Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

augmento · 2006-04-10 00:50:48

Expect to see Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Muslim Sects, and Othadox Jews to be the first groups to establish thriving colonies.

um, that made me laugh. Mormons have got it too good here on Earth and space exploration violates some of their beliefs. A lot of the shuttle's problems stem directly from one state in the union. Pork barrel politics or sabotage. both same to me.

In any case, govt and corporations are the only ones going anywhere for a while. i could see, some other organizations maybe going for a generation ship like with some kind of nuke engine.
In that situation, I could see maybe Pakistan ignore world disapproval to develop and engine on the cheap.

Chinese build a new nuke power plant every six months. I keep having this vision of them sending up heavy lifters with a orion drive that kicks in at whatever they think is a safe distance full of poor people ready to colonize mars. over and over again until one them doesn't blow up.

then they will send a few hundred of them to mars and then they will try an experimental lander over and over until one them doesn't burn out or get torn to pieces. then they will send a few hundred people down to mars and establish a colony with their generation ships parked in orbit. all the time more people will be arriving until eventually they have enough generation ships to send every direction.
moons of jupiter. tau ceti. wherever. they will declare chinese sovereignty wherever they go.

the chinese government won't care about a few lost lives in the process not if they can spread through the solar system, the universe. they will say the people that died made a noble sacrifice for the greater good.

EuroLauncher · 2006-04-10 05:56:31

the chinese government won't care about a few lost lives in the process not if they can spread through the solar system, the universe. they will say the people that died made a noble sacrifice for the greater good.

In other words expect them to do what mankind has already done many times in the past, in order to establish Western culture across the globe. People often look at the European age of exploration with romance people like Cook's voyage, Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan's great exploration and but it wasn't really so - many natives in these far away lands died but apart from the original people and their suffering the was also another.
Colonies weren't always a success many of them established by the Spanish, British, Portugese... failed at first and settlers ran out of food and supplies. We must also consider the people that went there didn't exactly go willingly - they were forced into it, treated like animals or were more or less slaves and there were attempts of mutiny. New South Wales was officially a penal colony, to get a feeling for what it was go back and listen to some of the old sad or critical folk songs, the only guys that had it really good were top of the political food chain.

Once the colonies were established however in N.America, Australia, S.America... life over there seemed to be a lot more rosy and desirable because a mini-holocaust was now spreading throughout Europe.
The Spanish want to move-out, back home they saw a poor monarchy cause economic failure at home and Napoleon gave Europe massive levels death and destruction that would only be matched by World-Wars, the British were at war internally and externally and attempted to invade or control Ireland and helped create an Irish famine, the Portugese also wanted to ship-out and move to the new worlds because Europe was going through destruction, economic poverty a huge series of wars and the Portugese court fled to a much more quiet, happy and and peaceful place called Brazil, so naturally most of Europe's people put the new-world at the top of their destination plans.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-12 19:34:29

U.S.-China Cooperation: The Great Space Debate

There should be little debate if they pull it all off.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-13 00:59:46

Any country in the OECD could get to the moon via a modular spacecraft launching the components in space and linkup, assemble and launch from earth orbit to the Moon.

Module 1 - Launch booster from earth orbit
Module 2 - Launch from Lunar orbit to earth
Module 3 - Lunar Lander Cargo
Module 4 - Crew Command Vehicle

Using Falcon 9 Rockets you could build the modules as cargo components or the russian rockets could do the same or Ariane 5 boosters could be used. The Chinese doesn't need their own launch vehicles to lift the mass into orbit for assembly, but just the Crew Vehicle Module to be launched from Chinese soil to have the vehicle be chinese and be their before NASA , JASA or ESA , If wanted. The other agencies could use the same model as well, don't think that NASA is the only one could get to the Lunar Surface and back.

The same could be used to go to Mars as well, with the following modules, Its not "warp or FTL" science development to get to Mars and Lunar surfaces for recon and prospecting manned missions. It requires more larger vessels for outpost or settlements for these locations.

