backtop

Print 82 comment(s) - last by flubaluba.. on Jun 23 at 2:12 PM

  (Source: historymartinez.files.wordpress.com)
China's recent successful manned mission has started a space race debate

Now that China has successfully completed its first manned mission, the United States is worried that it may be left behind when it comes to space-related endeavors.

China initially launched its Tiangong 1 prototype space station module in September 2011 and linked its Shenzhou 8 spacecraft to it in November. Earlier this month, China completed its first manned mission to Tiangong 1 using its Shenzhou 9 spacecraft, which contained the country's first female astronaut.

With so many firsts under China's belt, the U.S. is getting a little worried. Some scientists, such as lunar geologist Paul Spudis say that China could renounce the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states that no one can claim national sovereignty in space. Spudis believes that potential resources on the moon, such as water, could tempt the country into renouncing the treaty.

There are also worries about the U.S. government's space program. While the U.S. has the private sector (SpaceX) taking care of space-related business for now, there are concerns regarding the private sector's ability to uphold the American space effort without the government's support. The U.S.' funding for the space program has been quite low, even to the point where NASA urged Congress to provide the full $850 million for commercial crew vehicle development last October.

However, the private sector has made strong contributions so far with SpaceX's Dragon cargo capsule making its first successful trip to the International Space Station (ISS) last month.

Others aren't quite as worried about China's position in the space race. According to Jeff Foust, an aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher, China's space program could potentially face some issues with coordination because it is ran by many different government agencies instead of just one.

Regardless, China is now a member of the space race and the U.S. may be taking the new potential competitor into consideration.

Source: Yahoo News


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By BigT383 on 6/20/2012 6:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
"America delves into Marxism"... by under-funding the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in lieu of contracting the private sector.


By knutjb on 6/20/2012 6:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
Using private companies to do much of the work is fine. When it comes to the banner that it functions under is something completely different. NASA didn't build the space shuttle "in-house."


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Pirks on 6/20/2012 6:54:55 PM , Rating: 1
The US were doing pretty good at space race when there was a tough opponent like USSR. Now Americans don't do shit 'cause there's no competition. It's like MS and IE in 2000's - no competing browsers - no IE development.

Now there's finally a replacement for the USSR as The Main Bad Guy, so now as China ramps up their space program and builds up their military the US finally has a reason to cut a few billions here and there from the social/welfare programs, and funnel them into space research.

It's a good thing China decided to get into space, I'm pretty sure NASA is smiling happily and already drawing mega plans about some new big space push, like getting a human to Mars and back.

Remember Recalimer, competition is GOOOOOD! :)


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By HrilL on 6/20/2012 7:35:43 PM , Rating: 4
ROFL. We can cut 2 Trillion in welfare/social programs a year and still be spending more than 600 Billion than we have to spend. We're at the point of total collapse and they're just trying to postpone the inevitable while sucking any last riches from the masses. Our government can't compete with anyone at this point because Our debt is 1.1:1 of our GDP at this point. You can't spend yourself out of a recession.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By espaghetti on 6/20/2012 8:00:20 PM , Rating: 4
You're right. FDR proved it.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Ringold on 6/20/2012 10:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
If FDR had it entirely right, Greece, France and Italy would be the wealthiest nations on Earth, and Hong Kong and Singapore would be desolate 3rd world slums. Germany would be the sick man of Europe, not the relative powerhouse. Use a little logic, if possible.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Samus on 6/21/2012 3:48:21 AM , Rating: 3
FDR and Nixon both completely screwed this country up fiscally. Not that they saw it coming, who could have predicted todays politicians would take advantage of every program and economic policy they implemented to hook up their cronies?


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Amiga500 on 6/21/2012 5:01:53 AM , Rating: 1
FDR was an honest man... he would never have anticipated crooks getting in charge.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Solandri on 6/21/2012 6:00:15 AM , Rating: 4
What saved FDR (and what could potentially save us) is simply growth and inflation. If you look at tax revenue vs. spending without adjusting for inflation, it's pretty easy to see what happened:
http://cheatlikecrazy.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/...

Federal spending reached nearly 50% of GDP during WWII. That's compared to about 18%-20% in the last 3 decades. The Federal government accumulated a massive amount of debt during the war. But simply due to inflation, that debt barely even registers in today's dollars (it's the small red bump just to the right of "1940").

In other words, we don't have to pay off our debt. If we just eliminate the deficits (balance the budget each year), over time that unpaid debt will grow in terms of dollars, but due to inflation will shrink in terms of % of GDP. That's what happened after WWII. Here's a graph of debt as % of GDP.
http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d2b68c54...

As you can see, our debt situation at the end of WWII was worse than our debt situation today (as percentage of GDP). But during 1946-1970, Federal spending was about the same as revenue. And so without paying a dime of debt, the debt shrank as a percent of GDP simply due to inflation and growth in the GDP.
http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/e...


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By WalksTheWalk on 6/21/2012 11:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
Call me negative, but I don't see that happening since the market is quite global now, and the US doesn't have the internal manufacturing sector we had back then. The US was a world leader in many industries that are now provided by many other countries.

As the global market flattens out across more and more countries, the wealth will spread as well. We are going to need to get much leaner to keep up with the global market and the US government and citizens needs to realize that. Without the government and citizens getting their houses in order financially, the US is going to eventually hit the wall.


By JediJeb on 6/21/2012 2:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not just the US, but all developed nations that have decided to push manufacturing out to less developed countries for one reason or another(cheaper labor returns cheaper products, environmental concerns ect.)

