|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese
human space flight is now on line. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...0005B4B 6-1CE C-1F5D-905980A84189EEDF |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
"James Oberg" wrote in message .. . My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...0005B4B 6-1CE C-1F5D-905980A84189EEDF Interesting and informative, but I think we should focus on getting commercial companies into space and establishing a real economic need to head out into orbit. In the end, only commercial endeavors can make a permanent presence in space a reality and enable thousands to work and play in space. The Chinese venture is clearly a PR stunt based on the misguided belief that launching people into space will put them in the technological forefront. Some space technology has its applications on Earth, but most of it is very specific for the task so the returns will be limited, especially since the U.S. and the Soviet Union developed most of the needed equipment and technology 40 years ago. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx writes:
The Chinese venture is clearly a PR stunt based on the misguided belief that launching people into space will put them in the technological forefront. Some space technology has its applications on Earth, but most of it is very specific for the task so the returns will be limited, especially since the U.S. and the Soviet Union developed most of the needed equipment and technology 40 years ago. And this is different from NASA how? The US clearly has no "vision" of what to do in space. Spending today is bound more by political inertia and the preservation of jobs in key states (key in terms of politics). What will be interesting will be the political reaction to this flight. The US reaction will be predictable (it's a "stunt", they're not a real space power). However, James made a good point that China could definitely become the world's second place space power. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message .. .
"James Oberg" wrote in message .. . My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...0005B4B 6-1CE C-1F5D-905980A84189EEDF Interesting and informative, but I think we should focus on getting commercial companies into space and establishing a real economic need to head out into orbit. In the end, only commercial endeavors can make a permanent presence in space a reality and enable thousands to work and play in space. Well China has a lot of experience getting companies to develop in recent times and have found that nothing develops without the government providing all the know how , education , shipping and infrastructure first. There is great demand here for this funding as it kick starts whole regions. The Chinese venture is clearly a PR stunt based on the misguided belief that launching people into space will put them in the technological forefront. Some space technology has its applications on Earth, but most of it is very specific for the task so the returns will be limited, especially since the U.S. and the Soviet Union developed most of the needed equipment and technology 40 years ago. Well their plan is to have a permanent moon base in 30 years to leap ahead ( at which time the economy should be similar in size to the US). It will be interesting to see how it goes , you have Russia with a pretty much free enterprise system , you have the US with a goverment program which does not restrict free enterprise ( congress are very carefull about this and a lot of goverment vehicle such as the shuttle were not available for private use) and you have the Chinese goverment system where the government will attempt to create the infrastructure first. I would also say that china while a long way behind has a big cost advantage , as at present safety requirements are very high for prestige reasons but in the long term safety requirements are not as high. I think they lost a sub recently and there was not much in the news about it. Ben |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
On 17 Sep 2003 10:06:54 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: What will be interesting will be the political reaction to this flight. The US reaction will be predictable (it's a "stunt", they're not a real space power). However, James made a good point that China could definitely become the world's second place space power. Which is damning them with faint praise, given how trivial are the capabilities of the world's first-place space power... -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
"James Oberg" wrote in message
.. . My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...0005B4B 6-1CE C-1F5D-905980A84189EEDF I have a feeling of de-ja-vu... ( chinese space prog) Regarding space race - programs for programs sake (the mysterious global prestige) have never produced much of value. Hopefully, the chinese will have themselves to race against. Or, maybe against the Indians. They can have even the first place, for all I care. And not because I'm unpatriotic. Quite the opposite. I would consider a nation with a thriving Space Industry operating on a commercial basis, *selling* goods and services to interested parties, with no dependence on the tax money of the said nation, WAY ahead of everyone else clinging to a big old grand (esp. communist) Program. I want that nation with the Industry to be the U.S. That'd make me proud. The day we stop estimating *effectivness* and goodness of a space program in terms of how *much* of government money is being spent on it, but instead on how *little* (to reach similar or higher goals), will be the great day, indeed. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
... In sci.space.policy si wrote: .. . ..... I have a feeling of de-ja-vu... ( chinese space prog) Regarding space race - programs for programs sake (the mysterious global prestige) have never produced much of value. Hopefully, the chinese will have themselves to race against. Or, maybe against the Indians. They can have even the first place, for all I care. And not because I'm unpatriotic. Quite the opposite. But any of this is relevant or true if that is *really* the case. If all the babbling turns out to have been yet another instance of inferiority complex - and anybody comparing space programs solely on the metric of "can launch humans" is clearly totally out of their mind. Space race? Yeah right. Maybe on some planet with a lavender sky with orange spots. But as grasp of reality has unfortunately never been a needed qualification for either policy making nor writing about policies, we will in all likelyhood get similar junk whenever India's space program becomes more advanced or Pakistan buys up some of teh technology from China. It started off as a nice article - unfortunately the conclusions in the last 1/3 of it are completely insane nonsense. Well, that was more of a slightly sarcastic reaction to some of the (naive?) notions expressed in the article. I think that the prospects of a race are slim since nothing new, or ambitious is attempted. Or, even planned. Manned orbital flights once a year using technology that's been used for decades, Moon observation, or some small scale manned orbital capsules in the far future won't cut it. Simply a country's government wants to "make its people proud" by shooting a man into space. Quite usual. So that they now should become "important like all those other countries shot man into space"... Perhaps, a military program. Or, perhaps, we don't know enough and they do have other fairly pragmatic goals? To clarify my standpoint, being just a space exploration enthusiast and not an 'expert'... Race and running after the elusive global prestige would not be a good development in my book. 'first', 'second', 'third' set by unknown criteria, towards uncertain goals, by uncertain and different agencies - nah, silly. And based on what? One manned flight? Let them have "it". I described what I'd consider a good development in my second paragraph in my previous post. As far as the US position is concerned, at least. (I exclude the possible military developments, which *should* be answered, from this.) As to the article, this and many others regarding this topic. It does seem to be of a slightly populist/euphoric - "Wow, the Chinese are shooting a man into space, this will surely heat things up!" - nature with little evidence presented (besides budget expenditures). Perhaps there is a longing for a space race among their writers. Anyway, firstly, this event hasn't happened yet. Secondly, the program is so veiled in secrecy, that there is very little known about it (even who's flying and on what date, or orbital parameters) to make long term conjectures . And Thirdly, even a single flight will not be enough to build a prognosis regarding things like reliability, efficiency, cost, capabilities since at least a few dozen manned flights will be required for their estimation. A decade at least, in all. This is a long long long march to embark on as we've seen... Accidents/catastrophes happen, budget cut-backs, set-backs in technology... Gathering first-hand experience is always a trial and error effort. Interesting where it'll all lead. Pragmatism is what really needed. And if we are lucky this may speed up the OSP program, at least :0 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
And one more thing. In the article the author attempts to sort space
programs into "places": first, second, third, etc... Then, the term "space superpower". Based on what criteria? The number of manned flights? The total hours spent in space? Or (hope not), the amount of government money spent? What are the metrics of this? Are they unambiguos, and universal? Well, currently, we (the US) are not flying anyone into space on anything, the Chinese are about to make the very first flight with one person crew, and this surely can't be a basis for any anlysis, they have a whole lot of "catching up" to do across the full specturm including the unmanned probes. I doubt it's even possible considering how much has been done in the past 40 years. How were their manned reliability numbers arrived at? So, the basis of the relative analysis contained in the article appears to be, at best, shaky. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcomingChinese human space flight is now on line.
Rand Simberg wrote: On 17 Sep 2003 10:06:54 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: What will be interesting will be the political reaction to this flight. The US reaction will be predictable (it's a "stunt", they're not a real space power). However, James made a good point that China could definitely become the world's second place space power. Which is damning them with faint praise, given how trivial are the capabilities of the world's first-place space power... Didn't you recently write a column how GPS, satellite surveillance & other space technology gave us a huge advantage in Afghanistan and Iraq? Our capabilities aren't trivial at all. Maybe they're trivial if you compare them to earlier expectations of colonies on the moon and Mars. But I am not sure what the Chinese hopes are. If they hope for greater military strength, their space program could well help them realize their goals. Hop http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
My Scientific American (October) feature article on the upcoming Chinese human space flight is now on line.
In sci.space.policy Hop David wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote: On 17 Sep 2003 10:06:54 -0400, in a place far, far away, jeff findley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: What will be interesting will be the political reaction to this flight. The US reaction will be predictable (it's a "stunt", they're not a real space power). However, James made a good point that China could definitely become the world's second place space power. Which is damning them with faint praise, given how trivial are the capabilities of the world's first-place space power... Didn't you recently write a column how GPS, satellite surveillance & other space technology gave us a huge advantage in Afghanistan and Iraq? Our capabilities aren't trivial at all. But China is not majorly behind to being able to launch and station keep similar amounts of similar satellites and could launch such. It might not be able to build the electronics and instruments in the satellites but *that* is not really a function of teh advancement of space as opposed to electronics industry. Maybe they're trivial if you compare them to earlier expectations of colonies on the moon and Mars. But I am not sure what the Chinese hopes are. If they hope for greater military strength, their space program could well help them realize their goals. It could easily be science and technology based - there are areas where China's native capability is quite a bit behind "west" and where even a narrow space program could be used as a tool for much faster progress. Hop http://clowder.net/hop/index.html -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
NASA acknowledges historic space flight | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 2 | April 14th 04 05:55 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |