×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Head Ignores Congress, Eyes Cooperation With China

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the fun-junket-too dept.

Government 271

eldavojohn writes "Congress and the president haven't been exactly kind to NASA recently as far as funding goes but NASA chief Charles Bolden is ruffling some feathers with his planned trip to Beijing to investigate cooperative human space flight as well as potential Chinese involvement with the International Space Station. Such news has caused Congressman Frank Wolf to warn Bolden that 'no such planning or coordination has been approved by the Congress ... In fact, several recent NASA authorization bills have explicitly sought to place strict limitations on coordination with China.' Wolf is an outspoken critic of China in space and further warned Bolden in a letter that 'It should go without saying that NASA has no business cooperating with the Chinese regime on human spaceflight. China is taking an increasingly aggressive posture globally, and their interests rarely intersect with ours.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

271 comments

No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (-1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851198)

Wolf is an outspoken critic of China in space and further warned Bolden in a letter that 'It should go without saying that NASA has no business cooperating with the Chinese regime on human spaceflight.

Without googling, who wants to bet that this "Congressman Wolf" is a Republican, that he's a "Conservative Republican" and a darling of the Tea Party?

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851222)

I'm too lazy to Google it as well, but you're probably right as only "Conservative Republicans" still care about separation of powers in our federal apparatus. Leftoids want Congress to gradually become irrelevant and power concentrated in the Executive branch, where it can be abused by unelected czars and department heads and bureaucrats without so many pesky checks and balances getting in the way.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (2, Insightful)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851354)

but you're probably right as only "Conservative Republicans" still care about separation of powers in our federal apparatus

You say that after eight years of Bush executive expansions and abuses cheered on by the republican party and voters and your head *doesn't* explode from the cognitive dissonance!!?

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851396)

Bush was only a conservative republican socially. Economically he was a liberal republican. (And for this combination he differentiated himself from the typical conservative by calling himself a "compassionate conservative".)

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (-1, Flamebait)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852012)

"You say that after eight years of Bush executive expansions and abuses..."

You knuckleheads on th left will continue to beat the Bush horse long after Obama's given all our money to the Chinese, huh?

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (0, Troll)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851280)

You do realize this is the first election that the Tea Party has even existed right? I mean, I don't want that to get in the way of your politically biased rant, and self-admitted ignorance of the actual Congressman. As for the rest of the country, there is enough distrust of China for both parties, and I would say with at least some valid reasons.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851364)

Actually, the tea party existed in a few other forms earlier on, they were just never heard. It's a rising discontent that is creating the "tea party" to attract more momentum to the movement.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (-1, Flamebait)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851522)

Actually, the tea party existed in a few other forms earlier on,

In earlier days, they were known as the John Birch Society or Klu Klux Klan.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! Get a Klu (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852034)

"In earlier days, they were known as the John Birch Society or Klu Klux Klan."

It's Ku Klux Klan. And they have as much in common with the Tea Party as the the Democrats do to the American Communist party.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851644)

Actually, the tea party existed in a few other forms earlier on, they were just never heard. It's a rising discontent that is creating the "tea party" to attract more momentum to the movement.

Let's try that one again: Actually, the tea party existed in a few other forms earlier on, they were just never heard. It's a huge influx of money from billionaire far right-wingers bent on tapping discontent to further their own interests that is creating the "tea party" to attract more momentum to the movement.

Sorry, had to fix that for you.

As to China, why is it wrong for right-wingers to oppose cooperation with China on national security matters but also wrong for left-wingers to oppose cooperation with China because they're tired of having their jobs outsourced by multinationals? Seems to me that on these issues they're both right and yet both relentlessly attacked for bringing their respective issues up.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (1)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851442)

Some politicians who are older than the tea party (Sarah Palin for example) could be described accurately as "a darling of the Tea Party".

Now, the observation was that Wolf is probably a hardcore conservative based just on that one comment. It's a valid bet to make and I wouldn't take the other side.

From Wikipedia: Congressman Wolf has also voted to deny funding to Planned Parenthood. He gets a B+ from the NRA and a 0% from the ACLU.

