Replies

It would probably be easier, less demanding technologically, to go direct to the moon. But in the longer run it would be far more effective to build a base station in earth orbit, another in lunar orbit, and shuttle between them and the surfaces. In that way they can build and maintain a base on the moon. Otherwise they will only visit the moon like NASA did.

It might take a little more fuel, but the advantage is they won't have to carry as much fuel each stage and replace all the hardware each trip. To the moon and back might also take 2 weeks rather than 1 as it was for Apollo, but the pace wouldn't be as hectic and dangerous. The first stage wouldn't have to be a huge Saturn V type of rocket, but several smaller launches, most unmanned.

I like your analysis. I was thinking the exact same thing.

In order for a nation to develop the heavy-lift capability to send a crew to the moon, they must have highly sophisticated propulsion technology and the resources to refine fuel, package it, and use it in a controlled fashion.

I doubt the chinese can build a rocket of that caliber because they lack the materials sciences required. On the other hand, the Klintonistas may have sold them the technology to build such systems. Our national investment in materials sciences lead to the development of the reusable thermal shields involved in reusable spacecraft. Although samples of these items exist in the public domain, the creation of those things by the Chinese would be difficult.

Let's face it. The United States designed, developed, and built the space shuttle orbiter fleet. However, our fleet is 25 years old and is irreplacable. It's high time for NASA to get out of the STS-ISS business and to move on.

Flying the orbiter is like having our naval aviators flying Mustangs. Yes, they're a great vehicle, but it's not appropriate for missions today.