E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Bigelow Aerospace / msnbc.com
A scale model shows Bigelow Aerospace's proposed lunar colony, made from inflatable modules, with a fleet of lunar landers in the background.
Is China on course to surpass the United States as the world's space superpower and stake a claim on the moon in the next 15 years? Billionaire space executive Robert Bigelow is deeply worried about that scenario — and he says Americans need a "kick in the ass" to respond to the challenge.
Bigelow delivered that kick today at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in Las Cruces, N.M. — but the general consensus among experts on China policy is that it's a bit too early to start rattling the sabers.
The founder of the Budget Suites hotel chain and Bigelow Aerospace promised to "cause a stimulation" with his remarks at the ISPCS conference, and delivered on that promise by laying out an argument for China's growing space dominance. He said the trend could conceivably lead to a lunar takeover in the 2022-2026 time frame.
Bigelow characterized China as "the new gunslinger in Dodge" when it came to space exploration.
The way he sees it, China is progressing along a slow, steady path toward space proficiency. The steps in that path include follow-ups to the Shenzhou 8 spacewalk mission in 2008, the unmanned Chang'e lunar missions and last month's Tiangong 1 space lab launch. In the coming years, China will have plenty of cash for great leaps forward in space, while the United States will be hamstrung by higher debt and tighter budgets.
Why the moon?
Why would China want to lay claim to the moon? Bigelow referred to some of the long-discussed potential benefits, including the moon's abundance of helium-3, which could someday be used as fuel for nuclear fusion (although that idea has been oversold in the past). The moon's raw material could also be turned into the water, oxygen, building materials and rocket fuel needed for human exploration. But Bigelow said the biggest payoff would come in the form of international prestige, just as it did for the United States after the moon landings.
AP file
Bigelow Aerospace's Robert Bigelow worries that China will lay claim to the moon in the 2020s.
"This would endure for a very long time," he said. "It’s priceless. ... Nothing else that China could possibly do in the next 15 years could produce as great a benefit."
Bigelow speculated that China could conduct detailed surface-based surveys of the lunar surface in the mid-2020s, setting the stage for the country to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and formally claim possession of the moon. China could then conceivably insist on being paid for lunar concessions, Bigelow said.
He said the Chinese challenge could serve as a "fear factor" to energize the efforts of NASA and its space partners. "It's the best kick in the ass that you can have," he told reporters after his talk. He also doubted that the Chinese would be content with taking on the status of a partner in the U.S.-led space "family," even if they were invited to join. "They want to have their own family," he said.
Bigelow proposed diverting 10 percent of the U.S. defense budget to the space effort, which he said would provide an annual boost of $60 billion. It may turn out to be "too late" for a space race to the moon, he said; Bigelow suggested that a U.S.-led consortium should target Mars instead.
What do the experts say?
Bigelow said his analysis was based on two years of observing the space policy landscape, rather than personal discussions with the Chinese. Generally speaking, experts on Chinese space policy say that it's too early to judge the nation's long-term intentions.
"I think it is a little bit of a stretch to think about whether the Chinese will be laying claim to the moon," Dean Cheng, a research fellow at the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, told me today. "I would be very surprised if they had any plans one way or the other."
Cheng said the Chinese were clearly interested in lunar exploration. "They will have all the pieces in place in the 2021-2025 time period to think about putting a man on the moon," he said. But he doubted that China would try to do anything inflammatory — for example, rolling up the American flag at Tranquility Base and putting a Chinese flag in its place. "Incendiary stuff, not likely," Cheng said.
It's more likely that China would want to see an international body such as the United Nations in charge of lunar exploration and exploitation, Cheng said. He pointed to the example of the Law of the Sea Convention, which governs the use of marine resources but has not yet been ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Cheng said the Chinese would prefer to see lunar resources controlled by an intergovernmental body rather than private-sector entities. He said they'd definitely oppose an arrangement in which non-governmental entities are in charge, such as the system set up by ICANN, the Internet's governing body.
"The prospect of the Chinese having to deal with the space equivalent of ICANN is their worst nightmare," he told me.
Other observations from Robert Bigelow:
- For years, Bigelow has been working on inflatable space modules based on technology developed by NASA, and two of the modules have been lofted into orbit by Russian rockets. Bigelow said the Genesis 1 and 2 modules were no longer providing useful data, but that they were designed to stay in orbit for 12 years. That suggests that the modules would make their re-entry no earlier than the 2018-2019 time frame.
- Bigelow had planned to make habitable orbital modules available to international clients starting in late 2014. But today, he told reporters that the schedule has been put on hold, due to the economic downturn as well as questions about the availability of private spaceships capable of servicing the habitats. Once the decision is made to resume the project, it would probably take no more than three years to launch the modules, Bigelow said.
- Bigelow said the workforce at Nevada-based Bigelow Aerospace has been reduced from 115 workers to 51, due to the slowdown in work on the inflatable modules.
- Bigelow Aerospace has its own plan to put a colony on the moon. In the ISPCS exhibit hall, the company displayed a scale model of a base made up of inflatable modules that Bigelow said could be assembled in deep space and then transported to the lunar surface. "What was once a station lands as a base," he explained. For now, however, there are no plans to turn the concept into an actual base.
Stay tuned for more reports about the space frontier from the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight on Thursday. We'll also be featuring some of the leaders of the private-sector space effort, including Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Mark Sirangelo, SpaceX's Elon Musk and Virgin Galactic's Richard Branson, in an upcoming installment of our "Future of Technology" series.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
The answer is yes. Yes, they will own the moon. They'll get there next, they'll claim it, they'll exploit it.
While, of course, the west struggles with insolvency and legacy costs from entitlements and health care.
We did it to ourselves. They took advantage of us. We think in terms of next quarter's profits. They think in terms of decades - or centuries.
Health Care Costs in the United States are extremely high due to the fact that they are controlled by corrupt Corporations. These Corporations own our politicians. Until we wake up and realize that Health Care should be treated the same as Public Schools, roads and bridges we will always pay a fortune for Health Care.
After all we have to make sure our CEOs make millions and the hell with the rest of the population. We have to have some radical changes in our "Pay to Play" politics or we will continue to fall behind every industrialized nation in the world
How can we compete in space when we can't even rid our nation of corrupt billionaires that only care about how much fortune they can accumulate.
Dude, what's wrong with you? You're pegging America's and the wests struggles to entitlements and health care?
The winner right now is China, a socialist country who gives their people government health care.
Mixing and matching things and calling them related, isn't politics or science. Its just you wanting to get upset and blame the things you want to blame for no actual reason.
What other things do you blame entitlements on?
China will take over most of the earth(if not all) before they worry about the moon, so what difference will it make?
By virtue of doing things right China will effectively inherit the moon, the U.S. had their chance but the liberalization/corruption of their "leadership" weakened them to the point of becoming irrelevant.
Everyone needs to calm down.
Remember how Russia was going to dominate the world unless we did something. Well they imploded.
Remember just a couple of years ago, when economists were convinced that the euro would replace the dollar.
China's path is not certain, nor is anyone's.
The future is wide open.
Your personally asinine political party is hard at work making you look like a stooge. Its the Republican party if that is who you vote for, and it is the Democratic Party if that is who you vote for. Because your party isn't solving problems. It is getting you to be really angry and support them in doing nothing. By the way, while you pay for it with your money.
Bigelow, an expedient businessman who founded a low budget hotel chain, is now the self-annointed, self appointed expert on the future of Chinese space exploration.
Without even speaking with one Chinese space official, Bigelow unilaterally concluded that the Chinese are plotting to take over the moon and space. Low on facts and intelligence, but high on other mysterious substances, Bigelow claims the Chinese conquest of the moon is motivated by mining He-3 for fusion and the exploitation of other lunar resources. Apparently, he has not calculated the economic cost and benefit of such an undertaking. And, in case no one has informed him, there is no practical commercial He-3 fusion within several generations.
Alan Boyle is as a lowlife as Bigelow for allowing his business hustle Instead of outright promoting his space hardware business, Bigelow disguised his hustle by claiming NASA needs a kick in the ass. Both Boyle and Bigelow are the ones needing a kick in the ass for publishing and promoting such nonsense.
The US put down the ball for moon exploration in the '70s because it wasn't "exciting." Too expensive, they said, although the budget per year to keep Apollo running was about the same as women spent on cosmetics per year. Why shouldn't China go for the moon? Or Japan, or even Russia, who's never been there? We STOPPED competing for it by our own free will. We can't complain if someone else picks up the ball. We already have our priorities mapped out: huge military, large investment in the financial sector, Social Security retirement (which is not an entitlement, it's paid for, just like insurance), Medicare (also paid for by working tax payers all their lives), useless wars, which take up most of what's left, and tax cuts for the rich, which takes up everything else and then requires borrowing to pay for.
China has always seen themselves as a great dynasty. The prestige of actually developing the moon instead of looking around and giving up is not lost on them. If they get far enough, expect to see "China" in sparkling lights, visible every night by the time they get done, just to show the world they did it.
Do we want back in the game? It doesn't seem like it. First, we have to create SMART, EDUCATED kids. Wow, wuffed that one for at least 2 generations. Second, we have to care again. National pride is at a low ebb, and interest in science, well, let's just say denying global warming doesn't help our science credentials. Third, and most important, we need a goal. Currently, the only goal is find a job, make it through the day, for most of us, or, "How can I spend all this money that I screwed America out of" for the miniscule rest.
No, I don't see us being a part of future space exploration. Shoot, they're already trying to kill the next big American telescope in space, and the moon shot equipment has already been scrubbed.
In that sense, our best days are long behind us, and the last gasp ended when the last shuttle landed.
Its funny i told my dad and brothers 27 years ago when i was in th e marines its not the russians that are the problem its the chinese and there assets and a billion people. We the USA better step it up or we will be! watching from the out side looking in.
"the west struggles with insolvency and legacy costs from entitlements and health care."
Such a moronic statement!
Yes, they ration the health care to the people of China. Elites, then military, then mid livel politicians, then factory workers at the bottom. With obamacare, that's what we will get. We need to double the NASA budget and work on real healthcare changes. Limit hospital board pay, limit malpractice - if a Dr has too many claims, they can't get coverage. Let the Dr's be competative. Best results mean higher pay.
China will dominate the world and the universe, they are too many and they don't waste money in stupid wars policing the world.
Let them have it. Perhaps they can find a way to go broke the way we have. We have enough problems on this planet. Stop funding non-humanitarian adventures.
As much as I think we need to step up manned-exploration, I think that a lot of people's fears about China are unfounded, not to mention that we are over-estimating their capabilities.
China is utilizing primarily Russian technology to get their gear into space as it is, furthermore, they will likely be 'borrowing' heavily from the Apollo program if they ever do a moon-shot (Russia never managed it, and their tech is the more accessible one). Anyway, Apollo is old tech, which has major limitations, costs and doubly, China lacks the experience to use any of it, yet.
The US needs to step up manned space exploration because of the fantastic benefits to civilization from conducting all of the research, not to mention the many potential benefits and resources laying out in space in abundance that are otherwise scarce and precious here on Earth.
However, if China were to reach the Moon, they wouldn't be able to simply lay claim and hold the entire mass for itself (otherwise the US would have like it did the West). China would need to have a sizable presence up there to declare it part of their sovereign state.
In all likelihood, if China even tried such a thing, the act at best would be symbolic, and the subsequent kind of land-rush that it would stir among developed nations would lead China to major economic turmoil as the US, UK, EU, and Russia would all pull their economic support of China and make a land-grab on the Moon as well. With the US and Russia most capable of getting the most amount of hardware there first...and likely working against the Chinese at that.
China is more likely to take back Taiwan militarily than they are to try and own the Moon.
But I sure hope I never have to eat my own words.
Best case, and most likely scenario is that, like the ISS, as China's space exploration capabilities improve, there will be a greater amount of joint-efforts to explore and keep space internationally neutral like it is now. Currently, no nation is powerful enough to own a celestial body, neutral-space agreements may fade away when it's easier/cheaper to put heavy gear on deep space missions however.
I agree, the moon is a dead, let them have it. Now Mars, that's a different story.
Let the Chinese go to the moon, we'll go to Mars. It's a fair trade.
In the meantime we need to focus on getting this nation back on it's feet and returning some sanity to our political process before we take on any more big projects.
A lot of people live on another planet already or perhaps the moon. We haven't the time right now to worry about the moon or mars.
We first need to get sustainable energy and food system set up here. Otherwise we won't have the energy to make a car move let alone the energy it takes to launch something to the moon.
This article was stupid. It remind me of Rome, lets make the masses quiet down by putting on some specticals. "Look at the shiny lights, pretty lights, and we'll top that off with a competitor and evil competitor."
Who cares if China goes to the moon. There's nothing there. And costs to mine something like that are huge, would be no benefit.
Skip: The moon is not dead. There's fresh water there. More than anyone previously thought. It has valuable minerals. It can be used as a base to launch probes and spacecraft at a fraction of the cost of lifting it out of our atmosphere. Payloads can increase. We can build these craft on the moon or in it's orbit.
Plus, valuable research and training needed for Mars exploration can be done there.
The Chinese know this and they are acting on it, while Americans struggle to understand science, economics, etc. and fall further and further behind.
For the preservation of our BLUE AND PURE WORLD! lol sorry couldn't help myself. Anyway personally I think the UN needs to start taking the torch for space exploration. It needs to stop being individual nations and start being one world. If we had one "International" government that governed all nations as if they were states. We wouldn't have the problems we have now with immigration, or trade taxes and tariffs. Things would be a lot different. As for the first step being getting a sustainable energy and food system. Technically speaking we already have all that. Nuclear Fission power and soon to be Nuclear Fusion power are sustainable. Look at the sun, its been burning for millions if not billions of years and will continue to burn for millions if not billions of years. Harnessing that energy would make the world go round. As for food well lets just say thats taken huge steps over the years and if we take a page out of NASAs book which has been improving on its food preservation and delivery systems for years "hint hint" Tang and TV dinners. We could easily have an abundance source of food that could travel anywhere. As for those people that "HAVE to HAVE" fresh, home grown, "organic" food which personally I haven't been able to really taste the difference except in meat products and I do have to say mm mmm mmmmmm but most of the time that s all in the preparation of the meat, and meat if frozen can last 6 months easily. So all those countries thats having food shortages don't know what to tell you. Except maybe we need to step it up on food preservation because it looks to me like most of it goes bad before it gets to where it needs to be.
You wanna go to the moon? You wanna go to the moon?
"...one of these days... POW!!! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the Moon!" - Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden in The Honeymooners.
You want your health care to be run like the public education system? ROTFLMAO!!!! I'm not sure you could come up with a worse example of what to choose as template for health care.
JPSOTW,
I am sorry that the school you went to has you ROTFLMAO, you might have been too busy trying to score drugs than an education.
Wow, China is gonna claim the moon. I'm tearing my hair out already. Takes a rocket the size of a skyscraper and millions (billions now I guess) to put two (2), repeat (2) men on the moon. So, a mining and processing operation to dig out all those natural resources and bring them back to earth is gonna be managed by one country out of foreign exchange and an export driven economy?
It would have to be a worldwide, multinational undertaking, not the isolated, go my own way, get there first (or second, or third) approaches of the Russians, Americans, and Chinese over past decades.
Or, International Prestige, oh yes, I can see it now, "News Flash, China lands on the moon and claims it. Oddly they found a bunch of stuff already there, so they are sending back the American Flags and American Space debris they found there. Opps, somebody been there and done that already."
Planet earth is a polluted wreck. Let them be busy with the moon. We can be busy cleaning up our messes (or go to Mars where there is actually enough gravity that you could actually function there). Using the Moon as a staging point to Mars, build things there and then launch to Mars. Oh yeah, ever seen videos of our astronauts walking on the moon? Not too easy to turn a wrench in 1/6th gravity.
The Sun, the Moon, Mars, and the Stars will still be there to fight over a thousand years from now. Let China go first, die and try, pave the way; and we can follow. Why be first? The old Soviet Union banckrupt itself and imploded from trying to go to the moon or build a defense against "Star Wars". Let China do the same. Sure, they got a lot of money, but even a lot of money doesn't go far when you start space exploration; meanwhile the unwashed masses are starving except for the Showcase Cities like ShangHai or BeiXing. An implosion in the making, especially if we default on all the US Treasuries they are holding (that would be a hoot).
