backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by voodoochile123.. on Oct 3 at 10:01 PM


Rendering of Chinese Tiangong-1   (Source: MSNBC)
Two years from now other modules will launch

China is looking to make itself into a technology, military, and space power over the coming years. China wanted to be part of the ISS, but NASA would not allow the country to participate. Rather than sulk in the corner, the Chinese have set about building an ISS rival and the first section of that rival space station has now been launched into orbit.

The first section of the Chinese space station, called Tiangong-1, was launched into orbit successfully. The Tiangong-1 module lifted off aboard a Long March 2FT1 rocket from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center. MSNBC reports that the module is about the size of a boxcar and is in orbit 217 miles above the Earth.
The Chinese say that the module will be used to survey Chinese farmland using special cameras and will conduct an experiment that involves growing crystals in space.

After the launch of this first module, China plans to launch an unmanned Shenzhou 8 spacecraft to practice remote controlled docking procedures with the orbiting module. The Tiangong-1 name means "Heavenly Place-1" and it will stay in space alone for two years. After the 2-year window, China will send two more modules up for more tests and then the actual space station will be launched in three sections in 2020 to 2022.

"This is a significant test. We've never done such a thing before," Lu Jinrong, the launch center's chief engineer, was quoted as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency.

The launch of the module was delayed for a year due to technical issues with the launch rockets. The Long March 2C rocket failed to reach orbit kicking off an investigation into the cause of the failure.

As the Chinese gear up to launch their space station, NASA is looking to deorbit the ISS after 2020.

Source: MSNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Hey U.S.
By gamerk2 on 9/30/2011 2:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
First and foremost, I was commenting on the OP's comment about hte decline of the US; I didn't even mention China.

Secondly, it is worth noting that conditions in China are at least improving, unlike here in the US. They have a very long way to go, but the fact they have a middle class at all is a major improvment.

Thirdly, I mearly pointed out that the economy is Demand first, not supply first. Therefor every single economic model in Congress is hopelessly flawed. EVen the much debated Stimulus was rooted in Supply-Side economic principles and not Keynesian theory.


RE: Hey U.S.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/30/2011 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thirdly, I mearly pointed out that the economy is Demand first, not supply first. Therefor every single economic model in Congress is hopelessly flawed. EVen the much debated Stimulus was rooted in Supply-Side economic principles and not Keynesian theory.


That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

1. Obama IS a Keynesian. The theory that's never actually worked EVER.

2. Stimulus supply side? Supply side economics doesn't even apply to it. In fact the stimulus was the direct opposite of it. Where do you think Obama got the money for the stimulus? His petty cash drawer?


RE: Hey U.S.
By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 4:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is the gov't gave all these money but no one wanted to spend in fear the economy would get worse.

Reminds me of the South Park episode.


RE: Hey U.S.
By wiz220 on 9/30/2011 6:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
The stimulus bills (the first one and the newly proposed one) contained a great deal of tax cuts. The idea being that more money given to the suppliers of goods and services will mean more jobs and a better economic outlook. This seems like supply side economics to me.

Warren Buffet himself said it right, things won't improve and companies won't hire until there is increased demand for goods and services. The only way to do that in a sustainable manner is from the bottom up, not the top down. Otherwise you're just trying to push a rope.


RE: Hey U.S.
By wiz220 on 9/30/2011 6:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't familiar with Keynesian theory so I read up a little bit. One thing from Wikipedia stuck out:

quote:
Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes


I must say, the financial crisis seems like a pretty good example of this. Financial institutions made poor choices and it caused large macroeconomic problems on a global scale. I agree with you that the rest of the theory of using public policy (i.e. monetary policy etc.) doesn't work perfectly. It does seem, though, that this theory was born of necessity and a desire to attempt to end, or lessen the impact of, a boom-bust system that has been shown to exist with no regulation.


RE: Hey U.S.
By Ringold on 9/30/2011 8:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a desire to attempt to end, or lessen the impact of, a boom-bust system that has been shown to exist with no regulation.


Thats the heart of it, along with a belief that the best way to stimulate a weak economy is via boosting demand rather than aiding supply.

The main problem with Keynesian policy, imo, is that pundits & politicians find it easy to find pet projects to stimulate demand with in bad times, but have a hard time taking the rest of Keynes advice: running a smaller government in a fiscal surplus during boom times. Once the leviathan starts spending, its hard to ever reverse course.


RE: Hey U.S.
By Kurz on 9/30/2011 4:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should Watch the hayek vs kenyes on youtube...
It'll probably registure with you finally.


RE: Hey U.S.
By Ringold on 9/30/2011 6:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
You said the economic models of congress are demand first, not supply first, but then say the stimulus they debate is supply-side. How can Congress be demand-first but create supply-first proposals?

I'm fearing you got your economic credentials from wikipedia and CNN, but I hope I'm wrong.

Anyway, on another note, it's FAR easier for relatively poor countries (China, India, Brazil) to become middle income countries, though some times difficult for MIC's to progress to the US and Western Europe level of development ("The Middle Income Trap"). The fact that they grow quicker is in itself not an indication of problems in the West, though of course we know there are problems.

Final thing, about America's recent generations being lazy.. I think they've been misled growing up, too. Anyone paying attention to labor markets know that there are more engineering, medical and software jobs (of specific sorts) than can be filled, with vacancies having been open for years in some cases. There's just not enough qualified young people. They didnt seem to think they'd have to WORK for a living, so went to college for BS like History, English, Journalism, Psychology... And 10% unemployment is, along with older people who never updated their skills, the result. In economics circles, I've really heard no dissent over that conclusion, just a lot of hand-wringing over what can be done about it before civil society blows up.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki