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
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: (Score:2)
Besides, they have something better. Go ask an economics professor what happens to the United States if China dumps their $1 Trillion in US debt for $10 Billion.
The same thing that would happen to your neighbor if he dumped his $100,000 house for $1,000. He'd lose a shitload of money.
Yes, it would hurt us, but it would hurt them just as badly if not more so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The goverment could easily carry out all of it's constitutionally mandated duties, and continue to service existing debt, without borrowing any future money. We could even back away gracefully from the >50% of the budget that we spend on charity/social programs. People would pitch a Hell of a fit if all that "free government money" went away, even gradually, but little of real significance would be affected. Of course, being a democracy, this will never happen.
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: (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: (Score:2)
Ranking nations by total emissions [wikipedia.org] is absurd; obviously it should be per c
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing CO2 is harmless, then. In terms of actual pollution, we're very clean indeed. Only someone who has never had to deal with real pollution would mistake it for CO2. On a bad day, at our dev center in Pune, India, you can just barely see the building across the street through all the particulate pollution in the air (American cities once had similar problems), and we very rarely have a river catch fire in America these days.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand "natural" and "artificial" in this context. I mean, it makes sense to talk about an ecosystem's "natural" balance -- i.e. the balance it had/would attain without the influence of post-industrial humans. But the economy is nothing but the actions of modern humans... So I don't understand the distinction. If China buying up debt increases the agreed upon value of the dollar, then isn't that just the value of the dollar? I mean I understand your point that the coming devaluation of the
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I think he's just talking about the value the dollar would have net of it's use as a reserve currency. The dollar fell significantly with the advent of the Euro, just becuase central banks replaced some of their dollar holdings with Euros, despite the fact it's "natural" value was unchanged. This year the dollar is falling because were printing so many of them - a fall in it's "natural" value. Perhaps a poor choice of words, but the meaning was apparant.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a poor choice of words, but the meaning was apparant.
Maybe it should be but I still don't understand. How is banks divesting themselves of dollars and thus the value of the dollar decreasing unnatural, in any sense? And I don't mean why is that word being used, I mean please explain to me what the difference is? It sounds to me like one of the actions that should necessarily affect the value of a currency. When you flood the market with a commodity, whether by an institute selling their holdings
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: (Score:2)
And why would that be? Precedent says otherwise. The US-Soviet cooperation in space probably helped a bit to bring the cold war to an end--to the benefit of both sides.
Also:
With that attitude you shouldn't be surprised when you wake up one day and are not asked anymore.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how much bigger NASA's budget is than China's space program, I'm not really sure where we'll get much, if any advantage from the deal. Yah, China gains a lot, since they get the benefits of our ten times large budget, but if they gave us their entire budget, it'd not be enough extra to get Orion/Ares finished on schedule, much less do anything worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, most of our budget is devoted to the basic stuff, so each dollar added at this point is much more impressive than the money we already spend. The Augustine commission stated that adding $3B/year allows us to do a lot more than we do right now.
Its hard to know exactly how much the Chinese are spending, but its estimated at around $1.5B -- not too bad. NASA accounts for approximately half of world-wide civilian space spending, so real international cooperation (not degrading and subordinating othe
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that China is pretty much four and a half decades behind the US and the USSR. They're doing what Russia and the US did with the Vostok and Mercury missions. Now admittedly they should be able to progress at a far greater speed than either the US or the USSR did, because a lot of the groundwork has been laid, but still, even an optimistic estimate would, I think, put them at least ten to fifteen years away from being competitors.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they haven't got a modern military doesn't mean they don't already have the plans, there is a big difference between having the designs to a Bugatti Veyron and being able to make one.
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: (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.
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:2)
The microchip, and a lot of the technological advances attributed to space exploration, were actually invented for use in ICBMs.
No they weren't.
Apollo and ICBMs provided much of the incentive to mass-produce ICs, but they weren't 'invented for use in ICBMs'.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. China has missiles. China has advanced guidance systems. That's in part because of the Soviets and in part because they've done so well at stealing US secrets already.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the second comment I've seen indicating that the Chinese have received substantial technological help from the soviets. If this is true, could some one point me towards a link that has some details. I was under the impression that Mao and Stalin really, really didn't like each other, and from about Nixon on, the US and China have had closer relations than USSR and China.
I know, for instance, that a good percentage of the weaponry used against the Russians in Afghanistan was Chinese made - typicall
Re: (Score:2)
After Mao booted Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists off of Mainland China, the Soviets sent oodles of technicians to China. The Chinese atomic program, in particular, was pretty much imported. But by then end of the 1950s, the relationship heavily soured. The reasons are complex, but in large part seemed to be over border issues but in large part because of Khrushchev's de-Stalinification process, which Mao viewed as foolish (you'll note that China has never really did anything on that level with Mao,
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese requirements (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of de-orbiting the ISS, trade it tot he Chinese for some Debt write offs....
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just marketing, but isn't the fact that the space shuttle can be reused advantageous? Better pre launch testing can make it safer, but AFAIK nothing can be done to the Soyuz to make it reusable. It seams to me that the space shuttle has more of a future to it than Soyuz, but that's just a fealing i can't really justify 10 more deaths just because the shuttle can land again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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 they will do with regard to buying and selling lines of business
That sounds a lot like the USA these days.
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?
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)
we did it for the moon landings.
Our Avro engineers needed a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to be kidding. Canada might be able to contribute some things, but Mexico can't contribute anything besides drug cartels. Teaming up with Mexico on a technological pursuit makes about as much sense as teaming up with Amazon jungle tribes or African bushmen. The country has no technological ability to speak of; their only technology is foreign owned and operated factories that they use Mexicans as manual labor for.
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)
Why? (Score:2)
Do not get me wrong. For the life of me, I do not see this as being the place to cut (like eating our grain seed in late April), BUT, I also do not thing that this particular cut would prevent us from going to Mars. I would place the blame for that on the last 9 years of spending and bad cuts.
In the end, the real questi
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, the real question is not the cut. The real question is, what will he replace this with? Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct (which COULD get by with less money)?
Another major question is whether or not it's truly necessary for NASA to spend tens of billions of dollars developing a new heavy-lift vehicle. For example, this proposal by the ULA uses commercial launchers and propellant depots instead of heavy-lift to create an exploration architecture suitable for NEO, Lunar, and ultimately Martian exploration, at a fraction of the cost:
http://ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf [ulalaunch.com]
Abstract:
A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture
Frank Zegler1, Bernard F. Kutter2, Jon Barr3
The present ESAS architecture for lunar exploration is dependent on a large launcher. It has
been assumed that either the ARES V or something similar, such as the proposed Jupiter
"Direct" lifters are mandatory for serious lunar exploration. These launch vehicles require
extensive development with costs ranging into the tens of billions of dollars and with first
flight likely most of a decade away. In the end they will mimic the Saturn V
programmatically: a single-purpose lifter with a single user who must bear all costs. This
programmatic structure has not been shown to be effective in the long term. It is
characterized by low demonstrated reliability, ballooning costs and a glacial pace of
improvements.
The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a
large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as a
detriment. However since 75% of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellant
with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch
operations. These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatable
location, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules. Relieved of the burden of hauling
propellants, the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and can
also be easily carried on existing launch vehicles. This strategy leads to high infrastructure
utilization, economic production rates, high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possible
costs.
This architecture encourages the exploration of the moon to be conducted not in single,
disconnected missions, but in a continuous process which builds orbital and surface resources
year by year. The architecture and vehicles themselves are directly applicable to Near Earth
Object and Mars exploration and the establishment of a functioning depot at earth-moon L2
provides a gateway for future high-mass spacecraft venturing to the rest of the solar system.
Re: (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.
Obama is giving us change we can believe in! A big budget cut for NASA, and more soldiers in Afghanistan. I'm so glad everyone voted for Obama instead of that warmonger McCain.
"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
Hillary was hardly the only pro-NASA democrat.... (Score:2)
Dennis Kucinich called for TRIPLING the NASA budget, far better than anything that Clinton proposed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x446335 [democratic...ground.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me. It could easily be paid for by downsizing the DoD and getting the military out of the mideast quagmires. Unfortunately, Kucinich was about as well-liked by the media as Ron Paul (and his views were similar in many ways).
What we need is to have Kucinich and Paul as co-Presidents. They'd push the things they agree on (which are the things we really need), and their crazier ideas would be canceled out by each other.