Crikey, One Billionaire thinks we aren't spending enough money on going back to the moon to make sure China doesn't claim it, everybody reads it and goes into a frenzy (left or right, take your pick).
Meanwhile, down here on earth between Congress and Homeland Security (forget POTUS, he's clueless, and no impact one way or another), we have near as a toucher to a Socialist Police State. Let's turn our attention to more pressing matters, shall we?
Pete you are one funny dude. Entitlements? Put the koolade away, and come back down to earth.
Colonizing the Moon now would be a huge money sink with no payoff. Anyone envious of China needs realize their people have much lower standards of living and far less freedom. And also realize that they are prone to civil conflicts and implode on a regular basis. Don't use China as your boogie man to scare people into doing what you want them to do, it is not honorable.
Oh, and it is worth noting that Helium 3 is probably going to turn out to be a terrible fusion fuel. When reaction speeds in a plasma of H3 are taken into consideration, not only do you have to have considerably higher tempratures and pressure, but there are other reactions that will take place and poison the 3 H3 -> 2 He reaction. Physicist Frank Close discusses:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19296/page2/
They'll do it with American dollars. If you have a problem with this, then stop buying Chinese products!
Kinda difficult when just about everything you use in daily life is made in China, or has a good amount of parts made in China. If there were more viable alternatives (good quality American items that were reasonably priced) people may jump on board.
Ain't that the truth. I was looking for a Multi Meter today, and, of course, started with Fluke. A solid American made brand with the long-standing reputation as the best commercial meters in the world. Guess what? Now made in China, still at American prices. I bought a Milwaukee instead.
cliff-278259 wrote:
Let them go to the moon. Eventually every country with the means will be able to do so. This seems like just another article designed to get people riled up about "big, bad," China. Next week, it will be someone else. The fear machine just keeps on rollin'.
Indeed, this is ridiculous. To assert that China would, or even could, charge everyone else to utilize or land on the Moon is a farce. Think of the political ramifications of that. It's not a toll in space to land on the Moon, it would all out war on the ground if someone didn't pay up and I just don't see that happening.
The plutocracy that runs America WANTS you to buy Chinese made goods because American plutocrats make more profit from them. The problem is not really with China. It's with the plutocrats who joyfully run this country into the ground in order to make themselves some more money.
Bigelow is simply a businessman who wants Americans to spend their money so he can make a profit. Let him make his money without our help.
I wonder what the Indians and the Japs would have to say about that
They will do it with American everything. They haven't invented anything technological since gun power. All the technology they have we gave them or they stole from us in the 80's and 90's.
Deuce Bigelow is just trying to increase his sales. This is a marketing pitch akin to those that sell life insurance.
marik7, why are you picking on Pluto?
I don't think it's likely Americans will stop buying Chinese products. You see, the Chinese will work for a very small percentage of what an American will. Thus, they can make stuff much more cheaply than we can, assuming that they have the technology to make it at all. If everything were American-made, we wouldn't be able to afford nearly as much stuff because Americans demand much higher wages. And separating the American consumer from stuff seems unlikely to occur.
Seriously - Well Bigelow Aerospace recently laid off a number of employees due to the private crew ships not being ready nearly as soon as he had hoped. Sounds like he's just trying to scare people into getting those ships ready sooner rather than later. Really though if he wants to do that he should point out all the money being sent to Russia that could be staying right here in the US and creating more jobs.
Brokinarrow:
Yeah but getting those private ships operating before they really ready is just going to cause people to die. You can go back to Soyuz 1 for an example of that.
China WILL land on the moon. That has the so-called experts in Washington frightened out of their minds. Unfortunately there is nothing they can do about it... Because the Republican'ts have slashed the Space Budget in favor of the Military Industrial Complex.
While the USA squanders its legacy on amateurs with toys, China, India and Russia will be building colonies on the Moon and maybe even Mars. It was a mistake to stop sending men to the Moon, It was an even bigger mistake abandoning Skylab. It was a major mistake to stop the Space Shuttle program and not build newer, upgraded versions. Tell me, are we flying the very first 747 Jet liners that were made in 1969? Of course not. We should had been working on improving the Shuttle, while we flew the ones we had. Just think of where the Shuttle could had been if only NASA had not squandered its monies on the Military Industrial Complex and instead, researched better ways of building the shuttle. Work and experimentation should never had stopped just because we got the Shuttle to Low Earth Orbit. We should had kept improving them, making more.
What a shame!
And thats my opinion.
Good job, Bozobama administration and demlibs everywhere! While you bankrupt the country, then try to overtax the people to pay for your waste, all the while doing NOTHING to keep our country strong, the Chinese race past us in every area. Great demlib strategy!
Almost as smart as starting two wars while cutting taxes eh? Both political parties are equally worthless right now, throw your stones both ways.
If the Republicans had funded Constellation we wouldn't be looking at this problem right now. If the Democrats had funded Constellation we wouldn't be looking at this problem right now.
Congress did it. And for the record, withdrawing from that Treaty takes a formal announcement, and one year. That's all.
I think it will be the US and China on the moon. What the hell would the US want to be there for unless the Chinese are also? We in the US must have someone to outsource our work to, even on the moon.
I'll make a prediction right now: We'll never go to the moon again, except as guests.
theCavalier
I don't think that's true. We still have the financial means to do so, if we choose to do so, anyway. In any event, the private sector like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic are making great strides towards getting into space. So if it isn't government-financed, it will surely be privately possible.
Two foreign wars bankrupted this country. Decades of Partisanship bankrupted this country. Ineffective policies (from both parties) have bankrupted this country. Ineffective entitlement programs have bankrupted this country.
Kraussk, the problem is much older and much larger than you seem to be aware of. Get your blaming out of your system and then go learn the truth.
Give away programs, bloated government payrolls and salaries, bloated gov't budgets have bankrupted the govt. We only used a few bullets, some fuel, helicopters, and planes. ALthough any troop loss is regretful, we probably have lost as many troops here in the US in automobile accidents in the same time period as we did fighting the war. I know that was true in Vietnam.
@ Pete-358654
I think you may want to look into some of those numbers
Reuters remarks that the two wars have cost the US $3.7 Trillion which alone is roughly 28% of the US's real GDP!
Add to it the costs of bailing out Wall Street and the Banks, close to $12.8 Trillion
Now we've actually exceeded the US's annual real GDP.
So, go ahead and tell me where the bloated pensions and budgets are getting in the way?
Last I saw, the US's annual budget was $3.5 Trillion in 2010
So, there are the facts...also note that the combined cost of the wars to date actually exceeds the entire 2010 US budget by a clean $200 billion
This is not to say that there isn't huge waste in government, but also take note that:
In short, we have A LOT of financial problems in this country, blaming it all on public workers and cushy benefits for Congressional representatives is peanuts and merely insult to injury.
Just thought I should inject some perspective into you rant.
Umm, Seriously, I think you might want to look into the numbers again yourself.
First, the Wall St. Bailout (TARP) fund was given $900 B, not $12,800 B. Second, almost all of them have paid it back with interest. The U.S. government is actually making a profit on TARP. I'm not saying I agree with the program, but your numbers are off by more than an order of magnitude. Much of the outstanding TARP loans are actually with GM, not Wall St. AIG and Ally Financial were the only two remaining significantly-sized financial companies with any outstanding TARP loans, last I heard (which was back in the early spring) and I think they've paid a good bit of it back since then.
Third, your numbers for the war costs seem greatly inflated. You would almost have to use the complete sum of the DoD budget for those 10 years to equal that amount. Most of the DoD budget was around before the wars. Keeping a few million soldiers employed, paying for their benefits, equipping them, and keeping their state-side bases running is not cheap. Those costs exist regardless of whether they're actually fighting or not. The total for the wars is probably over $1 T, but is not likely anywhere close to $3.7 T. It's most likely not even up to $2 T. Even if that number were true, you were comparing it to the GDP for one year, not the GDP for the 10 year period in which the costs were incurred. 2.8% GDP, while large, doesn't sound nearly as impressive (especially when you consider that, for the aforementioned reasons, it's still rather inflated.) Reality probably lies between 1% - 1.5% GDP going toward the wars.
And, no, the combined costs of the wars do not exceed what the U.S. spends annually. They don't even exceed what the U.S. spent on deficit last year. The truth is that if we hadn't had either war going on, hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 brackets, and had cancelled all DoD and NASA R&D spending, we still would have had a deficit will over $1 T last year. Probably still over $1.3 T. By contrast, Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare accounted for right at 60% of federal spending in FY10 (haven't seen exact numbers for FY11, but not likely to be much different.)
It is true that *some* large U.S. companies pay almost nothing in taxes, but not many. GE is an exception, not the rule. An exception that needs to be closed, I agree, but they are not indicative of most other large companies.
It is true that monopolized industries spur inefficiency, but so do over-regulated industries. Regulation is necessarily inefficient. It always has been and always will be. Regulation is a trade-off between reduced efficiency and prevention of perceived harm to the public. Regulation is a large part of the reason that medical costs are high in the first place, especially in pharmaceutics. Developing a new drug is a multi-billion dollar process that takes often in excess of a decade to complete and sometimes doesn't ever produce anything. Much of this is obviously due to R&D time, but a very large portion of it is also due to the testing and FDA approval processes required by government regulation. Even when successful, it is often 10+ years before the first dime of revenue is produced. While it isn't based as much on regulation, the cost of employing highly-trained doctors is also a large driver of healthcare costs. The process of becoming a doctor usually means that you aren't going to be making much money at all until you're nearly 30 and accruing quite a lot of debt during that time to live and pay for school. However, when you finally do become a doctor, you can command a high salary because the demand for medical services are outweighs the availability of highly-trained doctors. These problems are then exacerbated by the high cost of insuring doctors against the sue-happy people and the idiot juries that award them millions for "emotional distress."
The oil industry is not monopolized. There are several major oil suppliers working oil fields all over the earth. Oil prices are just a result of demand being higher than supply. For that problem, you can thank OPEC works to intentionally make sure this is the case - they actually cut production if they don't think prices are high enough - and good 'ole government regulations here in the U.S.A. where we are absurdly both opposed to new oil drilling and complaining about high oil prices at the same time.
The health insurance industry is also not a monopoly, though there would be more competition if the restriction preventing companies from selling across state lines were removed. Thankfully, the measure that would have made it a monopoly was stricken from the healthcare bill that actually passed (that is, the subsidized "public option.")
I agree with you, though, that blaming all of our problems on the salaries of public sector workers and/or Congress is silly. The combined sum of the salaries for Congress and all of their staff is almost certainly less than $1 B and probably just a few hundred million or less. While it's expensive, it's irrelevant in a discussion of the actual costs driving U.S. federal spending. Those come primarily from social entitlement programs and their share of federal spending is expanding quickly as the babyboomer generation is retiring and leaving smaller generations of workers behind them. This is why SS and Medicare were bad ideas. They assumed that each generation would be larger than the previous one (which is false,) and further assumed the Congress wouldn't be stupid and lower the pay-ins while increasing the pay-outs on it to buy votes and drive them into insolvency (which is also false.)
"If the Republicans had funded Constellation we wouldn't be looking at this problem right now. If the Democrats had funded Constellation we wouldn't be looking at this problem right now."
Dennis, if either of those things had happened, we'd still be waiting for launcher and capsule development, and couldn't afford to operate it when and if it got done...
@ vbscript2
I suggest you follow my link
From the article:
"But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.
According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."
Perhaps you should take up your complaint with Reuters' editorial staff
From the article:
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.
Is Reuters not a reputable enough source to cite from?
From the article:
(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.
What part of "most companies" and "despite trillions in sales" doesn't translate into most companies not paying taxes to you?
Before enforced regulation of the medical industry and practices, companies were selling products laced with things like radium because of their "curative" properties. Much of the regulatory process in medicine has to do with making sure that the medicine is both effective and not simply going to kill you. Selling worthless snake oil is incredibly profitable, look at the profit margins of holistic medicine and herbal remedies. How much more costly would healthcare be if consumers had to take a trial-and-error approach to deciding what medicines to take...buyer beware.
Considering that the R&D is often subsidized (partially) by the government and otherwise 100% deductible, and many patents are often bought from University labs, and such patents allow for a complete monopoly on new life-saving drugs, I don't think they need any more ability to increase their bottom line through tax evasion.
Take note of the shortages of life-saving medications. Monopolies, and oligopolies (like OPEC) control price by regulating supply. A good litmus test to determine the presence of a monopoly is to see a product with a high demand and lots of potential customers being under-served by a few businesses. How does a monopoly control supply? Vertical integration.
Agreed! I have a beef with universities and the AMA regarding how schools are both accredited to become medical schools, the ridiculous number of units people are required to have in general just to graduate, and how the AMA keeps a ridiculously high standard that appears to be a design to restrict supply on personnel in order to keep prices (pay) high and the barrier to entry onerous for all but the most wealthy and driven.
Except for that pesky legal exemption that prevents insurers from competing with each other across state lines. How many choices do you have on health insurance providers across categories (PPO, HMO)? It may not be a total monopoly, but surely a narrow and powerful oligopoly.
Indeed, it's more of a powerful oligopoly with vast vertical integration, sandwiched against a cartel (OPEC). However, the price fluctuations didn't follow with demand during the major oil spike in 2008.
But perhaps you disagree with the findings by the committee for the Dept of Homeland Security
Maybe you know something they don't. If global demand was dipping because of the start of the recession, why else were prices going up? Perhaps there's a James Bond villain mobilizing an army we don't know about ^_^ (just playing with you a little bit).
Totally agree, glad we're on the same page about this.
I disagree. They were good ideas, but in the same manner that executives raided employee pensions and retirements to benefit themselves or for short-term gains for their company, Congress allowed themselves to borrow from the unobligated gains in the SSI and Medicare Trusts, to replace them with T-bills that had a yield curve following closely with the Fed Rate. Congress refinanced that debt with those trusts every time the Fed lowered the rate, which further reduced the return to those trusts. That's what has largely led to their insolvency. If Congress never borrowed from the trusts, and Reagan were never allowed to have created the income cap on the SSI/Medicare contributions, the trusts would still be solvent, even with all the COLA and population shifts.
Agreed...but buying votes is what politicians do best...and now with the SCOTUS decision re: Citizens United, money will have even more value in politics than ideas...because according to Roberts and Scalia, money is free-speech...it's even free'er speech than free-free speech.
ubscript2,
The financial community paid back the TARP loans as fast as they possibly could for two reasons, to avoid the stigma of the bailout, and to avoid oversight into which executives they gave the taxpayers money.
The government made a profit? Yeah, well, if we want to look at it as an investment you divide the profit by the loan, and that tells you your ROI. Anybody know what our profit was on that TARP deal then? Maybe a few millions on 800 billion? A 5 percent ROI would be 40 billion, I don't have the numbers, but if our profit had been 5% on TARP, some politician would be claiming credit for it.
The bailout was a scam.
As to all your other paragraphs, I am pretty much in agreement.
"Overtax the people". ROFLMAO! In case you didn't notice, the Bush tax cuts are still in place, and Obama actually reduced payroll taxes to boot. Typical teapublicans - the tax rates are the lowest since 1950, yet you still whine like spoiled brats about being "overtaxed".
Here's a clue - if you really think we should revive the space program and "beat China to the Moon", and boost our military spending, then you're going to have to accept a big tax increase to pay for it - manned space flight and military action are costly, and they cannot pay for themselves.
Oh, but you'd rather have no taxes, bigger more expensive government programs for the Military and Spaceflights and moon colonies, and have the Finance Fairy wave her wand and make the 14 trillion dollar National Debt and trillion dollar deficits magically disappear! And to think that Teapublicans claim Liberals are out of touch with economic reality! LOL!
they raced past us in 3 years?
It's easy to do when a) they were on our heels, and b) we stopped running.
They had nearly 40 years. Our moon program stopped in the early '70s. Since then, we've never put a man higher than low earth orbit (basically where Gemini and Mercury got us in '62-'66).
Dennis,
China, in terms of spaceflight technology, is nowhere near our heels. They are using technology "borrowed" from the US and the Russians, that has been "acquired" by their county or publicly available for decades. Yes, they have a shiny coat of paint and don't have the retro space look that Apollo-era vehicles did, but China has not invented a new space vehicle that bests anything the US or Russians have currently available. Their vehicles may have newer technology in it than the 70's and 80's era Space Shuttles, but China has not yet build the starship Enterprise. Credit is due China for being the third person to the human spaceflight party, but mass hysteria about their ONE manned spaceflight is pointless fear mongering.
And you know, a knife can still kill a person, even if that person has the latest and greatest gun. It's not who has the latest and greatest technology, it's who is using that technology, and where they are going. This is about being in the nation with the best technology, unable to put a person into space, while China not only is putting people into space, they have a long term plan to keep people there, and move on to explore and exploit the moon. Meanwhile, our nation seems to be filled with people who would rather argue about who has the better spaceship designs. Even if America COULD buiold the USS Enterprise, we wouldn't because of budget constraints. meanwhile, using Apollo era, and proven technology, the Chinese are going places. Oh, and guess what, they don't like us. So don't expect them to play nice when they don't have to.
Dennis, one human spaceflight hardly qualifies as an attempt to become the dark overlord of the universe. Yes, they have grand plans. MANY nations have had grand designs before, only to fail in the execution. I am not saying China is not a threat, but fear mongering and tin foil hat parties will do nothing to improve the sorry state of U.S. space capabilities.
Getting the government (President and Congress) to decide on a course of action, and stick to that course of action rather than changing course every four years, will accomplish more than fear mongering ever will.
When is Iraq going to finish building their super-secret super cannon?
Congress will focus on NASA when WE focus on NASA. If we cannot do it, it will not happen. Also China has sent more than one manned mission to space, and have recently orbited the moon, and put the first block of a space station into orbit. They are currently one of only two nations that can reach low earth orbit today. We are NOT the other. Russia is.
Seriously
I suspect that was sarcasm, but Gerald Bull was assassinated so the thought processes associated with that (as silly as it was) died with him.
I don't recall Bull ever wanting to put his gun on the moon. That being said, it would be far easier to lob things off the lunar surface, and today's roller coaster technology is easily advanced enough to lob dead weights at Earth.
^_^
Hey kraussk just how are we keeping our country strong by driving golf carts around on the surface of the moon at a cost of a couple of trillion bucks?........Republicans have some strange ideas.
Do you know how many jobs it takes to put something on the moon? Do you know how many new technologies will be created in the process? Do you know how much money those technologies will generate for the economy once civilians find new ways to use them? Space travel and research is an invaluable economy booster, it employs people from every walk of life and educational background: rocket scientists to janitors, engineers to security guards.
Having the mineral rights might be handy, also. Otherwise we pay China a percentage.
Not to mention having something to strive for. Survival is a lousy motivator. Why were the space-race years so enervating? We had a goal that seemed worthy of life as a whole country. Why did we stop? Same reason people didn't watch every shuttle launch. Once you meet the goal, you have to move forward to some new goal, otherwise people revert to their nasty, "I'll watch the next accident," mode. We went to the moon, people got bored, we moved on, but not outward, inward. Skylab, shuttles, probes and satellites. We still have some robotic and surveying things going, which are exciting to me, but most people don't even know they are happening. Unless you put a guy on the candle, no one cares.
Anyway, if you don't think the space race lead to strength in the country, you were born too late. If we hadn't been mired in Viet Nam, we might have even kept the momentum. But that's all in the past now, and I don't really see it in the future. America is in survival mode, and likely to stay that way for the next 2 to 3 decades.
The moon also has a something very special - Helium-3.
It's found in very small amounts on earth, but quite abundant on the moon. It is incredibly effecient for use in fusion reactors for energy production, far better than what we currently use.
Trust me, there's money on the moon... lots of it.
@ Shuklack
The use of H3 is still speculative.
It is believed that H3 may be a very good fuel for fusion, but there has been no practical application yet to actually prove it and see what sorts of side-effects there are.
However, this is not to say that we shouldn't be mining space. Consider all of the products we use today that utilize cheaper materials rather than more sturdy and effective ones because of the cost.
If the world made a concerted effort to start mining minerals in space and devising a way to both manufacture products in space (making use of the unique manufacturing techniques offered by a zero-g vacuum) as well as bringing the raw materials back to Earth for use, it would have a profound effect on many markets.
Imagine if the US, which is currently the only country with the capability, actually decided to put serious funding into doing such a venture. What kinds of economic advantages would the US have if it could obtain all sorts of minerals that are exceedingly rare/precious on earth, but abundant in space? Furthermore, currently we can only speculate on the unique products like electronics, pharmaceuticals and nano tech that would need to be produced in a low-gravity vacuum. What kind of value would being able to produce truly unique products that no manufacturer can produce on Earth would have? What sorts of economies of scale and economic advantages would that provide?
Anyway...I guess we should spend another trillion on the F35 instead...because manned attack aircraft are the wave of the future!
^_^ pardon my cynicism
"It is incredibly effecient for use in fusion reactors for energy production, far better than what we currently use."
Anything that works would, by definition, be better than what we currently use. There is currently no such thing as an operational fusion reactor that even creates enough energy to power itself. The current ones all require external energy input, which isn't terribly useful for energy production. Now, this isn't to say it will never be possible. There is still interesting research going on in the field that may lead somewhere, but we currently don't have any thing operational or the prospect of that happening the next several years.
"Do you know how many jobs it takes to put something on the moon?"
Brokinarrow, that's half the problem. Employing people is nice, but the number of people you have to employ to do something should never be regarded as a figure of merit. 'Standing army' to launch a Shuttle is how it's often put, and you must pay them no matter how few times you launch.
There are no 'Mission Controls' for each flight in civil and commercial aviation. Airlines have a very low number of employees per aircraft (as does Air Traffic Control). And they keep those planes flying as much as possible, because planes that aren't flying don't make money, and regular operations keeps people proficient.
If you want more employment in this area (and I do too), you want it because there are more markets and reasons for many different launches, from many different providers...not cramming as many people as possible into a single government project.
And then wonder why it's so expensive.
But if it were possible to conduct a space launch to LEO, the Moon, wherever, with, say, just 10 support people, that's what you do. That's where a large part of the cost of space access is. Not the design or reuseability of the launcher alone.
Frank, I see your points. Have you read up on Space X at all? They're using a fairly small amount of personnel and have done very well in their efforts so far, being the first company to orbit and recover a privately made space craft. They're also due to have their Dragon capsule perform a docking test with ISS in November (last i had heard) and are well on the way to having the first commercial crew-rated vehicle. They also have quite a bit of launch contracts lined up, not only with NASA but other business partners that need satellites or experiments flown. I'd say they fit what you're referring to pretty well considering they do all this for a fraction of the costs that NASA did it for.
When did Space-X go orbital? The twice in two weeks SpaceShipOne X-Prize was a sub-orbital flight to about 70 miles.
Frank,
Actually the, as you described it, standing army to launch a shuttle is an order of a magnitude smaller than the 'standing military' it took to launch Apollo (Saturn I and Saturn V).
For at most 4 or 5 flights a year, the Apollo program required 60,000 people, for the space shuttle, that number dropped down to around 6000 and to launch more missions (10 was the highest number that NASA achieved in any single year).
That 10 was actually the limit because the factory that built the tanks could not build more than 10 tanks in a year.
and this is why, in the end, capitalism will destroy the USA.
China is communist: They don't allow descent, freedom of religion and they allow capitalism as long as it benefits the country and the party. Do something to undermine China, Mr Chinese capitalist, and you will be in jail or executed.
In America our corporations care nothing for our country or our people and they are destroying our country by selling to China the rope the will hang us with.
Capitalism can work, you just have to have the proper rules in place to keep the corporations from making everyone slaves.... The current mess America in has less to do with capitalism/communism than it does with poor child-rearing practices which results in "adults" that are still very self-centered and short sighted.
Greed, laziness, and politicians willing to pay for votes with a total disregard to the future of the nation are what doomed America. Nothing exemplifies it better than the current administration.
We have 9% unemployment, continuously extended unemployment benefits yet our current "leader" wants foreign criminals to remain on our soil.... the same thing foreign leaders want them to do... and it's not for our benefit.
pjam09 6.2
"yet our current "leader" wants foreign criminals to remain on our soil"
That's why he has deported more so far than the previous administration did in 8 years. We have the largest ever number of enforcement personnel on the border.
Whose feces have you been smoking, and what does all of this have to do with the article?
The mess has lots to do with wars and lots more to do with corrupt politicians. All they seem to care about are the benefits they get from their corporate friends, not to mention various eye-catching yet completely pointless policies. Oh, and the War on Drugs ain't working either.
