Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

316 comments

I GOT A GLEASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447568)

GO RINUX!

Good (4, Insightful)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447573)

Co-operation between countries in space exploration is only a good thing. Build up trust, knock down militarisation.

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447604)

+1 Douche

Re:Good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447663)

Natalie Portman has a posse. [wikimedia.org]

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447699)

Co-operation between countries in space exploration is only a good thing.

What? Did you not follow the US-Russia space race at all? "Co-operation" between an anti-communist democratic republic and a pro-communist People's republic is nothing more than politicized espionage. It can't possibly be anything else.

Build up trust, knock down militarisation.

Oh, is that what happened between the US and Russia? Because the way I saw it was that Russia lost, and now only the US gets to militarize space. I haven't yet seen any indication that the end of the Cold War did anything but speed up the US militarization of space.

"Co-operation" in peacetime means the strongest side gets to do as they wish, and the weaker side, faced with abject nuclear annihilation, can do nothing except "co-operate".

If you think China's space program has any other primary goal except militarization of space, you are naive and deluded. If you think any government space program has ever had any other goal, you are naive and deluded. Relying on government propaganda to accurately depict world events is stupid and inexcusable. And so is rooting for a Chinese (as in the PRC, not the race) presence in space because of idealized notions of the motivation. China is a totalitarian dictatorship guilty of the worst conceivable tyranny against its own people, and of repeated, actual and threatened, aggression upon its freer neighbors. It is an avowed enemy of the United States of America. Offering them moral sanction by way of cheerleadering on slashdot is nothing but despicable.

Re:Good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447778)

And if you bought any of Bush's inaugural speech bullshit you'd have to believe that China is #1 on the Invade'em list. But they're not. Guess how much of the crap you own is made in China. Guess how much you are actually supporting that nation by merely engaging in the general market. So if you're so hyped up about China being the earthly spawn of Satan, I'd suggest you go enlist in the US military NOW and volunteer your expendable ass to go assassinate some Chinese leadership.

Remember Tiananmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447944)

If you're so desperately in love with China, I suggest you pack your bags and move there. Since it's such a great place you should have no problem with that. Get going, pinko.

Re:Remember Tiananmen (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447961)

No thanks, I'm doing fine here in America where I can keep an close eye on my hypocritical government chock full of Taxocrats and Spendopublicans. If you're so high and mighty about China being problematic, how about you go over there and lead a revolution? Huh? Get your ass over there now, mister!

Re:Remember Tiananmen (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11448010)

I doubt you're keeping a close eye on anything but Das Capital and Mao's little red book, pinko.

Re:Remember Tiananmen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11448028)

Pinko, yeah. Seriously, why aren't you over there right now planning a coup? You surely won't, and I'm grinning at the thought of you sitting there in front of a computer that's probably 80% manufactured in China. I'm certainly no fan of the Chinese government, but I'm not going to wear my Patroit Foil Hat, wave the flag, and sit comfortably from a distance and spew nonsense (like you).

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

the gnat (153162) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447855)

I haven't yet seen any indication that the end of the Cold War did anything but speed up the US militarization of space.

Unless there's some key detail I'm missing, I'd say the exact opposite is true. Any motivation to militarize space was driven by the knowledge that the USSR most certainly had this intention, and while you may be right about the PRC's plans, the US hasn't been responding yet.

If you think any government space program has ever had any other goal, you are naive and deluded.

I agree that this was much of the unspoken motivation for the original US space program, but I just don't think that's been true for years. Certainly the deep-space probes are purely scientific, and I don't see any military benefit to a Mars landing (okay, the scientific benefits for that are pretty slim too). You might be able to make a case for a military motivation for the ISS, but if so why would we ever cooperate with other nations on that?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447988)

I knew there was something fishy about the Cassini-Huygens mission. Huygens wasn't landing on a moon!

"As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station."--George W. Bush to Jacques Chirac.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447773)

governments always used their military and political powers to dominate, too bad their civilians suffer for it...

when elephants battle it is the grass under their feet that suffer the most...

Re:Good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447805)

when elephants battle it is the grass under their feet that suffer the most...

"Elephants" [gop.org] , eh...

For a moment i thought... (0, Redundant)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447574)

that this headline failed in trying leetspeak.
Do u think, 2?

Re:For a moment i thought... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447600)

It definitely fails in being a good headline.
Luanch 2? Does that mean the second Launch? Or do they plan to launch two rockets?

Yes, the article then tells me the missing information. And that part it the essential one: That China plans to send two people up (actually, they'll not send Astronauts, but Taikonauts :-))

Great. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447578)

Now Bush will outsource NASA next.

Re:Great. (1, Interesting)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447639)

I know you are just Bush-bashing, but I sincerely hope that he does. Private industry is inherently more efficient than a big centralized government bureaucracy like NASA.

There is no reason any more to have a NASA sucking on the US taxpayer's teat in the first place. Let private industry explore space (and assume the risk and reap the rewards).

Re:Great. (1)

KingPunk (800195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447742)

"Private industry is inherently more efficient than a big centralized government bureaucracy like NASA."

tell that to our airline industry. they're so much more efficent, yup.
efficent at filing "Chaper 13" papers maybe.
and maybe lobbying congress to bail their asses out again, and again... AND again..
efficent. hah.

Re:Great. (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447934)

tell that to our airline industry.

If I knew anybody in the business, I would. And they would agree [econlib.org] with me. Air travel is unequivocally safer now than it was before deregulation. Accident rates during the twelve-year period from 1979 to 1990 (after deregulation) were 20 to 45 percent below their average levels in the six or twelve years before deregulation.

As for Chapter 13 filings, bad and/or inefficient companies go out of business while efficient companies continue and expand. Its called "capitalism", and its a good thing. Surely you're not advocating a return to direct government subsidy of airlines?

Re:Great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447827)

Yes, because the defense industry, for example, is not the kind to suck on the US taxpayers teat, right?

Re:Great. (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447928)

NASA is mainly an administrative body to hand out contracts and monitor their executon. Almost everything NASA does is executed by subcontractors such as Boeing, Locheed Martin, United Space Alliance, etc.

So in effect NASA is already privatized and has been for some time.

Re:Great. (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11448033)

Pretty insightful comment. I'd mod it up if I could.

There are still a number of needlessly complicated rules and regulations that "private" companies are subject to when it comes to spaceflight, though. And none of those are enforced by contractors.

Re:Great. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447947)

There is no reason any more to have a NASA sucking on the US taxpayer's teat in the first place. Let private industry explore space (and assume the risk and reap the rewards).
No reason except that private companies do not have the best interests of the American people at heart. As with the privatization of Social Security (and most other operations normally performed by the "government"), the private corporation taking over these endeavors will only think of the bottome line: their own profit. In particular, the case of Enron and the airlines in the US should point out this obvious fact (and probably did to many) to the politicians and citizenry pushing for privatization. No private company will do what is in the best interest of the American people unless they are legally forced to do so. To think otherwise means that either you're selling something or you've already been sold.

It may or may not be Bush bashing depending on the source. It doesn't change the reality that there are certain activities within our society that are better left to at least mostly neutral agencies (think utilities, media, space, military, social security, health care) since to put them in the hands of private corporations leaves them open to even more cynical manipulation than they are subject to as government bodies. It may not suit the purposes of Dubya, Cheney, O'Reilly (bill, that is), Limbaugh and others who seek to direct as much money and power to themselves and their friends using a platform of "free markets" and "competition" but it doesn't mean it's not true. Until the American people realize that these folks and the folks like the parent post who seek to color this truth to their own ends are only out to take advantage of the average consumer, the future prospects for the USA are bleak. Providing for the common good is what made America great. The current status quo of "more for me" is what our founding fathers (and mothers) were fleeing when the left the European continent hundreds of years ago. It's just that our current "leaders" have devised a way of warping democracy to do what the aristocrats of England had been doing for hundreds of years before 1776. The American people just haven't realized it yet.

As one of the cousing posts points out, until America realizes this, China and India will continue to advance and ultimately overtake America as not only manufacturers but also as innovators. We have to do it together as one in the US, or we won't be able to do it at all.

Re-Entry (3, Funny)

RobertTaylor (444958) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447582)

"The spacecraft includes both a re-entry and an orbital module."

You would hope it had some form of re-entry module if you were the astronauts!

Re:Re-Entry (1)

bryan986 (833912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447614)

Interviews were conducted with some astronauts in the USA and they said they would be willing to goto mars even if they had no hope of getting back

Re:Re-Entry (1)

ysegalov (849765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447768)

Since we are dealing with China, it is not a question we can neglect.
Do they really intend to bring their guys back home? Or maybe this is a new scheme to reduce Chinese population (over 1.3G nowadays)...
BTW I've been to China a year ago and I can safely say that Chinese people would line up even if the deal is one way. They love heros, they praise them.
The three greatest heroes in China (as of beg. 2004) are:

1) Yao Ming - the NBA player

2) The Chinese rocket that they sent to space beg. 2004 (You don't have to be human to be a hero in China)

3) The olympic games in 2008 (You don't have to be in order to be a hero in China)

But where will it land? (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447792)

Will the same lucky citizen who's house was crushed 'as planned' get a second chance at fame?

FUCK ALL THAT EASTERN SHIT. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447589)

The West is the Best...

Maybe some day (4, Insightful)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447595)

I look forward to the day when space exploration is done by private companies with staff all over the world. Then, the competition will be between companies and not some sort of xenophobic constest between mutually distrustful national governments. The pace of progress will probably increase by an order of magnitude too.

Re:Maybe some day (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447669)

> Then, the competition will be between companies
> and not some sort of xenophobic constest between
> mutually distrustful national governments.

You mean, like Microsoft and... uh...

Re:Maybe some day (4, Insightful)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447673)

There aren't any laws or treaties preventing private companies from sending things into space.

The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).

A company can put $1B in excess capital in the stock market (or pay dividends, allowing the shareholders to do so) and in 35 years that $1B will become $32B on average. 70 years from now it can be expected to be worth over $1T. Since investing in space stuff is very risky, a substantial premium above the stock market return will be required to get companies to invest.

The bottom line: Governments are probably best left to handle research, and publicly release the results so that all companies have access to the latest tech, which will allow companies to do what they do best - manufacture, not research.

Re:Maybe some day (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447894)

There aren't any laws or treaties preventing private companies from sending things into space.

Actually, there are (at least as far as doing it from US soil). There are a myriad of US alphabet soup agencies that have regulatory authority over private industry when it comes to space exploration. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (HR 5382) signed into law in late 2004 by President Bush reduced some of those onerous requirements, but it is not a complete panacea for those ills, and it brings its own level of bureaucracy to the process.

The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).

In the United States, NASA is the taxpayer-subsidized 800-pound gorilla when it comes to space flight. US private industry finds it difficult if not impossible to compete against a NASA wielding a virtually unlimited taxpayer-funded checkbook which subsidizes as much as 600 million dollars of the true cost of every Shuttle launch. These companies that want to launch commercial payloads are pretty much locked into using NASA hardware or outsourcing to Arianespace.

Re:Maybe some day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447720)

Yes, because we all know what upstanding organizations big businesses are. They never commit a crime or ignore regulations, after all.

Maybe if your point was that any human-run organization can become corrupted, your comment might have made some sense.

Re:Maybe some day (1)

wertarbyte (811674) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447734)

But consider this: These competition between distrustful countries brought us into space and to the moon.

Re:Maybe some day (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447877)

The pace of progress will probably increase by an order of magnitude too

As will the mortality rates. Unless government is heavily involved with safety, you can expect corners to be cut. Now this might all be FUD, but no more than the statement I am quoting.

Re:Maybe some day (2, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447945)

So? Arround 10 people a day are killed on UK roads, doesn't stop us driving.

Astronauts (3, Funny)

RobertTaylor (444958) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447596)

"But he said the duo will be chosen from the same 14 fighter-jet pilots who were part of the first selection process...

No chinese billionaires or boy-band members going up?

Re:Astronauts (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447824)

Commmunists are a silly bunch what can we say.

But (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447605)

Will they be returning them to Earth?

Re:But (-1, Troll)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447611)

With racist bastards like you here on earth, I'm not sure I'd want to come back if I were one of the astronauts.

Re:But (1)

-kertrats- (718219) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447660)

Unless I'm missing something drastic, I think you're making quite a leap to say that the AC was being racist.

