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

"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.

"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.

"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

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:

"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.

"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

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.

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

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 +++