Rockets and such

[chuck34]

Anyone here like rockets/spacecraft?

At one point in time I had thought about going to work for NASA, may yet someday. Spaceflight is always pushing the boundaries of what can and cannot be done, and as an engineer that always holds my interest. In that respect it is much like motorsports.

I have been following the development of the Constellation program with particular attention. The Orion seems to be sort of a bigger, more modern Apollo which is pretty cool. The Ares rocket they are building for it seems to be sort of a waste of money to me. It's too expensive and way underperforming so far. The Direct program that was in Popular Mechanics last month seems to be a much better way to go.

Any thoughts?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Space Exploration is fascinating. But it's too slow! When can we have spacecraft that can take man out of the Solar System?

[chuck34]

Space Exploration is fascinating. But it's too slow! When can we have spacecraft that can take man out of the Solar System?

How long do you want to wait?

Even at the speed of light I think it would take like 26 years to get to the nearest star. Not saying that we shouldn't try to do something like this, just that it's a BIG deal. Let's get back to the moon first.

[Tazio]

Rockets
I was at Ron Slaters house in 1969 when I watched "That's one small step (for a) Man" A giant leap for mankind :up:

I was on Friars Rd. in Mission Valley comming back from an evening of Bass fishing when the radio in my buddies car reported that John Lennon was shot dead :down:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

How long do you want to wait?

Even at the speed of light I think it would take like 26 years to get to the nearest star. Not saying that we shouldn't try to do something like this, just that it's a BIG deal. Let's get back to the moon first.

I have a fantasy that faster than light travel will one day be possible :s tareup:

[schmenke]

There is no escaping Newton's gravitational laws...

Current space flight technology relies on the, often uncontrolled, combustion of huge amounts of fuel for propulsion. This has not changed in centuries. At best, payloads of a few tons can be lifted into low-level earth orbit, and only a few kilograms can be propelled outside of earth's gravitational field. Anything more would require fuel quantities so vast as to render missions both economically and logistically impractical.

If I'm not mistaken, the payload-to-fuel ratio of a typical rocket is less than 1%. That is, the rocket alone consumes 99% of the fuel required to reach orbit :s

Man will not set foot on Mars in our lifetimes, nor will he revisit the Moon any time soon.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There is no escaping Newton's gravitational laws...

Current space flight technology relies on the, often uncontrolled, combustion of huge amounts of fuel for propulsion. This has not changed in centuries. At best, payloads of a few tons can be lifted into low-level earth orbit, and only a few kilograms can be propelled outside of earth's gravitational field. Anything more would require fuel quantities so vast as to render missions both economically and logistically impractical.

If I'm not mistaken, the payload-to-fuel ratio of a typical rocket is less than 1%. That is, the rocket alone consumes 99% of the fuel required to reach orbit :s

Man will not set foot on Mars in our lifetimes, nor will he revisit the Moon any time soon.

I thought NASA's Constellation program planned to planned to land on the moon by 2020? And Mars by 2030.

Wouldn't the payload-to-fuel ratio problem be solved by launching from the Moon?


Man will not set foot on Mars in our lifetimes

It would appear that I plan to live longer than you! :p

[chuck34]

Man will not set foot on Mars in our lifetimes, nor will he revisit the Moon any time soon.

Why do you think this?

We are supposed to be back on the moon by 2020. I would bet it'll slip a bit to maybe 2025. I'd also bet we get to mars by 2040. The problem with going to mars is not the propellent (that is relatively easy to solve with propellent depots), the problem is the radiation. But we can probably solve that soon.

[chuck34]

Rockets
I was at Ron Slaters house in 1969 when I watched "That's one small step (for a) Man" A giant leap for mankind :up:


I'm too young to have seen this. Can't wait to see it for real in High Def!

[Sonic]

I've been disapointed with the Constellation project. The last shuttle is due to fly in 2010 with the first Orion launch FOUR years later!!! And even when she gets up there I can't help but seeing it as a step backwards. From reusable space vehicles back to capsules just seems to be the wrong way round.

I don't share schmenke's outlook - man will be back on the moon within the next 15-20 years and on mars in my lifetime. But it won't be NASA - China & India in the new space race will get back to the moon first - and it will be private enterprises that push us onto mars. Burt Rutan has shown that private ventures can get into space - now they just need the capital. And we are talking WAY more than the money required to run a 'space tourist' operation.

[Tazio]

I never really thought about it but all the latter footage they took of these guys cruising around in the rover and hitting golf balls was really good quality for the time. I guess that studio they shot it in had really good lighting :p :

[Sonic]

I never really thought about it but all the latter footage they took of these guys cruising around in the rover and hitting golf balls was really good quality for the time. I guess that studio they shot it in had really good lighting :p :

LOL :p :

[Tazio]

I've been disapointed with the Constellation project. The last shuttle is due to fly in 2010 with the first Orion launch FOUR years later!!! And even when she gets up there I can't help but seeing it as a step backwards. From reusable space vehicles back to capsules just seems to be the wrong way round.

I don't share schmenke's outlook - man will be back on the moon within the next 15-20 years and on mars in my lifetime. But it won't be NASA - China & India in the new space race will get back to the moon first - and it will be private enterprises that push us onto mars. Burt Rutan has shown that private ventures can get into space - now they just need the capital. And we are talking WAY more than the money required to run a 'space tourist' operation.I'm not an athority in the space exploration arena most of my contributions are anecdotal but honest even if uninteresting. about 2 miles from where I grew up was Astronautics division of Convair/General Dynamics. They produced the Atlas Booster! which I'm not sure but I think it was used in the Mrecury missions but I too weary to google it. The place used to literraly rock. They had this beatiful park (Missile park) for employees and the general public. There were dances every weekend I was too young even to attend those because were talking 50' to mid 6o's The place is a ghost town now and has been for about 20 years The park is still maintained and I think there is an office or two actually in use. And of course the full size Atlas at the entrace to the park Wernher von Braun did some work their, and a friend of mine claims his father worked with him Ah! the good old days :up:

[Hondo]

My Dad worked on the Atlas. Mainly the guidance systems.

Small world.

[SportscarBruce]

Hats off to your dad. That Atlas was a beautiful machine. Initially a product of Mutually Assured Destruction 'strategery', but the Gemini space program rehabilitated its image IMO.

As a side note, has anyone else found themselves watching the Science and Discovery channels alot more now that Speedvision's type of programming is no more? I've learned more about all the possible ways Earth might go kablammo than I bargained for.

[schmenke]

There is no economical reason to return to the moon. We've been there, done that and determined that there's bugger-all up there, not even a smidgen of cheese. No one will want to fund a mission to the moon without some return on their investment, either monetary or scientific.

As for Mars, well, we don't even begin to have solutions to the scientific or logistical problems involved. A manned mission to Mars is exponentially more complex than going to the moon. Heck, we struggle to get the shuttle off the ground, and building the International Space Station has been fraught with problems, and that's just in low-level earth orbit :s

NASA is trying hard to convince congress that a mission to Mars is possible only because they know that in a few years the shuttle program will be scrapped and they'll all be out of a job :mark:

Sorry to burst yer bubbles folks, but the technology just ain't there yet.

[schmenke]

...the problem is the radiation. But we can probably solve that soon.

No. That is one of the biggest challenges and the only current solution to this is massive amounts of shielding which would render the spacecraft so heavy that launching it would be impossible.

[Tazio]

My Dad worked on the Atlas. Mainly the guidance systems.

Small world.
In San Diego?

[Hondo]

In San Diego?

No, up in the northeast coast mainly, with excursions into the field of course. From 1964 to sometime in the Shuttle program, he was at the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston (Clear Lake) as it was known then.

[SportscarBruce]

Back in the 70's my dad worked on the F-15 and KC-10 projects for McDonnell-Douglas over at Long Beach, so I too was indoctrinated into the aerospace culture at an early age. :)

[millencolin]

Anyone here like rockets/spacecraft?



I'm not a big fan of them... but I know someone who is...

Kim Jong Il...

[Andrewmcm]

No. That is one of the biggest challenges and the only current solution to this is massive amounts of shielding which would render the spacecraft so heavy that launching it would be impossible.

The radiation of course poses some risk, but I doubt that it would be a mission-breaker. The shielding required to stop most of the radiation isn't that great, and the highly energetic stuff flying around will get through almost any shield so there will always be a certain element of risk.

There are myriad issues with a mission to Mars - having enough food and oxygen for the crew, the length of the mission sending the astronauts insane, and of course the rather thorny topic of the reasonable likelihood that whoever goes on the mission won't be coming back. Even when these things are overcome, sending man to Mars is only half the story, getting them back again is an open question......

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dad's cousin worked for Rockwell on the landing gear for the Shuttle way back in the late 70's. He was one of the many Canucks who went south as skilled trades in the 50's.

Schmenke...you are a kill joy but probably right on a lot of levels. I will say though nations will continue to push for reasons of national pride and THAT will render any arguments on the economics of it moot. Sooner or later, mankind will find a way to leave low earth orbit and I wont bet on when that will happen because you just NEVER know....

As for Burt Rutan needing capital, his X-one plane is hardly much of a space craft. Until he puts one in orbit, and not just above the altitude where space starts, I consider his project an interesting sideline for the rich to pour money into.

[chuck34]

From reusable space vehicles back to capsules just seems to be the wrong way round.


We have a reusable space vehicle?

[chuck34]

I never really thought about it but all the latter footage they took of these guys cruising around in the rover and hitting golf balls was really good quality for the time. I guess that studio they shot it in had really good lighting :p :

Did you see the MythBusters where they did some of that stuff? Almost made me start questioning things ... almost.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We have a reusable space vehicle?

Space Shuttle................................... :p ..

[chuck34]

There is no economical reason to return to the moon. We've been there, done that and determined that there's bugger-all up there, not even a smidgen of cheese. No one will want to fund a mission to the moon without some return on their investment, either monetary or scientific.

As for Mars, well, we don't even begin to have solutions to the scientific or logistical problems involved. A manned mission to Mars is exponentially more complex than going to the moon. Heck, we struggle to get the shuttle off the ground, and building the International Space Station has been fraught with problems, and that's just in low-level earth orbit :s

NASA is trying hard to convince congress that a mission to Mars is possible only because they know that in a few years the shuttle program will be scrapped and they'll all be out of a job :mark:

Sorry to burst yer bubbles folks, but the technology just ain't there yet.

Right now you are probably right about there not being an economic reason. But as someone else said, it will be much easier to start a trip to Mars from there. Especially once you start mining O2 and H2 out of the rocks. Then there's the possibility of H3 fusion power.

Yes going to Mars is and will be fraught with problems. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Look the way I see it, humanity must get off this rock at some point. Be it global warming, an asteroid, or we just bomb ourselves out of existance, we need somewhere else to be. Why not start the ground work now?

[chuck34]

No. That is one of the biggest challenges and the only current solution to this is massive amounts of shielding which would render the spacecraft so heavy that launching it would be impossible.

They're starting to look into creating magnetic fields that looks promising.

[chuck34]

The radiation of course poses some risk, but I doubt that it would be a mission-breaker. The shielding required to stop most of the radiation isn't that great, and the highly energetic stuff flying around will get through almost any shield so there will always be a certain element of risk.

There are myriad issues with a mission to Mars - having enough food and oxygen for the crew, the length of the mission sending the astronauts insane, and of course the rather thorny topic of the reasonable likelihood that whoever goes on the mission won't be coming back. Even when these things are overcome, sending man to Mars is only half the story, getting them back again is an open question......

I saw where some Europeans are starting a "mission to Mars" here on earth. I know it's not quite the same thing. But it will give a lot of insight into the psycology (sp?) of long term flights like to Mars.

[chuck34]

Space Shuttle................................... :p ..

It is only marginally "reusable". The main chassis of the vehicle flys again, but that's about it. They have to replace all the tiles, reprocess the engines, inspect everying, etc. That's why they are "going back to Apollo" because they realized it would be quicker and less complicated to just throw the stuff away.

Now maybe if someone could figure out single stage to orbit we may have a different story.


Sorry for so many posts.

[Tazio]

Did you see the MythBusters where they did some of that stuff? Almost made me start questioning things ... almost.

No I didn't!! I did get a C in lower division physics in JC so I understand the that what happened was simply math aplied to physical nature. The equations work. My only suspicions are in the area of do we really have a good accurate body count as a result of testing, and travel going all the way back to the X models. I'm pretty sure what ever it is, it's better than the Soviets ;)

[Sonic]

Yes going to Mars is and will be fraught with problems. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Look the way I see it, humanity must get off this rock at some point. Be it global warming, an asteroid, or we just bomb ourselves out of existance, we need somewhere else to be. Why not start the ground work now?

What a ray of sunshine you are! :D :p

[chuck34]

Sorry to dig up such an old thread, but I found this interesting.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html

[Roamy]

what a freaking waste of money. We have already found out we ain't going nowhere. Save the money. The one thing we should be doing however is to propel nuclear waste outside our solar system. Load it up and fly on!!

[Malbec]

There is no economical reason to return to the moon. We've been there, done that and determined that there's bugger-all up there, not even a smidgen of cheese. No one will want to fund a mission to the moon without some return on their investment, either monetary or scientific.

As for Mars, well, we don't even begin to have solutions to the scientific or logistical problems involved. A manned mission to Mars is exponentially more complex than going to the moon. Heck, we struggle to get the shuttle off the ground, and building the International Space Station has been fraught with problems, and that's just in low-level earth orbit :s

NASA is trying hard to convince congress that a mission to Mars is possible only because they know that in a few years the shuttle program will be scrapped and they'll all be out of a job :mark:

Sorry to burst yer bubbles folks, but the technology just ain't there yet.

I disagree. We went to the moon in the first place as a race between egos between the US and the USSR. As others have said, the Chinese and Indians as well as Europe and Japan want to go there too and more importantly beat the others into third place. NASA can step aside if it wants but I'd bet that people will be walking on the moon within two/three decades. Its about national pride, not profit or scientific achievement.

Mars is far more difficult and I reckon its touch and go whether people will walk there in my lifetime but then again never say never. If a base on the moon is established (and thats the only way the new space powers will be able to go one further than NASA in 1969) most of the main challenges to going to Mars will have been resolved.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I disagree. We went to the moon in the first place as a race between egos between the US and the USSR. As others have said, the Chinese and Indians as well as Europe and Japan want to go there too and more importantly beat the others into third place. NASA can step aside if it wants but I'd bet that people will be walking on the moon within two/three decades. Its about national pride, not profit or scientific achievement.

Mars is far more difficult and I reckon its touch and go whether people will walk there in my lifetime but then again never say never. If a base on the moon is established (and thats the only way the new space powers will be able to go one further than NASA in 1969) most of the main challenges to going to Mars will have been resolved.


I agree Dylan, sooner or later the Moon will be revisited and Mars will be the bullseye. Americans need to decide if they are going to be leaders again, or followers....although with the debt the latest Congress and Obama have rolled up just "fighting" the recession, I suspect America has no choice BUT to follow.

[schmenke]

.... If a base on the moon is established (and thats the only way the new space powers will be able to go one further than NASA in 1969) most of the main challenges to going to Mars will have been resolved.

No.

The total energy required for a manned Mars mission is the same regardless of using our moon as a jumping-off or staging point.
With our current technology, all resources, e.g. oxygen, water, food, etc. will have to be sourced from Earth; that is, stuff everything into a great big rocket and blast it off from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Our current rocket technology does not even come close to providing the necessary propulsion to do this. Heck, we struggle to build the ISS and that's in low-earth orbit :mark: .

There is nothing on our moon from which we could benefit to making a trip to Mars easier. No water, no hydrogen... nothing that can be consumed or transformed into kinetic energy.

A manned trip to Mars is nothing more than a scam that NASA engineers are trying to sell to the public in order to save their jobs.

[Malbec]

Schmenke, if a base is built on the moon then do you not think it would be possible to source some of the materials from that base? That is particularly so if it becomes self sufficient in terms of food. Also the lessons learnt from keeping a moonbase going would feed directly into keeping astronauts alive for the years it would take to go to Mars. It would be of some benefit. And being the first nation to reach Mars would bring considerable kudos for whoever manages it first which is in the end the whole point of manned space exploration.

You seem fixated on NASA. I'm sure they'll be a big player but my money is on China. They want to be the first at having done something spectacular. For them reaching the moon will only mean recreating America's expedition 40 years ago. Being the first nation to Mars, now that would mean something for them wouldn't it? A red rocket to the red planet? I doubt the propaganda writers in Beijing will let that one go by.

[chuck34]

No.

The total energy required for a manned Mars mission is the same regardless of using our moon as a jumping-off or staging point.
With our current technology, all resources, e.g. oxygen, water, food, etc. will have to be sourced from Earth; that is, stuff everything into a great big rocket and blast it off from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Our current rocket technology does not even come close to providing the necessary propulsion to do this. Heck, we struggle to build the ISS and that's in low-earth orbit :mark: .

There is nothing on our moon from which we could benefit to making a trip to Mars easier. No water, no hydrogen... nothing that can be consumed or transformed into kinetic energy.

A manned trip to Mars is nothing more than a scam that NASA engineers are trying to sell to the public in order to save their jobs.

That is absolutly not true. One of the reasons for going back to the moon is to find out if there is water. Right now we think yes. There are probes there (got there today or yesterday) to find out how much and where. If there is water on the moon we can use it to make fuel, Hydrogen and Oxygen, to propel ourselves to Mars. And since the Moon's gravity well is 1/6 the size of Earth's, it will be much easier (less expensive) to get there.

Even if it is all a scam to save NASA jobs, who cares? Wasn't that the whole point of the "stimulus"?

[Tazio]

Chuck planning for something that won't come to fruition until a couple of generations have passed is not something your average homo-sapien does very well.
We were propelled into space by machines, and technology that were developed in a time of crisis. (WW2) I think there is a better chance of us landing on Mars in fragments, from a Global Thermonuclear War than by the diligence, and unity of a long term multinational effort. That's what the cynical side of me says!
However the romanticism of the idea makes me think that we should pursue it.
No instant gratification mind you!
I hope it fly’s

[Hondo]

I think NASA's budgets will be cut for the next 8 years. Unmanned exploration will continue to be the main effort and many of those projects will be farmed out to universities for design and development to save costs. Manned flight will consist of a cheap means to get to the space station and back. You can forget large manned moon projects unless somebody gets up there and starts a military base to claim the entire moon. However, that would be dreadfully expensive. Until national economies get settled back down, throwing money into space will not be the way to get re-elected.

[rah]

The USA will be the first back to the moon with a manned mission. It doesn't matter about the state of the US economy, it cannot afford not to go to the moon. There are resources that are know and unknown on the moon and they will be exploited. Anyone who thinks that just because it is not easily and cheaply done now the US will not go, does not know much about US history. The only other conteders are China and the EU, and neither of them have an economy big enough to sustain it.

[chuck34]

Chuck planning for something that won't come to fruition until a couple of generations have passed is not something your average homo-sapien does very well.
We were propelled into space by machines, and technology that were developed in a time of crisis. (WW2) I think there is a better chance of us landing on Mars in fragments, from a Global Thermonuclear War than by the diligence, and unity of a long term multinational effort. That's what the cynical side of me says!
However the romanticism of the idea makes me think that we should pursue it.
No instant gratification mind you!
I hope it fly’s

Why does it have to take a couple of generations? The plans I've seen have us on the moon no later than 2025. That sounds very do-able. I'll be 41. Then we can be on Mars about a decade after that. Not multi-generational at all. These time can also come down a bit, if we "activate" other nations. And profit is a good "activator". There is profit to be made, if you look hard enough.

[chuck34]

I think NASA's budgets will be cut for the next 8 years. Unmanned exploration will continue to be the main effort and many of those projects will be farmed out to universities for design and development to save costs. Manned flight will consist of a cheap means to get to the space station and back. You can forget large manned moon projects unless somebody gets up there and starts a military base to claim the entire moon. However, that would be dreadfully expensive. Until national economies get settled back down, throwing money into space will not be the way to get re-elected.

I've become a really big fan of Direct in the last few months. They have really detailed budget plans. They can get us back to the moon in less than a decade on the current budget profile. And only slightly longer on a reduced budget. It is really fairly amazing what you can do when you take a hack-saw to the Shuttle.

I don't believe your last statement at all. At worse the American public doesn't care one way or the other about the space program. I don't think they will vote against someone because of it. But there is a fairly large minority that will vote FOR someone because of it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The USA will be the first back to the moon with a manned mission. It doesn't matter about the state of the US economy, it cannot afford not to go to the moon. There are resources that are know and unknown on the moon and they will be exploited. Anyone who thinks that just because it is not easily and cheaply done now the US will not go, does not know much about US history. The only other conteders are China and the EU, and neither of them have an economy big enough to sustain it.

China's economy is as big as the US's, and they don't have to answer to public opinion. The only thing stopping the Chinese is their level of technology and the ability of their scientists to think outside convention. The American program would be a political football in Congress with declining tax revenues and the debt. For the Chinese, they don't worry about what people think, they can just do.

However, like the USSR in the 60's, they will hit a technological wall and I think the free market forces for developing new technology, not to mention the freedom of thought and the excellent engineering schools in the west would still give the US the edge. The Russians found out their scientific community wasn't large enough, nor "free" enough to solve problems by thinking without boundry. When you live in an oppressed society, your inclination to be a thinker outside the box has been pushed and shoved into a mental state where you just have no incentive to be the genius. It is a psychological thing IMO and the Russians had brilliant men yet they couldn't grasp how to put a man on the moon. They faked going there but it was clear they didn't have the technology in the late 60's to put a man on the lunar surface. I think the Chinese have the desire but will face this same psychological barrier. God knows they are clever and industrious enough.....

[Hondo]

The USA will be the first back to the moon with a manned mission. It doesn't matter about the state of the US economy, it cannot afford not to go to the moon. There are resources that are know and unknown on the moon and they will be exploited. Anyone who thinks that just because it is not easily and cheaply done now the US will not go, does not know much about US history. The only other conteders are China and the EU, and neither of them have an economy big enough to sustain it.

Nasa cancelled the last 3 lunar landings of the Apollo Program because of a lack of interest and lack of money. There is no need to go back now beyond being able to say "Hey look, we're on the moon!". Enough geology has been done on returned sample material to indicate so far, there's nothing unique enough up there to make mining it profitable. Profit will have to be the name of the game. Any lunar project would have to have a definite goal or be a definite stepping stone for another definite project, like Mars. We can get a bag of ice and a glass of water here, cheaper.

Shuttle was a rather poor execution of the concept of a project that really had no defined mission or purpose until after it was completed. We built it, now we have to do something with it. It didn't take the Soviets long to see the shuttle program was an expensive folly with severe limitations. Thats why they dropped theirs and went back to capsules and the Mirs.

[Malbec]

China's economy is as big as the US's, and they don't have to answer to public opinion. The only thing stopping the Chinese is their level of technology and the ability of their scientists to think outside convention. The American program would be a political football in Congress with declining tax revenues and the debt. For the Chinese, they don't worry about what people think, they can just do.

