|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |