New Space Race?
Steve Dufour
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
space.com
posted: 07:00 am ET
17 October 2003
China's milestone making Shenzhou 5 flight, piloted by Yang Liwei, a
lieutenant colonel of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), is sparking
a wide array of opinions as to the mission's true significance.
The landmark space voyage is expected to be China's opening volley in
what policy analysts anticipate will be an ever-expanding agenda of
human space exploits. China's Shenzhou 5 trek marked the fifth flight
of the craft in four years time, and the first to carry a pilot.
But to what degree does China's historic sojourn into space signal
military intentions, a hungering for space cooperation, or just a
public morale boost fueled by nationalistic get-up-and-go?
National pride
Erich Shih, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center
for Northeast Asian Policy in Washington, D.C., sees the success of
China's first human space flight as a huge boost to the Chinese
people's sense of national pride.
Images
China's first manned spacecraft Shenzhou 5 lifts off from Jiuquan
Satellite Launch Center in northwest China's Gansu Province Wednesday,
Oct. 15, 2003. China became the third country to send an astronaut
toward orbit, four decades after the Soviet Union and the United
Sates. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Li Gang)
First Chinese astronaut Yang Liwei waves as the capsule door was
opened after landing on the Inner Mongolian grasslands of northern
China Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003. China's first astronaut in space
returned safely to Earth on Thursday when his craft toucheddown on
time and as planned after 21 hours in orbit. Beijing's mission control
declared the country's landmark debut flight "a success." (AP
Photo/Xinhua)
China's first astronaut Yang Liwei is greeted by officials upon his
arrival in Beijing Thursday Oct. 16, 2003. Fresh from a history-making
trip into orbit, China's newly minted space hero proclaimed his
amazement Thursday at "the greatest day of my life" as his leaders
announced they would push forward in their exploration of the cosmos.
(AP Photo/Xinhua Photo, Zhao Jianwei)
More Stories
Chinese Astronaut Marvels Over Space Trip
China's First Taikonaut Safely Returns to Earth
China Launch Won't Ignite New Space Race, Analysts Say
China Launches Its First Piloted Spaceflight
Making History: China's First Human Spaceflight Archive
"It is also a boost to China's international image," Shih said, and
"shows the world that China has every potential to become the next
power center in East Asia."
Shih said, however, that one successful human space flight is not
going to change China's present international pecking order. "But it
does point out a future direction…that China is moving up through the
ranks," he said.
For the Chinese it's a very historic event, said Marcia Smith, a
policy analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington,
D.C. "It demonstrates that they have the technological ability to put
humans into space. Where it all leads, I think it's still up in the
air," Smith said.
The Chinese have discussed plans for their human spaceflight program,
Smith said, that includes building space stations and maybe, some day,
even sending people to the Moon. "Those are very expensive endeavors
and time will tell whether or not they consider that to be a
worthwhile investment."
Bragging rights
Bates Gill, the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for
Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), contends that the Shenzhou 5
mission is not "Sputnik II" or the start of a new "space race".
"Nevertheless, being the first developing-world country to put a man
in space gives China some bragging rights and brings it a step closer
to its claims to be accepted as a 'Great Power,'" Gill said.
Gill said that, for the near-term, the Shenzhou 5 flight will resonate
most in China, giving that country a big boost in national pride and
the Communist Party's hopes for legitimacy. Over the longer term, he
added, if Beijing's commitment to a robust space program continues to
grow, China's strategic missile modernization will steadily realize
increasing technological benefits.
James Lewis, CSIS senior fellow and director of the group's Technology
and Public Policy Program, views China's space voyage in different
terms.
"Countries send people into orbit to increase national prestige.
Manned space flight does very little to change the equation for space
commerce or national security," Lewis said.
Lewis said one issue is whether Beijing or Washington will "overreact"
to the successful Shenzhou 5 flight and turn it into a new source of
competition. Another issue, he added, is whether the United States
"will be embarrassed about the disarray in its own manned space
program."
No stunt
"It has been 42 years since the last time a nation put its first human
into space," said Matt Bille, a space historian and analyst for Booz
Allen Hamilton in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
"The Chinese have clearly done this very methodically, developing
their technology step by step and testing the spacecraft four times
before now," Bille noted. "I suspect we are going to see a logical
program of building up their capability in low Earth orbit to do
long-term stays and focus on earth science, industrial applications,
and other capabilities that have some payoff for their economy as well
as national pride," he said.
"No other nation has done this in 42 years - not even the European
Space Agency. The Chinese will emphasize this. When it comes to space,
they -- not India, not Europe -- have been the first in four decades
to join the superpowers. You're going to see a nation bursting with
pride at earning its place in the history books," Bille told SPACE.com
.
"This has been very careful…and very logical. It's a very well thought
out program. That tells you that this is not meant as an occasional
stunt," Bille said.
Chinese Moon?
Writer Paul Dickson, author of the book, Sputnik: The Shock of the
Century, says the real question is what next for China's space
program?
"The Chinese have been promising to deliver humans to the lunar
surface as long as they've been talking about putting a man in orbit,"
Dickson said. When and if it becomes apparent that this is China's
goal, that will have a ripple effect in NASA plans, he said.
"I think the U.S. will have to seriously consider getting back into
the business of manned space exploration. It is hard to imagine that
the U.S. will allow the Chinese or the Chinese in partnership with the
Russians to explore and exploit the Moon. It also means that for the
first time since Richard Nixon was in the White House serious talk can
resume about sending humans to Mars," Dickson said.
Perhaps humans will be walking on the Moon again in 2007, Dickson
suggested, on the 50th anniversary of the Sputnik launch which started
it all.
"The first thing I thought about when I heard the news [about Shenzhou
5] was Sputnik. The second thing was the fable about the race between
the tortoise and the hare," Dickson said.
ISS: Open airlock policy
With a human space trek under its belt, could a debate now ensue in
China regarding the value of piloted or robotic space exploration
questions Jonathan Coopersmith, a Texas A&M University professor
specializing in the history of technology.
"In terms of non-political results, robotic spacecraft are more
productive. Will Chinese advocates of robotic flights now face a
powerful 'man in space' lobby like their American counterparts?,"
Coopersmith said.
"It will be very interesting to see how this launch plays in Taiwan
and Russia," Coopersmith added. "Indeed, how will the Chinese
government exploit the Shenzhou flight for domestic and foreign
political benefit?"
The United States may respond to the Shenzhou 5 flight by inviting
China to become a partner on the International Space Station (ISS),
Coopersmith suggests. "An offer of cooperation will be politically
important to China and will constitute an American acknowledgement of
China's technological accomplishments," he said.
On the other hand, China participation in the station would lend
financial and technical support for the troubled space station. "The
Bush administration, restricted financially by the growing budget
deficits it has created, will correctly argue that cooperating with
China is less expensive than competing with it," Coopersmith said.
Strategic implications
The Shenzhou 5 landing and safe return of the taikonaut is an event
that has several strategic implications for the United States and the
international community.
That's the view of William Martel, professor of National Security
Affairs, and the Chair of Space Technology and Policy at the Naval War
College in Newport, Rhode Island.
Firstly, Martel said, China has now entered the ranks of the "first
tier" states. "In terms of prestige and technological ability, China
is now of the primary players in space. This, by itself, has
significant implications for the U.S. and its position of unquestioned
strategic superiority in space."
Martel said that China can be expected to accelerate the pace of its
space program.
"Now that China has passed the 'human milestone of putting someone in
space -- and bringing him back home safely -- China will correctly
conclude that its program can be directed toward more manned missions.
We should remember that China is actively promoting the idea of
putting people on the Moon. In addition, China will engage in other
programs, such as new constellations of satellites, a new
'Hubble-like' space telescope, and so forth," Martel told SPACE.com .
Replay of Cold War Space Race?
Beginning in the late 1950s, the "space race" between the former
Soviet Union and the United States was a powerful metaphor for showing
off political, economic, and cultural strengths. The "top that" nature
of this rivalry -- from Vostok versus Mercury, or Gemini versus Soyuz
-- was muted over time as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on
the Moon. Ultimately, this 20th space superpower competition led to
cooperative adventures, such as the International Space Station.
It remains to be seen how China may rekindle a 21st century replay of
Cold War one-upmanship as a new arrival in human space exploration.
China is likely to expand its relationships with other international
consortia, Martel said. "Today, for example, several European nations
expressed interest in teaming with China for future space flights."
Martel said that China clearly views the Shenzhou 5 success "as part
of the early stages of more aggressive competition with the United
States over its current position of supremacy in space."
"It is inevitable that China and the United States will begin to
believe that they are engaged in some form of a space race," Martel
concluded. "This can have significant military and technological
implications for both sides. And this can have positive consequences.
We should remember that the greatest advances in the U.S. space
program occurred during the Cold War, when Washington and Moscow were
directly competing in space."
"For now, it looks like the principal players in space will be
Washington and Beijing," Martel concluded.
Norvin Adams III
Eugene Kent
the next 20 years as China demands that the missiles that Bushevik is
ringing China with be dismantled.
"Steve Dufour" <stevej...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:744cc401.03101...@posting.google.com...
> does point out a future direction.that China is moving up through the
> "This has been very careful.and very logical. It's a very well thought
John Sefton
> By Leonard David
> Senior Space Writer
> space.com
> posted: 07:00 am ET
> 17 October 2003
>
>
>
>
>
> China's milestone making Shenzhou 5 flight, piloted by Yang Liwei, a
> lieutenant colonel of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), is sparking
> a wide array of opinions as to the mission's true significance.
"Milestone"??? With a one man space capsule orbitting the earth, they're
only forty years behind the US and Russia!! There's a lot of space between
that level of technology and anything that the US, Russia and the European
Space Agency haven't already done - "new space race" indeed!
John Sefton
"Eugene Kent" <eugen...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3f91da45$0$13060$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> Notice how Bushevik doesn't bad mouth China. But a collusion is coming in
> the next 20 years as China demands that the missiles that Bushevik is
> ringing China with be dismantled.
Yeah, the US should really be scared now that China has it's own Mercury
progamme 40 years after the US managed it! LOL
ircirc
follow up are not either. What kind of mentality is it to attack the
Chinese for something they neither claim or written?
V35B
V35B
The WHEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REINVENTED> THE TECHNOLOGY ONLY HAS TO BE
COPIED>>>>>>>>
V35B
V35B
They stole the US technology. Ther is no debating this....
Open your eyes...
Steve Dufour
The West stole lots of theirs, years ago. :-)
John Sefton
"V35B" <pu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YQmkb.2140$Vf7....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Take off yor blinders....
Yeah, it's terrible to be limited by hard facts and harsh reality, isn't it!
John Sefton
> It is this thinking that is the problem
>
> The WHEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REINVENTED> THE TECHNOLOGY ONLY HAS TO BE
> COPIED>>>>>>>>
Yet their still-crawling-out-of-the-third-world economy can only support
copying a venture from forty years ago... When they have a viable reusable
launch vehicle, space stations and moon bases, we may have something to
fear. That is, if they don't get those by copying everybody else who's done
it first.
To put it in perspective, Russia and the US had a man in space within five
years of first putting artificial satellites into orbit. China's been
launching artificial satellites for decades before just now being able to
initiate a manned orbital spaceflight.
betelnut
flights by the US and russia.
"John Sefton" <js...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:bmtgkc$m6b$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Norvin Adams III
"V35B" <pu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iPmkb.2137$Vf7...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
John Sefton
"betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:beykb.198447$ko%.191936@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> china's manned space tech is 40 yrs more advanced than that of the first
> flights by the US and russia.
Only because they're copying the technology of every other space-farer
that's been there before them. But their economy is only now at the point
that Russia's and the US' were 40 years ago.
osama bush laden
84...@icqmail.com says...
>
>
>china's manned space tech is 40 yrs more advanced than that of the first
>flights by the US and russia.
That's because the Soviets didn't keep any old blue prints of thity year
old crap to sell the china. Therefore it could be said that their equipment
was more advanced than U.S.S.R. and U.S. at the same baby steps of their
respective space programs. But not because of any technology china developed.
It all bought of the shelf, except the paint job.
Steve Dufour
> flights by the US and russia.
Thanks. My feeling is that it's more about will than about technology.
If the Chinese want to go to Mars they will go.
Guru Google
The will is not the only key. China wanna catch up with US and UK
during great leap forward erra. Mao said China wanna caught up with
US and UK in 10 years. What happened? The will was strong!!!
Hehe. I only hope if China wanna go to mars, fine but don't solicit
donations from outside to educate their poor students lacking
education funding. Educating Chinese kids is more imporant than
sending guys to Mars or Venus. Some of these Chinkes kids are gonna
become the scientist designing the space ship to go to Mars.
John Sefton
If current events are any guide, that will only be after the US, Russia and
Europe have already been.
W K
> You will all fiddle while Rome Burns...
>
> They stole the US technology. Ther is no debating this....
US? or german ?
betelnut
>
> "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:beykb.198447$ko%.191936@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > china's manned space tech is 40 yrs more advanced than that of the first
> > flights by the US and russia.
>
> Only because they're copying the technology of every other space-farer
no copying. the rocket system, telecommunication system, safety system,
monitoring system, etc.. on the shenzhou V are all made-in-china high tech
stuff. only the shape of the rocket looks like a russian souyuz, still not
identical.
betelnut
"osama bush laden" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vp64fs1...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <beykb.198447$ko%.191936@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> 84...@icqmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >china's manned space tech is 40 yrs more advanced than that of the first
> >flights by the US and russia.
>
> That's because the Soviets didn't keep any old blue prints of thity year
> old crap to sell the china. Therefore it could be said that their
equipment
> was more advanced than U.S.S.R. and U.S. at the same baby steps of their
> respective space programs. But not because of any technology china
developed.
> It all bought of the shelf, except the paint job.
in your dreams.
Steve Dufour
> > > flights by the US and russia.
> >
> > Thanks. My feeling is that it's more about will than about technology.
> > If the Chinese want to go to Mars they will go.
>
> If current events are any guide, that will only be after the US, Russia and
> Europe have already been.
If we, speaking as an American, feel challenged by the Chinese and go
to Mars first that's great with me. Or even go with them on a joint
project. But without them I don't think we would go any time soon, or
Europe or Russia. Just my opinion.
Fred Williams
And anyone who does math has stolen technology from the Arabs because
we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist opinion
that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want to use.
I wonder if they really stole U.S. technology, why their rocket
didn't blow up, or their spaceship disintegrate on reentry. They
must be doing something differently, eh?
--
Regards
Fred
<unclef...@fredwilliams.ca>
Remove FFFf to reply, please
Guru Google
Gong to Mars involves two things, technology and economy. If you only
have money but not technology, you're not gonna Mars. If you have
technology but no money, you're still not gonna Mars.
Fine for US, Russia, Europe or China to go to Mars, first, alone. The
question is gonna be how much it cost. I think US, China and Europe
gotta the money to go alone, but it can deplete the funding of the
nation and permanently weaken it.
China now prosper now in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing. But its vast
west farm land is still not good.
osama bush laden
84...@icqmail.com says...
>
>
>
>"osama bush laden" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:vp64fs1...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <beykb.198447$ko%.191936@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>> 84...@icqmail.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >china's manned space tech is 40 yrs more advanced than that of the first
>> >flights by the US and russia.
>>
>> That's because the Soviets didn't keep any old blue prints of thity year
>> old crap to sell the china. Therefore it could be said that their
>equipment
>> was more advanced than U.S.S.R. and U.S. at the same baby steps of their
>> respective space programs. But not because of any technology china
>developed.
>> It all bought of the shelf, except the paint job.
>
>in your dreams.
Can't face the truth, huh?
Eugene Kent
space.
"TheRuggedOne" <ruggg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2Wrb.45429$Ec1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Fred Williams" wrote in message ...
>
> >And anyone who does math has stolen technology from the Arabs because
> >we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist opinion
> >that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want to use.
>
> No, not racist. Just taking into consideration their society often takes
> giant leaps backwards and has different priorities. Considering their
> enormous population, and high regard for advanced education, China should
> have major advancements to boast of in the field of science.
>
> But where are the great new pharmaceuticals from China to save lives? Not
> one. Advances in computer software to rock the world? Eh, no. Military
> technology? Not to speak of.
>
> It's not that the Chinese people are incapable of doing it. The society
just
> holds people in higher regard who are shrewd enough to steal from others
and
> pirate it at huge profits. So that's where the effort goes.
>
>
> >I wonder if they really stole U.S. technology, why their rocket
> >didn't blow up, or their spaceship disintegrate on reentry. They
> >must be doing something differently, eh?
>
> Cheap shot. Even the greatest advances have setbacks.
>
>
>
beernuts
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Fred Williams" wrote in message ...
>
>>we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist opinion
>>that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want to use.
Of course they can use whatever technology they want to use, but it's a
matter of cost. They went with technology originally designed and
pioneered by the Germans, the Americans and the Russians. If you were
an up and coming nation bent on travelling to Mars, you wouldn't
reinvent the wheel either. Just about any nation can do what China did
with enough bread, time, and political moxie.
>
> No, not racist. Just taking into consideration their society often
> takes giant leaps backwards and has different priorities. Considering
> their enormous population, and high regard for advanced education,
> China should have major advancements to boast of in the field of
> science.
>
> But where are the great new pharmaceuticals from China to save lives?
> Not one. Advances in computer software to rock the world? Eh, no.
> Military technology? Not to speak of.
True, very true. Unfortunately, in about 50 years, we'll be saying the
same thing about the US.
>
> It's not that the Chinese people are incapable of doing it. The
> society just holds people in higher regard who are shrewd enough to
> steal from others and pirate it at huge profits. So that's where the
> effort goes.
>
True. Of course, Chinese people are doing it, here in the US.
>
>>I wonder if they really stole U.S. technology, why their rocket
>>didn't blow up, or their spaceship disintegrate on reentry. They
>>must be doing something differently, eh?
>
kl...@shaw.ca
wrote:
>>
>> It's not that the Chinese people are incapable of doing it. The
>> society just holds people in higher regard who are shrewd enough to
>> steal from others and pirate it at huge profits. So that's where the
>> effort goes.
>>
>
>True. Of course, Chinese people are doing it, here in the US.
>
>>
>>>I wonder if they really stole U.S. technology, why their rocket
>>>didn't blow up, or their spaceship disintegrate on reentry. They
>>>must be doing something differently, eh?
>>
>> Cheap shot. Even the greatest advances have setbacks.
Technology is engineering that anyone can acquire by going through the
right schools and training. The creative part of it is to think up a
problem, define it and find the solutions. But once someone can show
that it can be done its not too hard for the others to figure out how
it was done and replicate the results. The usual limitation is money.
In an IEEE Spectrum article on the atomic weapons technology survey
more than decade ago was a succinct observation that every nation that
wanted to build an A-Bomb, and was willing to devote enough resources
to that goal, had all succeeded. North Korea, South Africa, Israel,
Pakistan, India, Iraq (near thing), more.
Similary in advanced combat aircraft, they all look similar. If you
read technical reports in aviation magazines the engineering solutions
to achieve a given set of performance parameters are pretty much the
same. Thus the current twin engines in paired pods and paired tails,
etc.
From your own experience it is a lot more difficult and costlier to
try to copy someone else's design. Its a lot easier to design and
build one from scratch. Copying the ideas yes. But stealing
technology, no. Why bother when the technology is available from
technical journals
betelnut
"beernuts" <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20031110233...@news.verizon.net...
> In <a2Wrb.45429$Ec1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> TheRuggedOne wrote:
> >
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> >
> > "Fred Williams" wrote in message ...
> >
> >>And anyone who does math has stolen technology from the Arabs because
> >>we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist opinion
> >>that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want to use.
>
> Of course they can use whatever technology they want to use, but it's a
> matter of cost. They went with technology originally designed and
> pioneered by the Germans, the Americans and the Russians. If you were
> an up and coming nation bent on travelling to Mars, you wouldn't
> reinvent the wheel either. Just about any nation can do what China did
> with enough bread, time, and political moxie.
yeah but at what cost? in how long? with what degree of safety?
kl...@shaw.ca
<ruggg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>From your own experience it is a lot more difficult and costlier to
>>try to copy someone else's design. Its a lot easier to design and
>>build one from scratch. Copying the ideas yes. But stealing
>>technology, no. Why bother when the technology is available from
>>technical journals
>
>For the sake of discussion ...
>
>When was the last time China introduced a new pharmaceutical onto the world
>market? Has China EVER introduced a new pharmaceutical onto the world
>market?
China does not have a glamor pharmaceutical industry yet. She does
not have the industrial size research facilities or the name
recognition companies that lead to commercially blockbuster drug
designs. Patience. That will come if indeed that's what China
believes will be her next sector to conquer. I do not nornmally
follow news on pahrmaceuticals, don't use any myself, except where
Chinese names and achievements crop up. So my take on this subject is
from general reading.
Just like 20 years ago China did not have an electronics and
engineering industry and what modest achievements she had were
phoo-phooed as copycat efforts. In just this time China's industrial
sector has progressed to a point where she is already eating your
(G7s) lunch. True China has not gone onto being originators and
leaders in engineering but her level of expertise ranks her among the
top in those fields. With that knowledge base and with the frenetic
pace in which that expertise is applied the advent where China will
produce original ideas is only a matter of time. The west had its
industrial revolution some 200 years ago. China didn't get into it
until the recent 40 years.
The 20 year time block seems to crop up all the time. I recall
reading an article in SCIENCE with this question. Why was China
sending out so many PhD candicates overseas, especially to the US and
UK to do the life sciences? The answer was that it takes only a
fairly cheap laboratory to employ a PhD in life sciences. Its mostly
brain work. To employ an engineer takes millions of dollars in
associated capital equipment and that kind of money China doesn't have
(20 years ago.)
As a harbinger of things to come do read the research papers in just
about every area of life sciences and you will see among the principal
authors many researchers whose names are spelt in Pinyin and can be
easily identified as from mainland China. On the commercialization
side I had come across a few articles in FORTUNE magazine where the
CEO and chief scientist (the guy who thought of the original idea) is
American but the actual guy doing the research is a mainland Chinese.
The American stated frankly that he could not have succeeded in
raising capital and undertake the drug development without this
Chinese team leader. Chinese are doing leading edge work in
pharmaceuticals, but in America where the action and big money are.
