backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by thecoolnessrun.. on Mar 20 at 10:23 PM

Not only can the Chinese space program make it to the moon, it will get there before the U.S., according to NASA

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told a House Committee on Science and Technology that the Chinese are likely to be the next nation to reach the moon, even before the United States.  "If they wanted to mount a lunar mission, they could do so," Griffin said.  The Chinese space program also has around 200,000 employees, while NASA has a workforce numbering close to 75,000.

Assuming NASA continues to receive the amount of funding it is currently getting, the space agency will be able to send astronauts back to the moon in 2019 -- an additional "few billion extra" will allow NASA to reach the moon in 2017.  The Chinese government continues to funnel large amounts of money towards the nation's space endeavors.  

Serious budget cuts and issues with the current NASA lunar program were the main reasons cited by NASA.  Bart Gordon, chairman of the U.S. House science committee, recently said that NASA is headed for a "train wreck" if the space organization cannot get the funding that it needs.  
With the pending retirement of the space shuttle in 2010, NASA also needs to finish the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) on time after the shuttle is retired.  "If the CEV is delayed even further, then we will cede leadership in human space flight at a time when Russia and China have such capabilities and India has announced its intention to develop them," Griffin said.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: what?
By daniel1113 on 3/17/2007 8:42:16 PM , Rating: 5
July 20, 1969...

I'd say we beat them by a solid 40 years.


RE: what?
By mjrpes3 on 3/17/2007 9:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
No no no! This would be the first real mission to the moon.


RE: what?
By artbronze on 3/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By doctor sam adams on 3/17/2007 10:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
You assume that relying on computers and technology will necessarily lead to more successful outcomes. To tell you the truth, people don't really know how to use computers to their optimum ability, we're still just figuring them out.


RE: what?
By KaiserCSS on 3/18/2007 12:03:33 AM , Rating: 4
Indeed.

Implementation of fire = about 800,000 years.

Implementation of advanced technology and electronics = about 40 years.

Think of all that is possible due to fire. Cooking your food, making metals of all sorts, heating and powering your homes, propelling your vehicles.

Now think about technology and everything that has been made possible because of it in such a short amount of time. Given the fact that we've barely entered the "modern age", one can only wonder what will be possible hundreds or even thousands of years in the future.


RE: what?
By Samus on 3/18/2007 3:52:41 AM , Rating: 1
right, just look at WWII dogfighters. they achieved precision and accuracy that computers still can't replicate. human's are incredible beings in desperate times.

and we were desperately trying to achieve a landing on the moon, and it's quite obvious we succeeded. How else did an American flag get planted there?


RE: what?
By Tsuwamono on 3/18/2007 5:29:41 PM , Rating: 3
Well alot of conspiracy theorist believe it isnt actually there. Me, i dunno what to think but i do believe the US landed on the moon. i dont really doubt that but its always good to listen to the theorists. They make good points when you talk to the intelligent ones.


RE: what?
By mjrpes3 on 3/18/2007 1:45:57 PM , Rating: 1
sarcasm attempt == complete failure


RE: what?
By dever on 3/19/2007 1:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
first real mission
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. Thanks for the laugh.


RE: what?
By Soviet Robot on 3/18/2007 4:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
Really? You witnessed it first hand? You went to the moon? WOAH COOL DUDE.
It would be nice to see us go to the moon with the technology we have now, high resolution photo and video cameras, shit like that.


RE: what?
By dtm4trix on 3/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By ani4ani on 3/18/2007 5:28:16 AM , Rating: 5
Yea,

one thing that bothers me - 7 years after JFK said we would go to the moon, back in the 60's we do it; man lands on the moon. Computers less powerful than pocket computers and we can do it in less than 7 years. Rocket technology marginally better than WW2 V2 rockets and 7 years later we do it.

Bush says the same thing in 2003, and this time its going to take 15-16 years to do - makes you wonder?


RE: what?
By Rotorblade on 3/18/2007 10:28:25 AM , Rating: 5
Lack of funding.

American citizens don't care about space as much as they did in the 60's. That and I imagine that there are quite a few more rules regarding saftey and what materials can and cannot be used in the construction of our rockets and lunar landers.


RE: what?
By KernD on 3/18/2007 2:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
You must keep in mind that NASA back then had all this funding for one thing, now it does allot of different things, it can't spend all it's budget on the moon mission, it has the shuttles to maintain, the new one to develop, the space station development and maintenance, and there has been allot of inflation since the 60s.

By there are 6 lunar lander bottom half up there on the moon, how did they get there if we didn't go there?


RE: what?
By jase4u on 3/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By Mclendo06 on 3/18/2007 5:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
We never landed on the moon just like the holocaust never occurred. 40 years from now, some people are going to say that 9/11 was all a farce. This is just another example of a few (using a very restrained combination of adjectives here) "childishly foolish" individuals concocting a hollowly conceivable story about how a monumental event in humanity did not occur and wrapping it in very shiny paper so that people who aren't willing to dig into the facts (and one needn't dig very deep in this case) will swallow the lies they are being fed. By doing this, these "childishly foolish" individuals get the attention they so selfishly desire but are wholly undeserving of, all at the cost of the truth. Any individual of at least average intelligence who is willing to do at most a little legwork can systematically debunk any claim made by the skeptics and come up with a variety of unique arguments which back up an actual moon landing. With regards to the radiation question, here are a couple of good sites:

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19...

Note that I would consider individuals working at NASA and CalTech to be "scientists of reputable standing."

Another site I would recommend which addresses the whole "we didn't land on the moon" conspiracy is:

http://www.badastronomy.com/info/logo.html

As far as China landing on the moon - that would be great. They can go and take pictures of our LEM bases which are still there as well as the flags which are still undoubtedly standing tall next to them, not to mention the footprints which have sat undisturbed for nearly 40 years.


RE: what?
By jeff2007 on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By TwistyKat on 3/19/2007 6:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't make me think. I'm quite confident it really happened. To pull of a hoax like this on a global scale (even the Russians acknowledged it was real) would virtually be impossible.

So many people would have had to be on board with the hoax and be trusted to keep quiet for the rest of their lives.

At least one person would have had an axe to grind or looking to make some $ and come forward by now with evidence that it was staged.

It really happened. Stop kidding yourself.


RE: what?
By Oregonian2 on 3/19/2007 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 4
That's exactly the point. The USSR'ians certainly would have been tracking things and seeing exactly what was going on. They would have been able to track where signals were coming from very precisely using a couple earth tracking stations. Had it been faked, in 1969, the USSR would have blown it up sky-high in the press. To think that the Russians were cooperating with a faked landing back when they were our most bitter enemies is hilarious to think of.


RE: what?
By Visual on 3/19/2007 7:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
you are so far from reality it's not even funny.
if you had any clue of what you're talking about, you'd know that we can't hope to see any machinery that we left on the moon with a traditional telescope. even hubble's resolution is too low, and for a telescope on earth the atmosphere would make it impossible.

but ordinary telescopes are not all that we have. scientists have reflected laser beams off special prisms that appolo crews have placed on various sites on the moon, and use this method for calculating the distance with millimeter precision. i wonder how conspiracy maniacs explain this one - perhaps an unmanned probe delivered those mirrors, eh? well, then a few years in the future when china lands there and sees the usa rovers and footprints and whatever, i'm sure some nuts will claim a secret unmanned probe delivered those too...


RE: what?
By jabber on 3/19/2007 10:46:41 AM , Rating: 2
What would be cool? If and when either the US or the Chinese land on the moon and get anywhere near the old luna rovers, slap on a new battery and away they go.

However, in reality I don't know what degrading effects 40+ years of solar exposure and lunar temps would have on them.


RE: what?
By jeff2007 on 3/20/2007 1:14:56 AM , Rating: 1
First of all, you are so blinded that you can't question anything. Who said anything about Traditional Telescopes??? What about the SMART 1 European satellite? It's primary mission was to MAP out the moon and take super high res pics. I suppose according to you idiots, they used traditional camera on the satellite. They even crashed the satellite INTO the moon.

How frickin close do we have to be to get a picture. You are so pathetically satisfied with media spin it's sickening.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5309656....


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













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