Author: greendragon

Do we need a Space Station. [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2006-6-10 19:12:05 |Display all floors
Originally posted by tongluren at 9-6-2006 21:00
Why do you think China is completing the minisun (ultra tokamak) by the end of this year, 10 years earlier than the ITER version to be built in France?


Well, for one thing, the very reason China was able to build it was because Western countries had been researching the science for decades. Second ITER was held up because countries like China refused to let it be built in Japan. Had the members just flipped a coin or something it would have been built a lot earlier.

With fusion technology becoming practical in 20 years


No one knows whether fusion will be able to work properly in anything like that kind of time-frame. Decades ago we were being told we'd have commercial fusion "in x years" - and x years later we're still quite a way off.

Originally posted by greendragon at 10-6-2006 03:48
This game is only for the MAJOR POWERS of our world.


It isn't a game. And the only way we'll be able to get ahead is if we work together. Competition would eventually result in serious conflict over something as potentially important as the exploitation of space.
"People are the water, the ruler is the boat; water can carry the boat, but it can also capsize it."

-- Li Shimin (2nd Tang Emperor, "Taizong")

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-6-10 22:09:39 |Display all floors

Space Station cost-benefit analysis...

tongluren:  

You have twisted the comment regarding western nation expansion at the cost of native population life/culture to the current United States military action in the middle East.  See post #4 from sulara regarding you request for evidence.  Unless you plan to rewrite world history, I can rely on that to prove my point.

Regarding US military action in the Middle East:  I don't think that it was necessary for the US to take action to remove Saddam Hussein at this time.  He was contained and did not pose an immediate threat to vital US interests (oil supply for the west).  If he ever did, then I would back the invasion completely.  I do not believe that the US should interfere in another nations ethnic power struggles unless the side the US backs would rise up and show the balls to fight for themselves.  The US is not the world's policeman, and fighting for foreign human rights must coincide with furthering US vital  interests.

Regarding the building of a Chinese space station:  Very expensive, and each nation/group considering it should perform a cost/benefit analysis.  What is the return for devoting a significant amount of resources into a project.  A better route would be to cooperate in an international space station.  Perhaps base on the current modular concept and adding separate sections for various nations.  The only benefits I can think of now is to study human endurance for long stays in space to support long-term space exploration.   And further scientific studies of space.  But an argument can be made to use the money for umnanned space probes.  Like the most recent Mars landers.

Regarding Moon Colonization:  Any outpost would be dependent on air/food and other resources from Earth.  Unless a vital mineral exists that the Earth needs can be obtained more cheaply there, looks like a waste of money.  I believe another post accurately pointed out that the moon cannot be claimed by any one nation per existing international treaties.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-6-11 12:34:46 |Display all floors

Reply #16 nosferatu's post

You miss the AMERIKAN REGIME game, Mr. Nosferatu.....

The Hollywood propaganda programme has all along been painting the EUROPEAN UNION as some sort of ANTI CHRIST nation....note various Amerikan movies, such as OMEN, other insulting movies like calling European gigolos in a recent Amerikan propaganda movie. etc.

The main target of the Middle East Iraqi offensive was to CONQUER AND OCCUPY oil lands all the way to Caspian sea (if possible), failing which, it would create two blocs of Islamic states, Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians in addition to the existing weak Turkish-Sunni factions.

This agglomerization of the MOSLEM powers is used to balance the EUROPEAN UNION G-24 enlargement which treatens AMERIKAN REGIME PREDOMINANCE. No doubt, the first opportunity to contain China has failed, it still have the MOSLEM cards against EUROPEAN UNION. That is the reason why I ask Mr. Tong to remain neutral on the Lebanon and Israel region!


The game continues in new guises.

As for China, the problem is settled for the time being...but for Europe, it's ancient fear of an expansionist Arabic, Persian, Hunnic or Turkist empire is worrisome..The Amerikan Roman style Regime is fearful of a more powerful Greacian style European Union.

Green Dragon

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-6-11 12:47:32 |Display all floors

The possible way to finance the Chinese Space Station.

As usual, contrary to the call by the Chinese Minister of Defence against Space weapons...i'll feel, it might be of "good faith" but it would not be "upheld" by the Major powers of the world including Amerikan Regime, France, Britain and the Russian Federation.

Remember, Amerikan "Star Wars" programme!!!!  Laser based weapons in space could easily be used a "space weapons"...

The first race would be
(1) The cost effective SPACE SHIP. This would probably be a HYBRID aero-unit with both RAMJETS, SCRAMJET, and improved LIQUID FUEL ROCKET ENGINES. Letting the Spacecraft fly to the UPPER LIMITS of the atmosphere and using Rockets to launch it into space is most likely. China would need between 5 - 10 units with payloads of 10 tonnes or more each!

The Space station could be initially financed by SPACE TOURIST (similar to what the British Virgin group is palanning now!!!!)
(2) The 2 hectare space station could be made of ALLOYED COMPOSITE SUPERSTRUCTURE, and half the agriculture space be using lightweight fabrics....and the HUMAN HABITATION be more secure with protective light weight alloy prefab blocks.

It can be paid by supporting 50 tourist, each paying US$10,000 a day (or Rmb800,000 a day)...supporting as many 50 x 10,000 x 365 =US$182.5 million or if 25 years...maybe US$3 billion space station.....certainly the FAR EAST can support such a tourist site.

If there is US$2 billion for materials in space...and 20,000 sq. m = we have US$100,000 per m2 of space station budget.....it might even be profitable!!!!!


But first the RACE FOR THE FIRST.......SPACE HYBRID ENGINES Aero-ship!


That would have to be paid by CHINA NATIONAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME.

If we can do the TIBET RAILROAD, THREE GORGES DAM....China can definately do the SPACE HYBRID ENGINE Aero-ship programme.


Green Dragon

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-6-11 12:53:55 |Display all floors

Reply #16 nosferatu's post

It's cost effective to MINE the moon to build more TOURIST SPACE SPACE STATION than having to LAUNCH IT FROM EARTH...just imagine the fuel requirement to launch from a planet with so much more gravitational pull!

Then there are RARE EARTH, URANIUM, HEAVY METALS which are controlled by unfriendly powers on earth that China can benefit!!!!!


The SPACE RACE IS ON!!!!!


and China has advantage of PPP of millions of unemployed underwork engineers.......and a whole new generation of the semi idle rich to pay for such programmes.

It's just like our URBANIZATION PROGRAMME, it is paid by IDLE RICH VENTURE CAPITALIST, hardworking middle class professional investing in the so many 1st tier, 2nd tier and urban centers in China!



Green Dragon

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-6-11 21:39:40 |Display all floors

Technology Advances....

greendragon:

1.  I agree that all research performed to advance space exploration/travel is worthy, if a nation can afford it.  Depends on that nations priorities.  There is always the risk that the return from tourism and mining operations on other planets/moons/asteroids will not match expectations.  A gamble not for the faint of heart, but the payoff would certainly raise the stature of the winner.

2.  Regarding you comment on 'containing China':  Yes, the United States attempted to 'contain' communism in the 1950s and 1960s.  This was relaxed until the 1980s, when the Reagan administration policies assisted in the breaking apart of the Soviet Union.  And the United States payed for this with a massive debt that is still increasing because of increasingly large-cost social programs.
    But since the 1990s, US policy has been to encourage economic cooperation with China.  The large trade deficits with China is a strange way to 'contain' China.  Perhaps you believe the US is trying to bring China to its knees by forcing all Chinese industries/workers to be dependent on producing goods for western consumers?  Maybe a successful Chinese economy will cause internal revolution because the people don't this success, and want to return to the good old days of the 1960s?
    You will have to explain to me how the United States is containing China these last 10 years?  If you claim the China has the right to expand by military force in new territories, you will be trying to justify Chinese imperialism.  Something you are condemning the US for, and something that the US would equate with past Japanese imperialism.

3.  Regarding your comment on countering the European Union:  The European is still not quite a full 'union'.  These nations do not all agree with each other.  Too many divisions still exist.  Many still share the same interests with the US.  The Iraq military action had nothing to do with countering a non-existent threat.
  Other than finishing the job by removing Sadam Hussein, I have only seen a few other news items suggesting additional reasons which I agree with.  One, the need for a staging ground in the middle East where US military force can be deployed from to protect its oil supply.  Saudi Arabia was said to want to remove all US military installations.  Two, eliminate Muslim extremists who are killing Americans and want to topple the American economy/culture.
  I personally think that using Israel and a few other friendly middle east nations as proxies would have served US interests better.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2006-6-11 23:37:57 |Display all floors

nosferatu

Originally posted by nosferatu at 11-6-2006 14:39
Regarding your comment on countering the European Union:  The European is still not quite a full 'union'.  These nations do not all agree with each other.  Too many divisions still exist.  Many still share the same interests with the US.


Indeed. The European Union does a good job of discrediting itself sometimes - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say member states do a good job of discrediting the European Union. Those countries that are most negative towards the US are also the same ones that have been holding up necessary reform of its institutions. For example, French diplomats have been instructed to send for translators outside of meetings if they want to talk to non-French speakers, even if those French diplomats speak another language that they could use to communicate. And France constantly refuses to cut the CAP, whereas countries like the UK have been pressing for it to be reduced so that the money can be spent on education and skills training. Agriculture will never be something Europe will be able to compete against the world on (except for quality), so why do the French and others persist with this ridiculous economic policy?

The EU would actually be stronger if it wasn't for countries like France that were scared of their position in the world and want to use the EU as a means of circling the wagons and hunkering down. Why do you think it is that France has been so instrumental in blocking the sale of Chinese goods in Europe? Because they're scared of globalisation and don't believe in themselves any more. They think they can only survive by subsidising farming and making it difficult for outsiders to operate in Europe, rather than making their own business more efficient. That is actually what the Americans want to see in Europe. A weak Europe means more work for them in the long-run - a strong Europe means they don't have to work about stuff so much on this side of "the pond". They've been advocating for us to work more closely with each other on defence technology for years, as well as spend more.

Anyway, France's current position in Europe has become discredited now. Merkel is making Germany more open to change and Chirac'll be out the door next year. The PM has no chance, so Nicholas Sarkozy or Segolene Royal will be the next President. They know that France and the European Union needs to change, and although farm subsidies may still be a problem, they'll help get things back on track.
"People are the water, the ruler is the boat; water can carry the boat, but it can also capsize it."

-- Li Shimin (2nd Tang Emperor, "Taizong")

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.