It comes from outer space! » Forum Post by Schod

Don't forget that we aren't talking about the present day. We are talking about 20, 30 years or more from now. Think about how far our rocket technology progressed from 1945 to 1975. You seriously think that in 30 years the Chinese are still going to be that far behind in rocketry?

You can't tell me that it is cheaper to build a new satellite and put it in orbit than it is for them to shoot one down. First of all, we have to build the satellite (which isn't cheap), then we have to put it in orbit (also not cheap). All they have to do is shoot a rocket at it with a little bomb on top (and I would argue that you don't really even need the bomb).

It is always cheaper to destroy something than it is to build it. What costs more - building a world trade center or some pilot lessons and a handful of boxcutters?

Successfully updated karma reason!

In short, the missile needed to take out a sattelite is expensive too, and our relative economic positions means that we can put more up than they can effectively take down, in an "effort for effort" approach.

bingo.

Don't forget that we aren't talking about the present day. We are talking about 20, 30 years or more from now. Think about how far our rocket technology progressed from 1945 to 1975. You seriously think that in 30 years the Chinese are still going to be that far behind in rocketry?

however far they get, we'll still be ahead.
great thing about a capitalism, eh? (speaking of which, prize for economics again)

You can't tell me that it is cheaper to build a new satellite and put it in orbit than it is for them to shoot one down

oh yes I can, for all above stated reasons.
as for satellites not being cheap, pff. of course they are!

then we have to put it in orbit (also not cheap).

but cheaper than say, launching up a missile.

All they have to do is shoot a rocket at it with a little bomb on top (and I would argue that you don't really even need the bomb).

again, we're much better at it than they are.

and you're negating the fact that they have to build and launch a missile to! not to mention if they really want to accomplish anything they will have to include a high yield explosive (heavy or expensive, or both) and do not TRY and say that they have the ability to hit a satellite with an inexpensive rocket, again they most CERTAINLY do not.

It is always cheaper to destroy something than it is to build it.

I didnt say it wouldnt be cheaper for us. but it damn well is much more expensive for them.

What costs more - building a world trade center or some pilot lessons and a handful of boxcutters?

first of all, thats not funny.

second of all its a terrible comparison, the terrorists would have to build their OWN very nice, big some-rediculous number of stories tower, find out where the world trade centers are orbiting in the 200 miles or so above the earth, build their tower so that it'll intercept one of those towers, and then hit within a half meter of their target.

not easy, no it ain't.

they could reduce the cost by either making a team on the ground guide the rockets, but again the telecommunications package, the steering mechanism, its all damn expensive. this isnt launching a guy from a cannon onto the moon (which, I'll note, we're the only ones to have done) no, this is launching a guy from a cannon, orbiting him around jupiter, then saturn and uranus and landing him on Mars's ice cap. to be frank even thats not as hard.

again, the problem here is the satellite density in space, how many satellites are there for every few hundred cubic miles? not many. how big would an explosion be in space? not big. how much area would shrapenel cover? not much. how accurate would a triple-guide rocket with a zillion different steering mechanisms be? not very accurate.

and this is China we're talking about, they barely qualify as developing.

and in the end if they do that we simply make our satellites orbit away from china, still get the same coverage anyhow.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh Blah, if things keep going like they are going the Chinese currency will surpass newly softened american cash in less then 20 years.

Successfully updated karma reason!

uh, no...

and even if, you're premise of "if things keep going" which is a VERY flawed one, the only places that they've at all developed (the coastline) is almost done, and then zoop, inflation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

and even if, you're premise of "if things keep going" which is a VERY flawed one, the only places that they've at all developed (the coastline) is almost done, and then zoop, inflation.

Oh ye of little knowledge. They have billions invested here, and around the world. Not to mention the fact that this coastline you speak of just keeps expanding outwords.

Successfully updated karma reason!

oh ye of little brain. oh I wish, you really do not have one...

those investments mean bollocks, thats their corporations which are *gasp* mostly our bitches.

second that coastline "expansion" costs them tens of billions of dollars for a few buildings. its not an investment, its a waste of money.

Successfully updated karma reason!

oh ye of little brain. oh I wish, you really do not have one...

those investments mean bollocks, thats their corporations which are *gasp* mostly our bitches.

second that coastline "expansion" costs them tens of billions of dollars for a few buildings. its not an investment, its a waste of money.

First off the second sentance makes no sense what so ever.

And on that notes.

Facts, I want construction figures.

And secondly their corporations can't possibly be our bitches for the pure fact that their government limits foreign investement to around 20% and only 5% for any individual owner.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Two things,

First to TGE,

Three trillion dollars missing from the iraq war budget...

You do realize that would encompass more then we've spent in Iraq so far...as a matter of fact three trillion dollars is about as much as the federal government spends in an eniter year.

Second to Schod,
Earlier this year China built and successfully tested a missile capable of shooting down a satelite.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

Building a missle which can go into space is relatively cheap and easy at this point. The first missile which got into space was the German V2. The Germans built and launched hundreds of those things at the end of WW2. Today rocket technology is a much more established and advanced science. Why shouldn't China be able to launch hundreds or thousands of missile into space today when Germany could do it 60 years ago. Also, remember that China has the world's second biggest economy now. Their per captia GDP is still relatively low but they do have a lot of money to work with.

Finally, a satelite is immensely more complex and exspensive than China's missile and takes much longer to build. Even if (doubtfully) building a satelite costs relatively less to the US than building a missile to shoot down a satelite costs to China, satelites take far more time to build than missiles. However, even with the differences in the relative strenghs of our economies saying that we can build more satelites than China can shoot down is naive and wishful thinking. Also remember that factories which would produce the satelites take electricity to run. If our electricity comes from satelites which are then shot down, how will we replace them?

Schod, I just urge you to remember that just because an idea is new or an action is done by the US does not mean that idea or action does not have significant flaws.

Now, if the US was able to build an effective anti-missile system against these Chinese weapons then we'd have no problem, except for the small matter that building clean, ground based energy sources would probably be cheaper then researching and building both these orbiting solar satelites and the anti-missile defense system to defend them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Earlier this year China built and successfully tested a missile capable of shooting down a satelite

did you note how it took them four missiles to do it? and it was in an extremely low orbit anyhow.

Building a missle which can go into space is relatively cheap and easy at this point

one that goes into space yes, one that goes into space, tracks an object and then hits it dead on

no... that costs a few million dollars.

Finally, a satelite is immensely more complex and exspensive than China's missile and takes much longer to build

again the difference is relative cost, we can build a satellite with ease while it takes the chinese quite a bit of money to build a missile.

Schod, I just urge you to remember that just because an idea is new or an action is done by the US does not mean that idea or action does not have significant flaws.

and I urge you not to be so arrogant. yes I have pride in my country and do accentuate its boons, but that doesnt mean I blind myself to fact.

Also, remember that China has the world's second biggest economy now. Their per captia GDP is still relatively low but they do have a lot of money to work with.

have you ever even heard of the term relative cost? relative expense?

*sigh* I'm done with this until you do a little more research.

Successfully updated karma reason!

have you ever even heard of the term relative cost? relative expense?

Indeed I have. But consider this. China's per captis GDP does not matter in how many missiles they could afford to build. Only their actualy GDP. Luxemborg has a higher per captia GDP than the US, yet even if Luxemborg had access to the ocean they could not afford to build more aircraft carriers than the US (or any really) because their actual GDP is so low. China's GDP (using Purchasing Power Parity) is over 10 trillion dollars (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ch.html). The US GDP (again using PPP) is over 13 trillion dollars (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html).

A single communication satelite (not even the probably more exspensive power satelites we're talking about) costs 80 million dollars to build and put up in space (http://www.stmary.ws/physics/97/MGRAHLFS.HTM#Satellite%20vs.%20Terrestrial%20Cost). Given the low costs for producing anything in China (due to no environmental restrictions and low worker wages) I wouldn't put the cost of a satellite killer above 40 million dollars (and I'm being generous). China's economy is not half as strong as the US's as their GDP figures show. China could pump out more killers than we could communication satellite not to mention a single power satelite (which undoubtably will cost more). This despite relative cost as China's GDP is not that far behind the US's.

Besides, we're also talking about this happening in about 20-30 years time because we wouldn't have the power satellites up before then and war with China would probably come closer to that time frame. I'll grant you their technology isn't that advanced in shooting down satellites...yet. But remember the US went from our first satellite in the 1950s to landing a man on the moon by 1969. If US technology can advance from unmanned basket-ball sized low orbit satellites to a moon landing in one decade, think how far China's anti-satellite technology could go in 2-3 decades. The hardest part of space exploration (in its early stages) is just getting out of Earth's gravitational pull. After that the jump from low orbit to high orbit is relatively easy. Finally, remember that China's GDP is rising faster than ours. Within a few decades relative cost probably won't even be a noticible factor in the difference of what China and the US can afford to produce.

P.S.: You never responded to how we're supposed to build more power satelites if the electricity which is needed for the operation of the satellite producing factory is shut off because the satellites got shot down. You're forgeting that the US would experience more loss than just the loss of a satellite, we'd experience economic collapse if our power grid died on us.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Facts, I want construction figures.

ok FINE then!

are you familiar with the palm Jumeirah? very small little thing, holds a lot of condos
costs twelve frickin-billion dollars
and its highly unstable, so while it suits building waterside condos just fine, its not good for serious construction.

speaking of which: I'm proud of little Dubai there, thats a cool move.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Jumeirah

Successfully updated karma reason!

You do realize that would encompass more then we've spent in Iraq so far...as a matter of fact three trillion dollars is about as much as the federal government spends in an eniter year.

Um.. I said Pentagon, not the Iraq war. But its nice that you metioned it, being a huge waste of money as well.

did you note how it took them four missiles to do it? and it was in an extremely low orbit anyhow

Yes, but all scientific improvements are made through trial and error.

no... that costs a few million dollars.

For a government, this is cheap.

ok FINE then!

Not quite, these figures are for a construction in Dubai, Dubai is thousands of miles away from China and not under its jurisdiction. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I asked for Chinese construction figures on the expansion of their cities. A country the size of China has no serious need for construction more shore line.

Oh and yes I have heard of the Palm, I think what they built in the Bahamas is even more impressive.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Indeed I have. But consider this. China's per captis GDP does not matter in how many missiles they could afford to build. Only their actualy GDP. Luxemborg has a higher per captia GDP than the US, yet even if Luxemborg had access to the ocean they could not afford to build more aircraft carriers than the US (or any really) because their actual GDP is so low. China's GDP (using Purchasing Power Parity) is over 10 trillion dollars

and ours beats them by 4 trillion thank you

first off your example is bad, yes China can build the stuff, but that doesnt mean its gonna cost the same. t'is the world of economics.

A single communication satelite (not even the probably more exspensive power satelites we're talking about) costs 80 million dollars to build and put up in space

again you're off topic here, thats like an AT&T satellite, not a military one.

Given the low costs for producing anything in China (due to no environmental restrictions and low worker wages) I wouldn't put the cost of a satellite killer above 40 million dollars (and I'm being generous).

you're making several logical misteps here. materials, launching cost, not to mention payload

building a highly accurate tracking system now costs around 20 million, give or take. and not to mention they havent had a great accuracy rate with those things

But remember the US went from our first satellite in the 1950s to landing a man on the moon by 1969. If US technology can advance from unmanned basket-ball sized low orbit satellites to a moon landing in one decade, think how far China's anti-satellite technology could go in 2-3 decades

not far...

listen, technologically they are both on the level of a small european country and Sudan at the same time, the only reason they can launch a rocket at all is because they have a foot in the tech. they still have many other priorities

and all their advances really are just phantoms of ours, and the russians.

The hardest part of space exploration (in its early stages) is just getting out of Earth's gravitational pull

but its not nearly as hard as being accurate

keep in mind, they hit a satellite thats been up there for YEARS thats one of THEIRS and of which they've planned on hitting for at least MONTHS

they will not have ANY of those advantages in real war, and the fact that they failed 4 times with those advantages speaks to their capacity.

Finally, remember that China's GDP is rising faster than ours. Within a few decades relative cost probably won't even be a noticible factor in the difference of what China and the US can afford to produce.

rrgh! not again!

no no no! NO NO NO NO NO!!!

first of all you're talking a couple percentage difference for an economy that is hardly 2/3 ours. second you're assuming that their economic growth is going to continue for the next 20 years when they'll be lucky if it lasts the next 5!

P.S.: You never responded to how we're supposed to build more power satelites if the electricity which is needed for the operation of the satellite producing factory is shut off because the satellites got shot down. You're forgeting that the US would experience more loss than just the loss of a satellite, we'd experience economic collapse if our power grid died on us.

this was never brought up, and second we already have designed anti-anti-satellite technology, essentially satellite bodyguards, if you will.

obviously if they become a significant part of our economy then we would guard them, and either way I seriously doubt we'd have any of them flying over a potentially hostile country anyhow!

Successfully updated karma reason!

again you're off topic here, thats like an AT&T satellite, not a military one.

The millitary has terrible logistics I bet that the cost for their satelites is even more. And there isn't anything overly amazing in a communications sattelite. Yet it still costs 80 million.

first of all you're talking a couple percentage difference for an economy that is hardly 2/3 ours. second you're assuming that their economic growth is going to continue for the next 20 years when they'll be lucky if it lasts the next 5!

Their economy belongs strictly to the state, it can not posssibly be 2/3 ours, maybe in areas like Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is not China.

And I personally worry for the economy of this country more then that of the Chinese, if the 2008 elections do not play out in favor of a very dedicated and economically knowledgable politician we may be sitting with an extremely softened dollar and a continueing decline of hard cash. In the end this can spell disaster for our buy now for nothing system.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, but all scientific improvements are made through trial and error.

that ain't a scientific improvement, its engineering, and theirs nothing really to be gained from failing to jump out of a boat into the ocean...

which is essentially what they did... three... times... over...

For a government, this is cheap.

again, this is for making a semi-soggy island in what essentially equates to a big lake

it wont be as easy for the chinese, and they really dont stand to get much from it.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I asked for Chinese construction figures on the expansion of their cities. A country the size of China has no serious need for construction more shore line.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

since when do the chinese ever release any sort of info that is not torn from their bleeding and scratching and hysterical hands?
uh, since never.

Not quite, these figures are for a construction in Dubai

"Dubai" has almost no surf, has a fairly shallow shore and has a lot of money per capita

the chinese have zip nada none oh-that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The millitary has terrible logistics I bet that the cost for their satelites is even more

the military has fricking AMAZING logistics!!! are you fucking kidding???

And there isn't anything overly amazing in a communications sattelite. Yet it still costs 80 million.

...
you are so...

...

...

...

bandwidth man, bandwidth. communications satellites are so damn expensive for no other real reason than bandwidth over distance.

And I personally worry for the economy of this country more then that of the Chinese, if the 2008 elections do not play out in favor of a very dedicated and economically knowledgable politician we may be sitting with an extremely softened dollar and a continueing decline of hard cash. In the end this can spell disaster for our buy now for nothing system.

you pay no attention to the market do you? the dollar is fairly stable and doing much better, its more than bounced back from that 2002 disaster.

Their economy belongs strictly to the state, it can not posssibly be 2/3 ours, maybe in areas like Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is not China.

whatever you say, the end result is that they have TONS less than us, and any measly growth is hardly worth being counted.

Successfully updated karma reason!

that ain't a scientific improvement, its engineering, and theirs nothing really to be gained from failing to jump out of a boat into the ocean...

which is essentially what they did... three... times... over...

The pioneres of Rocketry had to try it more then hundreds of times till they got it right. Four is a great improvement from a hundred if you ask me.

again, this is for making a semi-soggy island in what essentially equates to a big lake

it wont be as easy for the chinese, and they really dont stand to get much from it.

Oh but obviously they do, why else would they attempt to develop such technology.

since when do the chinese ever release any sort of info that is not torn from their bleeding and scratching and hysterical hands?
uh, since never.

Well then, oh great advocate of facts, you have made a statement clearly unsupported by anything factual.

"Dubai" has almost no surf, has a fairly shallow shore and has a lot of money per capita

the chinese have zip nada none oh-that.

Yes, but the Chinese have land, and quite a lot of it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The pioneres of Rocketry had to try it more then hundreds of times till they got it right. Four is a great improvement from a hundred if you ask me.

the pioneers of rocketry didnt know what the hell they were doing, the Chinese are trodding on a very VERY well worn path.

Oh but obviously they do, why else would they attempt to develop such technology.

same reason N. Korea built a nuke, despite its uselessness
it gives them political "looky me!" power.

Well then, oh great advocate of facts, you have made a statement clearly unsupported by anything factual

it is CLEARLY factual, and more than fair to you! the Dubai is an incredibally bad example FOR ME because its an immitation thats far more likely to succeed.

Yes, but the Chinese have land, and quite a lot of it.

a million acres of desert they would trade for a square yard of coastal line in an instant

too bad all they have is desert.

Successfully updated karma reason!

and hold on a second, since when have you been one for factual evidence! gimme gimme gimme hypocrit!

Successfully updated karma reason!

you pay no attention to the market do you? the dollar is fairly stable and doing much better, its more than bounced back from that 2002 disaster.

Oh I do agree, but the fact that another sizable decline happened in less then four years doesn't speak well for future economic stability.

the military has fricking AMAZING logistics!!! are you fucking kidding???

Lets list the facts.

25 planes 'unaccounted for'
Nukes flown over the US itself
200,000 arms missing in Iraq
600 dollar toilet seats along with 100 dollar plungers

whatever you say, the end result is that they have TONS less than us, and any measly growth is hardly worth being counted.

Tons, four trillion is not tons my friend. Seeing as we were able to grow to 11 billion in less then 50 years.

Oh and they aren't having measly growth they are in the midst, as economist say, of history greatesy, longest, and most benificial economic booms.

Successfully updated karma reason!

and hold on a second, since when have you been one for factual evidence! gimme gimme gimme hypocrit!

Ever since you began to critique my assumptions, so now I will critique yours.

I think its only fair.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh I do agree, but the fact that another sizable decline happened in less then four years doesn't speak well for future economic stability.

what other "sizable decline" are we speaking of?

Lets list the facts.

25 planes 'unaccounted for'
Nukes flown over the US itself
200,000 arms missing in Iraq
600 dollar toilet seats along with 100 dollar plungers

first of all site all of this, oh yee who LOVES factual evidence

1) nuke flown over the US, communications error. terrible one, but its not an amazing mistake
2) 200,000 arms missing in Iraq: not just ours
3) 25 planes 'unaccounted for' yeah I want to see this... that does suck

but how many planes does our military have? lots
4) oh hellz no, site this now pls.

Tons, four trillion is not tons my friend. Seeing as we were able to grow to 11 billion in less then 50 years

11 trillion thank you. and 50 years is a long time

not to mention we rode a very nice economic wave that the Chinese have no acces to unless Russia bombs us all to hell (except china)

Oh and they aren't having measly growth they are in the midst, as economist say, of history greatesy, longest, and most benificial economic booms.

Oh please site that more than once.

there have been greater economic growths coming out of my toes... not to mention they still have to compete with 14 trillion dollars in 60 years.

Successfully updated karma reason!

[quote] the pioneers of rocketry didnt know what the hell they were doing, the Chinese are trodding on a very VERY well worn path. [/quot]

They have had to rediscover almost everything. Not many nations were willing to give up secrets that would effectively give the Chinese ICBMs.

same reason N. Korea built a nuke, despite its uselessness
it gives them political "looky me!" power.

China doesn't need any extra attnetion.

it is CLEARLY factual, and more than fair to you! the Dubai is an incredibally bad example FOR ME because its an immitation thats far more likely to succeed.

Oh, really?

Since when has it cost billions to clear forests and farms and build new apartment complexes, especially when over half was funded by state taxes.

a million acres of desert they would trade for a square yard of coastal line in an instant

too bad all they have is desert.

Oh, buts that why they are building the Great Green Wall of China, and desert reclamation is much less costly then building an island, especially in the Pacific.

Successfully updated karma reason!

first of all soemthing I was editing in:
WWII was our bitch in more way than one, China is only having an economic boon because its accelerating a small portion of its economy in fly of the rest, something that will halt VERY quickly rather soon.

They have had to rediscover almost everything. Not many nations were willing to give up secrets that would effectively give the Chinese ICBMs.

I can learn Rocket science with monks in tibet, the Chinese do not have to reinvent the wheel, they have to reinvent the thrusters, the steering etc. not all that hard.

China doesn't need any extra attnetion.

EVERYONE needs more attention, damn what a stupid thing for you to say!

Since when has it cost billions to clear forests and farms and build new apartment complexes, especially when over half was funded by state taxes.

what ARE you talking about? the chinese have already built over their forests! now they're filling their canyons with water!

Oh, buts that why they are building the Great Green Wall of China

in what century are you posting from...

any effort they are putting into that respect is good, but its minimal and has not been put WHERE ITS NEEDED:
their poor.

and desert reclamation is much less costly then building an island, especially in the Pacific.

not if there isnt any water around!

that being said, I'm glad you've heard the gospel.

Successfully updated karma reason!

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/it.s-a-crime/these-two-washers-cost-1-million-290706.php

I found something better, million dollar washers

first of all soemthing I was editing in:
WWII was our bitch in more way than one, China is only having an economic boon because its accelerating a small portion of its economy in fly of the rest, something that will halt VERY quickly rather soon.

Oh please the facts, almost all aspects of their economy are going up. Not just that little bit.

in what century are you posting from...

any effort they are putting into that respect is good, but its minimal and has not been put WHERE ITS NEEDED:
their poor.

The Chinese care nothing for the accumulated wealth of any individual. Whatever unrest is caused will be put down quickly. There is not room for human rights in a true economic expansion.

Successfully updated karma reason!