China Plans To Build A Deep-Sea 'Space Station' In South China Sea (huffingtonpost.co.uk) 73
China is ramping up its space efforts, it appears. A Chinese company named KuangChi Science plans to launch balloons from Hangzhou, in eastern China. HuffingtonPost reports: China is stepping up efforts to build a deep-sea underwater 'space station' in the South China Sea. If the plans go ahead, the station would be located 3000 metres below the surface, inhabited by humans, and would be used to hunt for minerals. There are also concerns that it would be used for military purposes in territories that are hotly contested between China and other nations, including the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan. The news comes from a Science Ministry presentation that revealed China's current five-year economic plan (till 2020). Despite no further details or blueprints being made public, the presentation ranked this project as second in a list of 100 science and technology priorities according to Bloomberg.
sealab 2020 (Score:1)
sealab 2020
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later there will be a typhoon in the South China Sea and all of China's shiny new islands will be washed away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking more Seaquest DSV
Re: (Score:2)
Civilization: Beyond Earth (Score:1)
Diffe rent engineering reqs (Score:5, Insightful)
A permanent sea habitat, and a space station, have vastly different engineering requirements.
For starters, a sea habitat has to withstand positive pressures, and ocean current flows. (At the depth specified, a strong storm swell will shake the habitat pretty good.)
Meanwhile a space habitat needs to be lightweight for launch cost reasons, needs to protect against radiation, and withstand negative pressures well. The sanitation and sleeping arrangements need to consider microgravity.
About the only things the two will have in common are airlocks, power generation, and air reprocessing.
Sealab 2020, China Edition looks like it is just another lame excuse for actions in the contested south china sea.
Re:Diffe rent engineering reqs (Score:4, Insightful)
At the depth specified, a strong storm swell will shake the habitat pretty good.
You need to read more carefully. It will be at a depth of 3000 meters, not 3000 millimeters.
3000 meters is about 2 miles beneath the surface. No storm will be felt that deep.
Re: (Score:2)
No storm will be felt that deep.
Certainly not felt, but one might hear some faint rumbling noises.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the storm, that's Jim's stomach. He skipped breakfast so he's pretty hungry right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I misread it as 300M, (which if you ask me, is vastly more plausible than the 3000 they cite.)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's time to send in SeaQuest.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the power generation might be slightly different as well. Most space habitats have been solar powered, and under the sea, I just don't see solar working terribly well.
Lots of skepticism over this one (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lots of skepticism over this one (Score:4, Insightful)
This thing is not a legitimate scientific facility, but a legitimacy facility. Its signal is simple: we build it there, because its part of our country. We claim the natural resources of this area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lots of skepticism over this one (Score:4, Informative)
What do you do when fishing boats start operating in the area?
China can just use their gunboats to shoo them away. No other country in the area can stand up to China without American backing. Only the Philippines has a defense treaty with America, and two days ago the Philippine president called Obama a "son of a whore" so they shouldn't be expecting any help for awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
He just needs to wait for Trump to get elected and then announce intentions to Make the South China Sea Great Again.
Re: (Score:2)
And Trump called Obama "founder of isis". I'm sure they will become great friends.
About duerte, probably he's even good for the Philippines, not permanently, but if he cleans up the country and fights crime and corruption, that's good. Maybe his means to achieve that are low by western standards, but I guess the western methods would just simply fail in a country like the Philippines.
Re: Lots of skepticism over this one (Score:2)
and two days ago the Philippine president called Obama a "son of a whore" so they shouldn't be expecting any help for awhile.
Emotions and personal feelings factor into geopolitics a lot less than some have been led to believe...
Re:Lots of skepticism over this one (Score:4, Funny)
What do you do when fishing boats start operating in the area.
In America, we usually send a submarine full of senators out to do an emergency breach under an encroaching fishing trawler [wikipedia.org] to send a very clear message to "STAY OUT OF MY TERRITORY".
I trust the Chinese will go about things in a more efficient manner.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it was a Japanese vessel off the coast of Hawaii. What else were they to do?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if it's not a legitimate scientific facility, China is planning to do something in its own backyard.
It is no concern to the US what China does or does not in its own waters. We would go literally apeshit if some nation told us what we could and couldn't do off the coast of California, Hawaii or Florida.
The US is always imparting moral lessons but doing the complete opposite. I think it's fair to say China has learned the game very well indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is no concern to the US what China does or does not in its own waters. We would go literally apeshit if some nation told us what we could and couldn't do off the coast of California, Hawaii or Florida.
The catch is that the definition of "its own waters" is very controversial - most of the South China Sea is far closer to the coasts of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines than mainland China. What's been happening the last few years is more analogous to the US claiming the entire Gulf of Mexico right u
Re: (Score:2)
Because of course the Hague and all international agreements are nothing compared to historic claims of ownership. We should all bow down and accept that China illegally annexed that territory.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/... [aljazeera.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What they will try to do is drop it in international waters, claim the lab is over 1000 years old and proof that the entire sea has always been Chinese territory.
Re:China. territory and rights (Score:1)
Such "harvesting" would be extremely expensive (Score:2)
A distraction (Score:2)
On other parts of the internet there is a lot of skepticism about China's stated goals for this facility. It smells strongly of manganese nodule harvesting [wikipedia.org] and many analysts think it has a military or intelligence purpose instead. The details that have been released are so sketchy it's hard to believe that it's a legitimate scientific facility, but I guess it's not impossible.
It smells strongly of several things--Intelligence use (e.g. an undersea SOSUS-type hub), military use (becoming masters of the deep sea has massive military implications, especially in an age when satellites can see ships), anti-extinction use (create a self-contained environment in the ocean and you have a facility very well-isolated from the rest of the world), continuity-of-government use, and general distraction (nationalist militaristic projects are great at distracting your population and adversaries
Re: (Score:2)
...it's hard to believe that it's a legitimate scientific facility, but I guess it's not impossible.
Why would there be an opposition between genuine, legitimate science, and military/commercial interests? Most science has always been in response to commercial and/or military interests, and arguably, most military action has been for what could roughly be called commercial reasons. I'd say, of course China's intentions include both commercial and military interests, same as so many America and European research projects. I also think this is really exciting in many ways; we know less about the abyss than
Space? (Score:2)
Even the article says it. Isn't "space" in space station referencing outside Earth? Not having "room"? Is the title what we would call an oxymoron?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a moron involved, but it is not of the oxy type.
A 3000m deep habitat - a bold experiment... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also means different long term health effects than found in space.
Tri-mix will let you dive that deep, but is not meant for long term use. Substitution of the nitrogen with inert gasses like helium or argon are untested for long term use.
Unless this habitat is designed to not only NOT crush like a ball of aluminum foil, but to also have sealevel cabin pressures, the health implications are poignant.
What, is China planning on colonizing Europe or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Europa you stupid hunk of glass. God I wish I could turn this auto correcting bullshit off!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: A 3000m deep habitat - a bold experiment... (Score:1)
Exactly, as a scuba diver I always found it fascinating that regular sea level air is lethal (oxygen toxicity), if you manage to get that deep without nitrogen narcosis kicking in first. Hence the more fancy air mixtures. But as you point out those have many problems too. You'd almost have no choice but to keep the cabin within a few atmospheres of sea level and build it to withstand enormous pressure. In space we pop, under water we get crushed. Scientifically I'd love to see them try it. But as a Murican,
Re:A 3000m deep habitat - a bold experiment... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Death is also more sudden and certain because I've never heard of space sharks.
Re: (Score:2)
Easily handled and no one's the wiser (Score:2)
There are also concerns that it would be used for military purposes
Yeah well it's not going to be mobile like a submarine, and we all know that the seabed isn't any less subject to earthquakes and other disturbances, so wouldn't it just be a damned shame if some totally random geological event completely destroyed their undersea base, what a terrible tragedy!
My guess.... (Score:2)
...would be that it would fulfill (in China's eyes) the 'inhabited' clause of the law of the sea, thus entitling them to mineral rights.
Or, they simply say that they're conducting 'research' and exploit local minerals/drilling anyway.
I doubt it's a military base, it wouldn't take much at all to make who ever is inside an instant casualty in the event of conflict. A 'port' for military operations hopefully unobserved by US satellites and/or a nexus for setting up a substantial undersea surveillance network?
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if mining minerals that deep is in any way economic, China has way easier access to minerals with full disregard about the ecological consequences. Just like mining asteroids, the deep sea is too expensive to access for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, when you're facing a mad rabid dog, foaming at the mouth and blind from hatred, you have to put it at bay by growling too and being ready to deal it a fatal blow.
So, you are suggesting that the US should growl at NK instead if the current policy of ignoring the childish idiot?
A bunch of cynics... (Score:2)
Am I the only one to think this sounds like a badass way to trial various technologies for space colonization? A substantial amount of the ECLSS tech will be transferable, for starters. I get that everyone wants to be suspicious of China all the time, but they are serious about their space program, and this gives them a chance to be the first to create a continual human presence in a deep-sea habitat. Pretty cool IMO.
It's just as important as colonizing Mars... (Score:2)
I watched this movie (Score:1)
innovation (Score:1)
A secret research facility (Score:2)
Otherwise known as a black lab. Let's see if this one can fetch.