【加分】美国人眼中的中国火箭

xiao9136

TheTick (Mechanical) 8 Nov 05 19:04  
I think "serious about space" AND "manned mission to Mars" are not compatible concepts.  We need to crawl before we run.

"Getting serious" would first mean developing safe (for people, cargo, and planet's environment) and economical means for popping in and out of orbit, and maintaining a viable and useful manned presence in orbit.  Ultimately, it needs to be profitable, which means no NASA needs to find a comfy chair in the back of the history books.
I could be the world's greatest underachiever, if I could just learn to apply myself.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help


我认为“严肃对待太空”以及“登陆火星计划”的概念并不合适。在我们行动之前我们还步履蹒跚。
“严肃对待”首先意味着发展（对于人员，飞船以及星球的环境来说）安全并且经济的途径间歇进入和脱离轨道，也意味着在轨道上维持可行并且有用，要一直有人驾驶（不太好翻译）。最后，它也必须是有利可图的，也就意味着没有一个国家航空和宇宙航行局愿意只是“在历史教科书上找个舒服的椅子”。
如果我只是学会应用自身，那么我可能是世上最低能的人了。

seimd

davefitz (Mechanical) 9 Nov 05 8:52  
BillPSU is corect, but I would like to add that the original reason for the 1960's space rush to the moon likely had a different reason.
BillPSU 说的对，但是我还要补充说，60年代登月的空间潮的初衷是另有原因的。

At that time (1960), there was a growing consensus in gov't that we needed to improve rocket launch technology in order to realize an effective nuclear deterrent. At that time, the failure rate of US rockets was of concern and marginally competitive the the Russians.
那个时候（1960），政府内越来越多的人达成共识，就是我们需要发展火箭发射技术来形成有效的核威慑。那个时候，美国的火箭发射失败率是受到关注的而且是与俄国在竞争着的。

Not only did the huge amount of research dollars point the US universities in the direction of supporting the goal of better launch vehicles, but JFK's verbage added a vision that was probably in the minds of many college science students, and that vision ( of flying to the moon) was probably a more attractive thought than the real reason, ie, building a bigger and better strategic missile system. The vison thing worked, and there was a huge increase in science and engineering students in the 60's.
不仅是巨大的研究资金使得美国的大学研究转向于为如何达到更好地发射火箭这一目标提供支持，还有JFK's verbage还形成了憧憬，这一憧憬注入到了很多大学生的思想里边，而且这种憧憬（飞向月球）比起真实的原因，例如，建立一个更大的更好的战略导弹系统来说，更多的是因为它具有强大的吸引力。这样的憧憬起了作用，于是60年代学科学和工程的学生大大增加了。

The missile and space industry  is now mature and does not need the same jump-start as was required in 1960, but it needs to address the normal issues of regeneration of staff as the grey hairs retire. There are other technology fields that might need a jump start, but it is hard to imagine that anyone in gov't feels as strongly about those new issues as was felt in 1960 regarding the "missile gap".
导弹和空间工业已经步入正轨而且不需要象60年代那样要突然起步，但是在老一代人员退休后，需要确定如何正常的发展新生力量。还有其它技术领域可能需要跳跃式的开展，但是很难想象政府里的人认为这种新问题出现严重到就好像进入了 60年代“火箭空白”时期。

lanweiming

whotmewory (Mechanical)
9 Nov 05 10:43

Thank you BillPSU for your very lively adds to this discussion!
感谢BILLPSU对此次讨论的补充。
What astounds me is all the "logic" banter among so many of you: dollars, dollars, dollars! Where is all your sense of "challenge" and "adventure?" Have you been scrambling away at the rat race too long to sit back and star at the sky at night and allow yourselves to think about "what's out there?"
让我非常震惊的是你们之中很多人的逻辑：钱！钱！钱！你们的挑战和冒险精神又哪里去了呢？你们是否脱离了你死我活斗争太久而意志松懈了？在星夜你们有没有凝视星空，扪心自问“那边是什么？”（注：star at 应该是 stare at）
I'm not at all suggesting Federal dollars alone pay for this - private enterprise will take us farther and faster: it just has to have some assistance for the investment.
我不是建议仅有联邦财政来支付这一切，私人企业也将可以做的更好更快。他们只是要一些投资上的帮助。
But for those of you "rational" thinkers out there - without even looking at the "hot button" social programs or corporate welfare programs our media hypes every election year - please PLEASE consider the "unheard-of" of OUR dollars. For example, while WE cannot even get forgiven a couple thousand dollars in back 401-K early withdrawal penalties or back taxes or whatever, WE somehow can ALWAYS and CERTAINLY afford to FORGIVE India's $4B debt to YOU and ME, or the BILLIONS in debt owed to us by so many other countries - 1st, 2nd, or 3rd world.
但你们当中的“理性”思考者们有没有考虑一下那些一些秘密基金，即使没有看看那些选举年媒体大肆宣传的社会保障计划或者福利计划。比如，我们无法免除退休金提前支取的（一两千美元）罚金，却可以常常免除印度40亿，或者其他第一，二，三世界国家数十亿的债务。（这段翻译的不是很好。401K是美国的一种退休计划）。
THAT'S where the money can come from: those who OWE you and me.
那才是资金的来源：那些欠我们的人。
Chris in NC NASCAR Country
Chris于北卡罗来那州NASCAR村

[ 本帖最后由 lanweiming 于 2006-7-12 23:26 编辑 ]

FreddyMusic

下面四段，还未翻译，译者加分。 Latest Marking !!!

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

TheTick (Mechanical) 9 Nov 05 18:50  
Quote (whotmeworry):
What astounds me is all the "logic" banter among so many of you: dollars, dollars, dollars! Where is all your sense of "challenge" and "adventure?"

Isabella did not finance Columbus out of the goodness of her heart, nor did Columbus venture forth merely for the thrill of it.

Are we not trained to discern the driving forces behind what we wish to achieve?  As a driving force, money moves from where it is to where there is more money to be made.  "Serious about space" also means being serious about mastering the economic forces that will put us there.

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

whotmewory (Mechanical) 10 Nov 05 11:34  
Nor did Columbus "discover" North America. When will the schools stop that nonsense?

How can any people stare at the Moon or at Mars or Saturn in a scope and - knowing we've ste foot on that dusty ball in our sky - shrug it off as not being a totally tossed off opportunity shamefully forgotten and wasted?

There are so mnany driving factors behind every "adventure" of humankind (PC term there). NASA this - NASA that. Get off the NASA thing. They're not the only option.

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

GolfMeeting (Bioengineer) 10 Nov 05 12:02  
NASA does have competition these days at OSIDA.

Look at what those Oklahoman's are doing at OSIDA:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ok_spaceport_011210.html

Whats next, nuclear power plants in space, mining the moon and Mars, launching mini-planets from mars back near earth's orbit for inhabitation?

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

wes616 (Aerospace) 10 Nov 05 12:14  
We are at a point where our scientific dollars need to be spent carefully, since they decrease on an almost. The orbital program needs to be privatized and replaced. The last century we saw a rise in big defense contractors like bechtel and Haliburton, this century we'll see a rise in the private space companies. The first one to get a man (or men) in an orbit where satallite mantenance can occur will make oogles of money in the next few years. Then our govt. can award these companies big contracts to keep our fleets of sats flying and can spend the science dollars on genuine (non "immediately" commercial) ventures.

Hell, maybe we can even sell the "space station" to a "pharmasutical company consortium"!
Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

lanweiming

What astounds me is all the "logic" banter among so many of you: dollars, dollars, dollars! Where is all your sense of "challenge" and "adventure?"
让我非常震惊的是你们之中很多人的逻辑：钱！钱！钱！你们的挑战和冒险精神又哪里去了呢？
Isabella did not finance Columbus out of the goodness of her heart, nor did Columbus venture forth merely for the thrill of it.
Isabella不是因为心地善良而资助哥伦布，而哥伦布也不是仅仅为了刺激而探险。
Are we not trained to discern the driving forces behind what we wish to achieve?  As a driving force, money moves from where it is to where there is more money to be made.  "Serious about space" also means being serious about mastering the economic forces that will put us there.
我们难道不是被训练去认识期望成功的动力吗？钱作为一种动力从它原来的地方移动到一个可以挣更多钱的地方。严肃对待空间也意味着严肃地掌握把我们引到哪里的动力。

lanweiming

NASA does have competition these days at OSIDA.
如今，NASA的确在和OSIDA竞争。（the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority (OSIDA)：俄克拉何马州空间工业发展当局）
Look at what those Oklahoman's are doing at OSIDA:
看看俄克拉何马州在做什么：
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ok_spaceport_011210.html

Whats next, nuclear power plants in space, mining the moon and Mars, launching mini-planets from mars back near earth's orbit for inhabitation?
下一步是什么？空间核电站，月球和火星开矿，还是从火星发射到地球的供居住的小行星？

sapringna

Nor did Columbus "discover" North America. When will the schools stop that nonsense?
要不是哥伦布"发现了" 北美洲。学校什么时候才能将停止那些胡话?

How can any people stare at the Moon or at Mars or Saturn in a scope and - knowing we've ste foot on that dusty ball in our sky - shrug it off as not being a totally tossed off opportunity shamefully forgotten and wasted?
怎么能让凝望在月亮或在火星或土星所在的范围并且知道我们已经在天空中那个多尘的星球上留下了脚印的人——无所谓的并可耻的忘却和浪费这个没有完全被抛弃的机会。

There are so mnany driving factors behind every "adventure" of humankind (PC term there). NASA this - NASA that. Get off the NASA thing. They're not the only option.

每一个“冒险”人类的后面都有如此多的动力（个人电脑期限这），美国国家航空航天局这的，那的。把美国国家航空航天局的事丢掉，他们并不式唯一的选择。

[ 本帖最后由 sapringna 于 2006-8-5 16:18 编辑 ]

sapringna

We are at a point where our scientific dollars need to be spent carefully, since they decrease on an almost. The orbital program needs to be privatized and replaced. The last century we saw a rise in big defense contractors like bechtel and Haliburton, this century we'll see a rise in the private space companies. The first one to get a man (or men) in an orbit where satallite mantenance can occur will make oogles of money in the next few years. Then our govt. can award these companies big contracts to keep our fleets of sats flying and can spend the science dollars on genuine (non "immediately" commercial) ventures.
我们是在科学美元需要仔细地花费的时刻了, 因为它们几乎都在减少。轨道计划需要被私有化和被取代。在上一个世纪我们看到了大型防御工程承包商像bechtel 和Haliburton的增加，这个世纪我们将会看到私有空间公司的增加。第一个能让一个人（或者一些人）保持在卫星运行的轨道中，那么他将在接下来的几年内赚到无数的钱。然而我们的政府可以得到这些公司的大合同来保持我们的舰队飞行并且可以让科学美元花在真正(非"立刻" 商务) 事业上。

Hell, maybe we can even sell the "space station" to a "pharmasutical company consortium"!
地狱, 我们甚至能把"空间站" 卖给"pharmasutical 公司财团"!

FreddyMusic

下面四段，还未翻译，译者加分。 Latest Marking !!!

=======================================================================
flamby (Structural) 14 Nov 05 5:51  
Getting serious about space is no longer easy. Even if we travel at the speed of light, we are not going past the crap of solar system to any useful thing. Given our present level of science and if one great president exclaims someday, "lets go to Jupiter" it may excite scientists but not the general public (votes) hassled with the taxes.

During sixties, it was a cold war period and public support for such programs was very high because of ego embedded in human nature. In present times, I do not think the political will can be garnered for such big missions.
Ciao.


=======================================================================
CSLufkin (Mechanical) 14 Nov 05 8:18  
I would love to see NASA shut down for two consecutive years, and their budget spent on alternative energy. Man we would have cars that ran on the exaust from our home generation units that run on the sewage generated by the household (or something like that).


=======================================================================
EddyC (Mechanical) 14 Nov 05 14:39  
When my Grandmother heard that humans had landed on the moon, she was angry because we had found another place to pollute. The 60s space race was more for political bragging rights than for humanity's benefit. The real question is whether the funds proposed for the space program can be put to better use elsewhere. I think they can and so do most people.

=======================================================================
CajunCenturion (Computer) 14 Nov 05 14:52  
To properly evaluate the space program and its benefits, I think you need to factor in the value of "space spinoffs".  Space spinoffs are those products and technologies that are by-products of space investment.

A Google search for "space spinoffs" should yield lots of reading material.  Here is one for starters:
NASA Spinoffs Bringing Space down to Earth
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

longxianhua

水平不行，请指教！:D:D

flamby(结构的) 十一月 14 日 05 5:51
有关空间的事不再变严重是容易的。 即使我们以光速旅行,我们没有在越过对任何的有用事物的太阳系里掷两个骰子出现的输数目去。 对于我们的现在水平的科学，而且如果一位伟大的总统有一天大叫：" 让去木星"  。 它可能刺激科学家 ，但不刺激缴税的公众 (选票) hassled 。

      在六十的时候,因为如此的计画，因为自我非常高，在人性中埋入，它是一个冷战时期，而且民众支援。 在现在的时代中，我不认为政治上者将会能被为如此大的任务储存。
Ciao。

  CSLufkin(机械的) 十一月 14 日 05  8:18
   我会见到被连续的数年停工的美国航空暨太空总署，和他们在其它可能的能源上花费的预算。 我们男人会有涉及来自我们的家世代单位的 exaust 的汽车在被家庭产生的脏水上的奔跑.


EddyC(机械的) 十一月 14 日 05   14:39
   当我的祖母听到的时候,人类已经在月亮上登陆,因为我们已经发现另外的一个地方污染，所以她很生气。 60 年代太空竞赛对政治上的吹牛权利是较多的,超过对于人性的利益。 真正的问题是为太空计画和计划的基金是否能被放到较好的使用到其他地方。 我认为，他们用于罐头，而且大多数的人也是。


CajunCenturion(计算机) 十一月 14 日 0514:52
为了要适当地评估太空计画和它的利益,我认为你对 " 隔开附带利益 " 的价值因素需要。  空间附带利益是那些产品和空间投资的副产物的技术。

Google 上搜寻 " 隔开附带利益 " 应该产生许多可读材料。
对于起动器，在这里:
美国航空暨太空总署附带利益对地球把空间带来下来好运气
--------------
当一个轻增加的圆周在它周围黑暗的圆周也是。 - 艾伯特爱因斯坦

eversoon

本来想翻译来着，没有机会了，呵呵。

虫二

flamby (Structural) 14 Nov 05 5:51  
Getting serious about space is no longer easy. Even if we travel at the speed of light, we are not going past the crap of solar system to any useful thing. Given our present level of science and if one great president exclaims someday, "lets go to Jupiter" it may excite scientists but not the general public (votes) hassled with the taxes.
接近太空并不是那么简单的事情。即便我们以光的速度行进，也不能穿过太阳系而得到有用的东西。假设以我们目前的科学水平，如果有一天一个伟大的总统声明，“让我们奔向木星”，这可能会刺激科学家而不是缴税的普通大众。
During sixties, it was a cold war period and public support for such programs was very high because of ego embedded in human nature. In present times, I do not think the political will can be garnered for such big missions.
Ciao.
在过去的六十年内正是冷战时期，公众之所以支持这样的计划是因为利己主义深入人类本性。在当前这个时代，我不认为政治上会启动这么大的任务。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
CSLufkin (Mechanical) 14 Nov 05 8:18  
I would love to see NASA shut down for two consecutive years, and their budget spent on alternative energy. Man we would have cars that ran on the exaust from our home generation units that run on the sewage generated by the household (or something like that).

我非常高兴的看到NASA（美国国家航空和宇宙航行局）在过去的两年那停止了活动，而将他们的预算用于替代性能源。    最后那句翻译不好
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
EddyC (Mechanical) 14 Nov 05 14:39  
When my Grandmother heard that humans had landed on the moon, she was angry because we had found another place to pollute. The 60s space race was more for political bragging rights than for humanity's benefit. The real question is whether the funds proposed for the space program can be put to better use elsewhere. I think they can and so do most people.

当我的祖母听说人类登月的消息时她很生气。因为我们又找到了另外一个可以污染的地方。这60s的空间竞赛在政治吹嘘利益方面远大于人类的
利益。真正的问题是用于太空计划的提议资金是否能更好的用于其他地方。我想或者说大部分人民都认为这是可以的。
=======================================================================
CajunCenturion (Computer) 14 Nov 05 14:52  
To properly evaluate the space program and its benefits, I think you need to factor in the value of "space spinoffs".  Space spinoffs are those products and technologies that are by-products of space investment.

A Google search for "space spinoffs" should yield lots of reading material.  Here is one for starters:
NASA Spinoffs Bringing Space down to Earth
Good Luck
为了能够完全的评估太空计划以及其产生的利益，必须考虑太空副产品价值因素。太空副产品就是那些太空产品以及相关开发技术，而这是
也是太空投资的副产品。

在Google搜索“space spinoffs”可以找到大量的相关资料。这是其中一句：
NASA 的副产品 将太空带到地球。
好运
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
光明照耀的范围越大，环绕光明的黑暗也越大。

xux6211493

flamby (Structural) 14 Nov 05 5:51  
Getting serious about space is no longer easy. Even if we travel at the speed

of light, we are not going past the crap of solar system to any useful thing.

Given our present level of science and if one great president exclaims

someday, "lets go to Jupiter" it may excite scientists but not the general

public (votes) hassled with the taxes.
对太空肃然起敬也不再是那么容易的事情。 即使我们以光速旅行， 我们也得不到太阳系任何有用的事。 如果是我们的现行科学标准，并且一位了不起的总统某天 号召，“我们去开发木星吧，”它也许激发科学家而不是 争论税收的公众(表决)。


During sixties, it was a cold war period and public support for such programs

was very high because of ego embedded in human nature. In present times, I do

not think the political will can be garnered for such big missions.
Ciao.
在二十世纪60年代期间， 那是一个冷战时期，并且由于人性的利己主义，公众支持这样

计划 的热情是非常高。 目前， 我认为政治意愿不可能获取这样伟大的使命。
Ciao.


CSLufkin (Mechanical) 14 Nov 05 8:18  
I would love to see NASA shut down for two consecutive years, and their

budget spent on alternative energy. Man we would have cars that ran on the

exaust from our home generation units that run on the sewage generated by the

household (or something like that).
我宁愿美国航空航天局关那么两年， 并且不给他们能源上的预算。 我们人类本有车从家行使在exaust上和在生活(或如此物 )污水上。




EddyC (Mechanical) 14 Nov 05 14:39  
When my Grandmother heard that humans had landed on the moon, she was angry

because we had found another place to pollute. The 60s space race was more

for political bragging rights than for humanity's benefit. The real question

is whether the funds proposed for the space program can be put to better use

elsewhere. I think they can and so do most people.
当祖母听说人类登上月球的消息，她恼怒 ，因为我们发现另一个地方可以污染。 六十年代的太空族热衷于政治自夸的权利要胜于人类的利益。 真正的问题 是支持太空计划的资金是否可以在别处得到更好的使用改善。我想他们能，大多数人也能。


CajunCenturion (Computer) 14 Nov 05 14:52  
To properly evaluate the space program and its benefits, I think you need to

factor in the value of "space spinoffs".  Space spinoffs are those products

and technologies that are by-products of space investment.
适当地评估太空计划和它的好处， 我认为您需要析因按“太空副产品的”价值。  太空副产品是 太空投资副产物的那些产品和技术。


A Google search for "space spinoffs" should yield lots of reading material.  

Here is one for starters:
NASA Spinoffs Bringing Space down to Earth
Good Luck
Google搜索“太空副产品”应该产生许多读物。其中有一个搜索项：美国航空航天局副产品-太空给地球带来好运！

FreddyMusic

原始的帖子在顶楼，各位可以下载。避免重复翻译。

下面四段，还未翻译，译者加分。 Latest Marking !!!
====================================================

GregLocock (Automotive) 14 Nov 05 18:43  
several levels?

initial desired technology -> useful spinoff

spaceflight -> teflon (etc)
atomic bombs -> nuclear power (etc)

I think that works reasonably well as a broad brush comparison.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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


CajunCenturion (Computer) 14 Nov 05 19:36  
==> The trouble with that, is that /if/ you regard nuclear power as a good thing then developing and using atomic bombs was a good idea. (emphasis mine)
The first non-sequitur is assuming that just because the ending spinoff is good, that the initial desired goal was also good.  The atomic bomb does not have to be good in order for nuclear power to be good.

A second non-sequitur is the "and using" attachment of use to development in making the comparison.  I submit there is no inherent lack of goodness in the development of atomic bombs, but there is considerable question about the goodness of using them.  The use was, although perhaps inevitable, not a necessary condition for the further and positive development of the spinoff.

Finally, why is that notion if troubling?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

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

VisiGoth (Electrical) 14 Nov 05 23:43  
What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?

What are the ramifications of an imbalance of space control by governments?

Is there another technology that could give military superiority that would trump space superiority? (like quantum computers breaking all other nations crypto)

While the US slept peacefully after WWI, Japan and Germany advanced military technology to dangerous superiority levels.

What is the safe level of spending to limit the disaster of that could take place if the wrong people got too much power.

I would posit that it is incumbent upon the responsible people to make sure a dangerous gap does not exist in space superiority.  Of course the responsible people would take the blame for not spending the money on obvious good things for the poor and those that do not want to take care of themselves or just can't.  But it is also irresponsible to not take care of those very same people by not letting the "bad guys" gain too much of a superiority.


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

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[ 本帖最后由 FreddyMusic 于 2006-8-25 21:32 编辑 ]

xux6211493

本人翻译的不好 ，向高手学习！

cheersbg

The trouble with that, is that /if/ you regard nuclear power as a good thing then developing and using atomic bombs was a good idea. (emphasis mine)
The first non-sequitur is assuming that just because the ending spinoff is good, that the initial desired goal was also good.  The atomic bomb does not have to be good in order for nuclear power to be good.

A second non-sequitur is the "and using" attachment of use to development in making the comparison.  I submit there is no inherent lack of goodness in the development of atomic bombs, but there is considerable question about the goodness of using them.  The use was, although perhaps inevitable, not a necessary condition for the further and positive development of the spinoff.

Finally, why is that notion if troubling?
问题在于是不是你认为原子能非常有用就想当然的认为研究和使用原子弹就是好主意。
第一个不合逻辑的推论仅仅是因为假定结局是好的，初衷也是好的。原子能是好的但原子弹未必是好的。
第二个不合逻辑的推论是将发展跟应用进行对比联系 ，我认为原子弹的研究本身未必没有好处，然而需要考虑的问题是如何利用它的好处。尽管不可避免，从长远和积极发展的角度来看它的用处还不十分确定。
最后，那个观念为何如此令人费神呢？

虫二

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

GregLocock (Automotive) 14 Nov 05 18:43  
several levels?

initial desired technology -> useful spinoff

spaceflight -> teflon (etc)
atomic bombs -> nuclear power (etc)

I think that works reasonably well as a broad brush comparison.

Cheers

Greg Locock
几个级别？

初始的渴望技术-〉有用的副产品
航天-〉 聚四氟乙烯(
原子弹-〉核能

我认为这种宽大的比较对比作的相当合理恰当
==========================================================


CajunCenturion (Computer) 14 Nov 05 19:36  
==> The trouble with that, is that /if/ you regard nuclear power as a good thing then developing and using atomic bombs was a good idea. (emphasis mine)
The first non-sequitur is assuming that just because the ending spinoff is good, that the initial desired goal was also good.  The atomic bomb does not have to be good in order for nuclear power to be good.

A second non-sequitur is the "and using" attachment of use to development in making the comparison.  I submit there is no inherent lack of goodness in the development of atomic bombs, but there is considerable question about the goodness of using them.  The use was, although perhaps inevitable, not a necessary condition for the further and positive development of the spinoff.

Finally, why is that notion if troubling?
Good Luck
麻烦的就是：如果你认为核能是一个好事情那么正在发展和使用原子弹就是一个好主意了。（强调一下我个人的）
第一个不合逻辑的推论就是：假定仅仅因为最终的副产品是好的，那么最初的渴望目标也同样是好的。原子弹绝对不能因为核能是好的而也被认定是好的。
第二个不合逻辑的推论就是“正在使用”与用来发展作比较。我提出对于原子弹的发展本身而言并没有与生俱来的缺乏仁道，但是使用他们那就是一个值得考虑的仁道问题。尽管使用他们或许是不可避免的，但是对于副产品的进一步积极发展并不是必要条件。
最后，为什么那个概念被混淆？
好运

cheersbg

楼上的厉害，佩服！！
小弟没看前面的内容，很多都没对上号
What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?

What are the ramifications of an imbalance of space control by governments?

Is there another technology that could give military superiority that would trump space superiority? (like quantum computers breaking all other nations crypto)

While the US slept peacefully after WWI, Japan and Germany advanced military technology to dangerous superiority levels.

What is the safe level of spending to limit the disaster of that could take place if the wrong people got too much power.

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？
由政府控制的太空失衡的结果是什么？
还有别的技术能像太空领先那样取得军事优势吗？（如同原子弹能毁灭所有的其它民族）
然而美国就在日本、德国已经把军事技术发展到极为致命的水平之后安静的睡着了。

究竟最低军费开销水平是多少才能够预防灾难发生呢，这种灾难当一些愚蠢的民族太迷信武力时就有可能发生。
I would posit that it is incumbent upon the responsible people to make sure a dangerous gap does not exist in space superiority.  Of course the responsible people would take the blame for not spending the money on obvious good things for the poor and those that do not want to take care of themselves or just can't.  But it is also irresponsible to not take care of those very same people by not letting the "bad guys" gain too much of a superiority.
我认为依靠那些有责任心的人来确保不会在太空领域出现危险的差距是我们的义务。当然，有责任心的人会因为没有把钱花在明显的好事情上而自责，例如帮助穷人和那些不想或不能照顾自己的人们。但是如果我们没有好好照顾那些没有让通过"盖伊“得到太多的优势的人们，这同样是不负责任的。

硬着头皮翻了几句，还请斑竹费心订正了

[ 本帖最后由 cheersbg 于 2006-8-25 23:01 编辑 ]

虫二

今天实在是闲得无聊，所以拿来随便翻译翻译，水平有限阿 见笑了 呵呵

虫二

原帖由 cheersbg 于 2006-8-25 22:32 发表
楼上的厉害，佩服！！
小弟没看前面的内容，很多都没对上号
What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?

What  ...

呵呵不是客套，说实话您的翻译很专业，至少比我翻译的专业，自愧不如