Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space News

China to Have Over 100 Eyes in the Sky 330

Posted by samzenpus from the not-for-all-the-satellites-in-china dept.
gollum123 writes "Reuters reports China plans to launch more than 100 satellites before 2020 to watch every corner of the country, state-run China Central Television quoted a government official as saying Tuesday. A "large surveying network" would be set up to monitor water reserves, forests, farmland, city construction and "various activities of society," a government official said without elaborating. "The aim is that, at any time and any place, we can obtain necessary data on any event through watching the Earth from space," said Shao Liqin, an official with the Ministry of Science and Technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China to Have Over 100 Eyes in the Sky More

China to Have Over 100 Eyes in the Sky

Comments Filter:

  • good grief! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:03AM (#10852112)
    A "large surveying network" would be set up to monitor water reserves, forests, farmland, city construction and "various activities of society," a government official said without elaborating.

    good grief!
    "various activities of society,"

    translation anybody?

    • Re:good grief! (Score:4, Funny)

      by phrasebook ( 740834 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:05AM (#10852120)
      translation anybody?

      "Just like in your country".

      • Re:good grief! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mirko ( 198274 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:28AM (#10852198) Journal
        Exactly, when I was in California, there were many signs like "speed limit enforced by AWAC surveillance" on the streets so I would not dare to say that people are not used to be monitored in others countries.
        BTW I also heard many stories about London's video cameras, so stop being hypocryte if there's one thing we can reproach to the Chinese in this very case it is that they were not the first to use this level of technology to enforce trheir regulations.

        • Re:good grief! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:42AM (#10852824) Journal
          True... but with the exception of a few anti-war protestors being shot in the 1960s, I think the US can be credited with a bit more social restraint in 'managing' societal activities. I don't recall police indiscriminantly shooting and killing a few thousand unarmed protestors ever in your history.

          The US has sunk pretty low in recent years, but still has a far way to go to reach the depravity of Chinese or North Korean societies.

          • Bonus March (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Oriumpor ( 446718 )
            Protesters always have it bad even in the US [islandnet.com]

            Against the advice of his assistant, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, Macarthur had taken personal command of the operation. President Hoover had ordered Macarthur to clear Pennsylvania Avenue only, but Macarthur immediately began to clear all of downtown Washington, herding the Marchers out and torching their huts and tents. Tear gas was used liberally and many bricks were thrown, but no shots were fired during the entire operation. By 8:00 p.m. the downtown area h

          • Re:good grief! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jbridge21 ( 90597 )
            Great Strike of 1877, ~100 citizens killed by federal troops

            Ludlow Massacre 1914, 20 killed by agents with implicit government approval (perpetrators were never prosecuted)

            I'm sure there are others, the early labor-corporation battles were often violent, with the government almost always either helping or not hurting the companies. So sure, the US has killed far fewer of its own people, but it has still shown a willingness to do so at times.

          • Re:good grief! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by teromajusa ( 445906 )
            with the exception of a few anti-war protestors being shot in the 1960s, I think the US can be credited with a bit more social restraint in 'managing' societal activities.

            You should study the history of the US labor movement. While the death toll has never reached tiananmin levels, there are numerous instances of troops being used to break up strikes and protests, frequently firing upon and killing the protestors. The Ludlow Massacre [umwa.org] is one prominent example. I'm not trying to say that the US has been

          • Re:good grief! (Score:3, Interesting)

            by javaxman ( 705658 )
            I don't recall police indiscriminantly shooting and killing a few thousand unarmed protestors ever in your history.

            I guess the Cherokee don't count, huh, since they weren't protesting, just being forcibly marched from South Carolina to Oaklahoma during the winter? Just to pre-empt your objection to that comparison, the supreme court, at least, did not consider them a foreigners at that point.

            Then there was Wounded Knee. No, the one in 1973 [essortment.com].

            Oh, and let's not forget about those WWII Japanese interment camp

          • Re:good grief! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by thesupraman ( 179040 )
            >The US has sunk pretty low in recent years,
            >but still has a far way to go to reach the
            >depravity of Chinese or North Korean societies.

            That would be the Chinese or North Korean Leadership you would be meaning there, not the society.

            Please Remember, in these countries the leadership is much more separated from the society than in the west, and especially when compared to the USA where the government can be considered to be a reflection of society.

      • Re:good grief! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Skater ( 41976 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:42AM (#10852454) Homepage Journal
        So...because something similar (well, not really) happens in the US, we shouldn't be annoyed when it happens in China?

        We don't like it in the US, either, you know...

        --RJ

    • Re:good grief! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nbert ( 785663 )
      I guess it's just a very eloquent way of saying ...and other stuff ;) Who knows what satelites can track today? I doubt that the resulution is sufficient to track individuals yet. If I were living in China I would be more concerned about the government watching me from the surface.
    • translation anybody?

      Preparing for the future.

      Think Metropolis [persocom.com.br], Modern Times [imdb.com], 1984 [online-literature.com] (to me rather a remake of Jevgenij Samjatin), RFID+Neurochips.

      Add remote control! Imagine!

      CC.

  • "various activities of society" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:05AM (#10852115)
    How ominous. Was this translated with editorializing in mind, or was this official so tactless as to expose the true purpose of such a constellation?
    • Hey, they are not the only ones using satellite pictures for various other tasks. Maybe their purpose is the same as some US activities:

      http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/200 4-09-26-civilian-spying_x.htm [usatoday.com]

    • It can mean more than espionage, you know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:11AM (#10852322) Journal
      There are lots of "activities of society" that don't require a tin-foil hat, you know.

      E.g., traffic congestions. If you can see those from the sattellite, you have a head start in telling people to take other routes.

      E.g., fires. If in the middle of a forrested area you see a big bright infrared spot, you can react before the fire wiped out several square kilometres. And you'd be surprised how many forest fires are due to "activities of society". (A.k.a., idiot tourists.)

      Even if it is China and the mandatory knee jerk reaction is "chinese govt==evil", it's actually easier for them too to watch for such _big_ things, than to try to track an individual dissident by sattellite. If they want to track an individual person, they can just send an agent. It's cheaper and doesn't lose track each time the target goes into a house or bus.
      • Even if it is China and the mandatory knee jerk reaction is "chinese govt==evil"

        I'm sorry, but I missed something. Is there some other more apt reaction to a government with a long, bloody track record of torturing, killing and suppressing its people in the name of ideology?

        I don't understand the people that come out of the woodwork as apologists for the Chinese government here. The Chinese government IS EVIL and that knee-jerk reaction isn't a "knee-jerk" reaction, it's as simple and logical a reactio
    • They make no bones about it.

      Wasn't it in Deus Ex somewhere they talked about the difference between governments being that some are openly controlling and others leave freedom to the people, thereby allowing the corporations, etc. to take power?

      Of course, I am not suggesting that you take dictation on philosophy of rule from a video game, simply that China is a very different social climate than we are used to and that there are undoubtedly many advantages and disadvantages to any system...

      In fact,

  • In Soviet China... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:05AM (#10852118)
    In Soviet China the sky watch you!

    //I am so sorry!

  • Woah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheKidWho ( 705796 )
    Yeah they are going to use them just to monitor China, uhuh.

  • Originality (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:05AM (#10852122)
    I for one welcome our Chinese satellite overlords!

  • Only the guilty need worry (Score:3, Funny)

    by g0hare ( 565322 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:06AM (#10852124)
    Just don't ever do anything wrong (by the standards of the people in power) and you'll be fine. What, me worry?

  • What orbit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EyeSavant ( 725627 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:06AM (#10852125)
    What it does not say is what orbit these things will be in. Spy satelites normally are in polar orbit so they cover the whole earth as it rotates.

    Putting these things in geostationary orbit so that they stay in the same place as the earth rotates is probably too high for this sort of thing.

    Hence I guess that these things can spy on the rest of the world, not just China. Or am I missing something?

    • Re:What orbit? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zitchas ( 713512 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:12AM (#10852147) Journal
      Good question, that. Depending on how much they're spending per satelite it's possible they're using geosync orbits, and simply have spent extra to have top end resoltutions. Although they'd still have to have some mobile and/or aiming capability, since even 100 satelites won't be able to keep the entire country within the view of high res cameras. My personal bet would be with a bunch of geosync sats over areas of significant intrest to the gov, (say, about half of the sats, possibly as many as 75) with the rest being in polar orbits to cover all the rest of the locations that aren't so easily predictable.
      • High resolution, aiming capability on geosync satellites....

