China may be worlds ahead in building lunar legacy - U.S. hampered by economy, short-term plans

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 26, 2004 | Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

[Cincinatus' Wife]

President Bush's call for sending Americans back to the moon revives an old dream: the hope of turning our sister world into an inhabited, commercially active Grand Central station of the solar system, from whence rockets will cruise to the outer planets and perhaps beyond.

[hopespringseternal]

The free market, guided by the good steward of supply, demand, and profit will get us to the moon with the best technology and least waste.

The free market won't go to the moon and won't take people into space at all until the technology improves by 100 or 1000 times. We couldn't bring gold down from orbit at a profit right now.

No one has come up with a real use for space that the market has any faith in, and is not likely to find one anytime soon. It is the chicken and egg problem of our time. No one wants to invest in cheap access to orbit until they can identify a potential market, but no one has a firm idea what the market will be until the cost is lowered.

[RightWhale]

If the Chinese land on the moon, will they be able to claim it for their nation?

They could, but they would have to make the claim stick. The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is the only legal document standing in the way, and that may be withdrawn from with one year notice. Antarctica is also claimed by several countries.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

They (financed by us) will get us there, set up some rudimentary facilities, test out some mining operations and then commerce will follow.

[Gunslingr3]

The free market won't go to the moon and won't take people into space at all until the technology improves by 100 or 1000 times.

Can I get a sip of that omniscience elixir you've been drinking?

We couldn't bring gold down from orbit at a profit right now.

Because gold is going for about $400 an ounce and can be found here on earth. He3 would draw a better price, but the market doesn't put the cart before the horse. I would rather let the market devote resources to developing a need for hauling goods back from the moon, than end up with another government boondoggle like the ISS.

No one has come up with a real use for space that the market has any faith in, and is not likely to find one anytime soon.

Drunk on the elixir, no doubt! :)

No one wants to invest in cheap access to orbit until they can identify a potential market, but no one has a firm idea what the market will be until the cost is lowered.

First, how will government know what technology to develop lead to lower costs? It doesn't operate on a cost analysis basis because it doesn't operate on a profit basis. Further, it's not even a matter of having costs lowered, it's a matter of having a market demand to satisfy the costs in the first place. There isn't one today. If Bush and Co. want to announce they're making a 'Louisianna Purchase' of the moon, or trying to build a moon base and gravity catapult to dictate world peace (our kind of world peace), then let them, and sell it on those merits to the taxpayers and voters. Don't try to sell it on merits that don't exist.

One would have hoped the wreckage of Eastern Bloc economies wouldn't be so distant a memory as to dissuade people from the language of government compulsion 'stimulating' economies. They merely distort them, to the fancy of politicians and bureaucrats. Free markets operate to satisfy the producers who make them possible. Hint: that ain't the starry-eyed politicians and bureaucrats.

[RightWhale]

another government boondoggle like the ISS

That is a possibility--a likelihood with the next change of administration if we aren't vigilant.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Our competition knows any agreement is dated. They have no intention of honoring it and state as much in this piece.


http://english.people.com.cn/200312/12/eng20031212_130250.shtml
US will attack from space? China and Russia call for space arms prohibition

Since the launch of the first man-made satellite by the Soviet Union in 1957, space exploration, on which man has been devoting efforts, has not only brought huge economic benefits to mankind, but has also dramatically changed man's way of living and thinking.

Since the launch of the first man-made satellite by the Soviet Union in 1957, space exploration, on which man has been devoting efforts, has not only brought huge economic benefits to mankind, but has also dramatically changed man's way of living and thinking. Statistics show that space-related industries grow at an annual rate of 20 percent, and the profit of international space industry exceeded US$80 billion in 2000, which is expected to increase by over 200 percent in the next 10 years. The human society has become inseparable from the outer space, and it has become a common concern of world countries to make peaceful use of the outer space and ensure space security.
Who is challenging space security?
The end of the Cold War not only dramatically changed the global security circumstance, but put an end to the situation in which arms race in the space was more or less restrained. Superficially, the fast development of space technology and its wide application in military fields are the main factors threatening space security. As a matter of fact, the disintegration of the bipolar structure has made America the only superpower and its boundless expanding strength and ambition are also the actual factors challenging space security.

The dual-purpose space technology and its wide military application have provided potential driving force to space weaponization. Along with hi-tech development, the demarcation between technologies for military and civilian uses has become increasingly blurred. This is manifested as follows: firstly, many key technologies in military fields are at the same time pillar technologies for the development of the national economy; secondly, the convergence of military and civilian technologies is the orientation for technical renovation. The integration of these two kinds of technologies has made it difficult for people to tell one from the other. A case in point is space technology. Navigation, detecting and communication satellites can be applied to both military purposes and economic construction. During the Iraq War, America mobilized more than 100 satellites of various kinds, ranging from highly confidential electronic reconnaissance satellites to meteorological satellites accessible to anyone.

Besides, the wide application of space technology to the military field has, on the one hand, enormously enhanced the US army's capability of global reach and real-time striking, enabling US troops to have a farther sight, faster action, more direct attacking and smoother communication than their enemies. On the other hand, due to the fact that the efficient use of space resources has become an important factor deciding the outcome of war, satellites and other space resources will therefore possibly become targets of attack and intervention during wars and conflicts. Civilian satellites, in particular, due to their role as supplements and substitutes for military satellites in wars, are much likely subject to attack in war. For this reason, the dual purpose and wide military application of space technology have, to a certain extent, intensified the danger of weaponization of the space.

The US space policy of one-sided search for absolute advantages may trigger off a series of chain reactions and new vulnerability in space. America's attempt, plan and action to control the outer space not only have long been in existence, but also have undergone new development thanks to the effort of the Bush administration. To take the military highland of space all to itself, the US army not only aims to rely heavily on the space, but also wants to dominate it exclusively. As clearly pointed out in the nation's space development guide, the "space control" defined by the US army is the capability to "secure its own freedom of action in space", and at the same time "prevent its rivals from having such capability". The Pentagon is organizing its space combat troops and Rumsfeld has ordered the air force to get ready for "carrying out fast and continuous space operations".

What worth mentioning is that the Bush Administration is developing its missile defense system, aiming at missile interception in space by 2008. An official with the US Missile Defense Agency this year stressed efforts made on developing a space-based test platform, which includes at least three satellites at its initial stage, while a Space-Based Laser (SBL) in the missile defense program will be put into test by 2012. The application of SBL will go far beyond the needs of a missile defense system, experts pointed out. According to the SBL project director, the extra functions of SBL include "defending/attacking anti-space-based fights (i.e., anti-satellite missions); "preventing enemy use of space (such as destroying enemy launching); preventing information input/output of satellites (likely to use low-energy beams to jam satellites rather than directly destroying them); "defending/attacking anti-space fights" and "striking high-altitude planes, cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft". Although the efficiency of SBL is uncertain, the adverse current of space weaponization has appeared.

Due to the development of space technology, existing international treaty framework for planning space activities fails to meet the new growing space security challenge. By now, international treaties relating to the prevention of outer-space arms race mainly include the "Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space", "Partial Test Ban Treaty", "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques", "Agreement Concerning Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", as well as the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" between the Soviet Union and the United States.

These treaties once played a positive role in preventing outer-space arms race, but limited by political, military and technological conditions, they are seriously flawed and unable to prevent arms race in the outer space. For example, the "Five UN Treaties on Outer Space" is weakened in its function of preventing outer-space arms race and laid perils for future weapons in space since it doesn't prohibit the deployment of non-WMD arms nor the development, production and use of outer-space weapons. Some treaties do have strict regulations, but they have ceased to be effective, such as the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" of 1972. Some others fail to be universal because signatories are too few, such as the "Moon Agreement" of 1979. In a word, the current international mechanism for preventing space arms race is too weak to tackle the rapid development of space technology and weapons. The existing treaties must be added or revised, even new treaties need to be concluded through negotiations.
Tit-for-tat lines in space security
The new threat to space security has raised higher requirements on outer-space arms control. In recent years, although the international community has made much effort in this regard, the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, due to obstructions from the United States, remained stagnant in the aspects of preventing outer-space arms race and strengthening the outer-space legal system. Currently there are two lines of thought for preventing out-space arms race and securing space security. One is represented by America, which, in quest of absolute security, is against negotiations on space disarmament regardless of the interests of other countries. Now the Bush Administration is bent on expanding its space military capability, believing that actions must be taken to guarantee its security as long as they are technologically practicable. Washington's excuse is that America relies heavier on space than other countries do, so it is obliged to develop a unique space capability to ensure security. America declared its space weapons as defensive, then whom is it to guard against? Are they Russia and China, who have been taken by America as rivals?

The other line is represented by China and Russia. The two countries oppose outer-space armament and arms race, and advocate addressing related countries' space security concerns through international cooperation, this helps enhance international security and stability and is in the common interests of all countries. To this end, China has been making strenuous efforts to spur the international community to sign related international legal documents through negotiations and proposed to the Conference related documents together with other countries involved. China holds that a special committee for preventing outer-space arms race should be rebuilt as soon as possible to reach, through negotiation, agreements or treaties with legal effect for preventing outer space arms race.

To ensure the effectiveness of the treaties China suggested that they must contain the following articles: prohibition of test, deployment and use of any weapon, weapon system and their components in outer space; prohibition of test, deployment and use of any weapon, weapon system and their components used for outer-space war on land, sea and in the atmosphere; prohibition of the use, or threat of use, of weapons on outer-space objects; prohibition of helping and encouraging other countries, groups and international organizations to participate in activities forbidden by the treaty.

The existence of the two completely different lines shows that the international community must take immediate actions to bring the outer-space weapon control into track. Once a legal binding agreement on space disarmament is reached, it will help remove an important unstable factor in future international security and ensure the continuous peaceful use of space.

(Article on "Liaowang (Outlook) weekly review; translated by PD Online staff member Li Heng.)

[RightWhale]

China and Russia. The two countries oppose outer-space armament and arms race

They are way behind in tech and hope the US would agree once again to a treaty that limits only the US.

[Gunslingr3]

They (financed by us) will get us there, set up some rudimentary facilities, test out some mining operations and then commerce will follow.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy into Soviet model economies.

I've so far seen two plausible reasons for going to the moon. Colleting He3 for reactors we don't have yet, or building a giant array of solar power collectors and beaming that power back via microwave to a powergrid we haven't yet established on earth. Both of those the private markets will gladly fund when it isn't a waste of resources to do so.

Why, instead of putting a gun to your neighbors head, don't you try to convince other people of the wisdom of turning over their hard earned money for bureaucrats to spend willy-nilly on this project? Afraid you wouldn't have enough takers unless you pointed a gun at them?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Of course and then they would find the loop hole to walk through.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

How about rocket fuel for maintence and protection of our assest in space (commercial and miltary satellites)?

[hopespringseternal]

Can I get a sip of that omniscience elixir you've been drinking?

Ok, you name a market for anything space related. Solar Power Satellites? Mining? Space Tourism? He3?

None of those will get you in the door at the bank or the venture capitalist. Figure out what launch costs would have to be for any one. What would the market be? Because gold is going for about $400 an ounce and can be found here on earth.

Duh, that's what I am saying. What can you get in space that isn't on earth?

He3 would draw a better price, but the market doesn't put the cart before the horse.

Yeah, as soon as we work out that fusion power thing we've been on for fifty years, and eternally seems fifty years in the future.

First, how will government know what technology to develop lead to lower costs?

Ask any engineer what it would take to lower costs and he will probably give you a good answer, whether he things it is technically possible or not. And quite a few do. The problem is that the current players simply have no interest in doing it, and the market has never decided to get into the game.

Bush's proposal could be constructed in such a way as to create demand, but NASA will oppose it mightily. Their self-esteem is too tied up in not buying launch services from anyone who isn't part of the club.

[RightWhale]

convince other people of the wisdom of turning over their hard earned money

We might consider the Dubya space program to be a minimal program. At no point did he commit to any huge expenditures for a permanent moon base or even a Mars landing. That's for the future to decide. What he has proposed is to go out there and take a look around and see what is actually there. When and if something is discovered that justifies a massive program, then the decision to go large will be considered. This is conservative. We have to explore but it needn't cost significantly more than what we are already spending until and if something interesting turns up.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bush said we're going back to use the resouces. That is the key. We'll never get into space until we learn to live off plane; without hauling everything with us. As we boot-strap this operation we will learn more about how we can do it. It's called exploration and imagination and discovery.

[RightWhale]

NASA will oppose it mightily

Watch for any sign of this in the coming months and years. This must stop.

[hopespringseternal]

I am not arguing against the proposal, but rather the notion that the free market is just magically going to make a moon base happen.

I would like to see some seed money go out for launcher development, but it would probably end up doing more harm than good with the strings that would inevitably be attached.

I believe the enabling technology for private development will be a launcher with airliner like operations.

The enabling technology for exploring the solar system will be use of native resources.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I know we're pretty much on the same page.

[Gunslingr3]

We might consider the Dubya space program to be a minimal program. At no point did he commit to any huge expenditures for a permanent moon base or even a Mars landing.

If it is indeed minimal, why the need to scare up the funds via government tax collectors, wrung through a bureaucracy and bestowed upon politically connected companies? Can't you convince enough like minded compatriots to contribute without putting a gun to their head?

[Gunslingr3]

Duh, that's what I am saying. What can you get in space that isn't on earth?

Duh, that's what I'm saying. It's a waste of resources right now. You seem intent on wasting those resources. So intent you'd turn the government's gun on it's citizens and demand they hand over the money they spend their lives earning to fulfill your fantasy. Comrade, I find that abhorrent.

[RightWhale]

Dollarwise it's about the same as what NASA has been for decades. Programwise it is redirected. It's science and exploration of space that private companies and individuals cannot afford unless they have $15 billion to blow every year, but that the country as a whole can reasonably afford. How can people get excited about the space program in this way and not 100 times more exercised about some of the really huge government programs that return zilch besides keeping retired, old, unemployable, and sick in the population?

[hopespringseternal]

You seem intent on wasting those resources. So intent you'd turn the government's gun on it's citizens and demand they hand over the money they spend their lives earning to fulfill your fantasy.

Ok, let me make sure I have this straight:

1)The free market will move us into space on profit motive.

2)The government shouldn't try to develop space because there is no way to make a profit.

3)The Chinese, national security, national defense are all irrelevant.

I have a proposal: When you get the government to stop taking my money to do something in space, I will be happy for the government to cease trying to make progress in space.

As it is, the taxes are going to be collected anyway, NASA is going to spend the money anyway, and you can only kill the program, not the funding.