Vehicle 1 - Launch Cargo or to Mars

Module 1 - Launch from earth orbit
Module 2 - Booster Vehcile for Journey to Mars
Module 3 - Booster Vehicle for Journey to Mars
Module 4 - Cargo / People Transfer to the Mars Surface

Vehicle 2 - Return to Earth for Crew Return Vehicle (CRV)

Module 1 - Launch from Earth
Module 2 - Booster Vehicle for Journey to Mars
Module 3 - Return Booster to Earth (link to CRV)
Module 4 - Return Booster and Supply Module for return voyage
Add-on 1 - Crew Return Vehicle from Mars Surface

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-13 13:29:05

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, for instance the amount of fuel needed to get from Earth to the Moon is much greater since you have to push the fuel needed to get back.

A four-launch scheme using Proton/Ariane class rockets would absolutely have to burn liquid hydrogen for the stages, and so four launches in rapid sucession would all have to suceed, and they couldn't probobly be mounted by Proton from the Baikonour cosmodrome anyway because of launch windows. And even if you could do this, you are talking about a total mission mass under 80MT (counting fuel boiloff), which means even a mission like Apollo (two men, little cargo, no polar missions, short duration) would be unlikly and even skimpier. Falcon-IX, Delta-IV Heavy, or "Atlas-V+" would be a little better, but still considerably less then the ESAS payloads and much more cramped and/or smaller crews. And thats with Hydrogen for departure and likly return too.

You could use a Russian Soyuz or a Chinese Shenzou to get to Lunar orbit and back, it would be uncomfortable but acceptable most likly. You could even get to a free return orbit easily if you used Russia's old Block-DM rocket launched seperatly... but you'd need three or four of them to enter Lunar orbit and leave it, and thats just for a roomy sized capsule.

Then you have to deal with the Lunar lander and perhaps the seperate acent stage with its engine and fuel tank, life support, power, suit facilities, etc none of which any country except the US has ever done.

And then you have Mars...

None of these rockets is close to the right size, you need roughly double the mass, and thats with aerobraking and assuming very little boiloff. For propulsive capture instead of aerobraking, you'd need probobly tripple or quadrule the mass, and with boiloff even more. And thats with nuclear engines.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-13 21:43:31

GCRN,

I was trying to outline a way that doesn't need a massive launch vehcile to be successful in a lunar landing. Not the cost of the venture. All the OCED countries have the resources to do the task to get to the Lunar surface , But I didn't say they would.

I think you don't understand what I was saing regarding but you then went on your " NASA only crap " and how they are the most technology minded on this planet when alot of the technology was invented outside the United States--- ( German Scientists started it off )

Anything is possible just depends on your commitment of the task involved not the cost or the other objectives just the task eg. getting to the lunar surface and back. We world is spending 100's of Billions of dollars on IRAQ not just USA because its the world buying US Government securities that pay for the rebuilding process. Its easy to get to the Moon, Mars and beyond , if or when the desire to go happens but until then we use the little budgets to manage our space activities.

So get your head around the fact that we could build modular or non-modular space vehicles to the moon only if we have the desire to go. Don't think that the " only way is NASA way " to go to outer space and get into space in depends on the resources undertaken to achieve the goal.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-14 07:28:34

My point is not that it would be expensive to pull off or that it would be catagorically impossible, but such a Lunar mission is that it would be impractical: The chance it would work is low because all the stages have to work perfectly and they all have to be assembled quickly to avoid boiloff or else you need an even bigger number of stages with storable fuels. And even if it did work, it would never be reliable or powerful enough to do anything with other than repeat what Apollo has already done. Basically no, no you can't build a modular moon vehicle.

And as far as Mars, you can forget any notion of going with any present day rocket, you would need something at the very least double the power, and LOTS of them.

I'm also very skeptical about the ESA/RSA's ability to make a good manned lander; could they do it? Sure they probably could, but it would be difficult enough compared to the bennefits and how much EU/Russia are willing to sacrifice that it won't happen.

srmeaney · 2006-04-14 08:43:08

I was trying to outline a way that doesn't need a massive launch vehcile to be successful in a lunar landing. Not the cost of the venture. All the OCED countries have the resources to do the task to get to the Lunar surface , But I didn't say they would.

And the Banks of America could bankroll lunar colonization using thirty years of its existing profit margines and still come away twice as rich but it doesnt mean they want to.

No, you dont need the big launch vehicle to move cargo that can be slingshot slowly out with the off the shelf package that Hughes used to orbit a sattelite from a bad orbit too close to earth to out past the moon. Resupply is a lot less fuel consuming if you are willing to pulse the orbit changes and get there in six weeks rather than six days.
The only thing needed to go to the moon on the big heavy lift is the Hab/lander transporting the crew one way. Continuous Re-supply is cheaper than a continuous stream of send and bring home.

Austin Stanley · 2006-04-14 21:13:59

No, you dont need the big launch vehicle to move cargo that can be slingshot slowly out with the off the shelf package that Hughes used to orbit a sattelite from a bad orbit too close to earth to out past the moon. Resupply is a lot less fuel consuming if you are willing to pulse the orbit changes and get there in six weeks rather than six days.
The only thing needed to go to the moon on the big heavy lift is the Hab/lander transporting the crew one way. Continuous Re-supply is cheaper than a continuous stream of send and bring home.

While it very possible to use a more efficent low thrust engine if you take your moon approach slowly, the amount of Delta-V required remains the same. It's important to remember that it's not enough to simply "orbit" the moon. In the case you sight I think the probe actualy remained in Earth orbit, although it's apogee was out beyond the moon, I think Apollo 8 was something like this. Being actualy in orbit around the Moon is something diffrent. After you get your craft out there you have to break and slow down in order to "fall" into orbit around the moon. You have to be in orbit around the moon alone. To return to Earth you have to boost back out from the moon's gravity well (but luckily breaking in Earth orbit is generaly free).

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-15 04:37:22

The Modular Approach , I am talking about is using the size of the cargo space on existing launch vehicle you could construct a launch platform for earth orbit to lunar surface without the use of a large launch vehicle from earth. ]

Using the CEV Design you could use Two second stage module or similar is size and design to launch from earth to the moon and return from the moon. The Third module would hold the lunar landing craft and the fourth module would be the crew module for the voyage there and back.

You need to look at lower cost alternatives for the Business community to fund expansion into space. and get to the lunar surface for mining and refining resources on the surface.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-15 06:46:59

The Modular Approach , I am talking about is using the size of the cargo space on existing launch vehicle you could construct a launch platform for earth orbit to lunar surface without the use of a large launch vehicle from earth.

Which will fail. Too many pieces, too much risk, too long to assemble, too little performance.

Using the CEV Design you could use Two second stage module or similar is size and design to launch from earth to the moon and return from the moon. The Third module would hold the lunar landing craft and the fourth module would be the crew module for the voyage there and back.

Again, no, not enough payload mass. You could perhaps send the CEV or a Lunar lander, but not both, you would need about exactly double the mass, and thats assuming no boiloff and very little penalty for the smaller fuel tanks. You would likly need between eight and ten CLV shots to mount a mission of equal scale to one HLLV and one CLV.

You need to look at lower cost alternatives for the Business community to fund expansion into space. and get to the lunar surface for mining and refining resources on the surface.

I don't think that private enterprise will pull off a sucessful Lunar program without government help, imparticularly government setting up and operating a liquid oxygen factory, testing mining/refining techniques for them, and developing a truely reuseable Lunar lander.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-17 01:07:33

GCNR,

I see you don't that entrepreneurs have a different aspect in space development, in order to expand into space you need development, testing, research and training facilities that all could be compact into a space institute addon to an existing business or trade college / university.

The trade college / University will offer other courses in other parts of the institution helping to fund the maintenance of the buildings and operating costs for the staff. Using the strengths of the next generation of people you could build academic / hands-on trained space professionals without a large cost based incurred. Then using that base build space vehicles and components for space activities.

By the time you launch a crew into orbit you, you have trained them from the institute to the same level then NASA or Russian personnel go through. But before that we have tested and launched other space facilities that would add in the development of space activities towards the moon and beyond.

Before you launch humans to orbit or the moon or beyond you would have tested the methodology with remote and cargo vehicles using the same practices for human missions.

I think you don't look at other methods and launch practices that could aid the overall development of space for humanity.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-17 05:52:16

GCNR,
I see you don't that entrepreneurs have a different aspect in space development, in order to expand into space you need development, testing, research and training facilities that all could be compact into a space institute addon to an existing business or trade college / university.
The trade college / University will offer other courses in other parts of the institution helping to fund the maintenance of the buildings and operating costs for the staff. Using the strengths of the next generation of people you could build academic / hands-on trained space professionals without a large cost based incurred. Then using that base build space vehicles and components for space activities.
By the time you launch a crew into orbit you, you have trained them from the institute to the same level then NASA or Russian personnel go through. But before that we have tested and launched other space facilities that would add in the development of space activities towards the moon and beyond.
Before you launch humans to orbit or the moon or beyond you would have tested the methodology with remote and cargo vehicles using the same practices for human missions.
I think you don't look at other methods and launch practices that could aid the overall development of space for humanity.

"you need development, testing, research and training facilities that all could be compact..."

Doubtful, even assuming you used exsisting rockets, developing a super reliable "stackable" EDS stage, Lunar lander, habitats, dirt-moving equipment, ISRU plant, nuclear or advanced solar power, near-closed life support, advanced space suits, etc is a pretty tall order to do.

"...trained space professionals without a large cost based incurred."

Uh, but if they are trained then they won't be students anymore and will demand a high salery like most rocket scientists. And you aren't seriously considering developing your entire space program with the equivilent of graduate students, are you? I am a graduate student, and I wouldn't trust half my coworkers with anything of that level of importance, and besides you are only going to get a year or two of work out of them before they graduate. You simply couldn't sustain that level of turnover and brain-drain while mounting an effective development program. Your idea is insane

"But before that we have tested and launched other space facilities that would add in the development of space activities towards the moon and beyond."

Huh? You are just babbling, what "facilities" would you launch before you have a solid, trained cadre of rocket men?

"I think you don't look at other methods and launch practices that could aid the overall development of space for humanity."

No, I don't think so, because there really aren't any other methods. It makes me ill to see so many pie-in-the-sky plans to "change everything," hasn't the last fifty years of spaceflight history taught you anything?

Rockets are a unique enterprise, of all other industries rockets are probably the ones with the least potential for the technology to advance; we can only make rockets so light with composite structures, and we can only make them so powerful with practical rocket fuels. They are never going to be far better then they are today.

As a consequence of the fact that they are right on the edge of practical, if there was only a little more gravity or a little less energy per gram in rocket fuels, spaceflight would be impossible and you'd need a Saturn-V to launch Sputnik. Rockets are so unlike bridges or towers or ships or refineries in a way that isn't obvious, that all these things are designed with high engineering margins, but rockets cannot be. Because margins have to be so small, they will always be expensive to create; this is a consequence of the laws of physics themselves.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-18 00:36:19

GCNR,

I see you are still blind and need a seeing eye dog. Well, just like bigalow launching his inflatable hub for orbit he is launching a prototype for testing purposes. In order to assembly a vehicle in orbit you need a vehicle assembly process and facilities in orbit to assembly the pre-made components come together.

What facility ???? One answer is designing and placing in orbit a automated / telerobotic assembly point for modular launch vehicles in orbit or Second answer is you could launch a series of cargo launches in orbit and bring all the components together with a team for on-site assembly then bring the mission crew up last and the assembly crew go back to earth or combination of both. It depends on a single or limited voyage vs large scale continuous missions to moon and beyond.

I am a graduate student, and I wouldn't trust half my coworkers with anything of that level of importance, and besides you are only going to get a year or two of work out of them before they graduate. You simply couldn't sustain that level of turnover and brain-drain while mounting an effective development program. Your idea is insane

That shows to me that you don't have confidence in your co-worker abilities and your abilities and work practices set for these industries and that's sad. I am not looking for people that see it as a job / career or good thing on a resume or a place to increase their ego but I am looking for the skilled passion seekers for space that see it as a calling to explore. ( I don't see you in that group for your negativity GCNR)

If you are going into space for money it won't be there at the start or there in the first fifty years and it will take time to expand a interplanetary economy and individual colony economies. You need to believe that humanities place is in the stars and not just on earth, and that belief will carry the humans forward into space and expand our understanding and grow our society.

If any country goes into space for other reasons then they are going for the wrong reason and shouldn't go, because you need to do large scale long term investment to create a viable human society in space in our solar system and then beyond.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-18 07:32:15

Yes yes, we've heard all this before... build a space station to serve as a staging area for medium launch rockets to support a manned space program. We've heard this one before, infact, back in the Bush-I SEI space plan. The price tag for a mission to Mars was somewhere around $300Bn in 1990 dollars.

To put it simply, this is an expensive way to go to the Moon or Mars, and if NASA can't afford it, neither can you. Besides, there are technical problems, you can't just dump - say - a dumb fuel tank into Earth orbit and send a tug to pick it up, because the fuel tank could enter a spin without navigational ability, and all the expense and mass that comes with it.

And please, "team for on site assembly?" But didn't you say they would be assembled with robots? Which is it then? I assume your assembly station will have a truss, solar power, gyros, fuel condenser, OMS engines, robot arm(s), and a habitat with airlocks & space suit facilities... We've been through this before, maybe you've heard of it, the International Space Station? And that worked reaaal well, only exceeding its price tag by 2000% and will cost about $200,000,000,000.00 over its lifetime.

Until we have a super Shuttle-II thats truely, honestly, really, fully "we're not kidding this time" reuseable, then history points clearly in the direction of developing heavy launch vehicles to send up pieces that don't require assembly, only dock and go. It is unlikly any private space endeavour can do any such thing, because there is no commercial justification for building heavy lift rockets.
___________________________________________

"That shows to me that you don't have confidence in your co-worker abilities and your abilities and work practices set for these industries and that's sad."

No, it actually shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Taking lower-level college students and expecting them to put together a real space vehicle development program is crazy, they wouldn't know what they were doing. Even graduate students fresh out of undergrad wouldn't likly have the experience or skills needed for their first year like I lacked.

And for a typical masters program, that leaves you just one year of cheap, competant labor... and they'll be busy writing their thesis half the time. Thats clearly not going to work for a development program that will undoubtably last for years, if all your "senior" experienced engineers left every year.

They might have a passion for spaceflight, but they also rightly expect their special skills and abilities be rewarded financially in kind, which is really ultimatly half the reason why spaceflight is so expensive. This is why there is no private orbital space program to speak of, since the money just doesn't exsist; feel-good dreamy optimism without a foundation on hard cash will get you nowhere fast.

I don't even believe in an interplanetary economy, there will never be any such thing for a century even if we started right now today. Why not? Simple, because there is nothing for space to offer the Earth in return for its investment. Maybe a little platinum from the Moon, but since its such a short trip, it will truely be an extenion of the home world and not a seperate entity.

Space has, by and large, one and only one thing to offer: some place to go. To go and leave the Earth behind, to fulfill the hard-wired human wanderlust, and perhaps to find a new place to live away from the strife of the parent world. And thats all... there will be no economy, because the only thing space has to "export" is to import explorers and colonists... and we won't have true colonization for a long, long time.

srmeaney · 2006-04-18 20:02:12

Yes, it is a pity that it costs $20 billion per person per year to go to the moon or mars, but thats the hurdle that must be overcome.

What has interested me is the absolute lack of interest in American Space Publictions in discussing the social rammifications of China landing on the Moon before the USA.

It looks more like Ostrich with head burried in sand going: "they aint going to the moon, commies cant land on the moon, it's for god's chosen few."

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-18 20:45:59

Thats because China isn't anywhere close to landing people on the Moon. If they tried hard, they could get people in a free-return trajectory around the Moon pretty soon, but that would be about it. That would require building a Chinese EDS stage, and modifying the Shenzhou capsule.

-Its takes way more fuel to enter/leave Lunar orbit then to just go around the Moon

-It takes double that much to send a Lunar lander big enough to get you to the surface and back to Lunar orbit

And it takes much much more then that to do anything more then get your boots dirty, which you really can't afford to do with medium rockets.

Grypd · 2006-04-19 04:04:20

China is still a communist country but with an increasing free economy. When the other Asian tigers grew to industrial dominance ie Japan, South Korea they had growth rates that where actually greater than what China and India has now. If China is to grow it has a lot of infrastructure and building to do. A large expensive space programme will take a lot of resources from trained engineers to high tech parts and of course money away from places China needs them.

Dont expect China to suddenly wrack up a large number of flights and to suddenly start springing on the world stage its version of the Saturn V. It does not need to do so sending probes and unmanned rovers to the Moon is plenty enough pressure to keep the USA off balance. Dont get me wrong China can go the way of a major push to the Moon but it just does not need to nor can it really afford to.

China is looking for the future where NASA requests that they share flights to the Moon and for NASA which does not want to spend billions in a fight to return to the Moon this is becoming an increasingly likely option.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-19 11:56:35

Yes, China is right now about where NASA was a little before the Kennedy Moon speech; they can get people into orbit with a relativly experimental capsule and have a working but not very efficient light-to-medium launcher, but thats about it.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-19 23:01:56

GCNR,

Firstly, I didn't say a space station that's your idea , I mean two crews of 2-3 men in orbit completing the tasks for assembly or a robotic assembly systems with Japanese support for an Asian launch towards the moon or even the european help for the launch to the moon. It doesn;t mean they can't get the assistance required from the Airbus Corporation or Government Partners or through the asean meeetings with australia, japan or south korea and more. Open your eyes to the possibility that , If or When china wants to go to the moon via recon unmanned vehicles or manned missions they could in a faster timeframe then the USA did the first time around.

Secondly, regarding the college graduates, I wasn't talking about the graduates of a standard college / university but a institution customized for space development activities and they receive degrees soley for space activities, research and developments. I think you thought I was talking about a general university like UCLA or Havard or Yale, I wasn't , So you are the one trash talking about your friends and collegaues from university. If china assembly a facility like that for the advancement of chinese space then the western world would need to follow or find they will be left behind.

Thirdly, I find your negatively and hopelessness in a forum for pushing the frontiers on space in particular Mars to be counter-productive for the other members of this space fourm and space in general and If you work in the space industry then you and others like you provide the brakes in the continuing development of technology and methods for space expansion for humanity.

Back to the subject -->

Over the next 20 years the Chinese economy will change from a large export driven to a balanced economy with internal demands, this will allow the chinese to grow far larger then other people expect. In time the country will have equal or greater GDP then USA ( between 1.2 to 2.5 times - based on those figures CASA would be 1.2x to 2.5x NASA Budget or more ) and thus could investment more wealth into space programs depending on country cultural and strategic objectives.

Rxke · 2006-04-20 06:11:18

Thirdly, I find your negatively and hopelessness in a forum for pushing the frontiers on space in particular Mars to be counter-productive for the other members of this space fourm and space in general and If you work in the space industry then you and others like you provide the brakes in the continuing development of technology and methods for space expansion for humanity.

IMO, GCNRevenger provides some much-needed sober perspective on some pie-in-the-sky nutheads' plans.

If you read his comments carefully, he's *not* w/o hope, heck, he is even one of the few that think VSE is a good plan, and doable.

Of course, VSE isn't about putting one gazillion bazillion people on huuuge frigging cities on Luna, so I guess you don't read about that

Grypd · 2006-04-20 07:59:09

China's Moon Quest Has US Lawmakers Seeking New Space Race

Bush's target of a U.S. return to the Moon by 2018 may be too late, they say.

Why, Do they honestly expect China to be able to suddenly send enough to the Moon to be able to claim the whole thing. In 12 years what do they expect China to suddenly do.

"If China beats us to the Moon, we will have lost the space program"

Errr no.

A space program is a nations plans and aims to do research, manned missions and to utilise space for it and the worlds benefit. China landing on the Moon with people something they have yet to even announce. (They have stated they will orbit her with a manned mission and to land Rovers and do sample returns again by robots). China does not have the capability at this time to suddenly send people to the Moon and to build a base. NASA is working on doing that exact thing and if anything has at least a ten year edge on anyone else.

Still if this increases NASA's space programs budget im all for it especially as it should I hope get the VSE working faster.

Grypd · 2006-04-20 08:02:01

Back to the subject -->
Over the next 20 years the Chinese economy will change from a large export driven to a balanced economy with internal demands, this will allow the chinese to grow far larger then other people expect. In time the country will have equal or greater GDP then USA ( between 1.2 to 2.5 times - based on those figures CASA would be 1.2x to 2.5x NASA Budget or more ) and thus could investment more wealth into space programs depending on country cultural and strategic objectives.

Yes, China has a lot of internal needs now and the people there want to see some of the rewards for there labours. In short they want there colour TVs, Cars and stereo systems. They need money to but that and so wages will increase. China already has had to put a lot of the budget over to providing funds to the mainstream bulk of the population that of the peasants who are none too happy about the way things are going.

srmeaney · 2006-04-21 07:24:51

China is still a communist country but with an increasing free economy. When the other Asian tigers grew to industrial dominance ie Japan, South Korea they had growth rates that where actually greater than what China and India has now. If China is to grow it has a lot of infrastructure and building to do. A large expensive space programme will take a lot of resources from trained engineers to high tech parts and of course money away from places China needs them.

That is already happening. Otherwise farmers wouldnt be in rural riots fighting over access to land and farming resources.

Dont expect China to suddenly wrack up a large number of flights and to suddenly start springing on the world stage its version of the Saturn V. It does not need to do so sending probes and unmanned rovers to the Moon is plenty enough pressure to keep the USA off balance. Dont get me wrong China can go the way of a major push to the Moon but it just does not need to nor can it really afford to.

They dont need to develop a saturn five if they launch a lander and a space drive as seperate payloads. That would provide them with something (as long as they can refuel it) that they can use as a generic drive. Whether they are pushing modules out for a lunar orbit space station or making a Lunar run.

China is looking for the future where NASA requests that they share flights to the Moon and for NASA which does not want to spend billions in a fight to return to the Moon this is becoming an increasingly likely option.

That would be in stark contrast to their intention to go it alone.

My concern is the capacity of China to meet Mars colonization resource requirements. As a Security council State they are going to be increasingly drawn into the destruction of resource rich states in this war on terrorism. Certainly if they become bogged down in the same international quagmires that are bankrupting the US, there will be little chance of China being able to meet the contractual demands of Space Colonization.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-21 22:39:52

"Firstly, I didn't say a space station that's your idea , I mean two crews of 2-3 men in orbit completing the tasks for assembly or a robotic assembly systems with Japanese support for an Asian launch towards the moon or even the european help for the launch to the moon. It doesn;t mean they can't get the assistance required from the Airbus Corporation or Government Partners or through the asean meeetings with australia, japan or south korea and more."

But you will need a space station, if you intend to build any ships bigger then Apollo sized missions from medium rocket launches. Its the only practical way, and if you are only doing Apollo-sized "flags and footprints" missions you might as well not bother going, its already been done.

And what is this business about Europe, Airbus, "government partners" or other Asian states sans China? You aren't making much sense, do you mean these countries should help China get to the Moon? But weren't you just talking about a private venture using artificially low labor costs via academia? If the former, this is nonsense because Chinese spaceflight is even more nationalistic than ours, and latter has other issues...

"Open your eyes to the possibility that , If or When china wants to go to the moon via... manned missions they could in a faster timeframe then the USA did the first time around."

Why should I think that? China can't even put men in orbit with reliability yet, and Russia has little technology to offer them except blueprints for the old Block-DM rocket stage. Their rocket technology isn't much better then ours in the pre-Apollo days, with their manned rocket still burning hypergolics like the early Titan series.

China would have to tripple the size of their present manned launch vehicle, refine it so they could actually rely on it and fly it in a timely fasion, develop an Earth-return rocket for Shenzou capsules, improve the capsule for Lunar loiter/reentry, develop a 50MT class cryogenic (H2 or CH4) powerd EDS stage with stationkeeping abilities, and a lander with at least a cryogenic decent stage. And build two capsules, three or four landers, five or six EDS stages, and ten or twelve bigger-than-Delta-IV rockets a year to do what VSE is planning to do.

"I wasn't talking about the graduates of a standard college / university but a institution customized for space development activities and they receive degrees soley for space activities, research and developments."

Oh, so you want to trick gullible engineering students into working for your "space institute" for free and issue them worthless diplomas. There are such things as degrees in aerospace engineering already. "Only for space stuff" indeed, ha, poor kids. Thats all this really is, if you aren't going to offer them a "real" education, is that you are just tricking them into working for you for cheap.

This still doesn't fix the problem that they won't have the skills or experience needed to build real manned spacecraft that actually work; that is the job of professionals, and as graduate students you can't get much work out of them, so you are just going to have to pay them professional engineers' wages.

You keep on dancing around the problem: one of the biggest costs in spaceflight is engineers, and you need real engineers to build your rockets, but you don't want to pay them what real engineers cost.
___________________________________________

"I find your negatively and hopelessness in a forum for pushing the frontiers on space in particular Mars to be counter-productive for the other members of this space fourm and space in general and If you work in the space industry then you and others like you provide the brakes in the continuing development of technology and methods for space expansion for humanity. "

Hmmm getting personal now are we? Well, as I have said before, I play "bad cop" to ideas on here often because firstly all ideas should be tested and I am good at it. There are no perfect plans, and if you are going to bring your ideas to a message board then you ought not to be surprised if criticism is leveled against them.

Secondly, I like to play bad cop to keep discussions here at least nominally within the realm of possibility, because the world is literally choc full of crazy space ideas, whereas ideas that aren't should probably have their own thread catagory. Ideas like yours, MarsDog, generally belong in said envisioned "crackpot ideas" catagory.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2006-04-10 00:50:48

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#152 2006-04-10 05:56:31

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#153 2006-04-12 19:34:29

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#154 2006-04-13 00:59:46

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#155 2006-04-13 13:29:05

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#156 2006-04-13 21:43:31

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#157 2006-04-14 07:28:34

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#158 2006-04-14 08:43:08

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#159 2006-04-14 21:13:59

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#160 2006-04-15 04:37:22

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#161 2006-04-15 06:46:59

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#162 2006-04-17 01:07:33

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#163 2006-04-17 05:52:16

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#164 2006-04-18 00:36:19

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#165 2006-04-18 07:32:15

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#166 2006-04-18 20:02:12

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#167 2006-04-18 20:45:59

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#168 2006-04-19 04:04:20

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#169 2006-04-19 11:56:35

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#170 2006-04-19 23:01:56

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#171 2006-04-20 06:11:18

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#172 2006-04-20 07:59:09

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#173 2006-04-20 08:02:01

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#174 2006-04-21 07:24:51

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

#175 2006-04-21 22:39:52

Re: Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

Board footer