        It'll be some time before China has the expertise to do that kind of thing, methinks. Me could be wrong, of course. :)

        If I were a bettin' man, I'd put my chips on the idea they'll be watching a lot more than their own domain. (Yes, that means "spying" even if everyone in the world knows the satellites are there)

      • Re:What orbit? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Hortensia Patel ( 101296 )
        Remember that a geosynchronous orbit is restricted to the equator, for reasons which are obvious if you think about them. (It's not just a matter of travelling at the same speed as the ground beneath you; you also need to be travelling in the same direction and around the Earth's centre of mass.)

        So, if these sats really are primarily for internal surveillance, anything "over areas of significant interest" probably isn't going to be geosync. Unless you're really into rainforests, most of the equator isn't t
        • So, if these sats really are primarily for internal surveillance, anything "over areas of significant interest" probably isn't going to be geosync. Unless you're really into rainforests, most of the equator isn't that interesting.

          d Sure, the cameras need to be over the equator to be geosync. But who said they had to look straight down? The US has several weather sats that are geosync...
          • Geosync is far enough away to make weather satellites convenient: they get well over 120 degrees of the planet in one shot.

            It is NOT convenient for fine observation: they would require a lot more optics magnification and control, and much finer stabilization, to be able to observe details on the surface, even at the equator.

            It is also NOT convenient to look up at Chinese citizen activity in the northern hemisphere, as the angle increases distortions from increased atmospheric depth and hides a signif

      • Re:What orbit? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:17AM (#10853146) Journal
        Depending on how much they're spending per satelite it's possible they're using geosync orbits, and simply have spent extra to have top end resoltutions.

        That's a lot of extra spending.

        Spatial resolution on the ground is directly proportional to the diameter of the aperture (primary lens or mirror) and inversely proportional to altitude.

        By going from a low to middling earth orbit at 500 to 1000 kilometers, to geosynchronous orbit at 36000 km, you need to increase the size of your aperture by a factor of between about thirty and seventy. To replicate the resolution performance of a 1' (30 cm) mirror in low earth orbit takes a mirror 30' to 70' (about twenty meters) across in geosynchronous orbit. That's twice the diameter of the Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea, three times the diameter of the as-yet-unlaunched James Webb Space Telescope, and eight times the diameter of Hubble. (My back-of-the-envelope number is a resolution of a little better than one meter with those mirrors).

        Also, putting stuff into geosynchronous orbit is significantly more difficult than putting stuff in low earth orbit. (For commercial launches, lofting a payload to geosynchronous transfer orbit sets you back about three times as much on a per pound basis.)

        The physics and economics strongly argue for many satellites in lower orbits. There's the added benefit of being able to spy on other countries, too. The Chinese government doesn't need satellites to spy on its own people--it can do that with human intelligence (spies), ground-based cameras, and aircraft/drone surveillance.

    • First of, geosynronous. Sorry, nit picking.

      Secondly, China as a state is far more concerned about being able to control its people effectively than it is about outside powers. I have no doubt that these "eyes" could be put to use in other forms. However, I'm more concerned about the further rape of what few freedoms the people of China have left. Its mind boggling.
      • The same can be said about a certain other large country. Just thier rape of freedoms is a little less advanced, yet.

      • China as a state is far more concerned about being able to control its people effectively than it is about outside powers.

        Maybe China's disinterest in other parts of the world was simply because it lacked the resources to cheaply watch other parts of the world. These satellites will be in low orbits. They'll get to look at every point on the Earth. Once they're up, the Chinese need only watch the feeds for "interesting" things.

        The power base of the Chinese government has been slowly eroding, due largel

      • Geosynchronous.

        And actually, the original poster was correct in his usage - geosynchronous simply means a 24 hour circular orbit (35,786 km altitude). Geostationary refers to a geosynchronous orbit with a (nominally - there is some drift) 0 degree inclination, which minimizes the amount of apparent north-south motion and keeps the spacecraft at what appears to be a fixed point in the sky.

    • Re:What orbit? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ceriel Nosforit ( 682174 )
      AFAIK, the vast majority of spy satellites are also in rather low orbit for a variety of economic and plain rational reasons. 100 satellites should be more than enough for China to constantly keep monitored areas of their country in view even if half of them are on the other side of Earth. Plus this offers the ability to see in different angles, while geosynchronous orbit would only offer a narrow angle.
      And if the satellites occasionally fly over other countries, who are the Chinese to complain?

      What strike
      • Firing 100 very big rockets into the sky isn't exactly an easy thing to hide. They may as well PR over it then have people ask questions.

    • Re:What orbit? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thermopile ( 571680 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:43AM (#10852239) Homepage
      Geosynchronous, at 22,500 miles out, is simply too far away to be viable.

      The other issue at hand here is cost: the average life span of a spy satellite is about 3.5 or 4 years. The optics start to fog over due to radiation from the sun, and on something as precise as a spy satellite, that's a big deal. Plus space junk ... my bet is that China launches 4 spy satellites in useless orbits by 2020 then gives up because it's just too darned expensive.

      The maintenance on that kind of system would just be too darned expensive. Any GPS experts out there to lend credibility to this?

      • The other issue at hand here is cost: the average life span of a spy satellite is about 3.5 or 4 years. The optics start to fog over due to radiation from the sun, and on something as precise as a spy satellite, that's a big deal.

        I think this is an excellent point. Exactly what is going to be the total cost of this plan? It sounds like it would be, no pun intended, astronomical.

        I would venture to guess that rather than putting 100 satellites up they put a few up and tell the people that they have 100.

        • Re:Cost (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Rich0 ( 548339 )
          If they want to spy on the world - they should put spy satellites in polar orbit.

          If they just want to spy on their own people - they should use balloons or automated high-endurance aircraft (say 1 month aloft time - solar powered - like that NASA thing).

          One satellite for the whole country would be useless for spying - too much space to monitor if you want to be really intrusive. They'd need dozens, or 100 even.

          Instead, you just float a balloon for a month at a time over each populated area. You can get

      • Re:What orbit? (Score:3, Informative)

        by bitingduck ( 810730 )
        HST has been in LEO for how long?

        The optics are generally reflective, rather than transmissive, and while they might suffer micrometeoroid dings, they can last quite a long time. Spy telescopes also don't need to be as precise as astronomical telescopes, since they're looking back through the atmosphere, which fuzzes out things on the ground.

        Earth observing sats commonly have a design lifetime of 3-5 years, but also commonly are expected by their users to last closer to 10, as long as they don't rely on
    • before 2020 to watch every corner of the country

      They plan to own the whole planet by then.

      'All your base are belong ...'

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Viceice ( 462967 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:14AM (#10852154)
    China legalises nude sun bathing. An official, quoted on condition of anonymity, said that studies have shown that Chinese women, especially those between the ages of 18 to 29 seem to suffer from low levels of vitamin D and are thus encouraged to sunbath... in the nude... on clear cloudless days...

    • Dude, I don't really have to post this so not to offend anyone, but I really don't see what's the attraction. Honestly. I am serious. Something about those women turns me off... their not exactly supermodels.

  • Comment from the White House? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I doubt the White House will mention this. Even if they did condemn it, they will be secretly trying to figure out their own way of one-upping it (assuming they haven't already).

    The Bush administration has done things like that in the past. Remember when Bush made his campaign promise to repeal Clinton's secret evidence laws, and instead increased them dramatically?

  • Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:25AM (#10852192)
    The US have spy satellites up. Europe wants spy satellites up. Don't complain if the Chinese want theirs up there too.
    • Don't want to nitpick, but European spy satellites have been up there for a while already. The Helios [tbs-satellite.com] program launhed its first [tbs-satellite.com] satellite in 1995. There are probably other programs too -- I'm no expert, just happened to remember this one.

    • 1984?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:11AM (#10852323)
      Europe wants spy satellites up.

      AFAIK some European countries already have spy satilites up, first among them Russia. What makes the Chinese ones special is that they will not be for spying on the Europeans, Americans, Australians or Africans. Nor are they intended to keep an eye on the Middle east. They will be a instrument with 100% coverage of Chinese national territory for the Chinese govt. to use for monitoring the Chinese . That makes them uniqe. Of course monitoring "various activities of society" can cover anything from something as innocent as traffic control to spying on the private citizen. Even so, judging from the limited information in this story, these plans look more like a rather innocent survey/management network than a 1984-esque Orwellian spy apparatus.

      • AFAIK some European countries already have spy satilites up, first among them Russia.

        Not just Russia - I read a fascinating book called "The Black Space Race" (library book, hence no ISBN/Amazon link) about the spying game between the US and the Soviet Union. Apparently the US (in great secrecy) developed small numbers of high quality satellites, the Soviet Union (also in great secrecy) developed large numbers of low quality satellites, and then France came out of nowhere with mid-range kit, and sold th

      • What makes the Chinese ones special is that they will not be for spying on the Europeans, Americans, Australians or Africans. Nor are they intended to keep an eye on the Middle east. They will be a instrument with 100% coverage of Chinese national territory for the Chinese govt. to use for monitoring the Chinese . That makes them uniqe.

        Well, they say that they're not intending to use the satellites to monitor the Middle East, or the Americas, or Europe. In practice, if they put a hundred satellites in po

        • A minor nitpick--Russia is part of Asia, not Europe.

          Only Trans-Ural Russia qualifies as being in Asia. The rest of it is in Europe [wikipedia.org]. So it depends on your point of view how you want to classify the Russians. Being a European myself, I tend to count Russians as fellow Europeans.
      • And the PATRIOT act is to indict the French?? :-P

  • Under the night sky (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Fussen ( 753791 )
    Set up huge techno-fire works on the satellites and do horizon wide shows of colours. Or not..

    I wonder if you would be able to see them from the ground on a good night or would they be beyond the reach of the human eye?


    _+_
    • Assuming they're the same as any other satellite:

      If they're in low orbit, they'll be visible to the naked eye under the right conditions. "Right conditions" = they're in sunlight, you're not, like in the first or last couple of hours of night.

      If they're in geosync orbit then you'll need a decent (8" or larger) telescope.

      If you're at a dark site, you can lay on your back and watch satellites trucking by constantly all night, usually multiples at once. They're so thick that they *commonly* are visible go
  • Things like this have been flying for decades.
    I'd like to know what sort of sensors and resolutions will be flying and what they plan to charge for raw data.

  • Today, in China. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by taxevader ( 612422 )
    The rest of the world in 10, 9, 8, 7......

    Its only a matter of time. I can without a doubt say this will be commonplace in the next decade or two. No tinfoil hat joke here, sorry.

    • Re:Today, in China. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:24AM (#10852369)
      But your statement is complete tinfoil hat, even if you don't see it. Your "intuition" is not a fact, even if you confidently say "without a doubt."

      In fact, the fundamental problem that this article is highlighting, that an autocratic, antidemocratic, and abusive regime in China is using satellites to spy on its own citizens may not even be true in China in 10-20 years as China may (though it is of course by no means a certainty) evolve into a democratic, accountable state by that time.

      For those of you just itching to get in your 2 cents about how the USA is likewise an autocratic blah blah state.. zip it. While I hate GWB, the Patriot Act, etc as much as the next guy, such things are in an absolute sense truly insignificant compared to what still goes on in China where many citizens still lack basic freedom of movement inside the country to say nothing of the extreme repression of information and speech.

      • ...not to mention the fact that GWB and his running dog capitalist crony gang of imperialist pigs already have satellites capable of measuring the size of a small guinea pig's you-know-what anywhere on the globe. Move along :)

      • Zip it? So much for freedom of speech then? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:17AM (#10852645) Journal
        Ah, there's irony for you, huh? You're happy to talk about China's shortcomings but not those of your own nation, the one that's supposedly "the land of the free".

        Look, I don't live in a utopian society where everything is perfect - nobody does - but I think you have to at least acknowledge that, if your an American, measuring your freedoms against those of China (or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Wherever You Want To Invade Today (TM)), rather than against, say, your own Constitution is a sad state of affairs.

        When you start accepting the small injustices and intolerances, even the ones that don't affect you, then you've let the door open a little bit. From there on, opening it wider and wider becomes easier than you think.

        Freedom isn't the freedom to say just the popular things, it's the freedom to say the most unpopular stuff, even the stuff that makes 99 percent of people want to puke. Start oppressing one person's rights and you've oppressed everyone's.

        Bottom line: if you're the land of the free then be the land of the free, not the land of the mostly free.
        • I think he's just sick of all the US bashing that goes on here. The US is like a Hollywood Star. Sure, others may be in the same show, but nobody seems to pay attention to them. And lest we should make a small mistake, it's all over everyones news (nothing feels quite as good as schadenfreude). A supporting actor could be a crack-whore, but who gives a shit?

          Other countries have similar injustices and intolerances (France immediately comes to mind - try selling some WWII stuff that has swastika's on i

      • Re:Today, in China. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by NardofDoom ( 821951 )
        If they're so bad, why were they permanently made our most favored trading partner while I'm still not allowed to buy Cuban cigars?
      • In fact, the fundamental problem that this article is highlighting, that an autocratic, antidemocratic, and abusive regime in China is using satellites to spy on its own citizens may not even be true in China in 10-20 years as China may (though it is of course by no means a certainty) evolve into a democratic, accountable state by that time.

        Russia's been "evolving" since 1988 (16 years now) and some coups and financial crashes later some will say it is now headed in the autocratic direction, so I wouldn't

  • Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Britz ( 170620 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:49AM (#10852252)
    This makes a lot of sense for China. It is a vast country after all that is hard to monitor. Not only a lot of infrastructur is missing, but also the local authorities have a really bad tendency to cover up any problems including large scale environmental disasters. That is one of the problems with authorian rule. So being able to monitor the provinces from Beijing gives them a lot of control.

    Do You really think China has now the technology to monitor people from the sky? I doubt even the US has this. But who am I kidding? This is Slashdot of all places so I better get my tinfoil hat to blend in with the crowd.
    • Do You really think China has now the technology to monitor people from the sky? I doubt even the US has this.

      Dont you watch documentries? That Micheal Moore Documentery: Enemy of the State, shows how they do have the technology.

  • Racist (Score:4, Funny)

    by ThatsNotFunny ( 775189 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @07:51AM (#10852257)
    And I always thought it was the Japanese who liked taking pictures...

  • More info. (May be original press release) (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ceriel Nosforit ( 682174 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:03AM (#10852295)
    http://service.china.org.cn/link/wcm/Show_Text?inf o_id=112464

    Highlights:

    Sun Laiyan, director of the China National Space Administration (CNSA), said that a large satellite-based earth observation system will also be built by 2010. The system could be used for observation of land, atmosphere and ocean within China, its adjacent areas and even the entire globe.

    Sun said that China will develop a new generation of polar orbit and stationary orbit meteorological satellites, high-performance resource follow-up satellites, oceanic color and dynamic observation satellites.

  • To please privacy international... (Score:4, Funny)

    by technogogo ( 708973 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @08:04AM (#10852298)
    ...these should be fitted with giant flash guns so we know when they are taking our photograph.

  • Extra information (Score:3, Funny)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:09AM (#10852591)
    Here is a little more information [google.com].

  • How will 100 satellites be able to image China at one time? Low altitude US surveillance satellites only get global coverage once per day.

  • Interesting..,. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jjeffrey ( 558890 ) *
    Interesting. China is often seen as being the secretive control-obsessed state, yet America has had this capability for years, and the Chinese are only getting it now AND they are being open about their intentions.

  • They have camera's in space... (Score:3, Informative)

    by fozzmeister ( 160968 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:52AM (#10852906) Homepage
    ...We have camera's on the ground (lots and lots of them)

    I live in the UK.

  • Money ? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Davemania ( 580154 )
    China sure is wasting alot of money for a developing country.
  • My spacefaring friends, the parking lot is getting rather full. Good luck finding room [usatoday.com] for them up there.

  • At China's wanton development rate, everything will be denuded desert or urban concrete by 2020. Sort of like looking at the surface of the Moon or Mars.

    (Remember the USA cut down 90% of its ocean-to-ocean forests in the 18th and 19th century. Some of that came back during the 20th.)

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close