As America pulls out from space, China prepares to go to the Moon

[Patroklos]

How is launching the two most potent scientific intruments currently used by any space program into space constitute "giving up space?"

 

[Lillefix]

How is launching the two most potent scientific intruments currently used by any space program into space constitute "giving up space?"

Actually Europe is launching the James Webb telescope, but that's beside the point.

But seriously, there is something special about manned spaceflight. Perhaps it doesn't seem to pay off at first, but I bet astronauts have inspired more people people to study astronomy and space engineering than even the Hubble telescope ever could.

 

[Patroklos]

Actually Europe is launching the James Webb telescope, but that's beside the point.

As I stated, that project is joint. the Kepler scope is not.

But seriously, there is something special about manned spaceflight. Perhaps it doesn't seem to pay off at first, but I bet astronauts have inspired more people people to study astronomy and space engineering than even the Hubble telescope ever could.

I agree, but manned space flight is only one facet of an overall space program, and not automatically the one that contributes the most to space based goals.

The Chinese and American programs are simply different, but it is worth noting that the Chinese program is simply walking in our (rather old) footsteps, not really contributing anything to science whatsoever. Which is fine, you don't have to be motivated by science all the time (we certainly weren't) but in the mean time the US is still doing real science.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

It was inevitable:



Go China. Someone needs to show those bloody democratic politicians that there is a price to pay for cuts in space exploration budgets

It strikes me that the name the Chinese gave to their rockets - Long March (after the commie ordeal in 1930s) - is fitting. Chinese don't do things in the American way, with pomp and spotlights. They don't get excited, do great things, and then stop just because the public lost interest or the politicians needed the money elsewhere. Their progress in space is a like a tsunami, a low-profile, but relentless wave.

You're forgetting history. The reason the moon landings ended was because the US won the space race against the evil communists and so didn't need to keep proving it by wasting money on needless public relations exhibitions. That was the whole reason for the space race in the first place-- one big PR pissing contest.

They're still far behind other space powers. If the US, Europe and even Russia committed enough money to the project, they could return to the Moon in less than a decade. But they won't because they're crippled by budget cuts, political bickering and a lack of long-term vision for space exploration. That's why China will win. I almost hope it does, because the rest of the world needs a wake-up call.

So they will return to the same place we've already been and find it to be as useless as we did, but prove they can do it too. Who is this supposed to impress exactly?

 

[Winner]

I agree that the goal has to be to return and stay, and get some ROI. However, the major technical hurdles to that are not (only) getting there, as would be solved by trying to beat china back there. They are supplying energy (I put my money on robots that can build solar panels from regolith), living in a "closed" environment (with inputs of electricity and a little water) as well as the already sort of solved problem of travelling however many thousands of miles.

I simply don't see this as a major problem - we're already studying all these things on the ISS.

It goes without saying that the initial bases would require regular supply from Earth, which includes the "power plant" (either solar panels or nuclear sources of energy). Water and oxygen can be both obtained on the moon. With these two present, a permanent settlements becomes a possibility.

To do the very expensive bit (travelling however many thousands of miles) without the other 2 just seems to me a waste.

That is why nobody wants to go there to plant another flag. The next order of business (on the Moon) for everybody (who wants to go there) is to establish a permanent base.

Of course not everything is about the military, but don't forget you sent me a report which said space would be one of the areas China would definitely try to control in any ocnflict with the US. It's not the only relevant aspect to this, but it is relevant.

I don't think the Moon would be of much use from the military standpoint. But as I said, since the Moon will be a springboard to the rest of the SolSys, it can give them other very real advantages later.

You can insult me all you want. But what you do not understand is that for any conceivable science budget, this trip to the moon has less ROI than virtually any other scientific program.

I am not insulting you, unless you want to take insult at every little thing.

I maintain that space exploration&utilization is not only affordable, but also necessary for any major country which wants to maintain or expand its influence, prestige, knowledge and technological prowess.

Your arguments against the return to the Moon could be used against practically any kind of "large" science projects - the Antarctic stations, deep sea expeditions, thermonuclear fusion experimental facilities, large particle accelerators, etc. It all costs money and the short term benefits are not very clear (except of course the common benefit of keeping scientists and hi-tech industries busy).

