Dear List, The first manned space flight of China is expected as early as October 10 this year (next month!). America should be outraged and humiliated. Humiliated because, we are now grounded in the wake of the Columbia's destruction. Outraged, because this is almost like "your tax dollars at work," except that here it is your trade dollars at work. In the 1990s rush to implement free trade, Washington missed the meaning of a trade deficit. Now, they may be too humiliated to admit that other largeeconomic problems stem from trade deficits. One part of the outrage is easy to get across: that the $100+ billiontrade deficit with China is "welfare for tyrants" -- money going from here to there. If someone gave you $100 billion a year, you too could have your own army, navy, air force, and space program. You have no idea how much American outrage has been building about China, and how much more could occur based on a China space shot. The flames are already there; one hardly needs to stoke those flames -- only to talk about what is already the case in the matter. To "talk about" this material, I wonder whether funded organizations, and grass roots individuals, can get together and support a public outreach campaign. Where, in our cause, is the lobbying directed? Jeff Krukin? Who else? And, do we have access to grass roots lists and newsletters? My thought is this: raise money, and put a full-page ad into USA Today or such. The message should be developed in concert with SSI, Jeff Krukin, and others whom we reach to be "in on it." (My other organization, the China Support Network, can always supply anti-China vitriol.) What do the members of this list think of this idea? -- China's space shot may make tempers flare, and matters boil over. Washington's space situation is pathetic. --Let me toss this out to the list, to hear your own ideas and input on this. Thanks! --John Kusumi
> Dear List,
>
> The first manned space flight of China is expected as early as
October 10 this year (next month!).
>
> America should be outraged and humiliated. Humiliated because, we
> are now grounded in the wake of the Columbia's destruction.
from you I've never heard anyone comment on their humiliation about
Columbia's destruction.
> Outraged, because this is almost like "your tax dollars at work,"
> except that here it is your trade dollars at work. In the 1990s
> rush to implement free trade, Washington missed the meaning of a
> trade deficit.
No they didn't. Trade deficits existed before the 1990s.
> Now, they may be too humiliated to admit that other large economic
> problems stem from trade deficits.
Again I heven't heard any economic commentators attributing
humiliation to the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations
concerning trade policy. Can you provide some sources for this?
> One part of the outrage is easy to get across: that the $100+
> billion trade deficit with China is "welfare for tyrants" -- money
> going from here to there.
Actually I don't think many people are outraged; rather they tend to
like their cheap stereos, clothes, sunglasess and other consumer
products. If they were outraged they'd vote with the pocketbooks and
buy non-Chinese goods. Look at the issue of blood diamonds - some
people are establishing provenance before purchase but most don't
care - they just want a beautiful diamond.
> If someone gave you $100 billion a year, you too could have your
> own army, navy, air force, and space program.
Actually nobody is giving China that money, they're earning it fair
and square.
> You have no idea how much American outrage has been building about
> China,
Actually I don't. How did you know? Maybe the outrage is happening
only in your small circle and that's why its a secret from the rest
of us. Can you provide some sources to bring me up to speed. I hate
being so out of the loop.
> and how much more could occur based on a China space shot.
Hmm, I was actually interested in how China would do and am
surprised that people would be outraged about a Chinese space
launch. Why would they be outraged?
> The flames are already there; one hardly needs to stoke those
> flames -- only to talk about what is already the case in the
> matter.
Jeez, I must be living under a rock because I sure don't feel any
heat from these flames and I don't even hear the roar of the fire.
Hey, you're not saying that the Chinese started all those wildfires
around the world, are you? If they did I could see that people would
be upset, especially if one of their rockets started those fires.
> To "talk about" this material, I wonder whether funded
> organizations, and grass roots individuals, can get together and
> support a public outreach campaign.
To what end? Who are these people and organizations to dictate to a
country that they can't have a space program? You've completely lost
me.
> Where, in our cause, is the lobbying directed? Jeff Krukin? Who
> else? And, do we have access to grass roots lists and newsletters?
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here.
> My thought is this: raise money, and put a full-page ad into USA
> Today or such. The message should be developed in concert with
> SSI, Jeff Krukin, and others whom we reach to be "in on it."
I haven't seen any policy directives from SSI spelling out their
opposition to a Chinese space program, so I'm not sure how
they're "in on it."
> (My other organization, the China Support Network, can always
> supply anti-China vitriol.)
What's the first organization? I suspect that your anti-China
vitriol is thoroughly coloring your perceptions.
> What do the members of this list think of this idea? -- China's
> space shot may make tempers flare, and matters boil over.
I think you're projecting your own vitriol onto others. I haven't
seen even an inkling of flaring tempers and matters boiling over,
other than this post of yours.
> Washington's space situation is pathetic. --Let me toss this out
> to the list, to hear your own ideas and input on this.
>
> Thanks! --John Kusumi
My idea is for this project of yours to be put away and forgotten.
It's an embarassment.
TangoMan
Guess eventually I managed to find something I agree with Tangoman... :)
Cheers,
Claudio
*snip
Dear List, The first manned space flight of China is expected as early as October 10 this year (next month!). America should be outraged and humiliated. Humiliated because, we are now grounded in the wake of the Columbia's destruction. Outraged, because this is almost like "your tax dollars at work," except that here it is your trade dollars at work. In the 1990s rush to implement free trade, Washington missed the meaning of a trade deficit. Now, they may be too humiliated to admit that other largeeconomic problems stem from trade deficits. One part of the outrage is easy to get across: that the $100+ billiontrade deficit with China is "welfare for tyrants" -- money going from here to there. If someone gave you $100 billion a year, you too could have your own army, navy, air force, and space program. You have no idea how much American outrage has been building about China, and how much more could occur based on a China space shot. The flames are already there; one hardly needs to stoke those flames -- only to talk about what is already the case in the matter. To "talk about" this material, I wonder whether funded organizations, and grass roots individuals, can get together and support a public outreach campaign. Where, in our cause, is the lobbying directed? Jeff Krukin? Who else? And, do we have access to grass roots lists and newsletters? My thought is this: raise money, and put a full-page ad into USA Today or such. The message should be developed in concert with SSI, Jeff Krukin, and others whom we reach to be "in on it." (My other organization, the China Support Network, can always supply anti-China vitriol.) What do the members of this list think of this idea? -- China's space shot may make tempers flare, and matters boil over. Washington's space situation is pathetic. --Let me toss this out to the list, to hear your own ideas and input on this. Thanks! --John Kusumi
My, my. Somebody is pretty quick there to reach for conclusions first,
information second.
snarky and snide people. I have two bullet points of what you may
regretfully conclude is solid and sound information.
(1.) 4 out of 5 Americans opposed the free trade with China deal. (79%,
citing a poll published in BusinessWeek.)
(2.) Yes, there is anger bubbling out, and mounting. The URL to which I'd
refer you is this:
http://www.chinasupport.net/topnews80.htm
That is all.
> My, my. Somebody is pretty quick there to reach for conclusions
first,
> information second.
>
> Let me go to the information first, and only second say what I
think of
> snarky and snide people. I have two bullet points of what you may
> regretfully conclude is solid and sound information.
Snarky and snide because we don't agree with your polemics. You've
got to be kidding.
>
> (1.) 4 out of 5 Americans opposed the free trade with China deal.
(79%,
> citing a poll published in BusinessWeek.)
Where's the link? I've got to see this poll and see if its been
miscontrued by anti-China vitriol.
> (2.) Yes, there is anger bubbling out, and mounting. The URL to
which I'd
> refer you is this:
>
> http://www.chinasupport.net/topnews80.htm
The anger that you're citing is your own. What a joke.
>
> That is all.
I'm relieved. Thanks.
TangoMan
> Guess eventually I managed to find something I agree with
Tangoman... :)
>
> Good post.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio
>
To argue back and forth as you and I do is good natured debate. This
post was << fill in your choice of adjective - too many come to my
mind to make a proper sentence.>> (that's me showing restraint :-)
Cheers back to you.
TangoMan
My, my. Somebody is pretty quick there to reach for conclusions first,
information second.
snarky and snide people. I have two bullet points of what you may
regretfully conclude is solid and sound information.
(1.) 4 out of 5 Americans opposed the free trade with China deal. (79%,
citing a poll published in BusinessWeek.)
(2.) Yes, there is anger bubbling out, and mounting. The URL to which I'd
refer you is this:
http://www.chinasupport.net/topnews80.htm
That is all.
>
> My idea is for this project of yours to be put away and forgotten.
> It's an embarassment.
Isn't this exactly what I said was needed to get the USA space program going
again?
Stoke the fires of nationalism, fear of foreigners etc. etc.?
Looks like its been taken to heart...
:-)
Pbob
yeah, well a lot of us thought/hoped you were joking;)
> My idea is for this project of yours to be put away and forgotten.
> It's an embarassment.
HEY HEY HEY guys!
Isn't this exactly what I said was needed to get the USA space program going
again?
Stoke the fires of nationalism, fear of foreigners etc. etc.?
Looks like its been taken to heart...
:-)
Pbob
Ya gotta admit it would do the trick...haha, of course isolating only the
good aspects of the space race may be difficult, i.e. negating spaced based
missle launching, james bond death rays, etc.
> yeah, well a lot of us thought/hoped you were joking;)
>
> > My idea is for this project of yours to be put away and forgotten.
> > It's an embarassment.
>
> HEY HEY HEY guys!
>
> Isn't this exactly what I said was needed to get the USA space program
going
>>
>> My idea is for this project of yours to be put away and forgotten.
>> It's an embarassment.
>
> HEY HEY HEY guys!
>
> Isn't this exactly what I said was needed to get the USA space program
> going
> again?
>
> Stoke the fires of nationalism, fear of foreigners etc. etc.?
>
The fires of nationalism and fear of foreigners are one of the reasons
I can't talk freely about suborbital spaceflight to potential
collaborators in Brazil and Canada. This isn't a hypothetical
situation: I have actually lost real opportunities for collaboration on
building rockets (actual hardware) due to irrational fear of foreigners.
for a new space race is like the cargo cults after WWII -
understandable, but irrational and pitiful.
......Andrew
> What do the members of this list think of this idea? -- China's space
> shot may make tempers flare, and matters boil over. Washington's space
> situation is pathetic. --Let me toss this out to the list, to hear
> your own ideas and input on this.
>
A terrible idea. The current government of China is simply awful,
unquestionably the most oppressive government of any major power.
Trying to somehow involve space in getting the message across is
harmful to the goal of freeing the Chinese people (at best it's a
distraction) and harmful to the goal of creating a spacefaring
civilization. To be humiliated because China has accomplished something
the US did over 4 decades ago makes no sense.
more government intervention. We should agitate for sensible
regulations that will encourage the growth of industries that bring
down the costs of spaceflight.
......Andrew
There will be no new space race. It's time to get over it. The desire
for a new space race is like the cargo cults after WWII -
understandable, but irrational and pitiful.
We need this, and I firmly expect that there will be a new space race, but between companies rather than between national governments.
......Andrew
Are you saying Canada and Brazil were afraid of you, as a foreigner,
building rockets in their country with perhaps malevolent intentions?
aircraft that seems well engineered and fits a niche at a very competative
price...
Canada also has their own aircraft manufacturing industry as well that is
doing OK in the regional jet category...
I would think that they would be more than open to expand in these fields to
include aerospace, i.e. rockets. If memory serves, wasn't there an
alternative launch program that was considering a Brazilian island as a base
before settling on Christmans Island next to Australia?
Perhaps to get things going again, we need to re examine how the commercial
aircraft industry got going... after all, early aircraft where hardly
all-weather, super stable platforms, affordable-operating-cost transport
medium that we consider them to be today. I'm sure any prudent business
person would have not considered much profitability for aircraft in the day
of cheap RR transport, behemoth ocean going mini-cities, and the expansion
of the telephone and already embraced telegraph and facimile machines that
could have been projected to cut down on actual need of transporting people
or documents. After all, no aircraft, even today, can out-run electronically
sent data from almost anypoint on the globe to any other point. So since
early aircraft were considered dangerous, unreliable , etc. how come we have
that industry today?
Yes, initially it was the Army that was contracted for early aircraft for
observation use... not really a consumer comercial venture. And rockets
first real use in the west was for military applications, again not civilian
use.
Another little talked about segment is underwater craft; submarines. Again
first application was military (the turtle). It was not for many many years
later that it was considered developed enough for civilian use such as
excursions in Lake Lucerne or reef jaunts in the caribbean. US Submarines, a
civilian manufacturing group, now has designs and supposedly is building
submarine yachts for the rich.
How does one do the transition from military to civilian? Has Tito been the
turning point with his civilian/commercial visit to Space ?
RE: There will be no new space race. I would argue there are several space races going on now, though they may not seem important to different folks on this list. There is a race Jim Benson is carrying on. Several countries are in another, India, Brazil and China. There are companies that build and operate communications satellites. Geosynch over the Atlantic is full. There is a race between those who want to sell images of Earth from space. There are spy satellites. There are weather satellites. There is the X-prize. But, of course there is no race to put people on the Moon first because that has already been done, and no other space race will likely generate as much publicity. Remember that occurred when there were just 3 national TV broadcasting companies in the USA. Life will never be so simple again. But I think thereare several, maybe many, space races going on. Jay Huebner
> Are you saying Canada and Brazil were afraid of you, as a foreigner,
> building rockets in their country with perhaps malevolent intentions?
Brazil about 50+ year old technology it will harm US interests. Don't
underestimate the irrationality of US technology export regulations.
Not only are certain things "born secret," so that the idea is
classified from the moment it appears in your head, but even
communication with foreign nationals about information already
available to them through other channels may be illegal under certain
circumstances.
> Brazil has a blossoming aeronautical industry (embrae) with an
> excellent
> aircraft that seems well engineered and fits a niche at a very
> competative
> price...
Also lots of ambitious young engineers looking to make their mark on
the world and earn a name for themselves alongside such aviation
pioneers as Santos-Dumont.
> Canada also has their own aircraft manufacturing industry as well that
> is
> doing OK in the regional jet category...
Not to mention two very credible X-Prize teams. You'd really think it
ought to be OK to collaborate with Canadians on civilian spaceflight
technology, wouldn't you? According to the law as it currently stands
you could do jail time if you try.
> I would think that they would be more than open to expand in these
> fields to
> include aerospace, i.e. rockets. If memory serves, wasn't there an
> alternative launch program that was considering a Brazilian island as
> a base
> before settling on Christmans Island next to Australia?
There are a number of promising spots in Brazil for launch sites, but I
don't know of the specific case you refer to. In fact Brazil already
has a government run spaceport.
> Perhaps to get things going again, we need to re examine how the
> commercial
> aircraft industry got going... after all, early aircraft where hardly
> all-weather, super stable platforms, affordable-operating-cost
> transport
> medium that we consider them to be today.
This is the tack being taken by many of the suborbital startups. When
they were first invented airplanes were little more than novelties. But
novelty alone is enough to generate a revenue stream that lets you
develop the next generation of more capable craft.
......Andrew
A terrible idea. The current government of China is simply awful,
unquestionably the most oppressive government of any major power.
That's true. America is doing their best, but haven't managed to excel in this field as yet. DMCA, Patriot act and so forth- they're trying for the title, but as yet are not quite reaching their full final totalitarian destiny.
......Andrew
Message Guys, let's try to steer this conversation away from politics and more towards the international launch situation (which is a perfectly legit topic for discussion on ssi_list).
Mike Combs
A terrible idea. The current government of China is simply awful,
unquestionably the most oppressive government of any major power.
That's true. America is doing their best, but haven't managed to excel in this field as yet. DMCA, Patriot act and so forth- they're trying for the title, but as yet are not quite reaching their full final totalitarian destiny.
1/2 :-)
......Andrew
OK so the Brazilian and Canadians are NOT afraid of you building rockets in
their country.
50 year old technology isnt necessarily useless...the V1 and V2 rockets, if
resurrected today, would have great demand by several countries right now.
50 year old or not. :-)
One of the supposedly most sophisticated Space craft in (suspended) use is
the Shuttle and many of the systems were designed decades ago. I wonder what
platform the soyus is built on? :-)
Perhaps we just need to wait for a Curtis to popularize Space flight to make
the next moves. Unfortnately 50% of jobs that will be available 10 years
from now, don't exist yet. Perhaps in the next ten years ssome leapfrogging
or new paradigm may come into play.
There has been some experimentation by the japanese with anti-gravity, and
some obscure researchers claim they are understanding "gravity" and how
itworks which suggests that they will be able to control it.
THAT my friends will be the paradigm breakthough we need. As has been said
countless times, half the disance to the stars and planets is the first 60
kilometer.
It does not look like rockets, with problems of carrying along the weight of
fuel and oxydizer, will be the solution, no matter HOW cheap the fuel
becomes (actually pretty cheap when comparing BTU to other transport media
fuels).
Magnetic acceleration faces atmospheric friction since terminal velocty is
reached at the point of launch and not gradually as atmosphere density
reduces.
Balloons, and other high altitude launch platforms, just don't save enough
because they still are usually less than 20 kilometers high at best, and one
still needs to accelerate to escape velocity, not just have altitude.
Wright bros. could only do so much with their current technology;
wieght/power ratio of engines available at the time held back a lot.
Perhaps the "item" that makes it practical, anti gravity system, just needs
to be waited for. Some person in some garage will come up with a hint and
boom, we'll be off.
sigh.
THEN you WILL see a renewed Space race and God help us since we still
haven't figured out how to play nice.
>
> > There will be no new space race. It's time to get
> over it. The desire
> > for a new space race is like the cargo cults after
> WWII -
> > understandable, but irrational and pitiful.
>
> We need this, and I firmly expect that there will be
> a new space race,
> but between companies rather than between national
> governments.
>
> > ......Andrew
tend to support the idea behind the ISS, though not
the implementation. We need further coopoeration in
space, not competition. Look for example at weather
sats, astronomy and earth observation. We have been
able to greatly advance in these fields through
coopoerating with each other.
One of the things that needs to be differentiated here
the differences between space as a public good and
space as a commercial interest. Too often this gets
confused and things get messed up.
Look at the initiative in the 1980s in which US
government tried to commercialize landsat. This was
an utter failure because the main client of public
goods turn out to be public serviing agencies who tend
to have very small budget due to our tax structure.
So these agencies cannot afford to pay market demand
for data which would help for planning for and dealing
with urban sprawl, forest fires and natural disasters
(to name a few).
Having a race between commercial interests is good for
commercial services (commsats and the like) but I do
not believe this mentality is a beneficial for public
services (look at the current landsat mess today).
Ryan Z
> I am hesitant to think that what we need is a race. I
> tend to support the idea behind the ISS, though not
> the implementation.
you, you and you. Everyone else needn't apply.
You support that?
I despise the idea behind the ISS; the implementation is OK, but it's
not nearly as good as it could be because the idea is so flawed. It's
the same problem with the shuttle. NASA just doesn't get it.
> Having a race between commercial interests is good for
> commercial services (commsats and the like) but I do
> not believe this mentality is a beneficial for public
> services (look at the current landsat mess today).
Agreed, pretty much. But I don't think that public services have a welk
in a supernova's chance of opening up the high frontier. The point about
commercial services is that they can grow exponentially. Governments
cannot, since they live off taxation. We need launch volume to bring the
price of space access down- that's the primary driver; more so than any
technology, we need exponential growth.
Perhaps if SPS was cheaper, but it isn't. The only plausible route I see
right now is tourism; and that's not an easy route either, and it's not
one the government should do more to/for than tax, and even then, not yet.
> No, the USA is afraid that if I communicate with citizens of
Canada and
> Brazil about 50+ year old technology it will harm US interests.
Don't
> underestimate the irrationality of US technology export
regulations.
> Not only are certain things "born secret," so that the idea is
> classified from the moment it appears in your head, but even
> communication with foreign nationals about information already
> available to them through other channels may be illegal under
certain
> circumstances.
question I have for you.
I've know that these regulations applied to a great many dual use
technologies and I've tried to do my homework before asking others
to do it for me
but I never did find out whether the Missile Technology Control
Regime applies to an idea that you develop on your own, off of the
government's dime? Also, can they retroactively go after you after
you export your product, service or idea on the grounds that you
should have known that this was being used for Missile development
even though it wasn't detailed in their exhaustive list because it
hasn't been thought of yet. Basically, do they want you to be
omniprescient even when they're not?
Lastly, the Missile Technology Control Regime has been a boon for
foreign space development and ancillary companies because many
international users steer completely away from sourcing ANY US
components in their satellites and vehicles.
TangoMan
>
> > Brazil has a blossoming aeronautical industry (embrae) with an
> > excellent
> > aircraft that seems well engineered and fits a niche at a very
> > competative
> > price...
>
> Also lots of ambitious young engineers looking to make their mark
on
> the world and earn a name for themselves alongside such aviation
> pioneers as Santos-Dumont.
>
> > Canada also has their own aircraft manufacturing industry as
well that
> > is
> > doing OK in the regional jet category...
>
> Not to mention two very credible X-Prize teams. You'd really think
it
> ought to be OK to collaborate with Canadians on civilian
spaceflight
> technology, wouldn't you? According to the law as it currently
stands
> you could do jail time if you try.
>
> > I would think that they would be more than open to expand in
these
> > fields to
> > include aerospace, i.e. rockets. If memory serves, wasn't there
an
> > alternative launch program that was considering a Brazilian
island as
> > a base
> > before settling on Christmans Island next to Australia?
>
> There are a number of promising spots in Brazil for launch sites,
but I
> don't know of the specific case you refer to. In fact Brazil
already
> has a government run spaceport.
>
> > Perhaps to get things going again, we need to re examine how the
> > commercial
> > aircraft industry got going... after all, early aircraft where
hardly
> > all-weather, super stable platforms, affordable-operating-cost
> > transport
> > medium that we consider them to be today.
>
> This is the tack being taken by many of the suborbital startups.
When
> they were first invented airplanes were little more than
novelties. But
Hoiw do you get volume to reduce costs for getting into space using current
technology?
hardware and support technitions.
The example of current aircraft and translating it to spacecraft showed up
where exactly the monies were going and how it would nearly impossible with
general systems in use now to improve much.
Granted that perhaps you could get some reduction in the cost of technitions
by amortizing salaries over more frequent launches, but to what point? The
safety issue culture (or falacy depending on your take on the latest
disaster investigation) has checkers checking checkers ad nauseum, back ups
for the back ups, etc. Granted , much of that is due to using technology
that is not the friendliest for recycling....too many details and
components.
Bottom line, using anything like our present system can't get down to the
cost of a commercial airliner in transport costs without cutting big stuff
somewhere,,,, and what would that be? People/technitions? exotic system?
I don't know.... Blasting off against gravity and reaching 17,000 mph is
just plain HARD with what we got. Its gotta costs resources, i.e.multuple
thousand of lbs of fuel... and even scram jet with little carried along
oxygen requirements , well...I'm sure youve seen the numbers.
Aggh! Whats one to really do until a break through happens. Aircraft
designers had to wait for powerful enough engines that were light weight
could be developed so that any kind of measurable payload could be
transported... sounds familiar?
> Hoiw do you get volume to reduce costs for getting into space
using current
> technology?
the point.
Here's my take on it given your constraints.
Sub-orbital looks to be cheaper than orbital, so use some of our
expensive heavy lift vehicles to loft up the components of a
rotating tether, assemble it and because momentum exchange is
cheaper than orbital launch technology we use suborbital hops to
rendevous with the tether, exchange cargo and specialize our
subsystems to a performance/cost matrix.
In space, we can use propulsive means (ion, solar, etc) that have
long term reusability without extensive rebuilding - more akin to
the airline model) and on Earth the suborbital vehicles because they
are less demanding than orbital vehicles, should be turned around
quicker with respect to maintenance, have more frequent missions,
can carry smaller payloads and still earn profits, and they may even
be able to be launched from a variety of locations thus allowing
competition to be built into the industry. One standard (skyhook
mating technology) and multiple players. Sound familiar (DVDs,
computer innards, etc)
TangoMan