【加分】美国人眼中的中国火箭

虫二

BitTwiddler (Electrical) 15 Nov 05 9:53  
Visigoth asked: What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?
工程师对能够从太空领先中获得的军事领先的评估是什么呢？

I think that the first nation that establishes effective control of space and deploys large numbers of weapons in space will establish effective control of the oceans. This will give that nation the same advantages of sea power that allowed Britain to defeat Napoleonic France and the Allies to win both World Wars.
我认为第一个建立有效控制太空和在太空中配置大规模武器的国家将会建立有效的制海权。正如在同样海洋优势条件下英国打败了拿破仑一世的法兰西，一战时期的协约国赢得世界战争。

For example, what happens if China decides to invade Taiwan in 2015? The US Navy has about 250 ships. It is estimated that in ten years China's Navy will be roughly the same size as the US Navy. This would normally create a balance of power, but space-based weapons could change everything.
例如：如果中国决定2015年收复台湾将会发生什么？美国海军拥有大约250艘舰艇。据评估在未来十年内中国海军会发展到与美军相同规模。这回创造一个力量的平衡，但是基于太空的武器将会改变一切。

Imagine that China launches several hundred one-ton payloads of antishipping weapons into low Earth orbit. If China develops radar satellites (RORSATs), then they could locate US ships anywhere on the planet. The weapons would be guided by the Galileo navsats which China and Europe are building already. If China deorbited all of the weapons at the same time, then 250 US Navy ships would have at least one warhead moving at more than 7 km per second headed directly for them. Larger ships such as carriers would have multiple weapons targeting them. I do not know of any existing defense that could stop such weapons.
想象一下 中国发射几百个一吨级的反舰武器到低地球轨道。如果中国发展雷达人造卫星，然后他们可以任何地方定位美国军舰。武器会被中国和欧洲已经正在建造的Galileo navsats导航。如果中国同时使武器脱离轨道，那么250艘军舰必须至少有一个7km每秒的弹头发向他们。像航空母舰这样大的舰艇要有更复杂先进的武器来对付他们。我不知道有什么现存的武器可以抵御阻止那样的武器。

虫二

The US Navy could suffer a global version of Pearl Harbor. It isn't too far fetched to assume that most of the US surface Navy could be sunk or severely damaged in a single hour. American supercarriers could become the 21st century equivalent of WWII battleships: dangerous at close range but extremely vulnerable to attack by weapons with a longer range deployed from a new environment.
美国海军曾遭遇了全球皆知的珍珠港事件。假想大部分的美国表面海军在短短的一个小时内沉没或者严重损坏的场面即将不远了。美国的超级航空母舰能够成为21世纪等级的WWII 战舰：近范围攻击危险但是在一个新环境非常易被长射程武器攻击。

After that, the Chinese could take Taiwan and then blockade the Persian Gulf and take over the world's oil supply. In ten years Europe will be effectively demilitarized, so they won't be able to stop them. The Russian Navy is rusting to death. Who else has a significant Navy? Japan? India?
然后中国可以占领台网并封锁波斯湾，掌管世界石油供给。十年之后欧洲被有效的解除武装，他们也没有能力去阻止。俄罗斯海军被困死。其他的谁还有这么强大的海军？日本？印度？
It isn't too fantastic to imagine the Chinese building 500 or 1000 orbital antishipping weapons. The US deployed thousands of ICBMs during the Cold War. China has demonstrated that it can launch heavy payloads into orbit. China will be the world's largest manufacturer by 2015. If they decide to outbuild the US in a new arms race, they will have many more trained engineers and a greater manufacturing capacity.
并不是太空想而不能设想中国建造500或者1000的轨道反舰武器。美国在冷战期间发展数以千计的ICBMS洲际弹道(式)导弹系统。中国已经证明可以发射重型武器到轨道。到2015年中国会是世界最大的制造商。如果他们决定在新型武器竞赛中赶超美国，他们将拥有大量的经验丰富的工程师和巨大的制造能力。

What is the US doing to meet this potential challenge? The Shuttle is grounded. Congress just authorized the purchase of two Russian spacecraft and rockets to keep the space station operating. The space station was ordered in 1984 and still isn't finished and delivered. NASA plans to go back to the moon - one year later than the Chinese, in 2018.
那么美国面对这些潜在的挑战应该做些什么呢？航天飞机是好的。议会刚刚审议了购买两艘俄罗斯的太空船和火箭，并保证太空空间站的运行。空间站建立于1984年之间仍没有完成和交付使用。NASA计划重返月球-比中国晚一年，在2018年。

lfhaian

EddyC (Mechanical) 15 Nov 05 11:18  
BitTwiddler,

Are you really sure that China plans to do this? Does China desire world domination or merely regional domination? Should the USA plan for this scenario in advance or should it wait until it draws closer to reality? Other countries don't seem to be worried, why should we? Why does it seem that there is always some enemy out there that the USA needs to fight to protect the world?

BitTwiddler,
你确定中国会这么干么？中国究竟想主导全球还是仅仅谋求区域性控制权？美国有必要提前做准备么还是等有一定的先兆再行定夺？别的国家看起来都不甚担忧，我们是不是杞人忧天了？为什么很多情况下看起来美国为了保护世界而四处拟敌？

BitTwiddler (Electrical) 15 Nov 05 11:49  
I don't know what China intends to do. I was simply answering the questions VisiGoth asked.
我不清楚中国究竟意欲何为，只不过是简要回答了VisiGoth的问题。
Other countries implicitly rely on the US to keep the peace in the Pacific. China wants Taiwan and has a longstanding policy to use force if necessary to reclaim it. China is the only country in the Pacific which is a plausible threat to US interests in the near future.
其余的国家私下里依赖美国是为了保持所处太平洋地区的和平。中国要的是台湾以及长期以来对台湾恢复主权的用武保留权。在太平洋地区，中国是近期唯一对美国构成威胁的国家。
The US doesn't seem to be fully aware of the growing might of China. Perhaps China will remain at peace for the rest of the century. Perhaps not. If they choose to fight the US, we would have a real problem stopping them, and control of space could be the key factor in deciding the outcome of the conflict.
现在美国并没有完全意识到中国的崛起，或许在本世纪中国会保持和平，抑或未必。如果中国选择和美国交战，我们恐怕很难阻止，能否控制住西太平洋将决定冲突的最终结果。

虫二

这里很多充斥了中国威胁论

FreddyMusic

下面四段，还未翻译，译者加分。 Latest Marking !!!


VisiGoth (Electrical) 15 Nov 05 12:59  
BitTwiddler,
thanks for the excellent analysis.  I always wondered just what good space did for the military, I thought it was great for surveillance put poor for delivery of rocks or fire.

=========================================================

EddyC,
China has already proposed their increasing circle, and the move to Taiwan seems to be in 2008 or 2009.  I tend to agree with those who think the arrogance level as exhibited in the Chinese American clubs (between the original Chinese and the new pro Beijing Chinese gaining power in the clubs) is so high that they will attack before the Beijing Olympics.  Hitler waited. He had both winter and summer Olympics in 1936 but waited until November to invade.  Also, Bejing needs the intelectual property boost of Taiwan for it's space program, so they would need to invade before they can gain massive space superiority.

=========================================================

CajunCenturion (Computer) 15 Nov 05 13:48  
It's not just surveillance.  It also includes meteorolgy, communications, navigation, and others.  If you could knock out the GPS satellites, and kill the communications satellites, losing TV service would be the least of your problems.  

Another aspect that we've not touched on yet is the value of basic scientific research.  Having the ability to look back at the earth from space has been immeasureable in our studying of the environment, global warming, ocean currents, weather forecasting and warnings, and who knows how much else.  Further, what we've learned by looking out, without the distortion of our atmosphere, or from other launched probes has been invaluable in the growth of scientifc knowledge.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

=========================================================

moltenmetal (Chemical) 15 Nov 05 16:39  
Scientific megaprojects are ALL a waste of our collective resources.  Space exploration, supercolliders, nuclear fusion- you name it- they may be interesting, but they're hardly a defensible way to spend public money.  Those PUBLIC monies could be much better spent for the betterment of the human condition if they were broken up amongst tens of thousands of smaller, more narrowly-focused technological development projects.  Such projects are not only easier to manage (ie. they're less likely to be corrupted for private gain), but they're also far more likely to yield products of near-term benefit to humanity.

For the record, Teflon wasn't developed for the space program.  It was an accident of materials research in the 1930s.  Many of the technological developments attributed to the space program are made on very tenuous causal links as a political means to justify further expenditures of public monies.  Those monies predominantly flow into the hands of large contractors whose principal other source of funding is military spending.  Funding space exploration for the technological benefits derived therefrom is the "trickle-down" theory of technological development, and it's just as much bunkum in the technological sphere as it is in economic terms.  

New materials, and novel uses for existing materials- both arise daily in response to new and existing needs.  The capitalist marketplace funds this process.  There's no more need for space exploration to spur materials development than there is a need for another world war for the same purpose.

All space exploration or war does is provide a focal point for public opinion to loosen the public pursestrings.  More worthy causes related to the actual reduction of human suffering somehow aren't as "sexy" as they're not tied up with national ego.  That fact speaks volumes about how twisted our values have become.

If you want space exploration done, set up a charitable foundation and put your own discretionary spending into the pursuit of your interest.  Leave public money, collected using the taxation powers of the state, for uses of wider public benefit.

=========================================================

whotmewory (Mechanical) 15 Nov 05 17:45  
Hey Visigoth:

Regarding your statement: "What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?"

I cannot tell you.

But nor could the Air Mail "Jenny" flyer or the barn stormer of the 20's and 30's have estimated / anticipated the Messerschmidt Me-262 "Swallow" jet fighter, the V-2 rocket, or even flying so high as to require Oxygen masks.

How depressing there are so many people mired in "temporary humanity" that they cannot see the riches in scientific and economic adventure.

yts11

VisiGoth (Electrical) 15 Nov 05 12:59  
BitTwiddler,
thanks for the excellent analysis.  I always wondered just what good space did for the military, I thought it was great for surveillance put poor for delivery of rocks or fire.

VisiGoth(电子学家) 2005.11.15 12：59
BitTwiddler,
感谢你精彩的分析。我常纳闷太空给军事到底能带来什么好处，我想这仅对监督让穷人加速石头或火的传递有好处。
=========================================================

EddyC,
China has already proposed their increasing circle, and the move to Taiwan seems to be in 2008 or 2009.  I tend to agree with those who think the arrogance level as exhibited in the Chinese American clubs (between the original Chinese and the new pro Beijing Chinese gaining power in the clubs) is so high that they will attack before the Beijing Olympics.  Hitler waited. He had both winter and summer Olympics in 1936 but waited until November to invade.  Also, Bejing needs the intelectual property boost of Taiwan for it's space program, so they would need to invade before they can gain massive space superiority.

EddyC,
中国已经推动了他们的增长圈，有可能在2008年或2009年扩展到台湾。 我同意这些人认为
美籍华人俱乐部（在俱乐部里介于土著中国人和新前北京中国人正在得到权利）展列的傲慢水平很高，他们甚至会在北京奥运会之前发动进攻。希特勒等过了，他在1936年拥有冬季和夏季两届奥运会，可是直到11月份才入侵。同样，北京也需要来自台湾的后援智囊团参与这一太空计划，所以，他们需要在他们能获得巨大太空优越性之前就入侵。

其中有很多不太明白的地方，还请指正！
另：感觉这里对中国另有看法，是不是这样啊？！

=========================================================

CajunCenturion (Computer) 15 Nov 05 13:48  
It's not just surveillance.  It also includes meteorolgy, communications, navigation, and others.  If you could knock out the GPS satellites, and kill the communications satellites, losing TV service would be the least of your problems.  

Another aspect that we've not touched on yet is the value of basic scientific research.  Having the ability to look back at the earth from space has been immeasureable in our studying of the environment, global warming, ocean currents, weather forecasting and warnings, and who knows how much else.  Further, what we've learned by looking out, without the distortion of our atmosphere, or from other launched probes has been invaluable in the growth of scientifc knowledge.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

CajunCenturion (计算机专家) 2005.11.15 13:48  
这不仅仅是监督，也包括气象学、通信、航海等等。如果你破坏GPS卫星和毁掉通信卫星，丢失TV服务就会是你最小的问题。
另一方面，我们还没有完全明了基本科学研究的价值。拥有从太空回望地球的能力在环境研究无法测量，全球变暖、海洋回流和天气预报预警等等。进一步来说，我们从没有由于大气引起变形的外太空看到或发射探针所学到的，已经在科学知识的成长中变得没有价值。
祝好运
--------------
随着光圈的增长，它周围黑暗的环境也增长。——阿尔伯特.爱因斯坦（喜欢这一句话）

[ 本帖最后由 yts11 于 2006-8-26 15:54 编辑 ]

xux6211493

BitTwiddler,
thanks for the excellent analysis.  I always wondered just what good space

did for the military, I thought it was great for surveillance put poor for

delivery of rocks or fire.
感谢那些精彩的分析. 我一直不知道好的空间技术对军事有什么好处,但我认为这能改善

对地震或火灾的比较差的监测.
=========================================================

EddyC,
China has already proposed their increasing circle, and the move to Taiwan

seems to be in 2008 or 2009.  I tend to agree with those who think the

arrogance level as exhibited in the Chinese American clubs (between the

original Chinese and the new pro Beijing Chinese gaining power in the clubs)

is so high that they will attack before the Beijing Olympics.  Hitler waited.

He had both winter and summer Olympics in 1936 but waited until November to

invade.  Also, Bejing needs the intelectual property boost of Taiwan for it's

space program, so they would need to invade before they can gain massive

space superiority.
中国已提出了增加圈,移台似乎是在2008年或2009年. 我倾向于同意那些人在美籍华人俱

乐部(在俱乐部获取权力的土著中国人和新的北京中国人) 是如此的傲慢以至于在北京奥

运之前之前将攻击台湾。希特勒在等待着机会。1936年他安排冬天和夏季奥运会，但是

等到11月 才侵略。 并且，北京当局需要台湾知识产权来推动他的太空计划， 因此，在

他们可以获得雄厚的空间优势之前，他们将需要侵略。
=========================================================

CajunCenturion (Computer) 15 Nov 05 13:48  
It's not just surveillance.  It also includes meteorolgy, communications,

navigation, and others.  If you could knock out the GPS satellites, and kill

the communications satellites, losing TV service would be the least of your

problems.
它不仅仅是监视。 它还包括气象学，通信，航海和其他的学科。如果您可能击倒GPS卫

星， 并且毁灭通讯卫星， 破坏电视服务将是您最小的问题。   

Another aspect that we've not touched on yet is the value of basic scientific

research.  Having the ability to look back at the earth from space has been

immeasureable in our studying of the environment, global warming, ocean

currents, weather forecasting and warnings, and who knows how much else.  

Further, what we've learned by looking out, without the distortion of our

atmosphere, or from other launched probes has been invaluable in the growth

of scientifc knowledge.
Good Luck
我们还未接触的另一个方面是基本的科学研究的价值

。  能从太空看地球 对我们研究环境， 全球性变暖，  

洋流， 天气预报和预警具有不可估量的价值，其他的价值谁还知道呢！  

而且， 我们通过探索太空或其他的探测器所学的( 没有曲解地球周围的大气)

在科学知识增长方面是无价的.


好运
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around

it. - Albert Einstein

=========================================================

moltenmetal (Chemical) 15 Nov 05 16:39  
Scientific megaprojects are ALL a waste of our collective resources.  Space

exploration, supercolliders, nuclear fusion- you name it- they may be

interesting, but they're hardly a defensible way to spend public money.  

Those PUBLIC monies could be much better spent for the betterment of the

human condition if they were broken up amongst tens of thousands of smaller,

more narrowly-focused technological development projects.  Such projects are

not only easier to manage (ie. they're less likely to be corrupted for

private gain), but they're also far more likely to yield products of near-

term benefit to humanity.
科学上的巨大工程是完全浪费我们的集体资源。你们命名空间探险，超加速器,核裂变 ,

他们也许是很有趣的， 但他们几乎不是一个可防御的方式来花费公款。如果这些公款花

在成千上万较小的和不被广泛关注的技术发展计划，他们将更好的改善人类的生活条件
。  这样计划是不仅更容易管理,例如 他们较不可能私人所得而腐败，而且他们更可能

生产出近期间受益于人类的产品。

For the record, Teflon wasn't developed for the space program.  It was an

accident of materials research in the 1930s.  Many of the technological

developments attributed to the space program are made on very tenuous causal

links as a political means to justify further expenditures of public monies.  

Those monies predominantly flow into the hands of large contractors whose

principal other source of funding is military spending.  Funding space

exploration for the technological benefits derived therefrom is the "trickle

-down" theory of technological development, and it's just as much bunkum in

the technological sphere as it is in economic terms.
从档案可知， 聚四氟乙烯未为空间计划所开发。  它是30年代的材料 研究一个事故。  

许多 技术发展归因于空间计划,理由很难信服,作为政治手段辩下一步开支。那些金钱主

要地流入大的承包商腰包, 他们其他资金来源 也是军费。为获得的技术好处资助 探险

空间从那里是“细流"技术发展的下来理论，并且它在技术领象在经济术语域讨人欢心。

  

New materials, and novel uses for existing materials- both arise daily in

response to new and existing needs.  The capitalist marketplace funds this

process.  There's no more need for space exploration to spur materials

development than there is a need for another world war for the same purpose.
新材料和现有材料的新用途随着需求与日俱增. 资本主义市场资助这个进程。同样的目

的,下一次世界大战比探险空间,更需要激励材料发展。

All space exploration or war does is provide a focal point for public opinion

to loosen the public pursestrings.  More worthy causes related to the actual

reduction of human suffering somehow aren't as "sexy" as they're not tied up

with national ego.  That fact speaks volumes about how twisted our values

have become.
空间探险或战争所带来的是为民意提供重点 而松其腰包。 与人类莫名其妙的痛苦减轻

相关的正义事业 不是很“性感”，因为他们没有束缚 民族自我。  事实呼唤怎样扭转

我们的价值的声音已经响起。
If you want space exploration done, set up a charitable foundation and put

your own discretionary spending into the pursuit of your interest.  Leave

public money, collected using the taxation powers of the state, for uses of

wider public benefit.
如果您想要完成的空间探险，就要设定一个慈善基金会并且把您自己的任意消费放入追

求兴趣.留下 公开金钱， 收集使用状态的征税权， 为对更广泛的的 公众利益 。

=========================================================

whotmewory (Mechanical) 15 Nov 05 17:45  
Hey Visigoth:

Regarding your statement: "What is the engineer's estimate of the military

superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air

superiority)?"
关于您的声明： “什么是从空间优势获取军事优势的工程师估计(从空中优势采取一个

词组) ？"

I cannot tell you.

But nor could the Air Mail "Jenny" flyer or the barn stormer of the 20's and

30's have estimated / anticipated the Messerschmidt Me-262 "Swallow" jet

fighter, the V-2 rocket, or even flying so high as to require Oxygen masks.

How depressing there are so many people mired in "temporary humanity" that

they cannot see the riches in scientific and economic adventure.

我不可能告诉您。

但航空邮件“雌鸟”飞行物或20年代和30年代的谷仓发怒者亦不可能

估计/ 期望 Messerschmidt Me-262“燕子” 喷气式歼击机， V-2火箭， 甚至飞行那么

高以至于需要氧气面罩。

有那么多人卷入“临时人类”以至于他们看不见在科学和经济冒险里的财富是多么郁闷

的事情啊!

FreddyMusic

下面三段，还未翻译，译者加分。 Latest Marking !!!
=======================================================

whotmewory (Mechanical) 15 Nov 05 17:52  
Ahhhh, bit Twiddler!

How refreshing is your scholarship and geopolitical foresight! A fine breath of fresh air sweeping over a swill of commentary from "socially minded" nay-sayers!

Eddy C:

I hope your questions are retorical regarding China. Stunning how many Americans have no concept of the Russo-China agreements of 1996-2001. They may make pretty kitch and cheap clothes, but they are not at all our friends.

Remember Neville Chamberlain!

Moltenmetal:

That's quite a chip on your shoulder.

Regarding your Comment that we "leave public money, collected using the taxation powers of the state, for uses of wider public benefit," there will be arguments ad-nauseum for time ad-infinitum about defining that better good.

We all get mad at programs we don't feel we should pay for, and there are surely a multitude of tax-funded programs under the guise of "social welfare" or "public good" that are as equally corrupt as you allude to about non-socially oriented programs.

You might be surprise to know that in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments in the later 1700s and early 1800s, our Founding Fathers abhored the idea of Federal taxation. If you revisit these arguments, you'll be surprised that Madison, Washington, Adams, and especially Jefferson feared that these taxes would become the pig troughs of special interests and corruption by a greedy public all looking for their share.

Sound familiar. We've made the very mistake they attempted so very hard to prevent.

As for corruption, as long as religious institutions remain as corrupted as they are, I'm sorry that you and I will have to wince at corruption for a long time.

cheers!

=================================================================


moltenmetal (Chemical) 16 Nov 05 8:45  
whotmeworry:  I've earned my cynicism fair and square, like all frustrated idealists.

I'm not against taxation and government expenditure as a principle.  Far from it- taxation is the only means we have to redress the natural tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands.  Rather, I'm against the use of significant quantities of public funds for projects of questionable societal benefit.  When the argument is made about a project that there is little to no direct public benefit, but we should trust that vast benefits will "trickle down" from the public expenditure of vast sums of money, my bullsh*t detector starts ringing.  I agree that it's better to "waste" this money on scientific megaprojects than it is to not collect it in the first place and leave it in the bond accounts of the super-wealthy.  Even "wasted" taxation money circulates to some degree in the economy.

I'm not against space exploration or pure research- there is definitely merit in doing work to enhance our understanding rather than merely to solve smaller technological problems.  What I am against is scientific megaprojects in general.  I'd rather see the public money distributed amongst larger numbers of smaller projects.

=================================================================

davefitz (Mechanical) 16 Nov 05 10:25  
I am surprised that a collection of engineers would offer opinions on a mega project without asking or stating what the costs and the benefits are expected to be. One would think that such a decision would require justification and planning.

There are suppressed rumors that we have a budget deficit of rotund proportions, and that it would ( or rather, should) have long term implications on planning for discretionary mega projects. If such projects are pursued without a stated rationale or justification, we could expect that spending  trend would lead to an inflationary spiral that would make the 1979-1982 period look conservative.

lfhaian

moltenmetal (Chemical) 15 Nov 05 16:39  
Scientific megaprojects are ALL a waste of our collective resources.  Space exploration, supercolliders, nuclear fusion- you name it- they may be interesting, but they're hardly a defensible way to spend public money.  Those PUBLIC monies could be much better spent for the betterment of the human condition if they were broken up amongst tens of thousands of smaller, more narrowly-focused technological development projects.  Such projects are not only easier to manage (ie. they're less likely to be corrupted for private gain), but they're also far more likely to yield products of near-term benefit to humanity.
moltenmetal (化学家) 2005年12月5日 16:39
百万级的科学项目都是在浪费纳税人的金钱，他们感兴趣的是太空开发、超级大碰撞、原子能利用等等，但是这些都在耗费大量的社会资金。 这些“社会”资金 本可以掰开来用于改善人居环境等更精细的开发项目。这些项目并不容易掌控（比如被腐败者中饱私囊），但是更多地可以给人们带来短期的实惠。
For the record, Teflon wasn't developed for the space program.  It was an accident of materials research in the 1930s.  Many of the technological developments attributed to the space program are made on very tenuous causal links as a political means to justify further expenditures of public monies.  Those monies predominantly flow into the hands of large contractors whose principal other source of funding is military spending.  Funding space exploration for the technological benefits derived therefrom is the "trickle-down" theory of technological development, and it's just as much bunkum in the technological sphere as it is in economic terms. 据记载，特氟纶并不是空间计划开发出来的，只不过是19世纪30年代材料研究的偶然发现。许多技术进步牵强地和空间计划联系起来其实是为了进一步花费社会资金的政治手段罢了，这些钱很大一部分以军费支出的名义流入到大资本家的手中。以这种方式进行科技开发源自于“点滴细流”的研发理论，如同在经济界一样挺受欢迎。
New materials, and novel uses for existing materials- both arise daily in response to new and existing needs.  The capitalist marketplace funds this process.  There's no more need for space exploration to spur materials development than there is a need for another world war for the same purpose.
由于不断的需求，新材料已经已有材料的新利用日新月异，资本市场也热衷于这方面的投资。太空开发对材料研发的刺激作用与一场世界大战相比并无优势。
All space exploration or war does is provide a focal point for public opinion to loosen the public pursestrings.  More worthy causes related to the actual reduction of human suffering somehow aren't as "sexy" as they're not tied up with national ego.  That fact speaks volumes about how twisted our values have become.
太空开发计划以及战争都是在制造社会焦点，转移公众视线以放松财政开支。很多有意义的提案可以改善人们的实际生活，但是与国家荣誉感没有紧密的联系，往往难得青睐。这些事实证明我们的价值观变得如此扭曲不堪。
If you want space exploration done, set up a charitable foundation and put your own discretionary spending into the pursuit of your interest.  Leave public money, collected using the taxation powers of the state, for uses of wider public benefit.
假如你希望太空开发得以实施的话，不妨建立慈善基金把自己的钱捐进去，放过社会资金吧，让这些通过国家税收得来的财富用到更加广阔的社会福利中吧！
=========================================================

whotmewory (Mechanical) 15 Nov 05 17:45  
Hey Visigoth:

Regarding your statement: "What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?"

I cannot tell you.

But nor could the Air Mail "Jenny" flyer or the barn stormer of the 20's and 30's have estimated / anticipated the Messerschmidt Me-262 "Swallow" jet fighter, the V-2 rocket, or even flying so high as to require Oxygen masks.

How depressing there are so many people mired in "temporary humanity" that they cannot see the riches in scientific and economic adventure.

whotmewory (机械师) 2005年12月15日 17:45  
你好，Visigoth:
关于你提出的“工程师如何评估军事优势跟太空优势（来自于制空权的说法）”，我回答不了。
但是不管是航空邮寄“詹妮”飞机还是20、30年代的巴恩攻击机都无法证明或预料到梅塞施米特式ME-262“云雀”喷气式战斗机、V2火箭以及类似高度的飞行都必须使用氧气面罩。这么多人满足于暂时性的社会福利而看不到科学以及经济冒险带来的财富，哎，太郁闷了！

[ 本帖最后由 lfhaian 于 2006-8-26 17:37 编辑 ]

lfhaian

原来已经有人翻了这段，还花了时间，xux6211493 翻得不错！！
算了，有空再来看看吧。

[ 本帖最后由 lfhaian 于 2006-8-26 17:38 编辑 ]

xux6211493

whotmewory (Mechanical) 15 Nov 05 17:52  
Ahhhh, bit Twiddler!
How refreshing is your scholarship and geopolitical foresight! A fine breath of fresh air sweeping over a swill of commentary from "socially minded" nay-sayers!
您的学识和地缘政治的远见是多么振奋人心! 保持清醒的头脑，除去社会上愤世嫉俗者 的一番论调!
Eddy C:
I hope your questions are retorical regarding China. Stunning how many Americans have no concept of the Russo-China agreements of 1996-2001. They may make pretty kitch and cheap clothes, but they are not at all our friends.Remember Neville Chamberlain!
我希望您的关于中国问题是retorical。很震惊的是很多美国人并不知道1996-2001的中俄协议。 他们 可以做俏丽的kitch(厨具)和便宜的衣裳， 但他们根本就不是我们的朋友。
Neville 张伯伦回忆

Moltenmetal:

That's quite a chip on your shoulder.
Regarding your Comment that we "leave public money, collected using the taxation powers of the state, for uses of wider public benefit," there will be arguments ad-nauseum for time ad-infinitum about defining that better good.We all get mad at programs we don't feel we should pay for, and there are surely a multitude of tax-funded programs under the guise of "social welfare"or "public good" that are as equally corrupt as you allude to about non-socially oriented programs.
那完全就是一块芯片在您的肩膀。
关于您的论述——我们“留下公众的钱， 收集使用国家的征税权，用于更广泛的公众利益，”关于更好就是好的争论没完没了，永不休止。我们都对不应该资助的计划感到歇斯底里，并且肯定有许多借着“社会保障”或“公共利益”的名义税收资助的计划象您暗指非社会性的计划样地腐败。
You might be surprise to know that in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments in the later 1700s and early 1800s, our Founding Fathers abhored the idea of Federal taxation. If you revisit these arguments, you'll be surprised that Madison, Washington, Adams, and especially Jefferson feared that these taxes would become the pig troughs of special interests and corruption by a greedy public all looking for their share.Sound familiar. We've made the very mistake they attempted so very hard to prevent.As for corruption, as long as religious institutions remain as corrupted as they are, I'm sorry that you and I will have to wince at corruption for a long time.cheers!
知道联邦制拥护者和反联邦制拥护者在18世纪末和19世纪初期的争论中， 我们的国父就憎恨 联邦征税的想法，您也许感到很吃惊。 如果您回顾这些争论， 您会惊奇麦迪逊， 华盛顿，亚当斯，并且特别是杰斐逊担心 这些税将成为贪婪的集团寻找他们的份额而获取特殊利益和 腐败的温床。象是在老调重弹。然而我们正是犯了他们竭力防范的错误。至于腐败， 只要宗教机构依然像他们那样腐败，我很遗憾你们和我将必须长时间生活在腐败之中。
欢呼!
=================================================================


moltenmetal (Chemical) 16 Nov 05 8:45  
whotmeworry:  I've earned my cynicism fair and square, like all frustrated idealists. I'm not against taxation and government expenditure as a principle.  Far from it- taxation is the only means we have to redress the natural tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands.  Rather, I'm against the use of significant quantities of public funds for projects of questionable societal benefit.  When the argument is made about a project that there is little to no direct public benefit, but we should trust that ast benefits will "trickle down" from the public expenditure of vast sums of money, my bullshit detector starts ringing.  I agree that it's better to "waste" this money on scientific megaprojects than it is to not collect it in the first place and leave it in the bond accounts of the super-wealthy.  Even "wasted" taxation money circulates to some degree in the economy.I'm not against space exploration or pure research- there is definitely merit in doing work to enhance our understanding rather than merely to solve smaller technological problems.  What I am against is scientific megaprojects in general.  I'd rather see the public money distributed amongst larger numbe
我公平又公正赢得了愤世嫉俗， 象所有沮丧的理想主义者。 我不是反对征税和政府支出作为原则。 恰恰相反 ，征税是我们纠正资本主义自然倾向于把财富集中越来越少的人手里的唯一手段。我相当反对把重大数量公共基金用于可疑的社会利益计划。当该计划的公众直接利益被论证为很多时 ， 但我们应该相信，浩大的利益从浩大的款项公共开支“细流下来”， 我糟糕的探测器开始响起来。我同意在科学巨大工程“浪费”金钱比不先收集它而把它留在超级富裕债券帐户里好的。即使“浪费的”税收在经济领域流通到某一程度。我不是反对空间探险或纯粹的研究，工作优点肯定提高我们的理解能力而不是仅仅解决更小的技术问题。一般来说，我所反对的是巨大的科学工程。  我宁愿看到在更小的项目之中使用大部分的公共基金。
=================================================================

davefitz (Mechanical) 16 Nov 05 10:25  
I am surprised that a collection of engineers would offer opinions on a mega project without asking or stating what the costs and the benefits are expected to be. One would think that such a decision would require justification and planning. There are suppressed rumors that we have a budget deficit of rotund proportions, and that it would ( or rather, should) have long term implications on planning for discretionary mega projects. If such projects are pursued without a stated rationale or justification, we could expect that spending  trend would lead to an inflationary spiral that would make the 1979-1982 period look conservative.
我惊奇的是工程师的一件收藏品将提供关于巨大工程的观点，无需询问或陈述多少的费用和期待什么好处。 有人认为这样决定将需要证据和规划。有被压制的谣言：我们有很大比例预算赤字，并且它会(或宁可，应该)长期牵连任意巨大工程计划。如果寻求这样计划，不用陈述的理论基础或辩解， 我们可以预测花费趋向将导致象1979-1982期间保守的螺旋式上升的通货膨胀。

xux6211493

花了 好几个小时，才翻译了一些。由于时间仓促，加上英语水平有限。不足之处多指教。谢谢总版主的加分！！！

FreddyMusic

感谢各位，辛苦了。
下面四段，还未翻译，
译者加分。 Latest Marking !!!

============================================================

EddyC (Mechanical) 16 Nov 05 15:09  
The lowly sewer has contributed more to humanity than the space program. But the space program is technically more interesting than the sewer and therefore more appealing to engineers. But public money raised via taxation should go to projects that have more bang for the buck than the space program.

============================================================
controlnovice (Electrical) 18 Nov 05 13:34  
Are you serious?  The American's went to the moon?  I thought that was a hoax!

I thought this thread was going to discuss the urban space issues facing America today, such as suburban growth taking away all the farmland.  Now that's space in which to be concerned.  

============================================================

VisiGoth (Electrical) 18 Nov 05 15:53  
Farmland in Illinois USA is being covered over quite quickly.  It is cutting into some of the lushest deep dark dirt farmland in the world.  It seems to be a real shame.  There are some low level local efforts, but the economics seem to overrule.  Maybe some day we can peal back the black top from the strip mall parking lots and start to spot farm them.  Maybe when the housing bubble bursts the growth will slow down and the trend will be to move back into the cities.

============================================================

wes616 (Aerospace) 18 Nov 05 16:19  
There was a city mouse.... and there was a country mouse... there never was a suburban mouse. Even if there was, we'd die from boredom reading about his life...

Sometimes big projects that would advance science have gotten short changed for bigger projects that would appeal to the "american public." An example of this is the superconducting supercolider... it was axed for this so called space station. By the time NASA and it's governmental consortium gets around to completing it, that guy from Vegas, will be offering you and me discout weekends for his orbiting hotel.!

Maybe if we Americans really wanted to get serious about funding science (not just space) we would take up a national bond measure. That would tie congress's hands from porking out the science budget, and fund some major project to completion (as opposed to the several half complete half brained billion dollar baby hueys that we have now). We can all spare $1 per month for 3 years... as sally struthers says, "it's less than 4 cents a day." I mean 10.8 billion could complete at least one of the projects....

Wes C.
------------------------------
When they broke open molecules, they found they were only stuffed with atoms. But when they broke open atoms, they found them stuffed with explosions...

xux6211493

EddyC (Mechanical) 16 Nov 05 15:09  
The lowly sewer has contributed more to humanity than the space program. But the space program is technically more interesting than the sewer and therefore more appealing to engineers. But public money raised via taxation should go to projects that have more bang for the buck than the space program.
地位低下的缝纫工比太空计划对人类贡献得更多。 但技术上比缝纫工有趣因此更吸引工程师。 但通过征税筹集的公共基金应该支持比太空计划优先发展的计划。
============================================================
controlnovice (Electrical) 18 Nov 05 13:34  
Are you serious?  The American's went to the moon?  I thought that was a hoax!
I thought this thread was going to discuss the urban space issues facing America today, such as suburban growth taking away all the farmland.  Now that's space in which to be concerned.  
您是认真的吗？  美国人的去了月球？  我认为是骗局!
我认为这条线索将引发谈论美国今天面对的都市空间问题， 例如郊区的发展占用了整个农田。 现在那空间是值得关注的。  
============================================================

VisiGoth (Electrical) 18 Nov 05 15:53  
Farmland in Illinois USA is being covered over quite quickly.  It is cutting into some of the lushest deep dark dirt farmland in the world.  It seems to be a real shame.  There are some low level local efforts, but the economics seem to overrule.  Maybe some day we can peal back the black top from the strip mall parking lots and start to spot farm them.  Maybe when the housing bubble bursts the growth will slow down and the trend will be to move back into the cities.
美国伊利诺伊州的农田正迅速被覆盖。 在世界上，它开凿某些最肥沃的深黑的土农田。  它似乎是真正的羞辱。  有一些低级地方努力过， 但经济似乎否决了它。  可能某一天我们会从购物中心停车场回响黑土上面，并且开始污染经营他们。  也许当住房泡沫迸发，增长 将放缓和趋向将是移回城市。
============================================================

wes616 (Aerospace) 18 Nov 05 16:19  
There was a city mouse.... and there was a country mouse... there never was a suburban mouse. Even if there was, we'd die from boredom reading about his life...
有城市老鼠…. 也有乡下老鼠… 未曾有一只郊区老鼠。 即使有， 我们会死于乏味的读他的生活…
Sometimes big projects that would advance science have gotten short changed for bigger projects that would appeal to the "american public." An example of this is the superconducting supercolider... it was axed for this so called space station. By the time NASA and it's governmental consortium gets around to completing it, that guy from Vegas, will be offering you and me discout weekends for his orbiting hotel.!
有时为迎合“美国公众”的更大计划，推进科学的大项目将受到轻微的改变。此例子是超导体和超… 它为了所谓的空间站而被砍了。 当美国航空航天局和政府财团着手完成它，那个维加斯小伙为您和我提供他在轨道旅馆过愉快的周末!

Maybe if we Americans really wanted to get serious about funding science (not just space) we would take up a national bond measure. That would tie congress's hands from porking out the science budget, and fund some major project to completion (as opposed to the several half complete half brained billion dollar baby hueys that we have now). We can all spare $1 per month for 3 years... as sally struthers says, "it's less than 4 cents a day." I mean 10.8 billion could complete at least one of the projects.... 也许如果我们美国人真正地想严肃的资助科学(不仅空间)我们会采取一项全国债券措施。 那将绑住国会的从科学预算收回的手， 并且资助某一主要项目直至完成(与几个半完成和半智囊团的相反，我们现在有十亿美元婴孩hueys)。 我们每个月按3年能备用$1…正如攻坚的人士所说， “它少于4分是每天。“我意味108亿至少完成其中一个项目….
Wes C.
------------------------------
When they broke open molecules, they found they were only stuffed with atoms. But when they broke open atoms, they found them stuffed with explosions...
当他们分裂分子， 他们发现分子由原子充塞了。 但当他们分开原子，他们发现原子由爆炸物所充塞。

FreddyMusic

最后一段，译者加分。 Last Marking !!! ---- 完

=============================================
PsionSaint (Chemical) 15 Feb 06 13:31  
To try and make a point back on the original thread, I honestly believe that we need to pursue space travel and exploration for one simple, selfish reason.  At some point in time, we as humankind on Earth will go extinct.  You can speculate about the reason behind it - several options are even presented in this thread:

- China decides to take over the world and we have to fight them with nukes (both land and potentially space-based)

- Big asteroid smacks into our planet

- Our current modes of energy use eventually make our planet uninhabitable

But the one consistent thought is that Earth is a single point of failure.  Once it goes, humankind does too.  Now I realize that the timing of this may be on a geologic scale or that life may rise again (depending on your views on that whole debate) but honestly I seriously believe that humans should be investing in their perservation on a long-term basis.  Yes, we can also invest in alternative fuels, affordable healthcare, feeding the starving people (many more of those that ones that are worried about space travel) but none of that gets us out of our current one-planet situation.

I recognize that we as humans with our massive brains and complex societies have an ability to react to and possibly even control these cataclismic events that threaten our existence.  I also believe that we as humans are sometimes a little full of ourselves or don't know as much as we think.  We should be hedging our bets that this arrogance doesn't cook our collective butts.  Let's use that arrogance to our advantage by saying "Yep - the solar system, much less our galaxy, is a huge place and we have no idea how to explore it right now.  So let's see what we can come up with."  I'd be happy if we spent 1% of our annual defense budget in the USA on space.  Notice I didn't say NASA - we have to use those funds wisely and their track record of late doesn't look "wise" to me.

Feel free to label me dilusional or idealistic or anything else that pokes holes in my argument.  We can accomplish truly great things as humans once our society decides the costs are worth it.  History has proven that sentiment, particularly in the areas of science and engineering when it comes to perceived threats outside our borders (the Manhattan Project comes to mind).  You want to see our space program kick into high gear?  Let some astronomer spot an asteroid the size of Texas that will smack us in a year.  Too bad we're only scanning something like 3% of the sky right now.  Or if you really want some action, let some alien race show up in orbit.  Even if they are totally peaceful, we can count on our warmongers to start directing SERIOUS funds into space-based research.


Jabberwocky (Mechanical) 17 Feb 06 15:00  
PsionSaint: Yes.

yts11

PsionSaint (Chemical) 15 Feb 06 13:31  
To try and make a point back on the original thread, I honestly believe that we need to pursue space travel and exploration for one simple, selfish reason.  At some point in time, we as humankind on Earth will go extinct.  You can speculate about the reason behind it - several options are even presented in this thread:

- China decides to take over the world and we have to fight them with nukes (both land and potentially space-based)

- Big asteroid smacks into our planet

- Our current modes of energy use eventually make our planet uninhabitable
PsionSaint (化学家)2006.2.15
试着找到原线索上的一个要点，我始终相信因为简单、自私的原因我们才追求太空旅游和探险。从时间上来说，生活在地球上的我们人类将会灭绝。你可以推测其背后的原因——按这个线索甚至可以列出一些选项：
-中国打算统治整个世界，我们不得不用核武器同他开战（包括陆地和潜在的太空基地）注：这个家伙在鼓吹中国威胁论！？
-大的小行星撞进我们的星球
-我们当前的能量模式最终使得我们的星球不适合居住

But the one consistent thought is that Earth is a single point of failure.  Once it goes, humankind does too.  Now I realize that the timing of this may be on a geologic scale or that life may rise again (depending on your views on that whole debate) but honestly I seriously believe that humans should be investing in their perservation on a long-term basis.  Yes, we can also invest in alternative fuels, affordable healthcare, feeding the starving people (many more of those that ones that are worried about space travel) but none of that gets us out of our current one-planet situation.
但是一坚固的思想认为地球是一个失败的单点。一旦这一思想起作用，人类也会那么做的。现在我意识到这个时候可能会在地质测量上，或者是生命再次出现（这取决于你在整个辩论中的观点），但是老实说，我真的相信人类会在长期基础被包埋在他们的保存中。当然，我们可以投资在燃料替代品、买得起的健康器械、给饥民（这些人当中许多都担心太空旅游）食物，但是这些没有什么能使我们走出当前一个行星的环境。
I recognize that we as humans with our massive brains and complex societies have an ability to react to and possibly even control these cataclismic events that threaten our existence.  I also believe that we as humans are sometimes a little full of ourselves or don't know as much as we think.  We should be hedging our bets that this arrogance doesn't cook our collective butts.  Let's use that arrogance to our advantage by saying "Yep - the solar system, much less our galaxy, is a huge place and we have no idea how to explore it right now.  So let's see what we can come up with."  I'd be happy if we spent 1% of our annual defense budget in the USA on space.  Notice I didn't say NASA - we have to use those funds wisely and their track record of late doesn't look "wise" to me.
我认识到我们作为人类，拥有聪明的大脑和复杂的社会关系，有能力对那些威胁我们生存的洪大的事件做出反应并控制它们。我还相信我们作为人类有时会有点儿太过自满或不能知道像我们想象的那么多。我们应该避免打赌，认为傲慢自大不会让我们的集体剩余部分完蛋。让我们把傲慢自大用到我们的优点上，去说“是啊，太阳系（比银河系小得多）是一个大空间，目前，我们没法正确的探索它。因此，让我们看看我们能提出什么来。” 如果能在美国拿出我们每年军备预算的1%用在太空研究上，我就很高兴了。注意，我不是在说NASA——我们不得不恰当地用这些基金，不过从后来它们使用的记录上看，我们并不明智！
Feel free to label me dilusional or idealistic or anything else that pokes holes in my argument.  We can accomplish truly great things as humans once our society decides the costs are worth it.  History has proven that sentiment, particularly in the areas of science and engineering when it comes to perceived threats outside our borders (the Manhattan Project comes to mind).  You want to see our space program kick into high gear?  Let some astronomer spot an asteroid the size of Texas that will smack us in a year.  Too bad we're only scanning something like 3% of the sky right now.  Or if you really want some action, let some alien race show up in orbit.  Even if they are totally peaceful, we can count on our warmongers to start directing SERIOUS funds into space-based research.
可以自由地把我标榜成痴妄的、理想化的或者任何能剑指我论据中漏洞的称谓。如果人类一旦决定我们的社会值得去这么做，我们就能真正完成一些大的事情。历史证明：情感尤其是在科学和工程领域内，当他开始觉察到我们边界的外部威胁（形成了曼哈顿计划）。你想看我们的太空计划踢进高的起落架？让一些宇航员去侦查一个像得克萨斯州那么大小的小行星，它可能在一年内会撞击我们。不幸的是，我们现在仅能扫描一些像天空3%那么大小的东西。或者，如果我们真想有所作为，就让外国的比赛一起出现在轨道上吧。即使它们总体来说是和平的，我也能依靠好战者把重要的基金投入到太空基地研究中。

firebirder

这种活动我喜欢！