Here's what The Economist had to say about Chinese space flight. I thought it quite valid.

http://www.economist.com/images/2003...uecovUS400.jpg
{Paraphrased} China gets about $1.8 billion/ yr. in foreign aid -- mostly from Japan. If it now chooses to spend its money on space travel (it is only the 3rd country to ever put a man in space) there can be no good reason for outsiders to subsidize that choice.

Putting a man in orbit is a wasteful publicity stunt for China. No one knows just how wasteful, for China is most secretive about its space budget and about the larger military budget. China always makes sure its otherwise opaque statistics always support its claim of neediness, but now it may have traded space in for the generosity of others.

Outsiders guess the venture cost $2 Billion. And, China will not stop there. It plans an eventual moon landing and its own space station.

India, China's chief rival for developing world leadership, is now egging its scientists on to get a man on the moon too. It plans an unmanned moon shot by 2008.

China has been modernizing and expanding its nuclear force for some time. It has shown it can release more than one satellite from a rocket, so it could put multiple warheads on a missile if it chose to. The rocket used for the space flight is virtually indistinguishable from ICBMs.

China needs to make money and become self-reliant. To do so requires entering markets in which it can compete effectively.

Space technolgy, sattelite launching, military technology and space research are markets with few competitors - so it makes sense to enter this arena, esp. given that China has a perfect geographical location for launching rockets.

Part of the aid that we give to developing countries is to do just this - allow them to develop industries that will bring in money so that aid is no logner neccessary.

There are many industries in the world that could be used to produce economic stability. China isn’t developing their space program to generate income; they are doing so in order to establish superiority over other countries, at the expense of others. If China has the money to continually develop their space and military programs, other countries should pull their financial backing.

Somehow I don't see the investment balancing against the future profits. If there is money in going to the moon why did the US and Soviets stop?

Is space a cash cow waiting to be milked or a money pit?

Are the nations who are currently engaged in space commerce getting rich off it?

Sorry, but it does seem that this is a huge publicity stunt put on at the expensive of the Chinese people and those who are willing to help them unless the economics justify it, and with that not being the case, this article seems completely valid.

Ronn - China has been pushing for an international treaty to stop a weapons race in space. The US believe that such a treaty is not necessary. Presently the US controls the GPS system, it allows other nations to access the system but can remove this access at any time. The EU is being 'discouraged'by the USA from developing their own systems.

In addition the US is developing it's "global engagement" policy which, along with GPS, will include missile defence and the ability to launch weapons from space. This policy is intended to allow the US to strike pre-emptively anywhere in the world and will deny other nations this capability.

China believe that this policy is being developed with them in mind. Is it any wonder then that they seek to develop their own space capability? Not a publicity stunt, rather a necessary precaution in the face of the USA's refusal to even discuss the problem.

Looks like we are headed for a whole new arms race. What price the Federation of Planets now?

The question of aid is separate of course.

But the question of aid is at the heart of this. The aid is given for use as described by skunk, and a space program is an incredibly inefficient use. Even more, an absolute waste.

Exactly how is China's sending a man to the moon anything but a publicity stunt?

Yes, I realize the argument against any Star Wars type defense plan is that the malevolent US wants to make itself impervious to attack while gaining the ability to attack others at will, but I have to line up with the group that thinks the mutually assured destruction theory is out dated, and that a defense initiative should not be looked at as an offensive weapon. (You had to know I would [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D )

On the GPS issue I'm quite confused. If the EU or anyone else wants or needs it's own system why doesn't it build one. The US may discourage it, but the EU has shown that it doesn't have to acquiesce to the will of the US, but if the EU continues to rely on the system the US offers, then there should be absolutely no complaining about the US's ability to control/withdraw that system unless that complaining is addressed directly to the EU or other government that feels it shouldn't have to rely on the US. Something’s are our fault, something’s are not. ;)

Gotta get a train in 20 minutes so I'll reply tomorrow.

One thing Ronn - I didn't suggest that the US was being 'malevolent' and given the sensibilities of some of your countrymen I feel I should state that the US is acting in it's own best interests. I understand that, it's what all nation states do.

I knew you weren't and didn't mean to imply that you did. [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

I was just going with the stereotypical response, because I still can't get the subtitle thing right. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Have a safe trip!

If "Star Wars" SMD were developed, it would end nuclear threats the world over, wouldn't it? Even if the malevolent US did not give the technology away, that sort of stuff gets out.

Why don't the Chinese spend those wasted space billions on their own SDI instead if their vulnerability is the reason for a space program? That would certainly make more sense from a defensive point of view. In fact, it seems that anyone who's worried about the US's SDI intentions would do the same.