But in general, the bridges we build with scientists, the scientists' interaction are really helpful, and they diminish the stereotypes that we all hear about on both sides. No one is naive enough to think that we can just like, OK, open the books to our international colleagues. And, of course, there's also national security issues, which we must keep in mind. And I think, you know, one of the reasons I encourage collaboration scientifically is because if they could do things that we aren't going to do or can't do, that's all the better for science in general. But, you know, it's a big solar system out there. You know, each international space program is in a way in competition. It sounds like they're really in competition with the U.S. SIMON: We should note there's a law that enjoins NASA from working with the Chinese space program. And this is, you know, right out of the space exploration playbook of the Soviet Union, of Russia, of the United States, in terms of using it as also a foreign policy tool. But it is also international leadership, and that's clearly what the Chinese are trying to do. I mean, getting into space is not trivial, and it's really incredible to be able to do this sort of thing. And so it's not only for technological development. And so prestige is a really important aspect. And then prestige is how others view you. That was my first job, was working on the Apollo program. For example, in the Apollo program, Apollo 11 brought pride and prestige to the United States. SIMON: What will they gain from having their own space station orbiting the Earth? It's the - any unspent fuel that might be in there as well, which is sometimes a problem. And it is a clear and present danger because it isn't just the rocket hitting. HEAD: You know, they're starting to launch things from Wenchang and places where - you know, that's more towards the sea. Is there more they could and should be doing? I gather this is the third time China has allowed something like this to happen. And in theory, the rocket booster could break up and also hit in downtown Des Moines. I mean, to point out the obvious, yes, the Earth is two-thirds ocean, but it's also one-third not ocean. Usually you never even hear about it that way. And for example, that's why we launch from Cape Canaveral, not the middle of Des Moines, Iowa, because we send it out over the ocean and then warn the ships that, hey, something's coming down. Fortunately, the Earth is two-thirds oceans, but it's really pretty unpredictable. And so once it's done its job, it falls towards the Earth, and then it's up to the atmosphere and lots of other variables where it's going to fall. And so the bottom line is, you don't have any of those little thrusters on it. But launch vehicles are huge, and they expend all their fuel on the way up to get this - like, a space station module that the Chinese just launched up into orbit. But most space vehicles that go up out into space carry with them little rockets that are thrusters, which can let you maneuver around and control that spacecraft. I mean, you know, we're used to thinking of rendezvous and docking and all the things the Apollo missions did, etc. Jim Head is a planetary scientist with Brown University whose research involves collaborating with China's space program. And we use the word somewhere and sometime because its re-entry is uncontrolled. It's a Chinese rocket that carried a module to a space station under construction. This so-called Kessler syndrome is a compelling reason to keep space tidy.A rocket is expected to fall back to Earth somewhere sometime this afternoon. The resulting cascade of impacts will quickly turn a dense region of space into a belt of pulverized metal and plastic, an abrasive gantlet that would destroy any rocket trying to get through. And collisions produce more debris, which leads to yet more collisions. As the density of space junk increases, the chance of collision also increases. That's because of a destructive chain reaction described by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in the late 1970s. In any case, doing nothing about space junk won't be an option much longer. (Since powerful lasers would be useful to the military, devices able to destroy something the size of a Volkswagen Beetle 300 miles up could be a reality within a few decades.) Alternatively, one could use high-powered lasers to alter the orbits of unwanted hardware or blast it into pieces small enough to burn up completely on their way down. For example, the space industry could build a fleet of specialized satellites fitted with giant nets or harpoons to collect debris. Other proposals don't require individual buy-in.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |