The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

[Keel]

Damn 230 Billion.

What a crazy amount of money.

What kind of economic advantages will result from this high speed train?

230 Billion is the same cost as building as the Trans-Atlantic Railway between London and New York.

Nah, the estimation of $230 billion is not excessive at all

The actual cost of building HSR from Shanghai to Beijing was about $32 billion or about $48 mln/mi in 2010

As quote in the OP the length of the railway is about 4,350 miles so the estimated project cost = $48 mil / mile x 4,350 miles = $ 209 billion @ 2010 price level

And SH-BJ HSR was built in much less hostile temperature and terraine than the extremely frigid and challenging landscapes between Moscow and BJ

I wish the cost of $230 billion is not under-estimated really

Take another example, the cost per mile in USA as Biden said below for a "ONE LANE and LINEAR" system in Philadelphia is $40 to 50 million "

“If you shut down Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor,” Biden said, “you’d have to add seven new lanes to I-95 to accommodate the traffic.” He then went on to cite the cost-benefit analysis of building rail instead of road. The construction cost for an average linear mile of one lane through the city of Philadelphia ranges from $40-50 million. And one new runway, like the one Atlanta just built in its Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, costs $1.3 billion.
“Amtrak Joe” Biden, in Philly, Announces a New Plan for High-Speed Rail | Streetsblog USA

The $230 billion is absolutely value for money

As for the economic value of building it, check with my comment @# 94

There is a vast ocean for HSR to cross over between NY and London

 

[MarkusS]

Goodness, you are stupid beyond believe. What can you do with the Space Shuttle without the rockets lifting it into outer space?

Yeah, plenty of oil in your parallel universe.

Over seven billion people in this world just don't give a flying **** what you do. You can fly, drive or crawl as much as you want.

You have no clue as usual. The Space Shuttle does not use "rockets" as form of propulsion. Its SSME are installed engines. It is classified as a space plane. The only remotly rocket type part of the orbiter are its SRB, and those run on solid fuel. im talking with a noob here. btw your chart shows new discoveries. It says nothing about the size of that oil field.

 

[powastick]

You have no clue as usual. The Space Shuttle does not use "rockets" as form of propulsion. Its SSME are installed engines. It is classified as a space plane. The only remotly rocket type part of the orbiter are its SRB, and those run on solid fuel. im talking with a noob here. btw your chart shows new discoveries. It says nothing about the size of that oil field.

Space Shuttle does not use rocket? Please elaborate.

 

[MarkusS]

Space Shuttle does not use rocket? Please elaborate.

The space shuttle is not classified as a rocket. It is classified as a spaceplane. It needs support of two SRB in the first two minutes of its flight, because its own engines (three SSME) can't lift the entire external tank in the beginning of its path towards orbit. The two SRB which are attached left and right are rockets, the orbiter itself is not. Butbthats a technical definition issue.

 

[cirr]

230 billions.... even USA can't afford it

The US can't afford a lot of things。

For example，it can't afford letting go of Israel。

By the way，230 billion is not that much money considering that the line will，if ever，be built over 20-30 years，with annual investment of less than 10 billion USD which is less than what India’s spend on foreign military hardwares each year。

The estimated cost of the California high-speed rail，at 1/7 length of the Beijing-Moscow line，and with a completion time for 2028，is about 70 billion USD。

 

[Nexus]

The US can't afford a lot of things。

For example，it can't afford letting go of Israel。

By the way，230 billion is not that much money considering that the line will，if ever，be built over 20-30 years，with annual investment of less than 10 billion USD which is less than what India’s spend on foreign military hardwares each year。

The estimated cost of the California high-speed rail，at 1/7 length of the Beijing-Moscow line，and with a completion time for 2028，is about 70 billion USD。

well, I am not saying that its dumb idea with long high speed rail u can transport anything and everything u want but I think that spending 230$ on rail line is not good idea.
who is going to pay for line ?and % ?

 

[mike2000]

blah bla bla......just build it then talk. I have heard of
several such projects in the past which never/will never come to pass.

 

[narcon]

China's Main Competitor in Space Exploration is India, Not Russia: Researcher | Analysis & Opinion | RIA Novosti



In this photo released by China's Xinhua News Agency, scientists work at the Beijing Aerospace Control Center (BACC) in Beijing.




MOSCOW, October 24 (RIA Novosti) - China's principal competitor in space exploration is India, not Russia, researcher at the Russian Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Vasily Kashin told RIA Novosti on Friday.

"China and India are two new space powers. They have vast resources and consider their space programs from the national prestige perspective ," the expert said.

He added that China and India are following Russian and US footsteps in space exploration.

"China's more developed space-rocket industry and immense resources have let it take the lead in the two countries' space race," Kashin argued.

Despite being behind China in space exploration, India has a significant advantage, according to the researcher.

"China is still under rigid restrictions on any form of cooperation with the United States, including on the purchase of components … The Chinese are forced to do many things on their own and they sometimes cannot produce components of a required level. The Indians have less resources, but they are in good relations with everyone. India can cooperate with both Russia and the West, adopting their best technologies," Kashin concluded.

Earlier on Friday, China launched an experimental spacecraft to the moon orbit, which is to return to Earth in eight days. The spacecraft is to test out re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere for the planned 2017 Chang'e-5 lunar mission.

Dr. Jones, however, thinks that we are seeing the makings of a new space race; not between the US and Russia but between the countries of Asia.

“I think that what we are seeing these days in the 21 century is a new space race, mostly happening in Asia, between nations like China and Japan and India and even South Korea, who want to send a probe to the Moon,” he says. “We see that nations which did not have much of a presence in space several decades ago are now asserting their economic development and their technological development by staging a new space race.”

Jim Bell, a Professor at the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Astronomy at Cornell University, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California is also convinced that it is a great way for India “to demonstrate their technology, their ability to launch a spacecraft and to operate it at Mars.”

“As I’ve said, it is a very difficult thing – half of the missions have failed. It is hard to do and in case they do it, they would be in an exclusive club of nations,” he told Radio VR.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

You have no clue as usual. The Space Shuttle does not use "rockets" as form of propulsion. Its SSME are installed engines. It is classified as a space plane. The only remotly rocket type part of the orbiter are its SRB, and those run on solid fuel. im talking with a noob here. btw your chart shows new discoveries. It says nothing about the size of that oil field.

You are the one that has massive problem of losing an argument. Tell us how the lame duck Space Shuttle can lift itself up into space without the SRB!

BTW, each launch of the Space Shuttle costs approximately USD 1.5 billion. Even at 1/10th the cost for commercial/ passenger flights would render travelling with a future Space Shuttle for wannabe nouveau riche like you unaffordable.

Talking about clulessness, do you know what the Gb on the left of the chart means?

 

[jkroo]

There is no competition in space exploration in our mind. We do it for ourself and have our own goal. We do it independently. Our so called competitor is our exploration goal not other countries. We explore space with planned paces and dont do it in a hurry for compete issues. We have an integrated industry for every system.
Russia is a great country that had done great achievement in space exploration. Who can look down upon Russia? India? What a joke!

 

[RKO]

Pissing contest??? Plz...not again!!! China is far away...let us catch up!!

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Ehhh...wait a minute, I'm not in a hurry to see an Indian space station or human on moon. China different, India different.

 

[MarkusS]

You are the one that has massive problem of losing an argument. Tell us how the lame duck Space Shuttle can lift itself up into space without the SRB!

BTW, each launch of the Space Shuttle costs approximately USD 1.5 billion. Even at 1/10th the cost for commercial/ passenger flights would render travelling with a future Space Shuttle for wannabe nouveau riche like you unaffordable.

Talking about clulessness, do you know what the Gb on the left of the chart means?

Now i got you Ossi. The Space Shuttle is able to launch with 2 configurations. The 1st option is the one with 2 SRB. It is the configuration which was always used to launch the shuttle. The Boosters generate 70% of thrust in the first 2 minutes. The Orbiter seperates at roughly 60km height and at 4 times the speed of sound. The orbiters own engines fire for additional 7 minutes and push the Shuttle to 28 times the speed of sound.

As you see the Shuttle only needs a helping hand in the first two minutes and there was option two, which was never used but possible any day: The Saturn Shuttle:

The Orbiter and external tank are placed atop a winged Saturn V-F1 Stage. At launch the F1 stage is also manned and it lifts the Shuttle at 60km height and Mach 4. After seperation the orbiter rises into orbit, the F1 Stage changes into horizontal flight, activates its jet engines and flies back to KCS and lands like any otehr airplane.

Consider your puffy, red face be slapped from Wernher von Braun.

As for costs, the entire Space Shuttle fleet never had more than 4 orbiters ready at the same time. Each launch did cost 450 million $ because of that. Not 1.5 billion...thats teh building costs of one orbiter. Because the fleet is so small you simply have to provide the entire Infrastructure for only 4 orbiters.

In 1971 von Braun dreamed about a fleet consisting of more than 80 orbiters. For this huge fleet and its f1- launch stage costs pro passenger would be around 30.000 $ per seat. Thats only double the prize of the concorde ticket.

Political and budget cuts destroyed this plans. Senate only approved 4 orbiters Columbia, Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis and the option for a 5th Orbiter, Endeavour which would later replace Challenger.

But the plans for much more orbiters were far enough that a comission had already looked for names. Names range from Constitution, Freedom, Valkyrie, Athena to Black Star and Huala.

For further information i can advice you the book: " The Space Shuttle - History of the national space transport system" from Jenkins. Its a must have read for evry aviation engineering student.

Your argument is quite laughable if you mix launching costs with building costs.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Now i got you Ossi. The Space Shuttle is able to launch with 2 configurations. The 1st option is the one with 2 SRB. It is the configuration which was always used to launch the shuttle. The Boosters generate 70% of thrust in the first 2 minutes. The Orbiter seperates at roughly 60km height and at 4 times the speed of sound. The orbiters own engines fire for additional 7 minutes and push the Shuttle to 28 times the speed of sound.

As you see the Shuttle only needs a helping hand in the first two minutes and there was option two, which was never used but possible any day: The Saturn Shuttle:

The Orbiter and external tank are placed atop a winged Saturn V-F1 Stage. At launch the F1 stage is also manned and it lifts the Shuttle at 60km height and Mach 4. After seperation the orbiter rises into orbit, the F1 Stage changes into horizontal flight, activates its jet engines and flies back to KCS and lands like any otehr airplane.

Consider your puffy, red face be slapped from Wernher von Braun.

As for costs, the entire Space Shuttle fleet never had more than 4 orbiters ready at the same time. Each launch did cost 450 million $ because of that. Not 1.5 billion...thats teh building costs of one orbiter. Because the fleet is so small you simply have to provide the entire Infrastructure for only 4 orbiters.

In 1971 von Braun dreamed about a fleet consisting of more than 80 orbiters. For this huge fleet and its f1- launch stage costs pro passenger would be around 30.000 $ per seat. Thats only double the prize of the concorde ticket.

Political and budget cuts destroyed this plans. Senate only approved 4 orbiters Columbia, Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis and the option for a 5th Orbiter, Endeavour which would later replace Challenger.

But the plans for much more orbiters were far enough that a comission had already looked for names. Names range from Constitution, Freedom, Valkyrie, Athena to Black Star and Huala.

For further information i can advice you the book: " The Space Shuttle - History of the national space transport system" from Jenkins. Its a must have read for evry aviation engineering student.

Your argument is quite laughable if you mix launching costs with building costs.

Show me one instance that Space Shuttle has lifted itself into space without help.

LOL, The Concord has been such a huge success. Even at USD 3000/ passenger, that would practically kill the whole industry as it is right now.

So much text and yet no argument. Poor guy.

 

[MarkusS]

Show me one instance that Space Shuttle has lifted itself into space without help.

LOL, The Concord has been such a huge success. Even at USD 3000/ passenger, that would practically kill the whole industry as it is right now.

So much text and yet no argument. Poor guy.

As i said Option two was never used simply because the fleet was not big enough.

Concorde was a huge sucess for British Airways. BA had 6 Concorde in service and this 6 Concorde generated 40% of the entire BA profit for 25 years. BA had a fleet of 150 airplanes...and 6 airplanes made 40% of the profits. Thats quite sucessful. Concorde offered a unique experience. A level above 1st class. That made her so profitable. I was able to fly Concorde as a small boy with my parents. London - New York on G-BOAC. Nobody says that SST and SSTO are an option for evryone. As Airtravel started the tickets were so expensive that only very rich people could afford them. Thats normal for any new technology. SST are introduced and work as elite way to travel while the masses chose the normal airplane. As time goes by the new SSTO becomes the new elite way and SST the normal way to travel.

So many corporations work on new concepts. Airbus, Boeing, Space X, Sierra Nevada, Lockheed Martin...

As time and development moves on, the new technologies become the standard. The long time goal are bases / cities on the moon, mars, titan, ganymede and callisto and later on even interstellar. You want build railways to this destinations as well?

I want progress and i don´t want develop backwards. Trains can be used for short distance