Deinhard writes "USA Today is running a story about the "why" behind the newly rekindled international space race. From the article: 'The science of space raises levels in areas such as computers, space materials, manufacturing technology, electronic equipment, systems integration and testing.' While it is a matter of national pride, China in specific also sees this as a way to increase the reputation of its high-tech exports." The Why of Space Program Races Log in/Create an Account | Top | 185 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 185 comments 0: 177 comments 1: 141 comments 2: 86 comments 3: 29 comments 4: 11 comments 5: 7 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Justifying space research (Score:5, Insightful) by LeonGeeste (917243) * on Tuesday October 18, @04:56PM (#13820826) (Last Journal: Tuesday October 04, @10:13PM) If you've seen my posts on this issue before, you probably know how I hate these justifications for space research See:http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164516&cid=137 33897 [slashdot.org]http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165623&cid=138 20378 [slashdot.org]http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164705&cid=137 47052 [slashdot.org]Long story short, if you want better computers, research better computers. If you want better materials, research better materials. You shouldn't say "Invest in ways to get into space so we can make better materials". And you shouldn't say "Space research is good because it gets us better computers." It was the computer research that produced the benefit, irrespective of whether that research is "for space" or not. Don't use peripheral gains to justify a different goal. Just say what you mean. [ Reply to ThisRe:Justifying space research by someone1234 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:02PMRe:Justifying space research by oringo (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:06PMRe:Justifying space research by thesandtiger (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:22PMRe:Justifying space research by Rude Turnip (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:23PMRe:Justifying space research by StalinsNotDead (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:54PMRe:Justifying space research by avronius (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:31PMRe:Justifying space research by Moofie (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:53PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Justifying space research by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:07PM The original reason for the space race (Score:5, Insightful) by mbkennel (97636) on Tuesday October 18, @05:07PM (#13820946) It was a proxy for development of ICBM technology. An ICBM warhead is a satellite whose orbit happens to intersect the surface of the earth.Having the capability for heavy lift, accurate guidance, precise orbital adjustments and robust communication shows that your ICBMs are probably also just as good, without divulging specific classified technological details.Basic research is very good (and underfunded and underappreciated) but there is also something significant to be learned when basic research is applied to a rigorous problem, e.g. space technology, before it has to hit the commercial market.There is the "valley of death" in R&D development: it takes about 25 years from a technology to go from lab discovery to commercial development.Academic development does the first 7 years, by then it is "old" and professors can't really write good papers or get good grants and tenure dicking around with small things.Commercial development funds the last 2 years only.The middle is the Valley of Death and you need some kind of funding source and goal to take technologies from a lab formula to a product of economic significance. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The original reason for the space race by timeOday (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:33PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The original reason for the space race by Ralph Wiggam (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:58PMRe:The original reason for the space race by photon317 (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @07:15PMRe:The original reason for the space race by mscalora (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:45PMRe:The original reason for the space race by Guppy06 (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:37PMRe:Justifying space research by andrewrm (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:08PMRe:Justifying space research by LeonGeeste (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:28PMRe:Justifying space research by heinousjay (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:16PMRe:Justifying space research by LeonGeeste (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @10:31PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Justifying space research (Score:5, Interesting) by dajak (662256) on Tuesday October 18, @05:22PM (#13821099) I agree in the case of the US. Nobody doubts Americans have the knowledge to make good products, although that doesn't necessarily translate to good value for money. The German government never needed to go to the moon for its manufacturers to acquire a reputation for quality.The Japanese, however, suffered for a long time from a reputation acquired in the early 20th century of being yellow monkeys who merely made bad copies of our great white man's gadgets. The Chinese government actually has an argument for wanting the biggest buildings, a space program etc. Chinese products ARE worth less because they are considered inferior, and Chinese achievements will increase the value of the trademark 'Chinese'. The US does not have that argument. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Justifying space research by HermanAB (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @11:20PM Re:Justifying space research (Score:5, Insightful) by AviLazar (741826) on Tuesday October 18, @05:29PM (#13821180) (http://www.avilazar.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 20, @05:40PM) As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. Our journey to space has brought us many great technologies...maybe they would have come about anyhow, but they DEFINITELY did come out because of our space endeavors. Some items: Flame retardant material used on the space ship to protect the astronauts is used in fire fighter equipment. Microwave (you know the stuff people use to cook with) was invented for astronauts. Satellite technology - yea those satellites sure don't get up there on their own. There are plenty of other examples. There are many reasons to explore space:1)It is an endeavor that will help bind many of us together - look at the projects we do with other countries that surround space travel, even during the cold war -it was one of the few positive connections we had with Russia2)We are explorers - we always have been...because we first ventured beyond our cave and discovered fire, and then explored accross the ocean to bring us to a new land, and from there we found that we could fly...space is the next step..this is fuel for our souls.3)The research done can yield new techniques, technologies, etc that may have a benefit to our everyday lives - just reference my example's above.4)We may not be alone, and while we won't find life (probably) in this generation or the next ten, we eventually will5)For the tin-foil hat folks - well some asteroid is bound to destroy us eventually, it would be nice if we were say spread out on different planets.6)Travelling to space and doing research may bring more knowledge to us about us. I don't care what we use to justify exploration into space, as long as we get there. Unfortunately, our elected officials and all those people who look at the bottom line want to see immediate benefits. You tell them we should spend 50 billion so we can find out that Mars may have had a couple of water molecules 3 million years and politicians will laugh; on the other hand, you tell them that by doing this research we could find a way to bring resources from Mars that will make our lives easier then they are more likely to consider it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Justifying space research by bluGill (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:40PMRe:Justifying space research by R3d M3rcury (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @07:48PMWrong analogy by bluGill (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:55PMRe:Justifying space research by ArsonSmith (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @05:30PMRe:Justifying space research by dominator (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:42PMnothing is monocausative by globaljustin (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:44PMRe:Justifying space research by hackstraw (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:48PMRe:Justifying space research by Buran (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:59PMRe:Justifying space research by Moofie (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:03PMRe:Justifying space research by Buran (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:55PMRe:Justifying space research by Moofie (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:22PMRe:Justifying space research by Buran (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:38PMRe:Justifying space research by Moofie (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @11:27PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Justifying space research by Buran (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:52PMRe:Justifying space research by Bull SR (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:03PMRe:Justifying space research by Darius Jedburgh (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:45PMPenicillin, ENIAC - out of the blue by weighn (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @11:35PMRe:Justifying space research by eraserewind (Score:2) Wednesday October 19, @12:19AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Notice to the rest of the world (Score:5, Funny) by j_cavera (758777) on Tuesday October 18, @04:59PM (#13820855) Bring it on! (BTW, Burt Rutan _is_ on our side, right?) [ Reply to ThisRe:Notice to the rest of the world by BerntB (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @06:43PM No space race for US (Score:3, Interesting) by sphealey (2855) on Tuesday October 18, @05:00PM (#13820874) There is no "space race" for the United States. The next president, whether Republican or Democrat, is likely to terminate the remains of the US manned program. Except perhaps a few flights using Russian hardware. And I say this as a lifelong supporter of manned exploration who fully expected in 1969 to be able to tour the Moon before the end of my life (2040 or so).sPh [ Reply to ThisRe:No space race for US by Karma_fucker_sucker (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:13PMRe:No space race for US by frank378 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:20PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No space race for US by mcheu (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:26PMyou have no evidence by globaljustin (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:55PMRe:you have no evidence by tftp (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:34PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:No space race for US by Buran (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:02PMRe:No space race for US by rctay (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:49PMRe:No space race for US by MurphyZero (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @08:06PM The space race... (Score:2, Insightful) by jamesgamble (917138) on Tuesday October 18, @05:01PM (#13820885) The Earth's resources are dwindling and if we intend to survive the next two thousand years, we're going to have to find resources elsewhere to sustain ourselves. It's not soley a matter of scientific interest now, but a matter of survival. [ Reply to ThisRe:The space race... by redheaded_stepchild (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:04PMRe:The space race... by Alef (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:26PMRe:The space race... by Kelson (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:36PMRe:The space race... by Alef (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:44PMRe:The space race... by timbo234 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @08:24PMRe:The space race... by Alef (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:00PMRe:The space race... by timbo234 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @09:40PMRe:The space race... by Alef (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @10:25PMRe:The space race... by timbo234 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @10:44PMRe:The space race... by gwait (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:29PM Re:The space race... (Score:5, Insightful) by lawpoop (604919) on Tuesday October 18, @05:31PM (#13821209) (http://lawpoop.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 28, @07:51PM) How about learning how to successfully or sustainably manage resources once we do find them? Space is vast and empty. We live in a cornucopia. If we're screwing up this badly while living in a virtual paradise, there's no way we can survive the 1000+ year trip to the next planet. We'd eat ourselves of out food a fuel 10 years into the space journey. [ Reply to This | ParentEarth's got plenty resources by Alwin Henseler (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:55PMRe:The space race... by grumpyman (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:50PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Military conquest (Score:3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, @05:03PM (#13820898) There's valuable things in space. GPS systems; communication systems; Lagrange points; planetary redundancy. Slashdot reported that U.S. Space Command advocates seizing control of the LaGrange points before other nations do it. [slashdot.org], and without space races, it'd be hard to do that. [ Reply to This High tech is good but.... (Score:4, Insightful) by tktk (540564) on Tuesday October 18, @05:04PM (#13820909) While it is a matter of national pride, China in specific also sees this as a way to increase the reputation of its high-tech exports.What I really want to see are low-tech solutions to the space race. Not to prove your own country's superiority but to make other governments look bad. Any large government can throw billions or trillions of dollars to get into space.What I want to see is some guy get into space by sitting on a huge jug of exploding moonshine. [ Reply to ThisRe:High tech is good but.... by Kelson (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:33PMRe:High tech is good but.... by otherbiz (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:52PMRe:High tech is good but.... by Buran (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:09PMRe:High tech is good but.... by SharkJumper (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:17PMRe:High tech is good but.... by arbitraryaardvark (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @10:39PMRe:High tech is good but.... by HermanAB (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @11:26PM What it's really about (Score:2) by argoff (142580) on Tuesday October 18, @05:05PM (#13820922) What it is really about is that a lot of the technologies used for space can also be used for military dominance. (like ICBM's) China and India know this, and so have engaged in a strong space program. The US knows this too, and so is getting back in the game to keep dominance over China. [ Reply to ThisRe:What it's really about by amightywind (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:12PM Pfft. (Score:5, Insightful) by Britissippi (565742) on Tuesday October 18, @05:05PM (#13820926) (Last Journal: Wednesday March 27, @10:41AM) There is no real country based 'space race' anymore in the western world. Corporations are going to take over where the governments leave off.China is 50 years behind the times, and eventually it'll be the corporations there that take over the space flights, too. [ Reply to ThisRe:Pfft. by Karma_fucker_sucker (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:16PMRe:Pfft. by LoveTheIRS (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:57PMnewsflash::China is a coorperation by Brigadier (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:04PM Re:Pfft. (Score:4, Insightful) by TrevorB (57780) on Tuesday October 18, @06:05PM (#13821591) (http://www.internetgenealogy.com/) China may be 50 years behind (let's say 45 to be more accurate), but the US is about 25 years behind (Shuttle) and Russia about 38 years behind.We could be kinder to each country. The US has been upgrading their shuttles with newer materials. The Russians developed a new variant of their Soyuz craft (TMA class) as recently as 2002.However America is about to go with a new CEV design, which while an upgrade in technology basically puts them back to where they were in 1968.I'm very impressed with the Shenzhou spacecraft. It's larger than Soyuz by about 10-20%, which itself had significantly more space available than Apollo did on its own (not sure about Apollo-LEM). It's orbital module can operate autonomously, staying in orbit for many months, making the potential for Shenzhou orbital modules to be used as space station components. If its launch safety can be shown to be equivelant to Soyuz, the Shenzhou spacecraft will be the best operating in 2010.The actual "space race" may be taking place now, in the design stage of the American CEV. Can they build a craft superior to the Chinese?China has been building a lot of momentum here, while the US has stalled. I'm very curious to know how things will turn out in the next decade. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Pfft. (Score:4, Insightful) by Martin Blank (154261) on Tuesday October 18, @06:57PM (#13822125) (Last Journal: Tuesday November 26, @08:28PM) However America is about to go with a new CEV design, which while an upgrade in technology basically puts them back to where they were in 1968.Just because it's a capsule design doesn't mean that it's a step backwards in technology. Your argument seems to be based on the capsule to shuttle to aerospace plane development map that failed.I would argue that the CEV is a step forward, because it adds flexibility to the design. The second phase of the CEV includes not only a lunar module, but also the capacity to start building a lunar base. Where the Apollo mission could support two people on the lunar surface for a maximum of three days, the CEV will be able to support four people on the surface for a week, and those four people will be able to do much more than just pick up a few rocks and wander a few hundred meters at a time.I base where we are on what we can do once we get there. If the CEV merely duplicated Apollo, that would put us back at 1968, and would be a sad waste of tax dollars. If it's capable of living up to its promise, then that puts us much further along, and only 10-15 years behind where we should be. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Pfft. by Xeriar (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:03PMRe:Pfft. by Chiralhydra (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:14PMRe:Pfft. by Britissippi (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:26PMRe:Pfft. by Guppy06 (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @06:41PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. It's a pissing match. (Score:1, Troll) by Shadow Wrought (586631) on Tuesday October 18, @05:05PM (#13820931) (http://slashdot.org/~Shadow%20Wrought/journal | Last Journal: Thursday October 13, @01:22PM) 'nuff said. [ Reply to ThisI hope so. by Karma_fucker_sucker (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:29PM Space race? What space race? (Score:2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, @05:10PM (#13820972) While it is a matter of national pride, China in specific also sees this as a way to increase the reputation of its high-tech exports.I strongly suspect the driving force for the Chinese space program (much like the US and USSR), is to build ICBMs. If you can put a man in space, you can put a nuke anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or so. And it's very hard to shoot down an ICBM. [ Reply to ThisRe:Space race? What space race? by Andy Tai (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:59PMRe:Space race? What space race? by Guppy06 (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:59PM Related Topic (Score:1) by Viper Daimao (911947) on Tuesday October 18, @05:13PM (#13821009) (Last Journal: Tuesday September 13, @10:42AM) The National Acadamy of Sciences [nationalacademies.org] is having a cool event. Space Settlement: Homesteading on the Moon? The degree to which land on the moon may be owned has been the subject of debate and international treaties since the start of the Cold War. This seminar will address the relationship of existing treaties to lunar property rights and the role of such ownership as an incentive for commercial space settlement. Panelists will address the following questions: Why settle the moon? What are the policy implications of a lunar settlement? What are the opportunities and challenges? Should privately funded missions play a role in lunar settlement? It seems to me that homestead acts in the 1800s really drove the development and settlement of the American west, could something similar drive private space exploration? [ Reply to ThisRe:Related Topic by frank378 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:32PM Worked for the Russians -- NOT! (Score:3, Interesting) by Derling Whirvish (636322) on Tuesday October 18, @05:19PM (#13821073) (Last Journal: Monday February 28, @11:16AM) Oh yeah, that strategy worked so well for the Russians. How's that Russian cell phone you are using? Reading this on a Russian computer? How about your GLONASS receiver? Your Russian-built TV? Washer-dryer? Car? Tractor even? Combine-harvester?Unless you are a third-world dictator needing some cheap airplanes, tanks, or guns, (with the sole exception of surplus rocket engines sold to NASA) I don't know of any area where the space-program advanced Russian high-tech exports. [ Reply to ThisRe:Worked for the Russians -- NOT! by frank378 (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @05:28PMRe:Worked for the Russians -- NOT! by Beyond_GoodandEvil (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:07PMI once had a Lada does that count ? by Brigadier (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:38PMRe:I once had a Lada does that count ? by David Off (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:54PMRe:Worked for the Russians -- NOT! by J05H (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @06:44PMRe:Worked for the Russians -- NOT! by Guppy06 (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @07:39PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Why? (Score:2) by TopSpin (753) * on Tuesday October 18, @05:21PM (#13821092) Why football (both kinds,) baseball, basketball, hockey, etc? Why do auto manufacturers sink millions into F1? Most of their customers are oblivious to it. Yet year after year teams have budgets.We keep score. We measure each other, both individuals and aggregates, incessantly. This is not new, surprising or unique to space. It has nothing to do with space specifically. We compete. Space exploration happens to be one of the more benign methods of competition we've managed to invent.On any given day you're likely to witness the Times quibble about billions 'wasted' in space. In the very same column the next day you'll read about how far we lag the Chinese as they accomplish another mission. Sniping at NASA budgets is easy. It isn't easy to discover you really are second rate. [ Reply to This China, the Final Frontier (Score:1) by writerjosh (862522) on Tuesday October 18, @05:21PM (#13821093) (http://www.theflyfishingguide.com/) China, without a doubt, will surpass us economically in the next few decades. This space endeavor is only a foreshadowing of things to come. We in the US should make efforts to pool our resources with China in all things in order to create a stable, peaceful relationship. Otherwise, China will be our new enemy if we are not careful. Their population will create immense demands on the Earth's natural resources (oil, food, etc). If we don't stretch out our arms and try to connect, then the US will be only the 2nd biggest world power.As for their space program directly, it's only a matter of time before their intelligence gathering surpasses ours (spy satellites). [ Reply to ThisRe:China, the Final Frontier by dancpsu (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @09:04PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold. R&D doesn't buy business growth (Score:2) by G4from128k (686170) on Tuesday October 18, @05:23PM (#13821109) This study of $384 billion in R&D spending by 1,000 companies [cfo.com] finds no correlation between R&D spending or patents and a company's growth, profitability, or shareholder return. Part of the problem probably stems from too much R and too little D.What's interesting is that companies with extremely strong R&D foundations such as IBM and Lucent haven't done as well as low R&D companies such as Dell or Wal-Mart. Companies such as Dell and Wal-Mart show the power of very tightly managed business processes without a lot of the traditional science-based R&D.I'm not saying that new materials aren't essential to the future, only that these new materials are useless without highly efficient business processes to commercialize them. I hope that space race R&D takes this fact into account. [ Reply to ThisRe:R&D doesn't buy business growth by Kelson (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:39PM fighting the last war (Score:3, Insightful) by Quadraginta (902985) on Tuesday October 18, @05:23PM (#13821111) Eh, this is the problem with Stalinist top-down economic planning. The Chicoms are fighting the last (economic) war here. I seriously doubt the future belongs to the nation that makes best progress in rocket technology, semiconductors, or high-energy materials physics for that matter. Sure, these things are important, but they are well-developed, mature fields of research, and there's no indication that Holy Cow Wow low-hanging fruit breakthroughs are just waiting to happen.But it's a different story in biotech, nanotech or even funky networked software, which are areas where the US is megaparsecs ahead of the Chinese and if anything pulling away. Sure, a new cadre of starry-eyed Chinese metallurgists and aerospace engineers are going to have influence on the future, make stuff that people in the rest of the world -- say, in Southeast Asia or Africa -- are going to want to buy.But what about the American firm that comes up with proteomics-based individualized cancer therapies that double lung cancer survival rates? Or a little in utero genetic magic that can cure cystic fibrosis or guarantee perfect vision and superior resistance to infection in every newborn child? How about a vaccine against Alzheimer's so everybody can be as sharp in their 90s as they were in their 50s? Cure for AIDS? Rapid-response antiviral technology that can snuff out avian flu before it gets started? Networking applications infrastructure that make it plausible for most of us to work anywhere without commuting further than from the bedroom to the home office? Nanoscopic fuel cells that let portable electronics work for days or weeks at a time off the electric grid? Any of those future-tech possibilities seems to me way more lucrative to bring to the international market in 2050 than the ability to build rockets or memory chips that are 5% more efficient than anyone else. So if I were buying stock in countries based on their R&D focus, I'd pass up the Chinese as slugfeet, based on their 1960s-era research focus.Maybe it's just because I remember hearing similar arguments about Korean and Japanese innovations in steel- and auto-making in the 1980s, when American business was jumping out of heavy industry and getting into such weird niche vanity businesses like personal computers. (I mean, who the heck needed a computer on every single desk, just to play Solitaire and Zork and customize the fonts on your letters? Geez, you want computations, go to the computer center and punch a deck like everybody else...) [ Reply to ThisOops, but we need Zero-G to make it all by spun (Score:2) Tuesday October 18, @05:33PMironic indeed by Quadraginta (Score:3) Tuesday October 18, @06:20PMRe:fighting the last war by Anthonares (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @07:36PM one manned launch in four years - is that a race? (Score:2) by peter303 (12292) on Tuesday October 18, @05:28PM (#13821165) Is NASA even in contention anymore? China will have done three, Russia eight, Rutan at least three in that same period of time. [ Reply to Thisof course by globaljustin (Score:1) Tuesday October 18, @06:09PMRe:Private funding? by globaljustin (Score:1) Wednesday October 19, @12:20AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. British Astronauts? (Score:1) by Winckle (870180) <mwinckle.gmail@com> on Tuesday October 18, @05:31PM (#13821213) The BBC are reporting on a possible cahnge in stance for Britain's current ban on tax payer astronaut spending [bbc.co.uk] [ Reply to This We have more pressing priorities here (Score:1, Troll) by lawpoop (604919) on Tuesday October 18, @05:45PM (#13821357) (http://lawpoop.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 28, @07:51PM) I am not against space research per se, but I think space research isn't the best place to be spending our limited research dollars. We are losing plant and animals species by the dozens each year, just when we are learning enough about DNA to make some real advances in biology and medicine. I don't think 'rocket science', atomic research, and metallurgy will be the science that puts food in the table in the upcoming centuries. Soon, we will be growing new plants, tools, dwellings and organs. The future will be unimaginable. We will live in a symbioses with living surroundings we will have created. If my prediction holds true, we are now in the process of burning million-year-old libraries of genetic information while shooting rockets into space.If we can't solve the political, social, and economic problems we have right now here on Earth, nothing magic is going on happen on the long space journey to our 'new home'. We have to learn to effectively deal with these problems -- they are endemic to human existence, and they will follow us everywhere. We won't leave them behind if/when we leave Earth. [ Reply to This Why the space race? (Score:1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18, @06:01PM (#13821538) It has to do with the NSS document in 2002 stating that the United States should militarize space. The US would love to have the ability to drop a nuke or any other weapon from any point on earth within minutes instead of hours. The Chinese and Europeans are not dumb, so they have to make sure that they can counteract any plans by the United States to dominate space. [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. This is not rocket science (Score:1) by ipsender (727730) on Tuesday October 18, @06:09PM (#13821636) Pardon the pun. This article falls into the commentator category. It does not contain any information that cannot be readily deduced. What is required is articles which purport news analysis. For example, an economic analysis of whether it is actually a viable possibility for China to compete in space over time, especially given the reasons for the the collapse of the Soviet Union including over-wheening belief in its own economic ability without real economic underpinnings. [ Reply to This The "why" of taikonaut (Score:1) by pclminion (145572) on Tuesday October 18, @06:45PM (#13821990) Why is the term for a space-going human different depending on the nationality of the person in question? U.S. space-farers are astronauts, Russians are cosmonauts, Chinese are taikonauts... This is stupid. What the hell does somebody's nationality have to do with anything?If anything, space is the one place where everybody can be truly united -- political divisions don't seem to matter very much, when you're looking down at the entire Earth and see it for what it truly is -- a big rock in space that we all live on.Leave this idiotic divisiveness down here. I think a great many wars could have been prevented if we'd shot the leaders of the opposing sides into space and let them look down on what they are really fighting over. So let's call it, in the interests of fairness, a taikosmastronaut, and leave it at that. No new terms. This is stupid.