Thread: Russia in EU

You cannot deny that it opens up a larger, more difficult to control border for the European Union. This affects both security and immigration issues.
I have been to both Europe and Russia on multiple occasions, and have seen that the number of minorities are growing, particularly in asian populations, where the southern borders in the far east have been difficult to control, as China's population is overflowing along the border, with people looking to come over. Opening a border with Russia could only hurt those wanting to live in Europe from Asia, and from Russia itself.

As for unstable countries. One could argue that Georgia is not a stable country, with recent change in leadership and the ousting of Shevernadze. In addition they have had problems with autonomous republics. Also, Georgia has recently arrested nuclear material smugglers who were trying to sell parts from an Armenian power plant. In addition there have been similar arrests with authorities claiming that material either came from Ukraine or Russia. If you look up nuclear trafficking online, there are a whole bunch of examples, as people look to sell small radioactive materials that came from various generators or plants. This is not the kind of material that the EU would want coming across its borders. Not to say that it would, but they would be making it easier. Your argument will now be that the Georgians arrested these people, and that their security was sufficient, but there are still many former Soviet republics like Georgia that have nuclear material left over that is not in the most secure places.
In addition, one could argue that Russia is not a stable country in terms of its security. Do the same search and youll come across many of the same stories that have happened in Russia. The enforcement caught suspects in the cases mentioned, but the fact that these opportunities exist would be enough of a red flag.

Originally Posted by drew881

You cannot deny that it opens up a larger, more difficult to control border for the European Union. This affects both security and immigration issues.

Possibly. But not by a lot.

As for unstable countries. One could argue that Georgia is not a stable country, with recent change in leadership and the ousting of Shevernadze. In addition they have had problems with autonomous republics.

All that is sandbox fooling around compared with the former Yugoslavia. Or with Turk/Greek tensions. Or the Muslim ghettos in the largest European cities.

Finally, I would not be entirely surprised if Georgia entered the EU in a few years. They are going to be in NATO, and that's a bundled deal with EU these days.

In addition, one could argue that Russia is not a stable country in terms of its security. Do the same search and youll come across many of the same stories that have happened in Russia. The enforcement caught suspects in the cases mentioned, but the fact that these opportunities exist would be enough of a red flag.

Irrelevant. Planes crashing into cities proved to be a lot more dangerous than all the nuclear trade. And the air crash over Switzerland shows just how bad that situation in Europe is. You can crash a shitload of some nasty stuff right into Berlin and they are not going to notice that until after they are neck-deep in it. Pathetic.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by drew881

Russia has the largest land border of any country in the world, and borders some unstable countries, with a lot of traffic back and forth. Under a visa free travel system in the EU with Russia included, the EU's security would be at a huge risk, as there would be so much more land to cover.

What unstable countries? Or perhaps you think that the South European states, which border or simply are members of the EU now, are stable quiet countries? As well as some other countries who have visa-free travel treaties with the EU? Have you ever been to the EU and Russia? I guess no, or you would have noticed that the number of those coming from these unstable countries is orders of magnitude higher in the EU than in Russia.

I think he means all the 'stans. But I agree with his main idea, that Russia would cause more trouble than good because of it's massive size. Not because it borders 'unstable countries', but because it would concievably be an easy portal into the other EU countries.

Originally Posted by Alexi

I think he means all the 'stans.

Whoa, whoa there, Herr Doktor!

I bet the EU would be happiest of happy to lure those in, with all the resources they've got. Serious 'bout it.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by Alexi

I think he means all the 'stans.

Whoa, whoa there, Herr Doktor!

I bet the EU would be happiest of happy to lure those in, with all the resources they've got. Serious 'bout it.

Lol... Mein Fuher

Anyways, there's something that's confusing me about the EU. Is the 'European' part of the title just a name-sake, or are they actually just wanting a union of 'European' states?

Are the 'stans' really all that European, culturally and geographically? Including countries like Turkey will, probably, be good economically, but that's really pushing a lot of boundaries. Same with ideas of Russia joining, although more geographically than culturally, I think.

I know the main idea behind the Union is, well, to 'work towards an ever closer union', but I'm not sure how including countries to the east is going to achieve that.

I guess what I want to know is, how serious is the talk about including countries like Russia and, eventually, eastern states? Also, apart from the 'ever closer union' thing, what are the ultimate ambitions of the EU?

The recent elections in the UK have shown a rising up of people against the European Union. The UK Independance Party has won a lot of seats in the EU parliament and they don't want the UK in the EU. If there was a referendum NOW I think the majority here would vote to leave. So its strange to see all these countries wanting to join. I think the name European Union is a misnomer or will be. Turkey isn't geographically European. It isn't culturally similar to European nations but it will eventually be admitted I am sure. Russia too if they chose to join. I don't think the EU will ever work fairly or successfully. Too much corruption. Too much difference between the member countries. I could see it happening in a couple of hundred years time so maybe we have to go through all this strife for the sake of future generations.

If there was a referendum NOW I think the majority here would vote to leave.

Errr, don't get carried away now. The only UK party who advocate leaving the EU completely are UKIP, and they only polled 16.1% of the vote (that is, 16.1% of the 40% who actually bothered to vote).

Hi, Latvia, welcome to EU!

http://www.bb.lv/index.php?p=1&i=2738&s=1&a=102903
(sorry, in Russian -- if you can't read, don't bother)

BETEP, your comments?

Without reading every post on this thread
the EU and it's creation is for the involvment
of Russia, a country with vast amounts of mineral
wealth without oil. an EU with Russia is super strong.

The benefits of Western Europe for Russian involvment
is of course oil (why do you think Napoleon and Hitler
tried to invade the place) the benefits for Russia is
increased business opportunities without selling
everything off to American corportations.

I for one would welcome Russia into the EU
and NATO. And it will come sooner than you think

Originally Posted by carlos-england

Without reading every post on this thread
the EU and it's creation is for the involvment
of Russia, a country with vast amounts of mineral
wealth without oil. an EU with Russia is super strong.

The benefits of Western Europe for Russian involvment
is of course oil (why do you think Napoleon and Hitler
tried to invade the place) the benefits for Russia is
increased business opportunities without selling
everything off to American corportations.

I for one would welcome Russia into the EU
and NATO. And it will come sooner than you think

There's a couple of things I don't understand in your post that I was hoping to clear up. First off, was crude oil as valuable a thing when Napoleon was around as it is today?

'The EU was created for Russia to join'? No, the EU formed gradually over decades from the innitial idea of uniting the states of Europe.

To bring you up to speed on where this forum topic has gone, we (or I, I'm not sure who else specifically cares ) are a lil' lost on whether Russia is actually European enough to join the EU. If it isn't, and joins, the name 'European Union' doens't live up to its name-sake and its purpose would have to be reassessed.

Yeah, sure, Russia and a lot of other countries to the East, have useful resources; but those resources technically have to be inside 'Europe'. It's like saying that Australia should join the EU because it has lots of Uranium.

What 'Europe' is, its cultural and geographical boundaries, need to be properly understood and defined.

I was using the oil reference towards Hitler
more than Napoleon, however the gold standard
was brought around the time of the napoleonic wars
and with Russias vast amount of gold deposits, France
would have been the richest nation in the world so
therefore it was in Frances best intrests to get hold
of all that Russian gold.

The EEC originally was used as a club for France and Germany
to trade against Britian and the Commonwealth, when
Britian joined the EEC they lost all their trading with
the likes of Australia and New Zealand.

Now the EU has become a political entity, I have
always thought that the main role of a political EU
is to have Russia as a member as it's final destination.
With the acceptance of the likes of Latvia, Hungary,
Estonia, unthinkable 15 years ago is now reality.

It is nothing like saying Australia to join the EU,
don't be so ridiculous, Russia however far east it goes
has it's political and industrial centres in the west of
Russia, the goverment sits in European Russia
therefore I would say is a legitamte part of Europe.

Originally Posted by JJ

Originally Posted by Jasper May

How else if not economically? Militarily? In modern, civilised unions, economic power (or potential, as you would have it) is more important than pure military strength.

The economic power is less important than military power. China or Japan has huge economic power, I guess Chinies is one the most powerfull in the world but they both have not enough military power. The USA has the greatest military power and weak economic. So in this period the USA rules. Not for too long. The "civilised unions" if they're based only on economy are not very strong also.

About the only economy that the USA's economy is weak compared to is the USA's economy of about 6 years ago.

It astounds me that you actually believe such rhetoric.

Originally Posted by JJ

First, I didn't say anything about Russia. Second - I told about the "real" economy. The simple example: I give you a buck for cleaning my shoes. The GDP is growing for $1. Then I clean your shoes and you give me $1. The GDP is growing for another $1. We both did nothing real but GDP has grown for $2. Do you get what I mean? Let's look in the CIA world factbook, although they forget to wright there new data:
USA
GDP $10.45 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 2%
industry: 18%
services: 80% (2002 est.)
Well, the real economic is only 20%, the 80% of it is like I said befor. So the "real" GDP is not $10,45 trillion but $2,09 trillion
China:
purchasing power parity - $5.989 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 15.2%
industry and construction: 51.2%
services: 33.6% (2001)
The "real" economic is 66.4% so it means $3,98 trillon. The China 1,9 times more economically powerfull than US. It was in 2002. Now the gap is greater.

That was alot of hogwash. Seriously, how is industry the only important factor in an economy? Are you suggesting that other sectors of the economy do not create wealth?

Your shoe shining example is alot of bunk, as well. You can enlarge it to include everything we buy, sell and labor for and the end turns out basically the same, except of course for the creation of wealth.

Originally Posted by JJ

Don't confuse trends and potential with reality.
Don't apply the blind eye on the facts. The facts that CIA admits and published. Just think and analyse.

Yes, like you, since you've done such a great job of it. *snort*

Originally Posted by JJ

BS. Well, not completely BS, especially US problems but that growth in China (especially!!ha-ha-ha) depends on US consumer demand. The USA is not the only one country in the world. There are India(GDP - $2.664 trillion), Russia(GDP - $1.409 trillion, and like Scorpio said the real GDP in 2-4 times larger), EU, etc. What can USA offer to whole the world? The answer is nothing material. China has almost destroied your economy. I read some months ago that in the USA was closed the last Lewi's jeans factory. They moved the factory on to China.

Again I ask, do you really believe that industry is the only sector of the economy that can create wealth? If so, you need to do some of that "thinking and analyzing", and preferably with better clarity.

Originally Posted by JJ

BS. It will be happened when California will launch its own spacecrafts. At least 4 times in a year.

Private companies from California are launching their own spacecrafts. It's called the X-Prize (and it's not just limited to California, mind you). Also, I think you might be ignoring the fact that many private companies from California (and elsewhere) have satellites in space (or else you don't allow them to count). Much of the technology used in these private satellites and spacecraft is more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia or China.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Private companies from California are launching their own spacecrafts.

Those "private spacecraft" are made by "private companies" that have been floating in the US government cash for decades. The technology that is used in those "private spacecraft" has been lavishly subsidized by the US taxpayers.

Much of the technology used in these private satellites and spacecraft is more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia or China.

I don't think you will be able to name anything in particular, will you?

Originally Posted by bad manners

Those "private spacecraft" are made by "private companies" that have been floating in the US government cash for decades. The technology that is used in those "private spacecraft" has been lavishly subsidized by the US taxpayers.

The "X-Prize" foundation is not even a decade old, so surely you don't believe that all the teams that joined could have been "floating in the US government cash for decades" as you've claimed. (Most of the teams are 'garage hobbyist' teams, and aren't the ones with the capability of getting extremely high tech.).

Scaled Composites who developed the first [privately owend] spacecraft that made it to space is a completely privately owned company. Even though it is actually over two decades old (founded in 1982), there are no government subsidies involved. I suspect you're trying to play a game of causality, but it's not going to work.

It's also worth mentioning that any form of government subsidizing is strictly prohibited when it comes to all X-Prize Teams.

Maybe you're confusing the Ansari X-Prize with Space-X?

Originally Posted by bad manners

I don't think you will be able to name anything in particular, will you?

When I'm referring to privately owned satellites and spacecraft, I'm more referring to satellites. I suppose I was being a bit ambitious including privately owned spacecraft (with only a few of which are actively being developed).

I should note here that those ['private'] corporations that develop and own satellites are actually not allowed to launch the satellites themselves, but that doesn't mean they're getting a free ride from big government.

As far as the technology used in these private satellites, well I would recommend looking at the 'Ikonos' imaging satellite. Also, you can look at all those other satellite -whatever service- providers out there (internet, imaging, multimedia, etc) and compare that technology to those of the Russian satellites in orbit.

Chinese satellites are still behind new commercial American satellites, but are comparable to aging commercial satellites. I suppose it's becoming more difficult for the Chinese to steal American and Russian technology?

Chinese imaging satellites "9m" resolution. The five year old Ikonos has a resolution of "1m" Until very recently Russia did not have a working imaging satellite close to "1m" as it has had some problems.

I don't mean to sound like I'm looking down on the Russians (and I suppose the Chinese, too). In fact, I actually greatly admire Russian (and previously Soviet) technological innovation. I would go so far as to say that, on average, Russian scientists have a much greater understanding of theory and are exceptionally good brainstormers. However, they've often (and especially in modern times) lacked the accompanying economy to support the implementation of those ideas. It's quite a shame really -- if Russians could expunge all the old bureaucrats and opened up their economy, they'd make the European Union and China tremble. I might even go so far as to say that not only would they once again become the United States' only rival, they could also possibly be our greatest friend.

I apologize if I was making it sound like the Russians were technologically inept in some way. My stance is quite the contrary. My basic point is that America has proven time and again that it has the ability to implement a vast array of advanced technologies in both the private and government sector. Russia has been lacking the economy to support the implementation, and China just has been weak in both areas.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The "X-Prize" foundation is not even a decade old, so surely you don't believe that all the teams that joined could have been "floating in the US government cash for decades" as you've claimed. (Most of the teams are 'garage hobbyist' teams, and aren't the ones with the capability of getting extremely high tech.).

And where are these 'garage hobbyist' teams? Right, nowhere. No money, no expertise, no nothing.

Scaled Composites who developed the first [privately owend] spacecraft that made it to space is a completely privately owned company.

So? The companies that created the spacecraft that transported the Americans to the Moon were privately owned as well. It is the money that matters, and the money came from the US government. A very fat lot of money.

Even though it is actually over two decades old (founded in 1982), there are no government subsidies involved. I suspect you're trying to play a game of causality, but it's not going to work.

I do not need to play any games. Check the history of the company and see what it had been doing prior to that, and you will see that it was the US government money that had kept it afloat and had let it develop their talent and technology.

It's also worth mentioning that any form of government subsidizing is strictly prohibited when it comes to all X-Prize Teams.

I said quite plainly that it was the US government money that allowed these companies to conduct this "private" business, not that the US government paid for that idiocy.

Chinese imaging satellites "9m" resolution. The five year old Ikonos has a resolution of "1m" Until very recently Russia did not have a working imaging satellite close to "1m" as it has had some problems.

This is the biggest BS I have heard to date. The Russian military satellites have had sub-meter resolution for decades now. The very first satellite (26-Apr-1962) had 5-7 meter resolution. One-meter resolution was available to the Russians since late sixties. Your "private" technology is barely comparable to what they have 40 (forty) years ago.

Originally Posted by bad manners

And where are these 'garage hobbyist' teams? Right, nowhere. No money, no expertise, no nothing.

Some of those teams have several millions of dollars, and are comprised of engineers and physicists of various capacities. They know plenty.

Scaled Compoisites, a completely private company (which never accepted government subsidy) made it to space with only a fraction of the cost of what it cost NASA.

So? The companies that created the spacecraft that transported the Americans to the Moon were privately owned as well. It is the money that matters, and the money came from the US government. A very fat lot of money.

The companies who built the landing craft that landed on the moon were, indeed, contracted by the government. That's not the same thing as being subsidized, but I'll ignore the issue for now. The important thing here is that you understand Scaled Composites (being only 22 years old) was formed much later than that, and never accepted any government money. You continue to not be able to grasp this.

I do not need to play any games. Check the history of the company and see what it had been doing prior to that, and you will see that it was the US government money that had kept it afloat and had let it develop their talent and technology.

No, again I say that Scaled Composites (first private company to put a man in space aboard the "SpaceShipOne". The US governmentn ever gave them any money, as you can tell not only by the rules of the X-Prize Foundation, but also by reading the company's history on their website and elsewhere. You continue to make claims without actually reading any of it.

I said quite plainly that it was the US government money that allowed these companies to conduct this "private" business, not that the US government paid for that idiocy.

Private space flight into space is idiocy? When it's doing so more efficiently, and for a whole lot less money than when government organizations (NASA) did it? I think you're confused or disillusioned.

This is the biggest BS I have heard to date. The Russian military satellites have had sub-meter resolution for decades now. The very first satellite (26-Apr-1962) had 5-7 meter resolution. One-meter resolution was available to the Russians since late sixties. Your "private" technology is barely comparable to what they have 40 (forty) years ago.

I don't believe I ever mentioned military satellites, and if I had, I would have gladly pointed out that the United States, once it caught up to the Soviet Union during the 'Space Race', surpassed it in terms of many things -- including military satellite technology. I'm talking about commercial satellites.

But since we're on military technology, the U.S. military has over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit. Until the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had about 100 or so. That number has since dropped to less than a DOZEN in the late 1990s.

We'll continue to talk military satellites, since you seem so inclined to do so.

The first American military satellites (KeyHole: KH series) began with a resolution of about 2m (KH-1, launched in 1960). Type KH-11 and KH-12 Spy Satellites 4 inch resolutions. The Air Force and CIA Discoverer 13 series has a 12 inch resolution. KH-11 and KH-12 images are not available to the public, but I believe you can order Air Force/CIA Discoverer 13 images for a few thousand dollars.

(The next version in the KH series, KH-13 improves upon that resolution slightly (not significantly) but incorporates stealth technology.

Modern Russian military satellites have something like 1/3 or 1/4 of a meter resolution. This means they have a resolution of something like 10-12 inches. In Russia, modern non-military satellites have resolutions no better than 1m. In fact, Mashinostroeniya, the first private Russian imaging satellite (of the turn of the century), could get no better than a 2m resolution. Mashinostroeniya has been after Lockheed Martin (maker of Ikonos) about doing some sort of joint imaging satellite project.

Modern American military and intelligence imaging satellites have a 4inch resolution. In Russia, the best they have to offer is 10 inches.

Are you aware that there's a whole lot of commotion about China employing Russian satellite engineers to develop Chinese imaging satellites (the first high resolution Chinese satellite will not be launched for another year or two!).

More information you might not like to hear is that modern Russian commercial satellites are actually used for military purposes, because the military cannot afford to have many full time imagine satellites in space at once -- so they do contract work with private Russian companies (not that the companies have much of a choice).

[quote=the_intrepid]

Originally Posted by "bad manners":ubd8k9jv

And where are these 'garage hobbyist' teams? Right, nowhere. No money, no expertise, no nothing.

Some of those teams have several millions of dollars, and are comprised of engineers and physicists of various capacities. They know plenty.[/quote:ubd8k9jv]
Yeah, plenty from their previous involvement in US govt sponsored business. Just what I am talking about.

Scaled Compoisites, a completely private company (which never accepted government subsidy) made it to space with only a fraction of the cost of what it cost NASA.

X-47A? Would you enlighten me how Scaled never received anything from the USD 35 million spent on the vehicle they designed and built?

The companies who built the landing craft that landed on the moon were, indeed, contracted by the government. That's not the same thing as being subsidized, but I'll ignore the issue for now.

Oh really? They were receiving money from the US govt for research, design and fabrication of the stuff. Many many many years.

The important thing here is that you understand Scaled Composites (being only 22 years old) was formed much later than that, and never accepted any government money. You continue to not be able to grasp this.

See above. It was just one example of the "private" business of Scaled. There are many more.

No, again I say that Scaled Composites (first private company to put a man in space aboard the "SpaceShipOne". The US governmentn ever gave them any money, as you can tell not only by the rules of the X-Prize Foundation, but also by reading the company's history on their website and elsewhere. You continue to make claims without actually reading any of it.

Never gave them any money for that idiotic project. It did for many others.

Private space flight into space is idiocy? When it's doing so more efficiently, and for a whole lot less money than when government organizations (NASA) did it? I think you're confused or disillusioned.

I am not confused. You are. The money that NASA have spent enable these "private" companies to repeat what NASA did 40 (forty) years ago for "less" money. Simply because they can borrow the technology. But even that is done in a half-assed way.

A few minutes of flight with a payload of less than a ton. A real breakthrough, that.

I don't believe I ever mentioned military satellites, and if I had, I would have gladly pointed out that the United States, once it caught up to the Soviet Union during the 'Space Race', surpassed it in terms of many things -- including military satellite technology. I'm talking about commercial satellites.

The discussion is about "private" versus "state-sponsored" space technology. As you can see, the state-sponored technology is light years ahead of this "private" stuff (which is still state-sponsored in the end.)

But since we're on military technology, the U.S. military has over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit. Until the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had about 100 or so. That number has since dropped to less than a DOZEN in the late 1990s.

What does that have to do with technology? Do you think that making 100 replicas of one satellite is a technological wonder?

We'll continue to talk military satellites, since you seem so inclined to do so.

Sure.

The first American military satellites (KeyHole: KH series) began with a resolution of about 2m (KH-1, launched in 1960). Type KH-11 and KH-12 Spy Satellites 4 inch resolutions. The Air Force and CIA Discoverer 13 series has a 12 inch resolution. KH-11 and KH-12 images are not available to the public, but I believe you can order Air Force/CIA Discoverer 13 images for a few thousand dollars.

The information on the actual resolution of KH-11 and KH-12 is classified. The 4 inch resolution is derived from "back of envelope" calculations. But even if it is true, it is hardly a tribute to engineering. These sats are huge, the size of a four-storey building orbiting the Earth. You can put your Hubble telescope into that kind of sat, big deal. The usefulness of that kind of resolution is close to zero. It is only useful for the types in CIA and their subcontractors, who were given a nice stack of money to spend.

Modern Russian military satellites have something like 1/3 or 1/4 of a meter resolution. This means they have a resolution of something like 10-12 inches.

Classified just the same. I do not know, you do not know (or if you did, you would not say it here). That is comparable to the mainstream US sats anyway.

In Russia, modern non-military satellites have resolutions no better than 1m.

Simply because they would all be sent to Siberia for doing any better.

Modern American military and intelligence imaging satellites have a 4inch resolution. In Russia, the best they have to offer is 10 inches.

This statement is not based on anything but rumours.

More information you might not like to hear is that modern Russian commercial satellites are actually used for military purposes, because the military cannot afford to have many full time imagine satellites in space at once -- so they do contract work with private Russian companies (not that the companies have much of a choice).

I do not care. So far you have failed to mention anything that would be a lot "more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia".

Originally Posted by bad manners

Yeah, plenty from their previous involvement in US govt sponsored business. Just what I am talking about.

Some of the engineers worked for the US Government, yes. They might have even worked for organizations sponsored or subsidized by the government (which is pretty much never a good thing for business).

X-47A? Would you enlighten me how Scaled never received anything from the USD 35 million spent on the vehicle they designed and built?

Now I think I see what's wrong. You think that if a privately owned company sells to government, it's being subsidized by that government. I see the government as a consumer.

Oh really? They were receiving money from the US govt for research, design and fabrication of the stuff. Many many many years.

The US government was paying for services from them, so were other more private interest groups.

Never gave them any money for that idiotic project. It did for many others.

How is SpaceShipOne idiotic?

I am not confused. You are. The money that NASA have spent enable these "private" companies to repeat what NASA did 40 (forty) years ago for "less" money. Simply because they can borrow the technology. But even that is done in a half-assed way.

If Scaled Composites, and all the other competitors were borrowing the technology, then the race would have been over for decades, would it not?

A few minutes of flight with a payload of less than a ton. A real breakthrough, that.

How about you and a few of your friends get together and try to accomplish the same feat.

The discussion is about "private" versus "state-sponsored" space technology. As you can see, the state-sponored technology is light years ahead of this "private" stuff (which is still state-sponsored in the end.)

State-sponsoring and subdisizing are not the same as government buying, leasing, or renting technology from private companies.

What does that have to do with technology? Do you think that making 100 replicas of one satellite is a technological wonder?

I didn't mention this because of the technological aspect, just merely pointing out that a more open market can maintain so much more.

We'll continue to talk military satellites, since you seem so inclined to do so.

Sure.

The information on the actual resolution of KH-11 and KH-12 is classified. The 4 inch resolution is derived from "back of envelope" calculations. But even if it is true, it is hardly a tribute to engineering. These sats are huge, the size of a four-storey building orbiting the Earth. You can put your Hubble telescope into that kind of sat, big deal. The usefulness of that kind of resolution is close to zero.

So the first computers that took up entire rooms were not "tributes to engineering"? Riiight.

They regularly declassify information. If it's not a threat to national security, or the security of some bureaucrats job, it'll be declassified. That's pretty much a law - something akin to the 'Sunshine Law'.

It is only useful for the types in CIA and their subcontractors, who were given a nice stack of money to spend.

I never made the claim that it was useful for anyone else?

Classified just the same. I do not know, you do not know (or if you did, you would not say it here). That is comparable to the mainstream US sats anyway.

Comparable to mainstream commercial US satellites.

Simply because they would all be sent to Siberia for doing any better.

Sadly, that sort of thing happens everywhere.

This statement is not based on anything but rumours.

Much of the information I present to you was declassified from government agencies,
including NASA and the U.S.A.F.

I do not care. So far you have failed to mention anything that would be a lot "more advanced than anything you'll see in Russia".

Like I've said, I have no doubt that Russians could produce just as highly advanced technology as Americans -- if not even more advanced (all things being equal). Unfortunately, all things are not equal as Russia lacks the economy to keep up. This is why they fell behind late in the Cold War. So when I say we're technologically more advanced, I'm talking about state-of-the-art technology being operational because of the United States being able to afford to put billions of dollars more into 'staying ahead' in the game.

Some of the engineers worked for the US Government, yes. They might have even worked for organizations sponsored or subsidized by the government (which is pretty much never a good thing for business).

Is that you way of admitting that without having the US govt spending billions on dollars on space these private companies would be nowhere? I am glad that you agree.

Now I think I see what's wrong. You think that if a privately owned company sells to government, it's being subsidized by that government. I see the government as a consumer.

Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago. With this consumer, they have been able to put some money aside to have fun with "private" space. Without the personnel who have learned their stuff working on the US taxpayers' money, they would not have been able to do anything just the same. This is in sharp contrast with, say, automotive industry, who do not depend on the US govt in any way. The latter represents truly private and state-independent business, the former does not. I do not mean to say it is bad, it simply cannot be the other way around.

[quote:1f4lzz4n]
Never gave them any money for that idiotic project. It did for many others.

How is SpaceShipOne idiotic?[/quote:1f4lzz4n]
I have explained. Its capabilities are nowhere near close the real number one space ship.

If Scaled Composites, and all the other competitors were borrowing the technology, then the race would have been over for decades, would it not?

Which decades? Two decades ago all these guys were occupied full time in Cold War's activities. Now that Cold War is over many find themselves with too much free time on their hands and too little money to spend. And free time alone will not get you a spacecraft.

How about you and a few of your friends get together and try to accomplish the same feat.

What for?

State-sponsoring and subdisizing are not the same as government buying, leasing, or renting technology from private companies.

Refer to the above. If the only means for a company to sustain itself is through sales to the government, then each sale to the government is a form of state-sponsoring or subdisizing.

So the first computers that took up entire rooms were not "tributes to engineering"? Riiight.

That sat was definitely not the first. If it is a tribute to something, then it is a tribute to the appetites of the military-industrial complex.

They regularly declassify information. If it's not a threat to national security, or the security of some bureaucrats job, it'll be declassified. That's pretty much a law - something akin to the 'Sunshine Law'.

So would you quote a document that declassifies KH-11's 4-inch resolution?

I never made the claim that it was useful for anyone else?

Would not that explain why the Russians never had anything like that? Or perhaps they did, the appetites of their military-industrial complex were hardly smaller.

Comparable to mainstream commercial US satellites.

False and you know it. How many 4-inch resolution US sats are in orbit today? Out of "over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit"?

Besides, some sources say that the fifth generation of the Soviet reconsats (ca 1982) had 20-centimeter resolution, which is the same as that of KH-11/12. Except that the sats are almost two times smaller and lighter.

So when I say we're technologically more advanced, I'm talking about state-of-the-art technology being operational because of the United States being able to afford to put billions of dollars more into 'staying ahead' in the game.

Precisely. And that is the US govt money. Which proves my point yet again.