.com.unity Forums - OT: They did it!

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - OT: They did it! (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=10547)

Re: OT: They did it!

Quote:

Originally posted by Loser:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/1...nch/index.html

Whoo-hoo!

The Chinese are in space!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif The chinese conquest of the world has begun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: OT: They did it!

Let�s look at this for what it is. The Chicoms have proven that they can borrow technology and build a platform to put a man in space. And for this I congratulate them, but I am only a little impressed. They have also proven that they are willing to pay the expense of venturing into space. Where they will go with this remains to be seen. They are certainly working it for all of the political capital that they can squeeze out of it. They need to publish some papers on their goals and expected returns. To just repeat the successes of the Soviets and Americans will be a waste of time.

If the Chicom�s want to impress the world, then they should hold free elections, open to all of China. Now that would impress me!

Re: OT: They did it!

If this wakes up the US Congress to NASA's need for proper funding and direction then it's a great thing. The space agency has been in the doldrums since the end of Apollo. We need a big push to develop a truly re-usable space vehicle so it can be released to commercial uses. There are plenty of good technologies available. It's been 30 years since the creation of the shuttle! We can do much, much better if we just have some motivation in the govt. to pay for the initial development. No private industry group is willing to spend the necessary billions on something they might not be allowed to exploit commercially.

Re: OT: They did it!

Actually there are several companies and smaller research outfits working on commercial methods of reaching orbit. I honestly believe that is the key to the future exploitation of space. NASA can't do any long term planning when the agency is funded on a year to year basis. That isn't likely to change in the near future.

Re: OT: They did it!

hopefully, the competition can help. i wanna real space habitat!

Re: OT: They did it!

Well, if NASA wants to make a profit, they should realize that they have to open the heavens to us civilians. I'd like to see a 2001: A Space Oddysey style space station in the future that can be like a hotel in space; not the scientific contraption they're building now. If some people are willing to pay $20 million to go into space, imagine the money NASA can make if they would make a space hotel and charge a few thousand bucks for the privilege of spending a few nights there. I'd scrounge up the dough somehow.

Then they need a new space vehicle. For as much money as a shuttle costs, you would think they could have come up with a more sturdy design.

I'd also like to see us colonize the moon. Even if they can't find enough ice there, they can build some Saturn V size boosters and launch water to the moon. From what I've read, that's the major stumbling block for this endeavor. But I bet if they could find a big enough vein of gold or platinum or uranium, an effort could be made to settle the moon. With over 6 billion people living on the earth, we definitely need to expand our horizons and create living spaces on the moon and maybe Mars.

Also, I'd like to see NASA explore the possibility of mining all of those asteroids that are out there. I'm sure there's a tremendous amount of raw material that can be extracted and utilized.

But will any of this happen in my lifetime? I doubt it, unless some horrible need arizes that will force us to do such things.

OT: They did it!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/1...nch/index.html

Whoo-hoo!

The Chinese are in space!

Re: OT: They did it!

I hope it will promote more funding to NASA.
Its budget just $14B. War in Irag could fund NASA for 7 years http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: OT: They did it!

NASA's problem is it has no long-term goals, and doesn't even have a plan yet to replace the Shuttles when they wear out (sooner rather than later). NASA needs to make a case to do and be something other than a "US postal service" to Earth orbit, if they want more money.

Re: OT: They did it!

Quote:

Originally posted by gregebowman:
...I'd also like to see us colonize the moon. Even if they can't find enough ice there, they can build some Saturn V size boosters and launch water to the moon. From what I've read, that's the major stumbling block for this endeavor. But I bet if they could find a big enough vein of gold or platinum or uranium, an effort could be made to settle the moon. With over 6 billion people living on the earth, we definitely need to expand our horizons and create living spaces on the moon and maybe Mars.

...

Moon has one perspective mineral practically absent on Earth : He3
here is just one link:
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html
He3 is the best source of fussion material.
He3+De->He4+H reaction has a very high yield and is clean since there are no neutrons and gamma-radiation. Eventually, it should become the optimal source for interplanetary or even interstellar travel (no need for heavy radiation shielding). Even if it will prove too costly as an energy source for Earth, I imagine Moon station as a major terminal for future space exploration.

[ October 16, 2003, 15:26: Message edited by: oleg ]

Re: OT: They did it!

A little fall out?

Quote:

South China Morning Post October 13, 2003

US wary of a 'space Pearl Harbour'
Hawks see China's programme as a security nightmare that must be contained

In-Depth Coverage
By Ray Cheung

One cold January morning on the high plains of Colorado two years ago, officers of the US Space Warfare Centre at Schriever Air Force Base swung into action, mobilising military satellites.

They were responding to enemy nation "Red", which was massing forces to attack an island neighbour, "Brown", a state the US had sworn to protect. Within hours, Red had countered the US move by launching a series of cyber-attacks on American computers.

For five days, both sides slugged it out in space, using their arsenals of micro-satellites, lasers, manned space vehicles, ballistic missiles and missile defences.

But not a single shot was actually fired. This was just a drill, supposedly set in 2017. However, the nation and its neighbour were real. Red was China, while Brown was Taiwan.

With China conducting its first manned space flight this week, many US military planners believe the two sides are heading towards a clash. "While one of the strongest immediate motivations for this programme appears to be political prestige, China's manned space efforts almost certainly will contribute to improved military space systems in the 2010-2020 timeframe," the Pentagon's recently released 2003 report on the PLA says.

Some observers believe China's space programme is not about weather forecasting, scientific exploration or commercial communication, but aimed at preparing it for battle with the US.

The reason behind this logic is clear. Space is the Achilles heel of America's awesome firepower. Hundreds of US satellites orbiting Earth comprise the critical elements of the US military - command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or "C4ISR" in defence speak.

If China is to have a chance of defeating the vastly superior US military, space would be the ideal battleground.

"The Chinese believe the US is vulnerable because of our dependence on space systems," said Paul Godwin, a long-time PLA expert formerly with the National War College. "They believe if they can degrade our satellites, they can really hurt us."

The Pentagon report says China has sought or is seeking a massive arsenal of space weapons, including spy satellites, high-energy anti-satellite lasers and sophisticated radars which can track and jam satellite signals.

This projection has Washington's anti-China hawks up in arms. They see China's space programme as a security nightmare that must be confronted and contained.

Before his appointment as US defence secretary in January 2001, the hawkish Donald Rumsfeld warned the US could face "a space Pearl Harbour" attack and urged further development of space defences.

He did not mention the nation by name, but in previous reports China was identified as a potential instigator of such an attack.

Some US officials have been pushing for more advanced weapons and calling for economic and political measures to hold China's space development back.

That means no space-related co-operation between the US and China, including projects such as the International Space Station. The mainland has been left out of the 16-nation initiative as a result of US pressure.

Gary Schmitt, of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative Washington think-tank, said any US co-operation with China over space would lead to technology being transferred to the PLA.

"We should not give the Chinese a boost under the guise of peaceful co -operation," Mr Schmitt said. "It would be playing a fool's game."

US hawks also say Washington should not sign any deals on peace in space with Beijing. Along with Russia, the mainland has urged the US to sign up to a ban on space weapons. Larry Wortzel, vice-president of The Heritage Foundation, another conservative Washington think-tank, said any treaty banning weapons in space would merely slow down American progress on missile defence programmes and allow Chinese scientists to develop effective countermeasures.

"So long as communist China is a threat to the United States, American friends and allies, the US should do nothing that will assist China in becoming a more powerful military nation," he said. Those who favour engagement with the mainland see the militarisation of space as inevitable, regardless of what the US does.

"Perceiving the United States as a potential military threat, it will have no choice but to counter our strategy," PLA expert Paul Godwin said.

Others accuse the US hawks of overstating the threat that China poses to secure more funds for military space projects, which have been a declining priority since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

They pointed out that the Pentagon report was full of words such as "may" ,"believed to be" and "could".

"The US space hawks are using this communist China threat to get more money for their programmes. They believe you can never have too much superiority," said John Pike, a space analyst and director of Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-based think-tank.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

� Copyright 2003, South China Morning Post Ltd.

Re: OT: They did it!

Quote:

"The US space hawks are using this communist China threat to get more money for their programmes. They believe you can never have too much superiority," said John Pike, a space analyst and director of Globalsecurity.org, a Washington-based think-tank.

Well, that's how I play my SE4 games. Why ignore a risk to our space-based technology, especially when we do rely on space so much (i.e., weapons/troops using GPS)?

Of course, it wouldn't take much to get the masses behind the DoD. Just let the Chicoms take out a civilian GPS satellite by accident. Bass fishermen would be enlisting by the millions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: OT: They did it!

Quote:

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Well, if NASA wants to make a profit, they should realize that they have to open the heavens to us civilians.

You were saying? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Quote:

Still, 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.
Since NASA already is considering major changes in light of the Columbia disaster, the Chinese launch should spur it to real innovation. It should phase out its flights to orbit and instead contract out for rides on private rockets. It should place space station management and expansion in private hands. And if it needs transitional vehicles, it should look to private suppliers for versatile systems that can serve commercial purposes.
Further, the U.S. government should remove current barriers to private commercial space companies. For example, the Commercial Space Transportation office in the Federal Aviation Administration was created to speed the licensing process for private rocket launches. But other parties within the FAA want to classify many suborbital rockets as "experimental aircraft," which would foist enough new regulations on emerging private launch companies to kill them in the crib.
And in 1999, export licensing was moved from the Commerce Department, which did a tolerable job of facilitating private American multinational space activities, to the State Department, which does a terrible one, again chaining American entrepreneurs to the ground.
American entrepreneurs can beat any government provider � whether Chinese or American � in producing cutting-edge goods and services. Rather than launch a new government-led space race, the U.S. government should unleash its private innovators who will help make us a true, spacefaring civilization.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...5629-7462r.htm

[ October 23, 2003, 10:44: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]