Griffin plays the race card...

[Doodler]

Space race, that is...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031501830.html

I don't see this as a viable comparison. China's first mission will be an Apollo redeux at best. What we're up to is Apollo++. This is not a wise move.

[gaetanomarano]

.

happy to see that (now) Mr. Griffin has my SAME opinion about then NEW (commercial) moon race as I've explained EIGHT months ago in this BAUT forum post in this september 2006 thread about China plans and in DOZENS posts in my threads here

.

[Doodler]

And I still say now what I said then, and what I said in the comments of the Washington Post article. Its a false analogy and an unwise play to call.

[gaetanomarano]

And I still say now what I said then, and what I said in the comments of the Washington Post article. Its a false analogy and an unwise play to call.

but Griffin's words "weigh" thousands times than yours (and mine, of course)
.

[Doodler]

Griffin's playing for budget dollars. Not that I'll be disappointed if he succeeds, but I would be REAL shocked if he thinks this will get him the money to pull off a return flight in less than 10 years. I'll be utterly amazed.

[gaetanomarano]

Griffin's playing for budget dollars. Not that I'll be disappointed if he succeeds, but I would be REAL shocked if he thinks this will get him the money to pull off a return flight in less than 10 years. I'll be utterly amazed.

I repost my august 2006 post adding a new comment at the end:

I think that this new "race" (please don't attack me on this word) is completely different because the purpose of the new moon missions is different

the '60s space-race was a cold-war military race...

the "message" of Russia with Sputnik, etc. was "attention, if we can do that you must have fear of us, then, don't try to invade our country"

the "answer" of USA with Apollo was "since we can do more than you, don't try to invade our country with you communism"

now the "race" still exists, it's only different, it's a commercial and industrial race (and with more partecipants)

with the ESAS plan USA want to say to the world "we still are the number one in this job"

while Russia and/or China try to "win" the race to say to the world "we are the new (industrial, political, technological) number one power of the world"

now Russia and China have a low-profile (since they are not sure to win...) but the space (to-day like in the past) is not only a game for engineers and scientists

also, this time, win the race is not important to land first (since USA has already done it with Apollo) but to build the infrastructures to be the future most important country in space, the most important on the moon, the first will land on Mars, the first in revenue and profits from space business (that will be 99% in LEO, not on the moon, not before 30+ years from now)

the world is not made of superpowers but (great part) of small countries

well, I don't think will be easy for China to win the new race, but... just imagine they land on the moon before USA... just imagine the different number of people from Apollo (4+ billions in 2015-2020) that will see the China's ships and astronauts on the moon with bright, hi-res, 3D images on the TV screens of all small countries' politics and peoples

they may think that "if China is on the moon (while NASA still tests the Ares-I...) the new #1 world power is China", then, politics of small countries may think to ask China 1st on the most important world problems, not the (new) #2

if the purpose is "land on the moon" there is no race (USA has already done that) but if the purpose will be different (like "show to the world to still be the #1 economic/political/technological power of this century") land on the moon 3+ years after China will make a GIANT difference!!!

also, don't forget that the new moon missions will be made to develop, build and test the infrastructures and the technologies for the "next steps" (colonies, mars missions, etc.)

3/5 years of delays will give to other countries a GIANT advantages on "future steps" in space, including the first Mars landing

do you really think that american politics, military, prestige and public opinion may accept to see a team of chinese doing "bye bye" from the moon on four billions TVs, two billions computers and thousands megascreens around the world while NASA starts testing the AresV 1st stage???
.

[Doodler]

*yawn*

[JonClarke]

Since we don't know what, how, and when the Chinese intend to do on the Moon - if they actually are serious about manneed missions at all, talk of a race seems premature. It is also rematuire to say that it will just be a repeat of Apollo. But this is simply a political statment intended to sequeeze more $$$

Jon

[R.A.F.]

...see a team of chinese doing "bye bye" from the moon on four billions TVs, two billions computers and thousands megascreens around the world...

Why do you expect so much coverage?? That would be true for an open society, but last time I checked, the last thing you could call China is open. (and I doubt they'll change that much in the next decade.)

I imagine they'll do it the same as the soviets did it in the 60's...the rest of the world won't know about it unless/until it is successful.

That "lack of liveness" might have a lot to do with how it is viewed on the world stage.

[gaetanomarano]

I imagine they'll do it the same as the soviets did it in the 60's...the rest of the world won't know about it unless/until it is successful.

that's may be true in part (very little part) to-day ...clearly China have made many tests before its first manned launch, but, when they was confident to be succesfull, the launch was announced and seen all over the world
the same will happen for a lunar mission, they will think, try, test, build, etc. without show all the press (nor forums...) but, when they will be sure to succeed, their astronauts will say "bye bye" to the rest of the world on every TV screen!
.

[Romanus]

I myself am unimpressed with what I consider fear-mongering concerning the Chinese, for several reasons.

1.) The Chinese don't care if we beat them to the Moon, or conversely, if we go there after them. This is their pet project, intended to puff up nationalism and put a notch in their belt that--currently--no other nation besides the U.S. can claim. If the Soviets had beaten us to the Moon, I think they still would be making this effort at some point.

2.) I think politicians overstate the importance China holds for the average American, as well as China's own strength. If you were to ask the average American about their thoughts of modern China, their mental response might be something along the lines of:

--Live organ donors...blech!
--Didn't they make my lawn chair?

In short, for all their human rights abuses, they're also a major trading partner with the U.S., more so than the Soviet Union ever was with us (or for that matter, than Russia is today). In the '50s and '60s, one could think of lots of reasons to fear the Soviets: Stalin, theft of nuclear secrets, MAD, worldwide revolution, proxy wars. In my op, that just isn't the case with China and the U.S.

Yes, China is booming at a phenomenal rate, but it's GDP remains far below that of the U.S. or most of the E.U. Yes, China has a powerful land-based army and lots of nukes, but their navy and air force are weak. Yes, China can zap satellites out of orbit, but that doesn't mean they're going to pick a fight with us if it's not in their interest to do so--any more than we would, for that matter. Furthermore, at first blush it looks like China's foreign policy is much less aggressive than the Soviets' was, with little interest beyond their immediate borders; aside from Tibet and Taiwan, I don't think we're going to hear much about China fomenting revolution or toppling distant governments to get a leg up around the world.

In short, the Chinese are not the Soviets, and this isn't 1960. 'Nuff said.

[Hydro]

I sincerely hope the "new space race" will push NASA to greater heights, namely Mars.

Remembering the quote from Apollo 13 (the film ) “From now on we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. It’s not a miracle. We just decided to go.”

[Warren Platts]

Yes, China is booming at a phenomenal rate, but it's GDP remains far below that of the U.S. or most of the E.U.

According to the CIA World Factbook, China had a USD GDP of 10 trillion, in 2006, as measured in real purchasing power; meanwhile growth of GDP is 10% per year. Compare to the U.S.: 13 trillion USD GDP, but growth rate of only 3.4%. I could say do the math yourself. Never mind. I did it. According to my spreadsheet, China and the U.S. will have approximately equal GDP's in 2010. By 2011, China will have a significantly higher GDP than the U.S. I had heard around that 2014 would be the year, so it's worse than I thought.

Yes, China has a powerful land-based army and lots of nukes, but their navy and air force are weak. Yes, China can zap satellites out of orbit, but that doesn't mean they're going to pick a fight with us if it's not in their interest to do so--any more than we would, for that matter. Furthermore, at first blush it looks like China's foreign policy is much less aggressive than the Soviets' was, with little interest beyond their immediate borders; aside from Tibet and Taiwan, I don't think we're going to hear much about China fomenting revolution or toppling distant governments to get a leg up around the world.

U.S. spends 4.06% of GDP on military; China 4.3%. Those are comparable amounts. Remember, a dollar spent in China will go ten times further than a dollar spent in the U.S. And who is China gearing up for? Vietnam? I don't think so.

That their air force and navy are not up to the task of beating the U.S. is even now debatable. There was their submarine that successfully stalked a battle group and had an aircraft carrier in their crosshairs. Granted, the sub would have never made it out alive, but the carrier would have been split in two. 6,000 casualties in 5 minutes! They also have hypersonic Sunburn cruise missiles that could effectively neutralize American sea power, at least close to their home waters.

Imagine the following scenario: in ten years, China invades Taiwan, the U.S. lets them, because they can't really stop them, but it does cut off the maritime flow of oil from the Middle East and Africa, and American airplanes destroy the few pipelines that also feed China. Then China launches its huge land army through Afghanistan, with the collusion of Iran, and then straight on through to Saudi Arabia. Problem is, U.S. can no longer maintain air superiority. They steal American ideas as fast as Americans invent them, yet they keep their own ideas close to their chests. They are thus bound eventually get ahead of the U.S. in some military technologies, and assymetric tactics will neutralize whatever technological advantages the U.S. still possesses.

It could be that control of the Moon is tantamount to control over Earth and therefore over the solar system. Mass drivers on the Moon itself could take out any Earthen satelite. Nuke missiles could give third strike capability that even subs can't provide these days.

Thus, an interesting quote from the factbook re: U.S. intentions toward Antarctica: "US has made no territorial claim in Antarctica (but has reserved the right to do so) and does not recognize the claims of any other states."

So, why not do that to the Moon? U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Space Treaty, and then claims the Moon as sovereign territory. Crazy, of course. But really, what would stop China from doing the same if they get to the Moon next?

[Doodler]

So, why not do that to the Moon? U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Space Treaty, and then claims the Moon as sovereign territory. Crazy, of course. But really, what would stop China from doing the same if they get to the Moon next?

The samething that stopped European explorers from claiming the Americas as all their own. The ability to pull it off.

[Warren Platts]

The samething that stopped European explorers from claiming the Americas as all their own. The ability to pull it off.

Huh?

[Doodler]

Huh?

Look, the Moon isn't a small place, what in the heck makes you think a 2-6 man mission dropping a flag during a weeklong stay or so can enforce a territorial claim?

[Ronald Brak]

According to the CIA World Factbook, China had a USD GDP of 10 trillion, in 2006, as measured in real purchasing power; meanwhile growth of GDP is 10% per year. Compare to the U.S.: 13 trillion USD GDP, but growth rate of only 3.4%. I could say do the math yourself. Never mind. I did it. According to my spreadsheet, China and the U.S. will have approximately equal GDP's in 2010. By 2011, China will have a significantly higher GDP than the U.S. I had heard around that 2014 would be the year, so it's worse than I thought.

Umm, you can't really use purchasing power parity for this calculation. Just because rent, haircuts and noodles are cheap in China doesn't necessarily translate into a more powerful economy. Otherwise you may as well claim that Nigeria is a millitary threat to the United Kingdom.

U.S. spends 4.06% of GDP on military; China 4.3%. Those are comparable amounts. Remember, a dollar spent in China will go ten times further than a dollar spent in the U.S.

Further on what? China can put a lot of riflemen on the field, but I don't know what good it will do them against a superior foe. Consider what happened to Iraq's million strong army in Desert Storm.

And who is China gearing up for? Vietnam? I don't think so.

China's spending on the military as a percentage of GDP has been gradually decreasing. You could just as well say China is gearing down. But it is interesting that you mention Vietnam. Despite having a massive army China's occupation was a dismal failure and it got its butt kicked. Just one more example of how a superior force can't hold territory if faced with a segment of the population trained in guerilla warfare.

[JonClarke]

Why this obsession with seeing China as a threat?

[Ronald Brak]

I think it goes back to the human habit of creating in groups and out groups. It comes naturally to chimpanzees and it seems to come naturally with us. Certain people in either country use this unfortunate tendency to their own political advantage to gain power and status. The most barbaric example of this sort of behaviour being the treatment of jewish people in Europe by the Nazis.

Fortunately there are a lot of people in this world building bridges between different cultures. Peacemongering if you will. I hope it will be enough.

[Damburger]

If China does get to the moon before NASA returns, they may be able to proceed from the Apollo stage to the CEV stage without the same multi-decade gap that the American space program experienced. The CPC isn't subject to the whims of public opinion, and still has large state industries it can throw at the problem.

[JonClarke]

I think it goes back to the human habit of creating in groups and out groups. It comes naturally to chimpanzees and it seems to come naturally with us. Certain people in either country use this unfortunate tendency to their own political advantage to gain power and status. The most barbaric example of this sort of behaviour being the treatment of jewish people in Europe by the Nazis.

Fortunately there are a lot of people in this world building bridges between different cultures. Peacemongering if you will. I hope it will be enough.

Peacemonger, I like it! I am signed up already, it goes nicely with being a science monger

[Doodler]

Fortunately there are a lot of people in this world building bridges between different cultures. Peacemongering if you will. I hope it will be enough.

There hasn't been a bridge built yet that cannot be burned, given adequate motive and public support. There are those of us who'll keep the fires burning for the times we're needed.

[Ronald Brak]

There hasn't been a bridge built yet that cannot be burned, given adequate motive and public support. There are those of us who'll keep the fires burning for the times we're needed.

I don't think there's any need to keep any fires burning. If a child learns to cooperate that doesn't mean they forever lose their ability to fight or throw tantrums. For example, the Swiss are quite peaceful but I'm sure that would all change if they were violently invaded.

[Doodler]

I don't think there's any need to keep any fires burning. If a child learns to cooperate that doesn't mean they forever lose their ability to fight or throw tantrums. For example, the Swiss are quite peaceful but I'm sure that would all change if they were violently invaded.

They're also a quite stagnant society that hasn't made an impact outside of their little patch of valley in what, three or four centuries? Being a non-factor to the outside world means they've got no expansionist ambitions that will result in inevitable conflict.

Competition creates conflict. Whether its resolved peacefully or not depends on the competence of the diplomats. If they fail, the fire will be called to duty.

[JonClarke]

The Swiss stagant? One of the world's most advanced high tech societies? You need to get out more....

Jon

[Doodler]

The Swiss stagant? One of the world's most advanced high tech societies? You need to get out more....

Jon

Are they developing it, or are they simply able to afford it playing Don't Ask, Don't Tell banker to tax dodgers, drug dealers, terrorists, and ex-Nazis?

[Ronald Brak]

They're also a quite stagnant society that hasn't made an impact outside of their little patch of valley in what, three or four centuries? Being a non-factor to the outside world means they've got no expansionist ambitions that will result in inevitable conflict.

Okay, uh huh. The Swiss have contributed quite a bit for such a small country. And stagnant? There has been quite a bit going on in Swizterland over the past hundred years or so. Industrialization for one thing. Plumbing. Electricity. Computers. The Pill. Rock and Roll. Now a peacful nation of seven and a half million isn't going to make world headlines on a regular basis but that doesn't mean it's stagnant. I could argue that the U.S. is stagnant and make just as much sense. But I'm not going to argue that. I have a Seinfeld DVD I can watch. I've heard it's a good show.

[JonClarke]

Okay, uh huh. The Swiss have contributed quite a bit for such a small country. And stagnant? There has been quite a bit going on in Swizterland over the past hundred years or so. Industrialization for one thing. Plumbing. Electricity. Computers. The Pill. Rock and Roll. Now a peacful nation of seven and a half million isn't going to make world headlines on a regular basis but that doesn't mean it's stagnant. I could argue that the U.S. is stagnant and make just as much sense. But I'm not going to argue that. I have a Seinfeld DVD I can watch. I've heard it's a good show.

Not to mention that the Sojourner rover used components that could only be buiolt by the Swiss. The Swiss have well developed electronics, precision instrument, aviation, and muntions industries.

Some people really do need to learn that just because a country is small and peaceful does not mean to say it is backward or stagnating.

Jon

[JonClarke]

There hasn't been a bridge built yet that cannot be burned, given adequate motive and public support. There are those of us who'll keep the fires burning for the times we're needed.

I hope you are not speaking for yourself here.

Jon

[Warren Platts]

Umm, you can't really use purchasing power parity for this calculation. Just because rent, haircuts and noodles are cheap in China doesn't necessarily translate into a more powerful economy. Otherwise you may as well claim that Nigeria is a millitary threat to the United Kingdom.

If the CIA itself says that purchasing power parity is the appropriate economic metric for comparing economies, who am I to disagree? It's not just haircuts and noodles that are cheaper. Bullets, missiles, submarines, tanks and airplanes are also built much more cheaply in China.

. . . . China can put a lot of riflemen on the field, but I don't know what good it will do them against a superior foe. Consider what happened to Iraq's million strong army in Desert Storm.

The vaunted Iraqi army lacked air and naval superiority; also their tanks were old T-72's; also their army was not as well-trained as the U.S. led coalition.

So, that's what I'm saying. There may come a day in the not too distant future when China could challenge U.S. in-theatre air and naval superiority.

That is why the new China/U.S. space race is important. It's a race for technological superiority, and it's a race for control of the high ground of space. Air superiority depends on space superiority.

China's spending on the military as a percentage of GDP has been gradually decreasing. You could just as well say China is gearing down. But it is interesting that you mention Vietnam. Despite having a massive army China's occupation was a dismal failure and it got its butt kicked. Just one more example of how a superior force can't hold territory if faced with a segment of the population trained in guerilla warfare.

China and the U.S. have crossed swords before in Korea. There, the Chinese army performed admirably, and demonstrated much discipline in moving only at night during the winter while hiding under trees during the day. In this way they were able to infiltrate many divisions right under MacArthur's nose.

Bottom line: it is dangerous to sell short China. There is no comparing the old Iraqi army to the new Chinese army. My point is that the new space race to the Moon should be seen as part of a larger strategic struggle for technological superiority between the Western and Han civilizations.