Not just space: Joint statement by China/US (Score:2)
It actually isn't just space the two countries are planning on cooperating on. Not sure how much beef is behind this statement, but here's a snippet of the joint statement by Presidents Obama and Hu during Obama's visit to China:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/joint-press-statement-president-obama-and-president-hu-china [whitehouse.gov]
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/china-and-us-to.html [nasawatch.com]
The complementing departments of China and the United States have already signed a number of cooperation agreements, including the MOU to enhanced cooperation on climate change, energy and environment. The two sides have also officially launched the initiative of developing a China-U.S. clean energy research center.
Both President Obama and I said that we are willing to act on the basis of mutual benefit and reciprocity to deepen our cooperation on counterterrorism, law enforcement, science, technology, outer space, civil aviation, and engage in cooperation in space exploration, high-speed railway infrastructure, in agriculture, health, and other fields. And we also agreed to work together to continue to promote even greater progress in the growth of military-to-military ties.
It's About Time, It's About Space (Score:2)
Pinning a long term program on a single nation is a bad idea because some time during the program the administration changes and often changes the funding or program. Then things fall apart. When we teamed with Russia things went more slowly than they would otherwise but they kept going when they might have faltered.
I've always been of the mind that space exploration should be an international endeavor. ESA is a good start. So is the US/Russia team. If we add China, we'll have a 3 country team. At that poin
Hopefully America Can Rub Off on Them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, hell of a lot chance that will happen, if they do anything they will just tell the town residents and farmers to leave town the day of the launches....
Space Shuttle replacement testing. (Score:2)
At least China has already tested it for us and we won't need Ares....
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting about MSFC. BUT, that is the land of Dick Shelby. It will be interesting to see what will happen in congress.
Screw Obama (Score:2)
The only science they want is the study of how to get more votes. Geeks cast by the wayside as soon as he had the keys, along with main street
At this rate (Score:2)
with budget cuts, our space program will be on par with the UK.
"Hello, Swindon."
What? (Score:2)
Until they stop relying on toxic, storable propellants for their manned launchers, and get a better handle on range safety (referring to the first LM-3B launch which took out a village - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qVaXFhu7NE [youtube.com])... how about *no*.
The propellant issue alone ought to be a show-stopper. We knew storable propellants were a horrible idea during Gemini, but did it anyway for expediency. There was legitimate question whether, during an abort, the astronauts would manage to escape what was termed
good reason Chinese caught up to US & Russia (Score:2)
Their program is very low key with a test every three years. This is an order of magnitude less effort than the space shuttle or Soyez.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
And Pr0n, don't forget someone has to watch it....
Re:Sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets outsource national defense! Much higher opportunities to cut costs there.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any reason to leave out China, Iran or North Korea if they are willing to contribute money and talent.
Iran and North Korea? Are you fucking serious? You do realize that space launchers have other applications [wikipedia.org], right?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is saying anything about telling other people how to build space launchers or paying them money for that purpose. But if they just happen to develop the technology themselves, why not cooperate on scientific research that doesn't have immediate military use. Whom are they going to blow up with Hubble?
Re: (Score:2)
But if they just happen to develop the technology themselves
Yeah, and if dolphins crawl out of the oceans and master fire we can partner with them as well....
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
Re: (Score:2)
knee-jerk cold war thinking.
Just because China is nominally communist, doesn't mean they're trying to destroy the west. Obviously China is more concerned with Chinese growth than US growth, but there is such a thing as win-win. With all the free-traders around here, I'd think that was a given...
China can't build modern war planes or modern subs - what makes you think they can build a useful military space station?
Re: (Score:2)
We should then get some management that actually has a pair, and can deal with the politics to find practical solutions without worry what congressional district parts are made in or which NASA center does the work.
That's nice in theory, but unfortunately when it comes down to it, Congress has all of the funding power. If an administrator tried to rock the boat too much, they'd just find that politically-powerful and fiscally threatened Congressmen would remove funding for whatever they were trying to do. Example:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/06/sen-shelbys-crusade-against-commercial-space.html [nasawatch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. There were plenty of Chinese-descent people in the new solar system. They were on the inner worlds, which weren't shown very much in the series. The "Independents" who moved to the outer worlds were of course mostly American-descent, since independence and frontier living is much more rooted in their culture.
Also, I believe if you read the official website, the inner worlds are divided into mostly Chinese and mostly American, since the (Sino-Anglo) Alliance is just that: an alliance,
Re: (Score:2)