to the moon -- we might just be getting there now. However, we would be doing so in an affordable way, with an eye towards long-term missions, science and development. I think slow and consistent is better than massive rushes followed by 40 years of sputtering about.
The problem with Apollo is that it was run at a rate that history has shown is about 4 times higher than is politically sustainable without an external threat. Since this was the beginning of the Space Age, NASA assumed that the gravy train would go on forever, since there was no evidence otherwise. They never learned how to do things right within a small budget. This is why we're currently where we are. Vehicle design is always seeking an absolute perfection rather than a balance between cost and capability. The constant rallying cry is 'if only we had Apollo-level money again.' Perhaps most importantly, efforts to privatize the low-risk parts such as LEO transport is like pulling teeth, since the huge federal cost-plus contracts from the Apollo era are still massive employers.
Personally, I welcome the idea of cooperation. Sharing money, technology and development is the best way to make use of limited budgets and speed up frontier development. Competition is a great short-term motivator for politics, and can encourage efficiency in the long term. However, cooperative ventures are much more sustainable in the long-term, and competition in the free market sense only makes sense for developed technologies such as LEO transport, not the "Lewis and Clark" role that the government should excel at.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
All they're going to do is put lead in it...
There is a nationalist cry for us to rally around:
"Let's get the lead out in our quest for space!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All they're going to do is put lead in it...
Well, how else would they become the leading nation in space?
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)
As if we have any classified advanced US technology China doesn't already have.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:4, Informative)
Just a slight clarification, in todays dollars the Apollo program cost $300 Billion. It also caused the microchip to be invented along with hundreds of other game changing inventions.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The microchip was invented before Apollo. Apollo did inject funds into the industry when few other manufacturers seemed interested, I will agree.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there are. Not so much military type secrets, but trade secrets and proprietary processes. Rocketry is still very much an art, as everyone from Armadillo to SpaceX is discovering. We haven't had that many design generations, and total flight experience is pretty low overall.
That's what the urban lege
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Chinese requirements (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I think that is one of the main problems of today's space programs. Especially NASA's.
They are so hung op on the quadrupal redundant, 99.9999999999% safe and fail-proof flights that the costs to achieve such goals are way out of balance with the goal that needs to be achieved.
Fuck the almost 100% guarantee that nothing can go wrong
I'll settle for 90% if that means 10x more exploration.
Yes, rockets will explode, astronauts will die. So what? All in the day's job...
"there is a small chance you might
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)?
Re: (Score:2)
However, we are already talking to all of the ISS partners on future space missions. That esp. includes Russia and ESA.
Finally, neither USSR nor China have ever been communist. They were totalitarian states, with command economy. China remains a totalitarian state, but with about a mix of command and capitalist economies. For example, Chinese gov. still tells all of the major companies what th
Re: (Score:2)
The basic technology for the Chinese program did originally come from Russia, but they've gone consi
Real Danger is avoiding rockets (Score:2)
Frankly, their rocket science is not up to our par. Instead of investing in rocket science they could ignore it and go right to Space Fountain. Cheaper in the long run.
The scientific basics are sound, they have the tibetan plateau (great place to build most space industries as it is has huge flat areas that are 5,000 meters above sea level), and they don't have to deal with an entrenched existing industry that doesn't w
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, we actually needed that thinking before NASA selected the shuttle. If we extended Apollo instead of bolted for the weird shuttle, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. And pro
Re:Real Danger is avoiding rockets (Score:4, Interesting)
Apollo had one loss-of-crew accident in about 13 flights. That's about 7%.
Shuttle had two loss-of-crew accidents in about 125 flights. That's about 1.6%.
So, what's the basis for believing we'd probably have fewer dead astronauts if we'd stuck to Apollo?
Parent
Ah! China gets tech knowledge for free! (Score:2)
We are going to give away technical knowledge with military and commercial value to China without them having to spend the high costs of research or espionage. Has anyone read, "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin Ning Chu? http://www.amazon.com/Asian-Mind-Game-Chin-ning-Chu/dp/0892563524 [amazon.com] This, and many similar books show the strategies that China and Japan have been using to create dominant positions internationally. China will never be a "full participant" but will always be glad to accept any knowledge we can g
we should team up with Canada and Mexico (Score:2)
we should team up with Canada and Mexico
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Canadians are always prepared to give a helping hand in space programs.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Stereotype Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
The problem with Chinese missions is that you feel like going back up just a few hours after landing.
We're Never Going to Mars... (Score:2)
If Obama cuts NASA's budget by ten percent. No matter where you stand on the issue, we're not even going to have anything to debate anymore if a budget cut goes through.
While I understand those who advocate robotic-only exploration, a budget cut is truly a sad scenario for all concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
"ending manned spaceflight for a decade?" (Score:2)
It would be really interesting to see the conservative reaction to this. Will they oppose simply for the sake of opposition, or will they applaud it and call out for the free market to provide for manned space flight.
Personally, I think stopping goverment funded spaceflight is a bad idea, there is not enough economic benefit yet for corporations to go into space, beyond quick space tourism flights.
Why is this a surprise? Obama hates space. (Score:2)
Sad truth is, there was only one candidate out there who liked the idea of NASA. Hillary. If you gave a damn about space, you voted for her. After she was out... NASA was screwed.
Obama - said early on he'd cut NASA for education funds.
McCain could care less one way or another if memory serves.
Obama heralds the age of no more manned NASA. About the only hope for US manned ambition is Dragon, or a COTS contract.
About the most optimistic thing I can say about this, is that maybe killing off manned space will f
More info on budget cut rumors (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, it's not a directed budget cut towards NASA -- every single non-military agency has been told by the Obama administration that they may see cuts of 5-10% in order to reduce the deficit.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/11/17/sharpening-the-budget-cleaver/ [spacepolitics.com]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hBr0LFXMFF1HE6-n_ZTN1829QS1QD9BUTPVG0 [google.com]
On the plus side, if there is in fact a budget cut, it'd hopefully be the cover NASA needs to shut down/reduce its politically well-guarded Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), which uses up a huge part of NASA's budget, but due to its chronically incompetent management has spectacularly failed [selenianboondocks.com] in basically all of its large projects over the past 30 years.
We won't just sell the rope,but the rope machinery (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't done anything really interesting in manned flight in almost 40 years, and until we invent warp drives, manned exploration will continue to be a waste of tome and money.
How do you expect this to happen without funding NASA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hogwash. A good remote-bot sample-return program could cover more areas than humans for roughly 1/4 the cost.
Thank you. That's right. Unmanned exploration gives you the biggest bang for the buck.
The GP talks about white collar aerospace welfare program, which is exactly what I think whenever I see an ISS story. Exactly what has that given us with regards to science or engineering?
How about a mission to an extrasolar planet? Or even the outer reaches of our solar system?
Folks talk about sending people out there, usually over some fantasy based on Star Trek, but the thing is, if we start just sending folks out wi
Re:Sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets outsource national defense! Much higher opportunities to cut costs there.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So about 3 missions (ASTP and maybe a couple of visits to Mir) out of 80-100 missions was the norm?
Disclaimer: I don't know the exact number of Shuttle=>Mir missions, nor have I counted the total number of space missions. I am making what I believe to be reasonable guesses as to the entire total of manned US and Soviet missions between 1961 and 1991.
Re:By all means (Score:4, Informative)
Follow up.
OK, According to NASA, there were 18 Shuttle/Mir missions [nasa.gov]. However, none of them occurred prior to 1991. Therefore ASTP was the only Soviet-US joint mission.
US Manned Space Missions from 1961-1991:
* Mercury - 6
* Gemini - 10
* Apollo - 11
* Skylab - 3
* ASTP - 1
* Shuttle - 44 (per Wikipedia)
Soviet Space Missions from 1961-1991 (per Wikipiedia, includes ASTP): 66
That gives 141 missions. So out of 141 manned missions before the fall of the Soviet Union (your timeframe: "during cold war"), exactly 1 (or 2, depending how many times you count ASTP) were joint.
Would you care to explain how 1 out of 141 is the norm?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is however a lot of tech that can't be weaponized, the shuttle for example isn't going to be used as a fighter plane any time soon (in fact most of it's design principles are the opposite of those used when designing fighter planes). Cooperation on non-military parts of the space mission wouldn't be hard, let them put a few scientists on the ISS, etc in exchange for funding and cooperation in other areas, try using the carrot instead of just the stick
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Hopefully, Obama is smarter than to do this.
Yeah right. Obama is just as addicted to "cheap" Chinese money as every other jackass politician (Republican and Democrat) we've had in recent memory. Cutting that supply off would require us to actually made hard choices about taxes and spending. Such choices might actually have consequences at the ballot box. We wouldn't want that to happen, now would we?
I had hoped that Obama would be an actual leader willing to make hard choices but he's just another empty suit that's ignoring reality in favor of c