China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

RGClark · 2024-08-31 07:29:18

The sh*t just got real: according to the NASA OIG, Artemis IV, the first landing mission, can’t happen until 2029 because that’s how long it’ll take to get the needed mobile launch tower, ML-2 ready:

If you thought NASA SLS was a nightmare, wait until you see this! PLUS, no Artemis 4 until 2029!
#space #nasa #moonmission
https://youtu.be/-i0EH1ibCVg?si=NllGFepDET88aIBv

But China plans to land men on the Moon before 2030:

China plans to put astronauts on the moon before 2030.
News
By Sharmila Kuthunur published May 31, 2023
https://www.space.com/china-moon-landing-before-2030

Then China beating us back to the Moon is not just a theoretical possibility. It is now a REAL possibility.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-09-01 00:53:54)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-01 14:07:15

Hi Bob:

Let's just say I am unsurprised!

GW

kbd512 · 2024-09-02 01:50:20

2030 is only 6 years away.

Where is the flight-tested hardware to demonstrate how physical reality aligns with their stated ambitions?

CNSA needs at least three flight tests of their lunar rocket, at least two flight tests of their capsule and lander design to evaluate performance throughout the entire flight regime, and none of this proposed hardware has ever flown in space. After all the basic elements required for a lunar mission have successfully flown, they need at least one full dress rehearsal mission to practice all of the basic mission requirements. This includes TLI, EOR or LOR, descent to the lunar surface, ascent back to lunar orbit, TEI, reentry heat shield testing, and splashdown / capsule recovery. Unless all of this work is well under way, I don't think 2029 to 2030 is a feasible time window for their first crewed lunar mission. I presume they're using at least two rockets, one for their lander and the other for their capsule.

I don't doubt they can do this, but I question the probability of them maintaining their stated timeline since none of this hardware has flown in space. I'll put more stock in their timeline after at least one mission element has successfully flown in space- rocket, capsule, or lander.

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-02 06:20:24

This topic provides an opportunity for NewMars members to post any updates they may find that fit the criteria kbd512 has laid out in Post #3.

There are several online bloggers who may cover parts of the subject from time to time.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-02 12:14:21

I'm unsure whether China or the US can do anything crewed very fast, although China seems less hog-tied bureaucratically. I've seen nothing out of either country that is credible as a means to land crewed on the moon any time soon.

As for a "race" to the moon, there is nothing official about anything, and I see no reason to race. We've already been there, although we need to go back. China is wanting to go there. And that's OK, if they as a nation behave themselves.

Something they are most definitely NOT doing in the South China Sea. Ah, such are autocrats!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-09-02 12:17:31)

Calliban · 2024-09-02 12:51:04

I am the last person that would defend the autocratic Chinese government. But can you imagine a situation where the Chinese had naval bases in the Carribean, and a chain of powerful client states surrounding the US coast, with the expressed intention of containing US power? That is what the US is doing to China. The US has bases all over the world. Worrying about a few chinese artificial islands in the south China sea does sound a lot like hypocracy.

Or am I being naive and unfair? I am quite aware that there is much about the situation that I don't understand. But the optics don't look good where I am sitting.

kbd512 · 2024-09-02 17:32:56

Calliban,

At a point in time not so long ago, those far-flung US military bases existed because neighbor was unable to leave neighbor alone. Our military leadership has done everything except begging on their knees to leave, but every time word reaches the local government that the US is leaving, we're asked to stay and reminded of our mutual defense obligations, so we stay.

If you're curious about the difference between US Navy patrols and Chinese Navy patrols, we don't intentionally ram fishing boats, spray them with water cannons, or seize their boats and ships for the "crime" of fishing within their own internationally recognized territorial waters. There are numerous examples of the Chinese Navy doing things like that to all the countries surrounding them, to include Viet Nam and North Korea. Their own naval forces lack the power projection capability to chase off the Chinese, so they inevitably call us, and then we run our destroyers and aircraft carriers through, and the Chinese leave after making a bunch of pointless threats.

We now have our aircraft carriers and other capital ships making regular port visits to Haiphong, Viet Nam, to discourage the Chinese from attacking or threatening them with their naval vessels. While I fully recognize how bizarre that course of events truly is, we've dedicated our Navy to keeping sea lanes open for free trade and travel. The Indian Navy and Australian Navy are powerful enough to ward off aggressive acts from the Chinese Navy, but they're about the only ones over there. The Japanese Navy is very reluctant to do anything at all outside of Japanese territorial waters, for obvious reasons.

Can you imagine the sentiment towards the US Navy if the US was routinely using its Navy to harass and ram merchant and fishing vessels of other nations, merely because they were in-transit between ports, or otherwise operating lawfully within their own territorial waters?

We get called-in because regardless of how China / Russia / North Korea / Iran's Navy "feels" about the mere existence of a ship somewhere in the ocean, they know they're not going to win if they decide to pick a fight with the US Navy. They all talk a good game until the game ends and business begins.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 09:46:01

I second Kbd512's motion. There is a vast difference between what we do and what the Chinese do (and several other bad actors).

I understand the "optics" of our having allies and bases all around China. We had to do the same thing with Russia after WW2, and we still need it today, given Putin as its insane autocratic leader. "Optics" do NOT tell the whole story. Most often, they are used to issue lies and propaganda.

You'll notice the Chinese do NOT use use water cannons or ramming against US warships. That would be an act of war, rating a sinking of the offender. If I were commander-in-chief, I would specify exactly that in the operating rules. If I were a ship's captain, I would defend my ship very vigorously, and I have believed in tactical overkill since the Cold War. Orders or not, I would sink the bastard.

I hope the current president already has done that, but I'm unsure, because such orders are classified, never shown to the public (which is as it should be). There's a small navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that certainly needs to be sunk on sight, along with the pirates.

But as long as Iran suffers no consequences for what its proxies do, outfits like the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah (and more besides) will continue to cause death and destruction. Iran funds them, arms them, and gives them their marching orders, allowing for the fact that terrorists are an unruly bunch who will sometimes kill without being ordered to.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-09-03 09:50:36)

RGClark · 2024-09-03 11:24:19

Robert Zubrin has noted that the SuperHeavy/Starship can do Moon and Mars missions with no refueling flights nor SLS required if given a smaller 3rd stage that would actually serve as the lander, a mini-Starship if you will.

Dr. Robert Zubrin - Mars Direct 2.0 - ISDC 2019.

https://youtu.be/9xN1rqhRSTE?si=8unKEkYOxl4gQT0i

Then it is important to keep in mind SpaceX has an existing stage that can serve for the purpose in the fully man-rated Falcon 9 upper stage. But you need the higher payload capacity of the expendable at ca. 200 to 250 tons to be able to do it in a single launch. This is quite remarkable when you consider Elon has said the launch of the SH/SS only costs ca. $100 million.

Then the implications is if the upcoming IFT-5 in a few more days were stripped of reusability systems so that it’s payload capacity was 200 to 250 tons, then that launch itself with a Falcon 9 upper stage as a Earth departure stage/lander could do a demonstration mission for single launch missions to the Moon or Mars.

We could have Moon or Mars flights now at costs we are spending for flights to the ISS.

Robert Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-09-03 11:28:22)

kbd512 · 2024-09-03 11:36:55

GW,

Multiple Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) warships have attempted to ram American warships, even back when I was still in the Navy 20 years ago. When you're physically aboard the American warship they attempted to ram, manning the rails in your dress whites, you tend to notice these things, or at least you tend to notice the evasive maneuvers your ship has taken to avoid a collision while you're trying to peacefully dock in a port that the Chinese government has invited you to dock in. We would not go to China unless we were specifically invited to do so by their government. Maybe someone in the PLAN didn't get the memo, or maybe they were told to do what they did.

While in port, our Captain and Admiral (the Commander of 7th Fleet) hosted parties aboard our ship (USS Blue Ridge) for the visiting foreign dignitaries and military members. I don't recall all the details, and I only remember seeing PLAN officers (maybe there were some senior PLAN enlisted floating around that I don't remember, but I only interacted with their officers), some members of the Chinese Communist Party (I never spoke with any of them), and some British people who were either British government or ex-pats. Back in the day, you kept talking and working with allies and adversaries alike, for the express purpose of avoiding misunderstandings and war. Even back then, however, it was clear that their intentions were hostile. I don't think anything's fundamentally changed since then.

As for your comments about "sinking the bastards", we do not attempt to initiate or escalate hostilities, unless our enemies have already fired upon American ships and we have received authorization to fully respond, beyond the usual, "If you're the direct target of a hostile act, you have every right to defend your ship." Part of actually "keeping the peace" on the high seas is going out of your way to NOT behave in an aggressive or belligerent manner.

While I certainly appreciate your sentiment on this matter, and at times would even agree with your recommended course of action as a reminder to every other military about who is actually carrying the biggest stick, after they choose to behave in an openly hostile manner, I don't think very many people here or elsewhere would appreciate the results, because what you're advocating doing is a better than average way to start another war. Fighting is a last resort. If someone pulls a stupid stunt while hazarding their warship, that doesn't mean we get to behave as foolishly as they do, "just because we can".

We do routinely run down and kill terrorists and pirates who randomly attack everyone (like the Houthis firing upon American, Chinese, Indian and even Iranian oil tankers), because if we don't then other nations will respond in ways that are unlikely to be helpful.

Should the US Navy act as the "Global Coast Guard"?

Probably not, but that's what our civilian leadership thinks we're supposed to do, so that's what we actually do, because we obey all lawful orders, whether we personally agree with them or not.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 12:04:47

Kbd512:

I can't disagree with anything you said. I just know that if I were Captain, and a Chinese ship actually succeeded in ramming my ship, I would sink him. In little pieces, if possible.

GW

kbd512 · 2024-09-03 14:27:06

GW,

I think that however justified you felt, you'd still get court-martialed. Beyond that, we'd probably be involved in a shooting war with our largest trading partner. Right or wrong, the US and China still need to minimally cooperate with each other at this moment in time, if only to avoid a shooting war and crashing our economies. That is the dilemma the US Navy faces when dealing with the hostile behavior of various other naval forces. That is also why we don't typically put hot-heads in charge of our warships. If you're not mature enough to consider all involved lives before escalating hostilities, then you're not fit for command. Even when you have the most powerful warship afloat, a little humility goes a long way towards avoiding unrecoverable errors.

We make a concerted effort to only sail our ships where they're wanted, but we're also fully expected to maintain freedom of navigation and trade, because we signed our name to a treaty mandating that we act as a globally-interested third party which would prevent war or minimize the damage from war, piracy, and terrorism, rather than engaging in it as a willing participant.

The sheer volume of outer space really ought to be sufficient to avoid belligerent interactions between America and China or Russia, but we continue to try to make overtures for them to join us in civil cooperative efforts intended to foster trust and cooperation. Our civilizations remain entangled. Regardless of our petty differences, at some level our fates will always be intertwined. We're all still human, after all. I actually wish the Chinese all the best in their space exploration aspirations, because maybe it will teach them something about how vast the universe truly is, and that their future prosperity is not solely dependent upon what can be done here on Earth.

The primary issue we will face when dealing with China, be it technology development, a new space race, or errant (in my opinion) naval actions, is that the Chinese government and military forces don't operate under a set of rules that other nations find tolerable. We offer lots of up-front "goodies" to all nations willing to cooperate with us (to include Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, etc), but then when the time comes to demonstrate true cooperation on the back-end of those deals, we're frequently met with a lot of resistance to doing what was agreed upon.

I think China has a chance to get back to the moon before the US does, but only if they're completely committed to the endeavor in a way that, frankly, nobody seems terribly interested in, despite all the obvious "goodies" which our space programs have brought to the common man or woman on the street. Micro-electronics, industrial automation, cellular telecommunications, computers, location services, and an unbroken string of materials and energy advances seem like reasonably good incentives to continue doing what we're doing.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-03 17:34:39

You might be right about the outcome of a ramming incident with any ship under my command. But I'd rather save my ship and be court-martialed, than be "right" in some political sense. I come from an earlier time, as you can tell.

GW

RGClark · 2024-09-05 06:15:08

Is China planning to weaponize the Moon?

https://youtu.be/eElDqTNe4oE?si=hv8Y3tgo9gBDfbF_

China wants to build a 1 megawatt nuclear reactor on the Moon, 10 times the size the U.S. is planning on. Why? Evidence suggests it’s for their electromagnetic launcher they want to use for sending resources from the Moon to Earth.

This is analogous to the SpinLaunch™ being constructed on Earth for reducing the cost to LEO. But on the Moon with no atmosphere and much reduced gravity it can send the payload all the way to lunar orbit and even all the way to Earth. Being just electrically powered the launches will be at just the cost of generating the electricity.

But it needs to be kept in mind it could send anything, anywhere on the surface of Earth. When you realize the Chinese space program is just an off-shoot of their military the possibility arises it could be used as a weapon.

“Mr. President, we must not ALLOW a spin launch gap!”
(With apologies to “Dr. Strangelove”.)

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-09-05 06:15:44)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-23 10:06:25

Well, at this stage, all is speculation.

As far as I am concerned, they (the Chinese) can "race" all they want, there is no need for NASA to race. We've been there, and we're (finally) going back. I'm actually more encouraged and impressed by the commercial landers than I am Artemis.

As we already know, anything useful in space can also be a weapon. Such as rockets. Mass drivers are not just useful, they are also weapons (yeah, I read Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" half a century ago). Perhaps they should be considered as such under the Outer Space Treaty.

The reverse is true, too. Atom bombs are not just explosives, they can also be used for propulsion.

The "trick" here is when any given technology is used as a weapon instead of for a peaceful, useful purpose. All swords are double-edged and double-ended in space.

GW

kbd512 · 2024-09-23 13:03:36

China has hundreds of operational ICBMs, they're building hundreds of additional warheads, in addition to military aircraft and ships- like they're going out of style... but this is what some of you are worried about?

Why are the ivory towers of academia unable to impart an atom's worth of uncommon sense?

Nobody here will know or care if a megaton blast is nuclear vs non-nuclear. They'll assume it was Russia or China. The End.

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-23 17:35:26

For kbd512 - Why spoil a perfectly innocent topic about space competition, with Mutual Assured Destruction fears?

Post #16 brings up old news, and presents it as if it is new or somehow relevant.

The US maintains enough capability to destroy Russia, China, North Korea and Iran to start with.

If you are worried about MAD policy, I'll start a topic for you to develop with that as a theme.

In the mean time, please consider letting the folks who are not worried about MAD discuss the less threatening space race.

(th)

kbd512 · 2024-09-23 23:00:59

tahanson43206,

Post #14 is very clearly about "China building a super-weapon on the moon!"

Post #16 (my post), wants to know why our academics aren't more focused on what we're doing on the moon, rather than what China might do, but hasn't.

NASA is supposed to be our civil space exploration agency, not a military force, nor a weapons factory. It's not their job to stop anyone from doing anything. It is their job to explore space, and to participate in cooperative and peaceful uses for space.

We did a bang-up job of maintaining an antagonistic relationship with the Russians, even after the Cold War supposedly ended. I feel like some people in both DC and Moscow still haven't received the memo. I'd rather not go down that same path with the Chinese, but I guess that would require some memory of history on our part and a bit of mindfulness of what our efforts in space should be directed at- permanent establishment of human presence in space. My point is that we don't need to formalize an antagonistic relationship with them when it comes to space, or make implied military threats when it comes to our use of space, unless we're ready to make space the next battlefield. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but I still believe in our cause- creating the infrastructure required for humanity to leave Earth for the moon, Mars, deep space, and ultimately the stars.

GW Johnson · 2024-09-24 17:50:20

Any sort of mass driver or mass slinger on the moon is inherently a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the Earth. Any sort of solid rock slung from the moon would hit the Earth's atmosphere at something near 11 km/s. It would enter very steeply, very nearly vertically, but being a solid rock, would survive the entry heating and gees, and hit the surface at a speed near 10 km/s. At that speed, it doesn't take much rock mass for the kinetic energy to equal that of a hydrogen bomb.

Doesn't matter who builds such a thing there; us, China, Russia, or anybody else. It's all the same threat to Earth, and should be outlawed under treaty. This was described in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", which I read over half a century ago. Nothing has changed, and there is still little or no defense. This is uniquely a lunar problem. It is really hard to use a mass driver or mass slinger to hit the Earth from any other celestial body. Because the moon orbits Earth, the other bodies do not.

As for our troubles with Russia, I have to disagree with Kbd512. The real problem is the extremist dictator Putin. We did NOT have problems with Russia under his two elected Russian Federation predecessors, and under the last Soviet Premier, Mr. Gorbachev. The trouble began again when Boris Yeltsin made the fatal error of designating Putin as his successor. History clearly says so. Putin is THE Russia problem! Not its people. And it is not our fault, either!

Similar obtains with Xi's China. The two worst extremist dictators there are today's Xi and Mao Tse Tung many years ago. Under Xi, China's aggressions have ballooned completely out of sight all over world, but especially in the western Pacific. We actually fought a war with Mao's China in Korea 1950-1953. If we need to, we could again, although today there are more consequences, should we be required to do that. The consequences of NOT resisting bullying are worse, as history clearly shows. So, again, I disagree with Kbd512 on China. It's simple bullying, little different than 5 year olds on the playground. Give the bully a bloody nose, and he will back down (meaning simply and summarily sink the Chinese boats that ram other's boats). We've seen it before.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-09-24 17:58:10)

kbd512 · 2024-09-24 18:56:42

GW,

1 MegaTon thermonuclear warhead yield = 4.18*10^15J = 4,180,000,000,000,000J

KE = 0.5 * m * v^2

1kg moving at 10,000m/s = 50,000,000J

4,180,000,000,000,000J / 50,000,000J/kg = 83,600,000kg moving at 10,000m/s

83,600,000kg =83,600t

83,600t / 7.85t/m^3 = 10,649.682m^3 (an object approximately 22m by 22m by 22m if it were made of solid steel)

83,301t = full load displacement of CV-63 USS Kitty Hawk (one of our former super carriers)

I knew her back when she was still a fighting lady, and even went aboard her a couple of times. She was a beautiful ship, but even on the moon, getting her into orbit would be somewhat challenging to say the least.

I'm not a radar expert, but 1950s radar tech could and did detect golf balls zipping by at orbital velocity from thousands of kilometers away. A 22m steel cube is, well, modestly larger than a golf ball and not particularly stealthy. I presume that the Chinese have to mine that much metal from the moon as well, unless they start launching super carriers into space from Earth. If the Chinese can actually do that, even from the surface of the moon, may I humbly suggest we do what they do to us, and steal their rocket engine technology?

Is it apparent how silly this fear is? If we can fling aircraft carriers off the moon, then we have enough energy and metal to make real steel ships in space. We don't need to fight each other at that point. We can go pretty much anywhere we please. How about something that doesn't involve flinging either nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers approximating megaton yield thermonuclear warhead energies at each other? Perhaps a gentleman's wager about who obtains first water from the lunar pole? That seems like it would be a more useful activity.

tahanson43206 · 2024-10-01 06:57:42

For RGClark re topic....

This post is an attempt to bring the flow of posts back on topic....

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/30/style/ch … index.html

This CNN report appears to contain a bit more detail about Chinese plans to land on the Moon...

China’s astronauts are aiming to land on the moon by 2030. They now have a new spacesuit to do it
Simone McCarthy
By Simone McCarthy, CNN
4 minute read
Updated 5:10 AM EDT, Mon September 30, 2024

Yang Liwei, deputy chief designer of China's manned space program, unveils China's moon-landing spacesuit on September 28, 2024 in the southwestern metropolis of Chongqing.
Hong Kong
CNN
—
China has taken a step forward in its ambitious plan to land astronauts on the moon by 2030 – unveiling the specially designed spacesuit its crew will don for what’s expected to be a landmark mission in the country’s space program.
The new red-and-white suit – revealed by the China Manned Space Agency (CMSA) over the weekend – is made to withstand the moon’s extreme temperatures, as well as radiation and dust, while allowing astronauts physical flexibility to perform tasks on the lunar surface, according to state media.
The moon-landing suit is equipped with a built-in long and short-range camera, an operations console, and a glare-proof helmet visor, according to a video shared by state broadcaster CCTV, which featured well-known Chinese astronauts Zhai Zhigang and Wang Yaping demonstrating how astronauts wearing the suit can bend and climb a ladder.
The new technology has caught international attention.
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk shared a post on the platform X featuring the CCTV video and his own caption.
“Meanwhile, back in America, the [Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)] is smothering the national space program in kafkaesque paperwork!” he wrote, in an apparent reference to the perceived speed with which China has bolstered its space program relative to the US.
CNN has reached out to FAA for comment.
SpaceX’s fortunes – and Musk’s personal wealth – have been boosted in recent years by huge government contracts as NASA has sought to tap into the private sector on space exploration and logistics.
An image of China's new lunar spacesuit as it appeared in a video shared by state media. Xinhua
Space leader
China’s reveal of the moon-landing spacesuit comes as the country has mounted a significant effort to establish itself a major player in space – a domain that nations, including the United States, are increasingly looking to not only for scientific benefit, but also with an eye to resources and national security.
The China National Space Administration has in recent years carried out a series of increasingly complex robotic lunar missions, including the first-ever return of lunar samples from the far side of the moon earlier this year. It has been angling to become the second country to land astronauts on the moon, saying its first crewed mission will take place “by 2030.”
The US, which has not sent astronauts to the moon since 1972, is also planning to send a crew this decade, though it has delayed its initial timeline for its Artemis III mission. That mission will not take off until at least September 2026, NASA said earlier this year. The agency revealed a protoype of its Artemis III spacesuit prototype, the AxEMU, in 2023.
China’s new spacesuit was hailed across state media as a major step forward in the country’s crewed mission timeline, with experts noting the need for specifically formulated suit for lunar conditions versus those used in spacewalks by astronauts at China’s Tiangong orbital space station.
The reentry module of China's historic Chang'e-6 lunar mission touched down on Earth on June 25, 2024.
Thanks to its thin exosphere, the moon is an unforgiving place, exposed to both the sun’s rays and the cold of space. Temperatures near the Moon’s equator, for example, can spike to 250°F (121°C) in the day and then plunge at night to -208°F (-133°C), according to NASA.
“Unlike low-Earth orbit missions, astronauts will be in a harsh natural lunar environment during lunar extravehicular activities. Complex environmental factors such as high vacuum and low gravity, lunar dust and lunar soil, complex lunar surface terrain, high and low temperatures, and strong radiation will have a significant impact on work and protection,” Wu Zhiqiang, deputy chief designer of astronaut systems at the China Astronaut Research and Training Center, told state broadcaster CCTV.
Others also hailed the aesthetics of the suit, with state media describing the red stripes on its upper limbs are inspired by ribbons from the “flying apsaras,” or deities that appear in ancient art in western China’s Dunhuang city, while those on its lower limbs resembling “rocket launch flames.”
Another designer, Wang Chunhui, told state media the suit’s proportions would make the astronauts “look more spirited and majestic” and “make us Chinese look strong and beautiful when we step on the moon.”
Earlier this year, Chinese officials released the name of the spacecraft for the crewed lunar mission – with the spaceship dubbed Mengzhou, or Dream Vessel, the lander, Lanyue, or Embracing the Moon.
The mission is designed as part of a broader set of lunar ambitions, which include China’s plans to establish an international lunar research station at the moon’s south pole by 2040.

(th)

RGClark · 2024-10-01 08:59:34

The estimated cost of the Artemis landing missions will be in the range of $8 billion per mission. This is an unsustainable cost. However, there is an approach to returning to the Moon that would only be ca. $100 million(!) per launch, comparable to the cost NASA is spending just getting to the ISS. This is to use the Starship in expendable mode. According to SpaceX it would have a payload capacity of ca. 250 tons to LEO. Moreover, it could be done literally now. Just strip off the reusability systems to get the full 250 ton to LEO capability and put an existing smaller stage such as the Falcon 9 upper stage atop it to act as a 3rd stage/lander.

However, NASA and SpaceX are too wedded to their SLS and multiple Starship refueling approach. Remember at the beginning of the U.S. space program in the late 50’s when our rockets kept failing, while the Soviet Union kept succeeding, made famous in the book and movie the Right Stuff? We weren’t able to finally succeed until we gave it over to the military to manage. In view of the strategic importance of returning to the Moon, the DoD might want to pay for this low cost, independent approach to returning to the Moon that has the distinct advantage of allowing a sustainable lunar presence and at high flight cadence.

Should the DoD be involved in returning us to the Moon?
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2024/ … ng-us.html

Bob Clark

GW Johnson · 2024-10-01 10:09:32

The Vanguard that failed right after Sputnik in 1957 was a Navy program. PR said it was for science, but the Navy was running it. The Explorer-1 launch in Jan 1958 was put together out of a Redstone and some other solid motors, by Werner Von Braun as part of the Army ballistic missile program. The Navy went on with solids as the simpler, safer solution for the missile submarine concept, and had Polaris flying by about 1959 or 1960, as I recall. [EDIT UPDATE 10-2-2024: DOD went on to success later, going all solids with Minuteman for the USAF and the Army's battlefield missiles. Not the liquids that NASA needed.]

Then there numerous failures of Atlas (USAF), Thor (USAF), Juno (US Army), Jupiter (US Army), and many others, before there ever was a NASA. These continued as NASA was getting started late in 1958. Which was about the time Von Braun left the Army and went to work for NASA, bringing his Saturn ballistic missile designs and much of his Peenemunde team (Operation Paperclip) with him. All of that stuff from 1954 to 1958 was DOD, and NASA got started in 1958 using DOD rockets. Including what became Saturn-1 and Saturn-5.

So the premise that NASA is screwed up and DOD needs to take over is based on a false reading of history.

Those frequent failures happened less out of incompetence and more out of the fact that space is just hard to do. And the Russians had them, too, just not ever publicized the way ours were.

That is still true today, which is why anything that is a large step ahead always sees serious troubles; eg, Starship/Superheavy. That is simply to be expected. And you should expect to see more of it with ULA's Vulcan, Blue Origin's New Glenn, and probably any other heavy lifter out there.

GW

PS -- Saturn-1 was originally a huge ICBM meant to carry the oversized thermonuclear warheads of the mid-1950's. By 1958, thermonuclear warheads had shrunk to the point that even a B-47 could carry one, and the giant Saturn-1 ICBM was no longer needed. But NASA needed it for Apollo. And now they employed Von Braun with his paper Saturn designs. They had Saturn-1 flying by about 1962 or 1963, as I recall.

The Saturn-5 was originally a giant suborbital troop transport for sending 100 men one-way to Russia for a pre-emptive war scenario (that involved LSD-25 bombs, as well). It was originally 2 stages, with a huge payload that landed with chutes and rocket braking. Replacing that payload with a Saturn-1 second stage switched it to the 3-stage Saturn-5 that NASA needed for Apollo lunar missions. Which is how and why Saturn-5 was flying by about 1967.

But until NASA (and even Von Braun) got over their "not invented here" attitude, it was going to take two Saturn-5 launches per mission to the moon. On-orbit propellant transfer was going to involved, and they just did not know how to do that with storables then, much less cryogenics. Learning was going to push the first landing past 1970. It was the lunar orbit rendezvous idea from outside NASA that finally got us down to one launch per mission, and still meet JFK's due date.

These things usually do not follow a logical progression. They never did before!

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-02 08:14:59)

RGClark · 2024-10-05 14:50:44

Thanks. What are some references that detail this period of the space program?

Robert Clark

tahanson43206 · 2024-10-05 16:52:21

For RGClark....

Your question about the history of the Cold war is interesting....

GW Johnson is under absolutely no obligation to respond to such an overreaching request.

However, this ** is ** an opportunity for you to add some value to the NewMars archive.

I asked Google for a starting list of references to the history of the Cold War, and it came up with a decent starting list:

From sources across the web
Cold War
The Cold War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 Volumes]
Cold War and McCarthy Era: People and Perspectives
Cold war studies at harvard university
America in the Cold War: A Reference Guide
Conflicts in American History: A Documentary Encyclopedia
The American Diplomatic Revolution: A Documentary History of the Cold War, 1941-1947
Avalon Project: The Cold War
Cold War turns hot
2 more
Feedback
Cold War Primary Sources - HIST 674- Seminar Recent U.S. ...
University Northridge
·
https://libguides.csun.edu › hist674 › coldwarsources
Aug 22, 2024 — This collection of primary source documents discusses international relations during World War II and the years shortly after.
Missing: references | Show results with: references
People also ask
What is the reference to the Cold War?
What are 5 things about the Cold War?
What are the 7 steps of Cold War?
What is a primary source for the Cold War?
Feedback
The 1960s: Cold War - Primary Sources
LibGuides at Christopher Newport University
·
https://cnu.libguides.com › coldwar
Aug 14, 2024 — This comprehensive collection of carefully edited documents--speeches, treaties, statements, and articles--traces the rise and fall of the Cold War.
Cold War on File
The National Archives
·
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk › resources › cold-w...
The purpose of this document collection is to allow students and teachers to develop their own questions and lines of historical enquiry on the Cold War.
The Cold War
National Archives (.gov)
·
https://www.archives.gov › research › foreign-policy › c...
Feb 20, 2020 — This web page provides links and citations to NARA-prepared or NARA-sponsored sources of information about this Cold War documentation.
Reference Sources - The Cold War - Research Guides
Saint Louis University
·
https://libguides.slu.edu › c.php
Aug 1, 2024 — Encyclopedia of the McCarthy Era by William K. · Encyclopedia of the Cold War: A Political, Social, and Military History · Encyclopedia of the ...
Missing: list | Show results with: list
Reference Sources - HIST 0190: The Cold War
Tufts University
·
https://researchguides.library.tufts.edu › cold-war › refere...
Aug 13, 2024 — Reference sources generally include bibliographies, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and handbooks. Specialized Dictionaries and Encyclopedias
Missing: documenting | Show results with: documenting
U.S. History: Primary Source Collections Online: Cold War
shsulibraryguides.org
·
https://shsulibraryguides.org › c.php
Cold War Origins "This collection of primary source documents discusses international relations during World War II and the years shortly after.
Missing: list | Show results with: list
Cold War: Primary Sources - Research Guides
University of Kentucky
·
https://libguides.uky.edu › cold-war › primary-sources
Aug 1, 2024 — Atomic Heritage Foundation · Atomic Spies: Ethel and Julius Rosenberg · The Avalon Project · Cold War · The Cold War and the Marshall Plan · Cold War ...
Cold War documents
Alpha History
·
https://alphahistory.com › coldwar › cold-war-documents
Cold War documents · 1 Origins of the Cold War · 2 Cold War Berlin · 3 The Red Scare and McCarthyism · 4 Waging the Cold War · 5 The Hungarian Uprising · 6 The U-2 ...
Origins of the Cold War · Cold War Berlin · Waging the Cold War
Missing: list | Show results with: list
Bibliography of the Cold War
Wikipedia
·
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bibliography_of_the_C...
This is an English language bibliography of scholarly books and articles on the Cold War. Because of the extent of the Cold War (in terms of time and scope),
Overviews · National perspectives · Origins: to 1950 · 1950s and 1960s
People also search for

I'd like to see you engage in some scholarship. GW Johnson has provided some hints of what to look for.

I'll be ** most ** interested in seeing what you come up with to share with NewMars readers.
(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2024-08-31 07:29:18

China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#2 2024-09-01 14:07:15

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#3 2024-09-02 01:50:20

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#4 2024-09-02 06:20:24

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#5 2024-09-02 12:14:21

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#6 2024-09-02 12:51:04

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#7 2024-09-02 17:32:56

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#8 2024-09-03 09:46:01

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#9 2024-09-03 11:24:19

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#10 2024-09-03 11:36:55

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#11 2024-09-03 12:04:47

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#12 2024-09-03 14:27:06

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#13 2024-09-03 17:34:39

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#14 2024-09-05 06:15:08

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#15 2024-09-23 10:06:25

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#16 2024-09-23 13:03:36

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#17 2024-09-23 17:35:26

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#18 2024-09-23 23:00:59

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#19 2024-09-24 17:50:20

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#20 2024-09-24 18:56:42

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#21 2024-10-01 06:57:42

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#22 2024-10-01 08:59:34

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#23 2024-10-01 10:09:32

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#24 2024-10-05 14:50:44

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

#25 2024-10-05 16:52:21

Re: China vs. U.S. race to the Moon.

Board footer