Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-15 14:58:20

EuroLauncher wrote:

Chang’e II looks like it will deploy a robotic lunar lander
...
The National party congress is going on now in China
I wonder if space exploration will be mentioned ?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007- … 884411.htm

The National party congress is to democracy what the World Wrestling Federation is to sports. Its all fake! I don't know why they bother to have "elections" in China if the people aren't given choices. Communist democracy is a phony put on, the Chinese Premier might as well put a crown on his head and call himself Emperor as is Chinese tradition.

Commodore · 2007-10-19 18:43:28

If anyone ever questions what will happen if Communists get there first, this should put those questions to bed.

China Mulls Communist Branch for Space

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-25 06:25:44

To opinions on the Chinese moon missions

China eyes the Moon
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071025/85450654.html

China gave more specific shape to its ambitions last September. From 2012, a Chinese lunar rover will start functioning on the Moon. The next steps will be to bring samples of lunar soil back to Earth, mount a manned expedition, and eventually establish a base - following the same pattern as other countries. Only without much fuss, and as a matter of routine.
That Beijing will fulfill its plans is beyond doubt.

Ni hao, Moon
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/dis … d=10026231

Jiao Weixin of Peking University says China would not have the technical ability to put a man on the moon for another 20 years, well beyond America’s target return date.

publiusr · 2007-11-09 14:52:29

I think Sea Dragon would be perfect for China! Then they could go in short order.
Quest will be doing a Truax issue before long.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-11-23 02:57:27

what I don't understand are the Americans who would let that happen without putting up a fight, or giving the Chinese at least a run for their money.
Quite bluntly, I'm guessing 95% of Americans couldn't give two craps about who goes to the moon. Their feeling is, "why should we waste money on a race that produces nothing useful?"
Now, I don't feel that way myself. But I can understand the Americans that *do* feel that way. I wish they didn't, but there's little I can do to change it.
Just like there's little Griffin can do to change the fact that China's got a very good chance of beating out the US or Europe or Japan to the moon.
Sometimes, you just gotta live with reality.

America's biggest problem is itself, NASA only gets less than 1% of the US budget. There are many citizens of the US that don't care about going to space and they do not understand the benefits it has for everyone back down on earth

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-23 08:10:20

And NASA's budget gets smaller percentage-wise all the time. It seems all the government big spenders have all lost their heart when it comes do spending on NASA, they like throwing money at the poor, on wasteful programs, but they always draw the line at NASA and suddenly become "fiscally responsible" when it comes to considering NASA's budget.

I think if the Confederate States were to reform by cutting out all the Liberal Areas, and spend 5% of their budget on Space Exploration, they'd be on Mars in 10 years, its all the liberals that don't want to go anywhere that are holding us back, they have no pride in their country, and they don't even like their country, and I'm tired of being held back by these sorrowful, shameful liberals who are so ashamed of their country that they don't want to accomplish anything for it. They like spending money, but they don't like achieving results.

Under mayor Dinkins, New York City had 2000 murders per year, after Gulliani was elected it went down to a quarter of that. Democrats like spending lots of money on something just so long as it doesn't achieve result, they like boosting teachers salaries, but they don't like turning out smarter kids who go on to college and contribute too much to the economy, because that puts their welfare programs in jeapardy.

I wish those Libs who feel so guilty about what we've done to the Indians and how we treated blacks, would just get out of the way and let us explore space.

samy · 2007-11-25 00:50:56

As somebody who considers himself very liberal and very democratic, and for whom a candicate's space policy is one of the top three reasons to vote for them, I find your characterization inaccurate scapegoating. You're just trying to shift blame on "the other side".

There are just as many ku klux klan rednecks down south who couldn't give a damn about going to space, just about hunting down them thar blackies and seein' em hang.

If we want to mudsling pointless stereotypes, that is.

Don't try to make this into some make-believe "republicans are pro-space and democrats are anti-space". If that were true, why would Bush (a republican of the worst kind) be against NASA funding increases?

Space is something that attracts both right-wingers and left-wingers alike. It isn't political parties that split us apart, but rather, it is something that *unifies* both parties. In this day and age of a split America, we should highly value any such things that are common ground and of interest to both sides.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-25 08:25:26

Well there are two kinds of liberals, those with a positive agenda and those who are defined by who they are against, the latter group seems to have taken over congress. The ones that vote in the primaries are the Bush hating anti-republicans. The Joe Libermans of the Party either keep their heads down or get drummed out of the Party like he did, and did his so-called friends like Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer stand up for him? No! Those two are purely political animals, they don't care about nothing except winning the next election. Having principles in the Democratic Party puts one's career at risk. Liberman is a Jew, and as such he empathized with the Jews in Israel who were under attack by Arabs such as Saddam Hussein, Schumer on the other hand turned his back on Israel so he can march in lockstep with the anti-war crowd in the Democratic Party. I think the current generation in control of the Democratic Party is in trouble. In the old days, there were real Liberals like John F. Kennedy, he was one of the last major politicians in the Democratic Party who thought the United States was the instrument towards advancing his liberal agenda rather than the obstacle to it, today's Democrats, those who hold political power consider the United States as an obstacle, and they put their faith in a new Internationalism, basically the UN.

The thing about Space that I like is its open-ended nature, there is always more of it, and this makes it the perfect ground for Capitalism, there are not environmental restrictions, no government regulation, so you have room out here for unbounded growth, while here on Earth we are limited by natural resources, enviromental regulations, energy supplies and so forth. The problem is all the regulations and environmental rules the Democrats what to lay on us will restrict growth, and I feel that right now we need as much growth as we can possibly have in order to break out into space, and once space travel becomes affordable to most people, the the liberals can give it their worst, they can raise taxes, limit commercial activity, impose environmental regulations to the point where jobs become scarce on Earth, and if they want a job, they'll have to go into space, but right now Space Travel is not an option for most of us, so if the Democrats impose their program now, we'll be bottled up and unable to afford space travel as we'll be kept poorer. In the future people can choose their own lifestyles. If they like socialism, they can stay on Earth, they can enjoy the high taxes, the income redistribution, the environmental regulation and so forth, but if they want to become rich, they go into space where there is no government or at most a minimal government to enforce the law. You see right now we are forced to live in one world or another, the world of socialism has no room for free market capitalism or very little room for it, but the engines of growth are those very freedoms that socialism want to protect us from. With risk comes potential reward, thats what they say about investing in stock and it also applies to how we govern our society. If government want to protect you from anything bad that can happen it often also prevents good things from happening as well.

samy · 2007-11-25 09:28:40

I don't want to get into an extended Republicans vs Democrats debate on a forum where I want to talk about getting mankind into space, so let me just say that I'm very strongly a democrat, and very strongly pro-space, and I am not alone.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-25 09:49:10

Yeah I know. The political atmosphere in this country is very poisonous at this time. I feel that political competition can be constructive at times and destructive at other times. Some people will take time to think about their positions while others will simply oppose those in power whatever their positions may be. George Bush will soon be out of power, its about time we think of the next president and congress instead of obsessing about the current ones. In general I think nationalism can be a strong force in getting us into space, that is why I'm in favor of space races, because otherwise people whill just take their time and thereby take forever. I'm not an immortal, and for selfish reasons, I would like to see mankind move into space in a big way during the next 40 years, which I project to be the remainder of my life time. I remember the first 40 years, 40 years of do nothingism after Apollo. Competition between parties is also a useful thing, but I'd like to see the Democratic Party try to win office by being more hawkish, the way JFK was, than by being more dovish. Kennedy talked about the missile gap, he wanted to deploy an ABM system over the objections of the Republicans who thought it would be destabilizing. Of course Kennedy's ABM system relied upon nuclear explosions to destroy incoming ICBMs. During the Kennedy Administration we also had work on nuclear rockets and even the original Orion proposal, they had atmospheric nuclear tests and people weren't afraid to get a little dirty in those years. Nowadays the Democrats try to be "environmentally correct", they wouldn't dream of such things going on as have occured during the Kennedy Administration, but I'm afraid that we are trying to be too safe. I think if we weren't as risk adverse we would have gotten into space sooner. Our adversion to nuclear propulsion systems has delayed our ability to travel in space. Instead of blasting our way into space on top of a series of nuclear explosions we delayed and took time to find a nice safe clean way to achieve orbit, and so far that nice safe clean way has not been forthcoming.

I've considered exactly how damaging to the environment nuclear rockets would be, and I have to ask would it be more damaging to blast our way into orbit on top of nuclear explosions or to remain here on Earth polluting it as we always do? I think getting hundreds of thouseands of people into space would allow such things as space manufacturing, and eventually cleaner ways of getting into space eventually, but as we are all here stuck on Earth all our externalities are stuck on Earth as well. I believe those shortcuts into space that were explored in the 1960s would have been of net benefit towards the Earth's environment. Political correctness has kepts us grounded for way too long.

samy · 2007-11-25 10:10:11

I agree that political correctness and playing it safe have killed mankind's adventuring spirit sometime in the last 50 years. I know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this, but if people dying is what it takes to get us into space, then by all means, blow those people up. I do not regret the people who died in Challenger and Columbia. People *will die* if we want to get into space. Pioneering a new frontier should never be safe, and if it is, then you're just doing it wrong. Look at all the people who died in colonizing the Americas. A new frontier is pretty much unsafe *by definition*, almost. Sure, you can check and double-check and triple-check and quadruple-check everything and have a thousand redundancies to get a near 100% success rate. But by that time, you'll be putting so many man-hours into safety that the program will grind to a halt under all the safety measures.

That's what we've seen in recent decades. We've become so obsessed with safety, afraid of taking risks, that we can't do anything useful anymore. Fear of Challenger and Columbia repeats has more or less paralyzed America's space program.

We're not going to get anywhere by playing it safe. Any person who plays games of chance will tell you that if you take low risks, the rewards will be equally low.

If we want to spend the next 50 years expanding the ISS by 50%, whoop-de-doo. If we want to do anything *meaningful*, we will have to lower safety standards, take bigger risks, blow people up, and get somewhere.

That's my view anyway.

Terraformer · 2007-11-25 12:14:33

Samy, join the Suicidal Psycotic Astronouts Club. I'm in it. If someone offered me a chance to go into space with a 50% chance of returning, I'd go get ready.

But I don't fear death, just boredom till I come back to life. And missing out on things like the end of the world, etc.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-25 13:28:25

You could easily die just crossing the street, and if people go into space then Death will surely follow.

Terraformer · 2007-11-25 13:34:41

Wo wants to sign up for building an orbital shuttle (corner cutting of course).

JoshNH4H · 2007-11-25 14:54:25

Wo wants to sign up for building an orbital shuttle (corner cutting of course).

:?:

That isn't really the idea. We can't be afraid to increace funding, we have to go with new ideas and new designs, we can't be afraid of failure, we need to take a few risks, if a few astronauts die, due to 'slightly' less knowledge of the kinks in the new systems, we're just going to have to deal with it.

Congress (specifically) can't reevaluate (lower) Nasa's funding every time someone gets a bruise at the ISS

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-25 17:32:04

I've noticed that in China, people die in mining accidents, and endure unsafe conditions in factories all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese try something as risky as Mars direct.

Terraformer · 2007-11-26 04:40:28

As my riend Ivor says, we've had the technology to paraterraform Mars since the sixties. We've also had the technology to get to Mars since the seventies.

cIclops · 2007-11-26 04:57:26

I've noticed that in China, people die in mining accidents, and endure unsafe conditions in factories all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese try something as risky as Mars direct.

Highly unlikely. China's interest in human space flight seems to be purely for propaganda, see how their next flight is timed for the Olympics. Trying a MD type mission would be enormously risky for CNSA who have barely begun to master human spaceflight (they are at the 1965 Gemini stage) with only two missions so far in four years. A disaster in space would not be good propaganda. CNSA have a very slow careful approach, they would surely go for a lunar mission, probably orbital only, before trying Mars. CNSA have been working on their Long March 5 "heavy" launcher (25 t to LEO, Ares I class) since 2002 to be operational in 2012. It wouldn't be able to support a lunar landing or a MD mission.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-26 09:13:09

China could launch a secret Mars Direct Mission and then only announce it when it succeeds, if it fails, they'll say, "What mission?"

cIclops · 2007-11-26 09:24:41

No. They don't have the launch vehicle and the reason they don't is that there are no military uses for a launcher that heavy.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-26 11:19:36

So you think China is some modern day Sparta? I think its debatable whether launchers of the Saturn V class have military uses or not. As a military vehicle for the delivery of warheads, probably not, but what makes you think the Chinese think only in terms of the military uses for things? China has no incentive for starting a war with the United States, China is growing economically at 10% a year just sitting pretty and trading with everyone, so why would China want to jeapardize that by starting a war with a major power? China is growing just fine without aquiring more territory, the important thing is China's growing wealth and influence, being the first to land men on Mars would certainly be something to crow about, and once they've perfected this technology, they can send many more Chinese to Mars and perhaps establish a colony, way ahead of the slow and plodding Americans. If some Chinese die to accomplish this, well it wouldn't be the first time, how many Chinese died to push the Americans out of North Korea? The numbers of Chinese that may die in an attempt to land on Mars is small compared to that.

cIclops · 2007-11-26 12:01:59

Who said that China wants to start a war?

"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting." (Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Planning a Siege)

China doesn't want to acquire more territory? Tell that to the Tibetans, the people of Hong Kong or the Taiwanese, and then find the Spratly Islands.

How many Americans died to push the Japanese out of China?

"We shall support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports." (Mao Tse-Tung)

Check out China's support today for Iran and North Korea, and Saddam Hussein in 2003.

"Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means." (Zhou En Lai)

Just to bring the topic back to space, if the Saturn V had military value why was it scrapped and never replaced?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-11-26 13:14:29

China doesn't want to acquire more territory? Tell that to the Tibetans, the people of Hong Kong or the Taiwanese, and then find the Spratly Islands.

Tibet and other such Hollywood gibberish is the biggest BS story told across the Western world (actually its mostly of the rightwing anti-China propaganda coming from a few freak religiosity activists in Hollyweird)
China will return Tibet (Xizang) to the natives once all you Europeans, Asians, African etc pack your bags, go back to where you once came and leave the United States bare and return YOUR lands to the real NATIVE AMERICANS
PS
Even your glorious President Bush admits Taiwan IS PART OF CHINA, like North vs South Korea they the people of China and Taiwan are the same people only divided by ideology

How many Americans died to push the Japanese out of China?

How many Chinese and British got killed in WW2 because of American cowardice ? Other foreigners were fighting WW2 for you, for many years they were fighting for you, dying for you while you did nothing. Your noble USA had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WW2, you were happy to see Russians, British, Japanese, Australians and Germans kill each other as long as it brought people like Henry Ford or Charles Lindbergh a few bucks. It wasn't until the kamikaze Japanese bit you in the pants did you finally get up and do something about it.
So dont go preacher about some great noble heroic deed, and PS it was mostly the Russians that helped drive the Japanese from Chinese lands, as they stormed through Manchuria during the last days of the war.

Just to bring the topic back to space

Do please, I joined this forum to discuss space not politics. I came here to discuss Skylab, Voyager, Shenzhou, Venera and not to discuss Donald Rumsfeld or Mao Zedong

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-26 23:54:11

Who said that China wants to start a war?
"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting." (Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Planning a Siege)

Then there is no need for weapons of military value if all the Chinese are waiting for is for their opponents to surrender themselves of their own accord, actually that is what I'm waiting for the Chinese Communists to do, surrender their power so the Chinese can have their country back. The Chinese government and China aren't necessarily the same thing, the government is non-representative, as China gets richer and more prosperous and as the Capitalist class becomes more powerful and influential, they'll start to wonder why those dopey Communists whose system doesn't work and who rely on the Capitalists to generate power for them, are running things. Why should the representatives of a failed ideology that had its roots in German, have exclusive political control in China?

China doesn't want to acquire more territory? Tell that to the Tibetans, the people of Hong Kong or the Taiwanese, and then find the Spratly Islands.

Well actually the Chinese want Hong Kong and Taiwan back, the only problem is that the citizens of Taiwan have to give up their democratic rights if they come back to China on the mainland's terms, I think the return of those lands should be conditional on China's return to democracy.

How many Americans died to push the Japanese out of China?

What does that have to do about anything? The point is what does China have to gain from a nuclear war with the United States? The Chinese are gaining tremendously right now, why should they upset things by starting major wars with their neighbors. Alot of American dollars are flowing into China every day, there are Chinese citizens becoming very rich because of this, and because of some stupid communist dogma, the government feels obliged to be pals with North Korea, a country that has been a drain on their resources and has done them little good, they feel obliged to throw a bone to the terrorists every now and then, and by terrorists I mean Iran, all this does is harm their relationships with their customers and prevent China from growing to its maximum potential. I think what we have to do is let China know that they can't get away with waging proxy wars against us and still expect to sell us their cheap toys and other things. We won't do business with our enemies and so China has to make a choice, either they do business with us and become richer or they go to war against us and they don't become richer, that is the choice and their is no inbetween. Let me put it this way, would China prefer to lose half its population in a major war with the United States or would they prefer to grow richer and more powerful by doing business with us?

"We shall support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports." (Mao Tse-Tung)

What good did Mao ever do for China? He was Emperor of a poor third world country that he made poorer! Do the Chinese want more of that? Do they want to go to war with the United States, or do they want to improve their lot in life? If the Chinese go to war against us, many of them will never live to see the end of that war, in short they will die, their lives will be cut short, and instead have having that car, that house, and going on vacations, they will be dead rotting corpses! Their Children will be dead rotting corpses, and those that survive will have to bury all those people, is that the future the Chinese people really want, do they want to grow rich and properous like the Americans or do they want to die for their emperor's meaningless territorial ambitions? Russia has alot of land, and their not satisfied, instead they count the land they don't have rather than the land they do. The Russians have given up so many of their rights as citizens of a democracy in their empty quest for other people's land. I don't think more land is what the Russians need right now, they need prosperity, but don't tell that to land hungry Putin who only sees that map on the wall and doesn't thing Russia is big enough yet.

I think the Chinese are different from the Russians, they are enjoying the advantages of prosperity without having to seize ever more land by force.

Check out China's support today for Iran and North Korea, and Saddam Hussein in 2003.
"Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means." (Zhou En Lai)

That is a rather negative view on diplomacy. Diplomacy at its best is a win-win for both sides. But sometimes one side is not satisfied with winning if the otherside is not losing. For some reason, they'd rather die to take something from someone else rather than live and build something with their own labor. I think China is learning that they can again become a great country, and that they don't have to go to war to do it. Russia on the otherhand just doesn't get it, they still think like World War II Germans, they must take instead of build, even if it might mean that they might lose in human lives more than they could ever hope to gain by conquest.

Just to bring the topic back to space, if the Saturn V had military value why was it scrapped and never replaced?

If anyone would have know if Saturn V had military value, it would be the Generals, but the Generals didn't get to decide, the anti-war politicians that assumed power in the 1970s did instead. I think a Saturn V can be of some military value in deflecting asteroids on a collision course with Earth, it can carry a nuclear warhead and deliver it to an asteroid, and a very big one at that. Deflecting or destroying asteroids has military value, that it didn't occur to the stupid politicians of the 1970s means nothing, they made a bad decision in scrapping the Saturn V in favor of the Shuttle.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-27 00:20:49

China doesn't want to acquire more territory? Tell that to the Tibetans, the people of Hong Kong or the Taiwanese, and then find the Spratly Islands.
Tibet and other such Hollywood gibberish is the biggest BS story told across the Western world (actually its mostly of the rightwing anti-China propaganda coming from a few freak religiosity activists in Hollyweird)
China will return Tibet (Xizang) to the natives once all you Europeans, Asians, African etc pack your bags, go back to where you once came and leave the United States bare and return YOUR lands to the real NATIVE AMERICANS
PS
Even your glorious President Bush admits Taiwan IS PART OF CHINA, like North vs South Korea they the people of China and Taiwan are the same people only divided by ideology

No need to be insulting. As far as I'm concerned and as the US Constitution so states, I was born in the United States and according to the 14th Amendment, that makes me a Native American or a citizen. I see no reason why we need a racial indigeous hereditary aristocracy in the United States, the issue of the Indian wars got resolved because the combatants on both sides got tired of fighting it. Lets let all citizens be equal and have no citizens have special rights or privaledges over another. The victims are dead, the villains are dead, I say let the dead bury the dead, both sides bear some responsibility in the tragedy that was the indian wars and those two sides are gone from the Earth, so I see no reason why we should feel guilty or suffer anguish because of something our ancestors may have did, the Indians did some cruel things too, and they are not absolved of those crimes because of what the "White Man" did to them, but that issue is dead because those people are all dead, I find myself living right now in the United States of America, and I say we should make the best of that situation and those freedoms we enjoy. We can't undo the crimes our ancestors did by vacating the continent, we would do the world no good by following such a course. We are here and we are not going away. If someone things they can conquer us the way our ancestors conquered the Indians, then they are sadly mistaken. My ancestors aren't me and I assume no guilt for my ancestors, I also don't owe any Indians any apologies, because for one, I am not my ancestors, and two the people to appologize to are the dead indians who were the victims, not their living descendents. These days they have just as much opportunity as white people, and their either can feel sorry for themselves because of what happened to their ancestors or they can pull themselves up.

How many Americans died to push the Japanese out of China?
How many Chinese and British got killed in WW2 because of American cowardice ? Other foreigners were fighting WW2 for you, for many years they were fighting for you, dying for you while you did nothing. Your noble USA had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WW2, you were happy to see Russians, British, Japanese, Australians and Germans kill each other as long as it brought people like Henry Ford or Charles Lindbergh a few bucks. It wasn't until the kamikaze Japanese bit you in the pants did you finally get up and do something about it.
So dont go preacher about some great noble heroic deed, and PS it was mostly the Russians that helped drive the Japanese from Chinese lands, as they stormed through Manchuria during the last days of the war.

The Russians were the ultimate "Jonnie come latelies" of the Pacific War, they only entered the war after we broke the Japanese back with the two atomic bombs we dropped on them, and like the "carrion birds" they looked for easy to get road kill. Also don't forget the Russians started World War II right along with the Germans when they both invaded divided and conquered Poland, they remained allies with the Germans when the Germans invaded France and bombed Great Britian, and it was only when their "Teutonic friends" invaded Russia that they cried to us for help and lend lease. The Russians chose their "friends" poorly because they so despised democracy and Hitler wasn't a democrat, they later regretted their decision and millions of Russians died as a result of it, the Russians still haven't learned, they are very dense, they make friends with Iran and sell weapons to terrorists, Duh, and someday they may turn again to us for help when their so called "friends" turn on them once again.

Just to bring the topic back to space
Do please, I joined this forum to discuss space not politics. I came here to discuss Skylab, Voyager, Shenzhou, Venera and not to discuss Donald Rumsfeld or Mao Zedong

Yes Indeed!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2007-10-15 14:58:20

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#252 2007-10-19 18:43:28

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#253 2007-10-25 06:25:44

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#254 2007-11-09 14:52:29

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#255 2007-11-23 02:57:27

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#256 2007-11-23 08:10:20

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#257 2007-11-25 00:50:56

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#258 2007-11-25 08:25:26

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#259 2007-11-25 09:28:40

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#260 2007-11-25 09:49:10

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#261 2007-11-25 10:10:11

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#262 2007-11-25 12:14:33

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#263 2007-11-25 13:28:25

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#264 2007-11-25 13:34:41

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#265 2007-11-25 14:54:25

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#266 2007-11-25 17:32:04

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#267 2007-11-26 04:40:28

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#268 2007-11-26 04:57:26

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#269 2007-11-26 09:13:09

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#270 2007-11-26 09:24:41

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#271 2007-11-26 11:19:36

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#272 2007-11-26 12:01:59

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#273 2007-11-26 13:14:29

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#274 2007-11-26 23:54:11

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#275 2007-11-27 00:20:49

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

Board footer