Re:But (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447695)

I've been reading /. since before user accounts. I know what he's saying. "The dirty yellow Chinese scum don't value human life as much as we white god-fearing 'mericans."

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447776)

The Chinese government doesn't have a respect for life. It has nothing to do with Asians as a "race." (Which is really quite racist, since we're all human.)

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447665)

With dictatorships like China here on Earth, I'm not sure I'd want to come back if I were one of the astronauts.

Re:But (1)

dotwaffle (610149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447731)

In fact, the Soviets when sending up Gagarin were shit scared about the Cosmoanuts defecting to the West, so they used an autopilot, and were only going to give the pilot the code to disable it if there was any trouble - otherwise he was just a passenger! Thank god the Soviet Union no longer exists!

Re:But (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#11448016)

He's probably commenting on the fact TFA specified there would be a returning module. I think for most people it's assumed there would be a returning module.

A matter of pride (5, Insightful)

Odo (109839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447616)

The US would never partner with the Chinese. Not while the US shuttle is grounded. And once it is flying, they won't need to partner with them. The Chinese know this. Having to rely on the Russians to get to the space station is embarrasing enough, but dropping to third place thanks to the Chinese would be too much.

On the other hand, the Chinese have (so far) been very good a keeping the operation of their space program separate from issues of national pride. They launch misions when they are ready, not in time for some politico's birthday or scheduled speech. Linking the two was one of the reasons the Russians never made it to the Moon and one of the reasons the Americans lost Challenger.

Re:A matter of pride (4, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447629)

They launch misions when they are ready, not in time for some politico's birthday or scheduled speech

But what about Feng Shui?

Re:A matter of pride (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447703)

They launch misions when they are ready, not in time for some politico's birthday or scheduled speech. Linking the two was one of the reasons the Russians never made it to the Moon and one of the reasons the Americans lost Challenger.

Huh? Challenger was lost because they launched on a bitterly cold day which aggravated a design flaw in one of the SRB's O-rings. Besides being inaccurate, your observation is just so much 20-20 hindsight.

As for linking space exploration to national goals, America did pretty well meeting JFK's goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the decade of the 1960s was over.

Re:A matter of pride (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447756)

Huh? Challenger was lost because they launched on a bitterly cold day which aggravated a design flaw in one of the SRB's O-rings.

Why do you think they launched on a bitterly cold day? Because they needed Challenger in space for Reagan's State of the Union speech.

Re:A matter of pride (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447967)

And your proof of that statement would be ... ? The Shuttles launch from Florida (not exactly Maine climate-wise), and the launch dates are set months in advance.

Re:A matter of pride (1)

JDevers (83155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447808)

At Challenger's launch time, the ambient temp at the Cape was 36F. While that is moderately cold for Florida, I doubt 99% of the people on this board would call it "bitterly cold." While the temp did play with the O-rings sealing ability, the O-ring had previously failed to seal at 56F. I would say that the problem would more correctly be termed "complete and total cheap crap" than a design flaw or oversight. I can imagine the engineers at Thiokol...Engineer 1 "you mean it isn't always 90F in Florida? We should think about changing our design then!" PHB1: "Do you know how much that would cost? It is almost ALWAYS above 70F there, so the O-rings will be fine 99.9% of the time. That's a better than average failure rate!!!"

Re:A matter of pride (4, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447897)

"Besides being inaccurate, your observation is just so much 20-20 hindsight."

Actually you are the one who is probably innaccurate though we will never know for sure. NASA was probably under substantial political pressure from the Reagan administration to launch on schedule. Reagan was going to trumpet the "Teacher in Space" in his imminent State of the Union address and they probably wanted he to actually be in space when he made the speech.

If you weren't under some kind of pressure why would you press ahead with a launch on "a bitterly cold day" The launch pad was completely iced up, they had NEVER had a day that cold for a launch. The freezing and the ice created all kind of potential dangers, the brittle O rings was just the one that led to disaster, falling ice damaging the shuttle was the one they were very worried about. If they weren't under pressure why wouldn't you way until a warmer day. If they had the O rings most probably wouldn't have failed. NASA postpones launches for a lot less than the launch pad bering covered in ice and all the components being below typical temperature.

Re:A matter of pride (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447913)

"I can't prove my point. But you're wrong"

Douchebag.

Re:A matter of pride (1)

strelitsa (724743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11448023)

NASA was probably under substantial political pressure from the Reagan administration to launch on schedule.

Conspiracy theories are so much easier to believe than actual facts, aren't they?

If you weren't under some kind of pressure why would you press ahead with a launch on "a bitterly cold day"

There is a phenomena called "go fever" in the industry. Both Apollo 1 (using unsafe pure oxygen during a ground test) and Apollo 12 (launching in a thunderstorm with lightning) fell victim to it in NASA's history. And Ronald Reagan was not in office during either of those launches.

If they weren't under pressure why wouldn't you way until a warmer day.

Because they had a schedule to keep? Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch.

Speaking to "the haves and the have-mores." George W. smirks: "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base"

Ah, a Michael Moore fan I see. That explains your obvious affinity for wild conspiracy theories, I guess.

Ho hum. (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447727)

This is insightful and interesting to me. On the surface, it does appear as if China is going about things the right way. I hope that they have learned from everyone else's mistakes and that they never gratuitously lose a life in the pursuit of space exploration as a result.

if they put 2 in space (1)

1nv4d3r (642775) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447620)

If china puts 2 in space, will 1 + 1 start to equal 3 on earth? That'll take some getting used to.

Re-entry. (3, Funny)

the_mind_ (157933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447625)

"The spacecraft includes both a re-entry and an orbital module."

How... how kind of them...

Re:Re-entry. (1)

dotwaffle (610149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447702)

It's a shame you probably won't have watched the "First Man In Space" documentary a few weeks ago done by the BBC about Yura Gagarin - it appears that although they did intend to seperate the re-entry and orbital modules, it went completely tits up and span out of control. Gargarin would have certainly died if the heat from re-entry hadn't burnt through the wires holding it together... I know we say a lot of crap about the Chinese... But thank god they're not the Soviets...

Astronauts? (3, Informative)

Fulkkari (603331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447643)

Astronauts? Shouldn't the corrent term be Taikonaut [wikipedia.org] ? Anyway, it is nice to see China making progress in this field.

Re:Astronauts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447707)

Shouldn't the corrent term be Taikonaut [wikipedia.org] ? Well, acutally Wikipedia says:
The term taikonaut is sometimes used in English for astronauts from China by Western news media. The term was coined in May 1998 by Chiew Lee Yih from Malaysia, who used it first in newsgroups. Almost simultaneously, Chen Lan coined it for use in the Western media based on the term "tàikng" (), Chinese for space. In Chinese itself, however, the term yuhangyuan ( yháng yuán) ("space navigator") has long been used and refers to astronauts and cosmonauts, and the closest term using taikong is taikongren, which literally means space human. Official English text issued by the Chinese government uses the term "astronaut."

Re:Astronauts? (1)

Fulkkari (603331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447709)

I misspelled the word "correct". Ironic isn't it?

Re:Astronauts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447799)

No, not ironic [google.com] at all.

Re:Astronauts? (2, Informative)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447724)

Actually, according to the source you submitted:

(I stripped the Chinese characters as they didn't survive the cut/past process)

The term taikonaut is sometimes used in English for astronauts from China by Western news media. The term was coined in May 1998 by Chiew Lee Yih from Malaysia, who used it first in newsgroups. Almost simultaneously, Chen Lan coined it for use in the Western media based on the term "tikng", Chinese for space. In Chinese itself, however, the term yuhangyuan (yhng yun) ("space navigator") has long been used and refers to astronauts and cosmonauts, and the closest term using taikong is taikongren, which literally means space human. Official English text issued by the Chinese government uses the term "astronaut." It is unclear whether the Chinese apply the honorific at training or successful mission completion.

So, in short, no. 'Astronaut' is the correct term according to China.

Re:Astronauts? (1)

Fulkkari (603331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447767)

True. But I think the majority of the people here on Slashdot live in the Western world. Taikonaut is a good word because it tells the nationality to the reader. "The term taikonaut is sometimes used" is a bit confusing IMHO because at least in my experience the word taikonaut has been always used instead of astronaut when it comes to the Chinese. Who has the right to decide?