Other examples: TIME Magazine's Man of the Year award was given to a
Chinese doctor for his research and treatment into AIDS. Very
recently there is a young Chinese researcher who came up with the
original idea of protein and DNA analysis on a microchip and he was
able to get a fundamental patent on the idea. Raised quite a large
amount of money to found his company.
Public health is where Chinese medical policy is at this moment. That
perhaps may answer your question about copying - drugs to fight AIDS
and exotic diseases that would otherwise run rampant if not controlled
as a public health issue. I don't think these drugs are exported to
the US or G7 countries.
The real money in pharmaceuticals is in private drug treatments. In
China personal income and therefore the ability to pay for exotic
drugs is not there. Therefore there is little incentive for
investment to design new drugs or even copy these for the Chinese
market. And I believe that culturally we are more fatalistic and
accept that when we have an incurable or high mortality illness it is
time to go. We wouldn't bankrupt ourselves or our families to cling
on to life through expensive drugs and surgical procedures. There's a
whole new line of argument here. The point is that Chinese scientists
are already working in the top leading edge drug design laboratories
although these labs are not located in China.
>
>In fact, all of China's pharmaceutical industry is devoted to copying the
>compounds of American pharmaceutical products, to create generic imitations.
>Like much of the world, China violates all pharmaceutical patent rights and
>does what it pleases.
>
kl...@shaw.ca
wrote:
>
>yeah but at what cost? in how long? with what degree of safety?
>
The whole China man in space program is estimated to cost $2.2 billion
(IEEE Spectrum Sep or Oct 2003 issue.) That is less than the cost of
a single Space Shuttle launch. There were less than half a dozen
trial launches before the manned one. This first one went off
spectacularly well. More missions are planned but on a less hectic
pace and on a more manageable funding and engineering schedule. For
objectives that will make scientific or economic sense and not just
for the glamor of it. We Chinese have very long time horizons.
Accidents will happen some time in the future but since China had not
set itself any specific time contraints to meet artificial deadlines
they will address the technical and safety issues as they arise and
fix them before proceeding to the next step (same IEEE article.) If
after all this preparation and a fatal accident still occurs that will
be an acceptable price to pay to stretch the limits of the frontier.
An intelligent man is not afraid of risking his life. He fears only a
careless and pointless death.
Another example to answer your questions (at what cost? in how long?
with what degree of safety?) is the Chinese nuclear weapon and ICBM
launch vehicle programs. That was an easy decision for the CCP to
make and at a time from the early 50s when China was destitute. China
succeeded on both counts and has got both the cake and eat it too.
That is the nuclear bomb and delivery program did not set back its
industrialization program and China's current success in high
technology probably owes something to that effort.
Yes there is much that China has to do to catch up with the rest of
the industrialized world in many areas. Give us time. We will get
there. But do you really want us there? As it is China is already
causing a realignment of economic power and industrial capacity. This
causes a lot of sleepless nights in the G7 countries.
Maybe its my prejudices. I don't feel this urgency to have everything
or know all the answers right away. But I am very confident that I
will always get what I want if I apply my energies towards that goal.
Thus perhaps the many Chinese I mix with and I do not have this urge
to defend China's efforts and achievements at any stage of the
national development game or get into arguments for China's place in
the world. Our feeling is that China is on the right path and that is
to uplift the living conditions of all her people. This is no small
task and will take all of China's energies for the next 50 years.
With peace, the freedom from want, the freedom from fear and the
freedom from the uncertainties of life, the creative juices will
flow on their own. The creation of wealth will be the unavoidable
consequence but it is the honestly earned opportunity to participate
in the mainstream of world affairs, the ability to create and the
strength to stand up for oneself that will be the real achievements.
Whether China will ever equal or surpass the west in technology and
wealth is unimportant. What is important will be that China will be
able develop at her own pace, to set her own national goals and to
resist the onerous pressures* from the other powers to bend to their
ways, pressures that almost destroyed China not that long ago.
*(monetary policy, regime change, foreign policy, weapons programs,
etc.)
After 50 years? Who cares. Let the next generations deal with their
problems. I'll be dead by then.
kl...@shaw.ca
<ruggg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nor will they ever as long as they refuse to respect patents. What is the
>incentive for a business to invest in years and years of research,
>development, and testing, if once they can get a new drug approved, someone
>else can simply come along ... copy it, and sell it much cheaper because
>they do not have to recoup the monies spent in developing it?
Oh that. Why didn't you get right into this angle in the first place.
Your original post misled me to believe that you didn't think Chinese
have the brains to develop leading edge drugs.
Somewhere in my rebuttal I said that heroic efforts to extend life is
not something Chinese do. We don't spend the family's fortune on
expensive drugs so that grandpa can live a few more years in agony.
Therefore there are no fortunes to be made manufacturing exotic drugs.
And there is even less reason for any one in China to prescribe the
latest drugs when old and well tested ones will do. The Chinese do
quite well manufacturing and prescribing generic drugs that have come
off patent.
You argument then, as I see it is that China copies expensive drugs to
dispense to sick people but does not pay royalties to the original
patent holders. That's a pretty broad brush. Do give some specific
examples. Can you buy Chinese copies in western drug stores? Do cite
a few examples where the western pharmaceutical companies have
complained that their IP has been infringed on by Chinese pharmacy
companies and where the State Department had made representations
about drug IP issues to China.
What about the reverse theft where US companies have copied Chinese
herbal formulas, repackaged them, often adulterated, and sold them for
exorbitant prices?
>
>In a nutshell, that is why there are only 3 nations left on the planet with
>viable pharmaceutical companies. The USA, Great Britain, and Switzerland.
>
That's being very selfish of you. No wonder the French, the Germans,
Italians, the Japanese, (more) think you stink too. The three
countries you named have powerful pharmacy companies because of
superior marketing and distribution. That generates earnings and to
generate more earnings, they plow quite a lot back into research.
The company names escape me but a number of big name US drug companies
have recently lost their dominance and may even disappear because the
patents on their blockbuster drugs are due to expire and they have not
come up with new block buster drugs yet. The ones left standing
aren't that steady either. How many new diseases can anyone invent
that will need a miracle drug to cure? Size and wealth is no
guarantee of drug development success. In fact many of the new block
buster drugs are often developed by small independent teams that were
bought over by the biggies when they come up with a winner.
Anyway don't confuse the drug development process with the ability to
squeeze big bucks out of a drug patent monopoly.
terry
> "John Sefton" <js...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bmv1gn$jie$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > "betelnut" <84...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:beykb.198447$ko%.191936@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > china's manned space tech is 40 yrs more advanced than that of the first
> > > flights by the US and russia.
> >
> > Only because they're copying the technology of every other space-farer
>
> no copying. the rocket system, telecommunication system, safety system,
> monitoring system, etc.. on the shenzhou V are all made-in-china high tech
> stuff. only the shape of the rocket looks like a russian souyuz, still not
> identical.
>
Isn't that a good thing that other people or nation underestimated our
achievement. Then they'd be far more surprised when we give a final
strike.
Drydem
> TheRuggedOne wrote:
> >
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> >
> > "Fred Williams" wrote in message ...
> >
> >>And anyone who does math has stolen technology from the Arabs because
> >>we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist opinion
> >>that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want to use.
>
> Of course they can use whatever technology they want to use, but it's a
> matter of cost. They went with technology originally designed and
> pioneered by the Germans, the Americans and the Russians.
And ironically, the Chinese are credited with inventing the rocket.
> If you were an up and coming nation bent on travelling to
> Mars, you wouldn't reinvent the wheel either. Just about
> any nation can do what China did with enough bread, time,
> and political moxie.
IMHO China Space Program is similar to the Soviet/Russian
Space Program in that it is more cost conconscience than
the U.S.A./European Space Programs.
> > No, not racist. Just taking into consideration their society often
> > takes giant leaps backwards and has different priorities. Considering
> > their enormous population, and high regard for advanced education,
> > China should have major advancements to boast of in the field of
> > science.
> >
> > But where are the great new pharmaceuticals from China to save lives?
> > Not one. Advances in computer software to rock the world? Eh, no.
> > Military technology? Not to speak of.
>
> True, very true. Unfortunately, in about 50 years, we'll be saying the
> same thing about the US.
China is still a developing country where cost is a driving
factor in its markets. Because of the hi price of new U.S.A
medicines don't have much of a market in developing
countries unless they are generic version at a much lower price.
Many Chinese still use/preferr Traditional Chinese
Medicines over western medicinces. The PRC government is
pushing Linux with a focus on Chinese-language markets. Most
of the software innovations in China are for internal
consumption only, e.g. Optical Character Recognition for
Chinese Characters, Voice Recognition of Mandarin, Chinese
word processing, chinese character keyboards, and video
character generators. The Chinese have developed their own
CPU ( IIRC it's name *mini-dragon* implies that it was
not meant to compete head-to-head with a Pentium III/IV)
as a low cost alternative to more expensive imported cpus
when applied to non-performance critical applications.
> > It's not that the Chinese people are incapable of doing it. The
> > society just holds people in higher regard who are shrewd enough to
> > steal from others and pirate it at huge profits. So that's where the
> > effort goes.
> >
>
> True. Of course, Chinese people are doing it, here in the US.
In the USA, it's not just the chinese, it's everyone.
Non-chinese steal who have stolen millions who have
been held in high regard in the business world have
been caught stealing and pirating huge at the
expense of society all the time - aka Enron, Tyco.
>
> >
> >>I wonder if they really stole U.S. technology, why their rocket
> >>didn't blow up, or their spaceship disintegrate on reentry. They
> >>must be doing something differently, eh?
> >
> > Cheap shot. Even the greatest advances have setbacks.
The chinese "Long March" boaster rockets appears to be
inspired by Soviet not American design so credit for
the Long March should go to the Russians not us.
The PRC spaceship is also inspired by the Soviet
Soyuz design and not to any U.S. design so again the
credit should go to the Russians not us if one were
to accuse the chinese of stealing space engineering
technology. However, the chinese may have used
U.S. rocket technology to remove the cowling over
their space capsule after it leaving the atmosphere
AND they may have used U.S. inspired gyroscope
(navigational) mounts. Reportedly, those two US
rocket technologies were obtained when the Chinese
space program received technical assistance from US
space engineering companies to send up satellites.
(See the Congressional Intelligience Committee Report
on China headed by H.R. Christopher Cox ). Note that
the chinese "Divine Vessel" space capsule and rocket
were brand new and only had a short orbital flight.
OTOH The U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger Boaster rocket
was not new but a reconditioned/previously used
rocket. The cause of the U.S. Space Shuttle rocket
explosion IIRC was due to poor maintence of the \
O-rings seals which was not just a technology
issue but one of management as well (and some might
say of government funding/support). The shuttle
Columbia disintegration was due to failure to prevent
preflight ice from causing damage during the liftoff,
the failure to inspect the reentry structural
damage when in orbit, the lack of fuel to reach space
station, and the lack of a shuttle repair facility
in space. Complex systems tend to have complex problems
and solutions. Simple systems tend to have simple
problems and solution.
Hence, many engineers tend to follow the KISS paridigm.
beernuts
> beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <20031110233...@news.verizon.net>...
>> In <a2Wrb.45429$Ec1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>> TheRuggedOne wrote:
>> >
>> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>> >
>> > "Fred Williams" wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >>And anyone who does math has stolen technology from the Arabs
>> >>because we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist
>> >>opinion that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want
>> >>to use.
>>
>> Of course they can use whatever technology they want to use, but it's
>> a matter of cost. They went with technology originally designed and
>> pioneered by the Germans, the Americans and the Russians.
>
> And ironically, the Chinese are credited with inventing the rocket.
And sadly, not the modern technology that distinguishes rockets today
from the fireworks of eons ago. Not the rocket engine itself, not the
gyroscope, not the chemistry, physics and engineering that go into it.
Just the spark of the idea, which is still wonderful but not what the
original poster was talking about. It's like talking about the
invention of the wheel vs a Lamborghini, the latter using the wheel
concept but also contains the technology and engineering to propel one
done the road, and then some. Even the Germans have owe a lot to
American scientist Goddard, the father of rocket propulsion.
>
>
>> If you were an up and coming nation bent on travelling to
>> Mars, you wouldn't reinvent the wheel either. Just about
>> any nation can do what China did with enough bread, time,
>> and political moxie.
>
> IMHO China Space Program is similar to the Soviet/Russian
> Space Program in that it is more cost conconscience than
> the U.S.A./European Space Programs.
That remains to be seen, as plans to the Moon and Mars are not going to
come cheap. If you want to be fair, you should compare the costs of the
US space program when it actually achieved the same results (some 40
years ago give or take), adjusting for inflation appropriately.
>
>
>> > No, not racist. Just taking into consideration their society often
>> > takes giant leaps backwards and has different priorities.
>> > Considering their enormous population, and high regard for
>> > advanced education, China should have major advancements to boast
>> > of in the field of science.
>> >
>> > But where are the great new pharmaceuticals from China to save
>> > lives? Not one. Advances in computer software to rock the world?
>> > Eh, no. Military technology? Not to speak of.
>>
>> True, very true. Unfortunately, in about 50 years, we'll be saying
>> the same thing about the US.
>
> China is still a developing country where cost is a driving
> factor in its markets. Because of the hi price of new U.S.A
> medicines don't have much of a market in developing
> countries unless they are generic version at a much lower price.
It's not that simple. Many US medicines are purposely sold dirt cheap
in emerging markets, some even at cost or at a loss (i.e. 3rd world
countries) relative to the price for the very same medicine in this
country. That's why there is so much political wrangling going on in DC
over this - people keep subverting the domestic prices by buying
elsewhere and shipping it, which is understandable. Even in China,
American and European pharma giants are basically the only legitimate
suppliers of advanced HIV drugs to combat China's underreported HIV
infections.
> Many Chinese still use/preferr Traditional Chinese
> Medicines over western medicinces.
True.
> The PRC government is
> pushing Linux with a focus on Chinese-language markets.
Correct.
> Most
> of the software innovations in China are for internal
> consumption only, e.g. Optical Character Recognition for
> Chinese Characters, Voice Recognition of Mandarin, Chinese
> word processing, chinese character keyboards, and video
> character generators.
It's no secret that the Chinese government would like nothing more than
to be a supplier of world class Information Services and IT technology.
They hope to copy India's successful IT industry.
> The Chinese have developed their own
> CPU ( IIRC it's name *mini-dragon* implies that it was
> not meant to compete head-to-head with a Pentium III/IV)
> as a low cost alternative to more expensive imported cpus
> when applied to non-performance critical applications.
I would bet money that even this chip is a derivation of at least one or
more western CPUs.
>
>> > It's not that the Chinese people are incapable of doing it. The
>> > society just holds people in higher regard who are shrewd enough to
>> > steal from others and pirate it at huge profits. So that's where
>> > the effort goes.
>> >
>>
>> True. Of course, Chinese people are doing it, here in the US.
>
> In the USA, it's not just the chinese, it's everyone.
> Non-chinese steal who have stolen millions who have
> been held in high regard in the business world have
> been caught stealing and pirating huge at the
> expense of society all the time - aka Enron, Tyco.
You misunderstood me. I am saying that the Chinese are *not* incapable
of "doing it", and that many *are* doing it in the U.S.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>I wonder if they really stole U.S. technology, why their rocket
>> >>didn't blow up, or their spaceship disintegrate on reentry. They
>> >>must be doing something differently, eh?
>> >
>> > Cheap shot. Even the greatest advances have setbacks.
>
> The chinese "Long March" boaster rockets appears to be
> inspired by Soviet not American design so credit for
> the Long March should go to the Russians not us.
> The PRC spaceship is also inspired by the Soviet
> Soyuz design and not to any U.S. design so again the
> credit should go to the Russians not us if one were
> to accuse the chinese of stealing space engineering
> technology.
First of all, the Russian technology itself is historically based
partially on non Russian technology. Secondly, the launch facility in
Western China, which I've seen satellite photos of, is a direct knock-
off of the NASA launch center, complete with the same physical layout
right down to the length of the path to the launch pad. I don't think
the Chinese stole technology as much as they did buy it or reverse
engineer it. Of course, they've certainly lifted things as well.
> However, the chinese may have used
> U.S. rocket technology to remove the cowling over
> their space capsule after it leaving the atmosphere
> AND they may have used U.S. inspired gyroscope
> (navigational) mounts. Reportedly, those two US
> rocket technologies were obtained when the Chinese
> space program received technical assistance from US
> space engineering companies to send up satellites.
> (See the Congressional Intelligience Committee Report
> on China headed by H.R. Christopher Cox ). Note that
> the chinese "Divine Vessel" space capsule and rocket
> were brand new and only had a short orbital flight.
> OTOH The U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger Boaster rocket
> was not new but a reconditioned/previously used
> rocket. The cause of the U.S. Space Shuttle rocket
> explosion IIRC was due to poor maintence of the \
> O-rings seals which was not just a technology
> issue but one of management as well (and some might
> say of government funding/support).
The cause of the *first* shuttle explosion was not due to poor
maintenance but flawed O-ring design and low temperature sealant cracks
and hardening. Management was also to blame. IIRC, there used to be
two O rings, now there are 3, and they're made to withstand lower temps.
> The shuttle
> Columbia disintegration was due to failure to prevent
> preflight ice from causing damage during the liftoff,
> the failure to inspect the reentry structural
> damage when in orbit, the lack of fuel to reach space
> station, and the lack of a shuttle repair facility
> in space. Complex systems tend to have complex problems
> and solutions. Simple systems tend to have simple
> problems and solution.
>
> Hence, many engineers tend to follow the KISS paridigm.
Any rocket motor is a pretty complex piece of equipment and highly
dangerous. There is nothing simple about it, and there's wasn't a
single engineer in that Chinese launch facility who wasn't holding his
breath when that thing took off. Even the government refused to release
live video for fear of any explosion and the resulting embarrassment and
negative press it would have caused. Note, many Chinese objected to
this secrecy.
Drydem
> In <8a523498.03111...@posting.google.com> Drydem wrote:
> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > <20031110233...@news.verizon.net>...
> >> In <a2Wrb.45429$Ec1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >> TheRuggedOne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> >> >
> >> > "Fred Williams" wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >>And anyone who does math has stolen technology from the Arabs
> >> >>because we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist
> >> >>opinion that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want
> >> >>to use.
> >>
> >> Of course they can use whatever technology they want to use, but it's
> >> a matter of cost. They went with technology originally designed and
> >> pioneered by the Germans, the Americans and the Russians.
> >
> > And ironically, the Chinese are credited with inventing the rocket.
>
> And sadly, not the modern technology that distinguishes rockets today
> from the fireworks of eons ago.
Some of the earliest accounts of uses for the chinese rocket
that I have read were for military purposes. IIRC Genghis
Khan used military rockets. However that would be about 700
years ago.
> Not the rocket engine itself, not the gyroscope,
>not the chemistry, physics and engineering that go into it.
While rocket design has improved over the ages,
today's rockets work under the same laws of physics
and share the same basic rocket engineering
design discovered hundreds of years ago by the
Chinese.
> Just the spark of the idea, which is still wonderful but not what the
> original poster was talking about. It's like talking about the
> invention of the wheel vs a Lamborghini, the latter using the wheel
> concept but also contains the technology and engineering to propel one
> done the road, and then some. Even the Germans have owe a lot to
> American scientist Goddard, the father of rocket propulsion.
The original poster attempted to credit rocket technology as
solely a western invention which it is not. The Chinese invented
the rocket (basic rocket body+fins design, propellent). All
western military rocket were similar to the Chinese design
until World War II, despite the early works of Goddard by in
liquid propellent rocket engine (solid propellent is more stable).
IIRC Von Braun's WWII V2 team added the Gyroscope navigational
system to the basic rocket design which later the USA acquired
when they captured Von Braun. The Soviet/Russian claim to fame
was to refine rocket technology to achieve an artificial orbit
( but this itself was not a rocket technological advancement
but an management and engineering feat of scale ). The true
Soviet space technological advancement was in space life
support, space telemetry, and space telecommunication.
I agree that the Chinese did borrow from the Soviet Soyuz
design. The Chinese are using a copy of the Soviet
cosomonaut life support suits.
> >> If you were an up and coming nation bent on travelling to
> >> Mars, you wouldn't reinvent the wheel either. Just about
> >> any nation can do what China did with enough bread, time,
> >> and political moxie.
> >
> > IMHO China Space Program is similar to the Soviet/Russian
> > Space Program in that it is more cost conconscience than
> > the U.S.A./European Space Programs.
>
> That remains to be seen,
No.
It's already been asserted by most space flight experts.
> as plans to the Moon and Mars are not going to come cheap.
The reports I've read is that both chinese plans being
discussed for a trip to the Moon and Mars will be using
robots which is much cheaper than sending a manned flight.
However, I have my doubts whether China will be doing that
in my lifetime - it just seem unpractical and I can't
see any real benefit to the government or the people of
China in taking on such a task.
From the looks of the initial data I've seen, the
Chinese space capsule is designed as satellite repair/
deployment/utility vehicle. I believe that the chinese
space program will ultimately lead to the chinese developing
and operating a completely domestic/independent space
communication satellites industry ( and that should lead to
complete and cheaper wireless phone/cable/TV service
in China ). The next space engineering technological
achievements I expect China to do is to
1) extensively test the space capsule orbital endurance
and reliablity over two or three weeks.
(does not necessarily have to be manned)
2) have 2 space capsules manuever and dock in space.
3) have 1 taikonaut walk in space and/or work in space.
4) establish an emergency space station with spare parts
to inspect and repair space vehicles.
> If you want to be fair, you should compare the costs of the
> US space program when it actually achieved the same results (some 40
> years ago give or take), adjusting for inflation appropriately.
The cost of the US space program was extremely high
because of the cost to send a man to the moon. if
we had just sent robots it would have been much
cheaper.
> >> > No, not racist. Just taking into consideration their society often
> >> > takes giant leaps backwards and has different priorities.
> >> > Considering their enormous population, and high regard for
> >> > advanced education, China should have major advancements to boast
> >> > of in the field of science.
> >> >
> >> > But where are the great new pharmaceuticals from China to save
> >> > lives? Not one. Advances in computer software to rock the world?
> >> > Eh, no. Military technology? Not to speak of.
> >>
> >> True, very true. Unfortunately, in about 50 years, we'll be saying
> >> the same thing about the US.
> >
> > China is still a developing country where cost is a driving
> > factor in its markets. Because of the hi price of new U.S.A
> > medicines don't have much of a market in developing
> > countries unless they are generic version at a much lower price.
>
> It's not that simple. Many US medicines are purposely sold dirt cheap
> in emerging markets, some even at cost or at a loss (i.e. 3rd world
> countries) relative to the price for the very same medicine in this
> country.
I strongly disagree.
Even when discounted U.S. medicines are usally too expensive for
the average person in third world country. Most third
world countries are using copycat versions U.S. medicine made
in other developing countries which turns out to be even
cheaper than buying them from the USA manufacturer( e.g.
India). Currently, a significant percentage of the cost of
a US drug is managment, advertisment and distribution not
production or R&D. When one eliminates the high cost of
U.S. management, advertisment, and distribution(e.g. sales
commissions) the price for medicine drops radically. Which one
of the reasons major U.S. pharmaceuticals can't compete in
the generic pharmaceuticals sector. Currently, U.S.
pharmaceuticals want to ban the sale of copycats of U.S.
medicines coming from India into Africa.
> That's why there is so much political wrangling going on in DC
> over this - people keep subverting the domestic prices by buying
> elsewhere and shipping it, which is understandable. Even in China,
> American and European pharma giants are basically the only legitimate
> suppliers of advanced HIV drugs to combat China's underreported HIV
> infections.
IIRC advanced medications, e.g.HIV(antiviral) drugs,
can be purchased at a much cheaper price from India.
>
> > Many Chinese still use/preferr Traditional Chinese
> > Medicines over western medicinces.
>
> True.
>
> > The PRC government is
> > pushing Linux with a focus on Chinese-language markets.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Most
> > of the software innovations in China are for internal
> > consumption only, e.g. Optical Character Recognition for
> > Chinese Characters, Voice Recognition of Mandarin, Chinese
> > word processing, chinese character keyboards, and video
> > character generators.
>
> It's no secret that the Chinese government would like nothing more than
> to be a supplier of world class Information Services and IT technology.
> They hope to copy India's successful IT industry.
China does not appear to be using India as a model
for their IT industry. India's government has partnered
with western computer companies like Sun, IBM, and Texas
Instrutment in a very big way. Unlike India, computers
are more of a common thing in China - and microsoft
is entrenched in China. However, China's government has
decided not to partner itself with large western computer
companies like India. Instead, the PRC government is
supporting Linux instead of running with the
defacto microsoft standard. While the Chinese government
would like to have a world-class IT industry its goals
and its actions sofar appears to support domestic consumption
rather than for export.
>
> > The Chinese have developed their own
> > CPU ( IIRC it's name *mini-dragon* implies that it was
> > not meant to compete head-to-head with a Pentium III/IV)
> > as a low cost alternative to more expensive imported cpus
> > when applied to non-performance critical applications.
>
> I would bet money that even this chip is a derivation of
> at least one or more western CPUs.
While I haven't seen any specs on this device,
the reports I read suggest to me that it may be
an Intel-Pentium Classic clone cpu.
>
> >
> >> > It's not that the Chinese people are incapable of doing it. The
> >> > society just holds people in higher regard who are shrewd enough to
> >> > steal from others and pirate it at huge profits. So that's where
> >> > the effort goes.
....
> >> >>I wonder if they really stole U.S. technology, why their rocket
> >> >>didn't blow up, or their spaceship disintegrate on reentry. They
> >> >>must be doing something differently, eh?
> >> >
> >> > Cheap shot. Even the greatest advances have setbacks.
> >
> > The chinese "Long March" boaster rockets appears to be
> > inspired by Soviet not American design so credit for
> > the Long March should go to the Russians not us.
> > The PRC spaceship is also inspired by the Soviet
> > Soyuz design and not to any U.S. design so again the
> > credit should go to the Russians not us if one were
> > to accuse the chinese of stealing space engineering
> > technology.
>
> First of all, the Russian technology itself is historically based
> partially on non Russian technology.
Soviet Main Rockets engines use a solid fuel and are
derived from classic military rocket designs which
historically is derived from the first chinese rocket.
> Secondly, the launch facility in Western China, which
> I've seen satellite photos of, is a direct knock-
> off of the NASA launch center, complete with the same
> physical layout right down to the length of the path
> to the launch pad.
The photos I've seen of the Chinese launch facility
could also pass for a Soviet/European launch center, too.
But I can't say I can really tell the difference between
a Soviet, NASA , or European launch pad. I can't see
how much different one launching pad can be from another.
ISTM much of it is common sense engineering.
...
> > The shuttle
> > Columbia disintegration was due to failure to prevent
> > preflight ice from causing damage during the liftoff,
> > the failure to inspect the reentry structural
> > damage when in orbit, the lack of fuel to reach space
> > station, and the lack of a shuttle repair facility
> > in space. Complex systems tend to have complex problems
> > and solutions. Simple systems tend to have simple
> > problems and solution.
> >
> > Hence, many engineers tend to follow the KISS paridigm.
>
>
> Any rocket motor is a pretty complex piece of equipment and highly
> dangerous. There is nothing simple about it, and there's wasn't a
> single engineer in that Chinese launch facility who wasn't holding his
> breath when that thing took off. Even the government refused to release
> live video for fear of any explosion and the resulting embarrassment and
> negative press it would have caused. Note, many Chinese objected to
> this secrecy.
Not all rocket motors are complex - solid propellant rocket
engines can have simple and elegant designs. Our shuttle
booster rocket design is a hybrid of both solid fuel and
liquid fuel engines. One of the reason that the O-ring on
the solid rocket booster were freezing is because it's
strapped onto a liquid fuel propellent tank which is
very cold. Normally a solid propellant rocket is very
stable as long as the propellant is sheathed correctly.
However, our shuttle solid propellent boosters sheathing
is made of several parts joined together with O-ring seals
and the crack in the sheathing caused the booster to
explode on the Challenger.
However, the Columbia Shuttle re-entry disaster was
not due to a rocket motor failure. The Columbia disaster
was due to a failure to prevent damage to the wing's
heat shield during lift off ( again caused by icy conditions
generated by the liquid fuel rocket tank - can you see a pattern
here?). However, once the damage occur - NASA failed to
physically inspect the shuttle even when they had the
capability to assess if damage had occured. If the damage
was detected, NASA should have had contigency plans to
either tried to dock with the space station and repair
the Columbia before descent or send another shuttle up
to evacuate the Columbia's crew.
What makes many of today's rocket motors more complex is the
variable thrust control(for liquid fuel rockets), directional
thrust control, auto navigational fin controls, and simulatenous
multiple motor controls. What make rockets dangerous is
that tremendous amount of highly explosive fuel used by
the booster rocket. KISS refers to the paradigm of minimizing
complexity as oppose to eliminating complexity. The simpler
the design easier it is to make and maintain a reliable system.
Reportedly access to the chinese space port was
limited. However, the extra security appears to me to
be very prudent considering these rockets use explosive
chemical and the risk of terrorism.
betelnut
> In <8a523498.03111...@posting.google.com> Drydem wrote:
> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > <20031110233...@news.verizon.net>...
> >> In <a2Wrb.45429$Ec1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> >> TheRuggedOne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> >> >
> >> > "Fred Williams" wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >>And anyone who does math has stolen technology from the Arabs
> >> >>because we use their number system(:-|). It seems a fairly racist
> >> >>opinion that the Chinese couldn't use whatever technology they want
> >> >>to use.
> >>
> >> Of course they can use whatever technology they want to use, but it's
> >> a matter of cost. They went with technology originally designed and
> >> pioneered by the Germans, the Americans and the Russians.
> >
> > And ironically, the Chinese are credited with inventing the rocket.
>
> And sadly, not the modern technology that distinguishes rockets today
> from the fireworks of eons ago. Not the rocket engine itself, not the
> gyroscope, not the chemistry, physics and engineering that go into it.
> Just the spark of the idea, which is still wonderful but not what the
> original poster was talking about. It's like talking about the
> invention of the wheel vs a Lamborghini, the latter using the wheel
> concept but also contains the technology and engineering to propel one
> done the road, and then some. Even the Germans have owe a lot to
> American scientist Goddard, the father of rocket propulsion.
nahh, america used people from europe and china to advance its rocket
program.
betelnut
"Drydem" <walte...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a523498.03111...@posting.google.com...
> cosomonaut life support suits.
style looks similar, but totally different materials.
beernuts
The key word being "modern" as in "modern technology". Filling a hollow
tube with gunpowder and lighting it and then watching it move up in an
equal and opposite reactive manner isn't exactly what I was talking
about.
>
>> Not the rocket engine itself, not the gyroscope,
>>not the chemistry, physics and engineering that go into it.
>
>
> While rocket design has improved over the ages,
> today's rockets work under the same laws of physics
> and share the same basic rocket engineering
> design discovered hundreds of years ago by the
> Chinese.
Yes, and a bone thrown up in the air by a cave man follows these same
laws of physics, too. Doesn't mean he invented controlled flight or
understands why things happen.
>
>> Just the spark of the idea, which is still wonderful but not what the
>> original poster was talking about. It's like talking about the
>> invention of the wheel vs a Lamborghini, the latter using the wheel
>> concept but also contains the technology and engineering to propel
>> one done the road, and then some. Even the Germans have owe a lot
>> to American scientist Goddard, the father of rocket propulsion.
>
>
> The original poster attempted to credit rocket technology as
> solely a western invention which it is not.
Modern rocket technology is in fact solely a western invention. No
matter how many cracker jack, mickey mouse examples one pulls out about
ancient chinese "rockets", it's not a modern rocket, and not what we're
talking about.
> The Chinese invented
> the rocket (basic rocket body+fins design, propellent).
They invented *a* propellant. They also invented a tube with wings that
would fly when using said propellant. They had no theoretical grounding
in modern day aerodynamics, Newtownian physics, Chemical equations, etc,
and therefore viewed their rocket as a study in cause and effect. And
of course, how could they be anything more? This science was before
their time.
> All
> western military rocket were similar to the Chinese design
> until World War II, despite the early works of Goddard by in
> liquid propellent rocket engine (solid propellent is more stable).
All western military rockets *today* are similar to the Chinese design
you mention. Just like the modern day wheel is similar to the one used
over a thousand years ago. Goddard has nothing to do with your premise,
which again, is not what the original poster was talking about.
> IIRC Von Braun's WWII V2 team added the Gyroscope navigational
> system to the basic rocket design which later the USA acquired
> when they captured Von Braun.
Actually, Goddard first developed a gyro control apparatus for rocket
flight in the 30s, and was the first to successfully launch a rocket
with a motor pivoted on gimbals under the influence of a gyro mechanism.
Von Braun was blown away by Goddard, and until the mid-late 1930's
openly admitted that Goddard was ahead of him and his team (and with
much less funding!). Goddard's liguid rocket motor design is viewed as
a critical step in modern space exploration. He was the first to come
up with the ideas of multiple stages (note: a concept directly used by
the Chinese manned rocket recently). His liquid rocket design would be
used in the German's V2 design some 18 years *after* its invention.
Goddard's rocket in 1929 carried the first payload ever, along with a
camera. He was the first to mathematically study the practicality of
using rockets to reach high altitude and even the moon, predicted and
anticipated the use of the gyroscope in the rocket, first one to prove a
rocket will work in a vacuum, first used vanes in a rocket motor for
guidance (amking him the first ever to have a guided rocket), first one
to develop pumps suitable for rocket fuels, the list goes on and on.
The man had over 240 patents for crying out loud, and without his
groundbreaking work, the Germans would have taken much much longer to
achieve their results. And that would have meant the same for the U.S.,
the Russians, and yes, even the "rocket" inventors, the Chinese.
> The Soviet/Russian claim to fame
> was to refine rocket technology to achieve an artificial orbit
> ( but this itself was not a rocket technological advancement
> but an management and engineering feat of scale ). The true
> Soviet space technological advancement was in space life
> support, space telemetry, and space telecommunication.
> I agree that the Chinese did borrow from the Soviet Soyuz
> design. The Chinese are using a copy of the Soviet
> cosomonaut life support suits.
Not only that, the Chinese astronauts were heavily trained by the
Russians directly, and benefited from decades of experience of space
travel on the human body.
>
>
>> >> If you were an up and coming nation bent on travelling to
>> >> Mars, you wouldn't reinvent the wheel either. Just about
>> >> any nation can do what China did with enough bread, time,
>> >> and political moxie.
>> >
>> > IMHO China Space Program is similar to the Soviet/Russian
>> > Space Program in that it is more cost conconscience than
>> > the U.S.A./European Space Programs.
>>
>> That remains to be seen,
>
> No.
> It's already been asserted by most space flight experts.
You cannot assert something that hasn't happened yet. Also, you cannot
fairly measure the "costs" of the recent flight because they have
benefited so greatly by designs and experience of others before them,
capitalizing directly from decades of *hard won* experimentation and
scientific analysis by German, US and Russian space programs. Not only
that, if you have to compare the Chinese space program costs of today
with NASA's, you should compare apples and apples, and talk about costs
relative to what was achieved and *when*.
>
>> as plans to the Moon and Mars are not going to come cheap.
>
> The reports I've read is that both chinese plans being
> discussed for a trip to the Moon and Mars will be using
> robots which is much cheaper than sending a manned flight.
Actually, that is a well known American strategy. The Chinese initially
spoke of grand plans manned trips to the moon and then mars. They have
since backed off the specifics of these plans and have tossed out out
potential scenarios, including pairing up with other countries, even the
US.
> However, I have my doubts whether China will be doing that
> in my lifetime - it just seem unpractical and I can't
> see any real benefit to the government or the people of
> China in taking on such a task.
Many question what the benefits of the recent launch are to the millions
of poor rural Chinese.
>
> From the looks of the initial data I've seen, the
> Chinese space capsule is designed as satellite repair/
> deployment/utility vehicle. I believe that the chinese
> space program will ultimately lead to the chinese developing
> and operating a completely domestic/independent space
> communication satellites industry ( and that should lead to
> complete and cheaper wireless phone/cable/TV service
> in China ).
There are three primary reasons for China's aggressive space program.
They are:
1.) Fear of a U.S. domination of space and the military exploits to be
found there
2.) National pride
3.) Fuel technical innovation, and help usher China into the new century
where it can compete in the Space for business arena
The next space engineering technological
> achievements I expect China to do is to
>
> 1) extensively test the space capsule orbital endurance
> and reliablity over two or three weeks.
> (does not necessarily have to be manned)
> 2) have 2 space capsules manuever and dock in space.
> 3) have 1 taikonaut walk in space and/or work in space.
> 4) establish an emergency space station with spare parts
> to inspect and repair space vehicles.
>
>
>> If you want to be fair, you should compare the costs of the
>> US space program when it actually achieved the same results (some 40
>> years ago give or take), adjusting for inflation appropriately.
>
>
> The cost of the US space program was extremely high
> because of the cost to send a man to the moon. if
> we had just sent robots it would have been much
> cheaper.
False premise. The cost is relative given that nobody had ever done
what had to be done - put a man on the moon *and* return him. Entire
industries and supporting infrastructures had to be created just to
support the mission. Cutting edge technology had to be *created* and
the testing and engineering issues were astounding. Any time something
has to be created from scratch, on this scale, it will be expensive.
Comparing what the Chinese spent in *this* century, today, with costs of
the NASA programs of the 1960s and 1970 is patently ridiculous, and
wholly unfair.
>
>
>> >> > No, not racist. Just taking into consideration their society
>> >> > often takes giant leaps backwards and has different priorities.
>> >> > Considering their enormous population, and high regard for
>> >> > advanced education, China should have major advancements to
>> >> > boast of in the field of science.
>> >> >
>> >> > But where are the great new pharmaceuticals from China to save
>> >> > lives? Not one. Advances in computer software to rock the world?
>> >> > Eh, no. Military technology? Not to speak of.
>> >>
>> >> True, very true. Unfortunately, in about 50 years, we'll be
>> >> saying the same thing about the US.
>> >
>> > China is still a developing country where cost is a driving
>> > factor in its markets. Because of the hi price of new U.S.A
>> > medicines don't have much of a market in developing
>> > countries unless they are generic version at a much lower price.
>>
>> It's not that simple. Many US medicines are purposely sold dirt
>> cheap in emerging markets, some even at cost or at a loss (i.e. 3rd
>> world countries) relative to the price for the very same medicine in
>> this country.
>
> I strongly disagree.
> Even when discounted U.S. medicines are usally too expensive for
> the average person in third world country.
The international community gets rock bottom prices on many US drugs and
these costs are partially absorbed by the pharma companies themselves,
and subsidized by both charity groups and regional governments.
>Most third
> world countries are using copycat versions U.S. medicine made
> in other developing countries which turns out to be even
> cheaper than buying them from the USA manufacturer( e.g.
> India).
And some have killed people or plain failed to work as indicated.
> Currently, a significant percentage of the cost of
> a US drug is managment, advertisment and distribution not
> production or R&D. When one eliminates the high cost of
> U.S. management, advertisment, and distribution(e.g. sales
> commissions) the price for medicine drops radically. Which one
> of the reasons major U.S. pharmaceuticals can't compete in
> the generic pharmaceuticals sector. Currently, U.S.
> pharmaceuticals want to ban the sale of copycats of U.S.
> medicines coming from India into Africa.
Hmm, don't you have to wait for a drug's "generic" ingredient to get off
patent before you can *legally* create a generic? Anyway, I'd venture
to say that many of the copycat drugs you mention are being sold against
international trade agreements and patent laws. Many do not work, or
are so devoid of proper quality controls they are worse than taking no
drug.
This is incorrect. There are plenty of news reports all over the net to
back my claim up.
> India's government has partnered
> with western computer companies like Sun, IBM, and Texas
> Instrutment in a very big way. Unlike India, computers
> are more of a common thing in China - and microsoft
> is entrenched in China. However, China's government has
> decided not to partner itself with large western computer
> companies like India. Instead, the PRC government is
> supporting Linux instead of running with the
> defacto microsoft standard. While the Chinese government
> would like to have a world-class IT industry its goals
> and its actions sofar appears to support domestic consumption
> rather than for export.
Linux has < 5% of the total personal computer O.S. market. If I were
them, I'd take on both (Although I perfer BSD myself)
>
>
>>
>> > The Chinese have developed their own
>> > CPU ( IIRC it's name *mini-dragon* implies that it was
>> > not meant to compete head-to-head with a Pentium III/IV)
>> > as a low cost alternative to more expensive imported cpus
>> > when applied to non-performance critical applications.
>>
>> I would bet money that even this chip is a derivation of
>> at least one or more western CPUs.
>
> While I haven't seen any specs on this device,
> the reports I read suggest to me that it may be
> an Intel-Pentium Classic clone cpu.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> > It's not that the Chinese people are incapable of doing it. The
>> >> > society just holds people in higher regard who are shrewd enough
>> >> > to steal from others and pirate it at huge profits. So that's
>> >> > where the effort goes.
> .....
> ....
>
>> > The shuttle
>> > Columbia disintegration was due to failure to prevent
>> > preflight ice from causing damage during the liftoff,
>> > the failure to inspect the reentry structural
>> > damage when in orbit, the lack of fuel to reach space
>> > station, and the lack of a shuttle repair facility
>> > in space. Complex systems tend to have complex problems
>> > and solutions. Simple systems tend to have simple
>> > problems and solution.
>> >
>> > Hence, many engineers tend to follow the KISS paridigm.
>>
>>
>> Any rocket motor is a pretty complex piece of equipment and highly
>> dangerous. There is nothing simple about it, and there's wasn't a
>> single engineer in that Chinese launch facility who wasn't holding
>> his breath when that thing took off. Even the government refused to
>> release live video for fear of any explosion and the resulting
>> embarrassment and negative press it would have caused. Note, many
>> Chinese objected to this secrecy.
>
>
> Not all rocket motors are complex - solid propellant rocket
> engines can have simple and elegant designs.
The devil is in the details.
Ugh, I have a headache...
kl...@shaw.ca
<ruggg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Electronics is not a valid comparison. There is no need for years of testing
>and research. There are no crippling civil liabilities if an electronic
>device fails.
>
>We've all heard of "Thalidomide Babies." I've never heard of a "Thalidomide
>DVD Player".
I hope you caught the FRONTLINE program on Thursday's PBS channel, Nov
13. There was a expose on the FDA's drug approval process where their
own FDA scientists' adverse findings on new drugs was suppressed and
these scientists were forced to rewrite their reports more favourably.
Otherwise their unfavouable reports were modified by their supervisors
or suppressed and the author scientists' careers derailed. Of course
with this kind of departmental culture bad drugs were approved that
turned out to be harmful, often irreversibly or even fatal to the
patients. Get a copy of this video from your public library (purcahse
request.) You have far more serious problems than worrying about
other countries' pharmaceutical industries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>As a harbinger of things to come do read the research papers in just
>about every area of life sciences and you will see among the principal
>authors many researchers whose names are spelt in Pinyin and can be
>easily identified as from mainland China. On the commercialization
>side I had come across a few articles in FORTUNE magazine where the
>CEO and chief scientist (the guy who thought of the original idea) is
>American but the actual guy doing the research is a mainland Chinese.
>The American stated frankly that he could not have succeeded in
>raising capital and undertake the drug development without this
>Chinese team leader. Chinese are doing leading edge work in
>pharmaceuticals, but in America where the action and big money are.
On the above examples I remember them because this is where the future
of pharmaceutical development is heading. In the good old days (up
to the present) tens of thousands of compounds are tested and the few
that seem to have some drug activity is then tested again and again to
discover a miniscule number that will be selected for actual
development as drugs. This shotgun method is very time consuming and
very expensive. This is the excuse you are using for your rants about
copying and patent royalty payments.
In the first example the Chinese scientist is the top researcher in
recombinant protein synthesis. The recombinant technology here is
that proteins can be built up amino acid by amino acid using the tip
of a very fine needle by dipping that into the substrate. There is
probably more to this method but that's the description in FORTUNE.
This method can be automated and hundreds if not thousands of
combinations can be done at the same time using an array of needles
and grid of amino acid substrates. More important, it can create all
the possible combinations of proteins, in pure monomeric form, from
any set of amino acids. Pure proteins can be quickly screened for
drug activity. The reproduction of target proteins and perhaps other
biological compounds can be scaled up for laboratory and clinical
tests and eventually commercial production.
It doesn't take a guy knowledgeable in organic chemistry or the
sciences to realise the big leap and advantage this is in drug
development. This is a really hot technology and the white guy was
able to raise big venture capital quickly.
In the second example the Chinese guy quit Harvard medical school in
his first year (not challenging enough!) and spent months looking
through all the latest research papers to identify a project he would
want to apply his brains on. What he came up with was to marry the
micron scale microchip technology as the medium to effect molecular
purification of DNA. That's an amazing insight, that if you want to
separate something (DNA) that small the tool dimensions has to be of
the same order. The basic idea for which he has the fundamental
patent (its so new and novel that anyone after him will have to use
his patent first) is applicable to many other fields and processes.
Among them is the analysis and purification of proteins and complex
compounds and the analysis and purification of gasses. In drug
development the analysis and purification existing very complex
compounds will still be an important process. To be able to do this
on a microchip, using thousands of them in an array will reduce the
costs, time and simplify the complexity by several orders of
magnitude.
Okitekudasai
or nation underestimated our
achievement. Then they'd be far more surprised when we give a final
strike.<
Spoken like a typical chinese l Communist Slave coward.
Okitekudasai
achievement<
Can you Chinese please achieve putting doors on your public toilets ?
Drydem
Note that our shuttle solid propellent booster rockets
are essentially hollow tubes with high explosives. The
only difference is that our booster rocket tubing from
the ancient Chinese version is made from several
components instead of a single piece and the inner
rocket core (all solid propellent rockets have a hollow
core to optimize its burn rate IIRC even the ancient
chinese knew this ) was designed with a computer.
> >> Not the rocket engine itself, not the gyroscope,
> >>not the chemistry, physics and engineering that go into it.
> >
> >
> > While rocket design has improved over the ages,
> > today's rockets work under the same laws of physics
> > and share the same basic rocket engineering
> > design discovered hundreds of years ago by the
> > Chinese.
>
> Yes, and a bone thrown up in the air by a cave man follows these same
> laws of physics, too. Doesn't mean he invented controlled flight or
> understands why things happen.
Engineering requires fundamental understanding of how
things work to make things work. Ancient chinese invention
of the rocket indicates that the chinese knew fundamental
rocketry. Engineering and inventing does not always
require theory but it almost always requires a some level
of craftsmanship.
>> >> Just the spark of the idea, which is still wonderful but not what the
> >> original poster was talking about. It's like talking about the
> >> invention of the wheel vs a Lamborghini, the latter using the wheel
> >> concept but also contains the technology and engineering to propel
> >> one done the road, and then some. Even the Germans have owe a lot
> >> to American scientist Goddard, the father of rocket propulsion.
> >
> >
> > The original poster attempted to credit rocket technology as
> > solely a western invention which it is not.
>
> Modern rocket technology is in fact solely a western invention. No
> matter how many cracker jack, mickey mouse examples one pulls out about
> ancient chinese "rockets", it's not a modern rocket, and not what we're
> talking about.
Today's modern solid propellent rockets are the descendents of
an ancient chinese invention. Most of today's modern military
rockets still use solid propellents because its more stable
than liquid propellents.
> > The Chinese invented
> > the rocket (basic rocket body+fins design, propellent).
>
> They invented *a* propellant. They also invented a tube with wings that
> would fly when using said propellant. They had no theoretical grounding
> in modern day aerodynamics, Newtownian physics, Chemical equations, etc,
> and therefore viewed their rocket as a study in cause and effect. And
> of course, how could they be anything more? This science was before
> their time.
A theoretical grounding is not necessary to make a rocket. However,
the ancient chinese had a fundamental understanding of the aerodynamics,
chemistry, and design principles (center of mass, etc). One doesn't
need to understand covalent bonding to light a fire.
> > All
> > western military rocket were similar to the Chinese design
> > until World War II, despite the early works of Goddard by in
> > liquid propellent rocket engine (solid propellent is more stable).
>
> All western military rockets *today* are similar to the Chinese design
> you mention. Just like the modern day wheel is similar to the one used
> over a thousand years ago. Goddard has nothing to do with your premise,
> which again, is not what the original poster was talking about.
While liquid propellent rocket engine is soley a
western invention - not all modern rockets technology
is based on liquid propellent rocket engines. Today's
modern solid propellant rocket engine is basically
the same concepts and design as the ancient chinese ones.
The only differences between today's and yesterday's
rocket engine are the chemicals being used, the
fins now have navigational controls, and there
is a metal nozzle to direct the thrust.
> > The Soviet/Russian claim to fame
> > was to refine rocket technology to achieve an artificial orbit
> > ( but this itself was not a rocket technological advancement
> > but an management and engineering feat of scale ). The true
> > Soviet space technological advancement was in space life
> > support, space telemetry, and space telecommunication.
> > I agree that the Chinese did borrow from the Soviet Soyuz
> > design. The Chinese are using a copy of the Soviet
> > cosomonaut life support suits.
>
> Not only that, the Chinese astronauts were heavily trained by the
> Russians directly, and benefited from decades of experience of space
> travel on the human body.
The account that I've read indicated that only 2 chinese pilots
were trained by the Russian before their cooperation ended.
Those two chinese pilots then trained the current set of
chinese taikonauts at the Chinese facility. However, chinese
officieal claim that their space program has modified Soviet
Space Technology to fit Chinese purposes.
> >> >> If you were an up and coming nation bent on travelling to
> >> >> Mars, you wouldn't reinvent the wheel either. Just about
> >> >> any nation can do what China did with enough bread, time,
> >> >> and political moxie.
> >> >
> >> > IMHO China Space Program is similar to the Soviet/Russian
> >> > Space Program in that it is more cost conconscience than
> >> > the U.S.A./European Space Programs.
> >>
> >> That remains to be seen,
> >
> > No.
> > It's already been asserted by most space flight experts.
>
> You cannot assert something that hasn't happened yet.
Oh yes I can. :)
Space flight experts ( as published in the Scientific American
paper which can be read from the url I posted earlier) have
noted that the Chinese program is very cost conscienous and
that is has more similarities with the Soviet model than the
US model.
....
> > From the looks of the initial data I've seen, the
> > Chinese space capsule is designed as satellite repair/
> > deployment/utility vehicle. I believe that the chinese
> > space program will ultimately lead to the chinese developing
> > and operating a completely domestic/independent space
> > communication satellites industry ( and that should lead to
> > complete and cheaper wireless phone/cable/TV service
> > in China ).
>
> There are three primary reasons for China's aggressive space program.
> They are:
>
> 1.) Fear of a U.S. domination of space and the military
> exploits to be found there
> 2.) National pride
> 3.) Fuel technical innovation, and help usher China into the new century
> where it can compete in the Space for business arena
I'm not fully convince those are really Chinese reasons.
Why? To make any of those reasons a chinese one, you still
have to assign it a large dollar sign. IMHO most chinese
are too practical to get all caught up in some future
fantasy
...
....
> > The cost of the US space program was extremely high
> > because of the cost to send a man to the moon. if
> > we had just sent robots it would have been much
> > cheaper.
>
>
> False premise. The cost is relative given that nobody had ever done
> what had to be done - put a man on the moon *and* return him. Entire
> industries and supporting infrastructures had to be created just to
> support the mission. Cutting edge technology had to b
Not really.
Justifying the expenditure doesn't erase the price tag.
Saying that something is expensive doesn't invalidate
the value of the purchase. Your efforts to justify
the expenditure with a cost-benefit argumement does not
erase the fact that sending a man to the moon is more
expensive and has a lower domestic payback than just
focusing on orbital communication satellites. We could
have save alot of money by just using robots but national
pride, fear of russian military dominance in space,
our fascination with scientfic innovation, and the
fact that our country is very wealth got us to the
moon. Despite our experiences, I am not convinced
that the chinese are influenced in the same ways we
are. IMHO, the PRC government is mainly focusing inwards
and is heavily influenced by how to promote domestic
stability while our government often is sidetracked
to look outward into international affairs.
> > I strongly disagree.
> > Even when discounted U.S. medicines are usally too expensive for
> > the average person in third world country.
>
> The international community gets rock bottom prices on many US drugs and
> these costs are partially absorbed by the pharma companies themselves,
> and subsidized by both charity groups and regional governments.
What has happened is that third and second tier drugs
rights were sold to drug manufacturers in India. U.S.
corporations say those rights were only for domestic
consumption and are crying foul but these indian drugs
which are made using exactly the same chemical formulation
as US generic/name brand drug companies are now being sold in
India because they are about much much cheaper. Saw
the story on CBS 60 minutes...
>
> >Most third
> > world countries are using copycat versions U.S. medicine made
> > in other developing countries which turns out to be even
> > cheaper than buying them from the USA manufacturer( e.g.
> > India).
>
> And some have killed people or plain failed to work as indicated.
Not from what I've heard - atleast with respect
the medicine reportedly coming from India.
>
> > Currently, a significant percentage of the cost of
> > a US drug is managment, advertisment and distribution not
> > production or R&D. When one eliminates the high cost of
> > U.S. management, advertisment, and distribution(e.g. sales
> > commissions) the price for medicine drops radically. Which one
> > of the reasons major U.S. pharmaceuticals can't compete in
> > the generic pharmaceuticals sector. Currently, U.S.
> > pharmaceuticals want to ban the sale of copycats of U.S.
> > medicines coming from India into Africa.
>
>
> Hmm, don't you have to wait for a drug's "generic" ingredient to get off
> patent before you can *legally* create a generic? Anyway, I'd venture
> to say that many of the copycat drugs you mention are being sold against
> international trade agreements and patent laws. Many do not work, or
> are so devoid of proper quality controls they are worse than taking no
> drug.
I'm not sure that there are any international laws or
agreements covering the selling of medicine. IIRC the
disagreement between Indian and U.S. drug manufacturers
is based on a contractual agreement and the drugs
in question were common antiviral drugs used in cocktail
(originally devised by US Researcher David Ho) to
put HIV into remission. The problem was even at 20% the
cost people in many third world countries (e.g. in
Africa) still could not afford the drug from U.S. sources.
However, the rights to make these antiviral drugs had
been sold to several very large and modern drug
manufacturers in India who produce them at over 1/10
the cost as U.S. firms. Somehow - and the methods of
which I cannot recall - these Indian anti-viral agents
are making their way to Africa where HIV is of epidemic
proportions. The Indian version are affordable. However,
US firms have cried foul because they said that the
original contract only allow the drugs to be sold
locally in the Indian domestic market. ...
....
> > China does not appear to be using India as a model
> > for their IT industry.
>
> This is incorrect. There are plenty of news reports all over the net to
> back my claim up.
I actively follow the IT industry reports.
I have not found any reputable news reports that would support your claim.
beernuts
And these particular shuttle rockets aren't fireworks, but devices that
can lift huge loads into outer space. A pretty distinctive difference
over hollow tubes with "high explosives". Also note, as far as solid
propellants go, gunpowder is pretty weak.
>
>> >> Not the rocket engine itself, not the gyroscope,
>> >>not the chemistry, physics and engineering that go into it.
>> >
>> >
>> > While rocket design has improved over the ages,
>> > today's rockets work under the same laws of physics
>> > and share the same basic rocket engineering
>> > design discovered hundreds of years ago by the
>> > Chinese.
>>
>> Yes, and a bone thrown up in the air by a cave man follows these same
>> laws of physics, too. Doesn't mean he invented controlled flight or
>> understands why things happen.
>
> Engineering requires fundamental understanding of how
> things work to make things work. Ancient chinese invention
> of the rocket indicates that the chinese knew fundamental
> rocketry.
Not really. As a kid, I used to build model rockets and I even won 3rd
place in a science contest in 5th grade (woohoo!), and even at that
young age, fundamental rocketry required a basic understanding of
physics and mathematics - concepts that didn't exist during the period
you're attributing rocket invention to. One can still build a hollow
tube, stuff gunpowder in one end and recognize that if you light the
gunpowder, the thing moves fast, but in my mind, that's not really doing
much towards advancing any kind of scientific understanding of what got
us to the moon; that understanding rests on the shoulders of classic
physics, mathematics and chemistry. Again, I disagree that modern
rockets as we know them today were invented by the Chinese. Fireworks
and ancient rocket shaped devices using gunpowder (several of which
resemble our true rockets today) were. I admit these by definition are
"rockets", since the definition is:
" a firework consisting of a case partly filled with a combustible
composition fastened to a guiding stick and propelled through the air by
the rearward discharge of the gases liberated by combustion b : a
similar device used as an incendiary weapon or as a propelling unit (as
for a lifesaving line)"
But those rockets could not carry sizeable payloads, could not go to
very high altitudes and were incapable of advancing the science of
rocketry with the limited physics and mathematics foundation of the
times. I don't think of the Saturn V as a "big firework" at all.
> Engineering and inventing does not always
> require theory but it almost always requires a some level
> of craftsmanship.
>
True. Goddard had hundreds of patents and was a true hybrid scientist-
inventor-craftsman.
>>> >> Just the spark of the idea, which is still wonderful but not what
>>> >> the
>> >> original poster was talking about. It's like talking about the
>> >> invention of the wheel vs a Lamborghini, the latter using the
>> >> wheel concept but also contains the technology and engineering to
>> >> propel one done the road, and then some. Even the Germans have
>> >> owe a lot to American scientist Goddard, the father of rocket
>> >> propulsion.
>> >
>> >
>> > The original poster attempted to credit rocket technology as
>> > solely a western invention which it is not.
most space flight experts.
>>
>> You cannot assert something that hasn't happened yet.
>
> Oh yes I can. :)
> Space flight experts ( as published in the Scientific American
> paper which can be read from the url I posted earlier) have
> noted that the Chinese program is very cost conscienous and
> that is has more similarities with the Soviet model than the
> US model.
Have they finished spending money on their moon and mars projects? No.
>
> .....
>> > From the looks of the initial data I've seen, the
>> > Chinese space capsule is designed as satellite repair/
>> > deployment/utility vehicle. I believe that the chinese
>> > space program will ultimately lead to the chinese developing
>> > and operating a completely domestic/independent space
>> > communication satellites industry ( and that should lead to
>> > complete and cheaper wireless phone/cable/TV service
>> > in China ).
>>
>> There are three primary reasons for China's aggressive space program.
>> They are:
>>
>> 1.) Fear of a U.S. domination of space and the military
>> exploits to be found there
>> 2.) National pride
>> 3.) Fuel technical innovation, and help usher China into the new
>> century
>> where it can compete in the Space for business arena
>
> I'm not fully convince those are really Chinese reasons.
> Why? To make any of those reasons a chinese one, you still
> have to assign it a large dollar sign. IMHO most chinese
> are too practical to get all caught up in some future
> fantasy
> ....
Not if you listen to state run Chinese television. It's full of fantasy.
>
>
> .....
>> > The cost of the US space program was extremely high
>> > because of the cost to send a man to the moon. if
>> > we had just sent robots it would have been much
>> > cheaper.
>>
>>
>> False premise. The cost is relative given that nobody had ever done
>> what had to be done - put a man on the moon *and* return him. Entire
>> industries and supporting infrastructures had to be created just to
>> support the mission. Cutting edge technology had to b
>
> Not really.
> Justifying the expenditure doesn't erase the price tag.
But ignoring the period that these costs were incurred and comparing it
to the present is unfair and misleading.
>
> Saying that something is expensive doesn't invalidate
> the value of the purchase.
Didn't say it did.
> Your efforts to justify
> the expenditure with a cost-benefit argumement does not
> erase the fact that sending a man to the moon is more
> expensive and has a lower domestic payback than just
> focusing on orbital communication satellites.
I think many would disagree that it had a "lower domestic payback" when
it *first* happened back in the late 60s.
> We could
> have save alot of money by just using robots but national
> pride, fear of russian military dominance in space,
> our fascination with scientfic innovation, and the
> fact that our country is very wealth got us to the
> moon.
As you know Walter, robotics was nowhere near the level of
sophistication back then to allow for any practical space usage like we
see today.
> Despite our experiences, I am not convinced
> that the chinese are influenced in the same ways we
> are.
I am. They seem to be following many of the same steps the U.S. took in
its leap forward towards being a space and technology leader through the
second half of the last century.
> IMHO, the PRC government is mainly focusing inwards
> and is heavily influenced by how to promote domestic
> stability while our government often is sidetracked
> to look outward into international affairs.
The Chinese military has big ideas for its "motherland's" space program.
And the said inwards focus you mention often includes political
oppression of any peaceful dissent against the state.
Drydem
Gunpowder is still considered an explosive chemical. Rocket motors
doesnot not require high explosive, e.g. model rocket engines don't
use high explosive. Your description is of a firecracker not a
rocket. In addition to the fins and the nosecone, Chinese rockets also
exhibited the fundamental design principle such as having the
center-of-mass and center-of-gravity are some distance from
each other ( this is a fundamental rocket flight stablity
requirement).
> >> >> Not the rocket engine itself, not the gyroscope,
> >> >>not the chemistry, physics and engineering that go into it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > While rocket design has improved over the ages,
> >> > today's rockets work under the same laws of physics
> >> > and share the same basic rocket engineering
> >> > design discovered hundreds of years ago by the
> >> > Chinese.
> >>
> >> Yes, and a bone thrown up in the air by a cave man follows these same
> >> laws of physics, too. Doesn't mean he invented controlled flight or
> >> understands why things happen.
> >
> > Engineering requires fundamental understanding of how
> > things work to make things work. Ancient chinese invention
> > of the rocket indicates that the chinese knew fundamental
> > rocketry.
>
> Not really. As a kid, I used to build model rockets and I even won 3rd
> place in a science contest in 5th grade (woohoo!), and even at that
> young age, fundamental rocketry required a basic understanding of
> physics and mathematics - concepts that didn't exist during the period
> you're attributing rocket invention to. One can still build a hollow
> tube, stuff gunpowder in one end and recognize that if you light the
> gunpowder, the thing moves fast, but in my mind, that's not really doing
> much towards advancing any kind of scientific understanding of what got
> us to the moon; that understanding rests on the shoulders of classic
> physics, mathematics and chemistry.
stuffing high explosives into a hollow tube is more likely
to produce a pipe bomb than a rocket. One does not use pipe
bombs to create model rockets. The propellent in model rocket
engine is very similar to gunpowder (except for one key
difference - do you know what it is?) - in fact some kids
have been know to try to extract the rocket fuel propellent
in order to create pipebombs (which is a very dangerous
operation. I once read about a boy from the DC suburbs who
blew off his arm attempting to do this). Model rocket kits
don't require much scientific or mathematical skill - but
it does requires proficiency in reading instructions
and oftent some manual skill/craftsmanship (some model
rockets have prefabricated wings and nose cone assemblies
so there is no craftsmanship skill required). Model rocketry
can require some mathematical skills (elementary telemetry)
and some physics ( designing a model rocket from scratch)
but its not a necessary requirement. Ancient Chinese rockets
only required a fundamental understanding of rocket
flight - it would take another 500 years before Dr. Goddard
would make any significant advancement in rocket engineering.
> Again, I disagree that modern
> rockets as we know them today were invented by the Chinese. Fireworks
> and ancient rocket shaped devices using gunpowder (several of which
> resemble our true rockets today) were. I admit these by definition are
> "rockets", since the definition is:
>
> " a firework consisting of a case partly filled with a combustible
> composition fastened to a guiding stick and propelled through the air by
> the rearward discharge of the gases liberated by combustion b : a
> similar device used as an incendiary weapon or as a propelling unit (as
> for a lifesaving line)"
There are some fireworks which are essentially model rockets.
While ancient chinese military rockets did have guide fins,
so called lifesaving line and firework rockets don't
necessarily have fins. On the fourth of July, the firework
rockets used on the Washington DC Mall don't use fins
either - but these firework rockets are fired from a hollow
tube like military mortar cannons. However, modern firework
rocket and life saving line rockets should not be confused
with the military rockets used by the ancient chinese.
> But those rockets could not carry sizeable payloads, could not go to
> very high altitudes and were incapable of advancing the science of
> rocketry with the limited physics and mathematics foundation of the
> times. I don't think of the Saturn V as a "big firework" at all.
Neither Payload nor no minimum flight length requirements
define what is or is not a rocket.
Ancient chinese military rockets were not fireworks either.
...
>
> Have they finished spending money on their moon and mars projects? No.
However, you can use inductive reasoning to say that
the Chinese Space Program is currently spending far
less than either the USA model and that its current
designs are more similar to the less expensive Soviet
Space program.
People in the USA have talked about sending a man to
mars for years and years and years but have we sent
a man to mars? No.
Just cause people talk about stuff doesn't mean they'll
do it. Call me a skeptic or cynical but I think believing
that such a things is going to happen (atleast in my lifetime)
is just pie-and-the-sky naive.
...
> Not if you listen to state run Chinese television. It's full of fantasy.
But you don't have to believe in everything
to see and hear on the boob tube do you?
> > .....
> >> > The cost of the US space program was extremely high
> >> > because of the cost to send a man to the moon. if
> >> > we had just sent robots it would have been much
> >> > cheaper.
> >>
> >>
> >> False premise. The cost is relative given that nobody had ever done
> >> what had to be done - put a man on the moon *and* return him. Entire
> >> industries and supporting infrastructures had to be created just to
> >> support the mission. Cutting edge technology had to b
> >
> > Not really.
> > Justifying the expenditure doesn't erase the price tag.
>
> But ignoring the period that these costs were incurred and comparing it
> to the present is unfair and misleading.
no, it is not.
Initially, all you wanted was to compare relative cost between the
chinese/soviet to the USA space programs. Now that you realize
that the chinese space program missions could be different
than the USA programs (and also have a smaller price tag) you're
reverting to justification cost by the different USA mission.
Your original argument has morphed into a comparision of apples
vs. oranges. First of all, China's space program is cheaper
because it got a jump start with mainly soviet technology
(and probably some US know-how as well ). Second of all,
the Chinese space program is cheaper because it is still
in its infancy so it hasn't had much time to spend money
in the first place. Thirdly, the Chinese budget for its
space program is much smaller than the USA budget so their
space program can't spend that much anyway. And lastly, the
Chinese are spending less because sofar their completed
missions have been less ambitious and less expensive than ours.
NASA's interplanetary unmanned exploration satellites
(Mariner/Mar Explorer/Hubble Telescope) were made fairly
inexpensively compared to our manned space programs
(Gemini,Apollo,Space Station, Space Shuttle, International
Space Station). I believe the Chinese could do something
similar but using far cheaper components, using cheaper labor
( geez, isn't that what the Chinese are good at?).
Personally, I think the Chinese government is watching
their dollar much more carefully than you think they are
and that their space program will eventually try to tie
itself more closely to some sort of revenue source like
the communication satellite industry inorder to garner
more funding and curry favor with government officials.
Since nothing is more glorious to the socialist
revolutionary cause than the bring in the almighty
dollar. (9_9)
> > We could
> > have save alot of money by just using robots but national
> > pride, fear of russian military dominance in space,
> > our fascination with scientfic innovation, and the
> > fact that our country is very wealth got us to the
> > moon.
>
> As you know Walter, robotics was nowhere near the level of
> sophistication back then to allow for any practical space usage like we
> see today.
Early space flight didn't need sophisicated robots.
Most of the early manned space flights were controlled
from earth via radio controls. Radio controlled
robots (teleoperator non-automatons) would have been
cheaper and less risker than sending men into space.
beernuts
"Fireworks", not "firecrackers". The term "rockets" includes fireworks:
"fireworks are the oldest form of rockets" - http://inventors.about.com/
library/inventors/blrocketfirework.htm#gunpowder
However, there is historical evidence to show that the ancient Greeks,
not the Chinese, were the first to construct and use what could
technically be termed a "rocket":
"One of the first devices to successfully employ the principles
essential to rocket flight was a wooden bird. The writings of Aulus
Gellius, a Roman, tell a story of a Greek named Archytas who lived in
the city of Tarentum, now a part of southern Italy. Somewhere around the
year 400 B.C., Archytas mystified and amused the citizens of Tarentum by
flying a pigeon made of wood. Escaping steam propelled the bird
suspended on wires. The pigeon used the action-reaction principle, which
was not stated as a scientific law until the 17th century." - http://
inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrockethistory.htm
"About three hundred years after the pigeon, another Greek, Hero of
Alexandria, invented a similar rocket-like device called an aeolipile.
It, too, used steam as a propulsive gas. Hero mounted a sphere on top
of a water kettle. A fire below the kettle turned the water into steam,
and the gas traveled through pipes to the sphere. Two L-shaped tubes on
opposite sides of the sphere allowed the gas to escape, and in doing so
gave a thrust to the sphere that caused it to rotate." -http://inventors.
about.com/library/inventors/blrockethistory.htm
And finally, "Just when the first true rockets appeared is unclear.
Stories of early rocket-like devices appear sporadically through the
historical records of various cultures. Perhaps the first true rockets
were accidents. In the first century A.D., the Chinese reportedly had a
simple form of gunpowder made from saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal dust.
To create explosions during religious festivals, they filled bamboo
tubes with a mixture and tossed them into fires. Perhaps some of those
tubes failed to explode and instead skittered out of the fires,
propelled by the gases and sparks produced by the burning gunpowder."
Which directly contradicts your firm position that only the Chinese
invented rockets. And regardless of ancient "rocket" inventor or nation
of origin, I am and have always stated that I am talking about modern
rockets, and I still submit that they are different enough in their
power, design and usability to distinguish them from ancient Chinese or
for that matter, Greek "rockets".
> In addition to the fins and the nosecone, Chinese rockets also
> exhibited the fundamental design principle such as having the
> center-of-mass and center-of-gravity are some distance from
> each other ( this is a fundamental rocket flight stablity
> requirement).
The use of fins on rockets was copied from fins on arrows. Arrows pre-
date this entire discussion and their use can be tracked to ancient man
in various places in the world.
"Fins usually three set at 120 degree angles of one another or four set
at 90 degree angles of one another, had their developmental roots in
arrow feather guides." - http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/
blrocketfirework.htm#gunpowder
And that's exactly what happened in the case of many ancient Chinese
"fire arrows", since they often packed the "black powder" mixture in
such a way that made lighting it a very dangerous and risky proposition.
There is a science to solid rocket engine construction that takes into
consideration things like the mixture's grain size, surface area,
whether there's a hollow space in the center, the durability of the
nozzle, etc, etc. You can do a search on Google if you like, but the
fact remains that these ancient Chinese "rockets" were and still are
considered very unreliable and even dangerous to use. Many are believed
to have failed during use based on the available information we have
found that indicates how they were designed.
> One does not use pipe
> bombs to create model rockets. The propellent in model rocket
> engine is very similar to gunpowder (except for one key
> difference - do you know what it is?)
Well, for one thing, salt peter (potassium nitrate) was a key ingredient
in the ancient "black powder" mixture used by the Chinese. That
ingredient, which is one of three main components used in the original
"black powder" mixture (the others being sulfur and charcoal), offered
enough oxygen in its molecular formula to provide the basics of an
oxidataion-reduciton reaction. However, by the early 19th century,
other ingredients started replacing salt peter, specifically potassium
chlorate. This had a higher specific impulse power than saltpeter. In
either case, saltpeter or potassium chlorate, both act as an oxidizing
agent. Today, solid rocket motors often use much more powerful fuels
with higher specific impulses, specifically ammonium perchlorate and/or
ammonium nitrate.
Also, earlier you argued that solid fuels are more stable than liquid,
but you didn't mention the problems with solid fuels. For your
information, here they are as listed from http://inventors.about.com/
library/inventors/blrocketsolid.htm:
"Advantages/Disadvantages: Solid fueled rockets are relatively simple
rockets. This is their chief advantage, but it also has its drawbacks.
Once a solid rocket is ignited it will consume the entirety of its fuel,
without any option for shutoff or thrust adjustment. Another key
disadvantage is the danger involved in the premixed fuels of
monopropellant rockets. In the double-base homogeneous nitrocellulose-
nitroglycerin propellant, for example the nitroglycerin is too unstable (
sufficient shock will detonate) to use individually add thus a more
stable propellant like nitrocellulose (a form of gunpowder) is added.
Composite engines, having the fuel and oxidizer as separately mixed
elements, are less sensitive to shock and therefore safer to use. A
relatively low specific impulse limits the use of solid rockets when
large amounts of thrust precondition. The Saturn V moon rocket used
nearly 8 million pounds of thrust that would not have been feasible with
the use of solid propellant, requiring a high specific impulse liquid
propellant."
>- in fact some kids
> have been know to try to extract the rocket fuel propellent
> in order to create pipebombs (which is a very dangerous
> operation. I once read about a boy from the DC suburbs who
> blew off his arm attempting to do this). Model rocket kits
> don't require much scientific or mathematical skill - but
> it does requires proficiency in reading instructions
> and oftent some manual skill/craftsmanship (some model
> rockets have prefabricated wings and nose cone assemblies
> so there is no craftsmanship skill required).
It does if you want to understand how things work - a key ingredient for
entering a science contest (or for putting a Chinese astronaut in space) :)
But also, a key factor for understanding what it is you're doing and how
things are going to work. I still remember my Estes manuals being way
over my head at the age of 10, but my father helping me understand how
to take basic measurements before launching and trying to predict the
direction and other outcomes from the launch - using simple mathetmatics
and physics. I remember we successfully predicted some basic outcomes
from each launch using these tools.
> Model rocketry
> can require some mathematical skills (elementary telemetry)
> and some physics ( designing a model rocket from scratch)
> but its not a necessary requirement. Ancient Chinese rockets
> only required a fundamental understanding of rocket
> flight - it would take another 500 years before Dr. Goddard
> would make any significant advancement in rocket engineering.
>
Actually, here's where your missing some information. There were
several noted rocket advances made *before* Goddard. Names like
Congreve, Hale, Zasiadko come to mind. Check Google...
>
>
>> Again, I disagree that modern
>> rockets as we know them today were invented by the Chinese.
>> Fireworks and ancient rocket shaped devices using gunpowder (several
>> of which resemble our true rockets today) were. I admit these by
>> definition are "rockets", since the definition is: " a firework
>> consisting of a case partly filled with a combustible composition
>> fastened to a guiding stick and propelled through the air by the
>> rearward discharge of the gases liberated by combustion b : a
>> similar device used as an incendiary weapon or as a propelling unit (
>> as for a lifesaving line)"
>
> There are some fireworks which are essentially model rockets.
> While ancient chinese military rockets did have guide fins,
> so called lifesaving line and firework rockets don't
> necessarily have fins.
True, because the line was long enough to offer marginal stability to
not need fins.
> On the fourth of July, the firework
> rockets used on the Washington DC Mall don't use fins
> either - but these firework rockets are fired from a hollow
> tube like military mortar cannons. However, modern firework
> rocket and life saving line rockets should not be confused
> with the military rockets used by the ancient chinese.
Yes, but by your own very definition, and the dictionary and about.com,
these are all "rockets". These are not "modern rockets".
>
>
>
>> But those rockets could not carry sizeable payloads, could not go to
>> very high altitudes and were incapable of advancing the science of
>> rocketry with the limited physics and mathematics foundation of the
>> times. I don't think of the Saturn V as a "big firework" at all.
>
> Neither Payload nor no minimum flight length requirements
> define what is or is not a rocket.
As I've said ad nuaseum now, I am talking about modern rockets that can
do real, practial work. Like launch payloads and people into outer
space. Or, launch a nuclear warhead from one side of the world and hit
the other (i.e. ICBM). I'm not talking about ancient Chinese or Greek
"rockets".
> Ancient chinese military rockets were not fireworks either.
>
> ....
>>
>> Have they finished spending money on their moon and mars projects?
>> No.
>
> However, you can use inductive reasoning to say that
> the Chinese Space Program is currently spending far
> less than either the USA model and that its current
> designs are more similar to the less expensive Soviet
> Space program.
Again, totally unfair comparison since the Chinese space program has
been greatly aided by the technology differences between the tools today
and the tools used by both the US and USSR decades ago. Not to mention
the research and data the Chinese have been able to employ to help jump
start their program that they didn't have to generate on their own.
>
> People in the USA have talked about sending a man to
> mars for years and years and years but have we sent
> a man to mars? No.
The US is the only country in the world to have landed a robot on Mars.
There are still several complications with sending a man that far that
need to be worked out before it can happen. There are also budget
issues that need to be addressed. But none of this has anything to do
with my point about the *ultimate* cost of the Chinese space program.
>>
>> But ignoring the period that these costs were incurred and comparing
>> it to the present is unfair and misleading.
>
> no, it is not.
>
> Initially, all you wanted was to compare relative cost between the
> chinese/soviet to the USA space programs.
No. It was you who tried to draw a comparison in cost terms. I pointed
out that this was and is unfair because you failed to take into account
basic differences that any fair comparison between space programs would
have made. I've already stated what those are.
> Now that you realize
> that the chinese space program missions could be different
> than the USA programs (and also have a smaller price tag) you're
> reverting to justification cost by the different USA mission.
Actually, that is not true at all. I did no such thing.
> Your original argument has morphed into a comparision of apples
> vs. oranges. First of all, China's space program is cheaper
> because it got a jump start with mainly soviet technology
> (and probably some US know-how as well ).
Hello? That is *my* point. You never took that into account with your
sweeping comparison between costs until I brought it up.
> Second of all,
> the Chinese space program is cheaper because it is still
> in its infancy so it hasn't had much time to spend money
> in the first place. Thirdly, the Chinese budget for its
> space program is much smaller than the USA budget so their
> space program can't spend that much anyway. And lastly, the
> Chinese are spending less because sofar their completed
> missions have been less ambitious and less expensive than ours.
Walter, you need to understand something here. The budget for the
Chinese space program is, like many aspects of their program, considered
a state secret. Nobody knows exactly what the total cost to the PRC,
but it's thought to be more than the "official" government figures would
suggest.
>
> NASA's interplanetary unmanned exploration satellites
> (Mariner/Mar Explorer/Hubble Telescope) were made fairly
> inexpensively compared to our manned space programs
> (Gemini,Apollo,Space Station, Space Shuttle, International
> Space Station). I believe the Chinese could do something
> similar but using far cheaper components, using cheaper labor
> ( geez, isn't that what the Chinese are good at?).
As long as they're trying to repeat history, yes. Unfortunately, it's
still an unfair comparison because you insist on comparing what had to
be done in the 50s, 60's and 70s that nobody had ever tried before with
something that has been perfected by the west and is now being bought or
made cheaper decades later by the PRC.
> Early space flight didn't need sophisicated robots.
> Most of the early manned space flights were controlled
> from earth via radio controls. Radio controlled
> robots (teleoperator non-automatons) would have been
> cheaper and less risker than sending men into space.
>
Oh, ok...
Drydem
While fireworks can be rockets and some of the oldest rockets
are thought to have been used as fireworks, fireworks are not
necessarily rockets. A Roman candle is defined as a firework
in Washington DC but it is not a rocket. Fireworks rockets is
meant to explode in mid-air into an array of colors at night.
A rocket carrying an artificial satellite does not explode in
mid-air. If all rockets were fireworks then all model rocketry
would be banned in Maryland (which it is not ).
> However, there is historical evidence to show that the ancient Greeks,
> not the Chinese, were the first to construct and use what could
> technically be termed a "rocket":
>
> "One of the first devices to successfully employ the principles
> essential to rocket flight was a wooden bird. The writings of Aulus
> Gellius, a Roman, tell a story of a Greek named Archytas who lived in
> the city of Tarentum, now a part of southern Italy. Somewhere around the
> year 400 B.C., Archytas mystified and amused the citizens of Tarentum by
> flying a pigeon made of wood. Escaping steam propelled the bird
> suspended on wires. The pigeon used the action-reaction principle, which
> was not stated as a scientific law until the 17th century." - http://
> inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrockethistory.htm
Sorry but that's not a rocket.
------------------------------
The description is of a water vapor jet propulsion which
would not be as fast or as hot as gases from a controlled
explosion used by a rocket engine. (2) Rocket flight is
not guided by tension wires/tethers but by its body
(cm/cg ratio) and fins. A bird depends on its wings
to create lift to generate flight. A rocket depend on its
rocket engine's thrust to create lift to generate flight.
>
> "About three hundred years after the pigeon, another Greek, Hero of
> Alexandria, invented a similar rocket-like device called an aeolipile.
> It, too, used steam as a propulsive gas. Hero mounted a sphere on top
> of a water kettle. A fire below the kettle turned the water into steam,
> and the gas traveled through pipes to the sphere. Two L-shaped tubes on
> opposite sides of the sphere allowed the gas to escape, and in doing so
> gave a thrust to the sphere that caused it to rotate." -http://inventors.
> about.com/library/inventors/blrockethistory.htm
A steam driven sphere fixed to the ground might
look rocket-like to a simpleton but it is not a rocket.
....
>
> And finally, "Just when the first true rockets appeared is unclear.
> Stories of early rocket-like devices appear sporadically through the
> historical records of various cultures. Perhaps the first true rockets
> were accidents. In the first century A.D., the Chinese reportedly had a
> simple form of gunpowder made from saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal dust.
> To create explosions during religious festivals, they filled bamboo
> tubes with a mixture and tossed them into fires. Perhaps some of those
> tubes failed to explode and instead skittered out of the fires,
> propelled by the gases and sparks produced by the burning gunpowder."
> Which directly contradicts your firm position that only the Chinese
> invented rockets. And regardless of ancient "rocket" inventor or nation
> of origin, I am and have always stated that I am talking about modern
> rockets, and I still submit that they are different enough in their
> power, design and usability to distinguish them from ancient Chinese or
> for that matter, Greek "rockets".
Your source appears prejudicial. While there is evidence that
Greek did create steam driven toys but they did not
invent any rockets. Changing the definition of a rocket
every time to avoid given the ancient chinese credit is
unfair and prejudicial.
> > In addition to the fins and the nosecone, Chinese rockets also
> > exhibited the fundamental design principle such as having the
> > center-of-mass and center-of-gravity are some distance from
> > each other ( this is a fundamental rocket flight stablity
> > requirement).
>
> The use of fins on rockets was copied from fins on arrows. Arrows pre-
> date this entire discussion and their use can be tracked to ancient man
> in various places in the world.
>
> "Fins usually three set at 120 degree angles of one another or four set
> at 90 degree angles of one another, had their developmental roots in
> arrow feather guides." - http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/
> blrocketfirework.htm#gunpowder
Rockets and the arrow share fundamental design elements
because they depend thrust not wings for flight. However,
arrows and rockets are not the same since they use
different thrust mechanisms.
> And that's exactly what happened in the case of many ancient Chinese
> "fire arrows", since they often packed the "black powder" mixture in
> such a way that made lighting it a very dangerous and risky proposition.
> There is a science to solid rocket engine construction that takes into
> consideration things like the mixture's grain size, surface area,
> whether there's a hollow space in the center, the durability of the
> nozzle, etc, etc. You can do a search on Google if you like, but the
> fact remains that these ancient Chinese "rockets" were and still are
> considered very unreliable and even dangerous to use. Many are believed
> to have failed during use based on the available information we have
> found that indicates how they were designed.
There is very little historical evidence remaining on
ancient chinese military rockets but the evidence that
I previously read did not indicated the ancient chinese
military rocket were any more unreliable or dangerous
as the 1800s British Rockets (Congreve) used to
attack Fort McHenry, Maryland. Your sources appear to
be biased and to be of questionable historical accuracy.
Translation of Chinese text suggest that the ancient
Chinese use rockets as a shock-and-awe weapon that
was used in the initial stage of the battle to create
confusion and fear, e.g. some rockets were equipped
with sound-making devices to distract the enemy. Not
much information has been found on the internal design
of ancient chinese rockets nor has anyone uncovered
any ancient chinese military rockets in any archealogical
exploration sofar so the details that you
elude to about the ancient chinese military rocket
engine's internal design is only mere conjecture.
>
> > One does not use pipe
> > bombs to create model rockets. The propellent in model rocket
> > engine is very similar to gunpowder (except for one key
> > difference - do you know what it is?)
>
> Well, for one thing, salt peter (potassium nitrate) was a key ingredient
> in the ancient "black powder" mixture used by the Chinese. That
> ingredient, which is one of three main components used in the original
> "black powder" mixture (the others being sulfur and charcoal), offered
> enough oxygen in its molecular formula to provide the basics of an
> oxidataion-reduciton reaction.....
Modern model rocket engines include an extra solid pellet
chemical that releases additional oxygen to ensure that
the propellent burns uniformly and quickly. IIRC once
a model rocket engine is ignited the propellent should
be able to burn completely to the end underwater.
> Also, earlier you argued that solid fuels are more stable than liquid,
> but you didn't mention the problems with solid fuels. For your
> information, here they are as listed from http://inventors.about.com/
> library/inventors/blrocketsolid.htm:
>
> "Advantages/Disadvantages: Solid fueled rockets are relatively simple
> rockets. This is their chief advantage, but it also has its drawbacks.
> Once a solid rocket is ignited it will consume the entirety of its fuel,
> without any option for shutoff or thrust adjustment. Another key
> disadvantage is the danger involved in the premixed fuels of
> monopropellant rockets. In the double-base homogeneous nitrocellulose-
> nitroglycerin propellant, for example the nitroglycerin is too unstable (
> sufficient shock will detonate) to use individually add thus a more
> stable propellant like nitrocellulose (a form of gunpowder) is added.
> Composite engines, having the fuel and oxidizer as separately mixed
> elements, are less sensitive to shock and therefore safer to use. A
> relatively low specific impulse limits the use of solid rockets when
> large amounts of thrust precondition. The Saturn V moon rocket used
> nearly 8 million pounds of thrust that would not have been feasible with
> the use of solid propellant, requiring a high specific impulse liquid
> propellant."
Solid propellent do have come with performance and
operational/engineering compromises. I've never heard of
nitroglycerin being used as a solid rocket fuel
propellents. Nitrocellulose is used in TNT which is
fairly stable. IIRC modern hi explosives can deployed in
stable forms as well. ( one of the reasons I don't fault
the Chinese for tightly controlling security at their launching
facility is that I never lose sight that all rocket engines are
still potential explosive). I agree that solid rocket engines
don't have the same operational flexiblity or the same thrust
potential as a liquid fuel rocket. I agree that the USA
Saturn V rocket used liquid fuel engines because of the
greater thrust potential over solid rocket engines.
One of the reason I doubt the Chinese would be sending
a manned mission to Mars or to the Moon is because their
flagship space program rocket engine the "Long March" would
not be capable of sending much of a payload to Mars or the
Moon - especially if it was going to be a round-trip affair.
> > Model rocketry
> > can require some mathematical skills (elementary telemetry)
> > and some physics ( designing a model rocket from scratch)
> > but its not a necessary requirement. Ancient Chinese rockets
> > only required a fundamental understanding of rocket
> > flight - it would take another 500 years before Dr. Goddard
> > would make any significant advancement in rocket engineering.
> >
>
> Actually, here's where your missing some information. There were
> several noted rocket advances made *before* Goddard. Names like
> Congreve, Hale, Zasiadko come to mind. Check Google...
Actually, the Chinese Fire Arrows were documented as early
as the 10th Century, but the Chinese military rockets that
I remember reading about were used successfully by Genghis
Khan and Kublai Khan around the 14th century. Congreve Rockets
which were used in the british naval bombardment of Fort
McHenry (Baltimore, Maryland, War of 1812?). Beyond inspiring the
"Star Bangle Banner" Congreve Rockets were not very special.
Some were as big 6 feet long but they were still just simple
rockets mounted on a stick (fired from a ramp) and they were
not a significant advancement in rocket engineering. The Civil
War Hale rocket used three internal spinning vanes to generate
stablity but its design was eventually dropped for external
fins/vane. Never heard of Zasiadko. Please take note that
my assertion is with respect to "significant advancement in
rocket engineering" so the key to get me to agree with you
is to show there there was a significant engineering
(not theoretical) advancement in the performance or operational
capability with respect the rocket subsystems: (1) rocket
Propulsion/engine system, (2) rocket control/guidance system
(3) Rocket motor configuration (e.g. multi-stage rocket systems).
Goddard fullfills those requirement because he developed an
actual working device that demostrates the engineering concept.
Theory is not enough.
> As I've said ad nuaseum now, I am talking about modern rockets that can
> do real, practial work. Like launch payloads and people into outer
> space.
> Or, launch a nuclear warhead from one side of the world and hit
> the other (i.e. ICBM). I'm not talking about ancient Chinese or Greek
> "rockets".
The Ancient Chinese Rockets sometimes did carry a payload
albeit from what I've read it was probably less than a
kilograms or so (incindary devices, noise makers). Even
18th century military rocket payloads were not much more,
e.g. a Congreve's Rocket could hurl 12 pounds. Goddard's
Rockets were experimental and didn't weight that much either.
His rockets were important not because of its payload
capability but because his rockets were working liquid fuel
engines. If modern rockets is all about payload then the
WWII German V-2 rocket, the Japanese (kamakazi rocket planes),
and Germans interceptor(sucide) rocket planes would be
the first modern rockets. If we add the requirement that
modern rocket would have to lauch payloads and people into
outerspace then the first modern rocket would be by the
Soviet Union (USSR) - eliminating rockets made by
Goddard, Von Braun, Congreve, and Hale.
> > However, you can use inductive reasoning to say that
> > the Chinese Space Program is currently spending far
> > less than either the USA model and that its current
> > designs are more similar to the less expensive Soviet
> > Space program.
>
> Again, totally unfair comparison since the Chinese space program has
> been greatly aided by the technology differences between the tools today
> and the tools used by both the US and USSR decades ago....
Reality can be unfair - but facts are facts.
The Chinese Space Program is less costly and
less extensive than ours.
beernuts
> beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <20031122131...@news.verizon.net>...
>> In <8a523498.0311...@posting.google.com> Drydem wrote:
>> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> > <20031121215...@news.verizon.net>...
>> >> In <8a523498.03112...@posting.google.com> Drydem wrote:
>> >> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> >> > <20031114203...@news.verizon.net>...
>> >> >> In <8a523498.03111...@posting.google.com> Drydem
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> >> >> > <20031113232...@news.verizon.net>...
>> >> >> >> In <8a523498.03111...@posting.google.com> Drydem
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> >> >> >> > <20031110233...@news.verizon.net>...
>> >> >> >> >> In <a2Wrb.45429$Ec1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.
>
> While fireworks can be rockets and some of the oldest rockets
> are thought to have been used as fireworks, fireworks are not
> necessarily rockets.
I did not say all fireworks are by definition rockets. Also, while
generally similar, "fireworks" and "firecrackers" are different things (
in my mind anyway), and that was the point. Also, I did not say
something had to be a rocket to be a "firework".
> A Roman candle is defined as a firework
> in Washington DC but it is not a rocket.
That's because a Roman Candle has a very different purpose than a rocket.
An RC ejects "stars" out of a tube and the tube itself does not lift off
the ground and fly in the air. Conceptually, it's not that different
from a small cannon with multiple chambers launching multiple rounds in
the air.
> Fireworks rockets is
> meant to explode in mid-air into an array of colors at night.
According to your own reasoning, this still is a "rocket".
> A rocket carrying an artificial satellite does not explode in
> mid-air. If all rockets were fireworks then all model rocketry
> would be banned in Maryland (which it is not ).
By your own very definition of "rocket" one can say fireworks include
rockets but not all fireworks are rockets. By *your* own very argument
earlier in the thread, rockets used for fireworks today (which are a
direct descendant of ancient Chinese ceremonial rockets) *are* the same
basic rocket as what you've mentioned above for carrying a satellite
into space. Adding the ability for the rocket to explode doesn't take
away from the very points you first argued concerning rockets of ancient
Chinese origin vs. those today.
>
>
>> However, there is historical evidence to show that the ancient Greeks,
>> not the Chinese, were the first to construct and use what could
>> technically be termed a "rocket":
>>
>> "One of the first devices to successfully employ the principles
>> essential to rocket flight was a wooden bird. The writings of Aulus
>> Gellius, a Roman, tell a story of a Greek named Archytas who lived in
>> the city of Tarentum, now a part of southern Italy. Somewhere around
>> the year 400 B.C., Archytas mystified and amused the citizens of
>> Tarentum by flying a pigeon made of wood. Escaping steam propelled
>> the bird suspended on wires. The pigeon used the action-reaction
>> principle, which was not stated as a scientific law until the 17th
>> century." - http:// inventors.about.com/library/inventors/
>> blrockethistory.htm
>
>
> Sorry but that's not a rocket.
> ------------------------------
> The description is of a water vapor jet propulsion which
> would not be as fast or as hot as gases from a controlled
> explosion used by a rocket engine. (2) Rocket flight is
> not guided by tension wires/tethers but by its body
> (cm/cg ratio) and fins. A bird depends on its wings
> to create lift to generate flight. A rocket depend on its
> rocket engine's thrust to create lift to generate flight.
Wait, now *you're* being selective in technology application?? Hmm...
sounds similar to my original point.
IMO, it's as legitimate to compare this ancient Greek creation with
ancient Chinese rockets as it is to compare ancient Chinese rockets with
modern rockets capable of putting men in space. Actually, my comparison
is probaly more legit since the abilities of the bird and those of the
ancient Chinese rockets are a hell of a lot closer than the abilities of
said ancient Chinese rockets and the V2, Saturn V, or even Long March.
Anyway, the website makes the point that this very basic device of Greek
origin used the action-reaction principal that is a core requirement for
any "rocket" device to function. I agree that steam is not the same as
an oxidation-reduction reacion, but it is a form of propulsion and this
rocket-pigeon exihibited the same action-reaction principals as a
gunpowder based propulsion, as the web site points out.
Also, your point about a real bird's wings and how it uses them serves
as nothing but red herring here.
>
>
>>
>> "About three hundred years after the pigeon, another Greek, Hero of
>> Alexandria, invented a similar rocket-like device called an aeolipile.
>> It, too, used steam as a propulsive gas. Hero mounted a sphere on
>> top of a water kettle. A fire below the kettle turned the water into
>> steam, and the gas traveled through pipes to the sphere. Two L-
>> shaped tubes on opposite sides of the sphere allowed the gas to
>> escape, and in doing so gave a thrust to the sphere that caused it
>> to rotate." -http://inventors. about.com/library/inventors/
>> blrockethistory.htm
>
> A steam driven sphere fixed to the ground might
> look rocket-like to a simpleton but it is not a rocket.
Again, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Now,
all of a sudden, you back off your liberal inclusion of what can be a
"rocket" (basically implying that ancient Chinese rockets and rockets
like the Saturn V are the same thing), yet you're not willing to make a
much shorter leap of logical faith in comparing an ancient Greek
"rocket" with an another ancient rocket created by the Chinese.
>
> .....
>>
>> And finally, "Just when the first true rockets appeared is unclear.
>> Stories of early rocket-like devices appear sporadically through the
>> historical records of various cultures. Perhaps the first true
>> rockets were accidents. In the first century A.D., the Chinese
>> reportedly had a simple form of gunpowder made from saltpeter,
>> sulfur, and charcoal dust. To create explosions during religious
>> festivals, they filled bamboo tubes with a mixture and tossed them
>> into fires. Perhaps some of those tubes failed to explode and
>> instead skittered out of the fires, propelled by the gases and
>> sparks produced by the burning gunpowder." Which directly contradicts
>> your firm position that only the Chinese invented rockets. And
>> regardless of ancient "rocket" inventor or nation of origin, I am
>> and have always stated that I am talking about modern rockets, and I
>> still submit that they are different enough in their power, design
>> and usability to distinguish them from ancient Chinese or for that
>> matter, Greek "rockets".
>
>
> Your source appears prejudicial.
C'mon Walter, surely you can do better than that. How about a reason,
like why is it biased, instead of "appears"? Is it because you disagree
with it or do you have another, more sound reason? This info was all
culled from the about.com network, a very well known, well regarded web
site that's even used as a teaching aid for schools. Besides, why
should I believe you're not the one being biased here?
> While there is evidence that
> Greek did create steam driven toys but they did not
> invent any rockets. Changing the definition of a rocket
> every time to avoid given the ancient chinese credit is
> unfair and prejudicial.
I'm not changing my definition. In fact, unlike you, I've yet to define
what a "rocket" is in specific limiting terms (I've let web sites do
that for me so far). And, as I've said before, my argument was with
your comparing ancient Chinese rockets to modern rockets, and now we've
taken the discussion into what is a rocket. Also, we've been discussing *
your* definition which tries to play both sides of the coin,
disregarding technological differences to underscore the basic
principals in common on the one hand (i.e. between ancient Chinese
rockets and modern rockets), while ignoring principals in common to
underscore differences in technology and features on the other (ancient
Greek "rockets" and ancient Chinese "rockets"). Have cake, eating it,
too.
>
>
>> > In addition to the fins and the nosecone, Chinese rockets also
>> > exhibited the fundamental design principle such as having the
>> > center-of-mass and center-of-gravity are some distance from
>> > each other ( this is a fundamental rocket flight stablity
>> > requirement).
>>
>> The use of fins on rockets was copied from fins on arrows. Arrows
>> pre- date this entire discussion and their use can be tracked to
>> ancient man in various places in the world. "Fins usually three set
>> at 120 degree angles of one another or four set at 90 degree angles
>> of one another, had their developmental roots in arrow feather
>> guides." - http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/
>> blrocketfirework.htm#gunpowder
>
>
> Rockets and the arrow share fundamental design elements
> because they depend thrust not wings for flight. However,
> arrows and rockets are not the same since they use
> different thrust mechanisms.
Irrelevant. You attempted to attribute the invention of fins on rockets
for stability to the ancient Chinese, even though fins on arrows were
used for the exact same reason and this usage dates back to ancient man
hunting with bows and arrows (with fins)
>
>
>> And that's exactly what happened in the case of many ancient Chinese
>> "fire arrows", since they often packed the "black powder" mixture in
>> such a way that made lighting it a very dangerous and risky
>> proposition. There is a science to solid rocket engine construction
>> that takes into consideration things like the mixture's grain size,
>> surface area, whether there's a hollow space in the center, the
>> durability of the nozzle, etc, etc. You can do a search on Google
>> if you like, but the fact remains that these ancient Chinese
>> "rockets" were and still are considered very unreliable and even
>> dangerous to use. Many are believed to have failed during use based
>> on the available information we have found that indicates how they
>> were designed.
>
>
> There is very little historical evidence remaining on
> ancient chinese military rockets but the evidence that
> I previously read did not indicated the ancient chinese
> military rocket were any more unreliable or dangerous
> as the 1800s British Rockets (Congreve) used to
> attack Fort McHenry, Maryland.
Then you need to read some more. I found numerous sources stating that
the designs of the ancient Chinese rockets we've been talking about were
haphazard and *often failed* (as in *Boom*).
> Your sources appear to
> be biased and to be of questionable historical accuracy.
This accusation offers no weight to back it up and beyond that, is aimed
at a well known website that's highly regarded as a learning tool.
Therefore, I have to say your argument here is not very compelling at
all.
> Translation of Chinese text suggest that the ancient
> Chinese use rockets as a shock-and-awe weapon that
> was used in the initial stage of the battle to create
> confusion and fear, e.g. some rockets were equipped
> with sound-making devices to distract the enemy. Not
> much information has been found on the internal design
> of ancient chinese rockets nor has anyone uncovered
> any ancient chinese military rockets in any archealogical
> exploration sofar so the details that you
> elude to about the ancient chinese military rocket
> engine's internal design is only mere conjecture.
"Not much information"? Well, I guess sites like "About.com" somehow
uncovered the "not much" part.
>
>> > One does not use pipe
>> > bombs to create model rockets. The propellent in model rocket
>> > engine is very similar to gunpowder (except for one key
>> > difference - do you know what it is?)
>>
>> Well, for one thing, salt peter (potassium nitrate) was a key
>> ingredient in the ancient "black powder" mixture used by the Chinese.
>> That ingredient, which is one of three main components used in the
>> original "black powder" mixture (the others being sulfur and
>> charcoal), offered enough oxygen in its molecular formula to provide
>> the basics of an oxidataion-reduciton reaction.....
>
> Modern model rocket engines include an extra solid pellet
> chemical that releases additional oxygen to ensure that
> the propellent burns uniformly and quickly. IIRC once
> a model rocket engine is ignited the propellent should
> be able to burn completely to the end underwater.
As I mentioned before, there is an entire science surrounding the
ingredients, shape and design attributes of solid fuel for rockets.
However, most use the same oxidation-reduction reaction principal for
their impulse power, just like gunpowder.
>
>
>> Also, earlier you argued that solid fuels are more stable than liquid,
>> but you didn't mention the problems with solid fuels. For your
>> information, here they are as listed from http://inventors.about.com/
>> library/inventors/blrocketsolid.htm:
>>
>> "Advantages/Disadvantages: Solid fueled rockets are relatively simple
>> rockets. This is their chief advantage, but it also has its drawbacks.
>> Once a solid rocket is ignited it will consume the entirety of its
>> fuel, without any option for shutoff or thrust adjustment. Another
>> key disadvantage is the danger involved in the premixed fuels of
>> monopropellant rockets. In the double-base homogeneous nitrocellulose-
>> nitroglycerin propellant, for example the nitroglycerin is too
>> unstable ( sufficient shock will detonate) to use individually add
>> thus a more stable propellant like nitrocellulose (a form of
>> gunpowder) is added. Composite engines, having the fuel and oxidizer
>> as separately mixed elements, are less sensitive to shock and
>> therefore safer to use. A relatively low specific impulse limits the
>> use of solid rockets when large amounts of thrust precondition. The
>> Saturn V moon rocket used nearly 8 million pounds of thrust that
>> would not have been feasible with the use of solid propellant,
>> requiring a high specific impulse liquid propellant."
>
>
> Solid propellent do have come with performance and
> operational/engineering compromises.
Yes, huge.
> I've never heard of
> nitroglycerin being used as a solid rocket fuel
> propellents. Nitrocellulose is used in TNT which is
> fairly stable. IIRC modern hi explosives can deployed in
> stable forms as well. ( one of the reasons I don't fault
> the Chinese for tightly controlling security at their launching
> facility is that I never lose sight that all rocket engines are
> still potential explosive).
But they didn't even allow live video Walter. Believe me when I tell
you they were doing everything they could to save face if the worst
happened.
> I agree that solid rocket engines
> don't have the same operational flexiblity or the same thrust
> potential as a liquid fuel rocket. I agree that the USA
> Saturn V rocket used liquid fuel engines because of the
> greater thrust potential over solid rocket engines.
>
> One of the reason I doubt the Chinese would be sending
> a manned mission to Mars or to the Moon is because their
> flagship space program rocket engine the "Long March" would
> not be capable of sending much of a payload to Mars or the
> Moon - especially if it was going to be a round-trip affair.
Who said they'd be using the LM rocket for this purpose? From all the
reports I've read over the last year or two, the Chinese *do* plan to go
to the moon, and ultimately, to Mars. They are currently soliciting
help from other countries to do just that.
>
>
>> > Model rocketry
>> > can require some mathematical skills (elementary telemetry)
>> > and some physics ( designing a model rocket from scratch)
>> > but its not a necessary requirement. Ancient Chinese rockets
>> > only required a fundamental understanding of rocket
>> > flight - it would take another 500 years before Dr. Goddard
>> > would make any significant advancement in rocket engineering.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, here's where your missing some information. There were
>> several noted rocket advances made *before* Goddard. Names like
>> Congreve, Hale, Zasiadko come to mind. Check Google...
>
> Actually, the Chinese Fire Arrows were documented as early
> as the 10th Century, but the Chinese military rockets that
> I remember reading about were used successfully by Genghis
> Khan and Kublai Khan around the 14th century. Congreve Rockets
> which were used in the british naval bombardment of Fort
> McHenry (Baltimore, Maryland, War of 1812?). Beyond inspiring the
> "Star Bangle Banner" Congreve Rockets were not very special.
> Some were as big 6 feet long but they were still just simple
> rockets mounted on a stick (fired from a ramp) and they were
> not a significant advancement in rocket engineering.
What made the Congreve rockets special was how far they went given their
weight and size. Nothing until that time had anywhere near the range
they did given their configuration and purpose.
> The Civil
> War Hale rocket used three internal spinning vanes to generate
> stablity but its design was eventually dropped for external
> fins/vane. Never heard of Zasiadko. Please take note that
> my assertion is with respect to "significant advancement in
> rocket engineering" so the key to get me to agree with you
> is to show there there was a significant engineering
> (not theoretical) advancement in the performance or operational
> capability with respect the rocket subsystems: (1) rocket
> Propulsion/engine system, (2) rocket control/guidance system
> (3) Rocket motor configuration (e.g. multi-stage rocket systems).
> Goddard fullfills those requirement because he developed an
> actual working device that demostrates the engineering concept.
> Theory is not enough.
You should not poo-poo "theoretical advancement". It was a cornerstone
in much of Goddard's pioneering research in high altitude rockets and
rocket function in a vacuum.
>
>> As I've said ad nuaseum now, I am talking about modern rockets that
>> can do real, practial work. Like launch payloads and people into
>> outer space. Or, launch a nuclear warhead from one side of the
>> world and hit the other (i.e. ICBM). I'm not talking about ancient
>> Chinese or Greek "rockets".
>
> The Ancient Chinese Rockets sometimes did carry a payload
> albeit from what I've read it was probably less than a
> kilograms or so (incindary devices, noise makers). Even
> 18th century military rocket payloads were not much more,
> e.g. a Congreve's Rocket could hurl 12 pounds. Goddard's
> Rockets were experimental and didn't weight that much either.
> His rockets were important not because of its payload
> capability but because his rockets were working liquid fuel
> engines.
There were many other important elements to his rockets (I've listed
them earlier).
> If modern rockets is all about payload then the
> WWII German V-2 rocket, the Japanese (kamakazi rocket planes),
> and Germans interceptor(sucide) rocket planes would be
> the first modern rockets.
Payload ability is critical, but not the only factor in "Modern rockets".
> If we add the requirement that
> modern rocket would have to lauch payloads and people into
> outerspace then the first modern rocket would be by the
> Soviet Union (USSR) - eliminating rockets made by
> Goddard, Von Braun, Congreve, and Hale.
Again, this is where you're ignoring the importance of theoretical
advancement by Goddard and others - the kind of advancement that made
the Russian space program possible.
>
>> > However, you can use inductive reasoning to say that
>> > the Chinese Space Program is currently spending far
>> > less than either the USA model and that its current
>> > designs are more similar to the less expensive Soviet
>> > Space program.
>>
>> Again, totally unfair comparison since the Chinese space program has
>> been greatly aided by the technology differences between the tools
>> today and the tools used by both the US and USSR decades ago....
>
> Reality can be unfair - but facts are facts.
> The Chinese Space Program is less costly and
> less extensive than ours.
>
And again, totally unfair, as you've not provided the necessary balanced
discussion required for a just comparison in price/cost terms
Drydem
...
> By your own very definition of "rocket" one can say fireworks include
> rockets but not all fireworks are rockets. By *your* own very argument
> earlier in the thread, rockets used for fireworks today (which are a
> direct descendant of ancient Chinese ceremonial rockets) *are* the same
> basic rocket as what you've mentioned above for carrying a satellite
> into space.
However, not all ancient chinese rockets were firework rockets
some were military rockets. Hence, generalizing or referencing
all chinese rockets as fireworks is incorrect and misleading.
> IMO, it's as legitimate to compare this ancient Greek creation with
> ancient Chinese rockets as it is to compare ancient Chinese rockets with
> modern rockets capable of putting men in space. Actually, my comparison
> is probaly more legit since the abilities of the bird and those of the
> ancient Chinese rockets are a hell of a lot closer than the abilities of
> said ancient Chinese rockets and the V2, Saturn V, or even Long March.
You are wrong.
A bird's ability to fly is bays on the lift it generates
from its wing (aka Bernoulii effect) a rocket's generates
its lift through thrust from escaping hot gases generated
from a burning of chemicals. The greek bird was not capable
of free flight but the ancient chinese rockets were capable
of free flight. Ancient Chinese text suggest that the
Chinese military rockets were more closely related
to the Congreve Rockets(1800s). Greek aeolipile is mention
in some rocketry books is to show that the ancient Greeks
understood basic concepts of how a jet of hot gases can
create thrust, but such toys should never be mistaken
for a rocket or a rocket motor.
> > A steam driven sphere fixed to the ground might
> > look rocket-like to a simpleton but it is not a rocket.
>
> Again, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Now,
> all of a sudden, you back off your liberal inclusion of what can be a
> "rocket" (basically implying that ancient Chinese rockets and rockets
> like the Saturn V are the same thing)..
A Saturn V, a model rocket, and the ancient chinese rockets
all flew. What are you going to do? Chuck your greek sphere
into the air and call it a rocket? RFLOL. :)
....
> > Your source appears prejudicial.
>
> C'mon Walter, surely you can do better than that. How about a reason,
> like why is it biased, instead of "appears"? Is it because you disagree
> with it or do you have another, more sound reason? This info was all
> culled from the about.com network, a very well known, well regarded web
> site that's even used as a teaching aid for schools. Besides, why
> should I believe you're not the one being biased here?
Because I am not arguing from authority I am just
pointing out inconsistencies and errors.
When you start arguing based on authority - you
become prone to prejudice. Inorder to rebutt my assertion
of prejudice you need to argue from verifiable facts
and not by authority.
> > While there is evidence that
> > Greek did create steam driven toys but they did not
> > invent any rockets. Changing the definition of a rocket
> > every time to avoid given the ancient chinese credit is
> > unfair and prejudicial.
>
> I'm not changing my definition. In fact, unlike you, I've yet to define
> what a "rocket" is in specific limiting terms (I've let web sites do
> that for me so far).
The problem with your definitions is you seem to have several
of them - and you don't seem to have a firm grasps of the
basics. Until now I've been defining rockets from memory
so I've made some minor errors - but I've basically had the
same definition from the get go. ( To your credit you did
remember that Dr.Goddard had a patent on gyrosopic
stablizers. However, you did not catch the error wrt to
rocket stability is based on the distance between the
center-of-mass and the center-of-pressure - not the
center-of-mass and the center-of-gravity ).
My definition:
A rocket is a free flying device whose lift is
achieved by thrust of very hot gases created by chemeical
reaction/explosion/burning. The thrust of hot gases
pushes the rocket in the opposite direction
> And, as I've said before, my argument was with your
> comparing ancient Chinese rockets to modern rockets, and now we've
> taken the discussion into what is a rocket.
It's not that ancient chinese rockets are modern rockets
but that they are rockets - just as a Motorola 6502 is still
a computer despite the fact that it can't spew out trignometric
functions like a Pentium 4.
> Also, we've been discussing *your* definition which tries
> to play both sides of the coin, disregarding technological
> differences to underscore the basic principals in common
> on the one hand (i.e. between ancient Chinese
> rockets and modern rockets), while ignoring principals in common to
> underscore differences in technology and features on the other (ancient
> Greek "rockets" and ancient Chinese "rockets"). Have cake, eating it,
> too.
1)The ancient Greeks never made rockets.
2)There is evidence to conclude the ancients chinese did make rockets.
There is absolutely no evidence that the first ancient chinese
rockets are based on any Greek invention. Arabs engineers learned
about rockets from the Chinese. European engineers learnd about
rockets from the Chinese and Arabs.
3)I've classified ancient rockets and modern rockets together
because they were both rockets. While we are all proud of the
fact that technological advancement have occured, it does
not change the fact that a rocket is a rocket and that the
ancient chinese are credited with inventing the first rocket.
I am only observing that engineering advances through time as
a series of innovations. Eliminating the fact that the chinese
developed the first rockets is historical revisionism.
....
> Irrelevant. You attempted to attribute the invention of fins on rockets
> for stability to the ancient Chinese, even though fins on arrows were
> used for the exact same reason and this usage dates back to ancient man
> hunting with bows and arrows (with fins)
Wrong.
Free flight stablity mechanism is a fundmental basics in rocketry
and it is not irrelevent. Your reasoning is flawed.
Just as the invention of the automobile is not lessen by the
fact that it uses the wheel, the invention of the rocket is not
lessen by the fact that it has fins. Complex inventions is
normally composed of many innovations and technologies.
> > There is very little historical evidence remaining on
> > ancient chinese military rockets but the evidence that
> > I previously read did not indicated the ancient chinese
> > military rocket were any more unreliable or dangerous
> > as the 1800s British Rockets (Congreve) used to
> > attack Fort McHenry, Maryland.
>
> Then you need to read some more. I found numerous sources stating that
> the designs of the ancient Chinese rockets we've been talking about were
> haphazard and *often failed* (as in *Boom*).
Sofar, I have not found your argument compelling.
I am not convince you have the ability to discern fact
from conjecture. At issue is whether your assertion is
based on historical revisionism and guessing.
Only you can tell us to sources that you have seen and
read that have caused you to have such a belief.
...
> But they didn't even allow live video Walter. Believe me when I tell
> you they were doing everything they could to save face if the worst
> happened.
A opinion I've heard before,but it is still conjecture.
...
> > One of the reason I doubt the Chinese would be sending
> > a manned mission to Mars or to the Moon is because their
> > flagship space program rocket engine the "Long March" would
> > not be capable of sending much of a payload to Mars or the
> > Moon - especially if it was going to be a round-trip affair.
>
> Who said they'd be using the LM rocket for this purpose? From all the
> reports I've read over the last year or two, the Chinese *do* plan to go
> to the moon, and ultimately, to Mars. They are currently soliciting
> help from other countries to do just that.
The reports that i read on the People's Daily suggest that
the Chinese Space Program is going it alone. Our country
has recently tighten space and rocket technology transfer
to China. The Chinese have publically ruled out Soviet
space and rocket technology. This leaves only the japanese
and the europeans space programs - neither have a high
powered rocket (both programs are focused on satellite
deployment and support systems). Sooo the only way to
get to Mars or the Moon would be to use a Chinese made
rocket. The LM can reportedly put 5.2 tons into geosynch
orbit --- So a one way trip for a 1 ton payload to
the moon might be possible. The problem with sending
a human into space is all the life support gear that
is needed and the stuff need to return home. Robots don't
have those kind of issues - Personally I'd like the Chinese
to send up a new an improved Hubble Telescope - I bet they
could make alot of $$$ selling space telescope time
to all the astronomers out there....
...
>
> You should not poo-poo "theoretical advancement". It was a cornerstone
> in much of Goddard's pioneering research in high altitude rockets and
> rocket function in a vacuum.
Theoretical advancement is insufficient. It was the advances
engineering and technology that finally made the modern rocket
what it is today. Unless you can prove that a theory is
necessary for an engineering advancement to occur then
Occam's Razor eliminates it.
With respect to theoretical advancement, a deaf Russian
school teacher named, Konstantin Tsoilkovsky, is credited
as being the father of interplanetary space flight for
working out the theoretical aspects of space travel[1].
He is credited with a 1897 definitive mathematical
study of space travel called, "The Exploration of Cosmic
Space by Reactive Equipment" published in Russian by the
journal "Naoutchnoie Obozrenie" in 1903. However, my focus
was on the engineering achievements not theory - so
it's Goddard's work that stands out. A German Professor
Hermann Oberth who after reading Goddard's work,
is credited with a 1923 theoretical and technical look
at interplanetary travel called "Rakete zu dem Planetenraumen."
Oberth is credit with the theoretical idea like using a
space suit in outer space.
[0]Dr. Robert H. Goddard. "A Method of Reaching Extreme
Altitudes." Smithsonian. (c)1919.
[1]Amateur Rocket Association (and NASA).
"Rocket and Space Science Series: Vol. 1 Propulsion."
Howard W. Sam. New York.(c)1967. pages 19-21.
> Again, this is where you're ignoring the importance of theoretical
> advancement by Goddard and others - the kind of advancement that made
> the Russian space program possible.
Theoretically, the russian can pat themselves on the back.
Technically, Goddard showed us how it all works.
bTW- the aeronautical navigational gyroscope that
Goddard use to stabilize his rockets were pioneered
by a E.A. Sperry of the Sperry Gyroscope Company[2]
which were used them to guide experimental pilotless airplanes.
[2] Bureau of Naval Personnel.
Guided Missile Fundamentals.Navpers 10005. page2.
( Reprint of Air Force Manual ATC 52-12)
....
> >
> >> > However, you can use inductive reasoning to say that
> >> > the Chinese Space Program is currently spending far
> >> > less than either the USA model and that its current
> >> > designs are more similar to the less expensive Soviet
> >> > Space program.
> >>
> >> Again, totally unfair comparison since the Chinese space program has
> >> been greatly aided by the technology differences between the tools
> >> today and the tools used by both the US and USSR decades ago....
> >
> > Reality can be unfair - but facts are facts.
> > The Chinese Space Program is less costly and
> > less extensive than ours.
> >
>
> And again, totally unfair, as you've not provided the necessary balanced
> discussion required for a just comparison in price/cost terms
Often reality is not fair or just.
You've said that before in so many words.
The reason U.S. rocket technology was initially transfered
to China was based on the potential saving U.S. firms would
get if they could outsourced the deployment of USA
communication satellite with the chinese. Which would have
raised U.S. corporate outsourcing to China to literally
new heights......
beernuts
> beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> By your own very definition of "rocket" one can say fireworks include
>> rockets but not all fireworks are rockets. By *your* own very
>> argument earlier in the thread, rockets used for fireworks today (
>> which are a direct descendant of ancient Chinese ceremonial rockets) *
>> are* the same basic rocket as what you've mentioned above for
>> carrying a satellite into space.
>
> However, not all ancient chinese rockets were firework rockets
> some were military rockets. Hence, generalizing or referencing
> all chinese rockets as fireworks is incorrect and misleading.
Those military rockets you're referring to were essentially fireworks
adapted for military use. The literature and web materials I've read
said that by and large, they were more useful for their "psychological
effect" than their ability to damage the enemy. But you've stated that
my web sources are biased, so I guess I cannot help you, but only say
that I disagree.
>
>> IMO, it's as legitimate to compare this ancient Greek creation with
>> ancient Chinese rockets as it is to compare ancient Chinese rockets
>> with modern rockets capable of putting men in space. Actually, my
>> comparison is probaly more legit since the abilities of the bird and
>> those of the ancient Chinese rockets are a hell of a lot closer than
>> the abilities of said ancient Chinese rockets and the V2, Saturn V,
>> or even Long March.
>
> You are wrong.
> A bird's ability to fly is bays on the lift it generates
> from its wing (aka Bernoulii effect) a rocket's generates
> its lift through thrust from escaping hot gases generated
> from a burning of chemicals.
Walter, I think you're either misreading the quote or its web source, or
you're really confused on the point of said quote - nobody is saying
that a bird's flapping wings approximates, is similar to or is
equivalent with a rocket's free flight. Your introduction of a real-
life bird and how it achieves flight in your reply is...bizarre. Not
sure what you're going for here. The point, as I already explained in
my nth reply by now, is that the ancient Greek bird (not a real bird,
Walter) demonstrates what my web references term "action-reaction",
which is the exact same scientific principal (as simple as it may seem)
that your Chinese rockets use. That is why the web source I gave you
goes on to say that it's not entirely clear who or which culture
invented what could be considered a "rocket". Since I do not have a
picture of said Greek bird, I cannot say for sure what it looks(ed) like.
However, it is entirely possible that the shape of this bird
approximated what we would call a rocket today (the birds head could
have easiliy been carved in such a way that it, together with a beak,
formed the aerodynamic equivalent of a nose cone).
> The greek bird was not capable
> of free flight but the ancient chinese rockets were capable
> of free flight.
Well, I guess it depends on what your strict definition of "rocket" is.
It seems About.com has a more liberal definition than yours. I thought
that, given your initial statements (which seemed to blur the gap
between rockets from Ancient China and say, the Saturn V), you'd be more
receptive to such a liberal and broad view of what could be called a
"rocket".
>Ancient Chinese text suggest that the
> Chinese military rockets were more closely related
> to the Congreve Rockets(1800s). Greek aeolipile is mention
> in some rocketry books is to show that the ancient Greeks
> understood basic concepts of how a jet of hot gases can
> create thrust, but such toys should never be mistaken
> for a rocket or a rocket motor.
Again, it depends on your definition of "rocket". My web sources take a
different view than yours.
>
>
>> > A steam driven sphere fixed to the ground might
>> > look rocket-like to a simpleton but it is not a rocket.
>>
>> Again, it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.
>> Now, all of a sudden, you back off your liberal inclusion of what
>> can be a "rocket" (basically implying that ancient Chinese rockets
>> and rockets like the Saturn V are the same thing)..
>
> A Saturn V, a model rocket, and the ancient chinese rockets
> all flew. What are you going to do? Chuck your greek sphere
> into the air and call it a rocket? RFLOL. :)
What am I going to do when I try to build an exact replica of an ancient
Chinese rocket - pray to God I don't blow my hands off? Or maybe I
should run as fast as possible in the opposite direction. :)
>
> .....
>> > Your source appears prejudicial.
>>
>> C'mon Walter, surely you can do better than that. How about a reason,
>> like why is it biased, instead of "appears"? Is it because you
>> disagree with it or do you have another, more sound reason? This
>> info was all culled from the about.com network, a very well known,
>> well regarded web site that's even used as a teaching aid for
>> schools. Besides, why should I believe you're not the one being
>> biased here?
>
> Because I am not arguing from authority I am just
> pointing out inconsistencies and errors.
Then you should start with your own. You have so far made errors
regarding your understanding of the limitations of solid rocket engines,
or at least shown a one-sided view/argument of them, of Goddard's
contributions and what he did and when, your knowledge of rocketry
outside of Chinese history, and several other things.
> When you start arguing based on authority - you
> become prone to prejudice. Inorder to rebutt my assertion
> of prejudice you need to argue from verifiable facts
> and not by authority.
Whose facts do you want, Walter? You yourself say that there is very
limited information on some of this stuff, and neither you, I or anybody
alive today knows for sure how well these ancient Chinese rockets
functioned - everything I've read so far seems to paint a *very
unreliable* picture (given our understanding for how these rockets were
constructed and the materials used to construct them) and basically
states that their military usage was for more psychological effect than
actual weapons potential. But even besides all that, I provided you
with a couple links that directly contradict your assertion that only
China invented what *they* refer to as a "rocket". However, you say
these links are "prejudical" or "biased", but you gave no reason why (
other than you disagree with them). In order to rebutt *my* questioning
of your objectivity and knowledge in this area, you should also start
coughing up some more verifiable facts yourself - key word being
"verifiable", lest you want me to follow your lead and just proclaim
everything that disagrees with my assertions as "prejudiced" or "biased".
>
>
>> > While there is evidence that
>> > Greek did create steam driven toys but they did not
>> > invent any rockets. Changing the definition of a rocket
>> > every time to avoid given the ancient chinese credit is
>> > unfair and prejudicial.
>>
>> I'm not changing my definition. In fact, unlike you, I've yet to
>> define what a "rocket" is in specific limiting terms (I've let web
>> sites do that for me so far).
>
>
> The problem with your definitions is you seem to have several
> of them - and you don't seem to have a firm grasps of the
> basics.
Now that is funny. Which "basics" are these? I will admit that I've
actively reinforced my points through Google searches, and heck, I even
learned a thing or two during this debate - one of the good things about
such a drawn out thread as this is one does usually come away learning
something. But from your responses on some key historical points in
rocketry, one gets the feeling that you had limited knowledge of Goddard
before this thread, and you also seemed to either be biased in your
solid rocket engine monologues or you didn't actually know the
limitations of that technology regarding modern space travel.
> Until now I've been defining rockets from memory
> so I've made some minor errors - but I've basically had the
> same definition from the get go. ( To your credit you did
> remember that Dr.Goddard had a patent on gyrosopic
> stablizers. However, you did not catch the error wrt to
> rocket stability is based on the distance between the
> center-of-mass and the center-of-pressure - not the
> center-of-mass and the center-of-gravity ).
>
> My definition:
> A rocket is a free flying device whose lift is
> achieved by thrust of very hot gases created by chemeical
> reaction/explosion/burning. The thrust of hot gases
> pushes the rocket in the opposite direction
So if a rocket looks and acts just like this description but for some
reason is tethered to a string or other guiding line, what do you call
it? A sub-rocket?
>
>> And, as I've said before, my argument was with your
>> comparing ancient Chinese rockets to modern rockets, and now we've
>> taken the discussion into what is a rocket.
>
>
> It's not that ancient chinese rockets are modern rockets
> but that they are rockets - just as a Motorola 6502 is still
> a computer despite the fact that it can't spew out trignometric
> functions like a Pentium 4.
I'm not saying a Chinese rocket is not a rocket. I'm saying that it's
not a modern rocket, because the differences in capability and practical
usage are so extreme that to say that what we use today was invented by
the Chinese (your original premise) is wrong. On top of that, I showed
you links that dispute your historical accuracy, and you waived them off
out of hand as being prejudiced.
>
>
>> Also, we've been discussing *your* definition which tries
>> to play both sides of the coin, disregarding technological
>> differences to underscore the basic principals in common
>> on the one hand (i.e. between ancient Chinese
>> rockets and modern rockets), while ignoring principals in common to
>> underscore differences in technology and features on the other (
>> ancient Greek "rockets" and ancient Chinese "rockets"). Have cake,
>> eating it, too.
>
> 1)The ancient Greeks never made rockets.
Well, my sources disagree with that, and do so because they're
definition of "rocket" is different than yours.
> 2)There is evidence to conclude the ancients chinese did make rockets.
Correct
> There is absolutely no evidence that the first ancient chinese
> rockets are based on any Greek invention.
As far as I know, that is right.
> Arabs engineers learned
> about rockets from the Chinese. European engineers learnd about
> rockets from the Chinese and Arabs.
If you choose to ignore the sources I provided, then yes.
> 3)I've classified ancient rockets and modern rockets together
> because they were both rockets. While we are all proud of the
> fact that technological advancement have occured, it does
> not change the fact that a rocket is a rocket and that the
> ancient chinese are credited with inventing the first rocket.
But the About.com tells a different story and I see nothing to suggest
it is "prejudiced".
> I am only observing that engineering advances through time as
> a series of innovations. Eliminating the fact that the chinese
> developed the first rockets is historical revisionism.
But that disagrees with the links I provided, and I have no reason to
doubt their claims.
> .....
>
>> Irrelevant. You attempted to attribute the invention of fins on
>> rockets for stability to the ancient Chinese, even though fins on
>> arrows were used for the exact same reason and this usage dates back
>> to ancient man hunting with bows and arrows (with fins)
>
> Wrong.
> Free flight stablity mechanism is a fundmental basics in rocketry
> and it is not irrelevent. Your reasoning is flawed.
LOL, My reasoning is "flawed" and my sources "prejudiced".... OK then.
>
> Just as the invention of the automobile is not lessen by the
> fact that it uses the wheel, the invention of the rocket is not
> lessen by the fact that it has fins.
Fine. But you attribute the use of fins for guidance solely to the
Chinese, do you not? Well, my sources say different.
> Complex inventions is
> normally composed of many innovations and technologies.
>
>
>
>> > There is very little historical evidence remaining on
>> > ancient chinese military rockets but the evidence that
>> > I previously read did not indicated the ancient chinese
>> > military rocket were any more unreliable or dangerous
>> > as the 1800s British Rockets (Congreve) used to
>> > attack Fort McHenry, Maryland.
>>
>> Then you need to read some more. I found numerous sources stating
>> that the designs of the ancient Chinese rockets we've been talking
>> about were haphazard and *often failed* (as in *Boom*).
>
> Sofar, I have not found your argument compelling.
> I am not convince you have the ability to discern fact
> from conjecture.
Well, maybe I'll just waive that off as "prejudiced".
> At issue is whether your assertion is
> based on historical revisionism and guessing.
> Only you can tell us to sources that you have seen and
> read that have caused you to have such a belief.
> ....
>
>> But they didn't even allow live video Walter. Believe me when I tell
>> you they were doing everything they could to save face if the worst
>> happened.
>
> A opinion I've heard before,but it is still conjecture.
No. Not conjecture. The Chinese gov't refused to allow a live video
feed to be aired during the launch. Only after the launch was
successful was the video released to the press. With 9/11 and all the
recent terrorism directed at the US, NASA still shows live video of its
launches. Hmm...
>
> ....
Me, too. However, I've read/heard differently than you. I've heard the
Chinese are willing to pair up with anybody that can help them achieve
their goals, and as long as money is involved, people will help them.
>
> ....
>>
>> You should not poo-poo "theoretical advancement". It was a
>> cornerstone in much of Goddard's pioneering research in high
>> altitude rockets and rocket function in a vacuum.
>
> Theoretical advancement is insufficient. It was the advances
> engineering and technology that finally made the modern rocket
> what it is today. Unless you can prove that a theory is
> necessary for an engineering advancement to occur then
> Occam's Razor eliminates it.
Just a suggestion: go and read up on Goddard. His theories proved the
practicality and possibilty of high altitude rocketry and rocket
function in a vacuum. And that's just two very important milestones he
is credited with all over the place (every Google site about him I found
said as much).
> .....
>
>> >
>> >> > However, you can use inductive reasoning to say that
>> >> > the Chinese Space Program is currently spending far
>> >> > less than either the USA model and that its current
>> >> > designs are more similar to the less expensive Soviet
>> >> > Space program.
>> >>
>> >> Again, totally unfair comparison since the Chinese space program
>> >> has been greatly aided by the technology differences between the
>> >> tools today and the tools used by both the US and USSR decades
>> >> ago....
>> >
>> > Reality can be unfair - but facts are facts.
>> > The Chinese Space Program is less costly and
>> > less extensive than ours.
>> >
>>
>> And again, totally unfair, as you've not provided the necessary
>> balanced discussion required for a just comparison in price/cost
>> terms
>
> Often reality is not fair or just.
> You've said that before in so many words.
>
> The reason U.S. rocket technology was initially transfered
> to China was based on the potential saving U.S. firms would
> get if they could outsourced the deployment of USA
> communication satellite with the chinese. Which would have
> raised U.S. corporate outsourcing to China to literally
> new heights......
>
Thanks for the info...
Drydem
> Anyway, the website makes the point that this very basic device of Greek
> origin used the action-reaction principal that is a core requirement for
> any "rocket" device to function. I agree that steam is not the same as
> an oxidation-reduction reacion, but it is a form of propulsion and this
> rocket-pigeon exihibited the same action-reaction principals as a
> gunpowder based propulsion, as the web site points out.
A steam engine moves a piston using a jet of steam but
a steam engine is not a rocket engine.
> Also, your point about a real bird's wings and how it uses them serves
> as nothing but red herring here.
On 2nd thought, I was being too generous -- the ancient greeks
didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged flight.'
The bird's wing was probably just a decoration and the toy
greek bird was probably suspended on a fix length steam pipe
which allowed the the bird to spin around a fixed circle
around the boiling water kettle, i.e. the greek bird didn't
fly at all but was just a spinning sideways version of a
aeolipile - so the steam driven greek bird was basically
a toy merry-go-round.
> >> And finally, "Just when the first true rockets appeared is unclear.
> >> Stories of early rocket-like devices appear sporadically through the
> >> historical records of various cultures.
okay ...
it's time to go to my personal library for a
Chinese history lesson
========================
The pre-eminent english-language authority on ancient chinese
science is Joseph Needham has dated the use of gunpowder as
a rocket propellent (hou chien) at after 1000 AD, the chinese
rocket arrow (13th Sung), civilian fireworks (est 12th Sung),
winged rockets (14th Yuan), two-stage rockets (14th Yuan),
and multiple rocket launcher (15th Ming)[1].
[1]
Joseph Needham. Science in Traditional China.
Harvard Univ Press. Sept 1982.
the pages with regard to chinese rocketry pages 32,34,46-48.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674794397/qid=1069724019/sr=1-29/ref=sr_1_29/103-9661007-9187829?v=glance&s=books
which is a summary of Needhams more definitive scholarly work on
the science and technology of traditional china
....
Joseph Needham, Ho Ping-yu, Lu Gwei-Djen, and Nathan Sivin.
Science and Civilisation in China. Cambridge University Press. Oct 31
1980.
IsBN 052108573x
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/052108573X/qid=1069723835/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/103-9661007-9187829?v=glance&s=books
beernuts
> beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <20031123231...@news.verizon.net>...
>> Anyway, the website makes the point that this very basic device of
>> Greek origin used the action-reaction principal that is a core
>> requirement for any "rocket" device to function. I agree that steam
>> is not the same as an oxidation-reduction reacion, but it is a form
>> of propulsion and this rocket-pigeon exihibited the same action-
>> reaction principals as a gunpowder based propulsion, as the web site
>> points out.
>
> A steam engine moves a piston using a jet of steam but
> a steam engine is not a rocket engine.
This ancient Greek device didn't use a steam engine. It used steam to
employ the same action-reaction principal as an oxidation reduction
reaction based rocket engine.
>
>> Also, your point about a real bird's wings and how it uses them
>> serves as nothing but red herring here.
>
> On 2nd thought, I was being too generous
No, you were mixing apples and oranges, as in winged flight of a real
animal vs different definitions of "rocket".
> the ancient greeks
> didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged flight.'
I disagree. There is evidence that the Greeks did understand both as a *
concept*. Just like the ancient Chinese understand rocket flight and
its basic propulsion and flight characteristics as a *concept*, without
the body of scientific knowledge or grounding to come centuries later.
You basically said as much yourself (i.e. you don't need to understand
theory to build and use "rockets")
> The bird's wing was probably just a decoration and the toy
> greek bird was probably suspended on a fix length steam pipe
> which allowed the the bird to spin around a fixed circle
> around the boiling water kettle, i.e. the greek bird didn't
> fly at all but was just a spinning sideways version of a
> aeolipile - so the steam driven greek bird was basically
> a toy merry-go-round.
Yep, sort of like a toy firework (i.e. ancient Chinese rocket).
>
>
>> >> And finally, "Just when the first true rockets appeared is unclear.
>> >> Stories of early rocket-like devices appear sporadically through
>> >> the historical records of various cultures.
>
> okay ...
> it's time to go to my personal library for a
> Chinese history lesson
> ========================
> The pre-eminent english-language authority on ancient chinese
> science is Joseph Needham has dated the use of gunpowder as
> a rocket propellent (hou chien) at after 1000 AD, the chinese
> rocket arrow (13th Sung), civilian fireworks (est 12th Sung),
> winged rockets (14th Yuan), two-stage rockets (14th Yuan),
> and multiple rocket launcher (15th Ming)[1].
>
> [1]
> Joseph Needham. Science in Traditional China.
> Harvard Univ Press. Sept 1982.
> the pages with regard to chinese rocketry pages 32,34,46-48.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674794397/
> qid=1069724019/sr=1-29/ref=sr_1_29/103-9661007-9187829?v=glance&
> s=books
>
This appears to be information by an authority on ancient Chinese
science, not on the history of science from other cultures outside China (
i.e. Greek).
>
> which is a summary of Needhams more definitive scholarly work on
> the science and technology of traditional china
> .....
> Joseph Needham, Ho Ping-yu, Lu Gwei-Djen, and Nathan Sivin.
> Science and Civilisation in China. Cambridge University Press. Oct 31
> 1980.
> IsBN 052108573x
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/052108573X/
> qid=1069723835/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/103-9661007-9187829?v=glance&
> s=books
>
I'm glad you don't find these resources "prejudiced" or "biased".
betelnut
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/rocketry_origins_000702.html
[Quote]
Elegant simplicity
Those early Chinese rockets were very simple devices; nothing more than a
tube filled with propellant, with a cap on one end and fuse at the other.
They had no moving parts and precious little control. Once lit, they burned
furiously until their fuel was spent and they fell flaming to Earth, a
simple but very effective weapon.
The Chinese used rockets against the Mongols at the Great Wall, the Mongols
launched them at the Arabs in Baghdad, the Arabs used them against French
crusaders, the French fired them at the English in the Hundred Years War.
The English lobbed exploding rockets at Napoleon at
Waterloo...........................
[End Quote]
bwahahahaha!!!!
beernuts
>> >
>>
>> I'm glad you don't find these resources "prejudiced" or "biased".
>
>
> http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/rocketry_origins_000702.html
> [Quote]
>
> Elegant simplicity
>
> Those early Chinese rockets were very simple devices; nothing more
> than a tube filled with propellant, with a cap on one end and fuse at
> the other. They had no moving parts and precious little control. Once
> lit, they burned furiously until their fuel was spent and they fell
> flaming to Earth, a simple but very effective weapon.
>
> The Chinese used rockets against the Mongols at the Great Wall, the
> Mongols launched them at the Arabs in Baghdad, the Arabs used them
> against French crusaders, the French fired them at the English in the
> Hundred Years War.
>
> The English lobbed exploding rockets at Napoleon at
> Waterloo...........................
>
> [End Quote]
>
>
>
> bwahahahaha!!!!
>
>
Hmmm... That site seems to be "prejudiced". I like this one better:
http://www.spaceline.org/history/1.html
Drydem
> In <8a523498.0311...@posting.google.com> Drydem wrote:
> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > <20031123231...@news.verizon.net>...
> >> Anyway, the website makes the point that this very basic device of
> >> Greek origin used the action-reaction principal that is a core
> >> requirement for any "rocket" device to function. I agree that steam
> >> is not the same as an oxidation-reduction reacion, but it is a form
> >> of propulsion and this rocket-pigeon exihibited the same action-
> >> reaction principals as a gunpowder based propulsion, as the web site
> >> points out.
> >
> > A steam engine moves a piston using a jet of steam but
> > a steam engine is not a rocket engine.
>
> This ancient Greek device didn't use a steam engine.
I disagree.
Accounts indicate the Greek device was a simple steam
engine (san regulator and piston) which operated using
an enclose vessel containing water which was boiled to
create the steam which jetted out of the vessel into the spoke
of a spinning wheel/sphere - the steam thrusting sideways
from the wheel/sphere caused it to spin.
> > the ancient greeks
> > didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged flight.'
>
> I disagree. There is evidence that the Greeks did
> understand both as a *concept*....
prove it.
betelnut
"The use of gunpowder propelled weapons proliferated in the coming
centuries, especially after their existence was confirmed by Europeans. In
1232, descriptions of a Mongolian siege of the city of Kai-fung-fu were
widely circulated.
During this battle, the Mongols employed a potent form of fire arrow
described as causing "thunder that shakes the heavens". These may have been
primitive grenades launched by gunpowder propelled fire arrows. A single one
of these was reportedly able to burn a 2,000 foot area."
looks like an error here. in the siege of the city of kai-fung-fu, it was
the chinese that used rockets to attack the invading mongols. the mongols
never used rockets at that time.
beernuts
> beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> <20031125001...@news.verizon.net>...
>> In <8a523498.0311...@posting.google.com> Drydem wrote:
>> > beernuts <beer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> > <20031123231...@news.verizon.net>...
>> >> Anyway, the website makes the point that this very basic device of
>> >> Greek origin used the action-reaction principal that is a core
>> >> requirement for any "rocket" device to function. I agree that
>> >> steam is not the same as an oxidation-reduction reacion, but it
>> >> is a form of propulsion and this rocket-pigeon exihibited the
>> >> same action- reaction principals as a gunpowder based propulsion,
>> >> as the web site points out.
>> >
>> > A steam engine moves a piston using a jet of steam but
>> > a steam engine is not a rocket engine.
>>
>> This ancient Greek device didn't use a steam engine.
>
> I disagree.
> Accounts indicate the Greek device was a simple steam
> engine (san regulator and piston) which operated using
> an enclose vessel containing water which was boiled to
> create the steam which jetted out of the vessel into the spoke
> of a spinning wheel/sphere - the steam thrusting sideways
> from the wheel/sphere caused it to spin.
Whether you think it's a steam engine or not, there's no arguing that
the link I provided (from About.com) disagrees with your assertion on
what nation/culture first invented what could be called a "rocket" (
based on the use of the action-reaction principal for propulsion). And
you have not yet backed up your claim that the About.com site is truly
"prejudiced" and/or "biased".
>
>
>> > the ancient greeks
>> > didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged flight.'
>>
>> I disagree. There is evidence that the Greeks did
>> understand both as a *concept*....
>
> prove it.
Easy. First, let's (again) be clear on definitions.
From www.m-w.com, Concept:
1.) Something conceived in the mind: Thought, notion.
2.) An abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
There is no doubt that the Greek mythological tale of Icarus would
constitute the "Thought" or "Notion" of "winged flight", and, I would
argue, "lift". This famous Greek tale describes the use of large wings
fashioned directly after that of a bird's wings, and the story indicates
these wings as being essential to lift Icarus off the ground (and when
the sun destroyed them, he fell). The story didn't say he attached two
chairs onto his body, or, some other non aerodynamic object. It
specifically describes the wings shaped from a bird. Quod Erat
Demonstradum.
Now, since you're in the business of asking for "proof", why don't you
offer proof that the About.com link I provided on rocket history was in
fact "prejudiced" and/or "biased", as you claim it is, lest you want me
to cast aside your arguments in much the same way when they disagree
with mine.
Drydem
Not think - Know.
I know that what you are describing is a steam engine.
I can only present the facts to you,
I can't make you accept the facts or reality.
If you are willing to equate a steam engine to a rocket,
then you are also willing to trade facts for fantasy as well.
Rockets can fly - pigs don't.
> >> > the ancient greeks
> >> > didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged flight.'
> >>
> >> I disagree. There is evidence that the Greeks did
> >> understand both as a *concept*....
> >
> > prove it.
...
> There is no doubt that the Greek mythological tale of Icarus would
> constitute the "Thought" or "Notion" of "winged flight", and, I would
> argue, "lift". This famous Greek tale describes the use of large wings
> fashioned directly after that of a bird's wings, and the story indicates
> these wings as being essential to lift Icarus off the ground (and when
> the sun destroyed them, he fell). The story didn't say he attached two
> chairs onto his body, or, some other non aerodynamic object. It
> specifically describes the wings shaped from a bird. Quod Erat
> Demonstradum.
Insufficent.
Inorder for the greek myth to assist in making an flying
mechnical bird (as you suggested) - the myth would have
to provide a reproducible technical description a flying
mechanism -which it does not. The Icarus myth is one of
fancy not of science. My challenge was for a technical
conceptual knowledge not the literary concept that you provided.
IMHO the concept of 'winged flight' would require the ancient
greeks atleast observe about how air flows differently along
a winged airfoil to create 'lift.' The aerodynamic concept
of 'lift' wrt to a bird's wing would require an ancient
greek observe how air is heavier on the bottom of a bird's
wing (which is even harder because it's an invisible force).
beernuts
What this device used was not a true "steam engine". If it were a true
steam engine, the inventor of that technology would have been Greek (but
that is not the case at all). While the device used principals of the
steam engine, and one could refer to it as a general steam based
"engine", it was not a complete working steam engine as the term is
understood today.
Again, I repeat: there's no arguing that the link I provided (from
About.com) disagrees with your assertion on what nation/culture first
invented what could be called a "rocket" based on the use of the action-
reaction principal for propulsion)....
>
>
>> >> > the ancient greeks
>> >> > didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged flight.'
>> >>
>> >> I disagree. There is evidence that the Greeks did
>> >> understand both as a *concept*....
>> >
>> > prove it.
> ....
>> There is no doubt that the Greek mythological tale of Icarus would
>> constitute the "Thought" or "Notion" of "winged flight", and, I would
>> argue, "lift". This famous Greek tale describes the use of large
>> wings fashioned directly after that of a bird's wings, and the story
>> indicates these wings as being essential to lift Icarus off the
>> ground (and when the sun destroyed them, he fell). The story didn't
>> say he attached two chairs onto his body, or, some other non
>> aerodynamic object. It specifically describes the wings shaped from
>> a bird. Quod Erat Demonstradum.
>
> Insufficent.
>
> Inorder for the greek myth to assist in making an flying
> mechnical bird (as you suggested)
No, Walter. You're already modifying your argument here. You said:
"the ancient greeks didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged
flight.'
And, I suspect you made a bad choice of words, since there is *no* doubt
that the Greeks had said "concept". The definition of "concept" is
exactly what the story of Icarus proves the Greeks had regarding 'winged
flight' and, I'd argue, 'lift'.
> - the myth would have
> to provide a reproducible technical description a flying
> mechanism -which it does not.
Either you are not clear on the correct definition of the word 'concept'
and your use of the word in this context, or, you are modifying your
original argument by introducing a "reproducible technical description"
requirement as opposed to pure "concept'.
> The Icarus myth is one of
> fancy not of science. My challenge was for a technical
> conceptual knowledge not the literary concept that you provided.
No, you said (again)
"the ancient greeks didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged
flight."
The story of Icarus satisfies the English definition of the word
"concept". I can't help it if you chose your *original* words poorly.
> IMHO the concept of 'winged flight' would require the ancient
> greeks atleast observe about how air flows differently along
> a winged airfoil to create 'lift.'
Fine, you're entitled to that. Here's the reality - even *today*, there
is *still* disagreement with *exactly* how lift works. There is the
school of thought that says lift is essentially achieved because the
speed of the air rushing over the top of the wing is faster than that
going beneath it (because of the shape), causing a pressure differential (
vacuum) on the top vs the bottom of the wing, and resulting in the wing
actually being *pulled* upwards not being pushed from below (i.e.
Bernoulli's theory). Another school of thought thinks that lift is
achieved through Newton's 3rd law of motion (hey, there's that pesky
action-reaction thing again). Some people think it's both working in
conjunction. In *any* case, you're way out of scope here trying to pin
all that on the word "concept". Jeez, talk about a loaded premise.
> The aerodynamic concept
> of 'lift' wrt to a bird's wing would require an ancient
> greek observe how air is heavier on the bottom of a bird's
> wing (which is even harder because it's an invisible force).
The Greeks had a working understanding of the action-reaction principal (
see above), which falls in line with Newton's eventual laws of motion
that help explain lift.
beernuts
Oops, that should read: "This device was not a true "steam engine".
It's late...
betelnut
china invented the rocket alright. rocket is an item, not a law of physics.
the "steam engine" cannot fly like an arrow.
Drydem
You are inconsistent in your reasoning.
You are willing to overlook that the aeolipile
isn't a completely working modern rocket in the terms
we understand today - but you are not willing to
overlook that the aeoliplie isn't a completely
working modern steam engine.
The reason I classify the ancient greek aeolipile
as a simple steam driven motor ( or steam driven wheel)
is that it uses steam to drive its mechanical motor.
> Again, I repeat: there's no arguing that the link I provided (from
> About.com) disagrees with your assertion on what nation/culture first
> invented what could be called a "rocket" based on the use of the action-
> reaction principal for propulsion)....
I suppose I could be more forgiving...
=====================
One of the reasons I believe that english sources get
chinese rocketry history wrong is because of poor research.
Needham along with his chinese counterparts have done
extensive research to determine the dates that the first
rockets in Chinese/Tibetan/Mongolian history but his
ultimate work cost $170!!! Needham is a professional
chinese scholar and researcher who does original work.
About.com *experts* are volunteers who mainly cull
through urls to find the best free ones.
> >> >> > the ancient greeks
> >> >> > didn't understand concepts like 'lift' or 'winged flight.'
> >> >>
> >> >> I disagree. There is evidence that the Greeks did
> >> >> understand both as a *concept*....
> >> >
> >> > prove it.
> ....
> >> There is no doubt that the Greek mythological tale of Icarus would
> >> constitute the "Thought" or "Notion" of "winged flight", and, I would
> >> argue, "lift". This famous Greek tale describes the use of large
> >> wings fashioned directly after that of a bird's wings, and the story
> >> indicates these wings as being essential to lift Icarus off the
> >> ground (and when the sun destroyed them, he fell). The story didn't
> >> say he attached two chairs onto his body, or, some other non
> >> aerodynamic object. It specifically describes the wings shaped from
> >> a bird. Quod Erat Demonstradum.
> >
> > Insufficent.
> >
> > Inorder for the greek myth to assist in making an flying
> > mechnical bird (as you suggested)
>
>
> No, Walter. You're already modifying your argument here.
No.
You've mistaking the fantasy of men flying with a
technical concept of how wings actually create flight
or how lift is achieved.
> Here's the reality - even *today*, there
> is *still* disagreement with *exactly* how lift works.
Lift itself is an action that help a object
defy an attractive force like gravity. In
general lift can be cause by many different
thing depending on the circumstances. However,
a bird's wing and an airfoil creates lift
by Bernoulli principle - that's considered a
reality. Newton's 3rd law of motion ( in non
relativistic situations) is part of the
bernoulii principle since the high pressure
below the wing pushes the wings up. There is no
conflict. Air pressure is just a simple way
of summing all of the surrounding forces.
> The Greeks had a working understanding of the action-reaction principal (
> see above), which falls in line with Newton's eventual laws of motion
> that help explain lift.
short answer.
Still Insufficient.
long answer....
A working understanding of an action-reaction principle
does help one understand why spears and arrows can fly.
The understanding how arrows fly in the air may have
also help the ancient chinese develope the first
rockets. I concede that the basic physics concept of
lift is necessary for throwing any missile/projectile
- which both the ancient greeks and ancient chinese knew.
I cannot agree that throwing projectiles and making an
aeolipile is evidence to suggest ancient greek knowledge
of the mechanical concepts of "winged flight" or the
technical concepts of how lift is achieved
using wings. Nor will I concede that the greek myth
of a winged man sufficently suggest an ablity to
make a mechnical flying bird as you have suggested.
The credit to the first person to investigate and
understand something about bird wings and flight I
think goes to Leonardo Da Vinci( 15?? A.D.) and
I think he's Italian not greek. IIRC german scientist
did some work on airfoils (albeit flawed by some
reports) in the 18th century before the USA
Wright brothers did the definitive study on airfoils
and fixed wing flight in the 1900s.
beernuts
The inventor of the steam engine was not Greek. You can check anywhere
on Google or in any book. And I agree - the aeolipile isn't a
"completely working modern rocket", but neither is the ancient Chinese
rocket a "completely working modern rocket", at least not as I define it.
We've already agreed (I think) that all modern rockets today have
exponentially more power, ability, function and stability than anything
in China centuries ago (apart from model rockets and fireworks). That
alone in my mind puts it outside the domain of "modern rocket", whether
completely working or not. If you're willing to bridge the huge gap
between the aforementioned categories found in modern rockets today and
ancient Chinese rockets (and I think you have tried to bridge that gap
through your very narrow definition of "rocket") then I, too, am willing
to make a similar leap of faith and consider the ancient Greeks one of
the first cultures (if not the first) to devise what could be called a
"rocket".
>
> The reason I classify the ancient greek aeolipile
> as a simple steam driven motor ( or steam driven wheel)
> is that it uses steam to drive its mechanical motor.
>
>> Again, I repeat: there's no arguing that the link I provided (from
>> About.com) disagrees with your assertion on what nation/culture first
>> invented what could be called a "rocket" based on the use of the
>> action- reaction principal for propulsion)....
>
> I suppose I could be more forgiving...
> =====================
> One of the reasons I believe that english sources get
> chinese rocketry history wrong is because of poor research.
> Needham along with his chinese counterparts have done
> extensive research to determine the dates that the first
> rockets in Chinese/Tibetan/Mongolian history but his
> ultimate work cost $170!!! Needham is a professional
> chinese scholar and researcher who does original work.
> About.com *experts* are volunteers who mainly cull
> through urls to find the best free ones.
With all Needham's noted expertise, it still doesn't say a darn thing
about what expertise he has in other cultures and their accomplishments
in science (unless you can show me a link that proves otherwise). And,
until you can show that these About.com "volunteers" are not worthy of
consideration for such a debate as this, I'll have no reason to doubt
their validity, or objectivity.
I used to work with a Vietnam veteran and ex-Air Force fighter pilot at
a previous job. He once told me that it is physically possible to
achieve lift with a wing lacking any airfoil properties (i.e. just a
flat, square wing). I researched this whole area many years ago, and it
turns out he was right. It is possible. Enter Newton's 3rd Law of
motion, exit Bernoulli. And you are wrong about the disagreement (it's
not a "conflict" per se) between the different schools behind theories
explaining lift and flight, it's real and it does exist. Also, IIRC,
scientists still do not understand how something like a bumblebee can
achieve sustained flight - but they do.
> Newton's 3rd law of motion ( in non
> relativistic situations) is part of the
> bernoulii principle since the high pressure
> below the wing pushes the wings up. There is no
> conflict. Air pressure is just a simple way
> of summing all of the surrounding forces.
As an aside, most people have no idea that lift (IMO) is achieved from a
net + pulling force from above the wing, and not a pushing force from
below.
For the sake of further argument, I'll say the following: My original
point was to underscore the differences between modern rockets today and
those created centuries ago. What I'll say is this: *space craft* is
largely a western invention based on mostly western science, whether or
not it uses solid, liquid, nuclear or ion propulsion. Did the ancient
Chinese invent the first solid fuel rockets? Yes, certainly. Are solid
fuel rockets the only type of rocket? No, as we both know liquid
rockets are a very different animal indeed. Granted, they both use
variants of an oxidation reduction reaction to achieve lift, but they
also both use the action-reaction principal. Which one, or both, is
required for something to be called a rocket? The about.com site seems
to suggest it's the latter (action-reaction).
betelnut
gimme a break. the "steam pot engine" was more like a predesessor to modern
motors and modern steam engines in trains and automobiles.
a rocket is a totally separate category. gunpowder (9th century) led to
rocketry (11th century) and explosive bombs. that ancient "steam engine"
led to steam boats, trains, etc.. the chinese invented gunpowder, which led
them to create rockets and explosives. 4-feet long cylinders, tipped with a
"bomb" or an arrow head, that can shoot in a stable line for over 1000 feet
are undoubtly rockets. they're not firecrackers. the chinese were already
using these against the invading mongols, before even the arabs knew
anything about them (let alone the europeans).
some european guy having created a simple little rotating, steaming pot
really has nothing to do with gunpowder or rocketry. sure, the "steaming
pot" is based on the law of action/reaction. but the west cannot take
credit for every goddamn invention that incorporates such physical
principle. the chinese on rafts with paddles can also be an example of
action/reaction law. why don't people use the "raft + paddles" as the
predesessor to rocketry instead of the "steam pot"?
> >
> > The reason I classify the ancient greek aeolipile
> > as a simple steam driven motor ( or steam driven wheel)
> > is that it uses steam to drive its mechanical motor.
> >
> >> Again, I repeat: there's no arguing that the link I provided (from
> >> About.com) disagrees with your assertion on what nation/culture first
> >> invented what could be called a "rocket" based on the use of the
> >> action- reaction principal for propulsion)....
> >
> > I suppose I could be more forgiving...
> > =====================
> > One of the reasons I believe that english sources get
> > chinese rocketry history wrong is because of poor research.
no, it's intentional bias.
the white guy who made the "steam pot" did not formulate the law of
action-reaction. he just made it and had fun with it. that was it. it was
only in the 17th century (6 centuries after china's invention of rocketry)
when Newton formulated this law, his Third Law, which says "For every action
there's an equal and opposite reaction."
btw, the chinese formulated Newton's First Law of Motion in the 4th century
BC, 2000 years before Newton.
from the book 'the genius of china' by robert temple (which is a summary of
Needham's work):
[Quote] in the book Mo Ching, it reads "the cessation of motion is due to
the opposing force...if there's no opposing force....the motion will never
stop. this is as true as an ox is not a horse." the book Mo Ching is the
collection of writings of a school of philosophers called Mohists, after
their founder and sage Mo Ti (or Mo Tzu).[End Quote]