I think it's safe to assume the GP was correct calling Wolf a hardcore conservative, you lost the bet.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (2, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851536)

No, hardcore conservatives get As from the NRA. Any random curmudgeonly jackass can get a 0% from the ACLU and try and cut off Planned Parenthood. Wolf is from my home state, although is not my representative. His district is west of DC, then goes out to WVA and that area. If he was really a hard-core conservative in the Tea Party sense, then I think he'd lose a lot of votes due to the number of defense contractors and other government employees who live in his district. They may like guns in a large portion of his district, but they're rather reliant on pork.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (2, Insightful)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851580)

So what? Conservatives always talk a big game on cutting pork but all they ever do is fuck over social programs and send all the money on different kinds of pork (read: the military industrial complex).

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851884)

Well, he's the normal "establishment republican," not the tea party kind of guy, at least from the dealings I've had with him (I'm sorry to say, I'm a former lobbyist). I think a lot of the tea party folk actually, honestly believe they could cut pork. Of course, that's mostly a delusion they'll be quickly disabused of if any of them actually win next month.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851970)

Ah, you're confusing "hardcore conservative" with "genuine conservative who is opposed to wasteful government spending" which is an understandable mistake. See the hardcore guy talks the talk, and walks the walk, but brings home the pork.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (1, Troll)

Nihn (1863500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851552)

Sarah Palin could be described accurately as off her rocker or as I call her, batshit insane...;

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852006)

Sarah Palin could be described accurately as off her rocker or as I call her, batshit insane...;

Wouldn't it be more constructive to at least attempt to counter the voters that want her elected by exposing her politics as lies and nonsense?

Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851514)

your politically biased rant

My "rant" was simply a question. I was betting that when you see a politician talking about not cooperating, it's usually a pretty good bet who he's aligned with and who supports him today.

The same poor, stupid teabaggers who fill their shacks with cheaply made Chinese goods from Wal-Mart want to make sure that NASA scientists don't talk to Chinese scientists because they might get infected with their Atheistic Marxism (which you know our illegitimate Kenyan president would just love.

Now go fuck yourself.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851302)

Congressman Wolf (R, VA) at a Tea Party Patriot's Dinner on Oct 3rd:
We can no longer afford to ride the coattails of yesterday’s innovations; we have to identify and support the emerging technologies of tomorrow that will create American jobs.

The Chinese, Indians and other international competitors are actively monitoring new technologies and trends to support their firms. To date, we have not.

Are Americans willing to continue to sit idly by and allow the Chinese to dominate new industries at our expense?

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851464)

So it's time for NASA to tell him to put his money where his mouth is?

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851376)

He probably also has millions in Chinese holdings and is a homosexual to boot.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (5, Informative)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851382)

You'd win the bet. Wolf is a conservative congressman from Northern Virginia.

Here's a summary of his general viewpoint from Wikipedia: Wolf has a variety of ratings from advocacy groups. The National Rifle Association gives him a B+ and the American Civil Liberties Union gives him a 0%. Some other rankings include 0% from Clean Air Flow Energy, 100% from National Right to Life, 0% from the Human Rights Coalition, 17% from the National Educational Association, 5% from the League of Conservation Voters, 92% from the United States Border Control and 10% by the Alliance for Retired Americans. During the Bush administration, Wolf voted consistently the President's positions. For example, Wolf voted in favor of military action in Iraq in 2002. He also voted to make the Patriot Act permanent, opposed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants for wiretaps within the United States[citation needed], and supported the president in restricting congressional oversight for CIA interrogations.

Did I mention that this rather unlovable entity is a lawyer?

I found no evidence that Wolf has been authorized to speak for Congress in general.

Re:No Cooperation, No way! NEVER!!! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851554)

ACLU 0%, NRA 100% The guy can't be all bad.

Highlights something (4, Insightful)

nten (709128) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851762)

I've often made fun of the ACLU for being a little over the top on some things, but they are one of the few outspoken groups fighting the infringements against our freedoms and I am grateful for that. Except that second amendment one, they won't go near it. They will defend the rights of a violent felon, but not the man who shot him in defense of himself or his loved ones. So we are forced to look to a gun-manufacturers lobby to protect that right, and no matter how much individuals contribute, they won't match the manufacturers' contributions. If the ACLU stood up for all of our civil liberties and not a hand picked list, the NRA would fade to become a normal lobby group like orange growers or car makers. Hopefully that would lead to legislation that lined up more with the individual's best interest instead of the manufacturers.

