Chinese Space Program? - What if they get there first

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-22 06:47:51

GCNR,

Better explanation for you :

Falcon 9-S9 has a LEO Cargo Weight of 24 tonnes and a Fairing Diameter of 5.2M equivalent to the new CEV and CLV vehicles under development. The Fairing Size is about 15-18M Long.

Designing modules that linkup in space to operate as a first and second stage of a lunar vehicle you could have 2x24 tonnes boosters ( Image 3 - equal to the Second Stage of the CEV) that would get the third module (lunar Lander ) and Fourth Module of Crew Command Vehicle for return voyage based on the same CEV Developments but the Costs for Falcon 9 Rockets could be reached by any OECD Country or a consortium of Business or Entreprenuers in one country or across the world.

Because these modules are pre-fabricated on earth they only need linkup in orbit and doesn't needthe use of the space station. We coould use the same design for cargo runs to the lunar surface or to Mars depends on the number of modules required and the speed you want to transfer the cargo to Mars and the weight of the cargo for the Mars or Lunar surface. The Ariane 5 Launch vehicle could be used as well for missions towards the moon and mars.

Let the Launch vehicle companies create and maintain the launch vehicles, thus provides the means for a smaller group ( company or government agency ) to focus on the cargo modules for space launch in LEO not on earth and achieve a better response at a lower cost per launch for the Moon or Mars.

Education Institution

What I was trying to say , Is the development of a specific educational institution development for the sole purpose of education , skilling and provide world class experience in the development, management and operating space activities at a private or government spaceports would be better than a degree here or there in a standard university focusing on more and more different fields / faculties that buy for the resources of those institutions , private enterprises and governments.

And If , China development this type of institution first , for the long development and occupation of space then the rest of the world would need to follow to bring there individual programs into a specific focused and funded educational programs for the advancement of space.

Chinese are long term developers

The Chinese are long term players in their history and in the past they have absorbed technologies when we have worked out the bugs for example smartcards - they are building a smartcard based banking system to replace their old system we had to develop that system they are just coming along after the development , testing and implementation issues are solved and having less time to install. The same will happen with there space industry currently China has 14 million enginners and they are growing and that means they could expand there heavy machine based industries rapidly. That is why Airbus Areospace is building a Airplane assembly factory in China and working with the local industry to expand the resources in China for the benefit of both sides.

At this time the chinese are not up with the Americans within the space industry but they could close the distance rapidly with the trade surplus and growth in the industrial sector of the economy and they are learning off the mistakes of the rest of the world how to do things better.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-22 08:17:25

Falcon-IX is not a cure for the situation either, you would need to launch it about eight times to assemble a vehicle with similar performance to the VSE plan; about five to equal the EDS stage, two for the lander, and one for the CEV.

The problem is that to have really useful payloads, you would have to use a Hydrogen fuel for propulsion, at least for the EDS and Lunar lander decent stages, otherwise you are just repeating Apollo over again. This is a problem because you have to launch no less then six seperate modules with cryogenic fuel, and it will simply boil off before you could possibly finish launching and assembling components. Thats the beauty of heavy lift, its all set all at once. Oh, and the big EDS stage in the ESAS plan is completly dumb, all docking and control can be handled by the lander, but you can't do that if you launch your fuel in multiple launches, each fuel tank would have to be "smart."

You could switch to lower energy propellants like hypergolics, even Methane would be hard to store without a double-digit loss for that long, as in early Russian moon program designs before copying the American plan for a heavy lift flight. This would probably about double how much fuel you need due to the lower performance, so now you would need sixteen Falcon-IX launches to match one ESAS mission, about two thirds dedicated to the Lunar lander and the other third to push the capsule.

This is obviously unworkable, and if Falcon-IX only cost about $50M a flight, that is not much less then what ESAS launch vehicles should cost, totaling $750M per mission. Assuming a round $250M for the landers, EDS stages, and the capsule thats a solid billion dollars, just for one mission. And, launching non-stop, you would be lucky to mount two missions every three years, which is just not enough to have a Lunar base.