Re:Astronauts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447830)

Who has the right to decide?


You think you do, apparently. You claimed "Taikonaut" is somehow more correct than "Chinese astronaut".

Re:Astronauts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447850)

If the word that is most commonly used is "taikonaut", why shouldn't you use it?

Re:Astronauts? (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447870)

Who has the right to decide?

Good question. I see three options:

The Chinese do. This was the assumption I made, but I'm starting to question it. We don't call Germany "Deutschland" after all.

We do. "We" here is America, or more broadly the Western World. This seems to be the way you think it should work (I'm not saying that you're wrong, mind). It's our language, we'll call them what we want.

Nobody does. This is probably closest to the truth. Nobody actually picks what term we use, but eventually everybody starts to use the same term.

Personally, I see no problem using the term "Chinese Astronaut" or, if it's obvious we're talking about China, using the term "Astronaut" on its own. For that matter, I would prefer "Russian Astronaut" to "Cosmonaut". A hundred years from now when 30+ countries have people in space (At least, I hope that happens) are we going to have 30 different words for their Astronauts? We're already up to 4 now and I'm getting annoyed with it.

Re:Astronauts? (2, Informative)

Markus Landgren (50350) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447739)

No. The correct term would be yuhangyuan, or in English: astronaut. "Taikonaut" is a play with words by people outside China, which is not any more correct than calling american space travellers "spaceonauts". If you had actually read the link you included you would know this.

Re:Astronauts? (2, Interesting)

Fulkkari (603331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447831)

Usually the word that is most frequently used will be the one that is correct. There are numerous of examples of this. I understand that the Chinese officially use the word astronaut, but if we decide use the word taikonaut instead (which our media at least in my experience has), it will be the word we should use, because it is the word we are familiar with.

Re:Astronauts? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447885)

Wow, so is that why everyone says Nigger so much? So that way when enough of us say it is becomes the correct word to say? Here, I'll help it along a little bit. Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger Nigger

Re:Astronauts? (2, Funny)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11448000)

Hehe, ESA "astronauts" are called spationauts [wikipedia.org] which I think is the worst one of them all.

Re:Astronauts? (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447852)

Ahh, I wouldn't say that they (or ISS men) are going into _space_, much less so the _stars_. It's an Earch orbit. 350-380 kms up from the surface. Just barely outside the athmosphere. Not that it's a piece of cake, of course.

Re:Astronauts? (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447919)

No.

Taikonaut is an bastardisation by people who think they're multi-cultured by bolting words from various roots together. Perhaps you should read the link you posted.

Re:Astronauts? (1)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447968)

Calling them Taikonauts is stupid. Astronauts are astronauts, no matter which country they came from. This whole Astronaut/Cosmonaut/Taikonaut should've gone out of fashion when the Cold War ended.

There is no separate Chinese term for American astronauts. Why should there be a separate English term for Chinese ones? Furthermore, why should astronauts be the only profession that get different words based on country of origin?

If you have to emphasize the fact that they are Chinese, well then, just call them Chinese astronauts.

Partner? Why? (-1, Flamebait)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447653)

> plain invitation for the U.S. to partner with China on space.

Why would the U.S. or Europe (not to mention Japan) partner with China?

Unless they wanted to outsource manufacturing of space gear, that is.

As most of space technology is dual use, I would never consider cooperating with the Chinese until China becomes a normal country (free elections, non-hostile government, etc.)

Re:Partner? Why? (3, Insightful)

WillerZ (814133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447704)

If you asked most people in Europe to rank governments in decreasing order of hostility, the US would be above China.

Phil

Re:Partner? Why? (1)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447839)

So what answer do you think you would get if you asked the Taiwanese or the Japanese?

Re:Partner? Why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447952)

If you asked more people in the world to rank governments in decreasing order of hostility, the Europeans would come out as the most hostile people *ever* to walk the earth, well above the Romans, the Huns, the Americans, and every other militaristic people. No one else has conquered, killed, and exploited so many for so long.

Why would anyone bother asking the bloodiest and most brutal people on the planet who they think #2 and #3 are?

Re:Partner? Why? (1)

bbc (126005) | more than 9 years ago | (#11448003)

"If you asked more people in the world to rank governments in decreasing order of hostility, the Europeans would come out as the most hostile people *ever* to walk the earth"

"The Europeans" as an entity even remotely approaching a people hasn't existed for more than 40 years. I don't think we as Europeans have conquered or killed that much.

As Dutchmen ... ah, well, that's a whole other story. Still, my great-great-great-great grandfather has been dead way too long to still be blamed for much misdoings. Now, if we were looking for a hostile people still alive ...

But let me guess, Bill O'Reilly won't allow you to entertain such thoughts.

Free elections, non-hostile government (5, Insightful)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447712)

I would never consider cooperating with the Chinese until China becomes a normal country (free elections, non-hostile government, etc.)

Let me guess - you're not American!

(Rigged elections; government hostile to more countries than any other government on earth.)

Re:Free elections, non-hostile government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447872)

Haha, never got over Kerry losing huh? Or are you still whining about Gore?

American elections rigged? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447899)

You're a know-nothing and an idiot.

As our elections become better run, are better watched, and more difficult to rig, the current minority party (former majority party for 50 years) loses more and more often by larger and larger margins.

Insert brain, engage.

Re:Partner? Why? (1)

dotwaffle (610149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447717)

I'd rather we (meaning the westernised countries) partner with the Chinese - we know they are honourable in keeping their contracts etc, even though we may disagree on policies. China isn't such a bad place to be - it's far better than Iran and North Korea for example :) I'm not saying we support them, I'm saying we help each other with space programmes etc - we can discuss their agenda when we become friends =)

Signed,

The Eternal Optimist, and Eternal Fool for trusting the Commies.

Re:Partner? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447910)

Wow, you're stunningly naive.

Partnering with China just makes it that much easier for them to spy on us and steal even more technology even faster than before.

Honourable? Bizarre.... Where do you kids get this stuff?

Is this the current propaganda the public schools are brainwashing you with?

Re:Partner? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447722)

I would never consider cooperating with the Chinese until China becomes a normal country (free elections, non-hostile government, etc.)

Are you from the States? If so, someone mod this guy 'funny' please.

Re:Partner? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447966)

Are you from Europe? If so, someone mod this guy 'ignorant and hypocritical' please.

Like Russia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447957)

Like Russia right? free elections, non-hostile government etc... /sarcasm

Tech transfer (3, Interesting)

rijrunner (263757) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447674)

Not sure how much I buy into that invitation. There is no real chance of anything substantial happening. China is trying to cooperate with a lot of countries now, but only the European Space Agency has really moved forward with chinese cooperation on Galileo. China did buy a couple Soyuz to help with their design work.

The biggest red-herring is all that stuff about tech transfer. China gets more tech transfer every day from US tech companies moving to China than anything they can get from building equipment to spec for joint space ventures. Most space work is pretty basic and is only a subset of regular industrial processes. There isn't really anything that special about it.

Re:Tech transfer (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447794)

I think outsourcing space exploration would yield all the same benefits its yielding in every other sector of our economy. I'm pretty sure aerospace engineers, especially through pork laden contracts to Boeing and Lockheed are really expensive. Imagine the benefits of tapping dollar an hour Chinese aerospace engineers.

There is irony that NASA more closely resembles a corrupt Soviet or Maoist era socialist bureaucracy than anything you should be seeing in the home of the free and the land of the capitalist. Moving the work to China might be an improvement, though I would favor moving it to Russia's space agency, their labor costs are way below U.S. rates too and they have far more experience than the Chinese. They are a can do group who do way more with way less and they are willing to try innovative concepts like raising cash off well healed space tourists, they are positively entrepreneurial.

If you are dead set against outsourcing to foreigners, well then there is always Burt Rutan and T/Space. Their labor costs are high but would also do a lot more with a lot less than the current NASA politburo.

Once China starts to show up the USA.. (2, Interesting)

Prophetic_Truth (822032) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447680)

Once China begins to show up the USA then we have another space race, go china! The US public needs to be motivated by such competition to get interest back into space. If the US is the only nation really striving in space then the willingness to dump cash into NASA by public representives is not justified unless it means those representives wont be re-elected.

