China and The Economist

[Rokenn]

I'm sure they are working on their own version of SDI. Having a viable space program is a part of it. Also establishing their own GPS network would be important as well for a SDI program. China hides what it is doing better then western nations after all [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Seraph]

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.

Because US companies supply a fair amount of goodies to Europe, and US companies are/were pressured to refuse to allow for the possibility of a 2nd GPS-like system. A GPS system that only worked with half of their equipment wouldn't be particulary useful in a military application.

[Ar-Cunin]

Part of the reason behind the Chinese space program (incl. a potential space-station) is that USA have blocked China from being a part of the ISS - because they were afriad that the Chinese would steal the technology behind it. So if China want to go into space, they have to go it alone.

But I suspect it is still mainly a prestige project.

and concerning the aid-part - if the aid mianly comes from Japan - what is the big problem. It's the Japan's money - let them spend it the way they want to.

[ 10-28-2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Seraph: Because US companies supply a fair amount of goodies to Europe, and US companies are/were pressured to refuse to allow for the possibility of a 2nd GPS-like system. A GPS system that only worked with half of their equipment wouldn't be particulary useful in a military application.

Sorry, but that excuse doesn't really wash.

Even if it did, would it be the fault of the US that the EU doesn't have the technology?

[ 10-28-2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Rokenn: I'm sure they are working on their own version of SDI. Having a viable space program is a part of it. Also establishing their own GPS network would be important as well for a SDI program. China hides what it is doing better then western nations after all [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Of course, but then we come back to the issue at hand; should the world subsidize these expenditures? After all, this isn't what the money is for, and if the money isn't being used for the designated purpose, then why continue to pay?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: and concerning the aid-part - if the aid mianly comes from Japan - what is the big problem. It's the Japan's money - let them spend it the way they want to.

Of course the Japanese are entitled to spend it in the manner they choose. The question is, how long will the world in general, Japan in particular, try to "pay it forward" in China, while China is wasting money.

[Timber Loftis]

I heard China will subsidize its space program with a delivery business. In fact, the Chinese space flight went by the International Space Station and slipped a menu under the door.

(credit to Jay Leno for the joke)

[Maelakin]

Hehe, gives a whole new meaning to "ordering in".

[Ronn_Bman]

Duck Sauce or Soy Sauce? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: 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.

Actually, they *are* getting rich off it. Many US companies have launched their satellites in China as opposed to in the USA because China can do it far cheaper -
"But for now, the price of American satellite launches is prohibitive. Launching a "bird" on a US-built Delta rocket costs about $5,800 per pound. Do it in China aboard a Long March 3, and the cost is $3,000 per pound. With payloads commonly more than 10,000 pounds, the difference amounts to millions of dollars"
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,12953,00.html
- and so China is reaping in the profits:

You see, the US and Russia developed their space programs purely for *defense* with commerce as an after-thought. The result of this policy is that commercial space technology became hindered because the 'juicy stuff' is considered 'classified/top secret' and 'military only'. And the result?

Well, you only have to look at how the US cell phone standard has not been taken up by other countries. No other country wants a service which the US military can use to eavesdrop and locate you with - so the european standard became dominant.

Then there's GPS. Again, commercial GPS is deliberately inaccurate and may be switched off by the US military at will. Countries have so far adopted it only because there was no alternative: until now. I posted a thread about this a while ago (see: China joins EU's satellite network ). There was little interest on the boards about this development at the time - few people seemed to realise the significance.

A final factor to consider is this. The US has long held the belief that if there is a market for something, private enterprise will develop it and the government does not need to get involved. Other countries (esp. the EU and China) take the attitude that some projects are simply too expensive and risky in the beginning to be taken on purely by private enterprise: government assistance is required to kickstart the project. Concorde is an example of this philosophy - space research and technology application is another.

And is it profitable? The EU is making billions by launching commerical sattelites and, as costs are reducing - even relatively 'poor' countries like Brazil have recognised the income possibilities of space.

If you look at the research possibilities, where China hosts the lab that others pay to get on, this is a commercially viable enterprise. China's space lab is already planned - and this flight has already already left the first module in space (a fact not given much mention in the press - but significant nonetheless). China reckons it can put up its lab at a fraction of the costs of the NASA because it is taking a different approach.

How is this possible? NASA is using the Space Shuttle to build its lab with. This is an incredibly expensive way of doing things in comparison to the disposable rocket launched approached that China has adopted. It's like comparing transatlantic crossings with NASA running a technologically advanced Concorde and China running a 747. Both get to their destinations - but one of the two has significantly higher costs involved.

As one anaylst puts it:
"After the American moon landings, rather than backing out of civilian space efforts and contracting out for services with the private sector, NASA went from science and exploration to freight hauling. It developed a shuttle that, rather than bring launch costs down, caused them to skyrocket. It planned a space station that was to cost $8 billion, accommodate a crew of 12, and be completed in the early 1990s. Instead, it is still under construction, could cost as much as $100 billion, and houses only three astronauts safely. Thus, the Chinese achievement reminds us of three decades of lost opportunities...

...China's Long March rockets cost a fraction of the construction and launch costs of the America shuttle. Further, China's unique manned mission design leaves in orbit a module with every flight, relying on a separate reentry vehicle to return taikonauts back to Earth. Those orbital modules no doubt will be components of a Chinese space station whose cost could be a fraction of the American one. If NASA's high costs continue to price America out of outer space, and if in the long run China has more humans permanently living and working in space, China could adversely influence the nature of the commercial and even security regime that emerges in orbit."
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...5629-7462r.htm

[ 10-29-2003, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]