Re:Highlights something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33852052)

The ACLU's position on the second amendment:

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

Capitalism (3, Insightful)

schn (1795404) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851204)

When you screw someone over, don't be surprised if they go elsewhere.

Re:Capitalism (2, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851320)

I don't really recall when or how we screwed over china, but i have to be pretty severe considering they are going to the moon.

Re:Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851336)

I was going to point out that he was talking about NASA, then I heard this big whooosh when Chinas rocket flew by.

Re:Capitalism (5, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851402)

Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.

If the head of NASA wants to quit and work elsewhere that is his right. If every employee of NASA decides to emigrate to China, that is their right as well (though they are still bound to maintain confidentiality).

However, for the head of NASA to spend tax dollars on something that the elected leadership has instructed them not to do is insubordination.

NASA isn't a private company, and it doesn't have the luxury of dictating what its priorities are.

Imagine if the UK National Health System decided that doctors aren't being paid enough so they're going to start charging a fee to get priority service? As long as they're accepting government paychecks, they have to do what their supervisors tell them to.

Don't like your boss - then quit or be your own boss. However, you can't accept money from somebody and then tell them that they have no right to dictate your actions.

Re:Capitalism (5, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851448)

>However, for the head of NASA to spend tax dollars on something that the elected leadership has instructed them not to do is insubordination.

True, but at this point Frank Wolf is just speaking his mind (AFAIK). Frank Wolf would prefer that NASA not cooperate with China, but that hasn't been written into the law.

And Frank Wolf is a member of the minority, too.

(Not that it wouldn't be in NASA's interest to humor the likely next chairman of the subcommittee.)

Re:Capitalism (2, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851456)

Imagine if the UK National Health System decided that doctors aren't being paid enough so they're going to start charging a fee to get priority service? As long as they're accepting government paychecks, they have to do what their supervisors tell them to.

You mean the way that consultants in the NHS have their own private practice, where they take paying customers who don't want to wait on the NHS list? Or the fact that they take on patients from Private practice where private doesn't have the infrastructure or skill to do the work themselves, so they pay the NHS to do the hard part?

Re:Capitalism (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851600)

Imagine if the UK National Health System decided that doctors aren't being paid enough so they're going to start charging a fee to get priority service?

They do. Through the AXA PPP system.

Re:Capitalism (4, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851714)

The Chinese space program is funded by the American taxpayer as well. However, instead of sending the money to NASA via Washington, they send it to Beijing via Wal-Mart.

Re:Capitalism (4, Interesting)

ktappe (747125) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851798)

Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.

They sure haven't been answering to this taxpayer who has been saying for years that it's moronic to end the shuttle program before its replacement is even off the drawing board. I say all power to Bolden for doing what he has to to keep his agency going when the Bush and Obama administrations shoved him in a corner.

Re:Capitalism (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852084)

They sure haven't been answering to this taxpayer who has been saying for years that it's moronic to end the shuttle program before its replacement is even off the drawing board

Why? Is there some sort of space garrison we have to keep constantly staffed and stocked? Will the aliens come and get us if they realize that for a few years we don't have a shuttle program?

Re:Capitalism (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851846)

The elected leadership he works for is part of the executive branch, not the legislative.

Re:Capitalism (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851892)

Given how much of the US budget is borrowed money, maybe he's simply going to work for the people who are actually paying the bills.

Mneh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851894)

Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.

With elected representatives like these, who needs China?

Re:Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33852050)

When your boss is a steamy pantload who doesn't listen to anybody and pulls policy out of his desk riding ass just for the pleasure of watching people dance and sing like cotton pickers in 1830's Georgia you should have the right to tell him to achieve aeronautical intercourse in a gyrating pastry. Wolf is a Bush era lap dog for all groups wanting to take our basic freedoms away, let us not decry one man trying to make sure he doesn't take space away from us too.

Re:Capitalism (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851752)

When you screw someone over, don't be surprised if they go elsewhere.

To paraphrase a quote, Wait'll they get a load of China

Re:Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33852028)

China is a repressive communist regime yet the United States of America, the self-proclaimed bastion of freedom and democracy, gets deeper into bed with the Chinese Government. The death throws of the USofA cannot be far off as the country sinks ever deeper into economic, political, moral, and spiritual cesspool reminescent of streets in India.

Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (2, Interesting)

ehack (115197) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851212)

Most consumer goods come from China these days, and we're told China's interests rarely intersect with the US?

Isn't this attitude a bit ... schizoid?

Or maybe, just dumb?

Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (4, Interesting)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851352)

lead paint in toys, inferior toys that don't meat U.S. quality standards, most items having a fake UL stamp of approval (this is important, look up the Underwriters Laboratory and see what they do as for why its so important as to whether or not the stamp is legite or not)...nah, they have our best interests in mind. Just because they supply our gadget craze, doesn't mean they have our best interest in mind

Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851560)

The GP never said the chinese have our best interests in mind, just that we have common interests. All of these inferior toys are approved for use by american based companies. So, corporations want cheap, inferior toys, regardless of safety. China supplies it. Seems like common interest to me.

Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851832)

Just because they supply our gadget craze, doesn't mean they have our best interest in mind

Who said anything about best interests? As a nation we clearly want cheap, toxic plastic crap, and China supplies it. From where I'm sitting it looks like an equitable relationship to me. It's not like the first time was free or anything.

Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852038)

Just because they supply our gadget craze, doesn't mean they have our best interest in mind

Who said anything about best interests? As a nation we clearly want cheap, toxic plastic crap, and China supplies it. From where I'm sitting it looks like an equitable relationship to me. It's not like the first time was free or anything.

This sort of shenanigans of screwing the consumer is anathema. Where could Chinese businesses have learned such unscrupulous practices?

Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851432)

If you look at how much money is spent, most consumer goods are food, and most of the food in the U.S. does not come from China.

We get things like electronics and chotchkes from China so it would suck for a while if that were disrupted, but 'most consumer goods come from China' is completely untrue.

Re:Consumers like China, Americans don't :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851754)

"Most consumer goods come from China these days, and we're told China's interests rarely intersect with the US?"

Not to mention Chinese corporations illegally funding Republican election campaigns via the Chamber of Commerce.

Senator wants Chamber investigated
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/70341/20101010/commerce-elections-funding.htm [ibtimes.com]

"schizoid?

Or maybe, just dumb?"

Or maybe deliberately deceptive?

Funding (3, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851240)

If you don't feed your dog, don't be surprised when he looks elsewhere for food. This is what happens when the government fucks over the space program a million times. Maybe partnering with corporate ventures would be better for national security, but those are inherently driven by money. A government truly comitted to the idea of manned spaceflight though is more likely to be results oriented.

Re:Funding (3, Insightful)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851306)

They had the money and they chose to blow it on Constellation

So, Tough.

Re:Funding (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851468)

They were ordered by Clinton and then Bush to work on a program to replace the aging Space Shuttle fleet, which needed retiring.

That program is Constellation. They didn't "blow" the money, they were told to come up with a bullshit cost estimate by bean counters when they were trying to create entirely new technology that involved all sorts of problems that we hadn't had to solve previously.

It's idiots like you that have made scientific exploration in the US fall so far behind.

Re:Funding (4, Insightful)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851526)

They were ordered by Clinton and then Bush to work on a program to replace the aging Space Shuttle fleet, which needed retiring.

I'm with you so far...

That program is Constellation. They didn't "blow" the money, they were told to come up with a bullshit cost estimate by bean counters when they were trying to create entirely new technology

you don't need "entire new technology" for LEO, MEO, GEO, get to the moon or mars. If it was needed, nobody would have done these things.

that involved all sorts of problems that we hadn't had to solve previously.

Problems created by reinventing the wheel for the nth time...

It's idiots like you that have made scientific exploration in the US fall so far behind.

Because I want to reinvent the wheel and spend money on solving already solved problems?!

It's ok to 'refresh' the technology, my money is on Falcon launchers, and NASA should have gone DIRECT.

Then there's money to spare for the real important things: new experiments, space probes, space telescopes, etc

Re:Funding (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851326)

If you don't feed your dog, don't be surprised when he looks elsewhere for food. This is what happens when the government fucks over the space program a million times. Maybe partnering with corporate ventures would be better for national security, but those are inherently driven by money. A government truly comitted to the idea of manned spaceflight though is more likely to be results oriented.

Uh huh, so why are "money driven" corporate ventures less "results oriented" than international partnerships? I doubt something like the International Space Station makes sense in terms of what it produces. International cooperation is one of the reasons it turned out that way.

Re:Funding (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851816)

If you don't feed your dog, don't be surprised when he looks elsewhere for food.

So many posts are buying into the baseless assertion that China's budget has been cut. Where did this idea come from?

Good (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851276)

Good for him.

Here is the thing: society that loses manufacturing jobs, loses the manufacturing sector, it then pretty much loses the need for engineering, and in reality in most of realities, engineering is what drives progress forward and it even drives the need for scientific advancement forward.

So society that stops making stuff, stops thinking of stuff as well. You can't be thinking without actually producing, even though those who really build/engineer and those who do basic science are different people and working in different institutions.

Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?

--
So this NASA move is basically a survival move, it's smart.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

eples (239989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851374)

Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?

Google, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Red Hat, etc. would all disagree with you. I mean, dude, you're posting on slashdot.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851438)

And what fraction of the American knowledge economy is migrating overseas? Just like the manufacturing sector, someday it will be gone. I'm not American (I'm Brazilian) but for a really really long time I've been developing software under contract work for American companies. If I was American, I'd vote to stop this non sense from happening. You don't really need to outsource everything.

Re:Good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851518)

You don't really need to outsource everything.

Oh, but you do. CEO's only have values in the double digit billions. That's terrible! Not a single CEO is worth over $100 billion. I think there is not enough outsourcing.

RIGHT... (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851490)

Because when I think of pushing the boundaries, of reaching into space, exploring new techonolgies. I think google...

Someone here sees the web as FAR to important.

The INTERNET was a major technological development. Google is NOT. Oracle and Red Hat and Microsoft, none of them make anything real or research anything real. Producing another database is NOT what the knowledge economy should be about. Knowledge is stuff like new solar cells, bacteria that can produce oil, silkworms that poop spider thread. Not a new video codec.

The space race isn't going to be won by who has the best search engine but who can create the next generation rocket engine.

This research STILL happens in the US, but then turning it into production, the job of NASA, is being thrown away.

You are basically the same as the people who think: Banking is a large part of the economy, oh therefor it must be THE economy, ergo Wallstreet is all we need.

Honestly, if you think these companies are proof the US still has plenty of intellectual might (I think it does, but not because of these companies) then you are sadly mistaken.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33851394)

But we have free health care now. That solves everything doesn't it? Nobody needs to work anymore.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851440)

The US still manufactures... a LOT. In dollar figures, we manufacture more than any other country and are still rising at about the rate of inflation, which isn't great, but not bad ( http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/ [curiouscatblog.net] ). We have lost a TON of manufacturing jobs, but not manufacturing, and that is a huge difference. The US is losing highly labor intensive industries, but that's just going to happen when your poor aren't all that poor. We really need to get rid of more of the low paying jobs that can be automated away.

Fudge (3, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851780)

Big pile of fudge. USA is no longer manufactures the components, it assembles the final product, that is also 'manufacturing', but it really is not.

The proof is in this simple pudding: go to this site [tradingeconomics.com] and set the 'FROM DATE' to January 1992 and leave the 'TO DATE' as the current year.

This is the real USA economy in action.

Re:Good (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851452)

I'm not sure what country you're referring to. The United States manufactures more than ever. It's the manufacturing engineering you mention, though, that has steadily reduced the number of people required to drive our manufacturing industry.

Re:Good (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851814)

I commented on this, you can look it up yourself from the link there. Manufacturing in USA today means assembling in USA and the trade deficit, which shows where the economy is really going, is showing the direction very clearly.

Re:Good (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851828)

Sorry, didn't close a double quote in the previous post:

I commented [slashdot.org] on this, you can look it up yourself from the link there. Manufacturing in USA today means assembling in USA and the trade deficit, which shows where the economy is really going, is showing the direction very clearly.

But here is the link [tradingeconomics.com] and if you go there and set the "FROM DATE" to 1992 and leave the "TO DATE" current, you'll see what I am saying.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851618)

Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?

My MBA had lead me to believe that through leverage and synergy, not only can we eat the cake and keep it for later, we can also lend out the same cake to others who can in turn do the same, and moreover, the same can be done with the eaten cake which can again be leveraged. Moreover the cake having been eaten, futures contracts on anticipated fertiliser yields can be optioned and bundled with cake shares into massive derivative portfolios which can be sold to speculators adding to overall market liquidity.

There are naysayers who claim that all this cake eating will result in is a big pile of crap. But the smart MBA will have left the cake industry and moved on the the next victim^Hopportunity long before the tab needs to be picked up. Look at Carly Fiorina. After HP, she's moving into politics. Do you know how much money can be made by liquidating^Hleveraging^Hoptimising the US government? Think big, and let the markets decide the winners.

Re:Good (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851860)

Yes, you can do all that with the cake as long as it is federally guaranteed to give you the expected result either on its merits alone or by government bailing your investment out from a publicly funded bakery.

Unfortunately the public bakery is in huge debt, the people running it have spent all the money on a side business of military contracts by running very expensive wars, the chief financial officer of the bakery is printing IOUs at ever increased rate without actually having either flour or milk or eggs or sugar to back up the promised production. There is a huge line up for that cake, which consists of all the suckers that have provided the bakery with the ingredients for the most of their lives and now they are going to find out there is pretty much not even crust left there.

Also the earlier batch of MBAs have already left the kitchen clean from the last time they worked out the exactly right deal with the chief cook, he already guaranteed the previous cake of the same type you are referring to and he already had to cover their losses.

Well, too bad the cook is actually lawfully and constitutionally allowed to make deals with private kitchens, no matter whether those kitchens are corporate ran or they are unions or anything else in between.

Re:Good (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851876)

Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?

We don't manufacture so much as we used to but we still design stuff. The majority of that cheap crap we get from China was designed in the USA, and possibly adapted from existing designs in China. Indeed, a great deal of it is a direct copy of a product designed and sometimes even made in the USA, or in some other nation where they care about the quality of goods. Chinese knockoffs are often so faithful that they copy the flaws of the original product precisely. Remember, designer and producer have not had to be in the same place since the development of mail.

A bigger problem is that our education system has never been adequate, and we have always hired large numbers of technical professionals from other countries. We couldn't even have built the A-Bomb without them! So we're not losing knowledge, we never had so much of it, and we've always contracted for it.

Re:Good (3, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851898)

We don't manufacture so much as we used to but we still design stuff.

- but China is also designing, every day, every factory has issues that are being addressed by engineers in the factories. This drives the need for more science. Also just because not EVERYTHING is outsourced yet, do not despair, one step at a time, one step at a time.

Re:Good (1)

deblau (68023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851966)

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
        George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)

naive? (1)

mayberry42 (1604077) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851278)

this might be naive question, but why does it always have to be political? Don't get me wrong, I hate the Chinese government as much as anybody else, but why the issue with space cooperation?

Re:naive? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851362)

this might be naive question, but why does it always have to be political? Don't get me wrong, I hate the Chinese government as much as anybody else, but why the issue with space cooperation?

What's to keep it from becoming another technology looting spree like when Loral Aerospace was launching stuff out of China in the 90s? If you don't "cooperate" with the Chinese government, it's harder for them to steal your stuff.

"Goes without Saying"? (5, Informative)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851300)

So it should “It should go without saying that NASA has no business cooperating with the Chinese regime on human spaceflight,” Wolf wrote. Despite the fact that the visit, along with the up coming visit of the NASA director's Chinese counterpart, were ordered and agreed upon last year by the White House.

“In fact" He says, "several recent NASA authorization bills have explicitly sought to place strict limitations on coordination with China.”

Sought being the key word there, which means tried and failed...by him. He was the top Republican of the Appropriations Committee that wrangled for so long over NASA's budget early this year, the one that was stuck in limbo for months like a hung jury with some idiot hold-out. In actuality, the provision to bar space cooperation with China was defeated by a 4-9 vote on the grounds that there are many areas we can cooperate with China, and fear of military complications should not keep us from cooperating in scientific and humanitarian pursuits. Wolf is banking on the laziness of the media consumer to make is sound like this defeated motion of his is somehow still viable and/or supported policy.

Re:"Goes without Saying"? (4, Insightful)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851740)

Yep. I also love how the headline conflates "Congress" with "a single Congressman". It's nearly impossible to do anything that doesn't piss off at least one of the 435 members of congress.

Honestly, it sounds like Wolf is a blowhard how has his vendetta against China and doesn't care who he hurts pursuing it.

NASA really should work more with JAXA (4, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851348)

First and foremost the technology used in China's manned space program was overwhelmingly Russian, the US would gain very little by cooperating with them over continuing our cooperation with Russia.

But if NASA really wants to cooperate with another space agency they should up their links with JAXA. Even though the Japanese have yet to put a man into space they have shown that it is possible to really turn around a flagging space program quickly. Before the launch of the Hayabusa in 2003 you could describe JAXA in one word: failure. As late as 2002 they were having troubles even putting a relatively basic satellite into orbit. However in recent years they have had two overwhelming successes, Hayabusa and IKAROS. They obviously know how to turn a stagnant space program around. Furthermore their interests and NASAs interests are much more in line than the interests of the US and China.

Re:NASA really should work more with JAXA (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851796)

Furthermore their interests and NASAs interests are much more in line than the interests of the US and China.

[citation needed]

To expand on this: China and the USA have been in economic lock step for how many years exactly? I think you're assuming a conflict where none exists. China is our favorite trading partner. On the other hand, if Wolf is to retain his legions of knee-jerking conservatives, he has to say crazy shit like this on a regular basis, whether he believes it or not. (I don't know if he does or no, it's really irrelevant.)

Or put another way, the people making decisions on behalf of the USA and China have every reason to maintain the status quo. Buying spaceflight from China is just another way to do that; we buy everything else from them.

Re:NASA really should work more with JAXA (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851950)

Actually, we cooperate VERY closely with JAXA. And ESA, and RKA, and even CSA. I think that with private space taking off, we will see even more cooperation. The problem that exists is that we did not cooperate as much with companies that dealt heavily with China. Why not? Because we are seeing our tech flow into an organization that is not civilian, but is Military. And yes, Chinese space agency is 100% Military controlled. They are the ONLY space agency that is, that NASA has some form of cooperation with.

Go right ahead. (2, Insightful)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851426)

It's not like we have any manufacturing power anymore, nor were any manufacturing jobs created by the bailouts. The reason America was such an impact in WW2 was because we had a lot of people, and a lot of resources and industry that could be mobilized. Now who has those things? China. Since both sides of government famously refuse to do anything for this country, we might as well give China all the space flight aid they want. This country is on the decline, but only because greed and apathy rule our government. It would be ridiculous to say that politicians aren't also businessmen. Well, that seems to be all they're good at. They're not good at history, that's for sure, or they might've listened to Eisenhower's farewell address which warned of precisely what we've been doing for a few decades now. Of course, it's easy to have no morals when you have money.

Re:Go right ahead. (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851634)

"It would be ridiculous to say that politicians aren't also businessmen. Well, that seems to be all they're good at."

Judging by the plunging economy over the last decade, they suck at that too.

Maybe small government doesn't make sense... (1)

node_chomsky (1830014) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851466)

When you don't sponsor your own R&D department they start looking for cooperation on the street corner. It's hard to complain about NASA befriending China when the Chinese government is more willing to pay for our space program. The world works like this: nothing in, yields nothing out and garbage in, yields garbage out.

Why China? (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851686)

Not only do we have problems with them industrially and diplomatically (politically and in terms of human rights), but we also have stronger ties to, say, JAXA or the ESA. We've actually cooperated with the ESA for several missions before, so it's not unprecedented. If it's to get a developing nation into space, why not... India? China seems like the worst of all worlds.

Too Late Already (1)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851716)

To be perfectly blunt here, NASA's head's stance is just mirroring what's already happening in the private sector. Over the next decade or two, all of the good graduates in engineering and physics and so on will all just go over to Asia and ignore the U.S. Much like how they did during the early part of the last century when there was a mass migration of brainpower from Europe to the U.S. They always follow the money and innovation.

He knows that unless something is done, NASA is dead in the water. But the thing is, it's already too late and we might as well just pack it up and hand it over to China, since the gap is already too large to deal with unless there's an immediate change of direction.(which there won't be, and which we really can't afford).

Next flight to Gitmo is now boarding (1)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851742)

Welcome aboard Mr. Golden.....

Clearly this is a violation of numerous existing US laws prohibiting the proliferation of space technology outside the US.

Golden should be arrested, and tried as a traitor, period.

Does anyones interest intersect with the US? (2, Insightful)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851864)

Really, other than the British government (not the people), who's interest intersects with that the of US? I don't know if anyone paid attention to the International Monetary meeting this weekend, but over here in the EU the general consensus is that the US is less and less relevant due to its complete lack of competent leaders, massive debts, and lazy, uncaring masses.

It’s simply amazing how your douchebag leaders can consistently complain about China’s growing aggressiveness to thwart direct US control over their country when no other country in the world has the audacity to stomp on others sovereignty as the US government has.

You people better get your shit together before you end up like all the other has been empires throughout history. Did I mention your leaders are D-Bags? So are our of course, but at least here, the people still can control them. ;)

Re:Does anyones interest intersect with the US? (3, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851972)

I don't know if anyone paid attention to the International Monetary meeting this weekend, but over here in the EU the general consensus is that the US is less and less relevant due to its complete lack of competent leaders, massive debts, and lazy, uncaring masses.

Ah yes, we haven't had such paragons of statesmanship like Tony Blair or Silvio Berlusconi.

Honestly, the EU's opinion just isn't really relevant anymore, something which has been further underscored by its near economic collapse lately. Which is the reason that both the US government and US corporations are focusing more on Asia. A good article on the subject: Towards a Post-American Europe: a power audit of EU-US Relations [3cdn.net]

Some choice quotes:

In this report we argue that the real threat to the transatlantic relationship comes not from the remaking of America's global strategy, but from European governments' failure to come to terms with how the world is changing and how the relationship must adapt to those changes. Our audit (based on extensive interviews and on structured input from all the European Union's 27 member states) reveals that EU member states have so far failed to shake off the attitudes, behaviours, and strategies they acquired over decades of American hegemony. This sort of Europe is of rapidly decreasing interest to the US. In the post-American world, a transatlantic relationship that works for both sides depends on the emergence of a post-American Europe.

. . .

Thus far, the Obama administration has seen European governments broadly living down to their expectations. It has found them weak and divided - ready to talk a good game but reluctant to get muddy. Seen from Washington, there is something almost infantile about how European governments behave towards them - a combination of attention seeking and responsibility shirking.

. . .

These behavioural traits - a welcoming of dependence; a need for attention and reassurance; a desire to ingratiate coupled with a reluctance to take responsibility; and occasional self-assertion set against a more general disposition to play the loyal lieutenant - suggest a less-than-adult attitude on the part of Europeans to transatlantic relations. The term "infantilism" does not seem out of place - just as veneration of the transatlantic relationship less for what it can deliver than as an end in itself might unkindly be described as a sort of fetishism.

Keep your friends close... (2, Insightful)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851930)

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. We're more likely to get better intel on what the Chinese are really doing by teaming up with them than being isolationist about it.

Re:Keep your friends close... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852048)

No, we are not. OTH, China will get loads of tech that will be put into Missiles. The reason is that Chinese space agency IS A MILITARY GROUP. It is NOT civilian.

Bush must be livid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33852002)

George Bush must be livid over this. The last thing he wanted was for red China to seize control of the green cheese. Read more! [uncoveror.com]

China's Interests (1)

anguirus.x (1463871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852016)

OK, aside from how much I dislike this putrid shell of a human being his comments are entirely moronic. Rep. Wolf says "China is taking an increasingly aggressive posture globally, and their interests rarely intersect with ours." Umm.. OK Wolf, except for matters concerning the common interests of humanity. It pays to get along with China as opposed to nuking the Earth, and unless you seriously consider the USA to eventually be in position to conquer and assimilate China (HA!), it will pay to get along with China in space.

Re:China's Interests (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852058)

It pays to get along with China as opposed to nuking the Earth, and unless you seriously consider the USA to eventually be in position to conquer and assimilate China (HA!), it will pay to get along with China in space.

What could go wrong with helping an intensely nationalistic country that still harbors a grudge over the opium wars?

Chinese help? In my space? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33852086)

Better stop those big bad russians from cooperating with us too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...