Lets review:
-ESAS = two launches, around $700M/sortie
-F9 plan = sixteen launches, around $750M/sortie

...and what happens if you lose one of the important ones, like the TLI engine or the Lunar module?
___________________________________________

"Is the development of a specific educational institution development for the sole purpose of education , skilling and provide world class experience in the development, management and operating space activities at a private or government spaceports would be better than a degree here or there in a standard university focusing on more and more different fields..."

More lunacy, such a degree would be much less useful to students then a standard aerospace degree, since it wouldn't be good for anything else. Its the bredth and versatility of such a degree that makes it superior; its a feature, not a flaw, and students seeking your "degree" would be getting short-changed.

And again, the students will not come in with the skills or experience needed to effectively be rocket builders and operators, and it will take two or three years of intensive training to get them anywhere near real professional engineers. So, you will have inexperienced green labor for about one year, and maybe kinda-sorrta competant labor for one year, and then they graduate. And all the while, they will have to be taking classes too, so you will only reall get about one year out of each student, half of which he'll be awfully green. And then you have to start over, which just is not going to work, you can't have a multi-year development program if you have to replace your entire staff every other year.

And what happens when you need nuclear engineers? Or materials scientists? Or electrical engineers? Or less skilled but not unskilled labor? How will you provide these things too? Its time to admit that using higher education as a way to sneak past the high cost of labor isn't going to work.
___________________________________________
"The same will happen with there space industry"

No, because we won't share our rockets like we do computers. Even if we did, it would take a long time for the Chinese to get good at making copies. China still imports all its computer chips for the most part too today. Oh, and Elon isn't going to give China his rocket designs either. It wouldn't even be legal probably.

"China has 14 million enginners and they are growing and that means they could expand there heavy machine based industries rapidly"

Yes they could, but these engineers will want to get paid, and paid an engineers' sallery; as China grows prosperous, wages will increase too, but you will have a space program built on the foundation of cheap but educated labor. What happens when that labor isn't so cheap anymore, and the Chinese space program has vast numbers of engineers to pay? Besides, China needs its engineers elsewhere, ~75% of the country is still a second and third world land. That will keep them busy for the rest of the century.

"That is why Airbus Areospace is building a Airplane assembly factory in China"

No actually, thats because they are fighting a mortal battle against Boeing for tens of billions worth of airplane sales, and China was leaning tward Boeing. Airbus, being a French company, wouldn't willingly send French engineers' jobs overseas unless they had an alterior motive. Its a bribe, not a business decision.

"they could close the distance rapidly (in space) with the trade surplus and growth in the industrial sector of the economy and they are learning off the mistakes of the rest of the world how to do things better"

No, they really couldn't. Development takes time, its not something you can rush with any reasonable investment (witness the high cost of Apollo), and China has no reason to rush. Right now China is right where we were with Gemini, small semi-experimental capsules riding on inefficient rockets not that well suited to the task. In other words, a long ways off.

Russia doesn't have the technology either, they have a few decent booster engines but thats really about it as far as missions outside Earth orbit, and America isn't just going to give China our space technology. Even if we did, again, it would take time for China to learn to adopt it.

China's trade surpluss won't last forever, as their economy grows to fund this space program you have in mind, the reason why the surpluss exsists - cheap factory labor and lax environmental laws - will get smaller and smaller. It will be a miracle if China rides out this transition without a bumpy ride.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-22 09:59:24

"Don't think outside the box"

As it seems I have to do on a regular basis anymore, again I want to explain why nobody should be searching for or "opening their eyes" to any plans that will "change everything." The reasons why the basic calculus of spaceflight is never going to have any "paradeigm shift" and suddenly man will explode into space is really very simple to understand, so none of you have an excuse for not getting it:

Rockets, presently the only practical way to enter space, have fundimental limitations imposed on them by the laws of physics. Gravity isn't going away, practical rocket fuels have only so much energy per gram, and rockets cannot be built out of superlight materials without incuring a cost penalty. Because spaceflight is just barely possible, all rockets will therefore have to be carefully built with small margins. As long as these margins are small, they will always be large and expensive to produce.