However, like the USSR in the 60's, they will hit a technological wall and I think the free market forces for developing new technology, not to mention the freedom of thought and the excellent engineering schools in the west would still give the US the edge. The Russians found out their scientific community wasn't large enough, nor "free" enough to solve problems by thinking without boundry. When you live in an oppressed society, your inclination to be a thinker outside the box has been pushed and shoved into a mental state where you just have no incentive to be the genius. It is a psychological thing IMO and the Russians had brilliant men yet they couldn't grasp how to put a man on the moon. They faked going there but it was clear they didn't have the technology in the late 60's to put a man on the lunar surface. I think the Chinese have the desire but will face this same psychological barrier. God knows they are clever and industrious enough.....

The Russians weren't far off getting to the moon back in the 60s and were ahead of the Americans right up until the Apollo project. I think you're not giving them enough credit there.

The difference between the Russian and American moon projects were that the Americans were willing to take a risk, the Russians wanted a perfect system before attempting a moonshot. The Americans took shortcuts and it paid off handsomely for them.

I don't think the Chinese have a problem with innovation at all, its quite scary just how much scientific research the Chinese are involved in, both within their country and outside. All you have to do is open up a few scientific journals to see how much they're pumping out, and thats just what they can be bothered to translate into English. Write them off at your peril...

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Russians weren't far off getting to the moon back in the 60s and were ahead of the Americans right up until the Apollo project. I think you're not giving them enough credit there.

The difference between the Russian and American moon projects were that the Americans were willing to take a risk, the Russians wanted a perfect system before attempting a moonshot. The Americans took shortcuts and it paid off handsomely for them.

I don't think the Chinese have a problem with innovation at all, its quite scary just how much scientific research the Chinese are involved in, both within their country and outside. All you have to do is open up a few scientific journals to see how much they're pumping out, and thats just what they can be bothered to translate into English. Write them off at your peril...

I am not writing them off entirely, for I don't disagree with you the Chinese are different than the Russians. The Russians failed not because they were not gamblers, but it rather was they didn't have the sheer numbers of researchers, engineers and workers on the project. Their goal was to embarass the US but they didn't really set their course on the moon until it was clear the US was going there. They then didn't develop their technology at a pace that would allow them to catch up, nor did they have the plan the US had. They started a metaphorical war they couldn't win.

I think the Chinese are different, but I think there will be an institutional caution that will maybe slow their progress. If the US decides to enter the race for the moon the second time, or the race for Mars, they will win....because the American scientific culture is very free to do what they like and think outside the box. I don't know if that is a trait the Chinese would have with that authoritarian culture ruling on what is persmissible and what isn't. It isn't that the engineers there are afraid, but it is the mindset I think that might hold them back.

[rah]

China's economy is as big as the US's, and they don't have to answer to public opinion. The only thing stopping the Chinese is their level of technology and the ability of their scientists to think outside convention. The American program would be a political football in Congress with declining tax revenues and the debt. For the Chinese, they don't worry about what people think, they can just do.

However, like the USSR in the 60's, they will hit a technological wall and I think the free market forces for developing new technology, not to mention the freedom of thought and the excellent engineering schools in the west would still give the US the edge. The Russians found out their scientific community wasn't large enough, nor "free" enough to solve problems by thinking without boundry. When you live in an oppressed society, your inclination to be a thinker outside the box has been pushed and shoved into a mental state where you just have no incentive to be the genius. It is a psychological thing IMO and the Russians had brilliant men yet they couldn't grasp how to put a man on the moon. They faked going there but it was clear they didn't have the technology in the late 60's to put a man on the lunar surface. I think the Chinese have the desire but will face this same psychological barrier. God knows they are clever and industrious enough.....

The US economy is far larger than China's economy. China's economy will nut surpass the US economy anytime soon as China's economy relies on the US economy. The US can build momentum behind an expensive project like
this like no other nation, and they have the experience to help them. While many other countries or unions could go there, the USA is the only one that could do it soon.

[rah]

Nasa cancelled the last 3 lunar landings of the Apollo Program because of a lack of interest and lack of money. There is no need to go back now beyond being able to say "Hey look, we're on the moon!". Enough geology has been done on returned sample material to indicate so far, there's nothing unique enough up there to make mining it profitable. Profit will have to be the name of the game. Any lunar project would have to have a definite goal or be a definite stepping stone for another definite project, like Mars. We can get a bag of ice and a glass of water here, cheaper.

Shuttle was a rather poor execution of the concept of a project that really had no defined mission or purpose until after it was completed. We built it, now we have to do something with it. It didn't take the Soviets long to see the shuttle program was an expensive folly with severe limitations. Thats why they dropped theirs and went back to capsules and the Mirs.

Except of course HE-3. Bugger all geology has been done and bugger all exploration has been done. The last missions there did not do large scale research the way it needs to be done. Even if the US does not have a use for HE-3, it will take it to make sure the competition does not get it.

[schmenke]

The US economy is far larger than China's economy. ...

Umm... :erm:



...China's economy will nut surpass the US economy anytime soon ....

Umm... :erm:

[schmenke]

Why does it have to take a couple of generations? The plans I've seen have us on the moon no later than 2025. That sounds very do-able. I'll be 41. Then we can be on Mars about a decade after that. ....

Not even close my friend.
As previously mentioned, we don't even begin to have the technolgoy or the resources to execute a manned trip to Mars any time soon.

We'll all be pushing up daisies long before any human sets foot on the red planet, and by that time all of our planet's resources will be stretched to the limit just to accommodate our exploded population.

[rah]

Umm... :erm:




Umm... :erm:

Just had to check my figures to make sure I didn't miss anything. The US economy is bigger than Japan, China and Germany combined. I think China will take a while to catch up. China's economy fundamentaly relies on the US economy. You could even say that a substantial part of China's economy relies on Wall Mart.

[schmenke]

Just had to check my figures to make sure I didn't miss anything. The US economy is bigger than Japan, China and Germany combined. I think China will take a while to catch up. China's economy fundamentaly relies on the US economy. You could even say that a substantial part of China's economy relies on Wall Mart.

Umm... where do you think that the U.S. sources it's cash loans to finance their economy...? :erm:

The Chinese own Wall Mart.

[Tazio]

Why does it have to take a couple of generations? The plans I've seen have us on the moon no later than 2025. That sounds very do-able. I'll be 41. Then we can be on Mars about a decade after that. Not multi-generational at all. These time can also come down a bit, if we "activate" other nations. And profit is a good "activator". There is profit to be made, if you look hard enough. I was commenting on the Buzz Aldren’s article you placed a link to.
That is what I thought this discussion was about.
His stated goal in that article is to colonize Mars!
Long time bra! :)

[chuck34]

The difference between the Russian and American moon projects were that the Americans were willing to take a risk, the Russians wanted a perfect system before attempting a moonshot. The Americans took shortcuts and it paid off handsomely for them.



No the Russian system quite literally blew up on the pad! I don't remember the date right off hand, but it was just before Apollo 8, December '68.

[chuck34]

Not even close my friend.
As previously mentioned, we don't even begin to have the technolgoy or the resources to execute a manned trip to Mars any time soon.

We'll all be pushing up daisies long before any human sets foot on the red planet, and by that time all of our planet's resources will be stretched to the limit just to accommodate our exploded population.

It can be done sooner. Check out the following sight.

http://directlauncher.com/

[chuck34]

I was commenting on the Buzz Aldren’s article you placed a link to.
That is what I thought this discussion was about.
His stated goal in that article is to colonize Mars!
Long time bra! :)

To colonize Mars will take a looooooooong time, I'll grant you that. But it doesn't have to be that long to get there. Check out the link above that I posted in my response to schmenke. It can be done. Now do "We" have the will is the question.