Will launching 2 men into space do this? No..But its a start to eventual competition as long as China's economy continues to grow, and doesn't bust like the former Soviet Union.

They *have* to launch 2 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447741)

Because half and hour after launching the first one, you know they're going to really want to launch some more...

:-)

Interesting blog about Internet in China (1)

fatblock (640807) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447746)

Lots ot interesting links to find in this blog. http://china-netinvestor.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

asians tend to be good at refinement... (3, Interesting)

capsteve (4595) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447763)

it's my opinion that while western countries are good at cuturally breeding innovators, the eastern countries (while they also breed innovators) are better at breeding refinment. breeding sounds very commoditized, but it is meant in its broadest sense of cutural/societal influence... yes, the chinese contribution to global innovation include paper, printing press, gun powder, military strategy, martial arts, holistic medicine, feng shui and pasta, to name a few. what other innovations have asia brought us in the 19th or 20th century? the western world, on the other hand, are responsible for a fucking butt load of innovation for quite a few centuries (3?): internal combustion, pnumatice tires, radio/tv/sattelite communications, electronic computing, internet, medical and pharmacueticals... the list could keep going. this whole innovations/refinement discussion could be it's own topic of discussion... the asian countries, on the oher hand, have been really good at taking western innovations(cars, electronics, entertainment), digesting it, and regurgitating well thought out refinements. honda element, sony ps2, ringu, these are things that are now feed back to the innovators, but in the end they are really only refinements to the original.

the chinese will be the country to watch in the next few decades. they are still one of the few communist countries in existance, they have the biggest population on the globe, and they are entering the growth and refinement stage that japan, korea, and other southeastern dragons went thru in the 19th and 20th century. they also have some of the biggest problems in the world; they have the biggest population on the globe(organization will be difficult), they are still communist(not good for innovation), and they are entering a stage i their cutural development which might require more capitalistic injection from the west.

the fact that the chinese will fly more taikonauts this year has IMHO a few big implications:
1) we have the economy to support a state run space program
2) we have the cultural drive and support of the people
3) we have the resouces to make this happen
4) the biggest one is this-we're flexing our muscles-don't fuck with us!

it's also interesting that according to the article, they are extending a welcome hand in talking about working together with nasa. this is a simple publicity move to bolster their rising technical position within the world and it basically says, "we're growing up as a country and we're not to far behind you. team up with us now, and you won't be eating our dust. don't and you might get fucked". afterall the united states government has really taken a beating in the last few years regarding space, space travel safety, and global joint projects(ISS). right now the chinese are on the upswing, they are just entering the golden area of space travel that the uinited states and ussr were going thru in the 1950-1990's(golden area in terms of economic and workforce resources as well as national support). there's really a lot of multi-facet/multi-layered pros and cons teaming up with the chinese... some are good, others could be not so good. hope this venture doesn't turn america into an obedient dog on a chinese leash...

My hope is that they get the hubble (2, Interesting)

dalutong (260603) | more than 9 years ago | (#11447893)

I think the Chinese should say "hey, U.S. If you don't want the hubble anymore we'll take it. It is 20 year old technology so you can't be that worried about secret tech getting into our hands. We'll even give you 1 billion jiaozi for it."

Would make me happy. China would be able to get a benefit and the hubble would be able to survive. not to mention that a high publicity scientific partnership with china would help our international record.

why would China partner with America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447905)

America cannot even launch a human into space.

China is the future. America is the past. I do not see why they would be interested in that kind of partnership.

"cooperation" is mandarin-to-english for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447932)

... "tech transfer", stupid round-eyed barbarian. I can only guess at how much is covertly being done by the Chinese communist government, though the nuclear weapons espionage during the Clinton administration gives some hint. What's amazing is how much overt transfer is being done. I remember reading that tech transfer is almost a requirement for any Western corporation to set-up in China, because it must first partner with an equivalent state-owned Chinese company and then hand over many of its manufacturing secrets. Anyone who thinks this offer is anything other than that is pretty naive.

Challenge to US Hegemony Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11447971)

Bravo for China, and here's hoping India gets to the moon soon. The more countries going up there, the harder it will be for the US to control space and determine who and what is allowed off the planet.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...