Rockets are also fundimentally "high energy," that because of the powerful forces involved compared to materials strength and the rockets' ability to maneuver, they are never going to be an order of magnetude more reliable, because they simply can't withstand a major failure.

This is not a factor of how clever your designers are, or sneaky your businessmen, these things cannot be avoided. Rockets are expensive because they are hard, and they will never be much easier. So, all this dreamy idealistic talk of "open your eyes, think outside the box, you fool!!!" Is just so much idle jibberish, because rockets are HARD, and they cannot be made easy.

Also there is various talk of sneaky ways to cheat rockets; tethers, railguns, air launching - Rubbish! Rubbish all! You are just trading one difficult thing for another! Tethers will ALWAYS be hard too, because they require such extreme precision, and anything that requires such precision is fundimentally hard and expensive, just like a rocket. Air launch and railguns only contribute a trivial portion of the total energy to enter orbit, and railguns have zero tollerance for failure... if a payload going Mach-1 derails, its going to wipe out the whole thing.

The only solution, barring the far-off space elevator or scramjet SSTO, the only solution is to accept the fact that rockets will always have either small engineering margins or small payloads, and build a totally reuseable space vehicle that carries only modest payloads over and over again. TSTO jet/rocket spaceplane, DC-X with high-density cryogenics, whatever... but a true RLV is the only presently available hope for true human expansion into the solar system.

and thats all there is to it

Edit: My above explanation for why rockets can't radically improve performance is a little weak, let me elaborate:

-Specific energy, the biggest thing that holds rockets back is the amount of energy their fuels can liberate per gram and the associated tank mass with holding them. Liquid hydrogen is the lightest stable substance in the universe, and oxygen is the most stable liquid oxidizer that is practical to make in quantity. Liquid fluorine and ozone are better, but neither can be safely used nor provide a signifigant performance bennefit.

Liquid propellants have the best performance generally speaking, and the only liquids are usually molecules. The energy produced by combustion is from the bonds of the molecules being broken, and all molecules have notionally similar energies. So, you want to pack as many molecules into your rocket per pound as you can, and what determines their weight is the number of particles in the nucleous of their atoms. Hydrogen has only one and Oxygen has sixteen, and there really aren't any lighter ones. Metastable fuels (monoatomic hydrogen) or other oddball fuels (cyclic ozone, N5 salts) are pipe dreams. Nuclear power is not happening for ground launch or regular travel either, the radiation hazard is just too severe for fission, and thrust is just too low for fusion or antimatter.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-22 20:04:33

GCNR,

Thank you for saying in many many paragraphs that I was right !!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see 16 modules needed for launching from earth orbit to the lunar surface, the CLV and CEV Launches uses a second stage with payload weight of 60 tonnes ( including the lunar module ) and our design uses 3 x 24 tonnes - 2 vehicle boosters that could drop off in space and one module carrying the lander for the surface and the returning crew module being separately launched (just like the CEV) to link-up before launched from earth.

Costs - Launches of $300million + modules construction. (similar to CEV Developments for Crew module and lunar lander )

The detailed planning for a mission and the development of module based vehicles for aseembly haven't been developed yet. Built using existing rocket engine technologies and also existing launch vehicle upper stage developments you could develop a rapid timeline for development.

It doesn't mean that the Chinese government or any other government requires large launch vehicles to launch to the moon or L points or to Mars but the skills in modular space assembly and manufacturing process.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-22 21:11:49

Thank you for saying in many many paragraphs that I was right !!!!!!!!!!!

*Laughs* In one ear, and out the other...

"I don't see 16 modules needed for launching from earth orbit to the lunar surface"

You didn't listen to a thing I said. I told you why you need so many modules, but you ignored my reasoning completly then went on to ramble breathlessly and half-incoherantly about doing a mission in only three shots or something.

"The detailed planning for a mission and the development of module based vehicles for aseembly haven't been developed yet."

I just told you that such planning is a waste of time, because you can't do it that way without some serious orbital infrastructure, and even if you could it wouldn't be practical for regular flight.

"Built using existing rocket engine technologies and also existing launch vehicle upper stage developments you could develop a rapid timeline for development... (the Chinese don't need anything) but the skills in modular space assembly and manufacturing process."

No, no, no. You could perhaps make it work to actually get to the Moon, but you could never do anything useful there because the "modular" aproach is so ungainly and difficult to mount missions. Mars is definatly right out, you'll never get there 25MT at a time. I sure wouldn't want to be one of the poor crewmen stuck in the little tin cans that rocket would deliver, and they would all weigh MUCH more because of their narrow diameter.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-24 20:16:41

GCNR,

I think you just like to argue and wouldn't agree on anything. I haven't seen you put any constructive ideas or comments about the state of the space industry or the current or future missions that are planned or in operation.

The Chinese will have more capacity in 20 years, with their economy growth and the structures they have a built for their space program. I was just trying to should that space organizations including china could do space launches to the moon and mars without having or using large heavy lift vehicles.

I know you will comment negatively to these comments but that what you like and thus you are a "glass half-full person" and will never think of other possibilities.

Grypd · 2006-04-25 02:54:49

Though it is possible to send medium weight cargoes to space have them join up and then go to the Moon and Mars it really is a lot more complicated than just sending up one much more capable rocket.

Not only is it cheaper (no need for orbital operations) it is safer as you do not depend on multiple launches arriving on schedule and in the right orbit and fuel burn offs and wear and tear do not happen. Just the complexity of the whole operation proves that China would not really consider it as a viable alternative.

If China was to seriously go the way of multi launch orbital construction there must be a point of reference and a place to actully do the joining of the seperate parts. This is a space station. When China seriously starts building a large one of these then she will be gaining the orbital experience to see if a consideration of orbital construction is even feasible.

No China will launch space stations but they will be small and until we see the development of a heavy lift Long March then China will not be planning manned Moon and Mars landings. But they can send robots and by telerobotics they could do a lot with the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-25 13:42:18

Constructive? I am being constructive, by offering constructive criticism. If you know why your plan doesn't work, you are more likly to make one that would work, and thats a good thing.

I'm not being a pessimist, I am being realistic. Rocket technology is unique, because the laws of physics themselves mean there is no clever trick or genius scheme that will make them easier.

China will be stronger in 20 years, but not be a whole lot... their economic growth is unatural, artifical, and unsafe, it cannot be sustained. Even now, their leaders are trying to prepare the population for when things are not quite so good.

Anyway... Is it possible to go to the Moon using medium rockets? Yes, it is possible to put man on the Moon. However, it is a terrible idea, because it would be so difficult that it would never be fast, cheap, or reliable. Never.

-You can't just launch payloads "dumb," and putting power/navigation/thrusters on each and every payload would be expensive.

-Without a fuel condenser, you must use storable fuels, which will roughly double the amount of mass you need to launch (~16 launches for ESAS level mission).

-Too many launches have to suceed perfectly, too many docking operations, too many vehicles all have to be flawless. A problem with any one of them could ruin the mission.

...So basically, can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Definatly not! Mars is also completly out of the question. No mission to Mars could ever be practical just 25MT at a time without an impractical amount of trouble. NASA DRM-III requires 500MT, and thats using nuclear engines with Hydrogen, you are looking at 1500MT+ using storable fuels.

If you intend to do anything on the Moon, or go to Mars, a heavy lifter is non-negotiable.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-25 18:41:09

GCNR ,

See my point,

GCNR,
I think you just like to argue and wouldn't agree on anything. I haven't seen you put any constructive ideas or comments about the state of the space industry or the current or future missions that are planned or in operation.

and hot under the collar ?

Constructive? I am being constructive, by offering constructive criticism. If you know why your plan doesn't work, you are more likly to make one that would work, and thats a good thing.
I'm not being a pessimist, I am being realistic. Rocket technology is unique, because the laws of physics themselves mean there is no clever trick or genius scheme that will make them easier

The American government has used multiple launches for decades, the russians have used captured vehicles in orbit, it doesn't mean other peopl, agencies, corporations or governments can't, it just means they haven't tried it yet. We have used technology to fly remote controlled drone aircraft from us areound the world to australia or over many countries throughout the world, have landed on sea vessels , don't tell me that it is not possible or feasible becuase it is.

It up to chinses government officials to do their own space program their way , but it doesn't mean the rest of the world follow, and it doesn't means we need to follow any of the other sapcefaring nations as well, we could come up with our own methods and processes.

The only way we will get into space and onto mars is through innovation and not for a tourist stopover !!!!!!! . So, Stop being the Mr Realism, Mr Criticism or even Mr Can't do this , and being a Mr Innvoator or Mr Possibilities, Work towards and promote any idea until it went to its conclusion because one of those ideas may be the answer, and you support the inventor of the idea to provide the methodology. Encourage ---- become a glass have empty person.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-25 19:29:17

"The American government has used multiple launches for decades"

And it failed, miserably

"the russians have used captured vehicles in orbit"

The Russians are known for putting solar pannels, navigation systems, and thrusters on everything. The Mir modules all had the ability to maneuver on their own.

"don't tell me that it is not possible or feasible becuase it is."

I am going to say it only one more time, its not feasable, you can't have a good, productive Lunar program with medium launch rockets. It is possible to actually get to the Moon, but it is just so inefficient that all you can do is get boots on the ground once every few years. You can't do it this way, its too slow, its too inefficient, too expensive. A rocket at least tripple or quadruple the size of the current Chinese one is really the minimum.

"It up to chinses government officials to do their own space program their way"

You make it sound like that this is a matter of opinion, and in true multi-culti fasion "all opinions are equal:" rubbish! It doesn't matter who tries it, nobody has any fuel better then anybody else, and nobody can make rockets far safer or far lighter then they are now. There are intrinsic limitations to what you can do with a rocket of a particular size no matter what the other details are.

"The only way we will get into space and onto mars is through innovation and not for a tourist stopover"

Which is just what we'll get with medium rockets. If you are using rockets, you need a heavy lifter, 80 metric tonnes at least if we're talking Mars, and anybody who thinks otherwise is uncredible.

"Encourage... become a glass have empty person."

Um. You have your analogy backwards... and the glass is at 50% of its capacity.

Why should I be encouraging? I am interested in making plans that work, not making the author of said plans feel good, and people who post engineering plans should be prepared for criticism. I am being analytical, which is what scientists and engineers do, feelings have no bearing on if a plan will work or not work, or a theory is true or untrue, and so why should it be a part of criticism?

publiusr · 2006-04-28 14:13:54

Valid points. Multiple medium launches get you ISS assembly delays, and you spend more on engines and upper stages in the long run. With CaLV you reduce assembly time and have a good Mars ship. What is more, larger boosters allow for larger automated probes. IIRC the Mars science craft will need an aeroshell wider than CEV.

The days of playing with Delta II toys should be over.

Time for a step up.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-06-12 09:15:56

It was the Soviet satellite Sputnik that triggered to US to go to the Moon in the first place, and I do not believe that neither Europe nor the US will sit still if China suddenly reach Mars or the Moon. A new space race is what we need, and I wouldn't mind China triggering it.
The Space Race was triggered because the american public felt they should be the first the lowly reds. Now days 99% don't give a shit. And i doubt the Congress will give more money to NASA what with disasters called Iraq and New Orleans sucking up alot of money. Iraq costed $200 billion so far and rebuilding New Orleans may cost more.

Money is tight for NASA and public support for Mars/Moon trips aren't really there

China to develop new space transportation system
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/19/ … 67011.html
Wu Yansheng, head of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, said on an "innovation of Beijing" summit of Beijing's social and natural science experts on May 17 that China would develop its space transportation technology by three steps and independently research and develop a new space transportation system.