 

[Lone Wolf]

good. when i look at the moon and remember that the united $tate$ of amerikkka was the last only only country to set foot on it, i am disgusted. glorious china will alleviate my concerns.

 

[Winner]

How is launching the two most potent scientific intruments currently used by any space program into space constitute "giving up space?"

This question doesn't make much sense, given that we're talking about the manned space exploration in this thread. Fortunately, NASA is still doing a lot of good in the other areas.

Actually Europe is launching the James Webb telescope, but that's beside the point.

But seriously, there is something special about manned spaceflight. Perhaps it doesn't seem to pay off at first, but I bet astronauts have inspired more people people to study astronomy and space engineering than even the Hubble telescope ever could.

Exactly. Despite all the pomp, we're still social apes, we need something to relate to, therefore people naturally look for human dimension in practically any endeavour. Just look at how people talk about the Mars rovers - almost as if they were living things.

Apollo, despite being basically a pissing contest with the Russians, inspired a lot of today's engineers and scientists. It also greatly accelerated the development of many technologies, so the overall costs must be seen in this perspective too.

That said, I believe more has to be done to reignite public interest in space. I don't see how this could be done without sending humans to other planetary bodies. Sending robotic probes is cool, but it will never resonate as much as a human cosmonaut telling people how it feels, what it is like to actually go and explore.

The Chinese and American programs are simply different, but it is worth noting that the Chinese program is simply walking in our (rather old) footsteps, not really contributing anything to science whatsoever. Which is fine, you don't have to be motivated by science all the time (we certainly weren't) but in the mean time the US is still doing real science.

Chinese space programme is very military oriented, true. It's also meant to boost China's international prestige, no question about that either. What's more interesting is that it is accelerating and science is starting to creep in. China plans an extensive lunar and later Mars exploration with robotic probes (it's record in this area has been pathetic) and given the resources, both economic and human, China has the potential to overcome practically anybody on this planet provided it remains committed to its goals.

You're forgetting history. The reason the moon landings ended was because the US won the space race against the evil communists and so didn't need to keep proving it by wasting money on needless public relations exhibitions. That was the whole reason for the space race in the first place-- one big PR pissing contest.

How am I forgetting this?

So they will return to the same place we've already been and find it to be as useless as we did, but prove they can do it too. Who is this supposed to impress exactly?

Please try to read what's been said in this thread before you post. It feels like I am answering the same question over and over again. It's not about getting back to the Moon to plant another flag, photograph few footprints, and get back. Look, I'll try to show it on the example of Antarctica:

The first expeditions to the South Pole were a sort of Apollo of the early 20th century - prestige stunts to impress domestic audience. There was little scientific value in them, they were costly and people died in them. But here we are today - there are large research stations in Antarctica with thousands of people doing important and interesting science there. If it wasn't for the Antarctic Treaty, maybe some companies would have already started exploiting its natural resources.

We're now at the point when returning to the Moon is perfectly doable and when we can actually do something useful there. So tell me, why shouldn't we (humans, I don't care who does it at the moment)? How does it make more sense to spend billions in pointless activities here on Earth? What's the price of one new aircraft carrier or one new nuclear submarine? If we (humans) allocated adequate resources to space exploration, it could yield benefits much sooner than we expect today.

(for the record, the combined budget of all space agencies on Earth is less than $45 billion. That's roughly 0.07% of the world's GDP and about 7% of the amount of money the US spends on its armed forces annually.

In light of this, I simply CANNOT accept any costs-based argument.

 

[illram]

So when can we start telling China we were walking on the moon when they were in diapers? Can we start now? I'd like to start now.

 

[Karalysia]

united $tate$ of amerikkka

United $atan of AmeriKKKa$tan is how all the cool kids say it now.

 

[Cutlass]

I simply don't see this as a major problem - we're already studying all these things on the ISS.

It goes without saying that the initial bases would require regular supply from Earth, which includes the "power plant" (either solar panels or nuclear sources of energy). Water and oxygen can be both obtained on the moon. With these two present, a permanent settlements becomes a possibility.



That is why nobody wants to go there to plant another flag. The next order of business (on the Moon) for everybody (who wants to go there) is to establish a permanent base.



I don't think the Moon would be of much use from the military standpoint. But as I said, since the Moon will be a springboard to the rest of the SolSys, it can give them other very real advantages later.



I am not insulting you, unless you want to take insult at every little thing.

I maintain that space exploration&utilization is not only affordable, but also necessary for any major country which wants to maintain or expand its influence, prestige, knowledge and technological prowess.

Your arguments against the return to the Moon could be used against practically any kind of "large" science projects - the Antarctic stations, deep sea expeditions, thermonuclear fusion experimental facilities, large particle accelerators, etc. It all costs money and the short term benefits are not very clear (except of course the common benefit of keeping scientists and hi-tech industries busy).

But we are still doing space science. All that is being canceled is one over priced, mismanaged, publicity stunt.

 

[Patroklos]

It appears talk of the US departing the realm of manned space flight were premature.

SpaceX Says Falcon 9 Rocket Test Fire Is a Success

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - Space Exploration Technologies successfully test fired its Falcon 9 rocket this weekend, clearing a milestone toward the inaugural flight of a privately developed spaceship to fly cargo, and possibly astronauts, into orbit, the company said.

Saturday's 3.5-second 'static' firing of the Falcon's nine kerosene and liquid oxygen-burning motors took place on a refurbished oceanside launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. It followed an earlier firing test aborted last week due to an improperly configured valve.

The successful test by California-based SpaceX clears the way for Falcon 9's debut mission -- a demonstration flight which could take place as early as April 12 from the same launch site, just south of the space shuttle launch pads at the Kennedy Space Center.

President Barack Obama has proposed adding $6 billion to space agency NASA's budget over the next five years to help private firms like SpaceX develop spaceships that can ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station, which he wants to continue until at least 2020.

With the NASA shuttle fleet retiring due to safety and cost concerns, the U.S. agency has turned over space station crew transport to the Russian government at a cost of about $51 million per seat.

Obama plans to hold a summit in Florida next month to discuss the U.S. space plans and industry.

SpaceX, owned and operated by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk, already holds NASA contracts worth nearly $1.9 billion to develop and fly Falcon 9 rockets and Dragon capsules for space station cargo resupply missions.

Virginia-based Orbital Sciences Corp has NASA contracts of similar value for its Taurus II-Cygnus system, which is scheduled to debut next year.

SpaceX says it needs about three years to develop a launch escape system for Dragon and other upgrades to have Falcon 9 ready for passenger service

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10099249

Not only that, but the US proves its the only nation with a truely viable private space industry, a HUGE step needed in order to exploit space.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Please try to read what's been said in this thread before you post. It feels like I am answering the same question over and over again. It's not about getting back to the Moon to plant another flag, photograph few footprints, and get back. Look, I'll try to show it on the example of Antarctica:

The first expeditions to the South Pole were a sort of Apollo of the early 20th century - prestige stunts to impress domestic audience. There was little scientific value in them, they were costly and people died in them. But here we are today - there are large research stations in Antarctica with thousands of people doing important and interesting science there. If it wasn't for the Antarctic Treaty, maybe some companies would have already started exploiting its natural resources.

We're now at the point when returning to the Moon is perfectly doable and when we can actually do something useful there. So tell me, why shouldn't we (humans, I don't care who does it at the moment)? How does it make more sense to spend billions in pointless activities here on Earth? What's the price of one new aircraft carrier or one new nuclear submarine? If we (humans) allocated adequate resources to space exploration, it could yield benefits much sooner than we expect today.

The comparison is quite apt, because aside from a few scientific expeditions and research stations, Antarctica has been largely useless. The difference is that missions to the moon are orders of magnitude costlier and riskier to the lives of the crew than any sea voyage southward. If all you're proposing is some interesting scientific discoveries that are of amusement to scientists but will lead to little substance for life on Earth, you cannot convince anyone to fund it. Not unless you make those research stations and missions less of a risk to both human life and money. Then it will be worth the cost on both counts. I would suggest focusing on developing cheaper launch vehicles, so that missions are a far easier venture. I don't even understand the point of even trying to launch any manned missions without solving the problem of high launch costs just to leave Earth orbit. That is literally like putting the cart before even owning the horse.

 

[classical_hero]

I have to say I can see both sides here... but I lean towards the argument that the US should still be exploring space, but if they want to leave it to the Russians and the Chinese even moreso, then more fool them.

Of course the money could be better spent elsewhere, but as has been pointed out, it's a drop in the ocean. Getting ahead (or maybe even just not falling behind) in exploration and science is just plain short-sighted. I certaintly have no desire to see the US keep a monopoly on space, but they will end up regretting it if China ends up militarising and having a huge advantage over them.

They are still exploring space, just that they are not going back to the moon. A big difference.

@Winner. Return of Investment is a very valid reason for doing space exploration, including manned missions to the moon. The thing is that everything that has been done on the moon has been done and it is a pointless exercise to do it now, thus it is not a great return on investment and thus it is not worth doing, whereas a lot of the current space probes are sending back lots of vital information that is giving us greater knowledge of the solar system and the universe around us. This why once we have found out where Pandora is, we will have the will to go to that planet and mine it to the core.

 

[Winner]

But we are still doing space science. All that is being canceled is one over priced, mismanaged, publicity stunt.

Yes, and Obama is a universal genius.

Sorry, but what do you expect me to say? Constellation was not conceived as a publicity stunt and its aim wasn't to do useless things for publicity reasons. If you keep telling me that, you should perhaps try to be more concrete.

It appears talk of the US departing the realm of manned space flight were premature.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10099249

Not only that, but the US proves its the only nation with a truely viable private space industry, a HUGE step needed in order to exploit space.

I fail to see what's so huge about it. SpaceX definitely has a lot of supporters, but when you look closely at what it has achieved so far or plans to achieve in the future, it's nothing revolutionary. They've tested a smaller version of their Falcon (1) rocket, which has a success rate of 40%. Yes, that means 3 out of the 5 flights made so far ended in failure.

Now they have their Falcon-9 rocket on the launch pad and they're yet to prove it will fly. Even then, it will take another few flights to determine its safety and reliability. Then the Dragon capsule (first cargo and later perhaps a manned) version will be tested. Dragon capsule is pretty small and low-tech, similar to the early capsules used by the Russians and you Americans in the early years of the space race.

All of this was accomplished in the 1960s. It's nothing truly revolutionary and I am EXTREMELY sceptical about the promised prices. Falcon rockets are still just conventional rockets. They burn kerosene+oxygen to achieve Mach 25, which is roughly the speed you need to enter low earth orbit. Since all parts of the rockets are discarded and subsequently burned in the atmosphere or crashed into the ocean, it's still very wasteful business.

Still SpaceX claims it will profoundly reduce the costs of launching things to space. They will reduce it, if they streamline the production process, but I am afraid that if they can't bend the laws of physics (and they can't), they'll have to cut corners somewhere. Which could result in poor reliability and thus inadequate safety. We'll see. (There is this joke circulating in NASA: "faster, cheaper, better... choose two" ).

One more thing - this company has received a lot of money from NASA, which is different from the previous contracts with United Launch Alliance (Boeing/Lockheed-Martin) how, exactly? They only thing that is new is that NASA doesn't have much control over what SpaceX does with its money. If this is and advantage or not, only time will tell.

 

[Winner]

@Winner. Return of Investment is a very valid reason for doing space exploration, including manned missions to the moon. The thing is that everything that has been done on the moon has been done and it is a pointless exercise to do it now,

Nonsense.
Apollo visits were fairly short, the equipment was primitive and the science wasn't being done by scientists. They barely scratched the surface, but even these short visits resulted in important discoveries.

Now it's time to do real science, go deeper and develop practical ways of obtaining valuable things.

thus it is not a great return on investment and thus it is not worth doing, whereas a lot of the current space probes are sending back lots of vital information that is giving us greater knowledge of the solar system and the universe around us. This why once we have found out where Pandora is, we will have the will to go to that planet and mine it to the core.

No, we'll look at the blurry photos taken by our orbital space telescopes (too bad we didn't build larger ones on the Moon so that we could have obtained sharper images ) and curse the politicians for confining us to low Earth orbit forever, because they couldn't spend extra penny for space exploration at the time they were wasting billions in their election campaigns, wars and other imbecilic things.

Return of investments here seems to be just an euphemism for "I want to make a quick buck". Space exploration obviously doesn't work like that. The long-term benefits, which we should occasionally remind ourselves of, are much more important than short-term gains.

 

[Winner]

Now to the last objection I'll try to demonstrate how the Moon can benefit future space activities.

Say we want to build a base on Mars (I'll kill anybody who dares to say that there is no scientific benefit in it). To make such a base viable, we'll need to transport dozens, hundreds of tons of valuable cargo to its surface.

This would be extremely expensive if we used conventional ways (large rockets launching the cargo directly from Earth to Mars). So we choose to do it smarter. We build solar-powered spacecraft using VASIMR (magnetoplasma) engines. They are very efficient, use very little fuel, but take a long time to transport cargo to Mars. Their huge advantage is that they can be assembled in (comparably) easily accessible low-Earth orbit, and then off they go on their own.

What you need except the engines to make such spacecraft work is the solar panels and some fuel (could be hydrogen). You can manufacture both on the Moon and launch them for assembly to LEO or the Lagrange points. As I already mentioned, it's much easier to launch stuff from the Moon than from Earth, about 22 times easier.

So, a medium-sized lunar base with some industrial infrastructure (such a base could be supplied with similar spacecraft it would help to produce for Mars missions) could easily produce solar panels, fuel and maybe even some basic structural parts for these spacecraft, which would otherwise have to be launched from Earth at much greater cost. The only thing we'd have to launch from Earth would be the cargo itself (and the human crews in faster ships, of course). Other than that, the cargo ships would be pretty independent and very cost effective.

You're right that we need something better than disposable rockets to launch things to space from Earth*, but it will take a long time to develop working, cheap and efficient SSTOs (single-stage to orbit). The fact remains that bases on the Moon could enable us to go out into the Solar System (Mars, the Asteroids, and so forth). The costs at first would be high, but they'd return many, many times over later.

The comparison is quite apt, because aside from a few scientific expeditions and research stations, Antarctica has been largely useless. The difference is that missions to the moon are orders of magnitude costlier and riskier to the lives of the crew than any sea voyage southward. If all you're proposing is some interesting scientific discoveries that are of amusement to scientists but will lead to little substance for life on Earth, you cannot convince anyone to fund it. Not unless you make those research stations and missions less of a risk to both human life and money. Then it will be worth the cost on both counts. I would suggest focusing on developing cheaper launch vehicles, so that missions are a far easier venture. I don't even understand the point of even trying to launch any manned missions without solving the problem of high launch costs just to leave Earth orbit. That is literally like putting the cart before even owning the horse.

--------

* - I love this picture (it shows why fuel depots in space are a necessity - and guess where the fuel would come from... the Moon, perhaps? )

 

[Patroklos]

I fail to see what's so huge about it. SpaceX definitely has a lot of supporters, but when you look closely at what it has achieved so far or plans to achieve in the future, it's nothing revolutionary. They've tested a smaller version of their Falcon (1) rocket, which has a success rate of 40%. Yes, that means 3 out of the 5 flights made so far ended in failure.

Now they have their Falcon-9 rocket on the launch pad and they're yet to prove it will fly. Even then, it will take another few flights to determine its safety and reliability. Then the Dragon capsule (first cargo and later perhaps a manned) version will be tested. Dragon capsule is pretty small and low-tech, similar to the early capsules used by the Russians and you Americans in the early years of the space race.

All of this was accomplished in the 1960s. It's nothing truly revolutionary and I am EXTREMELY sceptical about the promised prices. Falcon rockets are still just conventional rockets. They burn kerosene+oxygen to achieve Mach 25, which is roughly the speed you need to enter low earth orbit. Since all parts of the rockets are discarded and subsequently burned in the atmosphere or crashed into the ocean, it's still very wasteful business.

Still SpaceX claims it will profoundly reduce the costs of launching things to space. They will reduce it, if they streamline the production process, but I am afraid that if they can't bend the laws of physics (and they can't), they'll have to cut corners somewhere. Which could result in poor reliability and thus inadequate safety. We'll see. (There is this joke circulating in NASA: "faster, cheaper, better... choose two" ).

One more thing - this company has received a lot of money from NASA, which is different from the previous contracts with United Launch Alliance (Boeing/Lockheed-Martin) how, exactly? They only thing that is new is that NASA doesn't have much control over what SpaceX does with its money. If this is and advantage or not, only time will tell.

I know you fail to see the importance of it, because you have a myopic point of view designed to grind axes as opposed to actually recognize the reality of the future of space flight.

The reason this is important and blows out of the water the entirety of the Chinese efforts you are fanboing over is that it is PRIVATE. If SpaceX can do it, that means any of a dozen major aerospace firms in North America and Europe can do it, and that means a race to the bottom as far as cost per payload in the near future.

Ironically, its this kind of development that makes boondoggles like your moon pipe dreams more likely as such boondoggles are no longer as prohibitively expensive.

As for NASA involvement it is simply as a customer. As you said, design decisions and money allocation are the sole decision of the company. Governments are allowed to buy things. Or are you going to claim every defense project in the Western world is not being accomplished via private firms?

 

[Winner]

I know you fail to see the importance of it, because you have a myopic point of view designed to grind axes as opposed to actually recognize the reality of the future of space flight.

Ad hominem works so great, it's almost like a real argument!

Almost...

The reason this is important and blows out of the water the entirety of the Chinese efforts you are fanboing over is that it is PRIVATE.

Your overusing of "fanboism" doesn't work well either, especially since I am not actually rooting for China, as you could have noticed. You can capitalize "private" as much as you want too, it changes absolutely nothing on the situation.

If SpaceX can do it, that means any of a dozen major aerospace firms in North America and Europe can do it, and that means a race to the bottom as far as cost per payload in the near future.

Do what, Patroklos? You're mixing apples with oranges here. SpaceX and other firms can definitely build a rocket to take people to LEO. They're pretty close to that. But that's nothing special - even though Const. got cancelled, the US still has 2 medium-lift PRIVATEly supplied rockets comparable to SpaceX's Falcon-9 at its disposal. The problem is that these won't get people to the Moon or beyond. That requires much more than a 25-tons-to-LEO class rocket.

Ironically, its this kind of development that makes boondoggles like your moon pipe dreams more likely as such boondoggles are no longer as prohibitively expensive.

Are you capable of discussing at the level of grown-ups, or should I give up?

As for NASA involvement it is simply as a customer. As you said, design decisions and money allocation are the sole decision of the company. Governments are allowed to buy things. Or are you going to claim every defense project in the Western world is not being accomplished via private firms?

The difference is that usually it works like this: the gov. agency/organization determines what it needs and initiates a selection procedure. The firm that offers the best product for the lowest price usually wins. No problem here at all. The problem is when you first need to pour money into a private company so that it can offer you one product that you have to take because you have no other alternative - no matter if it's actually what you need right now.

There are many people who are deluding themselves that SpaceX will deliver a miraculous machine which will cut the space launch costs by half or something. I'll believe it when I see it.

In any case, if China goes forward and develops a true heavy-lift rocket, it will be able to do more in deep space than anybody else.

 

[Yared]

I suppose it must get privatized eventually, but I don't think the state should let go off it just yet.

 

[Winner]

Of course and I am all for that. I just don't understand why should NASA cancel everything and pray to God (Americans are good at that) that private companies miraculously deliver everything cheaper, safer and on time.

I didn't mention there are types of rockets the private sector won't be able to provide on its own in the foreseeable future, simply because there isn't market for them, and this includes the extra-heavy-lift boosters which were to be developed as part of the Constellation programme.

Until there is a truly booming space industry, which is still decades in the future, there should be back-up options. Putting all eggs in one basket isn't exactly prudent.

---

BTW, wouldn't it be great if ESA decided to fund this:


Link to video.

It's one of the few SSTOs which could work. I know ESA has funded some initial feasibility studies and that this concept has some supporter among ESA scientists, however I doubt things will move forward under current funding...