It seems very possible. China's space program seems much more efficient in terms of time and money. I lost the article that gave the exact monetary figures, but China launched a man into space w/ a fraction of the cost US did (inflation taken into account) and had fewer trials before going. NASA say they need $150 billion to put a man on mars. China say they can do it for $15 billion. Not to mention w/ a communist gov't you can invest as much of the budget money as you want w/o peoples approval.. in a democracy where 60% of Americans dissapprove "wasting" money on doing manned mars mission it could be easier for China to do it.
Will China beat US to Mars ?!?!
- Thread starter Indus
- Start date
Its possible but American's have the upper hand because of the rover spirit. They can learn about the planet and send their men accordingly whereas china does not have that advantage. Sending men in without learning about the place would be very risky, unless China does not care if they return or not.
I agree. China hasn't fully acquired anything on the level of the US space establishment, NASA and assorted. This establishment could probably do practically anything for the US in near space, including fully initiating a manned mission program to Mars right now. All it needs are the objectives and the funding to make things move...But that's where the obstacles lie...Right now, the US doesn't need to do everything in near space, and no one can do anything without the attached budget. Therefore nothing much is going to happen, for now. :rollullu said:
Well , China just started , don;t mention their Recorts fails to lift off . only US companies help them to improve thier Rockets , Moreover China don;t have much capabilities to put man on moon .
China don;t even have much confidence in its first launch that it can even show in TV live , and give every details before.
In contrast US space Programe is much more advance and far ahead then china etc . They know about space and its Compliancy . u can say it is 50 years more advance then china .
regarding Mars , US send its prove but China still planning to send probe to MOON by 2010. and by 2015 US will send man on MARS and China is still figuring out about MARS environment , etc etc ..
China don;t even have much confidence in its first launch that it can even show in TV live , and give every details before.
In contrast US space Programe is much more advance and far ahead then china etc . They know about space and its Compliancy . u can say it is 50 years more advance then china .
regarding Mars , US send its prove but China still planning to send probe to MOON by 2010. and by 2015 US will send man on MARS and China is still figuring out about MARS environment , etc etc ..
Exactly, the bottom line is that they are having a go themselves. That is something to be proud of.Soldier said:
It is pointless arguing "who will beat who". China needs to take her time to do this, rushing it just to score an emotional victory could end up with dead astronauts - thats not worth the cost.
dabrownguy
New Member
But I want mars now!
China's thinkin abt goin 2 Mars when it doesnt evn have aircraft carriers and proper AWACS? naaaaa the US will get there. But its not a matter of who gets there first. The soviets launched the first man in space didnt they? evn though their opponent were none other than the techno-experts:NATO+USA
elkaboingo
New Member
are they even planning on putting a man on mars. probably not.
not the chinese....yet but the US...dont u read the news?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12
I'm talking about a manned mission.. I should have clarified.corsair7772 said:
There's no doubt China will be the world's next superpower. If they can accomplish this feat (man Mars) they would give US a run for #1.. By then, around 2030, China will already have a bigger economy than US, there will be a much smaller disparities b/w the militaries, and w/ China on Mars.. oh man, I dont think US would want to mess w/ China.. US should put the smack down before China gets too advanced.
elkaboingo
New Member
sorry corsair, i was referring to china. i dont think they intend to go to mars, or atleast not in the next 50 years.
putting a man on mars is just a show of power. i think china is more interested in building power than showing it off (at a large cost)
putting a man on mars is just a show of power. i think china is more interested in building power than showing it off (at a large cost)
Indus said:
I do not think US can mess with China right now even. US policy-makers understand very well the result of messing with powerful countries like China from where American soldiers can come in body-bags. Not to say China is more powerful then US but China has a many times bigger stomach to suffer losses and US experience is throw out when it sees its own killed.
There is nothing to suggest the US is or should get into a bloody conflict with China...You raise the 'bigger stomach' issue to absorb losses like it's a special thing...So I guess the US has the 'little weaker' stomach then...Well, quite frankly I'm fine with that. At least they are a country sensitive to losses...Soldier said:
If the US experience is to 'throw out' when it sees it's own killed then by all rights they would've abandoned Iraq and left it to dogs half a year ago. :roll
Winter, You can not be justified in comparing Iraq to China. Come on, you know what I mean. You have always done better then that. And I never said that there is a reason for US to go on war with China. I was only adding up.
As to Iraq, the losses are mounting now but then who cares. President Bush is busy doing favor to his Oil buddies.
As to Iraq, the losses are mounting now but then who cares. President Bush is busy doing favor to his Oil buddies.
I was highlighting the fact that you commented that the US could not accept losses before bailing out of a situation (you quoted a US-China war). I mentioned Iraq as it is a current issue now where the US is taking serious casualties (you yourself just mentioned the losses are mounting) therefore is a viable if loose example, yet is not 'throwing out' until they finish the needed post war work (set up elections, repair infrastructure, etc).Soldier said:
USA is a country which it's peoples has a proper awareness and strong voice in determining the course of the country. the peoples vote can decide the rise and fall of the presidents. Indeed the president will have to bow to the voice of the peoples in some extent, less he will fall. A massive casualties in a war that has nothing to do with them will be view as unneccesary waste of lives by the US people and they will demand that the troops shaould go back home. But if there is any situation which threatens the US directly, for exampled if China attack US, then you will see a true strength of the US. All that we see so far is only the tip of the spear, a small portion of the whole US military might. Remember WW2. The US fought a war in two front, the Atlantic and the pacific, and won. US give a considerable strength to it's allies in Europe and yet still retain a level of supremacy in the Pacific.
What a lot of people tend to forget that when the US is drawn into war, once they waken they will visit absolute destruction on their enemies. When war is not absolute, they have been averse toi takemn casualties, but that is completely different from their willingness to react with absolute venom if necessary.Awang se said:
As Awang se says, they have a capacity to wage full scale conventional war "en majeur" on two simultaneous fronts. No other country has the economy ot the hardware capbility to wage such a war at a force on force level. At the same time they can keep their economy running and have the advantage of having war reserve assets as well.
We haven't even discussed their capacity to wage a disconnected war, or a nuclear war, or any other variety of opportunities where they bought space based comms assets into play.