Grypd · 2006-06-19 17:06:41

China believes it can put a Man on the Moon by 2024

China to put man on Moon by 2024

cIclops · 2006-06-19 21:00:20

China believes it can put a Man on the Moon by 2024
China to put man on Moon by 2024

Should be just in time for the opening of McDonald's lunar franchise, anything in their plans about a takeway in the next crater?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-08-30 11:12:11

China believes it can put a Man on the Moon by 2024
China to put man on Moon by 2024
Should be just in time for the opening of McDonald's lunar franchise, anything in their plans about a takeway in the next crater?

I like this slasdot comment
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … 1&from=rss
'Chinese should land on Mars. This way, hundred of years later, they can claim that Mars is "historically" Chinese terriroty, and setup intergalatic missles aiming at Mars to demand re-unification with the renagade RED planet.'

China, Russia plan joint Mars mission
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14480465/
Scientist: Unmanned exploration of Red Planet and Phobos in 2009

ESA's Phobos-Grunt info
esa page
Europe is already working with the Chinese on the double-star mission

publiusr · 2006-10-27 12:42:02

Grunts...

noosfractal · 2006-11-12 02:47:59

Russia, China plan joint space projects
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15636482/

MOSCOW - Russia plans to cooperate with China in robotic missions to the moon and Mars and other space projects, officials said Thursday.

"We have switched from cooperating on technological elements and devices to developing big scientific projects in space research," Yuri Nosenko, a deputy head of Russia's Federal Space Agency, told reporters in a televised hookup from Beijing, where he and other officials were attending a Russian national exhibition.
...

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-24 09:45:47

I don't think the PRC could make it to Mars before the Russians or US if they tried. If they made a serious push, either NASA the ESA or both together would probly mount a crash program to get there first. China still has no manned space experience, no experience with HLV's, interplanetary probes, and very little experience in space in general. I would hate for them to go there first, have an accident, kill the crew, and discourage others from going.
If the Commies were there, I would sure bring some way for the crew to defend themselves to Mars, you could never be sure they wouldn't try something if it hit the fan. "Our reactor failed, we're taking yours"

Have you looked at the latest GDP figures for China? Its now $8 trillion compared to $12.5 trillion for the United States. Seems to me that if this trend continues, China will overtake the USA as the largest Superpower sometime in the second decade of the 21st century. Worst of all, do you want some Dictator taking the position as the top Dog in the Chinese Century? What will happen to the free world in that case. I think we should take the opportunity and grab hold of Mars while we are still ahead. Once China passes us, there is no catching back up. We have a window of opportunitystretching from now until 2020, if we pass it up and find, "better things to spend our money on", then China will dominate space for the next century, we'll all have to learn that very difficult language of Chinese and their thousand character alphabet and learn how to bow to their communist emperor. I think we should try to break out into space and leave our mark on human history before the World becomes part of the Chinese Empire.

EuroLauncher · 2007-02-19 07:53:45

The Chief Scientist of the lunar exploration program announced China will be ready to launch its first moon satellite soon...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007 … 800611.htm
The launch of the Chang'e I will mark the launch of the three stage Chinese lunar exploration project.

GCNRevenger · 2007-02-19 15:18:51

I don't think the PRC could make it to Mars before the Russians or US if they tried. If they made a serious push, either NASA the ESA or both together would probly mount a crash program to get there first. China still has no manned space experience, no experience with HLV's, interplanetary probes, and very little experience in space in general. I would hate for them to go there first, have an accident, kill the crew, and discourage others from going.
If the Commies were there, I would sure bring some way for the crew to defend themselves to Mars, you could never be sure they wouldn't try something if it hit the fan. "Our reactor failed, we're taking yours"
Have you looked at the latest GDP figures for China? Its now $8 trillion compared to $12.5 trillion for the United States. Seems to me that if this trend continues, China will overtake the USA as the largest Superpower sometime in the second decade of the 21st century. Worst of all, do you want some Dictator taking the position as the top Dog in the Chinese Century? What will happen to the free world in that case. I think we should take the opportunity and grab hold of Mars while we are still ahead. Once China passes us, there is no catching back up. We have a window of opportunitystretching from now until 2020, if we pass it up and find, "better things to spend our money on", then China will dominate space for the next century, we'll all have to learn that very difficult language of Chinese and their thousand character alphabet and learn how to bow to their communist emperor. I think we should try to break out into space and leave our mark on human history before the World becomes part of the Chinese Empire.

Ha, dude, China's "economic powerhouse" thing is built on a rather shakey house of cards. Especially, that their huge supply of cheap and expendable labor isn't bottomless.

SpaceNut · 2007-02-19 22:03:11

With China's satelite test hitting home as to weapons capability in space isn't high time that the UN does what it should do and say no, no no more of that.

It looks like the UN thou is going for something that could hit mother earth instead and its not man made.
UN's new mission: saving the Earth from asteroids

The United Nations will shortly be asked to take on a new and unfamiliar mission - to save the Earth not from drought, war or disease, but from the cataclysm that could occur after a direct hit by an asteroid.
members of the Association of Space Explorers are planning meetings over the next two years - to be attended by diplomats, astronomers, astronauts and engineers - to draft an international treaty to address the threat. It will be presented to the UN for adoption in 2009.

We all know about Apophis risks passing very close to Earth on 13 April, 2036.

cIclops · 2007-02-20 02:15:14

We all know about Apophis risks passing very close to Earth on 13 April, 2036.

And that risk is tiny. There's far higher risks due to many other causes, let alone the millions of real deaths each year from easily preventable causes. The UN has proven itself hopeless in dealing with those problems. The asteroid risk is a nice one to take on, it's so small they can claim success by doing nothing.

epocalypse · 2007-02-20 05:15:07

It is better that the UN has plans and capabilities in place rather than reacting too late to a potential threat.

As to the UN's inability to deal with ongoing problems of war, disease and famine, they are handicapped by the five permanent security council members but especially by the USA and its corporate interests. As it is the UN does a lot of good work out there within its limits.

GCNRevenger · 2007-02-20 06:17:18

See it goes something like this...

The risk of any really big impact, one that would cause more deaths than mass starvation and plague already do is insignificant versus this certainty. Not to mention, fixing the latter should (if not for UN excesses) be a great deal less expensive.

And why the UN? NASA and maybe a little help from the ESA/RSA are the only ones capable of doing the job anyway. I don't see there being a powder-blue-flagged spaceport being built, with heavy lift rockets being kept in hangers "just in case."

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-03-07 10:30:16

That makes perfect sense. More on Chinese launch vehicles at the http://www.astronautix.com site now updated once again.

good website !

some news
China To Launch Lunar Satellite Probe This Year

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2006-04-22 06:47:51

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

#177 2006-04-22 08:17:25

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

#178 2006-04-22 09:59:24

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

#179 2006-04-22 20:04:33

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

#180 2006-04-22 21:11:49

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

#181 2006-04-24 20:16:41

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

#182 2006-04-25 02:54:49

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

#183 2006-04-25 13:42:18

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

#184 2006-04-25 18:41:09

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

#185 2006-04-25 19:29:17

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

#186 2006-04-28 14:13:54

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

#187 2006-06-12 09:15:56

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

#188 2006-06-19 17:06:41

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

#189 2006-06-19 21:00:20

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

#190 2006-08-30 11:12:11

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

#191 2006-10-27 12:42:02

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

#192 2006-11-12 02:47:59

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

#193 2006-11-24 09:45:47

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

#194 2007-02-19 07:53:45

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

#195 2007-02-19 15:18:51

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

#196 2007-02-19 22:03:11

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

#197 2007-02-20 02:15:14

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

#198 2007-02-20 05:15:07

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

#199 2007-02-20 06:17:18

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

#200 2007-03-07 10:30:16

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

Board footer