Uhhh...so we should crush dissent and ban freedom of religion? OK no problem. We'll start by eliminating people like you that hate this country.
Neither country has it right yet, although, during the '50s and '60s, our Golden Age, we were getting there. We let the '70s on throw us off track. Viet Nam was the great speed bump. LBJ's Great Society was completely derailed by it.
There is a balance that has to be maintained between controlled capitalism and enlightened socialism. We fumble at the solution, but always overshoot the mark. We have a mix, and it sort of works, but Reagan put a trend in place that has pushed us away from controlled capitalism toward anarchic capitalism. We can see the results plainly enough.
I don't know if we have the brains to hit the real mark or not. Looking at congress and the ridiculous split between people in the same economic boat does not give me great confidence that America will find the proper balance. Maybe the next government to hit North America can give it a try.
There are some nations that are close. Germany is (ironically) probably the closest right now. They have an enlightened free market approach that looks like socialism, but really isn't. It's tightly controlled capitalism that benefits the people and the market. Japan is trying to get there too, but the aging population is giving them trouble. Singapore may have the best thing going, but it's stricter than the USA. Don't litter in Singapore.
The point is, China is at one extreme, an autocratic society, benefiting businessmen and the military at the expense of everyone else, who primarily live in medieval conditions.
The US has become another extreme: an economic model known as neoliberalism, which breaks down into rule by corporations, and the ultra wealthy owners therefrom.
Both are at the extreme, both work like a pig on stilts, and both have a majority living in comparative squalor.
@ theCavalier
I like your synopsis...+1 for you
"Both are at the extreme, both work like a pig on stilts, and both have a majority living in comparative squalor."
Hmmm... that doesn't really seem to be supported by the median household purchasing power (that is, median household income adjusted for purchasing power) of the U.S., which is higher than any other nation on the planet with the exception of Luxembourg (a single-city banking center in Europe.) Members of the U.S. middle class have more purchasing power than members of the middle class of any other significantly-sized nation.
@ theCavalier,
"The point is, China is at one extreme : an autocratic society, benefiting businessmen and the military at the expense of everyone else, who primarily live in medieval conditions.
The US has become another extreme : an economic model known as neoliberalism, which breaks down into rule by corporations, and the ultra wealthy owners there from."
You nailed it, right on the head. Right, left, Dems, Repubs, they are all worthless. Throw the lot of them under the bus and start fresh.
Can't quite agree that we "the unpreviledged" in the US are living in as much squalor as "the unprivileged" in China. We have a ways to go yet, but on the right track to get there.
Would you think a smart journalist like Alan Boyle dug deep to see how COMMUNIST China's space program good so good so fast? Well, here's a little tid bit that Alan may have forgotten to add to this report.
H Bush authorized Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. to teach/develope the Communists how to launch missiles (that would be used for space and nuclear missiles (aimed at the USA) When Clinton became President he prosecuted LMSC. Letting them plead guilty and only paying a fine).
www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2000-15/sd2000-15-001.shtml
As President, W Bush had direct business partnerships with the UNELECTED leader of Communist China. I'd bet 1 in 1 million Americans even knows this. If Obama had direct business partnerships with Communists it would be all over the corporate WALL STREET news until he was IMPEACHED!
Hey, the Bush family is with the Carlyle group. Selling death to the highest bidder is their business. They made a mint on the Wars. This, therefore, comes as no surprise whatsoever.
If this were the '50s, they'd both get the chair as traitors for selling government secrets. The good old days, when presidents couldn't just make our opponents stronger, and walk away with a load of cash.
But but but...
...It's all because of regulations!
...Ron Paul knows the answer!
If we weren't regulating these markets, then it wouldn't have been illegal for President Bush Sr./Jr. to make a boatload of money off of selling sensitive US material to the Chinese! Then there wouldn't be any laws broken!
See, Dr. Paul respects the law!
Conflicts of interest are in the eye of the beholder
Dr. Paul also respects food safety and despises tainted beef! That's why he wants to get rid of the FDA and let a more ethical trial-and-error approach take hold like before Teddy Roosevelt ruined all the profits that businesses were making before "The Jungle" was published!
You should listen to Dr. Paul's discussions about the Fed and market regulation in general. Who cares if Greenspan ate his own words and outright reversed his prior stance that banks left to their own devices would act in the long-term best interests of the company and the nation! Dr. Paul KNOWS that regulations are the devil and that the most ethical people in business are the omnipotent executives at the top!
Shame on both of you!
Won't somebody please think of the money!
Our current leadership feels that money is much better spend on entitlements to those who contribute little or nothing to our society...... instead of encouraging inovation, growth, creativity.... he wants to tax those very entities so they go to China, India and elsewhere....
Full of stupid today eh?
The truth hurts sometimes don't it Mike, though our current administration is not the only one to blame..just because he has spent more money than all the other Presidents in American history though doesn't help his cause. You can't take money away from one group and give it to another and call it growth. When you take money from the private sector to create a government job, not only does the private sector lose a job, but the government doesn't create anything in the end. Something earned through hard work and determination is always appreciated more in the end. The entitlement society that we have will never understand this.
@ Ivans Word
Oh? When do companies start layoffs based on how much they pay in taxes? Show me the links please. Last I checked, companies base their hiring off of market demand for their product/services...but I guess that's just economist crazy-talk
I guess if you don't count all of those roads, rails and bridges, the power grid, data pipelines, aquaducts, seaports, military bases, schools, etc.
Oh? How many government bailouts did you get this decade? Last I checked there are quite a few banks, insurers and businesses rolling in government dollars trying to help them out. Did you enjoy your stimulus check?
It seems that many of the US's largest businesses are making record profits during this recession! So if companies base their hiring off of how much they save in taxes and keep as profits, where are the new jobs?
Maybe taxes are the issue! Geez, companies must be paying A LOT in taxes! Oh wait? Maybe it's just a coincidence!
Maybe they just need access to all that cash they've offshored tax-free! Maybe if they could repatriate it like they did in 2004, they'd use that money to increase their workforce and boost their payroll! Oops...guess they don't!
Perhaps there's something you are failing to understand.
There are plenty of problems with an "entitlement society" for sure, but I think that you are missing the forest for the trees
It is clear that Obama has destroyed the US technology position. As the most ignorant president in history, Obama is destroying the future of the US. It is time to oust the ignorant tyrant who looks like Assad, Ghadaffi, and Mubarak!
Reading your post just destroyed about 50 points of my iq.
You obviously have no understanding of US technology or what a "tyrant" really is.
A real tyrant wouldn't allow the opposition political party to hold legislation hostage to their demands. He would have had them all taken out and SHOT. Boehner? Shot. Paul? Shot. Bachmann? Shot. McConnell? Shot.
And how about an entire television network devoted to the opposition party? A true tyrant would have had it shut down, the buildings dismantled, and the ignoramus commentators who are so annoying shot. Limbaugh? Shot. Hannity? Shot. Beck? Shot, his remains burned in acid, and then tossed down a mine shaft.
That's what a *tyrant* does. Obama is many things, some of which I disagree with. But a tyrant? Nope.
And I bet *you* look just like some mass murderer too. So should we put you in jail for that?
Yeah, I've read misguided foolish posts before, but this one is right up there with the worst.
HolidayLoren: ooo, how tempting it would be to have a little bit of tyrant in the President at this point... No, I guess we can't really shoot the republican Clown Comittee. That would be, well, the republican thing to do.
Well Pete, that ought to put your IQ at about 30.
Jeffery Dahmer was a pretty handsome guy
Tyrant? No. Arrogant? Definitely.
barnyfife:
Try down to 120.
Nice try though.
Talk about an over-reaction. Everyone may want to look at the quality of Chinese manufacturing. Remember the high speed train wreck caused by defective software and hardware? And you think that they will be able to safely send people to the moon and return them safely to the earth?
The first several lives that China sacrificed to their space effort did not get much press - but they are just as dead. And the same will probably happen when China sends people to the moon.
And as to their claiming the moon - there is a world of difference between claiming and enforcing the claim. Are they going to create a space war? They have proven that they can shoot down space debris, but that is a long way from waging a successful space war. FYI - we can also shoot down space debris (as can several other countries).
It didn't take very high-tech equipment to get us on the moon. I'm sure they're up to it. Besides, in China, if you build something for the government and it blows up, you get shot, and the family gets a bill for the bullet.
You think there would be a space war? HA! That would be the best thing to happen to this country in 3 generations. A race with China might blow some national pride back into the balloon.
It won't happen, though. We'll keep bickering, and blaming each other for who let China take the moon, but in the end, we'll meekly let them take it.
It didn't take high tech equipment to get us to the moon? Compared to what? the engineering and subsequent fabrication and manufacturing involved were quite advanced. In hindsight, sure, as my cell phone could easily handle the whole apollo program by itself. Still, it took a mixture of known and researched technology (quite a bit very advanced) to get us there.
Well you wanted those cheap prices and corporations sold us a bill of goods by our lying politicians so enjoy our backward dive to the bottom further
Demanding cheap prices might explain why Walmart outsources
How about Nike, Intel, Apple, GE, Microsoft, HP, Sun, Cisco, etc.
Are they selling their products at a discount?! Where are you shopping?
Last I checked, companies make decisions to outsource in order to maximize their profits...perhaps the outsourcers you're referring to aren't motivated by maximizing profits?
Seriously has a point.
Some people choose to take the blue pill, I chose the red pill
^_^
seriously, you took the red pill!!!! wasn't that the male to female gender transformation drug?
It was only partial, and I've got a lovely pair of boobs to enjoy now
^_^
What did you folks think was going to happen after Clinton dragged CCP China into the WTO ? China gate -Johnny Chung , laptops w w88 plans walking out of los Alamos ?! Now a Wal-Mart on every US corner ..lol !!! Haha ! When a mushroom clouds rises over a US city one day Ill certainly know who made it happen. ! Thanks Bubba for selling US out ! Yea I know, you never had sexual relations with that girl either ! Republicans , Democrats, youre all traitor scum !
Using the patriotism card to suck out billion off Uncle Sam? I am sure Sec Panetta will not buy in to this BS.
"... moon ... Mars ..." This guy is talking from both sides of his face.
" ... diverting 10 percent of the U.S. defense budget ..." I say he should be placed on top of DHS list of terrorists.
"Will China be the next superpower in space" ?...YES !. The US has become broke, janky and sends all it's jobs to China and anyone else who wants them. Soon, the US won't have any kind of a manufacturing capacity. Students are steering clear of technology as a vocation at the universities now because their chances or employment opportunities in a chosen field will probably not be there waiting for them.
Big business has destroyed America's dominant position in technology and science...China has everything to gain now.
US wasn't broke until Bush came along and screwed things up.
Honestly, funding a new shot at the moon would be a drop in the bucket, if we got our revenue in order. 60 million sounds like a lot, and it is, but it's a small percentage of what we pay for every year. JFK didn't worry about where the money was coming from. They had enough taxes to cover it, and Americans counted their blessings and PAID UP. What happened to this country. Patriotism is what the other guy gives up for his country, but I'll wave this little flag here as long as it doesn't cost me anything. That counts, right?
Reprehensible.
LOL I thought China just makes junk...that's what everybody says. But now you tell me that they built a space station and launched several men into space??? So sad...I guess Americans underestimated China!
Well, it didn't hurt that H W Bush gave them the rocketry technology (see linked article above).
Actually it was Clinton and Loral that gave them the missle technology in exchange for campaign cash
www.fas.org/news/china/1998/
Bobby,
I don't know where you heard that China has launched several men into space and has a space station, because that is just plain BS. They have launched a couple of astronauts into space, but that's as far as they have gone so far. lease try to get correct info from whatever source.
China only managed to make it to 1961 in terms of space technology. They've got a long way to go, even if they're standing on the shoulders of giants.
However, thus US's prioritization of funds on space exploration and advancement is still woefully inadequate and we've definitely ceded much of our lead over the past 40 years!
China has been launching rockets for decades, and Loral is a SATELLITE manufacturer, not a rocket manufacturer
magnicico:
China just launched a test space station, but have not sent a manned crew to the station as of yet.
This is a rhetorical article. Barack Hussein Obama wants China and probably other countries to be the leaders in Space. The media will not say it but, BHO has destroyed NASA. In just 30 months, under BHO, we have went from the pre-eminent Space power to a second rate space faring nation. Hum ... perhaps 3rd rate since we now have to depend on Russia to get us to the Space station, can't re-supply the Space Station and have no heavy lift rocket. In fact, BHO's appointed leader of NASA now admits we may not have a heavy lift vehicle for another 14 years. And, may not be able to get back the moon for 50 years. His own words (paraphrased). Who knows ... under BHO, we may have to eventually have to ask China or Iran for a ride.
In one recent speech BHO said we need to team up with China on future space exploration. Notice BHO did not mention Russia or the EU.
China does not team. China exploits those stupid enough to enter into devil's bargains with them.
China does not team. China exploits those stupid enough to enter into devil's bargains with them.
Bush is the one that ordered the grounding of the shuttle, which is all we had. It was dated, and he didn't authorize any replacement. NASA has the constellation, but they've spent so much time and gone so far over budget with the program that it didn't seem fiscally resposible to continue it during this downturn.
That was a garbage comment.
Having closely followed your Space program since the days of Ranger I can state categorically that Congress has destroyed NASA. Firstly through lack of funding: Proxmire. Secondly by inappropriate (pork) funding: The entire Shuttle program. Thirdly through lack of oversight: Cx. And now, fourthly, by too much oversight: Senate Launch System.
NASA was and continues to be a relic, a dinosaur from the Sixties with two (many) brains (and some would say 10!) These centres need to be closed down or allied to local universities becoming independent centres of excellence. The JSC and KSC rivalry doesn't help much either...
Whilst diametrically opposed to most of the Tea Party Movement I must say that the Tea party in Space has it bang to rights.
The truth is the truth wherever you find it!
Stating that Obama or his administration has "destroyed NASA" is inaccurate and childishly partisan. First, NASA is far from destroyed. Second, Congress and the previous administrations have had much more to do with establishing operational and architectural parameters that NASA must operate under by law ... in fact, certain Senators are experts at getting these laws through Congress to enforce their wishes. These multi-year funding activities cannot be turned on a dime, but NASA continues to make as much progress as we let them.
If you're unhappy with NASA's direction, I suggest writing your Congressman - I did, with less than satisfying results; I sincerely hope your experience is better. The Democratic Senator replied with excerpts lifted directly from the website of the largest company in my home state associated with the issue at hand. The Republican Representative replied with a form letter thanking me for my interest ... and then followed up with a ridiculous phone survey to my home 2 weeks later, where I was repeatedly (10+ times) asked "are you in favor of repealing the job-killing, Socialist Obamacare program that is an assault on our freedom?" ... even the person giving the survey was laughing with me halfway through it. In the end, both of these Congressmen voted right down the line with desires of the lobbyists that represented the companies vying for NASA contracts. So, it isn't rocket science to see what these people are fueled by - it's obviously not the exploration or commercial development of space ... it's getting reelected.
Worse, in the opening year of the Bush Presidency, he actually canned the alternative to the Shuttle
For your reading pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/
Yankee dogs!, first we take Moon, then we take you! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.
Sorry to interrupt your partisan bickering:
Fact: Bigalow launched two toy balloons into orbit with webcams. How long did their containment last?
Until he has put up a real independent module with a real independent life support system: he remains a huckster if not an outright carpet bagger. Caveat emptor.
His authority to speak on CNSA is about as good as mine I.e Zero. However I seriously doubt that the Chinese will renege on the OST. Unlike the USA who seem to think that they already own, not only the Moon but the rest of the solar system as well.
"Until he has put up a real independent module with a real independent life support system: he remains a huckster if not an outright carpet bagger. Caveat emptor."
And why should he do this, until the means to reach it are at hand? Robert Bigelow doesn't have the depths of pocket the government does, he won't do it just because he can, just to win geopolitical points, but because a user has paid him to.
And those users will go only so far until commercial human launches are available. Commercial Crew isn't just for NASA's sake, they'll merely be the first to benefit from it. They'll be the anchor customer, not the only customer.
Our time, America's time is over. We allowed the globalists to steal our industrial plant and cripple our economy by way of a petroleum based energy dependency. China will now step into the lead. We will regress, contract and eventually divide into a fraction of our former size.
and American corporations running to china because they take advantage of china's currency manipulation , then leave thousands of unemployed Americans . we are being hustled by our own politicians like hillary that look the other way for the likes of walmart and dollar general stores and we wonder why we are in decline?????????
Don't forget that the US is manipulating its currency as well...
Look no further than the Fed Rate
Here's the currency/trade relationship between the US and China.
The Fed reduces the Fed Funds Rate. This makes the base rate that all interest rates are based on in the US drop, which makes new debt cheaper than old debt. However, this also means that the yield on new US income-based securities drop in value as well.
Ordinarily, with all else being equal, when the yield on debt securities drops, the value of the currency they're denominated in follows suit...in this case, the US dollar follows changes in the Fed Rate.
However, with the Fed Rate being near-zero, why hasn't the US dollar dropped?
The answer is that China, followed by Japan, India and Pakistan are feverishly buying US T-bills and other US$-denominated debt-securities, regardless of the low yield.
Like any supply/demand relationship, the higher the demand against a finite supply, prices go up. Thus, the US$ either maintains its value, or actually increases in value as foreign buyers continue to buy such securities, offsetting the natural downward pressure that a low Fed Rate causes.
But the negative effect of owning a low-yield security doesn't come without its own effects.
China in particular buys huge amounts of US debt issuances and even just owns a lot of US$'s because the downward pressure of those securities transfers to the Chinese currency. After all, China is effectively trading its liquidity to the US in exchange for low-yield debt securities.
This in a nut shell is how China suppresses their currency and keeps the flow of outsourcing dollars flowing into their country no matter how many %-points the Chinese economy grows year-over-year.
How do we reverse this trend? How do we take back control of our economy and once again become the great lender to the world rather than the great debtor?
Raise the Fed Rate.
It effectively reverses the trend of everything in the global economy (considering the size of the US's economy in the global economy especially).
I'd like to make some comments about Mr. Bigelow's comments:
- It's impressive that Bigelow Aerospace has made with the original Transhab NASA technology that Congress defunded. The relationship NASA and Bigelow has moved it forward to both parties benefit; Bigelow is developing a commercial business and NASA will be able to reuse it in exploration with minimal investment.
- It's unfortunate that Bigelow had to reduce staff, but he's been pragmatic in his approach and he's right that although progress has been made in private HSF, it's schedule has slid too far to the right to match his business plan. But I'm very glad to see he has decided, for now, to continue his development. He's poised to be a key player in history.
- Bigelow Aerospace continues to present innovative approaches to commercial space businesses and general exploration. I've seen previous plans to deorbit a Bigelow (or similar) moon station to the surface. This presents many engineering challenges, but solves several other ones. I hope they can continue to pursue this to determine if this is can provide economic, safety, and logistics advantages.
- Wouldn't it interesting, after further development and vetting of the technical approach, if a reference mission could be crafted by NASA and industry partners like Bigelow, SpaceX, ULA, and others to launch and deploy a research station on the Moon? It would be a good exercise to assess the true state of the technology elements and identify gaps for future development. I liked the last comment in the article: Mr. Bigelow realizes that at some point the afford ability of the technology, the desire (or profit) to do it, and the available wealth will intersect to move this concept to reality.
Note that I didn't mention China, mainly because I think what they do is not as evil or as relevant as it is often portrayed. It is important to them and for their prestige as a space faring nation, but it's often given a disproportionate weight in order to further an agenda. I think that's Mr. Bigelow was doing to some extent to garner some support and channel the emotions that fueled the Apollo program. Personally, I don't have a huge problem with that; whatever works. Like Mr. Bigelow and many others, I would very much like to go to the moon and many other places I can only see through my telescope.
@node4 ---- greeat post.
I also have some observations:
1) The whole helium-3 thing was a bunch of hype and speculation. There has never been any initiative that leads in that direction. Fusion power is simply too far in the future for helium-3 to be a factor.
2) The whole NASA budget is less than what the military spent on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.
3) China is fully 40 years behind us in manned space activities. They are currently trying to piggy-back on old Soyuz technology and recreate a predecesser to Mir. This is a long way from the moon.
4) There has been an effort since 2000 to demonize China in space. It seems that many people believe that Americans can't do anything without it being a response to a perceived enemy. And China has been chosen to be that enemy.
5) Despite all the "we are broke" whining and gnashing of teeth, the United States is ther largest and most prosperous economy in the world by far. Because we have managed to pay for much of our lifestyle with borrowed money, essentially China is an economic colony of the U.S. If we want China to cease their space program, we just put restrictions on Chinese exports and watch their economy (along with ours) go down the crapper.
6) Bigelow's statements tend to label him as somewhat "old school" --- dependent on NASA grants to do anything. The newer model for private industry is to embrace the privatization of space and raise your own venture capital with minimal reliance on NASA.
7) NASA's budget will be repeatedly cut except for those applications that are "dual use" military and civilian. This is the way the NASA has always been, an unofficial arm of the military. Until NASA gets rid of the old fighter jocks and ties to the military's requirements, it will continue to pursue dead ends like the Space Shuttle and ISS. China is unlikely to repeat these mistakes.
8) As a part of our demonization of China in space, we don't even permit Chinese journalists to observe launches at Canaveral. We do, however, supply them with advanced technology such as the most critical structures in the Boeing Deamliners and the millling machinery necessary to build super-quiet submarine props. I guess those journalists are China's weak spot.
9) But while demonizing China in space, the GOP is definitely getting deeply in bed with the "demons." The governors and senators from Mississippi and Alabama just gave promises of billions of taxpayer dollars to the Chinese government to build two car plants --- one north of Mobile and another south of Memphis in Mississippi. Local people will have to issue bonds and take on massive debt to meet the promises. Why are we giving taxpayer dollars to the Chinese government so they can out compete American industry?
Do you think the Japanese knew that we had developed the atom bomb before it fell on them. What makes you think that we the US know all of China's secrets.
@Lou,
For what it is worth, the Japanese actually had no idea that we had developed an atomic bomb. They were well aware of Nazi efforts (which failed miserably) and considered it technically impossible. How exactly would it be relevant either way?
Chris, Lou is saying that, like the Japanese who had no idea we successfully developed an atomic bomb, we (Americans) should not assume we know all of China's technological developments. We can guess and assume, but that only gets you so far.
Imperial Japan (and Nazi Germany) didn't have benefit of spy satellites, or recon overflights of the US mainland. The Manhattan Project buildings, much less the Trinity test site, would've stood right out.
Some things, by their very nature, can't be hidden. When someone builds a new aircraft carrier, we know it. The Allies knew of the first German jet fighters from recon aircraft pictures of scorch marks on the parts of the runway where planes typically rotate nose up just before takeoff. We knew the Soviets were working on the N-1 Moon launcher before they first tried to fly it, because of the necessary construction of the large (then) new launch complexes.
If China is going to do something significant, sooner or later, they have to roll it, or something logically related to it, it out into the open...
(and that's ignoring electronic communications monitoring, and other means)
Having just returned from almost eight years in China and being a person who has paid attention to US space, Bigelow, etc... as well as sent a 'card' up in one of their test modules years ago... I have a perspective on all of this that isn't exactly unique but is based in experience with the Chinese themselves and the realities of a 'watched' development of both space and China that was and is very close up and personal.
In a nutshell the Chinese are lying, cheating, and stealing both internationally and domestically in a very big way and most don't get the legal and cultural underlying elements. A post like this isn't the place to try to peg down the multitude of proofs regarding this. I can say, however, that a 'trade war' of sorts with China is appropriate. They are already at 'war' in that regard and sufficient inducement to get them to moderate their behavior at this point is needed. Tariffs for manipulation and so on would be appropriate and resolve many issues simply because they would back off. Many other things come to mind but I think you get my point. They will continue in their behavior until they see a strength in US to respond. Then you will get a reasonable negotiation... until then you lose because they know you won't use the strength you have to win.
A trade war would not destroy both economies... it would help both and be of great benefit to US.
Also... directly regarding this article? Mr Bigelow makes a good case. For those who have not read all that he actually said I suggest you peruse this link.
OK... as a new user I wasn't allowed to post the link. Simply google Bigelow for it though. There is a link on their homepage.
Hey, Time4aPurge,
Was it also BHO who taught you grammar? I love your "we have went".... so here we have 'words of wisdom' coming from a dunce.