A service based economy such as we are moving towards can not be as sustainable as a manufacturing one, since once money becomes short people tend to perform more of those services themselves, while during the same conditions most can not manufacture the things they need so still have to purchase them. Example, times are good and the handyman/light construction business flourishes, times are hard people become versed in Do It Yourself. Places like Lowe's and Home Depot make out good in both types of economies, but the smaller contractor/handyman sees a large drop in business.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2012 8:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
FDR threatened the Supreme Court that if they didn't approve Social Security as being constitutional, he would pack the court with more justices who would vote with him. The only reason he wasn't able to, is because Congress rebuked him.

Hardly an honest man.


By JPForums on 6/21/2012 11:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hardly an honest man.

Sure he was. He honestly told them what he was going to do if he didn't get his way. (Sarcasm for those who can't tell)


By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2012 10:00:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
who could have predicted todays politicians would take advantage of every program and economic policy they implemented to hook up their cronies?


The Founders of this nation and writers of the Constitution. They were adamantly apposed to wealth redistribution.


By jRaskell on 6/21/2012 1:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
who could have predicted todays politicians would take advantage of every program and economic policy they implemented to hook up their cronies?

How about anyone with half a brain?


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By knutjb on 6/21/2012 8:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FDR and Nixon both completely screwed this country up fiscally.
I would agree with FDR but Nixon was handed a snafu from LBJ. LBJ moved the Social Security from an isolated account to the general fund to finance his war. Nixon inherited that mess and floundered. Completely screwed up, the history doesn't entirely support that.

The devistaion we are feeling from LBJ and the Great Society. The Great Society has cost over $16T with only a fraction of a percent change in poverty. But if you think it was great the number of people trapped in poverty by those programs as the metric, you win.


By Ringold on 6/21/2012 11:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree about Nixon. Getting us out of Vietnam before the country destroyed itself is an unsung achievement of sorts too; he had to go as far as put leaks out there to the Vietnamese suggesting he was madman ready to launch the nukes and glass the entire country to get them to the table for talks.

Could take the position he should've won the war (personally think it was Johnsons to win or lose, the die was cast already for Nixon), but the route he decided to take he executed better then, I would say, most presidents could have.


By StevoLincolnite on 6/20/2012 8:24:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
China exploits their natural resources. America locks them away and even pays OTHER countries to come mine and drill here (fact, look it up). China embraces Capitalism, America is delving into Marxism. China buys others debt, America is racking debt up to the sky.


This is why Australia was one of the very tiny few developed nations not to go into recession, the mining sector is booming thanks to China.
Australia isn't afraid to tap into it's vast natural resources.

Plus the Australian Government did enter the global recession with a surplus and did allot of heavy spending on infrastructure to stimulate more jobs. (Like the National Fiber network being rolled out.)
They did not however waste billions bailing out failing companies and instead focused on projects that benefited the people.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Strunf on 6/21/2012 7:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
Australia is hardly a good example... its population is rather small 22 million, or 2x the population of Greece but unlike Greece it has a huge amount of natural resources...


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Aries1470 on 6/21/2012 1:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are wrong!
Greece DOES have plenty of Natural Resources, but lacks in Political Will (aka Balls), for the Good of the Nation and not lining EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN and all others in line too!

Even the workers were paying workers to do their job while the new Athens Metro was being built!

Greece does have Gas & Oil Reserves but has not taken advantage of them due to political infight and who would get their "miza"!

Australia done so well because the People here did NOT HAVE 100+ "tameia" (social security companies...) that is for their pension, they have a compulsary Super Annuation... that is different for every sector but people can choose their own in most cases, and pension is done from a goverment agency depandant on what they have. If they have a good income come pension age, they are not entitled to it. Occassionly there can be mistakes, but in general it works!

BUT the biggest issue is, that TAX IS COLLECTED DIRECTLY FROM THE EMPLOYER and passed to the Tax office.
Australians are also one of the highest taxed people for low to middle income earners about 20%-35%, and if you do NOT declare your TFN (Tax File Number) to your employer, it goes to 50%. The rich as always, anywhere they are, know how to get around the loopholes.

So, get the old mines open again, get the Natural Resources up and running, since the surveys had been completed in the 1970's & 80's! but the infight for who to auction off to, and then cancelation with each government changing, like N.D. & PASOK... not to mention the mis-management of the economy too. The economists knew already that this would be happening from the mid 1980's!

So get your facts right. When Greece was shown how to improve and compete, they snobbed it. When they tried to merge the "Tameia", everyone, as is "normal" there, went on strikes and made the government unstable!
Get of your high horses and get a reality check.
That is what I will leave it at.

Greece DOES have natural resources, as in Metals and black gold and Electricity too!

Get the Tidal generators going - under water, so electricity and de-salination, Athens knows it needs it..., the Oil Wells and the large & smaller mines (the argument being... but they will not be profitable making billions when they can only make plenty of millions attitude) that have been abononed or not started, and get ALL the people to support the reforms with-out the "fakelakia"(envelopes under the table) & "mizes" (hush-hush money for winning a project) and let the winner be on merit for once!


By JediJeb on 6/21/2012 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BUT the biggest issue is, that TAX IS COLLECTED DIRECTLY FROM THE EMPLOYER and passed to the Tax office. Australians are also one of the highest taxed people for low to middle income earners about 20%-35%, and if you do NOT declare your TFN (Tax File Number) to your employer, it goes to 50%. The rich as always, anywhere they are, know how to get around the loopholes.


This is something that is killing the US budget also because we are not taxing around 50% of the people in the country at all. If we would tax every single person at the exact same rate with no deductions or loopholes, we would probably not have problems with running a deficit. This way everyone pays "their fair share" unlike now when the "fair share" is only paid if someone else is paying it. To pay the extra $1.5 trillion in deficit spending in the current proposed budget it would require an increase of about 30% to all those in the income bracket that actually pay taxes now, but if you include all wage earners(even people receiving 100% from the government in welfare) you could add less than 10% to each person and pay that deficit. It is only a "fair" system when everyone is paying an equal share.

(for the record I make about $45k per year, so I am not one of the 1%ers and I still feel this way about things)


By Strunf on 6/22/2012 8:41:42 AM , Rating: 1
Every country has natural resources... what you fail to see is that is not about having or not resources but what kind of resources and how much, Greece has some Oil but nothing that big 10 million bbl, Australia 3,318 million... they are ranked 89 in terms of proven reserves, Australia 29.
You're wrong when you say they didn't invest in oil exploration, in 2011 the government approved 3 new exploration sites.

Besides Oil Australia has 1/5 of the world reserves of Uranium, lot's of coal and natural gas, but yeah keep comparing both as if they were at the same level.

Let me laugh at your renewal energy sources, they require a huge investment with little to NO PROFIT, only countries that have a very good balance sheet can afford to invest on renewals. Your argument of mines is pure bullshit it's not up to the government to open mines, that is the job of investors and private companies and if they don't do it it's cause there isn't money to be made there.

Greeks do well in protesting, ultimately all these bailouts are done to save the investors (mostly German banks and others) not to save the Greeks.


By MechanicalTechie on 6/20/2012 8:25:49 PM , Rating: 4
You forget to mention the million+ engineers and scientist that China produces annually, their culture of hard work anddddd their drive to be well educated.

The US is pass its zenith... most care more about fashion and celebrities than education. The majority couldn’t give a damn about politics(which is controlled by special interests groups and big business) nor understand the ramification of what is happening in Washington. The enormous debt alone is a massive burden that will take generations to pay off.

You have to be a naive to think that the Chinese wont dominate the next century and beyond.


By Noya on 6/21/2012 1:34:37 AM , Rating: 2
Perfect summation.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Strunf on 6/21/2012 7:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
their culture of hard work

Funny I don't see them work more than anyone else once they get out of China...

Anyways Americans (and Europeans) have been enjoying the nice freedom of choice for some time now, if we are not happy with a job we just go find another one, we can be a few months looking for a job while our expenses are still being payed, for most Chinese it doesn't work like that, they have to work for them and for their parents all the time, give it a few decades and more social benefits and they will be no different than anyone else.

The Chinese may or may not dominate the next century, what makes you think that the Chinese will keep being "happy" with their current regime? it wouldn't be the first country to implode due to social unrest.


By AnnihilatorX on 6/21/2012 8:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: their culture of hard work Funny I don't see them work more than anyone else once they get out of China...


You answered your own question. Culture only functions in the place where it lies. I mean, if you move to live in Himalayas would you be able to still preserve your American Culture? Not likely.


By knutjb on 6/21/2012 9:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US is pass its zenith... You have to be a naive to think that the Chinese wont dominate the next century and beyond.
I don't entirely agree. China has a government in conflict with ideologies. Caplitalism provided the mass growth. Communism is a polar opposite to Capitalism. One will have to give in. Traditionally those in power try their utmost to keep it. China also has a flaw that troubled the USSR, lack of original ideas.

I do think that if the US doesn't make a right turn away from progressivism we will be just like Europe, an also ran. There is no silver medal in the ranking of countries, only the gold.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By ImJustSaying on 6/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Ringold on 6/20/12, Rating: -1
By praktik on 6/21/2012 7:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Don't think black and white. Don't believe in the religion of liberalism.

BUT

America is semi-marxist because it is allegedly ignoring the precepts of Free Market Fundamentalism and if we just replaced our Manichaean blind religious socialism with blind Manichaean worship of Free Market Fundamentalism, then the glorious spigot of market righteousness will flow its goodness over us all!

hahaha

"America is turning to Marxism" - ya what is factually incorrect about that??

WOWZERS these threads are entertaining!!


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By FaaR on 6/21/2012 7:31:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What did he say factually incorrect?

That the US is embracing marxism, just for starters. Reclaimer wouldn't know marxism if it came up to him and bit him in the ass since he don't actually know what it is. Example, he thinks that stuff like universal health care is marxism (him and millions of other stupid, ignorant Americans), when "universal" police, "universal" military and so on somehow is not marxism.

But why try to defeat willful ignorance and stupidity with knowledge and logic. It's akin to tilting at windmills; if you simply don't WANT to understand, you won't, regardless of how thoroughly wrong you've been proven.


By praktik on 6/21/2012 7:55:26 AM , Rating: 1
If America is "turning towards" anything it's plutocracy. When you need a billion to run for president and congressmen need to raise 2400$ an hour for their next campaign - and we see a constant revolving door of politicians turned lobbyists shaking down their ex-colleagues (and being shaked down by them in turn!) and legislation arrives for legislators to put the floor pre-written by lobbyists then I'm not sure there's a better term for that then plutocracy!

The idea that the Obama is turning to Marxism can only be the product of an enfeebled mind unfortunately damaged significantly by the effects of cold war propaganda - I mean if this was true then wouldn't Goldman Sachs be the octopus at the center of this Marxist plot? Goldman Sachs?? - big money investment firm, and harbinger of the commie revolution!!!


By Ringold on 6/21/2012 11:33:51 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot.

Karl Marx identified 10 central tenents to Marxism. Since you're apparently educated, I don't need to tell you what they are, but will remind you the left embraces many, including heavily 'progressive' income taxes, heavy taxation of inheritance, centralizing authority, and in the American version control of industry through heavy regulation (old-school European Marxists just outright take ownership stakes in firms). Universal health care is an extension of those ideologies in that it requires that the government force all individuals, regardless of what their personal desire is, to purchase a product -- in this case, health insurance, but could just as easily be broccoli or carrots, as pointed out by a Justice during debates. The view that the government has that sort of coercive power pretty much requires a preference towards one political extreme or another, be it Marxism or some form of autocracy or fascism.

Not sure what you're drooling on about with universal police and military. Conservatives are the ones worried about the news lately about law enforcement using large numbers of drones.

Dont know why I bothered though, you really didn't make any sort of point, just pretended to be another wittier-than-thou liberal but said nothing at all intellectual.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By ImJustSaying on 6/21/2012 2:49:20 PM , Rating: 1
I have no idea what you are talking about. You're all over the place with your response.

A quote from Billy Madison is in order:

"...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Yeah, that sums it up nicely.


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By Ringold on 6/21/12, Rating: 0
RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By praktik on 6/22/2012 8:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
Besides guys, being tough just feels so AWESOME!!

I'm a rootin'-tootin', lassoo loopin', popgun shootin' chickenhawk!

All others who disagree with my politics are weak! I am strong! THe Ukraine is Strong!

When guys act tough I get tingles in between my legs!


By Ringold on 6/22/2012 5:58:53 PM , Rating: 1
Can be a strong country without intervening all over the world; Putin doesn't have armies all over the place. The point is, our moral compass twists in the wind, with the examples I provided as to what causes us outrage and what doesn't (Rwanda was okay, Libya was not, Syria is fine, etc). If we're going to be a non-interventionist state, like Russia or China, then fine. If we're going to go the other way, then okay. Just have to pick something and stick with it.

Plus, the point of being perceived as a strong nation isn't to be strong for its own sake, you child. It's to help the government secure better terms with our peers that improve access and global opportunity and security for our citizens and businesses.

But I guess its okay to you that the world is starting to laugh at the US just as it laughs at Europe and Canada while happily accepting their foreign aid donations.


By ImJustSaying on 6/22/2012 7:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are reinforcing what I said...


By NellyFromMA on 6/21/2012 10:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
I tried to respond to this but evidentally when I try to post as normal I am now being flagged as spam -_-


RE: Uncompetitive Policies Will Be Our Downfal
By michael2k on 6/21/2012 11:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
As an American I like the idea that we're hoarding our natural resources and that we're consuming all of China's.


By geddarkstorm on 6/21/2012 1:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's all well and good until China starts mining the Moon and asteroids for their practically "unlimited" resources. That's something we need to start aiming for. If not the Moon, at least start building space platforms and harvesting asteroids. Expensive now, but not once it's a developed industry. And then we don't have to ever touch our own land or "spoil" nature in any way, while still being fully supplied with all we could need and more.

China has no danger of running out of resources on any meaningful time scale, and they are using what they have in a long term, foresightful way. We better wake up, or find ourselves trapped on this rock while others spread through the stars and start making the rules.


By zixin on 6/21/2012 5:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding me? If the US is like China, the Feds would be dictating how much gas is. Banks would be nationalized. Microsoft, Google, Ebay, and other large companies would be at least 80% owned by the government. That is why China is a socialist country. They have their own problems, such as an elevated housing market (remember what happened when that bubble burst for the US?), a huge disparity between rich and poor, and a huge different between urban and rural areas.


The problem is leadership?
By stmok on 6/20/2012 7:16:31 PM , Rating: 5
While I'm not American (just someone looking from the outside), I notice the current US President doesn't have leadership qualities. He has charisma. But not the genuine leadership stuff USA needs when the chips are down. The more I watch and read of his election campaign, the more I notice he isn't really suited to stay for another term. (Yes, I know. Good leaders are hard to come by!)

Compare this to a past President like JFK and his 1962 speech...
quote:
"No nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space. ... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."


So how does that compare to China? China, while not perfect, has leadership and focus. They have direction. Their leadership is filled with scientists and engineers. ie: Problem solvers. While USA is led by those with law degrees or similar. (The kind of people who like to talk and convince people of policies that don't often make sense for the nation as a whole. We have the same problem in Australia!)

If you look at their (China's) space program alone, you can see they're organised and funded. Their initiatives are based on plans that build up their skills incrementally.

Take a look at their Project 921. The end goal is to build up the technical competence for a future space station in 2020/2022 timeframe.

2011: Tiangong 1 "target vehicle"
=> Initial testbed.
=> Focuses on orbital docking: Automated and manual testing.
=> Sending people up for brief periods.
=> The design will become the basis for future robotic resupply craft. (The original will face de-oribit in 2013.)

2013: Tiangong 2 "space laboratory"
=> Testbed for 20 day life support for a crew of 3.
=> The design will become the basis for the space station's Laboratory Cabin Modules (which focuses on scientific research in microgravity).

2015: Tiangong 3 "space station"
=> Testbed for 40 day life support for a crew of 3.
=> Evaluate regenerative life-support technology.
=> Verify orbital replenishment of propellant and air.
=> The design will become the basis for the space station's core. Aka: Core Cabin Module.

2020/2022: Full blown space station.
=> All the research, development, and testing from the previous three phases will accumulate into this final solution. The goal of their Project 921.

Do you folks see that? They have direction. They have a plan. Because of that, they will succeed.

Question is: Where is Obama's plan for the USA?

By the way, "Hope" and "Change" is NOT a solid, strategic plan to go by. The more I look at slogans like that, the more I feel every American has to stand up, look right into the face of presidential candidates and ask them: "Sir/Ma'am, enough with the BS. What is your plan for this country? Show us the details. Otherwise, GTFO!"

...A good nation is built from the pro-activeness of its citizens. One simply can't be passive, sit back, and hope for the best. Great nations don't begin like that. Nor are they maintained that way. USA won't fall because of someone from the outside. It'll be from within. Everyone knows that.




RE: The problem is leadership?
By chµck on 6/20/2012 9:27:38 PM , Rating: 3
6


RE: The problem is leadership?
By Lord 666 on 6/20/12, Rating: -1
RE: The problem is leadership?
By FaaR on 6/21/2012 7:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
He said Australia in his post.


RE: The problem is leadership?
By name99 on 6/20/12, Rating: 0
RE: The problem is leadership?
By chµck on 6/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: The problem is leadership?
By Etsp on 6/21/2012 10:25:39 AM , Rating: 3
Far more than 53% of Americans pay taxes. 47% of Americans just don't pay one tax, the federal income tax. They still pay in to social security, they still pay for a myriad of other federal, state, and local taxes. They just don't pay income tax.


RE: The problem is leadership?
By JPForums on 6/21/2012 11:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They still pay in to social security, they still pay for a myriad of other federal, state, and local taxes. They just don't pay income tax.

State and local tax collection is irrelevant to federal interests. As the post he was replying to was clearly a federal issue, these points are irrelevant.
quote:
47% of Americans just don't pay one tax, the federal income tax.

You make it sound like this is an insignificant portion of Federal tax revenue. How big is Social Security revenue compared to federal income tax revenue again? Furthermore, regardless of its size, Social Security isn't used to fund the space program (or any other programs not related to ... Social Security) and is once again irrelevant to the initial discussion. Your "myriad of other federal taxes" is undefined and may or may not be related to general expenditures so I won't try to argue with something I may or may not agree with.

I don't necessarily agree with chµck's assessment that this is a problem or his implied solution, but he does have a point. The federal income tax has a large hole in it. One that makes it somewhat redundant to talk about cutting income taxes for 95% of Americans.


RE: The problem is leadership?
By Etsp on 6/21/2012 2:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
The point of my post was to point out that the particular statistic that gets copied and pasted everywhere is a falsehood. It simply isn't true as it is written, and that minor omission was done to intentionally make the statistic sound much worse than it really is. That info wasn't omitted by the poster, but more likely the resource they got it from. It's very likely that Chuck wasn't aware of the difference.

The discussion was about federal taxes, however his "fact" did not specify federal taxes, and his post did not mention them specifically.

If we want to discuss federal policy, It would be best if we are using facts and information that are accurate and qualified, otherwise it's just counter-productive.

Personally, I don't think that that particular hole in the federal budget is insignificant, but at the same time I can't believe that it accounts for even 10% of overall individual income in the US.


RE: The problem is leadership?
By JPForums on 6/21/2012 2:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point of my post was to point out that the particular statistic that gets copied and pasted everywhere is a falsehood. It simply isn't true as it is written, and that minor omission was done to intentionally make the statistic sound much worse than it really is.

I can appreciate this. Thank you.

quote:
The discussion was about federal taxes, however his "fact" did not specify federal taxes, and his post did not mention them specifically.

It was my impression that his post:
quote:
@chµck: Tax rate isn't the problem. 47% of people not paying taxes is the problem.
was in direct response to name99's statement:
quote:
@name99: Congress has shown zero interest in ever raising US taxes. Until that changes, stop wasting our time complaining about what Obama is or is not doing.
and disregarded taxes not related to the problem as outlined by name99. That said, I can understand and support your sentiment that he should have been more specific.


RE: The problem is leadership?
By JediJeb on 6/21/2012 3:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I don't think that that particular hole in the federal budget is insignificant, but at the same time I can't believe that it accounts for even 10% of overall individual income in the US.


Just some quick searching gave the total personal income of all U.S. citizens last year at around $9-$12 trillion dollars depending on who's numbers you cite. With the deficit in the proposed budget being in the $1.3 trillion range that would make it right at 10% of the total income of all Americans combined. So to cover that deficit this year we would need to have every single American pay 10% more income taxes. If you continue to allow the 47% that don't pay Federal income taxes to be exempt from this, the amount you must raise the taxes for the 53% that do pay Federal income taxes becomes near 30%. I did the full calculation for this very same thing in a reply here a few months ago and it is quite staggering. If you want to stick it to the top 1% then they must pay and extra 50% of their yearly income to cover the costs. If you only apply it to billionaires then you need one thousand and three hundred billionaires in the U.S. to contribute an extra $1billion each in taxes to cover that deficit. Expand that to all billionaires and millionaires and it requires one million three hundred thousand of those folks to contribute an extra $1million in taxes each to cover the cost. Maybe we have 1.3 million millionaire+ people in the U.S. but I doubt we have 1,300 billionaires.

If you want to be "fair" by having the most wealthy people pay the biggest percentage of taxes to make the country work, would it not also be "fair" that those people are allowed to control the country? I for one would not like that to happen, though it seems to be that way now. If every single person pays and equal share, then they should all have an equal say in that happens. Since this country is based on everyone being equal, then shouldn't everyone contribute and equal share to supporting it?


RE: The problem is leadership?
By JPForums on 6/21/2012 11:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hate to point out the obvious, but playing this game requires money...

Agreed.

quote:
Congress has shown zero interest in ever raising US taxes.

And your point is?
If you are suggesting that hiking taxes increases revenue, you are thinking too short term and ignoring the stifling effect is has on the economy. Historical precedence in the Harding/Coolidge era, Reagan era, and even the Bush era (something he actually did right) shows that massive tax drops (>70% down to Mid 35-40% at the upper end) resulted in a few years decline followed by longer term large increases in total tax revenue. Point of interest: the rich payed a much larger percentage of the total tax revenue after the taxes were cut than before. John F. Kennedy, considered one of the greatest presidents of all time (multiple polls, pick one), had this to say:
quote:
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

He made several such comments during his tenure as President. High taxes, as seen before the aforementioned tax cuts, tend to raise short term revenue at the expense of mid and long term revenues. The implication is that we were well beyond the zenith of the Laffer curve and the economy was stifled before the above tax cuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Interestingly, while The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics estimates the highpoint of the Laffer curve to be around 70%, a brief look at the above points in history lead me to believe it could be quite a bit lower.

quote:
You don't get to spend four years complaining about the expanding federal debt AND refusing to ever raise taxes, and then propose a brand new MASSIVELY expensive government program.

Sure you can. Even if you assume no change in revenue, you can still reallocate funds from whatever current expenditures you deem to be of less worth. You just have to be willing to give something up. Of course, a good place to start is the plethora of government expenditures that no longer (or never did) effectively address the issues they were appropriated to address.

quote:
If you have so much faith in capitalism and libertarianism, why does the government have to be involved anyway?

Good point, though government funded exploration is no more at odds with capitalism than national defense. Sole source is becoming increasing rare leading to more competition. Of course, having few buyers do tend to give them more control over the market than is possible in traditional markets. The question is whether exploration (space or otherwise) is an area the government should be involved in at all. An argument can be made both ways. An individual can not, without government backing, claim national sovereignty of newly explored lands. On the other hand, it isn't our governments job to expand its territory and there's also the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to consider. The list goes on.


RE: The problem is leadership?
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2012 8:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I'm not American (just someone looking from the outside), I notice the current US President doesn't have leadership qualities. He has charisma. But not the genuine leadership stuff USA needs when the chips are down. The more I watch and read of his election campaign, the more I notice he isn't really suited to stay for another term.


6


RE: The problem is leadership?
By NellyFromMA on 6/21/2012 10:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
Problem solving via hacking USA corproate and government secrets? Meh


RE: The problem is leadership?
By geddarkstorm on 6/21/2012 1:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
They knew what they wanted, and they knew what they needed get there, and worst yet, they knew we had all the knowledge figured out for them. So, instead of protecting one of the greatest assets any country has, infomation and technology, out government sat there with a wide open door and let them just snatch it. And then our government did nothing about it.

Now we see them prospering off of what they gleaned from us. How should we respond? With a "fine, be that way" and then race off to invent greater, better things. For when it comes to that capacity, we are still on top. And yet we ignore our research and engineering strong points, forcing small, under resourced private companies like SpaceX to try to live our vision for us. They are doing an incredibly marvelous job, but have next to no power compared to what our government could wield if it chose to.

Instead our government chooses to fund all sorts of random crap that the states should be dealing and competing with each other over. States have a role too, for the local people, and the federal government can never serve their interests as well as they themselves can. The Fed should work on bigger issues no one state could focus on itself, like defense and getting us back into space; not welfare.


RE: The problem is leadership?
By kattanna on 6/21/2012 10:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Question is: Where is Obama's plan for the USA?


you see.. thats part of the problem right there. NASA can't do anything anymore because building a real space program requires decades of work. Yet every new administration scraps the programs of the previous one and starts again.

quote:
I notice the current US President doesn't have leadership qualities. He has charisma


sadly, it has been some time since we have had a real leader. one with actual goals and vision


Crackpot scientist...
By Hakuryu on 6/20/2012 7:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lunar geologist Paul Spudis say that China could renounce the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states that no one can claim national sovereignty in space. Spudis believes that potential resources on the moon, such as water, could tempt the country into renouncing the treaty.


I'm sure all the Chinese leaders are eyeing the moon for it's water supply. Please.

They've done well with their space program, but settling the moon and mining it is hundreds of years away at the pace both our countries are plodding along. Acting like China will, any day now, renounce the space treaty and take over the moon is ludicrous.




RE: Crackpot scientist...
By wordsworm on 6/20/2012 8:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was thinking about that myself. Maybe they plan on 'mining' the water and bringing it back to earth. Then they can sell it on the open market as 'moon water.'

Whoever can take over the moon will be the one that does it. Treaties are only there to keep enemy states in check.


RE: Crackpot scientist...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2012 8:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
You know there's enough hydrogen in that Moon water to power rockets for decades, right?

Not saying it's going to happen. But there's significant value sitting on the Moon for those brave enough to do it.


RE: Crackpot scientist...
By Ringold on 6/20/2012 11:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
Some companies are starting to disagree with you guys about the time frame for exploiting the moon.

Bigelow Aero too has plans, pending affordable launch technologies, to assemble a station at a Lagrange point and lower it to the lunar surface, and bury it under a little regolith for radiation shielding. His idea wasn't to mine or anything, but rather lab space for rent and, primarily, the first off-world hotel.

What's that quote about something happening 50 years after people stop laughing? I think 2012 was the year people stopped laughing at commercial space flight. Mining the moon by 2062 then? Sounds reasonable to me.

As for that treaty, yeah, it's BS. America might uphold it because environmentalists feel like we shouldn't extend our capitalist blight one millimeter past our own atmosphere (and deep down, humanity is a blight on the universe, best contained and stamped out here), but as soon as someone figures out how to make a buck from the moon it'll get trashed. Same deal with the Antartic treaty; make it cost effective to drill for oil there, and someone will go do it. For now it's just too cold and hostile.


RE: Crackpot scientist...
By JediJeb on 6/21/2012 3:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
They are also looking into using those inflatable space station units to link together and make a deep space vehicle by placing them together with something like the Falcon rocket motor. They really do have some interesting ideas and it is amazing how even though they have actually placed test modules into orbit you never hear about them that much.


RE: Crackpot scientist...
By Solandri on 6/21/2012 8:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know there's enough hydrogen in that Moon water to power rockets for decades, right?

Just to explain this, the vast majority of the energy used to get into space is spent escaping the Earth's gravity. Depending on which rockets you use, the cost ranges from about $500-$1000 per kg, to over $10,000 per kg of payload you put into low earth orbit. In contrast, getting from LEO to the moon requires only a fraction of the energy.

The moon's gravity is substantially easier to escape (how the lunar landers were able to take off into orbit with a small rocket strapped underneath).

If you're planning, say, a trip to Mars, that's going to require a lot of fuel. You could lift that fuel from Earth at a cost of several thousand dollars per kilo. Or, the theory goes, you build the spacecraft and load it with just enough fuel from Earth to get it to the moon. On the moon, you set up mining facilities to harvest water. You use solar panels to electrically break up water into hydrogen and oxygen. That's your rocket fuel. You then launch it from the moon and load it up into your spaceship.

The idea is that even though mining water on the moon and converting it to hydrogen and oxygen will be damn expensive, it'll still be cheaper than launching fuel from Earth.


RE: Crackpot scientist...
By JediJeb on 6/21/2012 3:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Better yet, if you can find enough nuclear fuel on the moon then you can refine it there to fuel nuclear rockets. There wouldn't be so many complaints because there would be no threat to our planet from an accident and maybe then we could move into a more promising technology for propulsion.

Even in a nearly 50 year old science fiction book "Rip Foster rides the Grey Planet" they discuss using a Thorium based rocket that uses Zinc I believe as the reaction mass. I am sure we have better ideas now that should be explored and maybe a moon base will be what opens up the opportunities for us to really take off in space exploration.


RE: Crackpot scientist...
By wordsworm on 6/21/2012 9:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
The atmosphere is also a huge obstacle. The moon does not have this obstacle. I believe it would be relatively simple to make a maglev launcher to send payloads to earth.

Harnessing energy on the moon ought to be a lot easier than it is on earth as well. Imagine a drum spinning round where half of it is exposed to the sun and its powerful undiluted energy and the other half exposed to the incredible cold. The hot/cold would create a lot of energy through the expansion/contraction of the liquid/vapour.

In any case, I don't think there's enough water on the moon to make that sort of usage feasible. Once it's used up, then what? With a maglev launcher, you'd just be using electricity and momentum to return payloads to earth. But, all that is just wishful thinking at this point.


RE: Crackpot scientist...
By geddarkstorm on 6/21/2012 1:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think you haven't thought about this very much.

Mining the moon is not hundreds of years away: we could do it now, the only things stopping us is will power. It would just take a decade to get back there and start setting up industry. And there's way, way more on the Moon than just water.

But hey, on the topic of water, why is it important and brought up?

For one thing, you can split water straight into rocket fuel (hydrogen and oxygen). Solar panels are far more effective out there outside our atmosphere, so electrolysis would not be nearly the issue it is for us on this planet. Rocket fuel, low gravity to easily launch deeper into space from, independent water supply for people so you don't have to expensively launch water into space from the Earth... Yep, as I hope you can see with a little thought, the Moon's water supply is incredibly important for mastering space.

And where would you go from the Moon? There are plenty of near by asteroids with enough resources to meet world's consumption needs for "hundreds of years". Mars with far more water, far more resources, rocket fuel -built into its soil-, and good soil for setting up artificial crop plantations... all you need for supplying endeavors further out into the solar system. No need to mine on Earth or mess with our environment then.

Overcrowding problem? Space is the solution. Start putting all that manpower to something constructive.

Looking back at Earth: hey, do we have an oil problem a hundred years from now? No worries! From all we've learned and developed to go from the Moon to Mars, to the carboniferous asteroids of the asteroid belt which can be used to make plenty of oil for the world, we could also make our way to Titan, with its nigh unlimited amount of hydrocarbons for all our needs.

And it all started with the resources and water conveniently locked in that incredibly small gravity well we call the Moon.


Not even close
By jacknhut on 6/20/2012 8:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
The U.S. sent 3 men onto the moon almost 40 years ago. Russia followed after that. China just now recently sent 1 woman into space. Yes you heard that word, space, not moon, or Mars. Now this article is saying the U.S. has to face compeition from China in space technology? Give me a break, they are 40 years behind, tell them to send men on the moon, mabye in 10 to 20 more years? That will make them 50 to 60 years behind the U.S. and Russia.

Next time, learn U.S. history first before making senseless article.

China economy is growing, yes that is fact. But lets not forget the primary force driven that economic growth in China is from U.S. investments. Without U.S investments, China would still be a 3rd world country.

One more thing, China still has 1.1 billion population to feed and their economy is still less than half of the U.S. economy. So in reality, their population is still very much in poverty due to the GDP being very low.




RE: Not even close
By Mathos on 6/20/2012 10:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, we may have sent men to the moon 40 years ago. But, How long ago was it that we did our initial docking tests at the ISS or, when was it first put there? Now I know we had skylab in orbit in orbit from 1973 to 1979, but, that ended up failing due to lack of support, or a usable support vehicle (space shuttle hadn't been developed on time). Freedom station never happened/got cancelled.

Salyut 1-7, and Mir, were all Russian Stations which is basically 1971-1998. When Mir was scrapped and its modules became the russian section of the ISS. The US/Nasa didn't start working with orbital stations again until 1998 when the ISS assembly started. And the only thing that allowed us to do that, was a launch vehicle that no longer flies, the space shuttle. We the US currently doesn't have a suitable launch vehicle to continue being able to support or expand the ISS, or Start construction of a new station.

Going by that I'd say that puts the chinese within 15 years of our current space program. Remember, computers and other things exist now, that we had to wait for to develop. Where as, they will already have ready access to much of what we didn't have at the time. Add in to that, their manufacturing advantage, and available manpower advantages. Plus, we were pioneering things back then. They are building off of what others have done, with a set plan and goals as to when and how, things we don't currently have.

And the territorial thing, I don't think it's the moon they're worried about. I think it would be china laying claim to said orbital range from earth, and shooting down any none chinese satellite, station or spacecraft that passed through it.


RE: Not even close
By 1prophet on 6/21/2012 8:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, we may have sent men to the moon 40 years ago.


Actually NASA sent astronauts six times to the moon's surface and returned them back to earth safely.

Apollo 11 July 16, 1969
Apollo 12 November 14, 1969
Apollo 14 January 31, 1971
Apollo 15 July 26, 1971
Apollo 16 April 16, 1972
Apollo 17 December 7, 1972


RE: Not even close
By Ringold on 6/20/2012 11:00:15 PM , Rating: 3
By some measures, we're still catching up to the Roman Empire. Whats the point in looking at the past?

In current capacity, China's already beat us. The Chinese state has the capacity to put men in to orbit. We do not.

The Chinese having a project underway to put men on the lunar surface. We did, but Obama cancelled it.

As for relative size of our economies, PPP is the relevant measure, by which it's roughly 11.3 trillion to 15.1. They're also outgrowing us by about 6% a year, which means that they'll overtake us by the end of this decade without breaking a sweat, unless we undertake profound government and regulatory reform, or unless they implode (not likely).

Furthermore, most of China's investment comes from its high domestic savings rate, which is recycled through banks; FDI (foreign direct investment) has been a boon, but FDI could fall to zero and China would still humm along just dandy. Don't underestimate the role of other countries investments there too, Europe is heavily invested in China. Germany's high-end manufacturing sector survives off selling China the machinery necessary to build us all of our... crap.

Not that China doesn't have a long way to go in per-capita income, you're right, but China is no little economy we can ignore. It could be the worlds largest within 5 years, easily, and by virtue of having a larger population, we'll probably never catch up.


bah
By RU482 on 6/20/2012 11:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With so many firsts under China's belt, the U.S. is getting a little worried.


the US is getting a little worried.
the same US that is so split it can't agree that it is a good idea to wipe its ass after taking a dump is suddenly united in worry over China in space.




RE: bah
By ShieTar on 6/21/2012 9:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
Sure they are worried. The chinese might take up all the prime space property, with the cleanest vacuum and the brightest starlight! And build a large wall around Mars, to keep everybody else shut out!

Seriously, I can see some local politicians who are suffering form a terminal case of "exceptionalism" being worried about chinese in space, but I am hoping the engineers over at NASA have more relevant technical topics on their mind than silly nationalism.


RE: bah
By JediJeb on 6/21/2012 4:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, I can see some local politicians who are suffering form a terminal case of "exceptionalism" being worried about chinese in space, but I am hoping the engineers over at NASA have more relevant technical topics on their mind than silly nationalism.


Yes, but sometimes that silly nationalism is what reignites the competitive spark needed to make the needed advancements. When we become complacent and sit back looking at what we HAVE accomplished instead of what we CAN STILL accomplish we need a wake up call.


Oooppss...
By knutjb on 6/20/2012 6:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Even after all the criticism on the subject when they brought out the ax... Now they get a clue? Good thing the military is still doing research... Oh yeah they are cutting them too.

What does the country more good, social welfare programs that trap people in poverty or space exploration? I don't expect them to get a clue on that either.




apolitical
By internet user on 6/20/2012 7:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in spite of their hidden financial problems (heard of "saving face"?), they are slowly catching up to what we did decades ago. However, there is an enormous gap between their program and the immense amount of science being done by social/public organizations like the usaf and nasa, in addition to companies like Ula and bigelow aerospace.

Still, as someone who wishes to "boldly go...", the more, the merrier.




apolitical
By internet user on 6/20/2012 7:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in spite of their hidden financial problems (heard of "saving face"?), they are slowly catching up to what we did decades ago. However, there is an enormous gap between their program and the immense amount of science being done by social/public organizations like the usaf and nasa, in addition to companies like Ula and bigelow aerospace.

Still, as someone who wishes to "boldly go...", the more, the merrier.




Just want to make you cry...
By BruceLeet on 6/20/2012 7:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Whle the US is rethinking,
By PaFromFL on 6/22/2012 8:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
maybe it's time to start a new space agency run by working physicists and engineers, like in the 1960s. The ones that want to be managers need not apply. NASA has been castrated by bureaucrats and red tape.




By voronwe on 6/22/2012 11:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
This article is cribbed from an editorial on Yahoo written by Mark Whittington. Since Mark is considered to be pretty awfully misinformed by the space community, that ends up making Tiffany Kaiser even worse. Since she can't just say, "Mark Whittington says X, and Mark Whittington says Y!", she ends up making vague, unsubstantiated, unsourced statements like the one above.

Here's the Yahoo URL:

http://news.yahoo.com/shenzhou-9-sparks-renewed-de...

I'm not sure there's any informed person that thinks China's going to be a big space threat any time in the next decade. We're all applauding them, but in eight years they'll end up with a space station that's 2/3 as big as the two former Soviet stations that Excalibur Almaz is refurbishing for private service, and 1/5 as big as Skylab. Most space analysts now feel that the next feet on the Moon will belong to tourists, and soon.

One can now buy a ticket to lunar orbit for £100M. How much longer before someone includes a ride down to the surface in a used Dragon in that ticket? The market will soon be flooded with them.

Mark Whittington is, well, a Yahoo. And I stopped doing what Tiffany Kaiser does when I was in grade school.




Sad Sad America
By flubaluba on 6/23/2012 2:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
Re comments to this post:

Seriously , America is about to collapse and you are talking about them committing themselves to a space race.

America lost all hope of being the first to have a space station on the moon when they allowed big business to take over the government, and take the larger part of Americas wealth and horde it around the world.

You see what happened to Russia, they destroyed themselves, and America is doing exactly the same thing .




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki