A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclearspaceships in 2045



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 26th 17, 02:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,662
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

William Mook wrote:

Responses in line.


I'll probably get bored before the end, given the volumes you
typically spew, but I'll try...

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:30:45 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

There are two reasons China signals and then disappears from the radar screen;

(1) economic caution,
(2) geopolitical caution,


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.

They tell the world they will build 40 aircraft carriers and build one - when they plan to build one - so the world does not fear them.


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.


Yet they make steady progress and will likely be the last man standing if the USA should fail through over-reach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SoE9vBc6I


You're arguing a position that no one has taken. No one has said they
don't make progress. Let me say it a third time and see if you get
it. THEY TALK BIG PLANS AND THEN DON'T DELIVER.






This does not mean they do not make progress. On the contrary, their progress is steady and inexorable thus far and they have outclassed the USA in many respects in ways that do not threaten the USA.


So they 'outclass' us in things we can't be bothered to shine at?


They outclass the United States in nearly every essential measure that they have identified as being important to them. The USA hasn't bothered to even think about what is important to its survival. This means China is well ahead in technical as well as non-technical factors. Beyond technology where China surpasses the USA in terms of trained people and quality of capital equipment.


What utter poppycock!


That's a cogent reasoned reply! NOT! lol.


It's as cogent a reply as counterfactual unsupported non-specific
bleating requires. lol.




We are in debt, they have a surplus, they have all the tools in their physical control, we do not, they have their population behind them, we do not, we have over-reached our military abilities, they have not.


They're a local power. We are not.


Knowledgeable people know this is not true.


Let me play your game. Cite? Just which "knowledgeable people" are
you referring to? While China has a large and rapidly modernizing
military, their ability to project power on a global scale is modest.
Most of their amphibious lift is oriented toward short distances
(like, say, across the Taiwan Strait). While their Type 071 LPD is a
useful power projection vessel, they only plan on half a dozen of
them. Their fleet support ships are mostly small and slow and
inadequate to support a Carrier Battle Group or Amphibious Ready
Group. They've built two ships that can meet this need (the Type 901
AOEs), although only one is currently in commission. Their transport
aircraft capability is virtually non-existent.


The USA has over reached its abilities. China has not.

The USA is at present, best described, as a failed global power on the same path as the former Soviet Union. By ignoring this reality, you accelerate its coming about. By addressing this reality, we have a choice to do something about it.


Utter ********.


China in contrast is a growing global power, poised to fill the vacuum left by the USSR and USA. China faces many problems going forward, not the least of which is energy and water, however, they are at present more stable than the USA.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...hina-and-world


Uh, "energy and water" would be TWO problems, hence "are" is the verb
you want. In what way do you think they're "more stable"?




The quality of Chinese graduate students is legendary in the USA. Nearly 20% of all graduate positions, and the top 20% of the graduate population, are uniformly Chinese. Many of these return to China bearing great knowledge, often after working in US industry, US Space and US military programmes.


Absolutely wrong.

Obviously you have never looked at the names of those top 20% of all graduate classes in engineering and science.


Obviously neither have you. You have also never looked at the
difference between having an Asian sounding name and being Chinese.


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...ration-reality

Obviously you are unaware of China's policies regarding those of chinese ancestry, no matter where they live or were born.


No, I just don't care about their view. Ethnic Chinese who are US
citizens are AMERICAN, not Chinese. You're now reduced to your usual
wriggling to avoid having to admit you've made an error.



Again, there are around 150,000 graduate students from China at
various US schools. There are 1.75 million graduate students in total
at various US schools. Take your shoes off and calculate what 20% of
1.75 million is.


You have ignored the fact that the Bureau of Census has actual numbers which indicate that 39% of all PhD graduates in the USA are foreign born. You also ignore the fact that the figures you quote are not current. Today's Chinese graduate students number in excess of 300,000 - not 150,000. Nearly all Chinese students graduate. Not so for others.


'Foreign born' does not equal 'Chinese'. And my figures ARE current.
As usual you've read something and failed to understand it. More on
that below, where you give your cite for 'current numbers' (which is
the one I used to get my number originally, just by the way)


39% of all PhD graduates in 2000 were foreign born. The top 20% were largely Chinese.


Again, your game. Cite? You complain about me using 'out of date'
numbers (when I wasn't) and you're citing figures from 2000? Let's
look at something more recent and examine your original claim that The
top 20% of ALL graduate degrees granted in the US were students from
China, which is simply numerically impossible. You now appear to be
trying to shift your ground to look at PhDs only, so let's do that.

All numbers are from 2015. Of the slightly over 54,000 doctorates
granted in 2015 by US educational institutions, some 5384 went to
Chinese nationals. In other words, even restricting ourselves to PhDs
we see that your "top 20%" being Chinese is numerically impossible
(since the total number of PhDs earned by Chinese nationals is less
than 10% of the total). In other words, as usual you are on your ass.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/...t/nsf16300.pdf

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/...data/tab26.pdf





There are around 150,000 Chinese graduate students
enrolled at various schools in the US. The graduate school population
is around 1.75 million. Pretty sure 150,000 isn't 20% of 1.75
million.

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10554.html

In 1966 US born white males received 71% of science and engineering Phds. By the year 2000 it was just 35%.

By the year 2000 US born white males received just 35% of science and engineering PhDs, while 25% of those doctorates were awarded to females, 39% to foreign-born students.


And a small number awarded to Chinese.


No, most of the foreign born receiving PhD were Chinese.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/16/...ts-university/


You really seem to love using cites that are paywalled or require
registration. Let's use the ones from the National Science
Foundation, instead.

The total number of students from foreign countries here on
educational visas receiving PhDs from US institutions amounts to some
16,083 students. Of that number, 5,384 are from China. So we can see
that your statement that "most of the foreign born receiving PhD were
Chinese" is simply false. While they are certainly the largest
cohort, a third of something is not 'most' of it.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/...data/tab25.pdf



Are you getting confused and switching back and forth
between counting 'ethnic Chinese' and 'Chinese by nationality'?

snip meaningless trade numbers

Funny that somone is so confused about the numbers he quotes projects that confusion on to others.


You want to try that again in comprehensible English?


Sure, you find real numbers from reliable sources meaningless and so ignore them rather than deal with them intelligently.


No, I ignore the trade numbers because they are MEANINGLESS to any
thesis that has been put forward. Ignoring irrelevant data IS dealing
with it intelligently.






Yet, if you want to know where the Chinese are in their nuclear programmes, just look at the aircraft carrier programme and their nuclear submarine programme and their nuclear power programme.


They have no nuclear aircraft carriers and no plans for any that I'm
aware of.

They plan 6 and 2 of these will be nuclear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiat..._11164324.html


The article is on its ass.


See, a reliable source gives information you don't like, and you attack the article rather than accept the fact you don't know what you're talking about.


Huffington Post is a reliable source? That's really quite funny.
They're not even reliable for things they ought to know about, much
less something like this. Go read what I said below again, which
explains why I say the article is on its ass.

It says 4 conventional and 2 nuclear
carriers by 2025. It currently has ONE conventional carrier (Type
001) and a second (Type 001A) working toward being commissioned in
around 2020. The first of the larger Type 002 carriers is currently
under construction and will enter service around 2023. Their first
nuclear carrier is just a gleam in some folks' eyes at the current
time and it's unlikely to commission before 2030 even on a
preposterously aggressive schedule.


They plan to have 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers by the 100th anniversary of their founding, the same time period they plan to have a nuclear powered space shuttle - 2040 AD.


We'll look at that claim in a minute.


https://www.popsci.com/china-aircraf...ier-technology


Note that the article says DEVELOPMENT of the Type 002 will be
completed in 2020-2021. I said it will commission in 2023, so that's
probably about right to be in agreement with me "not knowing what I'm
talking about", above.


https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ina/cv-003.htm


This cite (in some rather broken English) seems to be saying that
development of the Type 003 will complete in 2030. That would put it
in commission around 2032-2033. Again this is in agreement with me
"not knowing what I'm talking about", above. It also seems to put
paid to the idea that they'll have 10 of them in commission by 2040.
To get there they'd have to start construction on two a year through
2037 and I just don't consider that likely.


https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/16/...-roadmap-2040/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...e-space-plans/


There is a difference between "a goal" and "a want" and an actual
plan.



The Type 001A looks to take about
18 months to build from start of construction. The larger and more
complex Type 002 looks like it's going to take around 3 years.


Cite?


The cites are various. Browse Wikipedia and you'll find most of it.
Just look at the dates. Type 001A initial work started in November of
2013. Construction started in March of 2015. It launched in April of
2017 (25 months vice the 18 I gave). It's expected to complete
internal fitting out and testing and be commissioned in 2020, three
years after it's launched. Type 002 was originally supposed to have
started construction in February of 2016. However, this was delayed
because they wanted to develop an EMALS catapult for it and were
having power problems getting that to work on a non-nuclear ship. The
problem was solved late this year and construction began. The
estimated launch date for the ship is out in 2020 (in other words,
something in excess of two years). Fitting out and testing runs
through to an estimated commissioning date out in 2023.

Start your browsing around here and you can chase down the start dates
for the various carriers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rier_programme


The
Type 003 certainly won't be any faster than that.


Cite?


Common sense? I know you don't have any, but it's pretty obvious to
anyone that a 100,000 nuclear carrier is going to take at least as
long to develop and build as an 85,000 ton conventional carrier.


It looks like it
takes China around 3 years once a carrier is launched to finish
fitting it and work it up to put it in commission.


Cite?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rier_programme


The Dalian Shipbuilding Company builds large 200,000+ metric ton ships in 9 months to 15 months time period. Dalian is the primary contractor for the Type 003 aircraft carrier. The type 003 is in the 100,000 ton range. Smaller than most Dalian built ships. So, Dalian is quite capable in getting this done in 15 months or less, once the decision is made to build it. It will take an additional 3 months to 5 months to outfit and staff it.


Yet Dalian took 25 months to build a 75,000 ton aircraft carrier (the
Type 001A) that they essentially already had plans for (it's a clone
of Russian carrier in Chinese service as the Type 001). They, unlike
you, apparently know that constructing a warship is not like
constructing a bulk cargo carrier. They're not even measured the
same. Cargo ship tonnage is given based on cargo volume. Warships
are measured based on actual displacement. Construction methods are
quite different (or you get something like the American LCS, which was
built to 'enhanced commercial standards' instead of to the usual
standards warships are built to.


The Chinese have already spent five years planning and designing their aircraft carrier. So, 18 months from decision to build until the aircraft carrier is operational is something any analyst would say is possible.


Your own cite says that DEVELOPMENT (all that planning and design
stuff) of the nuclear carrier won't complete until around 2030. Then
you have to actually build the thing and you're not going to build it
in 18 months. Over here we take around 5 years to build carriers of
similar size and another 2 years or so doing final fitting out and
acceptance testing. I think China will probably build somewhat faster
(probably about a year shorter) but historically their final fitting
out and test takes 3 years rather than 2 (and again, a bigger and more
capable ship certainly won't be FASTER to fit out and test), so you
still wind up with around a 7 year timeline from start of construction
to commissioning in service.


What these numbers mean is that in 2025 China will have PERHAPS 4
conventional carriers in commission (more likely 3) and no nuclear
carriers at all.


http://fissilematerials.org/blog/201..._reactors.html

This article states, among other things,

The Changzheng-1, China's first nuclear powered submarine - the Type 091 Han-class nuclear powered attack submarine entered service in 1974 and was decommissioned in 2013.

Both the Type 091 and the Type 092 vessels used LEU enriched uranium-235. The first generation naval reactors were mainly in use from the early 1970s to mid-2000s.

Zhang Jinlin, the chief designer of China's second generation nuclear-powered submarines, has said that the second generation nuclear-powered attack submarines, the Type 093 Shang-class, was delivered in 2006, and the second generation ballistic missile submarines, the Type 094 Jin-class, was delivered in 2014.

China currently possesses five nuclear powered attack submarines and four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. These are all believed to use LEU fuel.


That's all very nice, but so what? Nobody said they were going to
have to build marine reactors from scratch.


China has adapted its second generation naval reactor for use as a small commercial power reactor. The China National Nuclear Corporation's ACP100 reactor is derived from naval reactor technology.

http://en.cnnc.com.cn/2016-04/28/c_51725.htm

The ACP100 reactor is a 310 MWt (100 MWe) small modular PWR, using enriched LEU fuel, with the core and cooling system integrated inside the pressure vessel and a passive safety system.


Again, that's all very nice, but so what?


This is easily adapted to a space nuclear electric power system. It can also be used to heat hydrogen to make a nuclear thermal rocket.


No, it is not "easily adapted to a space nuclear electric power
system". It is a PWR. That's not what you want for space
applications.


China has developed a compact integrated naval reactor, similar to ones previously developed by the USA, France and Russia.


How nice, but so what?


These reactors may further be developed into nuclear thermal rocket cores as was done in USA and Russia.


Well, no, they can't and that isn't what we or the Russians did.
Again, those reactors are PWRs. Not what you want in space.


It takes 6-7 years from the start of bending metal
to getting a carrier in commission,


Cite?


See above. Or look up ANY nuclear carrier ever built anywhere by
anyone. The US and France are the only people who have ever built a
nuclear aircraft carrier. The DE GAULL took 5 years to build. The
NIMITZ class took 5 years to build. We actually built ENTERPRISE much
more quickly, going from start of construction to completion of
shakedown in about 4.5 years, but it cost so much to do it that fast
that we cancelled 5 ships of what was supposed to be a 6 ship class.


Dalian takes between 9 months and 15 months from the start of bending metal to get 200,000+ ton ships in commission. Carriers are small by comparison at 100,000 tons.


Are you really unaware that merchant tonnage and warship tonnage are
nowhere near the same thing and you can't compare them as you try to
do above?


Other Chinese carriers have been brought into commission in less than 18 months.


Oh, really? Name that carrier. The preceding is a preposterous claim
counter to all current reality.


There is no compelling reason to believe that when using off-the-shelf navy nuclear power reactors China couldn't have a nuclear reactor powered aircraft carrier within 18 months of the decision to build one.


No compelling reason other than reality, which, as we know, seldom
enters into your calculations. They can't get a CONVENTIONAL carrier
from decision to commisioning in 18 months, so why do you think
replacing the whole power and propulsion system makes that possible?


so if it's not under construction
today it probably won't be in the Chinese fleet by 2025.


If you actually read the technical literature about the Type 001 and Type 002 power plant, you will see that its size and fixturing is such that it could easily be replaced by a pair of 100 MW electrical type nuclear power modules in less than 3 months.


Except that's not what they're doing, now is it? And even if it was,
how long has it taken them to build a Type 001A or a Type 002 (Type
001 is an ex-Russian carrier and was already 'built' when they got
it).


Their next carrier will apparently be something the size of
the UK's QUEEN ELISABETH. Regardless, marine propulsion reactors and
power reactors have NOTHING to do with nuclear rocket engines.

Dead wrong. The skill sets required to compound engineer and handle weapons grade fissile materials to form nuclear rockets and nuclear navy reactors have much in common. That's why AEC and Los Alamos Labs took the lead in NERVA development in 1957. It is the road map China will follow for a successful programme in their country.

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nerva.html


Bull****.


Another cogent thoughtful reply! lol. NOT!


Another appropriate reply to a statement too preposterous to merit
serious thought.

The physics may be the same but the engineering is
radically different.


Funny that you think engineering does not involve a deep understanding of physics. Fact is, engineering is the practical application of physics to solve problems. China has decades of experience with highly enriched compact nuclear cores that are adaptable for a number of missions.


Uh, you've got that backwards from what I said. I said the physics is
the same but the engineering is different, not that the engineering is
the same but the physics are different. China has ZERO experience
with "highly enriched compact nuclear cores", since even their
military reactors are LEU vice HEU.


Los Alamos and NACA Lewis cooperated with nuclear contractors like Brookhaven and Westinghouse, to produce Kiwi and Phoebus in the 1950s, derived from the experience with compact nuclear naval reactors. Russia did likewise, and so will China, if they wish to do so.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9910017902.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b18HtG0DOCM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R86mkvU4qHw


Compact nuclear naval reactors are PWRs. Ours use HEU. China's do
not. Neither KIWI (it's an acronym) nor Phoebus are PWRs, thus they
were not "derived from the experience with compact nuclear naval
reactors". They are totally different animals, being GCRs vice PWRs.




China outclasses the USA in computing, while US investors own designs and hardware, virtually all the wafer fab capacity America owns resides in Asia.


But not in Mainland China. I think a number of companies will be
surprised to find that their major fabs are in Asia, whether you're
talking Mainland China or all of Asia.

snip usual self-congratulatory MookSpew


On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 11:51:27 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

"China plans a fleet of nuclear carrier rockets and reusable hybrid-power carriers by the
mid-2040s. They will be ready for regular, large scale interplanetary flights, and carrying
out commercial exploration and exploitation of natural resources by the mid-2040s.

China plans to catch up with the United States on conventional rocket technology by
2020.

If Spacex and Elon Musk achieve fully reusable rockets with the Falcon 9 or the BFR in
the 2020-2022 timeframe then China would be 13-15 years behind if they hit their
target for reusable rockets in 2035.

By 2030, China will put astronauts on the moon and bring samples back from Mars."

See:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...s-in-2045.html


China frequently 'plans' things that it just can't execute. They
'planned' to build 20 aircraft carriers in 20 years, too. They built
one.

I don't understand why nuclear thermal rockets are 'necessary'.

Then read the analysis I provided which was elided here.


You don't do 'analysis'.


Yes I do, with references as well. You ignore them, erase them, and say they don't exist. That's because you have no problem in being highly dishonest.


No, you don't. You MookSpew, give references you don't understand,
then blat out a bunch of MookieMath. You're a buffoon and a liar.


You don't know the meaning of the word.


Yes I do. You prefer to erase or ignore such references and spew bile. lol. Those are your problems, not mine.


Time for you to go back into counselling again. You're engaging in
your same old "rubber/glue/WAAAA!" arguments.




An all chemical Long March 9 rocket will put 130 tonnes into LEO.


An all chemical Long March 9 rocket doesn't exist and so will put 0
tonnes into LEO. Studies don't boost payload. Rockets do.


Replace the chemical second stage with a Nerva style second stage, and that rises to over 300 tonnes on orbit, and over 100 tonnes on the moon and back.


Nobody said they weren't USEFUL.


That's wise.

I said they weren't NECESSARY for
fast trips to Mars and they are not.


If you want boots and flags and go home, you don't need nuclear reactors in space.


We're talking about NUCLEAR PROPULSION, not getting a reactor to power
a base. Totally different things.

If you want to build bases and develop off world resources, for a growing world population, as Kraft Ehricke said in his video above, then nuclear reactors, particularly bimodal type, are useful for multiplying the interplanetary payloads of existing launchers most efficiently.


USEFUL, not NECESSARY. If you want to be disagreeable, disagree with
what I actually say and not some made up lunacy that you invented just
for the sake of being disagreeable.


The proposed large long-march rocket that puts 130 metric tons into LEO, as a purely chemical booster, can put a person on the Moon and return them to Earth.

Replacing that booster's chemical second stage with a nuclear second stage, increases payloads to orbit to 500 metric tons, and puts 200 metric tons on the moon, with its own compact power plant. A ready made lunar base.


And Elon Musk's BFR Spaceship will put that much or more on MARS using
chemical propulsion with trip times on the order of 3 months. To get
back to my original actual statement, NASA claims that nuclear thermal
propulsion is necessary to get trip times down to 3 months and I claim
that SpaceX shows that that claim is bull****.


I presented a commercial application of NEBA-III reactor at the White House during the Clinton Administration in 1995-96 with some DOE personnell. So, I know what I'm talking about.

You not so much.


You're a prevaricating, self-agrandizing little ****.

Me not so much.



snip Mookie's Chinese Love Affair


You confuse accurate reporting of the relative abilities of Chinese society with 'love' - this in addition to your other confusions.


You confuse spew with accurate reporting and then insult anyone who
disagrees with you - this in addition to your other numerous character
flaws.


Fact remains, if you want to lift significant payloads into deep space, and provide them with adequate power, a compact nuclear power plant is of interest.


'Of interest'. Note that wording? You are again arguing against a
position no one has taken in the mere interest of being a disagreeable
little toad.


Ernst Stulhinger's ion rocket used 23 MW electrical power and 114 MW thermal power. The power plant, including radiator, was 189 MT out of a total weight of 730 MT.


Cite for those numbers? Most of what Stulhinger actually designed
were solar powered and he never built any of them. Once again you've
mistaken superficial papers with actual accomplishment.


Payload: 136,000 kg (299,000 lb). Thrust: 490 N (110 lbf). Gross mass: 660,000 kg (1,450,000 lb). Unfuelled mass: 328,000 kg (723,000 lb). Specific impulse: 8,200 s. Height: 46.00 m (150.00 ft).


Again, cite for those numbers? A YouTube 'puff piece' is not a cite
and gives no numbers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vblN33OJCg


Nothing here.


The ACP100 derived space nuclear plant, produces 100 MW electrical and 310 MW thermal power and masses 120 MT, with cooling umbrella.


There is no such reactor and there never will be. The ACP100 is a
PWR.


https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/m..._002_BNTR.html


Irrelevant cite. Do you just bleat stuff out to waste the readers
time or what?

snip MookJacking


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Ads
  #12  
Old November 26th 17, 11:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then getnuclear spaceships in 2045

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:50:02 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Responses in line.


I'll probably get bored before the end, given the volumes you
typically spew, but I'll try...

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:30:45 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

There are two reasons China signals and then disappears from the radar screen;

(1) economic caution,
(2) geopolitical caution,


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.

They tell the world they will build 40 aircraft carriers and build one - when they plan to build one - so the world does not fear them.


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.


Yet they make steady progress and will likely be the last man standing if the USA should fail through over-reach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SoE9vBc6I


You're arguing a position that no one has taken. No one has said they
don't make progress. Let me say it a third time and see if you get
it. THEY TALK BIG PLANS AND THEN DON'T DELIVER.


You're the one who doesn't get it. They make steady progress and they are fully capable of

a) achieving nuclear powered aircraft carriers within months of making the decision to do so;

b) building nuclear thermal rockets in the same time period,

c) building nuclear electric rockets with the same skill set,

These will give them, as they would have given the US or the Russians, mastery of the solar system.







This does not mean they do not make progress. On the contrary, their progress is steady and inexorable thus far and they have outclassed the USA in many respects in ways that do not threaten the USA.


So they 'outclass' us in things we can't be bothered to shine at?


They outclass the United States in nearly every essential measure that they have identified as being important to them. The USA hasn't bothered to even think about what is important to its survival. This means China is well ahead in technical as well as non-technical factors. Beyond technology where China surpasses the USA in terms of trained people and quality of capital equipment.


What utter poppycock!


That's a cogent reasoned reply! NOT! lol.


It's as cogent a reply as counterfactual unsupported non-specific
bleating requires. lol.


I provided references from Foreign Affairs and similar publications. So, the only one in this conversation spouting unsupported BS is you. Deal with it.





We are in debt, they have a surplus, they have all the tools in their physical control, we do not, they have their population behind them, we do not, we have over-reached our military abilities, they have not.


They're a local power. We are not.


Knowledgeable people know this is not true.


Let me play your game. Cite?


I gave you three Foreign Affairs articles published in the last four years. You shoudl read them.

Just which "knowledgeable people" are
you referring to?


The authors of the articles cited.

While China has a large and rapidly modernizing
military, their ability to project power on a global scale is modest.


Their power is growing. The US suffering from over-reach is declining.

Most of their amphibious lift is oriented toward short distances
(like, say, across the Taiwan Strait). While their Type 071 LPD is a
useful power projection vessel, they only plan on half a dozen of
them. Their fleet support ships are mostly small and slow and
inadequate to support a Carrier Battle Group or Amphibious Ready
Group. They've built two ships that can meet this need (the Type 901
AOEs), although only one is currently in commission. Their transport
aircraft capability is virtually non-existent.


The USA has over reached its abilities. China has not.

The USA is at present, best described, as a failed global power on the same path as the former Soviet Union. By ignoring this reality, you accelerate its coming about. By addressing this reality, we have a choice to do something about it.


Utter ********.


Imagining we are not declining and have not over-reached our abilities does a dis-service to the people of the USA as it avoids taking actions necessary to avoid utter collapse.



China in contrast is a growing global power, poised to fill the vacuum left by the USSR and USA. China faces many problems going forward, not the least of which is energy and water, however, they are at present more stable than the USA.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...hina-and-world


Uh, "energy and water" would be TWO problems, hence "are" is the verb
you want. In what way do you think they're "more stable"?


Their ability to plan for the long term and far less corruption than exists in the USA.





The quality of Chinese graduate students is legendary in the USA. Nearly 20% of all graduate positions, and the top 20% of the graduate population, are uniformly Chinese. Many of these return to China bearing great knowledge, often after working in US industry, US Space and US military programmes.


Absolutely wrong.

Obviously you have never looked at the names of those top 20% of all graduate classes in engineering and science.


Obviously neither have you. You have also never looked at the
difference between having an Asian sounding name and being Chinese.


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...ration-reality

Obviously you are unaware of China's policies regarding those of chinese ancestry, no matter where they live or were born.


No, I just don't care about their view.


Which is a mistake when dealing with another people.

Ethnic Chinese who are US
citizens are AMERICAN, not Chinese.


The Chinese don't see it that way, and when powerful Chinese-Americans 'defect' to China, they are welcomed there. This is an important aspect in US relations with China. As we learned in the Wen Ho Lee case;

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL30143.pdf

You're now reduced to your usual
wriggling to avoid having to admit you've made an error.


Your penchant for imagining things that inflate your ego is legendary.


Again, there are around 150,000 graduate students from China at
various US schools. There are 1.75 million graduate students in total
at various US schools. Take your shoes off and calculate what 20% of
1.75 million is.


You have ignored the fact that the Bureau of Census has actual numbers which indicate that 39% of all PhD graduates in the USA are foreign born. You also ignore the fact that the figures you quote are not current. Today's Chinese graduate students number in excess of 300,000 - not 150,000. Nearly all Chinese students graduate. Not so for others.


'Foreign born' does not equal 'Chinese'.


I never said that. Why do you?

And my figures ARE current.


Yet you have failed to understand what you read.

As usual you've read something and failed to understand it.


You are projecting again! The Census bureau provides detailed figures. You provide a grab bag of figures and put them together inappropriately.

More on
that below, where you give your cite for 'current numbers' (which is
the one I used to get my number originally, just by the way)


Look at the surnames of the top scorers in the PhD programs in engineering and science. 20% of them are Chinese. Most of these return to China. All could return to China in a pinch. Your inane attempts to find fault where none exist don't change that.

The US is a culture in decline. China is a rising culture. All the indicators are there. Performance in science and technology in school and in industry. Drug use and sexualisation of culture is rampant in the USA. Quite the opposite in China. This could change, but it won't change by imagining things that we prefer to think about ourselves while we ignore harsh realities.


39% of all PhD graduates in 2000 were foreign born. The top 20% were largely Chinese.


Again, your game. Cite?


I provided them. You failed to read or understand them.

You complain about me using 'out of date'
numbers (when I wasn't) and you're citing figures from 2000?


The long-term trend figures showed a clear trend between the 1960s and 2000s. That trend continues, as the 2017 article I cited said. That article reported there are 300,000 foreign born graduate students and you cite a figure half that size. Obviously your figures are out of date. Mine are not.

Let's
look at something more recent and examine your original claim that The
top 20% of ALL graduate degrees granted in the US were students from
China, which is simply numerically impossible.


You are making things up based on inapporpriate reading of outdated numbers..

ALL graduate students do not actually receive degrees. ALL graduate students are not equal academically. THAT is numerically impossible.

Nearly ALL Chinese surname individuals graduate engineering and hard science PhD programs with honors. Generally speaking white American males in hard science and engineering PhD programs do not graduate. Those white males that do, do not graduate with honors.

So, who gets the top spots? Those with Chinese surnames. So, on the rare occassion we find someone like Wen Ho Lee, who steals W88 warheads from LLNL they find it easy to head on back to China to avoid prosecution.

In the context of our conversation here, this is a strength the Chinese have within the USA, that the USA does not have in China. You do not find English surname minority in China dominating Chinese science and engineering graduates and taking top spots in Chinese weapons labs. You do not see English surname individuals in China defecting to the USA with secrets pinched from those labs.

You arguing over your misinterpretation of out-dated data is foolish in the extreme in this context.


You now appear to be
trying to shift your ground to look at PhDs only, so let's do that.


You brought it up moron.

You are throwing crap numbers out there, and when they're shown up for what they are, you then throw crap arguments about shifting ground.

Fact is China is a society with rising expectations and a dedication to their goals. The USA is a selfish society in decline with falling expectations. This is reflected in their academic performance, the performance of their work force, and the problems each society has. The USA suffers from crime, corruption, drug abuse, sex abuse, a general lack of commitment to exceptional performance. China suffers from none of these.

All numbers are from 2015. Of the slightly over 54,000 doctorates
granted in 2015 by US educational institutions, some 5384 went to
Chinese nationals. In other words, even restricting ourselves to PhDs
we see that your "top 20%" being Chinese is numerically impossible
(since the total number of PhDs earned by Chinese nationals is less
than 10% of the total). In other words, as usual you are on your ass.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/...t/nsf16300.pdf

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/...data/tab26.pdf


Talk about shifting goals! lol.

I'm talking about engineering and hard science graduates (chemistry, physics, etc.) who actually receive a PhD.

I'm talking about top performing students. That means students with real honors. That means the top 2.28% of that subest that are 2 standard deviations above the norm. These are your honors students.

https://fixingtheeconomists.files.wo...bell-curve.gif

The fact you're arguing the obvious, clearly means, you haven't been in or taught an engineering or science graduate program recently at a top school! You haven't have you?

I can tell you from first hand experience, in addition to looking at the statistics compiled about such things, that the top tier students are uniformly Chinese surname because they work harder than others generally and take their studies far more seriously.

I was a teaching associate at Stanford in a graduate physics course there in 2015-16. I can tell you the top performing 2.28% students were generally foreign born, and 20% of those were Chinese surname, mostly from China, and most were intending to return to China after graduation because they felt greater opportunities existed for them there.

This is generally quite different from White English surname males. Who did not take their studies as seriously, did not spend as much time and energy on their coursework, and did not have the resources to stay in the program until they actually received a degree.

You're counting bodies in the classroom, I'm looking at actual benefits and performance of the top tier.






There are around 150,000 Chinese graduate students
enrolled at various schools in the US. The graduate school population
is around 1.75 million. Pretty sure 150,000 isn't 20% of 1.75
million.

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10554.html

In 1966 US born white males received 71% of science and engineering Phds. By the year 2000 it was just 35%.

By the year 2000 US born white males received just 35% of science and engineering PhDs, while 25% of those doctorates were awarded to females, 39% to foreign-born students.


And a small number awarded to Chinese.


No, most of the foreign born receiving PhD were Chinese.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/16/...ts-university/


You really seem to love using cites that are paywalled or require
registration. Let's use the ones from the National Science
Foundation, instead.


I use citations that are appropriate to what I'm saying. You are not. You are counting bodies in the class room. I'm looking at who is actually getting the benefit of being there. There's a difference. Of the 2.28% of those who receive degrees with honors 20% of those are Chinese surnames. White english surname males far less than 20%.

Getting back to my original point - China is a rising society. The US is a failing society. Ignoring this fact and pretending its not the case, does a dis-service to the USA.


The total number of students from foreign countries here on
educational visas receiving PhDs from US institutions amounts to some
16,083 students. Of that number, 5,384 are from China. So we can see
that your statement that "most of the foreign born receiving PhD were
Chinese" is simply false.


Again, you're counting bodies in class rooms. I'm looking at;

(1) PhD with honors, top 2.28%
(2) In engineering and hard science programs,
(3) at top tier schools (Stanford, Caltech, MIT, Harvard, etc.)


While they are certainly the largest
cohort, a third of something is not 'most' of it.


According to your numbers, 5384/16083= 33% of all foreign born graduates in all PhD programs. If you further subdivide by those 2.28% of students who receive honors in engineering and science at top schools - you will find that MOST of the foreign born students at that level are indeed Chinese - and their numbers exceed 20% of the total graduates from those schools.




https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/...data/tab25.pdf



Are you getting confused and switching back and forth
between counting 'ethnic Chinese' and 'Chinese by nationality'?

snip meaningless trade numbers

Funny that somone is so confused about the numbers he quotes projects that confusion on to others.


You want to try that again in comprehensible English?


Sure, you find real numbers from reliable sources meaningless and so ignore them rather than deal with them intelligently.


No,


Yes.

I ignore the trade numbers because they are MEANINGLESS to any
thesis that has been put forward.


That you think that says a lot about your inability to absorb simple facts that you refuse to accept.

Ignoring irrelevant data IS dealing
with it intelligently.


I guess that's why everyone in your life ignores you then! lol.

Look, the numbers don't lie. You on the other hand, have no compunction in that regard. You are happy to lie when it suits you.

fact is, due to its exceptionally large population, China has more geniuses than the US has students! Due to its Communist tradition, ALL students get tested, and all top tier students get the resources to attend the top schools.

Again due to its Communist traditions, Chinese students are trained from an early age to take the resources they are given seriously, and to seriously take advantage of the opportunities they represent, and have hopes of contributing to society with that knowledge they receive.

The US due to its Capitalist traditions, US students are trained from an early age that they either;

a) do not have the resources, no matter what their level of skill, and so constrain their life's goals to match their social position,

b) have the resources to do whatever they like, again regardless of skill, and so enter programs that interest them and which they can pay for, and believe they are entitled to a degree given their social position and their ability to pay,

Now, the USA is not entirely capitalist, and China not entirely Communist, so there is some variation from these general findings.

However, we can see that with 325,146,000 people in the USA and 43 million 15 to 24 - and only 1% who can afford top tier schools, and of those only 2..28% are 2 std deviations above the norm intellectually mean only 980 per year actually enter those programs and receive honors. Assuming all of them take their opportunities seriously and are not burdened by a sense of entitlement due to their family's position and so forth.

In China there are 1,409,517,400 people 176.2 million people between the ages of 15 and 24. Of these 100% of the 2.28% are identified and afforded exceptional resources and of these 10% go overseas to study at top schools. That's 40,173 per year actually enter programs and receive honors. Assuming again all of them take their opportunities seriously.






Yet, if you want to know where the Chinese are in their nuclear programmes, just look at the aircraft carrier programme and their nuclear submarine programme and their nuclear power programme.


They have no nuclear aircraft carriers and no plans for any that I'm
aware of.

They plan 6 and 2 of these will be nuclear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiat..._11164324.html


The article is on its ass.


See, a reliable source gives information you don't like, and you attack the article rather than accept the fact you don't know what you're talking about.


Huffington Post is a reliable source?


If you have a better one provide it - that's the way it works.

That's really quite funny.


You certainly are quite funny in the way you think.

They're not even reliable for things they ought to know about, much
less something like this. Go read what I said below again, which
explains why I say the article is on its ass.


Look, China tests its students, provides resources to the best of those, and sends vast numbers of students to top tier schools. Those students take their opportunities seriously, and as a result, graduate with honors at far higher rates than any other identifiable group. Chinese graduates enter the work force and have great opportunities to advance in industry throughout the world. They then return to China with great experience and capabilities - which in the end benefit Chinese industry and science.


It says 4 conventional and 2 nuclear
carriers by 2025. It currently has ONE conventional carrier (Type
001) and a second (Type 001A) working toward being commissioned in
around 2020. The first of the larger Type 002 carriers is currently
under construction and will enter service around 2023. Their first
nuclear carrier is just a gleam in some folks' eyes at the current
time and it's unlikely to commission before 2030 even on a
preposterously aggressive schedule.


They plan to have 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers by the 100th anniversary of their founding, the same time period they plan to have a nuclear powered space shuttle - 2040 AD.


We'll look at that claim in a minute.


https://www.popsci.com/china-aircraf...ier-technology


Note that the article says DEVELOPMENT of the Type 002 will be
completed in 2020-2021. I said it will commission in 2023, so that's
probably about right to be in agreement with me "not knowing what I'm
talking about", above.


https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ina/cv-003.htm


This cite (in some rather broken English) seems to be saying that
development of the Type 003 will complete in 2030. That would put it
in commission around 2032-2033. Again this is in agreement with me


Also in agreement with what I've said. It can have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier any time in the 2025-2040 time frame. It can have nuclear rocket in that time frame as well.

"not knowing what I'm talking about", above. It also seems to put
paid to the idea that they'll have 10 of them in commission by 2040.
To get there they'd have to start construction on two a year through
2037 and I just don't consider that likely.


Its a matter of whether the Chinese politburo thinks its a good investment. Saying they don't have the capacity, or that they will never do it, is nonsensical. You now seem to be saying that they could do it, even that they will do it, by 2040 and so you are 'right'. lol.

Which is it?




https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/16/...-roadmap-2040/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...e-space-plans/


There is a difference between "a goal" and "a want" and an actual
plan.



The Type 001A looks to take about
18 months to build from start of construction. The larger and more
complex Type 002 looks like it's going to take around 3 years.


Cite?


The cites are various. Browse Wikipedia and you'll find most of it.
Just look at the dates. Type 001A initial work started in November of
2013. Construction started in March of 2015. It launched in April of
2017 (25 months vice the 18 I gave). It's expected to complete
internal fitting out and testing and be commissioned in 2020, three
years after it's launched. Type 002 was originally supposed to have
started construction in February of 2016. However, this was delayed
because they wanted to develop an EMALS catapult for it and were
having power problems getting that to work on a non-nuclear ship. The
problem was solved late this year and construction began. The
estimated launch date for the ship is out in 2020 (in other words,
something in excess of two years). Fitting out and testing runs
through to an estimated commissioning date out in 2023.


Fact is, the Chinese have the capacity to field aircraft carriers, including nuclear powered ones, and they have the capacity to build nuclear thermal rockets as well.


Start your browsing around here and you can chase down the start dates
for the various carriers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rier_programme


The
Type 003 certainly won't be any faster than that.


Cite?


Common sense? I know you don't have any, but it's pretty obvious to
anyone that a 100,000 nuclear carrier is going to take at least as
long to develop and build as an 85,000 ton conventional carrier.





It looks like it
takes China around 3 years once a carrier is launched to finish
fitting it and work it up to put it in commission.


Cite?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rier_programme


The Dalian Shipbuilding Company builds large 200,000+ metric ton ships in 9 months to 15 months time period. Dalian is the primary contractor for the Type 003 aircraft carrier. The type 003 is in the 100,000 ton range. Smaller than most Dalian built ships. So, Dalian is quite capable in getting this done in 15 months or less, once the decision is made to build it. It will take an additional 3 months to 5 months to outfit and staff it.


Yet Dalian took 25 months to build a 75,000 ton aircraft carrier (the
Type 001A) that they essentially already had plans for (it's a clone
of Russian carrier in Chinese service as the Type 001). They, unlike
you, apparently know that constructing a warship is not like
constructing a bulk cargo carrier. They're not even measured the
same. Cargo ship tonnage is given based on cargo volume. Warships
are measured based on actual displacement. Construction methods are
quite different (or you get something like the American LCS, which was
built to 'enhanced commercial standards' instead of to the usual
standards warships are built to.




The Chinese have already spent five years planning and designing their aircraft carrier. So, 18 months from decision to build until the aircraft carrier is operational is something any analyst would say is possible.


Your own cite says that DEVELOPMENT (all that planning and design
stuff) of the nuclear carrier won't complete until around 2030. Then
you have to actually build the thing and you're not going to build it
in 18 months. Over here we take around 5 years to build carriers of
similar size and another 2 years or so doing final fitting out and
acceptance testing. I think China will probably build somewhat faster
(probably about a year shorter) but historically their final fitting
out and test takes 3 years rather than 2 (and again, a bigger and more
capable ship certainly won't be FASTER to fit out and test), so you
still wind up with around a 7 year timeline from start of construction
to commissioning in service.


What these numbers mean is that in 2025 China will have PERHAPS 4
conventional carriers in commission (more likely 3) and no nuclear
carriers at all.


http://fissilematerials.org/blog/201..._reactors.html

This article states, among other things,

The Changzheng-1, China's first nuclear powered submarine - the Type 091 Han-class nuclear powered attack submarine entered service in 1974 and was decommissioned in 2013.

Both the Type 091 and the Type 092 vessels used LEU enriched uranium-235.. The first generation naval reactors were mainly in use from the early 1970s to mid-2000s.

Zhang Jinlin, the chief designer of China's second generation nuclear-powered submarines, has said that the second generation nuclear-powered attack submarines, the Type 093 Shang-class, was delivered in 2006, and the second generation ballistic missile submarines, the Type 094 Jin-class, was delivered in 2014.

China currently possesses five nuclear powered attack submarines and four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. These are all believed to use LEU fuel.


That's all very nice, but so what? Nobody said they were going to
have to build marine reactors from scratch.


China has adapted its second generation naval reactor for use as a small commercial power reactor. The China National Nuclear Corporation's ACP100 reactor is derived from naval reactor technology.

http://en.cnnc.com.cn/2016-04/28/c_51725.htm

The ACP100 reactor is a 310 MWt (100 MWe) small modular PWR, using enriched LEU fuel, with the core and cooling system integrated inside the pressure vessel and a passive safety system.


Again, that's all very nice, but so what?


This is easily adapted to a space nuclear electric power system. It can also be used to heat hydrogen to make a nuclear thermal rocket.


No, it is not "easily adapted to a space nuclear electric power
system". It is a PWR. That's not what you want for space
applications.


Integral PWR where all the components are in the primary pressure vessel, is precisely what you want. Although replacing the H2O with Li has certain advantages.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9680006323.pdf



China has developed a compact integrated naval reactor, similar to ones previously developed by the USA, France and Russia.


How nice, but so what?


These reactors may further be developed into nuclear thermal rocket cores as was done in USA and Russia.


Well, no, they can't and that isn't what we or the Russians did.
Again, those reactors are PWRs. Not what you want in space.


http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/01/19....cFygfmwe.dpbs

The core can be used in a variety of ways, and skills developed are broadly applicable.




It takes 6-7 years from the start of bending metal
to getting a carrier in commission,


Cite?


See above. Or look up ANY nuclear carrier ever built anywhere by
anyone. The US and France are the only people who have ever built a
nuclear aircraft carrier. The DE GAULL took 5 years to build. The
NIMITZ class took 5 years to build. We actually built ENTERPRISE much
more quickly, going from start of construction to completion of
shakedown in about 4.5 years, but it cost so much to do it that fast
that we cancelled 5 ships of what was supposed to be a 6 ship class.


Dalian takes between 9 months and 15 months from the start of bending metal to get 200,000+ ton ships in commission. Carriers are small by comparison at 100,000 tons.


Are you really unaware that merchant tonnage and warship tonnage are
nowhere near the same thing and you can't compare them as you try to
do above?


Are you unaware of what Dalian promised the Chinese government to get the project?



Other Chinese carriers have been brought into commission in less than 18 months.


Oh, really? Name that carrier. The preceding is a preposterous claim
counter to all current reality.


https://www.wired.com/2011/08/china-builds-warships/

You're the only one here who is unaware of reality.


There is no compelling reason to believe that when using off-the-shelf navy nuclear power reactors China couldn't have a nuclear reactor powered aircraft carrier within 18 months of the decision to build one.


No compelling reason other than reality, which, as we know, seldom
enters into your calculations. They can't get a CONVENTIONAL carrier
from decision to commisioning in 18 months, so why do you think
replacing the whole power and propulsion system makes that possible?


Because the power and propulsion system were designed that way.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-built-at-home

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#23d9006f4367



so if it's not under construction
today it probably won't be in the Chinese fleet by 2025.


If you actually read the technical literature about the Type 001 and Type 002 power plant, you will see that its size and fixturing is such that it could easily be replaced by a pair of 100 MW electrical type nuclear power modules in less than 3 months.


Except that's not what they're doing, now is it? And even if it was,
how long has it taken them to build a Type 001A or a Type 002 (Type
001 is an ex-Russian carrier and was already 'built' when they got
it).


Their next carrier will apparently be something the size of
the UK's QUEEN ELISABETH. Regardless, marine propulsion reactors and
power reactors have NOTHING to do with nuclear rocket engines.

Dead wrong. The skill sets required to compound engineer and handle weapons grade fissile materials to form nuclear rockets and nuclear navy reactors have much in common. That's why AEC and Los Alamos Labs took the lead in NERVA development in 1957. It is the road map China will follow for a successful programme in their country.

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nerva.html


Bull****.


Another cogent thoughtful reply! lol. NOT!


Another appropriate reply to a statement too preposterous to merit
serious thought.


Its clear the Chinese have taken their naval reactors built by the same labs that build their weapons system, and made them suitable for a number of applications. These reactor cores, appropriately equipped with be the heart of all China hopes to do in the future.


The physics may be the same but the engineering is
radically different.


Funny that you think engineering does not involve a deep understanding of physics. Fact is, engineering is the practical application of physics to solve problems. China has decades of experience with highly enriched compact nuclear cores that are adaptable for a number of missions.


Uh, you've got that backwards from what I said.


No I didn't. You're the one who thinks engineering somehow magically changes physics. It doesn't. That's the sort of BS contractors tell Congress to justify ten or twenty separate programs where only one is needed.

I said the physics is
the same but the engineering is different,


The fact remains, the Chinese are building on their achievements logically based on clear understanding of science. The US rewards corrupt military contractors who make **** up and sell them to Congress who doesn't understand causing the USA to overspend and under perform.

Nothing China proposes to do before 2040 isn't something USA could have done before 1980. The USA didn't achieve what it was capable of achieving because the USA is a society in decline filled with corruption and waste.


not that the engineering is
the same but the physics are different. China has ZERO experience
with "highly enriched compact nuclear cores", since even their
military reactors are LEU vice HEU.


Because of international treaties and reporting requirements through the UN, China uses LEU commercially and deploys them broadly throughout their military. Yet, your statement that they have ZERO experience with HEU reactors is false. China has 17 HEU reactors as well, and understands the benefit of each variety.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/...heu-production





Los Alamos and NACA Lewis cooperated with nuclear contractors like Brookhaven and Westinghouse, to produce Kiwi and Phoebus in the 1950s, derived from the experience with compact nuclear naval reactors. Russia did likewise, and so will China, if they wish to do so.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9910017902.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b18HtG0DOCM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R86mkvU4qHw


Compact nuclear naval reactors are PWRs. Ours use HEU. China's do
not. Neither KIWI (it's an acronym) nor Phoebus are PWRs, thus they
were not "derived from the experience with compact nuclear naval
reactors". They are totally different animals, being GCRs vice PWRs.


https://str.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html

The engineering skills for efficient reactor design are applied to any variety. LLNL designs weapons and reactors with equal ease for this reason.

Remember, we're discussing whether or not the Chinese have the ability to field a nuclear thermal rocket or even a nuclear electric rocket by 2025-2040 time frame. Its clear they do.

  #13  
Old November 27th 17, 03:21 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,662
Default China wants to catch up to US rockets in 2020 and then get nuclear spaceships in 2045

William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:50:02 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Responses in line.


I'll probably get bored before the end, given the volumes you
typically spew, but I'll try...


I'm already bored with your MookJacking nonsense, so I'll chop a lot
that I don't plan on bothering to reply to.

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:30:45 PM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

There are two reasons China signals and then disappears from the radar screen;

(1) economic caution,
(2) geopolitical caution,


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.

They tell the world they will build 40 aircraft carriers and build one - when they plan to build one - so the world does not fear them.


In other words, as I said, they talk big plans and then don't deliver
on them.

Yet they make steady progress and will likely be the last man standing if the USA should fail through over-reach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SoE9vBc6I


You're arguing a position that no one has taken. No one has said they
don't make progress. Let me say it a third time and see if you get
it. THEY TALK BIG PLANS AND THEN DON'T DELIVER.


You're the one who doesn't get it. They make steady progress and they are fully capable of

a) achieving nuclear powered aircraft carriers within months of making the decision to do so;


Bull****, unless 'within months' means about 60 of them.


b) building nuclear thermal rockets in the same time period,


More bull****. Same condition on 'months'.


c) building nuclear electric rockets with the same skill set,


Nuclear electric rockets require very different engineering from
nuclear thermal rockets. A child should know this. You apparently
don't.


These will give them, as they would have given the US or the Russians, mastery of the solar system.


Yeah, sure.








This does not mean they do not make progress. On the contrary, their progress is steady and inexorable thus far and they have outclassed the USA in many respects in ways that do not threaten the USA.


So they 'outclass' us in things we can't be bothered to shine at?


They outclass the United States in nearly every essential measure that they have identified as being important to them. The USA hasn't bothered to even think about what is important to its survival. This means China is well ahead in technical as well as non-technical factors. Beyond technology where China surpasses the USA in terms of trained people and quality of capital equipment.


What utter poppycock!

That's a cogent reasoned reply! NOT! lol.


It's as cogent a reply as counterfactual unsupported non-specific
bleating requires. lol.


I provided references from Foreign Affairs and similar publications. So, the only one in this conversation spouting unsupported BS is you. Deal with it.


