backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 82 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Jun 23 at 8:38 AM
China wants to go to the moon

A Hong Kong newspaper has reported that China's space program has set 2024 as the date of the nation's first moon walk.  The Chinese space agency believes that it has the technology, funds and resources to safely send a man to the moon.  Assuming everything goes according to plan, China wants to land a craft on the moon by 2020 to collect soil samples and conduct other studies.

China's lunar program will begin next year after a satellite designed to orbit the moon is launched. The nation's first lunar orbiter, the Chang'e 1, will provide 3D images of the moon's surface and gather information on the thickness of its soil. The Register reports: 

Stage one (putting a man in space) has already been accomplished. Stage two, which will see China's first space walk, and will run from 2009 to 2015. Stage three involves sending an unmanned robotic sample-return mission to the lunar surface, and is slated for 2017.

China is one of only three nations that have sent astronauts into space aboard the nation's own domestic rocket.  Space exploration is a topic on the agenda for many nations and NASA is currently working on a permanent moon base that would be used as a stepping stone for astronauts to physically explore Mars.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
?
By Randum on 6/20/2006 11:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
wow...so you're just a few generations behind..




RE: ?
By Griswold on 6/20/2006 12:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
And that is the perfect reason to not do it again? And who knows, maybe they wont find anything that has been left behind by Apollo 11.. would be embarrassing ;)

For the record, I do think the US was on the moon, I just wouldnt sign a paper that says it happened with Apollo 11.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 12:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Do you believe conical or triangular tinfoil head protection provides better protection against government mind-control satellites?


RE: ?
By bob661 on 6/20/2006 3:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you believe conical or triangular tinfoil head protection provides better protection against government mind-control satellites?
I prefer conical. :)


RE: ?
By johnsonx on 6/20/2006 12:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the record, I do think the US was on the moon, I just wouldnt sign a paper that says it happened with Apollo 11.


I hearby, on penalty of my life, swear that two US astronauts landed, walked, hopped and sometimes drove on the moon during each of the Apollo Missions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and that it all happened very much as presented. If this is not in fact true, then any one who proves otherwise is welcome to kill me (or I will kill myself upon receipt of proof if that is more convenient).

Anyone who believes in any of the moon-landing hoax theories is an absolute idiot. Yes, some of them are probably intelligent, and even smart, but still absolute idiots.


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/20/2006 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hear hear!

Although...perhaps another arms/space race is on now with China? I think that we should stick to unmanned missions: inherently safer (for obvious reasons) and they cost very little $.

Just my humble opinion.


RE: ?
By Eris23007 on 6/20/2006 7:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and lord knows, safer is always better. You sure solve a whole lot of problems with the "safe" solution.

Bah. Give me pushing boundaries, taking risks, going to the limits and beyond any day.


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/20/2006 11:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bah. Give me pushing boundaries, taking risks, going to the limits and beyond any day.


Try telling that to the family members of the Columbia crew...I am sure that they will find it very comforting. Why don't you volunteer yourself for new HIV/AIDS medicine testing and spare a primate, if you like to take risks so badly.


RE: ?
By NT78stonewobble on 6/21/2006 5:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
Columbia and Challenger crews all knew the risks and still did it.

I think their actions and thoughts while these people were alive should represent them.

Not their families or you after their death.

I think that guts, a willingness to advance mankind for all of us, selfsacrifice and future hope is the legacy that every single space explorer leaves behind.

Screw ordinary...



RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/21/2006 12:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that guts, a willingness to advance mankind for all of us, selfsacrifice and future hope is the legacy that every single space explorer leaves behind.


That is all well and good, but there are problems with your line of reasoning. First of all, we sent men to the moon not for science nor for all of mankind, we did it because we had something to prove against the Soviets during the Cold War...not how much better our science and technology was, but rather that we could spend far more money than they could. They beat us to space, so we did the next best thing and beat them to the moon. Science was not the primary reason we went to the moon, no matter what you say.

Second, yes the space shuttle crews know the risks. However, we lost those crews not because of an unforseen danger or some tragic circumstance beyond our control, but because of our own cost-cutting, short-sighted measures that could have easily been prevented. We (the American government and taxpayers) are ultimately responsible for their deaths...not nature or the unknown. We failed those astronauts.

We have learned far more about the our solar system, galaxy, and universe from unmanned probes than we have from manned missions. Unmanned missions require less money, are relatively safe, and produce results. I say forget the space shuttle and give me back Hubble.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2006 2:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "We did it because we had something to prove against the Soviets "

Regardless of motivations, the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs generated a vast amount of invaluable scientific data and technological breakthroughs. Advances that paid for the program many times over.


> "I say forget the space shuttle "

There is more to space than just "learning about it". Ultimately, we want to explore and conquer it, and to eventually begin to tap its vast resources. That won't happen with humanity permanently trapped upon the Earth.


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/21/2006 3:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless of motivations, the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs generated a vast amount of invaluable scientific data and technological breakthroughs. Advances that paid for the program many times over.


This is highly debatable. I agree we learned a lot from manned missions, but they have yet to be as valuable as the unmanned missions and other projects. Does the cost of an aging space shuttle fleet, not to mention human lives, warrant further manned exploration at this time? Possibly...possibly not.

quote:
There is more to space than just "learning about it". Ultimately, we want to explore and conquer it, and to eventually begin to tap its vast resources. That won't happen with humanity permanently trapped upon the Earth.


We're a long way from conquering space or harvesting materials from other planets. I think you've been watching too much Star Trek. Once we figure out a safe way to travel a significant fraction of the speed of light, then human exploration will be justified. Right now, we neither have the resources nor technology for such ventures, and I would venture a guess that it will be many centuries before we do.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2006 4:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "This is highly debatable"

Err, no its not. The massive economic payback of Apollo has been demonstrated countless times. Now, you can argue an unmanned version might have yielded the same results...but you cannot argue the results themselves.

> "We're a long way from conquering space or harvesting materials from other planets"

We'll never make any progress down here on Earth either, now will we?

As for exploiting the resources of space, we're not nearly as far as you believe. With a concerted effort, we could begin mining and manufacturing on the lunar surface in 25 years. Not long after that, we could be tapping the resources of the asteroid belt.

> "Once we figure out a safe way to travel a significant fraction of the speed of light..."

What nonsense is this? There are eight other planets, a few dozen moons, and countless millions of asteroids RIGHT HERE. In this solar system. We don't need lightspeed travel to harvest those resources. We have the technlogy *already* to reach those locations.


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/21/2006 5:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, no its not. The massive economic payback of Apollo has been demonstrated countless times. Now, you can argue an unmanned version might have yielded the same results...but you cannot argue the results themselves.


I am willing to concede that, as a byproduct from preparing for manned space missions, we gained greatly. However, I do not agree that we have benefitted greatly merely from sending humans into space. Our economic payback did not come from the humans being in space, but rather the lessons learned during the preparation for space travel.

quote:
As for exploiting the resources of space, we're not nearly as far as you believe. With a concerted effort, we could begin mining and manufacturing on the lunar surface in 25 years. Not long after that, we could be tapping the resources of the asteroid belt.


Not going to happen. You're still in a fantasy world on this one. There is no way that we will be mining the moon in 25 years. We may have a temporary lunar base for sending people to Mars in 25-50 years, but not for commercial purposes such as mining. Look how long it took to build the international space station, which isn't very far (relatively, as compared to the moon or Mars) from the Earth's surface. I don't see us harvesting from the moon in 25 years, no matter how much money we spend.

quote:
What nonsense is this? There are eight other planets, a few dozen moons, and countless millions of asteroids RIGHT HERE. In this solar system. We don't need lightspeed travel to harvest those resources. We have the technlogy *already* to reach those locations.


LOL. The fact that Mars is always at least 35 million miles from Earth makes human travel (at this time, from a technological standpoint) impractical at best. I think that given our current propulsion systems, it would take roughly 4 months to reach Mars. And that is when Mars is closest to Earth. Now look at Pluto, it is many times that distance away from Earth. So, travelling at lightspeed (or a significant fraction, thanks to time-dilation) becomes not only attractive, but very necessary. So, even for intra-system travel, lightspeed is not nonsense . Perhaps you should volunteer to be the first human to be sent to Mars, or somewhere else in our solar system. It will be a long, lonely trip with our technology.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2006 6:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "Mars is always at least 35 million miles from Earth makes human travel (at this time, from a technological standpoint) impractical...it would take roughly 4 months to reach Mars"

With a minimum-energy Hohmann transfer orbit, a bit longer than that. Is a six month voyage for humans "wholly impractical"? Less than 150 years ago, Great Britain was regularly sending large crews of men for voyages even longer.

However, a Hohmann orbit is only needed if we rely upon chemical based propulsion. We had nuclear-based designs under development in the 1960s...work halted due to the Nuclear Test Ban treaty. However, even the simplest of those designs would cut travel time to Mars from months to weeks. The most advanced of them to a few days travel. These are designs that-- had we continued in the 1960s, would have been OPERATIONAL in the 1970s. This is not "Star Trek" technology.

I won't go into details of delta V and specific impulse, but chemical-based propulsion is wholly unsuited for space travel. There just isn't enough energy available. So most of your fuel is spent accelerating the fuel itself...and you spend most of your trip just coasting along, with your engines off.

> "So, even for intra-system travel, lightspeed is not nonsense ."

Skipped astrodynamics in college eh? I didn't.


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/21/2006 6:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm. You keep changing the topic. OK, so I take it that you agree with me, that we won't be harvesting the moon's resources in 25 years?

So, if it takes six months to reach Mars (using the technology that we have available to us), that means that even if you turn right around, the roundtrip will take a year. Yeah, not practical really for humans. Possible, yes, but not practical. What will we have accomplished? Nothing.

Astrodynamics, eh? Good for you. Note that all resepected scientists have concluded that travelling c , or significant fraction thereof, will be required to reach other planets, even those further out in our own solar system, within a typical human lifespan. This would be practical, because of time-dilation. Go look it up.

Let me know when you construct the impulse engine and warp drive, I can't wait to see it in action.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2006 8:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "so I take it that you agree with me, that we won't be harvesting the moon's resources in 25 years?"

Without a concerted effort, it won't happen in that period, obviously. With an effort, it will. With an Apollo-level committment, its doable in under 20 years time. Is that likely? No...but it's certainly possible.

> "So, if it takes six months to reach Mars (using the technology that we have available to us), "

No, no, NO. It takes 6 months with chemical propulsion. But we have better technology available to us, that would enable such a trip in weeks or less. Days, if we spend a little development time on a high-Isp engine.

> [the] roundtrip will take a year. Yeah, not practical really for humans.

Magellan's expedition from Spain lasted three full years. That was a very "practical" trip...especially for Spain. The result's of that exploration laid the basis for the entire Spanish empire.

> "Note that all resepected scientists have concluded that travelling c , or significant fraction thereof, will be required to reach other planets, even those further out in our own solar system, within a typical human lifespan"

I'm still laughing over this one. Name one "respected scientist" who claims we need a lightspeed engine to reach the outer planets? I can name several dozen off the top of my head who claim otherwise.

Are you not aware that we've reached well BEYOND Pluto already...with 1970s-era satellites? Satellites that didn't even accelerate all the way there...but simply coasted for 99.9999% of the trip?

Even for manned flights, we don't need luminal-speed ships. We just need 1960s-era nuclear reactors, suitably modified to heat water to a high enough temperature to provide a reasonable I(sp).


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/21/2006 10:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you not aware that we've reached well BEYOND Pluto already...with 1970s-era satellites?


I am indeed aware of Voyager. However, it took Voyager 25 years to reach the edge of our solar system. You are proposing that humans be sent on missions that they will never come back from using today's availble technology. I don't care about ion drives and what not, I'm talking about what we use today and what we will be using for the foreseeable future.

So you argue that space travel is possible using a propulsion system other than chemical. Fine, I agree with that in theory. But notice that JPL continues to use chemical propulsion and is likely to continue doing so for the near future. Yes, there are other ideas, but they are far from realized. As I said before, in order for humans to travel to other planets in a reasonable amount of time (3 years isn't acceptable, sure, early explorers did it, but they weren't stuck in space with no resources and many million miles away from home), lightspeed or a significant fraction thereof will be required. You're off in lala land pal. Since you like to place wagers, I'll wager you that humans do not travel to the edge of our solar system in your lifetime, and probably not during mine either.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/22/2006 12:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
> I don't care about ion drives and what not. I'm talking about what we use today and what we will be using for the foreseeable future..."

Lol, I suppose you're not aware that Deep Space 1 (launched what, almost a decade ago?) used an ion drive for propulsion. Or that the US built and tested a prototype nuclear pulse engine in the 1960s...nearly 40 years ago! Or that NASA was recently given funding for "Project Prometheus", to develop nuclear propulsion for an eventual mission to Mars?

The only reason we abandoned nuclear propulsion in the 1960s was the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which pretty much forbid serious development. It wasn't due to any innate problems with the technology. Had the political climate been a bit different, our first trip to the moon might have been with a nuclear rocket, rather than a chemical one.

> "in order for humans to travel to other planets in a reasonable amount of time...lightspeed or a significant fraction thereof will be required"

Look, you claim to be an engineer (though your past comments have made me doubt) so try this simple calculation. Work out how long it takes a spacecraft to reach a "significant fraction" of lightspeed via acceleration at 0.1g, 1g, or even 5g (not that humans could stand a sustained 5g acceleration for any length of time). Now, calculate how far the spacecraft would travel in that length of time. See the result? Oops. Before you've gotten anynear near lightspeed, you're already well outside the orbit of Pluto, much less Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune.

This is why any reasonable scientist actually believes the opposite. That lightspeed is not only unneeded for interplanetary travel, its actually infeasible.

We don't need warp drives to explore the solar system. All we need is a nuclear "teakettle", using superheated steam for propulsion mass. That gets us Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and a several dozen large moons...all with a transit time of a few weeks or less. Uranus, Neptune, and would have travel times on the order of a few months..a bit over a year for a trip to Pluto and back.

All feasible. With today's technology. No "warp drives" needed, sorry.


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/22/2006 11:10:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All feasible. With today's technology.


I noticed that JPL says that it will not be using an ion-drive nor a nuclear reactor in it's next spacecraft, which is going to be used to go to the moon and Mars.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/future_missions.c...
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=...

Try reading JPL's site. It is very informative. And it seems that you're full of it.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/22/2006 11:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
> "I noticed that JPL says that it will not be using an ion-drive nor a nuclear reactor in it's next spacecraft"

Because travel time isn't a factor for a robotic probe. It is though for manned flights...as you so emotionally point out.

The facts stand. JPL has *already* used ion drives in other spacecraft. Nuclear propulsion was feasible decades ago. And NASA is already planning a Mars mission which will utilize it.


> "And it seems that you're full of it"

I'm sure the truth is clear to anyone else reading this thread. You've been proven wrong multiple times, and have ignored several requests to back up your more fanciful claims.

BTW, still waiting on your list of "respected scientists" who claim we need lightspeed travel to reach other planets in our own solar systme.


RE: ?
By ksuWildcat on 6/22/2006 4:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The facts stand. JPL has *already* used ion drives in other spacecraft. Nuclear propulsion was feasible decades ago. And NASA is already planning a Mars mission which will utilize it.


Yes, JPL has used an ion-drive on an unmanned probe and they have experimented with nuclear reactors. However, JPL is not planning on using these technologies on the next generation of manned spacecraft. Read JPL's website. They will continue to use chemical propellants and solid rocket fuels on manned missions for the forseeable future.

Read NASA's website and just google interstellar travel. Most scientists agree that lightspeed will be required at the minimum, not including wormholes and what not. Read this:

http://www.answers.com/topic/interstellar-travel

This stuff isn't made up. For humans to travel to the edge of our solar system, in a reasonable amount of time (thanks to time-dilation), c is in fact very necessary. Coasting at 30,000 mph isn't going to get the job done (unless you can wait 20 years to reach Pluto). You need to read more from NASA and JPL and less from some trekkie site.


RE: ?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2006 8:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "Read JPL's website. They will continue to use chemical propellants and solid rocket fuels on manned missions for the forseeable future."

Lol, you just keep embarrassing yourself. JPL plans NO MANNED FLIGHTS whatsoever. It operates robotic exploration missions only.

Furthermore, JPL is NOT "using chemical propellants for the forseable future". Their next deep-range spacecraft ("Dawn", launching next year), uses an ION DRIVE.

NASA itself plans manned flights. And its planning a manned Mars mission using nuclear propulsion.

> "Read NASA's website and just google interstellar travel. Most scientists agree that lightspeed will be required at the minimum..."

Interstellar travel. Of course. But we've been talking about Interplanetary travel. You do know the difference, don't you? Travel within our own solar system, at distances 1/1000 or less of that to even the nearest star.

Why not show some character and just admit you were wrong?


RE: ?
By NT78stonewobble on 6/22/2006 12:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
"That is all well and good, but there are problems with your line of reasoning. First of all, we sent men to the moon not for science nor for all of mankind, we did it because we had something to prove against the Soviets during the Cold War...not how much better our science and technology was, but rather that we could spend far more money than they could. They beat us to space, so we did the next best thing and beat them to the moon. Science was not the primary reason we went to the moon, no matter what you say. "

Science about the origins of the moon, rocket technology, aerotech, working / living in space, computing, high tensile materials... Everything was pressed through the catalyst that is that project of going to the moon.

"Second, yes the space shuttle crews know the risks. However, we lost those crews not because of an unforseen danger or some tragic circumstance beyond our control, but because of our own cost-cutting, short-sighted measures that could have easily been prevented. We (the American government and taxpayers) are ultimately responsible for their deaths...not nature or the unknown. We failed those astronauts. "

Well In that case you will have to vote differently. At not liberalising nasa and its subsidaries. Take out the profit margin of the whole industry and accept that it costs money to stay at the forefront.

Unmanned probes doesn't mean a thing. You know that. You can't advance out if youre not going. Unmanned probes is like ordering the food and getting it delivered.

PS. You can't service Hubble without the space shuttle. (that is a piece of crap tho and should be replaced, hubble and shuttle.)






One way ticket?
By Griswold on 6/20/2006 8:31:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Chinese space agency believes that it has the technology, funds and resources to safely send a man to the moon.


No return ticket? Guess they have enough men to not consider a safe return flight. :D




RE: One way ticket?
By ksherman on 6/20/2006 8:45:27 AM , Rating: 2
its a new form of population control...

"Forget one child per family, we'll send them all to the moon!!!"


RE: One way ticket?
By captchaos2 on 6/20/2006 9:38:13 AM , Rating: 3
So, in the future everything I buy will say "made on the moon" instead of "made in Taiwan"?


RE: One way ticket?
By Hypernova on 6/20/2006 10:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
You are confusing Taiwan (RC) with China (PRC).


RE: One way ticket?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 10:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "You are confusing Taiwan (RC) with China (PRC). "

A confusion the PRC is guilty of as well. China has succesfully blocked Taiwan from calling itself either "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" in most international organizations. Which is why you heard Taiwan referred to as "Chinese Taipei" during the Olympics. China exerts a lot of pressure. When you take a flight to Taiwan now, airlines are forced to call it "Chinese Taipei" as well.

The UN has gone even further. Taiwan is listed there as "Taiwan, Province of China".

Eventually China will invade Taiwan, and forcibly subdue the populace....unless the world body stops them, that is. And I'm losing faith in that event.


RE: One way ticket?
By slackpiv on 6/20/2006 11:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh do you have to bash China in every artical? China has no plans to invade China. Only to deter China. Frankly i doubt they even have a capable enough amphibious force to even manage to land in Taiwan. The bulk of the Chinese military is obsolete having basically ak-47s and 1960s era destroyers. I guess the US is having fits when China builds 2 aegis class desttroyers when the US has over 50. China doesn't even have an aircraft carrier for crying out loud.


RE: One way ticket?
By Griswold on 6/20/2006 12:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
But they can throw alot of anti-ship equiped MiGs at any fleet. ;)

BTW, they dont need carrier crafts.


RE: One way ticket?
By NullSubroutine on 6/20/2006 12:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China has no plans to invade China. Only to deter China.


lol!


RE: One way ticket?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 12:10:27 PM , Rating: 3
> "Frankly i doubt they even have a capable enough amphibious force to even manage to land in Taiwan"

They're building one fast, however. They're also aiming more and more missiles at Taiwan each year...the count is up to nearly 500 now. Are you seriously suggesting they're trying to just 'deter' Taiwan from attacking them? Lol.

China has ALREADY conducted several war games designed to simulate an amphibious assault and invasion of Taiwan. The only thing deterring them is the spectre of US intervention.

Since you live in China, perhaps you've heard of their "One China Policy"? Ever realize what that really means?

> "China doesn't even have an aircraft carrier for crying out loud. "

Let me educate you on some basic naval strategy. You need aircraft carriers to project air supremacy on a global basis. You do NOT need them to attack an island 100 miles off your own coast.


RE: One way ticket?
By slackpiv on 6/20/2006 9:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you seriously suggesting they're trying to just 'deter' Taiwan from attacking them?

no deter Taiwan from moving to formal independence which the current president seems to be doing despite strong public disapproval. His party took a strong hit in the recent elections.
500 missiles. Do you know how many missiles a single aegis class can carry? 96 cells for the arleigh burke class. Possibly higher for the Ticondaroga. A single carrier group carries more firepower than the entire Chinese navy.
quote:
Since you live in China, perhaps you've heard of their "One China Policy"? Ever realize what that really means?

One country two systems. If you ever opened a history war you will see that the Taiwan issue is the direct result of the 1949 civil war in which the nationalist party of China fleed to Taiwan after the communist party took over. Taiwan seemed content representing China in the UN up until the 1970s.
quote:
Let me educate you on some basic naval strategy. You need aircraft carriers to project air supremacy on a global basis. You do NOT need them to attack an island 100 miles off your own coast.

No you do not. i simply used that comment to elabroate on the fact that China's so called "insanely high spending" on the military (about 1/20th of the US budget) is frankly overstated by the US.

Masher2 this will be my last post in response to you. You can think w/e you want about China. I live in China right now. I know that the people that i live with and the people i see everyday have completely different opinions of China than what you have. I am content in with the improvements i've seen over the past 15 years even if you are not.



RE: One way ticket?
By NT78stonewobble on 6/21/2006 5:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
"2 x 5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre Mark 45 dual purpose guns; 2 x 20 mm Phalanx CIWS Mark 15 guns; 2 x twin-arm Mark 26 missile launcher + 44 SM-2 Standard II missiles; CG-52 on replace these with 2 x 61-cell Mark 41 VLS each armed with a mix of ASROC, Tomahawk, SM-2 and ESSM."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cru...

US Cruisers are mostly designed for Anti Air slash Anti-surface (ships) slash Anti submarine warfare. They are used for protecting the CVN's. A large amount of the missiles carried are anti air (SM-2) and anti sub (ASROC). Dunno bout the ESSM.

They are not the primary attack force thats the carrier airwings.

Equally I don't know of which type the 500 missiles china has aimed at taiwan is.

Even if theyre conventional surface to surface missiles, a barrage of 500 of them would probably decimate any of taiwans own forces. Not to mention airfields, bases, harbours and other essentials.

Just for the record I've got nothing against china. Hell, I want em to stay communist. It should just be free for every province and person to leave if they did not want to live there.

People need to accept failure even if its of the bedrock of their society.


RE: One way ticket?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2006 9:25:16 AM , Rating: 3
> "Equally I don't know of which type the 500 missiles china has aimed at taiwan is. "

Over 700 now, and rising, according to figures I recently looked up. M-11 ballistic missiles, primarily. 500 kg warhead, nuclear capable. Exact figures on how many of those aimed at Taiwan are actually nuclear-tipped are not available.


RE: One way ticket?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/21/2006 9:23:03 AM , Rating: 3
> "no deter Taiwan from moving to formal independence "

So you're claiming that if Taiwan does formally declare, China will just throw up its hands and say, "just kidding guys..we were just bluffing"? Sorry, geopolitique doesn't work that way.

Even without a formal declaration, China will eventually attempt to subdue Taiwan. Their strategy is simple. Prevent the world body from calling Taiwan anything but "Chinese Taipei" or "a province of China". Intimidate even the Taiwanese into silence on the issue.

Then-- when people are used to thinking of Taiwan as just a "breakaway province"-- invade. And trust the rest of the world will just consider it an internal dispute, instead of an attack on a sovereign nation.

> "which the current president seems to be doing despite strong public disapproval"

The Taiwanese people don't want to be part of China. They've had a separate government and nation for over 50 years. Accept the fact, and move on.

The only reason *some* Taiwanese don't want a formal declaration is because they're afraid China will attack immediately afterwards...and that'll make them part of China regardless.

> "500 missiles...

For the record, China will have 800 ballistic missiles targeted on Taiwan by years-end. They've recently increased the acquisition rate.

> "China's so called "insanely high spending" on the military (about 1/20th of the US budget)"

Oops...China's "publicized" military budget is closer to 1/12 the US budget. However, China doesn't include weapons R&D or new arms purchases. Actual Chinese spending is therefore 2-3 times higher. And, when you factor in economic differences (China doesn't exactly pay soldiers in US rates), you get a figure much closer to parity. And Chinese spending has been growing by 10-17% a year for quite some time...far faster than the US (or any other 1st-world nation, for that matter).



RE: One way ticket?
By mogwai403 on 6/21/2006 7:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Taiwanese people don't want to be part of China. They've had a separate government and nation for over 50 years. Accept the fact, and move on.


I couldn't agree more on this. However, the whole issue is further complicated with the composition of the Taiwanese population.

Initially after KMT's retreat to Taiwan, the original Taiwanese were treated as second class citizens and many doctors, teachers and local scholars were executed (basically, if they didn't kill those guys, we could have got some super awesome motherboard with top knotch quality). After nearly 60 years of cultural blending, the "new Taiwanese" is roughly divided into two parts; those descended from the original Taiwanese and those from China (there's more, but let's keep it simple).

The descendants of the original Taiwanese is obviously quite afraid of reuniting with China with their previous experience with KMT (and China isn't helping with their 700+ missles), meanwhile the descendants of the Chinese migrants are more fond of returning to China (more money apparently, something to do with economical growth, hey don't look at me, I know nothing about economics, I'm just an EE engineer)

I'm all for Taiwan independence, it's my dream, and it's our dream.


RE: One way ticket?
By rushfan2006 on 6/20/2006 12:17:42 PM , Rating: 3
Two basic comments ....

1) where do you get the idea that China is w/o a modern military aresenal? They are actually the closest thing to a super power after the USA that that world has left.

2) Yeah you are right they still use the AK-47, some of their forces do......of course the AK-47 is still after all this time one of the best assault rifles ever made by human hands. So yeah I can understand how that would be a joke -- still using an INCREDIBLY reliable and easily maintainable assault weapon, not to mention it having more penetration force than a M16 does.



RE: One way ticket?
By kattanna on 6/20/2006 10:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
why not...the russians did it back in the days with dogs



RE: One way ticket?
By Maximilian on 6/20/2006 11:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, long live Laika!!


RE: One way ticket?
By Griswold on 6/20/2006 12:02:44 PM , Rating: 5
In soviet russia, Laika bites you!


RE: One way ticket?
By bob5820 on 6/20/2006 4:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Chinese space agency believes that it has the technology, funds and resources to safely send a man to the moon.
No return ticket? Guess they have enough men to not consider a safe return flight. :D

The return flight is stage 4, scheduled for 2031


RE: One way ticket?
By trex1000 on 6/20/2006 6:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
I would not feel safe going into space in a ship with a big "MADE IN CHINA" stamped to it.

Seriously though, I do hope they pull it off perfectly. Space exploration and colonization is something we humans as a whole should be working together on.


plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By Visual on 6/20/2006 8:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
with that kind of timeframe, even *I* will manage to go to the moon. maybe even by foot.




By jkostans on 6/20/2006 9:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
I see you're very optimistic about your life expectancy.


RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By Souka on 6/20/2006 9:06:22 AM , Rating: 2
not likely

Perigee 363,300 km
Mean 384,400 km
Apogee 405,500 km

So assuming shortest distance....363,300km, walking at 4mph (or 6.437 kph), it would take you 2,338,698 hours to get there....assuming no breaks or rest.

Thats 266 years....



RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 9:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Err, your math is quite a bit off there. Rather more like 6 years than 266.


RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By tfranzese on 6/20/2006 9:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, your math is quite a bit off there. Rather more like 6 years than 266.


His math is correct, it's yours that's way off. Divide by the total hours by the number of hours in a day (24) and then the number of days by the number of days in a year (365) and you'll get that it is very nearly 267 years.


RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By tfranzese on 6/20/2006 9:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
His math is correct, it's yours that's way off. Divide the total hours by the number of hours in a day (24) and then the number of days by the number of days in a year (365) and you'll get that it is very nearly 267 years.


Edited.


By rushfan2006 on 6/20/2006 12:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His math is correct, it's yours that's way off. Divide the total hours by the number of hours in a day (24) and then the number of days by the number of days in a year (365) and you'll get that it is very nearly 267 years.


Funny I get closer to 6 years too when I do the math....try to actually figure out the problem for yourself before you back someone else who is already wrong. It works wonders for when you are trying to be a smart ass. ;)

And finally to all -- Um...I'm just guessing here but you guys are being a bit anal...I think the guy was kidding about walking to the moon, for obvious reasons and for joking around.

;)



RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 10:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "His math is correct, it's yours that's way off."

Did they suddenly stop teaching basic arithmetic in public schools? A distance (363,000 km), divided by a velocity (6.4 km/hour) gives a time of 56,700 hrs.

That's 6.4 years.


By littlebitstrouds on 6/20/2006 10:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
A. I think I'll jog.

B. Oh snap he just made you look like a fool twice. Burn.


RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By cpeter38 on 6/20/2006 1:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
However, if you multiply the two numbers and crunch them in a calculator (not stopping to consider that your hours are more than the number of km - a classic sign of GIGO), you do indeed get an answer of 200+ years.

Love that new math - it MUST be correct if you got the result from a calculator ...


RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By jkostans on 6/20/2006 2:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to say it, but with the info provided in that first post, the answer is 6.4 years. The distance is in (km), and the velocity is on (km/h). Dividing (km) by (km/h) gives hours. Multiplying them gives (km^2/h) which is wrong. I think I learned this is middle school.... you're a classic sign of GIGO.


RE: plan for a mission to mars by 3812?
By Xavian on 6/21/2006 12:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
indeed it is approximately 6.46 years to walk from earth to the moon at its shortest distance. Let me do the math for you:

6.4 x 24 x 7 x 52 = approximately 56,700km/year
363000km / 56,700km/year = 6.46 years approximately.

I added quantities at the end of the numbers to make it easier for the GIGO guys to understand.


By Xavian on 6/21/2006 12:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
363300 i mean not 363000

even so the results wouldn't differ much at all.


By DigitalFreak on 6/20/2006 1:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hell, by then even India will have people on the moon. They're running out of room to build new call centers here.


18 years away?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 9:08:59 AM , Rating: 3
Honestly, I'm surprised China didn't set a sooner target, given the amount of resources they're pumping into missile and astronautical development. A moon shoot is tremendous national prestige....and, if they decide to leave a base there, a very valuable military, political, and economic asset.




RE: 18 years away?
By Griswold on 6/20/2006 9:14:30 AM , Rating: 3
Preparations for the big cover-up, if the mission fails, take time. We'll never hear about a failure, thats for sure. :P


RE: 18 years away?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/20/2006 9:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure we will since nothing makes it into orbit without the U.S. noticing. Remember U.S. does have way more sattelites than anyone else, by far, we see all.


RE: 18 years away?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 9:28:44 AM , Rating: 1
> "I'm pretty sure we will since nothing makes it into orbit without the U.S. noticing"

Sure we'll notice it...but we won't know what's on it. I believe Griswold is alluding to the old Soviet trick. Perform an unannounced launch. If it works-- it had people on it. If it crashes and burns...it was just a test dummy flight.


RE: 18 years away?
By jskirwin on 6/20/2006 9:39:44 AM , Rating: 4
Negotiations over acquiring the Hollywood sets the US used to fake the moon landings are taking longer than expected.


RE: 18 years away?
By Mclendo06 on 6/20/2006 10:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
You are joking, right? Please tell me you don't believe all the tin-foil hat people.


RE: 18 years away?
By rrsurfer1 on 6/20/2006 11:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
AHAHAHA!

There only a few decades late to the party...

Go China Go ;)


RE: 18 years away?
By slackpiv on 6/20/2006 11:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
Better late then never :). The maoist era has really screwed us over. Closing down schools, unveriversity and sending my family to a farm. That's the reason why ;).


RE: 18 years away?
By Griswold on 6/20/2006 12:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
You dont have to be able to count to three to know that this was exactly what happened - many times too. :)


RE: 18 years away?
By TomZ on 6/20/2006 10:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, sheesh, the U.S. did that in 1968. Considering the technology available now and the resources at their disposal, I wonder why it would take them so long.


RE: 18 years away?
By mechwarrior1989 on 6/20/2006 10:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you consider the current state of things, China is pumping much less into missle and space development than the US did during the Cold War if you adjust for inflation and all that. I believe that the US budget was like 25% into military expenditure or something during that time which was astronomical. China doesn't really HAVE to go to the moon, it's more of a long term goal just to show that they can do it. Plus it'd put them one over the Soviets, well I guess they're just the Russians now since they never went to the moon.


Did They Ask?
By littlebitstrouds on 6/20/2006 10:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the moon belong to us? I mean our flag has been displayed now for some 40 odd years. GET OFF OUR LAND CHINA.




RE: Did They Ask?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/20/2006 11:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
A claim requires constant habitation by some minimum period. The US isn't eligible...but China is, if they stick around :-|


RE: Did They Ask?
By Griswold on 6/20/2006 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. Doesnt that insignia they left on the moon read "..for all mankind"? Tough luck. :P


RE: Did They Ask?
By DigitalFreak on 6/20/2006 1:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
China doesn't count. :-)


RE: Did They Ask?
By JackPack on 6/20/2006 9:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
They'll just replace the American flag. :)


If they actually DO make it...
By Creig on 6/20/2006 5:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think the rest of the world should censor it from their history books. Just to give China a taste of their own medicine.




RE: If they actually DO make it...
By JackPack on 6/20/2006 9:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. The irony of your statement. Do you live in the Police State of America?


By fcukchina on 6/20/2006 11:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about?

Here I am in America, what information am I *denied* access to?

Anti-American idiocy.


RE: If they actually DO make it...
By jconan on 6/20/2006 10:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think they're probably putting the research in to mining He3 and how to utilize it or turn it into economical energy means. When they actually make it to the moon probably by then ITER will have suceeded in making fusion possible. The moon base may be stepping stone to space colonization to provide energy needs not feasible with fission reactors nor environmentally friendly.


hahaha.
By iamright on 6/20/2006 9:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
good thing china is about 60 years late




RE: hahaha.
By SaintSinner1 on 6/20/2006 10:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
they could just construct human piramide to get to moon


RE: hahaha.
By iamright on 6/20/2006 10:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
hahahahaha

that would be more economical for sure. I wonder why nobody has thought of that yet?


30+ years ago
By redeyedfly on 6/20/2006 10:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, didn't we already do this 30+ years ago. No big deal..




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki