PDA

View Full Version : It's official: China plans manned spaceflight this year.


lmalave
Jan 2, 2003, 12:03 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/01/01/china.space/index.html

From what I've read China's longer term plan is to put a man on the moon. Who knows, at this pace China might be the first country to make it to Mars, if they don't totally retreat from their space efforts the way the U.S. did in the 70's.

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 02:17 AM
Ok, I know you will probly make fun of me for saying this. Why did we not ever go BACK to the moon. We had a shuttle and a crew ready and trained, but all the sudden we just *dropped* the whole project. I honestly think that there was something seen on the dark side of the moon (the side we never see) that pretty much told us not to come back. What other reason would we just abort a whole mission that was ready to go?

I also remember that NASA used to show live space cameras from shuttles on TV. Then, one day, that too just *stopped*. I mean, what the hell is up with that? I used to enjoy watching stuff in space.

If you do a search on google about dark side of the moon aliens or something, there are SOOO many photos, evidence, even voice recordings that made me believe in what I believe.

alex_ant
Jan 2, 2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
Ok, I know you will probly make fun of me for saying this. Why did we not ever go BACK to the moon. We had a shuttle and a crew ready and trained, but all the sudden we just *dropped* the whole project. I honestly think that there was something seen on the dark side of the moon (the side we never see) that pretty much told us not to come back. What other reason would we just abort a whole mission that was ready to go?
Hmm... possibly because going to the moon costs billions of dollars and it wasn't worth it.
I also remember that NASA used to show live space cameras from shuttles on TV. Then, one day, that too just *stopped*. I mean, what the hell is up with that? I used to enjoy watching stuff in space.
It never stopped. They even have their own TV network. Haven't you seen NASA TV?
If you do a search on google about dark side of the moon aliens or something, there are SOOO many photos, evidence, even voice recordings that made me believe in what I believe.
There is even more evidence for Bigfoot and Elvis being alive, although just because it exists doesn't mean I'd necessarily be inclined to trust it.

iJon
Jan 2, 2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec

If you do a search on google about dark side of the moon aliens or something, there are SOOO many photos, evidence, even voice recordings that made me believe in what I believe.
i saw signs and now i believe in crop circles. dont believe everything you read, especially things from the internet.

iJon

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 03:54 AM
No, the project was already funded. The shuttle was built and the crew was ready. everything was READY. But suddenly the whole thing was cancelled.

And as for NASA TV, they have it, but they dont show the stuff that they used to.

Dont get me wrong on the evidence crap, but just read about it!

pimentoLoaf
Jan 2, 2003, 04:14 AM
Nixon saw the space race as so much wasted cash-flow, after we made just one landing. He had no vision of it leading to new techologies or income models.

And Nixon knew what he was talking about, as he talked to the many paintings hanging throughout the White House (who also warned of lunar aliens).

alex_ant
Jan 2, 2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
No, the project was already funded. The shuttle was built and the crew was ready. everything was READY. But suddenly the whole thing was cancelled.
A few points:

1) Space vehicles have a limited lifespan. Most can only be launched once. Just because the ride to the moon was already paid for (and I'm completely unfamiliar with this aborted moon mission or whatever it was) doesn't mean it would have been free from that point on to go, since going would have sacrificed the vehicle's use at another time.

2) Lots of things are ready and then suddenly cancelled. What makes you think this moon mission was any different from anything else? Or is everything a conspiracy?

3) Congress wants to get its money's worth from NASA. If they were to discover that NASA financed another extremely expensive (and anticlimactic) trip to the moon without having a worthwhile reason to go, they would ask questions. Knowing this, what good for NASA would another moon mission be besides a probable funding cut?

4) What evidence do you have for alien life on the dark side of the moon?

4a) If there were alien life on the dark side of the moon, for what reason would the government supress knowledge of it?

4b) Would the government be capable of supressing knowledge of it for as long as it has, if at all?

4c) Even assuming an explanation for all of this could be pieced together, what makes this explanation less far-fetched and more likely than the much simpler explanation of "NASA just decided to change its mind for no critically important reason."?
And as for NASA TV, they have it, but they dont show the stuff that they used to.
What stuff are you referring to? They show pretty much everything, from the inside of the shuttle to the view of the earth out the shuttle windows to astronauts in space (via the cameras in their suits).

Sun Baked
Jan 2, 2003, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
4a) If there were alien life on the dark side of the moon, for what reason would the government supress knowledge of it?Because Elvis asked them to, he is after all the US ambassador to the dark side aliens.

alex_ant
Jan 2, 2003, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Because Elvis asked them to, he is after all the US ambassador to the dark side aliens.
What are you talking about? He left that job after he gave birth to Jesus' baby.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 2, 2003, 04:45 AM
There are so many reasons to go into space that is beneficial to humankind:


• A possible answer to the prospect of overcrowding

• The manufacture of drugs and antibiotics in a weightless and sterile environment

• Collection/distribution of new types of fuel sources (radioactive, solar or even antimatter) to alleviate the problems associated with fossil fuels

• New inventions (velcro was developed as a direct result from the space race, as were many types of polymers)

• Learning more of our world from the lessons of others - Venus' runaway greenhouse effect, Titan's ice age, or Mars' thinning atmosphere

• Seeing our planet from a different perspective - from orbit - to repair or alter hazards to our environment (charting the migration of algal blooms through prolific fishing zones, or locating incidences of crops with fungal infections using infra-red technology in space, so treatment can begin)


The advent of the International Space Station is not only a symbol of goodwill and co-operation to the world's space powers, but also acts a springboard to future important missions to the Moon, Mars, and - perhaps - beyond. Past missions have been deemed "cost prohibitive", compared to the cheaper option of using the ISS as a launch platform in the future - the energy saved by not having to make escape velocity from Earth greatly increases not only the range, but also the speed, size and amount of payload that may accompany an interplanetary flight.


The Moon may also act as a platform in future space missions - with 1/6th the gravitational pull of Earth, a large quantity of ore, and the possibility of water on the Lunar surface (collected in craters from the alleged past impacts of comets), a permanently manned base on the Moon would be instrumental to any further space exploration.


It's our inherent nature to be inquisitive. Who are we to stifle that desire in us all?


:)

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 06:26 AM
Firstly, why is anyone bothering to respond to this moron MacAztec, whose only other recent contribution has been to advocate the mass murder of every Muslim on the planet?

Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
There are so many reasons to go into space that is beneficial to humankind:


• A possible answer to the prospect of overcrowding

• The manufacture of drugs and antibiotics in a weightless and sterile environment

• Collection/distribution of new types of fuel sources (radioactive, solar or even antimatter) to alleviate the problems associated with fossil fuels

• New inventions (velcro was developed as a direct result from the space race, as were many types of polymers)

• Learning more of our world from the lessons of others - Venus' runaway greenhouse effect, Titan's ice age, or Mars' thinning atmosphere

• Seeing our planet from a different perspective - from orbit - to repair or alter hazards to our environment (charting the migration of algal blooms through prolific fishing zones, or locating incidences of crops with fungal infections using infra-red technology in space, so treatment can begin)
Your reasons for exporting our human debris into space seem less than overwhelming: Velcro? Learning what from planets in completely different orbits?

It's our inherent nature to be inquisitive. Who are we to stifle that desire in us all?
:)
On the contrary, it's in our nature to be destructive, rapacious and violent. Who are we to infect yet more of space with our diseases?

peter2002
Jan 2, 2003, 07:48 AM
Now they can fake their moon landing, just like we did, except their landing will be in color!

Seriously, maybe they could take some national pride that they are looking for and work on their human rights abuses, mass abortions, HIV problem, sweat shops, and enforce laws against mass piracy of US software, music, and DVDs.

Pete :D

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 08:23 AM
Small point, but wasn't Apollo in colour?

lmalave
Jan 2, 2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by peter2002
Now they can fake their moon landing, just like we did, except their landing will be in color!

Seriously, maybe they could take some national pride that they are looking for and work on their human rights abuses, mass abortions, HIV problem, sweat shops, and enforce laws against mass piracy of US software, music, and DVDs.

Pete :D

Well, none of the above are going to happen (except baybe working on the HIV problem), and I'd rather have China landing men on the moon than putting money into cruise missiles, nuclear subs, etc. (not that they are mutually exclusive, but resources have to be allocated one place or another)

zarathustra
Jan 2, 2003, 12:51 PM
Your reasons for exporting our human debris into space seem less than overwhelming: Velcro? Learning what from planets in completely different orbits?

quote:It's our inherent nature to be inquisitive. Who are we to stifle that desire in us all?

On the contrary, it's in our nature to be destructive, rapacious and violent. Who are we to infect yet more of space with our diseases?

Well, skunk is in a bad mood today...

The Chinese on the moon might trigger for NASA/western space agencies to develop more space technology. If you remember, the reason there were landings on the moon was not because Americans wanted to make sure the moon was not made of cheese, but because the Russians were making such headway in space exploration. The USA was afraid they might develop technology that would control the planet from the "top". When we landed on the moon, we realized the technology of the day was not advanced enough to start a "colony" in space/moon, and thus the space around the earth could not be controlled.

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 02:01 PM
And where are the great advantages from having reached the moon?

idkew
Jan 2, 2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by skunk
And where are the great advantages from having reached the moon?

a huge victory in the cold war.

advancement in science.

a huge achievement for mankind.

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by idkew


a huge victory in the cold war.

advancement in science.

a huge achievement for mankind.
The USSR reached the moon too.
Any scientific advances besides Velcro? :confused:

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 02:50 PM
Whats your problem? You have a little stupid ass remark to everything you say, trying to make the other person sound stupid.

Alex: First off, why would we NOT build a grounded space station on the moon. Its cheaper than having the ones we have in space. We can build it ONTO the moon.

Why not have a telescope on the dark side of the moon? Like the hubble, only it is completely in no light ever. Why not? Is it more important to send John Glenn up there?

As for the government knowledge, its the same reason that the crash in Roswell was not told to the people. DId you know that they had thousands of army men go out on that field shortyly after the crash, get down on their hands and knees, and pick up every single piece of debris they found? Did you know that when the crash had happened, everyone was told it WAS aliens. But then a day later the governent said it was a weather balloon. How come the crate that contained the vessel that crashed was shipped secretly by air to some place in Chicago ( I believe ).

As for the government keeping knowledge that long, Roswell has been ever longer. The government doesnt even talk about Roswell. Nothing. Why would someone be so secretive about a Weather Balloon?

I saw two program he other week on the crash. They interviewed people who cleared debris on the field, and even one of the pilots that flew the plane (with the vessel in it) to wherever it needed to be kept. Many people said that the material they found could not be cut. it was like aluminum foil; you can bend it, mold it, but once you let go it morphs back to its original shape. It cannot be cut.

As for the NASA TV question, there was an interview with NASA (on the show I watched) and they said that they will be cancelling the footage they used to show. I have not found one channel with cameras on spacemen's suits. I have satellite too.

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 03:01 PM
Oh NO!! It's that intellectual giant again! Run for your lives!! :eek: :eek:

lmalave
Jan 2, 2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by skunk

The USSR reached the moon too.
Any scientific advances besides Velcro? :confused:

What??????????????????????????????????????

Unless you're quoting some sort of conspiracy theory, the USSR did NOT reach the moon!!!

To quote www.greatachievements.com (http://www.greatachievements.org/greatachievements/ga_12_2.html):

"The technical challenges faced to build, launch, and guide spacecraft were staggering. Most of the technology developed was entirely new. Early human space flight leading up to the Apollo program required the integration of numerous technologies on a scale never before undertaken. Every major technological field was tapped. The launch and return of spacecraft, from Apollo to the Shuttle, is one of the monumental engineering triumphs in all of human history.

The need to have computers that would fit on board a spacecraft drove the development of the electronics industry. Advances enabled the development of microcomputers, small in size but great in calculation and communications capabilities, which eventually led to the burgeoning PC industry. In the biomedical field, tests on the rigors of space on astronauts provided insight into aging. Sensors that allowed doctors to monitor the astronauts' health were soon used routinely throughout the medical profession. Plastics and polymers developed for use in space had thousands of applications on Earth. As engineers learned to transport volatile fluids and gases in space, they applied this knowledge to sea and ground transportation of similar materials."

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 03:13 PM
I said "reached", not "landed men on".

UNMANNED TESTS AND LUNAR EXPLORATION

The Ye Luna program finally began to yield results. After three more launch failures, Luna 16 finally became the first successful Ye-8-5 craft on 12 September 1970, returning a few grams of soil from the Sea of Fertility. It was a remarkable achievement by any standard. In October 1970, Luna 17 landed the first successful Ye-8 rover on the Moon. The vehicle, called `Lunokhod 1' by the Soviets, lasted nine months on the lunar surface and travelled almost 11 kilometers. The USSR now claimed the Lunas were ten times cheaper than Apollo and far less risky than a manned mission.

Any more questions?
(OK, so it was more than Velcro, but are the advances (or rather, the earlier developments)listed in your quote really worth the investment? A moot point, I think)

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Oh NO!! It's that intellectual giant again! Run for your lives!! :eek: :eek:

Oh no, its the immature newbie on the forums again.

lmalave
Jan 2, 2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by skunk
I said "reached", not "landed men on".

UNMANNED TESTS AND LUNAR EXPLORATION

The Ye Luna program finally began to yield results. After three more launch failures, Luna 16 finally became the first successful Ye-8-5 craft on 12 September 1970, returning a few grams of soil from the Sea of Fertility. It was a remarkable achievement by any standard. In October 1970, Luna 17 landed the first successful Ye-8 rover on the Moon. The vehicle, called `Lunokhod 1' by the Soviets, lasted nine months on the lunar surface and travelled almost 11 kilometers. The USSR now claimed the Lunas were ten times cheaper than Apollo and far less risky than a manned mission.

Any more questions?
(OK, so it was more than Velcro, but are the advances (or rather, the earlier developments)listed in your quote really worth the investment? A moot point, I think)

Well, since this is a thread about China's manned space flight, I incorrectly assumed you meant that the USSR had made a manned moon landing.

Is the cost and risk inherent in manned space flight worth it? Well, it all depends in what you value. I would gladly forgo the trappings of our consumerist society for one that placed more value on science and basic research. Growing up my daydream was to be an astronomer on a moon-based observatory. I really thought we would be there by the 21st century, but somewhere we lost the way.

lmalave
Jan 2, 2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec


Oh no, its the immature newbie on the forums again.

Hahahahaha! Dude he's 50 and you're 15. I remember when I was your age and was a smarmy know-it-all. Now at going on 30 I realize that I know nothing. And I'm sure skunk at 50 is looking down at my young ass and laughing...

alex_ant
Jan 2, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by lmalave


Hahahahaha! Dude he's 50 and you're 15. I remember when I was your age and was a smarmy know-it-all. Now at going on 30 I realize that I know nothing. And I'm sure skunk at 50 is looking down at my young ass and laughing...
Hmm... I remember being 15 and thinking I knew everything. Now, at 21, I realize I really do! :D

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by lmalave


Hahahahaha! Dude he's 50 and you're 15. I remember when I was your age and was a smarmy know-it-all. Now at going on 30 I realize that I know nothing. And I'm sure skunk at 50 is looking down at my young ass and laughing...

Why does he have to have stupid remarks like he is cool or something? I was just stating what I know/think and he (for some reason) thinks im trying to be highly intellectual. Whatever.

wdlove
Jan 2, 2003, 04:30 PM
I think the United States or a US Corporation should revisit the moon. I believe they recently found hidden H20 that can be used for the astronauts & fuel, hydrogen. The corporations could use it for mining & a staging platform to visit other planets. The 1st I think would be Mars. If we don't return soon, China has it eye on the moon!

Shenzhou V to launch with a manned mission in the 2nd 1/2 of 2003!

Jiang Zemin “A pioneering spirit”

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 05:46 PM
God I'm so OLD!! :(

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by skunk
God I'm so OLD!! :(

Thanks for the information.

Megaquad
Jan 2, 2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec


Thanks for the information.
You might want to put him in next boy pig and mac cartoon and make fun of him :p

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Megaquad

You might want to put him in next boy pig and mac cartoon and make fun of him :p

Hehe, if only I knew how to write those cartoons...

iconrad
Jan 2, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by MacAztec
Why not have a telescope on the dark side of the moon? Like the hubble, only it is completely in no light ever. Why not? Is it more important to send John Glenn up there?

FYI The "dark" side of the moon isn't dark. It gets just as much sun as the side that we, earthlings, see on a day to day basis. I believe that the moon doesn't rotate like the earth, it simply "moves" around the the earth on a fixed orbit. So your telescope on the other side of the moon wouldn't work as well as you think. Because the moon is round, and your telescope is on the fare side of the moon there would have to have a second satellite on the left or right side of the moon, form the earths point of view, in order to receive the image. Plus what would happen if it wasn't right like the Hubble was when it was put up in space. For the first few months the Hubble was a really expensive piece of glass in space until NASA sent up a crew to polish the mirror, something like a few millimeters... not certain on the actual screw up. So in order to to fix a problem or to ship it to the other side of the moon wouldn't be cost effective.

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by iconrad


FYI The "dark" side of the moon isn't dark. It gets just as much sun as the side that we, earthlings, see on a day to day basis.

Boy, will the Pink Floyd be disappointed! :)

Mr. Anderson
Jan 2, 2003, 08:24 PM
Ok, lets take this back on topic a bit.

I personally think its great that China will be the 3rd nation to get a human into space and although they are going to have to spend decades to try and catch up to the level of the Russians and US in terms of experience and technology, its good to have a little competition. I'd also like to see them visit the ISSS as soon as they are able - a continuation of a Cold War in space isn't something to feel warm and fuzzy about.

As for MacAztec - you should do some research at NASA - www.nasa.gov I had an opportunity to work for a summer - 3 months - at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, and I have to tell you we haven't lost sight getting back to the moon or other planets. Its just damn expensive to do anything at that large a scale. Hollywood and sciencefiction make it look easy, but its not.

As for the Shuttle crew standing by ready to go to the moon, it wasn't the shuttle - it was another Apollo mission, actually 3 more, all cancelled due to lack of money and overall interest. Going to the moon had become too routine to justify the expense. Check the link - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_18_20.html

And just so you know, building an Apollo rocket is one thing, its the support of the launch and the mission that rack up the big bucks. All those people on the payroll....

As for a Lunar Telescope - there is another approach being made - the NGST
http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/ - this is the Next Generation Space Telescope that will replace the Hubble. There won't be any telescopes on the far side of the Moon (not the dark side) until we actually get cheaper and simpler form of Earth to orbit vehicle. That will allow us to truly move into space, go to the moon and other planets without the epic proportions needed for an Apollo mission.

Again, try doing a little research and in your searches learn a little about delta v - not the rocket, but the energy requirements for getting off the planet.

Good luck,

D

Mac til death
Jan 2, 2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by skunk

Any scientific advances besides Velcro? :confused:

teflon



funny sun baked... :)...

MacAztec
Jan 2, 2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by iconrad


FYI The "dark" side of the moon isn't dark. It gets just as much sun as the side that we, earthlings, see on a day to day basis.

I dont think you're right about that. Im going to go do some research to prove you wrong.

Edit: Ok, we only SEE one side of the moon. It still gets light, but we never can see that side of the moon.

alex_ant
Jan 2, 2003, 10:22 PM
And obviously... anything we never see must have aliens on it.

rice_web
Jan 2, 2003, 10:57 PM
I'm very excited about this. I don't have many reasons because it's getting late, but could you imagine the potential for space flight fifty years from now? Heck, we could have a settlement on Mars with a few thousand inhabitants, we could have probes shipping out to Alpha Centauri, and a view of Planet X, I dare say. But, that's only possible if the interest is there, and China may just spur America's interest, and maybe Europe's. I hate to turn it into a race, but if that's what it takes, I'm all for it.

I just thought of something, actually. It was the U.S.'s planned missile defense system that triggered this, wasn't it? I've heard that Russia and Europe are trying to do the same.

kiwi_the_iwik
Jan 3, 2003, 05:28 AM
Geez - skunk's in a filthy mood...

So skunk - this is for you:

Velcro was just an example. There are many benefits that came from the Space Race. For example, one that instantly springs to mind - just take a bit of time to stop and think about that fantastic piece of electronic hardware sitting on your desk in front of you, giving you the ability to thrust your (dare I say - angry?!?) opinions on your unsuspecting colleagues...

...your computer.

Without the aid of computers, we never would have left the gravitational pull of the Earth, and managed to navagate our way to the Moon. It was from those early days, where computational power could now be measured in comparison with the modern-day pocket calculator, that the personal computer came into being.

So don't get all "shirty" when you know you're wrong. Just be big about it and move on - life's too short to have an attitude.

skunk
Jan 3, 2003, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik
Geez - skunk's in a filthy mood...
:) :)
Do I LOOK like I'm in a filthy mood?

My (original) point (seems like years ago) was simply that since that great achievement in 1969, the payback has been less than spectacular. A number of things have progressed faster (like computers) but the great advances for humankind foreseen at the time just have not materialised. It was a hugely impressive effort, but it stalled without leading to much else. If it had been truly worthwhile except as a "victory" over the USSR, don't you think it would have gone further?
I don't want to appear mean-spirited, and in the future we may well see more benefit, but the vast cost of the space programme necessarily reduced the resources available elsewhere, just like a war. You don't find people claiming the war was useful because it accelerated aircraft development or radar. In the same way, I think it'll take more than US pride, Velcro and Teflon to justify the space race.
:) :) Happy Skunk :) :)

Mr. Anderson
Jan 3, 2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec


I dont think you're right about that. Im going to go do some research to prove you wrong.

Edit: Ok, we only SEE one side of the moon. It still gets light, but we never can see that side of the moon.

damn macaztec, this is the second time you've posted this in a thread - I thought we'd explained it enough before. Didn't I post a pic of the whole moon, near and far side?

But as for the telescopes on the 'far side' of the moon, the only real benefit would be for radio telescopes since there would be significantly less interference from the earth's transmissions. But inorder to get data back to the Earth, we'd have to set up a few satellites around the moon that could relay the signals.

D

GeneR
Jan 8, 2003, 08:27 PM
Sorry. Dumb humor, I know. But given the ideas swirling around here, I figured I'd lighten it up a bit (if possible). If China plans to go into outer space, cool. Maybe it will get the US to start focusing on an industry that can help bolster the economy.

Competitive incentives might help focus us beyond these terrorist issues that have been dotting our lives in the media. And, maybe we might be able to create an international arrangement where industries of many of the world can work together in an effort to finally move into space.

The International Space Station seems like such a great first step towards world peace. Maybe that's the next step for the US? Refocus?

If the next president of the US decides to focus on space instead of becoming a war president, will we be better off? I would like to think so.

;)

skunk
Jan 9, 2003, 03:20 AM
Even though the space race has not been terribly productive so far, it's certainly a lot better than the arms race or the global extinction race which we seem to be engaged in.