References you didn't understand (more on that below). The solution
to 'dealing with' your idiocy is to killfile you, as most sane people
here have done. I'll probably follow suit just to avoid inflicting
you on people.






We are in debt, they have a surplus, they have all the tools in their physical control, we do not, they have their population behind them, we do not, we have over-reached our military abilities, they have not.


They're a local power. We are not.


Knowledgeable people know this is not true.


Let me play your game. Cite?


I gave you three Foreign Affairs articles published in the last four years. You shoudl read them.


Cites that don't support your contentions. Good job.


Just which "knowledgeable people" are
you referring to?


The authors of the articles cited.


If they were saying what you are saying they would be wrong, so not so
knowledgeable at all.


While China has a large and rapidly modernizing
military, their ability to project power on a global scale is modest.


Their power is growing. The US suffering from over-reach is declining.


As usual, you equate 'desire' with 'fact'. It's growing slowly.


Most of their amphibious lift is oriented toward short distances
(like, say, across the Taiwan Strait). While their Type 071 LPD is a
useful power projection vessel, they only plan on half a dozen of
them. Their fleet support ships are mostly small and slow and
inadequate to support a Carrier Battle Group or Amphibious Ready
Group. They've built two ships that can meet this need (the Type 901
AOEs), although only one is currently in commission. Their transport
aircraft capability is virtually non-existent.


The USA has over reached its abilities. China has not.

The USA is at present, best described, as a failed global power on the same path as the former Soviet Union. By ignoring this reality, you accelerate its coming about. By addressing this reality, we have a choice to do something about it.


Utter ********.


Imagining we are not declining and have not over-reached our abilities does a dis-service to the people of the USA as it avoids taking actions necessary to avoid utter collapse.


More ********.




China in contrast is a growing global power, poised to fill the vacuum left by the USSR and USA. China faces many problems going forward, not the least of which is energy and water, however, they are at present more stable than the USA.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...hina-and-world


Uh, "energy and water" would be TWO problems, hence "are" is the verb
you want. In what way do you think they're "more stable"?


Their ability to plan for the long term and far less corruption than exists in the USA.


Less corruption in CHINA than in the US? You really are quite
delusional.






The quality of Chinese graduate students is legendary in the USA. Nearly 20% of all graduate positions, and the top 20% of the graduate population, are uniformly Chinese. Many of these return to China bearing great knowledge, often after working in US industry, US Space and US military programmes.


Absolutely wrong.

Obviously you have never looked at the names of those top 20% of all graduate classes in engineering and science.


Obviously neither have you. You have also never looked at the
difference between having an Asian sounding name and being Chinese.


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...ration-reality

Obviously you are unaware of China's policies regarding those of chinese ancestry, no matter where they live or were born.


No, I just don't care about their view.


Which is a mistake when dealing with another people.


Not really. Ethnic Chinese who are US citizens are AMERICANS, not
Chinese. There is no big rush of such people returning to China.
Meanwhile, Chinese are paying preposterous amounts of money to be
smuggled into the US.


Ethnic Chinese who are US
citizens are AMERICAN, not Chinese.


The Chinese don't see it that way, and when powerful Chinese-Americans 'defect' to China, they are welcomed there. This is an important aspect in US relations with China. As we learned in the Wen Ho Lee case;

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL30143.pdf


Spies. Did you read the paper you cited?


You're now reduced to your usual
wriggling to avoid having to admit you've made an error.


Your penchant for imagining things that inflate your ego is legendary.


Yes, it's legendary like the unicorn is legendary. Your attempts at
namedropping and inflating your role in things are, on the other hand,
merely tedious.



Again, there are around 150,000 graduate students from China at
various US schools. There are 1.75 million graduate students in total
at various US schools. Take your shoes off and calculate what 20% of
1.75 million is.

You have ignored the fact that the Bureau of Census has actual numbers which indicate that 39% of all PhD graduates in the USA are foreign born. You also ignore the fact that the figures you quote are not current. Today's Chinese graduate students number in excess of 300,000 - not 150,000. Nearly all Chinese students graduate. Not so for others.


'Foreign born' does not equal 'Chinese'.


I never said that. Why do you?


Because that's the only way your claims have even a numerical
possibility. You yourself were talking about 'reading names'.


And my figures ARE current.


Yet you have failed to understand what you read.


Nope. You have. Once again you're engaging in your usual "not me,
you" idiocy. Time to go back into treatment, Mookie.


As usual you've read something and failed to understand it.


You are projecting again! The Census bureau provides detailed figures. You provide a grab bag of figures and put them together inappropriately.


Your usual whine when someone actually proves you wrong, which is why
no one bothers much with you anymore.


More on
that below, where you give your cite for 'current numbers' (which is
the one I used to get my number originally, just by the way)


Look at the surnames of the top scorers in the PhD programs in engineering and science. 20% of them are Chinese. Most of these return to China. All could return to China in a pinch. Your inane attempts to find fault where none exist don't change that.


Back to you saying something you claimed above you never said; anyone
with a Chinese name is counted as if they are Chinese nationals. And
you're talking bull****, since less than 10% of all people getting
PhDs here are from China (which would make it hard for them to be the
top 20%). Your inability to understand simple arithmetic is
legendary.


The US is a culture in decline. China is a rising culture. All the indicators are there. Performance in science and technology in school and in industry. Drug use and sexualisation of culture is rampant in the USA. Quite the opposite in China. This could change, but it won't change by imagining things that we prefer to think about ourselves while we ignore harsh realities.


China's drug use is growing as the affluence level rises above
peasants and wage slaves. China has TEN TIMES as many meth users as
the US according to their own head of Anti-Narcotics.


39% of all PhD graduates in 2000 were foreign born. The top 20% were largely Chinese.


Again, your game. Cite?


I provided them. You failed to read or understand them.


You're the one who failed to understand. I forgot to rub your nose in
it last time. Your claim of "300,000 graduate students from China" is
wrong BY YOUR OWN CITE. Around half of that 300,000 are undergraduate
students (from your cite), which is why I used 150,000. Even at that
I was being generous, since YOUR OWN CITE says that only 39% of that
300,000 are graduate students.


You complain about me using 'out of date'
numbers (when I wasn't) and you're citing figures from 2000?


The long-term trend figures showed a clear trend between the 1960s and 2000s. That trend continues, as the 2017 article I cited said. That article reported there are 300,000 foreign born graduate students and you cite a figure half that size. Obviously your figures are out of date. Mine are not.


No, it didn't. It reported that there are 300,000 TOTAL STUDENTS and
that 39% of that number were graduate students and around half were
undergraduate students.


Let's
look at something more recent and examine your original claim that The
top 20% of ALL graduate degrees granted in the US were students from
China, which is simply numerically impossible.


You are making things up based on inapporpriate reading of outdated numbers.


I used YOUR data that YOU failed to understand, Mookie.


ALL graduate students do not actually receive degrees. ALL graduate students are not equal academically. THAT is numerically impossible.


True but irrelevant and it doesn't make your claims, which were about
people who DID finish, any less numerically impossible.


Nearly ALL Chinese surname individuals graduate engineering and hard science PhD programs with honors. Generally speaking white American males in hard science and engineering PhD programs do not graduate. Those white males that do, do not graduate with honors.


Mook****e. And you're back to claiming anyone with a Chinese surname
is a student from China studying here. Back to unsupported claims as
well, since I'm sure you don't have the name of every graduate student
in the United States and you certainly can't tell where someone is
from (or even their race) by name. You're simply lying at this point,
Mookie.


So, who gets the top spots? Those with Chinese surnames. So, on the rare occassion we find someone like Wen Ho Lee, who steals W88 warheads from LLNL they find it easy to head on back to China to avoid prosecution.


Except that's not at all what happened, is it?


In the context of our conversation here, this is a strength the Chinese have within the USA, that the USA does not have in China. You do not find English surname minority in China dominating Chinese science and engineering graduates and taking top spots in Chinese weapons labs. You do not see English surname individuals in China defecting to the USA with secrets pinched from those labs.


That's because China tends to be a racist society that prohibits such
things. Is that your recommendation for the US?


You arguing over your misinterpretation of out-dated data is foolish in the extreme in this context.


I used YOUR data that YOU failed to understand, Mookie.


You now appear to be
trying to shift your ground to look at PhDs only, so let's do that.


You brought it up moron.

You are throwing crap numbers out there, and when they're shown up for what they are, you then throw crap arguments about shifting ground.


Data for current years from the National Science Foundation are hardly
'crap numbers'. As usual, you are unable to admit error even when
your nose is rubbed in it.


Fact is China is a society with rising expectations and a dedication to their goals. The USA is a selfish society in decline with falling expectations. This is reflected in their academic performance, the performance of their work force, and the problems each society has. The USA suffers from crime, corruption, drug abuse, sex abuse, a general lack of commitment to exceptional performance. China suffers from none of these.


Fact is China is a society developing the same problems you lambast
the US for as its affluence increases.


All numbers are from 2015. Of the slightly over 54,000 doctorates
granted in 2015 by US educational institutions, some 5384 went to
Chinese nationals. In other words, even restricting ourselves to PhDs
we see that your "top 20%" being Chinese is numerically impossible
(since the total number of PhDs earned by Chinese nationals is less
than 10% of the total). In other words, as usual you are on your ass.

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/...t/nsf16300.pdf

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/...data/tab26.pdf


Talk about shifting goals! lol.


You shifted them there yourself! lol.


I'm talking about engineering and hard science graduates (chemistry, physics, etc.) who actually receive a PhD.


The numbers I gave are for people who actually received a PhD from a
US institution.


I'm talking about top performing students. That means students with real honors. That means the top 2.28% of that subest that are 2 standard deviations above the norm. These are your honors students.

https://fixingtheeconomists.files.wo...bell-curve.gif


No, Mookie. 'Honors' is a very specific thing. It's not just a
percentile.


The fact you're arguing the obvious, clearly means, you haven't been in or taught an engineering or science graduate program recently at a top school! You haven't have you?


Neither have you. Your engineering degree is 40 years old. Meanwhile,
I've spent a lot of time interviewing and hiring engineers for a
Fortune 100 company. Very few ethnic Chinese, oddly. I had one on my
team. He was a second generation Californian.


I can tell you from first hand experience, in addition to looking at the statistics compiled about such things, that the top tier students are uniformly Chinese surname because they work harder than others generally and take their studies far more seriously.


Of course you can. Mookie, I wouldn't trust a statement from you that
water is wet without supporting evidence.


I was a teaching associate at Stanford in a graduate physics course there in 2015-16. I can tell you the top performing 2.28% students were generally foreign born, and 20% of those were Chinese surname, mostly from China, and most were intending to return to China after graduation because they felt greater opportunities existed for them there.


Did that from New Zealand, did you? Brilliant! Oddly, your name
doesn't appear in the Stanford Directory.


This is generally quite different from White English surname males. Who did not take their studies as seriously, did not spend as much time and energy on their coursework, and did not have the resources to stay in the program until they actually received a degree.

You're counting bodies in the classroom, I'm looking at actual benefits and performance of the top tier.


At this point you're lying your ass off.






There are around 150,000 Chinese graduate students
enrolled at various schools in the US. The graduate school population
is around 1.75 million. Pretty sure 150,000 isn't 20% of 1.75
million.

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/w10554.html

In 1966 US born white males received 71% of science and engineering Phds. By the year 2000 it was just 35%.

By the year 2000 US born white males received just 35% of science and engineering PhDs, while 25% of those doctorates were awarded to females, 39% to foreign-born students.


And a small number awarded to Chinese.


No, most of the foreign born receiving PhD were Chinese.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/16/...ts-university/


You really seem to love using cites that are paywalled or require
registration. Let's use the ones from the National Science
Foundation, instead.


I use citations that are appropriate to what I'm saying. You are not. You are counting bodies in the class room. I'm looking at who is actually getting the benefit of being there. There's a difference. Of the 2.28% of those who receive degrees with honors 20% of those are Chinese surnames. White english surname males far less than 20%.

Getting back to my original point - China is a rising society. The US is a failing society. Ignoring this fact and pretending its not the case, does a dis-service to the USA.


Usual MookJacking and US bashing from Mookie. NOTHING you cited
supports your claims.



The total number of students from foreign countries here on
educational visas receiving PhDs from US institutions amounts to some
16,083 students. Of that number, 5,384 are from China. So we can see
that your statement that "most of the foreign born receiving PhD were
Chinese" is simply false.


Again, you're counting bodies in class rooms. I'm looking at;

(1) PhD with honors, top 2.28%


Nope. PhD 'with honors' is much rarer than that. Most PhD candidates
don't even bother registering for 'honors'. You've provided NO CITES
about this cohort. Also not your original claim.


(2) In engineering and hard science programs,


Which, interestingly, is most PhDs.


(3) at top tier schools (Stanford, Caltech, MIT, Harvard, etc.)


Provide a cite giving the names and nationalities of all students
completing graduate school at the schools in question.

Your claims just get narrower and narrower as reality intrudes.


While they are certainly the largest
cohort, a third of something is not 'most' of it.


According to your numbers, 5384/16083= 33% of all foreign born graduates in all PhD programs. If you further subdivide by those 2.28% of students who receive honors in engineering and science at top schools - you will find that MOST of the foreign born students at that level are indeed Chinese - and their numbers exceed 20% of the total graduates from those schools.


They're not 'my numbers'. They're from the National Science
Foundation. Cites were provided. You're adding new conditions to
your statement now that your original claim has exploded in your face.



https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/...data/tab25.pdf



Are you getting confused and switching back and forth
between counting 'ethnic Chinese' and 'Chinese by nationality'?

snip meaningless trade numbers

Funny that somone is so confused about the numbers he quotes projects that confusion on to others.


You want to try that again in comprehensible English?


Sure, you find real numbers from reliable sources meaningless and so ignore them rather than deal with them intelligently.


No,


Yes.

I ignore the trade numbers because they are MEANINGLESS to any
thesis that has been put forward.


That you think that says a lot about your inability to absorb simple facts that you refuse to accept.


When did you get your degree in economics, Mookie? I got mine in
1984.


Ignoring irrelevant data IS dealing
with it intelligently.


I guess that's why everyone in your life ignores you then! lol.


You should stop guessing. You're very bad at it. lol.


Look, the numbers don't lie. You on the other hand, have no compunction in that regard. You are happy to lie when it suits you.


True, the numbers don't lie. You, however, are quite happy to ignore
them and the rest of reality when it suits you.

Stupid pro-Communist tirade elided

I'll just point out that virtually all of China's progress comes in
regions where Communism is ignored and that their Communist system
held them back for decades.






Yet, if you want to know where the Chinese are in their nuclear programmes, just look at the aircraft carrier programme and their nuclear submarine programme and their nuclear power programme.


They have no nuclear aircraft carriers and no plans for any that I'm
aware of.

They plan 6 and 2 of these will be nuclear.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiat..._11164324.html


The article is on its ass.


See, a reliable source gives information you don't like, and you attack the article rather than accept the fact you don't know what you're talking about.


Huffington Post is a reliable source?


If you have a better one provide it - that's the way it works.


I did. Hell, I even used YOUR cites to show that HuffPo was on its
ass.


That's really quite funny.


You certainly are quite funny in the way you think.


You certainly aren't particularly funny in the way you do not think.


They're not even reliable for things they ought to know about, much
less something like this. Go read what I said below again, which
explains why I say the article is on its ass.


Look, China tests its students, provides resources to the best of those, and sends vast numbers of students to top tier schools. Those students take their opportunities seriously, and as a result, graduate with honors at far higher rates than any other identifiable group. Chinese graduates enter the work force and have great opportunities to advance in industry throughout the world. They then return to China with great experience and capabilities - which in the end benefit Chinese industry and science.


Look, 300,000 is not 'vast numbers' for a country with the population
of China. Most of the undergraduates (49% of that 300,000) come here
on their parents' money, not the Chinese State's. That's why the
number of Chinese in US schools has grown so rapidly as the affluence
and size of the Chinese middle class has increased since they dialed
back on all that 'Communism' foolishnes.

Just why do YOU think China would send "vast numbers of students" to
schools in the US. Are China's schools so poor, then?


It says 4 conventional and 2 nuclear
carriers by 2025. It currently has ONE conventional carrier (Type
001) and a second (Type 001A) working toward being commissioned in
around 2020. The first of the larger Type 002 carriers is currently
under construction and will enter service around 2023. Their first
nuclear carrier is just a gleam in some folks' eyes at the current
time and it's unlikely to commission before 2030 even on a
preposterously aggressive schedule.

They plan to have 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers by the 100th anniversary of their founding, the same time period they plan to have a nuclear powered space shuttle - 2040 AD.


We'll look at that claim in a minute.


https://www.popsci.com/china-aircraf...ier-technology


Note that the article says DEVELOPMENT of the Type 002 will be
completed in 2020-2021. I said it will commission in 2023, so that's
probably about right to be in agreement with me "not knowing what I'm
talking about", above.


https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ina/cv-003.htm


This cite (in some rather broken English) seems to be saying that
development of the Type 003 will complete in 2030. That would put it
in commission around 2032-2033. Again this is in agreement with me


Also in agreement with what I've said. It can have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier any time in the 2025-2040 time frame. It can have nuclear rocket in that time frame as well.


You just don't get reality, do you? If development doesn't complete
until 2030, they cannot have one before then. In fact, they can't
have one until several years AFTER that. So no, they can't "have a
nuclear powered aircraft carrier any time in the 2025-2040 time frame"
and your own cite tells you they can't.


"not knowing what I'm talking about", above. It also seems to put
paid to the idea that they'll have 10 of them in commission by 2040.
To get there they'd have to start construction on two a year through
2037 and I just don't consider that likely.


Its a matter of whether the Chinese politburo thinks its a good investment. Saying they don't have the capacity, or that they will never do it, is nonsensical. You now seem to be saying that they could do it, even that they will do it, by 2040 and so you are 'right'. lol.


You're making **** up and pretending I said it again. Please point to
anywhere I said that "they don't have the capacity, or that they will
never do it". I don't think they have the capacity to have 10 by
2040, but nowhere have I ever said they don't have the capacity to
eventually build a nuclear aircraft carrier. You're lying when you
claim I did.


Which is it?


It's what I said from the beginning and not your bull**** lies
produced above.




https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/16/...-roadmap-2040/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...e-space-plans/


There is a difference between "a goal" and "a want" and an actual
plan.



The Type 001A looks to take about
18 months to build from start of construction. The larger and more
complex Type 002 looks like it's going to take around 3 years.


Cite?


The cites are various. Browse Wikipedia and you'll find most of it.
Just look at the dates. Type 001A initial work started in November of
2013. Construction started in March of 2015. It launched in April of
2017 (25 months vice the 18 I gave). It's expected to complete
internal fitting out and testing and be commissioned in 2020, three
years after it's launched. Type 002 was originally supposed to have
started construction in February of 2016. However, this was delayed
because they wanted to develop an EMALS catapult for it and were
having power problems getting that to work on a non-nuclear ship. The
problem was solved late this year and construction began. The
estimated launch date for the ship is out in 2020 (in other words,
something in excess of two years). Fitting out and testing runs
through to an estimated commissioning date out in 2023.


Fact is, the Chinese have the capacity to field aircraft carriers, including nuclear powered ones, and they have the capacity to build nuclear thermal rockets as well.


Eventually.



Start your browsing around here and you can chase down the start dates
for the various carriers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rier_programme


The
Type 003 certainly won't be any faster than that.

Cite?


Common sense? I know you don't have any, but it's pretty obvious to
anyone that a 100,000 nuclear carrier is going to take at least as
long to develop and build as an 85,000 ton conventional carrier.





It looks like it
takes China around 3 years once a carrier is launched to finish
fitting it and work it up to put it in commission.

Cite?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...rier_programme


The Dalian Shipbuilding Company builds large 200,000+ metric ton ships in 9 months to 15 months time period. Dalian is the primary contractor for the Type 003 aircraft carrier. The type 003 is in the 100,000 ton range. Smaller than most Dalian built ships. So, Dalian is quite capable in getting this done in 15 months or less, once the decision is made to build it. It will take an additional 3 months to 5 months to outfit and staff it.


Yet Dalian took 25 months to build a 75,000 ton aircraft carrier (the
Type 001A) that they essentially already had plans for (it's a clone
of Russian carrier in Chinese service as the Type 001). They, unlike
you, apparently know that constructing a warship is not like
constructing a bulk cargo carrier. They're not even measured the
same. Cargo ship tonnage is given based on cargo volume. Warships
are measured based on actual displacement. Construction methods are
quite different (or you get something like the American LCS, which was
built to 'enhanced commercial standards' instead of to the usual
standards warships are built to.




The Chinese have already spent five years planning and designing their aircraft carrier. So, 18 months from decision to build until the aircraft carrier is operational is something any analyst would say is possible.


Your own cite says that DEVELOPMENT (all that planning and design
stuff) of the nuclear carrier won't complete until around 2030. Then
you have to actually build the thing and you're not going to build it
in 18 months. Over here we take around 5 years to build carriers of
similar size and another 2 years or so doing final fitting out and
acceptance testing. I think China will probably build somewhat faster
(probably about a year shorter) but historically their final fitting
out and test takes 3 years rather than 2 (and again, a bigger and more
capable ship certainly won't be FASTER to fit out and test), so you
still wind up with around a 7 year timeline from start of construction
to commissioning in service.


What these numbers mean is that in 2025 China will have PERHAPS 4
conventional carriers in commission (more likely 3) and no nuclear
carriers at all.


http://fissilematerials.org/blog/201..._reactors.html

This article states, among other things,

The Changzheng-1, China's first nuclear powered submarine - the Type 091 Han-class nuclear powered attack submarine entered service in 1974 and was decommissioned in 2013.

Both the Type 091 and the Type 092 vessels used LEU enriched uranium-235. The first generation naval reactors were mainly in use from the early 1970s to mid-2000s.

Zhang Jinlin, the chief designer of China's second generation nuclear-powered submarines, has said that the second generation nuclear-powered attack submarines, the Type 093 Shang-class, was delivered in 2006, and the second generation ballistic missile submarines, the Type 094 Jin-class, was delivered in 2014.

China currently possesses five nuclear powered attack submarines and four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. These are all believed to use LEU fuel.


That's all very nice, but so what? Nobody said they were going to
have to build marine reactors from scratch.


China has adapted its second generation naval reactor for use as a small commercial power reactor. The China National Nuclear Corporation's ACP100 reactor is derived from naval reactor technology.

http://en.cnnc.com.cn/2016-04/28/c_51725.htm

The ACP100 reactor is a 310 MWt (100 MWe) small modular PWR, using enriched LEU fuel, with the core and cooling system integrated inside the pressure vessel and a passive safety system.


Again, that's all very nice, but so what?


This is easily adapted to a space nuclear electric power system. It can also be used to heat hydrogen to make a nuclear thermal rocket.


No, it is not "easily adapted to a space nuclear electric power
system". It is a PWR. That's not what you want for space
applications.


Integral PWR where all the components are in the primary pressure vessel, is precisely what you want.


Nonsense. A PWR is exactly what you do not want, which is why no one
has ever built a space rated PWR and no one with any sense ever will.


Although replacing the H2O with Li has certain advantages.


You can't seriously believe you can take a PWR and just go about
"replacing the H2O with Li", can you? That's the most ignorant remark
I've heard from you.


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9680006323.pdf


Not a PWR.




China has developed a compact integrated naval reactor, similar to ones previously developed by the USA, France and Russia.


How nice, but so what?


These reactors may further be developed into nuclear thermal rocket cores as was done in USA and Russia.


Well, no, they can't and that isn't what we or the Russians did.
Again, those reactors are PWRs. Not what you want in space.


http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2017/01/19....cFygfmwe.dpbs


About ships, not spacecraft. So what's your point, again?


The core can be used in a variety of ways, and skills developed are broadly applicable.


Only if your definition of 'broadly' is very broad indeed.




It takes 6-7 years from the start of bending metal
to getting a carrier in commission,

Cite?


See above. Or look up ANY nuclear carrier ever built anywhere by
anyone. The US and France are the only people who have ever built a
nuclear aircraft carrier. The DE GAULL took 5 years to build. The
NIMITZ class took 5 years to build. We actually built ENTERPRISE much
more quickly, going from start of construction to completion of
shakedown in about 4.5 years, but it cost so much to do it that fast
that we cancelled 5 ships of what was supposed to be a 6 ship class.


Dalian takes between 9 months and 15 months from the start of bending metal to get 200,000+ ton ships in commission. Carriers are small by comparison at 100,000 tons.


Are you really unaware that merchant tonnage and warship tonnage are
nowhere near the same thing and you can't compare them as you try to
do above?


Are you unaware of what Dalian promised the Chinese government to get the project?


Are you aware of the definition of 'non sequitur'?




Other Chinese carriers have been brought into commission in less than 18 months.


Oh, really? Name that carrier. The preceding is a preposterous claim
counter to all current reality.


https://www.wired.com/2011/08/china-builds-warships/


Nothing about anything but 'small warships'. Certainly nothing about
aircraft carriers. Again, name those "other Chinese carriers have
been brought into commission in less than 18 months".


You're the only one here who is unaware of reality.


You're the only one here who seems unable to read simple declarative
English and insists on lying about most things. Nobody said they
couldn't build ****loads of small, relatively simple missile boats
quickly. Aircraft carriers are a little bit bigger than a couple
hundred tons and a lot more complex.


There is no compelling reason to believe that when using off-the-shelf navy nuclear power reactors China couldn't have a nuclear reactor powered aircraft carrier within 18 months of the decision to build one.


No compelling reason other than reality, which, as we know, seldom
enters into your calculations. They can't get a CONVENTIONAL carrier
from decision to commisioning in 18 months, so why do you think
replacing the whole power and propulsion system makes that possible?


Because the power and propulsion system were designed that way.


No, they weren't, and in point of fact the nuclear carrier is not the
same ship as the non-nuclear one.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-built-at-home


Nothing to do with the nuclear carrier and even with an existing
design (this is the clone of the Russian carrier) it took them a
couple years in development and another couple years in construction.
They're saying another 2+ years in fit out and testing. This class
will never get nuclear power.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#23d9006f4367


Putting a small reactor on a floating platform is nothing like
building reactors for marine propulsion.



so if it's not under construction
today it probably won't be in the Chinese fleet by 2025.

If you actually read the technical literature about the Type 001 and Type 002 power plant, you will see that its size and fixturing is such that it could easily be replaced by a pair of 100 MW electrical type nuclear power modules in less than 3 months.


Except that's not what they're doing, now is it? And even if it was,
how long has it taken them to build a Type 001A or a Type 002 (Type
001 is an ex-Russian carrier and was already 'built' when they got
it).


Their next carrier will apparently be something the size of
the UK's QUEEN ELISABETH. Regardless, marine propulsion reactors and
power reactors have NOTHING to do with nuclear rocket engines.

Dead wrong. The skill sets required to compound engineer and handle weapons grade fissile materials to form nuclear rockets and nuclear navy reactors have much in common. That's why AEC and Los Alamos Labs took the lead in NERVA development in 1957. It is the road map China will follow for a successful programme in their country.

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nerva.html


Bull****.

Another cogent thoughtful reply! lol. NOT!


Another appropriate reply to a statement too preposterous to merit
serious thought.


Its clear the Chinese have taken their naval reactors built by the same labs that build their weapons system, and made them suitable for a number of applications. These reactor cores, appropriately equipped with be the heart of all China hopes to do in the future.


Mom, Nian Gao, and Changan?



The physics may be the same but the engineering is
radically different.

Funny that you think engineering does not involve a deep understanding of physics. Fact is, engineering is the practical application of physics to solve problems. China has decades of experience with highly enriched compact nuclear cores that are adaptable for a number of missions.


Uh, you've got that backwards from what I said.


No I didn't.


Yeah, you did.


You're the one who thinks engineering somehow magically changes physics. It doesn't. That's the sort of BS contractors tell Congress to justify ten or twenty separate programs where only one is needed.


I made no such statement. You're lying again.


I said the physics is
the same but the engineering is different,


The fact remains, the Chinese are building on their achievements logically based on clear understanding of science. The US rewards corrupt military contractors who make **** up and sell them to Congress who doesn't understand causing the USA to overspend and under perform.

Nothing China proposes to do before 2040 isn't something USA could have done before 1980. The USA didn't achieve what it was capable of achieving because the USA is a society in decline filled with corruption and waste.


The fact remains that you're comparing apples to aardvarks with a good
bit of your usual anti-US bile thrown in.


not that the engineering is
the same but the physics are different. China has ZERO experience
with "highly enriched compact nuclear cores", since even their
military reactors are LEU vice HEU.


Because of international treaties and reporting requirements through the UN, China uses LEU commercially and deploys them broadly throughout their military.


They made a deliberate decision to use LEU for military reactors
because they didn't want to have to divert HEU from their weapons
program.


Yet, your statement that they have ZERO experience with HEU reactors is false. China has 17 HEU reactors as well, and understands the benefit of each variety.


They're changing them over to LEU cores (with our help).


http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/...heu-production


Nothing to do with reactors.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
China 'could reach Moon by 2020' G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 20 July 31st 08 03:34 PM
China 'could reach Moon by 2020' Agent Smith Policy 29 July 22nd 08 07:23 PM
China 'could reach Moon by 2020' Agent Smith Astronomy Misc 34 July 22nd 08 07:23 PM
China to Moon by 2020 Steve Dufour Policy 6 December 5th 03 09:33 AM
China to Moon by 2020 Steve Dufour Misc 2 December 3rd 03 01:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.