Posted on 06/18/2003 12:18:20 PM PDT by swarthyguy
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:03:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Are the Chinese serious about human space flight? Most definitely. And they are interested in doing more than simply going to low Earth orbit. They are headed for the moon. For most of last year, the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry looked at our nation's position relative to our global competition. Clearly, the Europeans are determined to challenge our preeminence in commercial aviation, and the challenge to our leadership in space is coming from the Pacific Rim. The conclusion that the Chinese are engaged in an aggressive space program is my own, based upon the commission's findings, but not included in the panel's final report. What we saw and heard during our year of hearings and investigation convinced me that China intends to be on the moon within a decade and will announce they are there for a permanent stay. An investment of less than 1 percent of their growth revenues over the next decade would provide revenue for a very robust program. When the aerospace commission visited the Russian cosmonaut training facility at Star City, we found a Chinese crew in residence. Since the Chinese space program seems to be basing its technology on Russian equipment, the presence of Chinese in Star City was not all that surprising. But where they were training was. The day we were visiting, the Chinese crew was utilizing the EVA (extra-vehicular activity) building. You do not train for EVAs if you are doing simple orbital missions. EVAs are typically related to space-based construction work. Put the Star City experience together with some direct discussions on the Pacific Rim and the picture becomes clear. Many Japanese space observers are convinced that China has a moon program and that, ultimately, Japan may be drawn into the competition. India already has created its own moon mission, in large part because they are monitoring Chinese space efforts. At my Washington office a few weeks ago, I met with a visiting Japanese parliamentarian who specializes in science and technology issues. I related to him my belief that the Chinese would be on the moon within a decade with a declaration of permanent occupation. He disagreed. He smiled and said my conclusion was accurate but my timing was off. In his view, the Chinese would be on the moon within three to four years. Regardless of who is right about the time frame, and I still believe that even a decade is ambitious, the fact remains that the Chinese are devoting resources and gearing up to do something that we are no longer technologically capable of achieving in the immediate future. We went to the moon, planted our flag, gathered samples, took credit for an amazing achievement in human history and then abandoned the effort. The space technology available to us today could not be used to replicate what we did 35 years ago. For many Americans, our inability to compete in a new moon race will not be important. Been there, done that. But for our strategic thinkers and planners, there are some serious questions that arise from a Chinese moon capability. First, a nation with the technological capacity to do a sustained moon program would have achieved an ability to build, integrate and utilize spacecraft. Without even ascribing any hostile intent to such a capability, our strategic planners would have to acknowledge the profound impact on the balance of power. Second, the Chinese have a long history of undertaking projects designed to enhance their national image. As the second nation ever to land humans on the lunar surface, China would attain international prestige. As the nation that establishes a permanent presence on the moon, the Chinese would have an ongoing international impact. Third, as the nation in position to exploit moon resources, China could leapfrog the world in some important earthbound technologies. Scientists have acknowledged the usefulness of H3 in helping achieve nuclear fusion success. The moon appears to be a large source of naturally occurring H3, a commodity that would be of such value that the transport back to Earth would be economically feasible. So far, there has been little recognition of or concern about the Chinese moon program in U.S. policy circles. But it represents a real challenge to our leadership role in space. Our response to the challenge should be aimed not at another moon program of our own, but the development of technologies that would give us the option of several different missions within a decade. Building new propulsion systems, such as nuclear plasma engines, would provide us with the ability to go back to the moon, but also to go to Mars in a mission taking weeks rather than months. The Chinese moon program appears to be a go whether we get back in the game or not. Space dominance is a 21st-century challenge we dare not refuse. The aerospace commission concluded that stretching our technological reach with new power and propulsion options and developing the capacity to get to low Earth orbit regularly and less expensively would help us hold our space leadership position well into the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Wait til they guy to the moon. They'll use his lunar lander as a residence until subsequent Chinese ships arrive to expand what will be a colony and/or to take the first astronauts back.
They don't have to bring the first guys back for a long time. Mir has shown that a crew could survive in space on the moon for a while.
Then they claim title to the moon or the part they're on.
Then what?
Are the Chinese serious about human space flight? Most definitely. And they are interested in doing more than simply going to low Earth orbit. They are headed for the moon. For most of last year, the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry looked at our nation's position relative to our global competition.
Clearly, the Europeans are determined to challenge our preeminence in commercial aviation, and the challenge to our leadership in space is coming from the Pacific Rim. The conclusion that the Chinese are engaged in an aggressive space program is my own, based upon the commission's findings, but not included in the panel's final report. What we saw and heard during our year of hearings and investigation convinced me that China intends to be on the moon within a decade and will announce they are there for a permanent stay. An investment of less than 1 percent of their growth revenues over the next decade would provide revenue for a very robust program.
When the aerospace commission visited the Russian cosmonaut training facility at Star City, we found a Chinese crew in residence. Since the Chinese space program seems to be basing its technology on Russian equipment, the presence of Chinese in Star City was not all that surprising. But where they were training was.
The day we were visiting, the Chinese crew was utilizing the EVA (extra-vehicular activity) building. You do not train for EVAs if you are doing simple orbital missions. EVAs are typically related to space-based construction work. Put the Star City experience together with some direct discussions on the Pacific Rim and the picture becomes clear. Many Japanese space observers are convinced that China has a moon program and that, ultimately, Japan may be drawn into the competition.
India already has created its own moon mission, in large part because they are monitoring Chinese space efforts. At my Washington office a few weeks ago, I met with a visiting Japanese parliamentarian who specializes in science and technology issues. I related to him my belief that the Chinese would be on the moon within a decade with a declaration of permanent occupation. He disagreed. He smiled and said my conclusion was accurate but my timing was off. In his view, the Chinese would be on the moon within three to four years.
Regardless of who is right about the time frame, and I still believe that even a decade is ambitious, the fact remains that the Chinese are devoting resources and gearing up to do something that we are no longer technologically capable of achieving in the immediate future. We went to the moon, planted our flag, gathered samples, took credit for an amazing achievement in human history and then abandoned the effort. The space technology available to us today could not be used to replicate what we did 35 years ago.
For many Americans, our inability to compete in a new moon race will not be important. Been there, done that. But for our strategic thinkers and planners, there are some serious questions that arise from a Chinese moon capability.
First, a nation with the technological capacity to do a sustained moon program would have achieved an ability to build, integrate and utilize spacecraft. Without even ascribing any hostile intent to such a capability, our strategic planners would have to acknowledge the profound impact on the balance of power.
Second, the Chinese have a long history of undertaking projects designed to enhance their national image. As the second nation ever to land humans on the lunar surface, China would attain international prestige. As the nation that establishes a permanent presence on the moon, the Chinese would have an ongoing international impact.
Third, as the nation in position to exploit moon resources, China could leapfrog the world in some important earthbound technologies. Scientists have acknowledged the usefulness of H3 in helping achieve nuclear fusion success. The moon appears to be a large source of naturally occurring H3, a commodity that would be of such value that the transport back to Earth would be economically feasible.
So far, there has been little recognition of or concern about the Chinese moon program in U.S. policy circles. But it represents a real challenge to our leadership role in space. Our response to the challenge should be aimed not at another moon program of our own, but the development of technologies that would give us the option of several different missions within a decade.
Building new propulsion systems, such as nuclear plasma engines, would provide us with the ability to go back to the moon, but also to go to Mars in a mission taking weeks rather than months.
The Chinese moon program appears to be a go whether we get back in the game or not. Space dominance is a 21st-century challenge we dare not refuse. The aerospace commission concluded that stretching our technological reach with new power and propulsion options and developing the capacity to get to low Earth orbit regularly and less expensively would help us hold our space leadership position well into the future.
Two reasons: (1) There may be water at the south pole;
. . . . . . . . . . . ( 2) China is going to the moon.
Hell, they've got so many people, that they can afford to send a lot of them up... Who cares about a heat-shield for re-entry??? After all, there is a large "pool" of guinea pigs, lounging in prison for political crimes like thinking the wrong thing....
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the hard part bringing them back alive? If this aspect isn't a real consideration for them (which, I suspect, is closer to the truth than they would care to admit)....? Then yes, they're very serious about sending people into space....
Be well,
Their "30 year" plan is to have a base sometime after 2030. I believe their will be a plethora of private companies that will be there waiting when they arrive. In fact NASA will not be going anywhere beyond low Earth orbit for the forseeable future. However, private space efforts are about to leave the big, socialist, only-the-government-can-do-it mindset in the dust. Major changes are about to happen in regards to humanity reaching outwards into space and NASA will be a non-factor.
The only problem with that was back in the early 60s and late 50s when it was thought that one country [USSR, of course, USA would never do such a thing] would station nuke warheads in orbit and so reduce the warning time in case of attack to minutes instead of half an hour. The whole anti-'weapons in space' campaign began and should have ended with that. The idea that someone might put something in orbit that would eat enemy satellites is small potatoes by comparison.
Chemical boosters are hopeless for getting to LEO, and make the cost per pound of payload FOB Luna prohibitive. You have to haul up people, habs, food, water, air, spares, other supplies, and return vehicles. You have to haul the propellant for the return vehicles or the equipment for manufacturing it. Apollo cost ~27 billion bucks in then-year dollars. Establishing a permanent colony on the Moon would probably cost $50-$100 billion.
The only way to make our culture a spacefaring one is to stop developing rockets. Use the ones we have, and put all development money into space elevators ("skyhooks"). Once the first 30,000 ft/s of delta-vee is out of the way, the sky really is the limit.
--Boris (a rocket guy for 28 years)
I read up once on space elevators, stationing the top of the elevator in geosychronous orbit. Until some amazing breakthrough in materials is made, this sounds like a pipe dream. I can't remember how thick the cable has to be, but it was literally miles in diameter.
Of course I have no background in rocketry, etc., but I figure they will be around for awhile. Whatever has become of all the "exotic" engines for getting into space?
You are incorrect.
"Of course I have no background in rocketry, etc., but I figure they will be around for awhile. Whatever has become of all the "exotic" engines for getting into space?"
The problem is that we live at the bottom of a 'gravity well' which is 30,000 ft/sec deep. To claw one's way up on a rocket is the only current means but it is highly inefficient. The "Orion" (atom-bomb-powered) concept would work but could not be launched from the surface due to political and environmental concerns.
In general, thermal rockets consume ~20 kilowatts per pound of thrust generated. A single SSME (there are 3 on each shuttle) generates about 6.5 MEGAwatts. The fuel pump alone (on each engine) uses about the same power as a diesel locomotive and weighs about 900 lb (if I recall correctly).
"Exotic" engines are generally non-thermal. They offer very high performance (efficiency) but very low thrusts. Such engines are suited for space operation (in vacuum, if you have lots of time to build up speed). Some concepts have performance 10 or more times the best chemical rockets but thrusts in the 1-lb range. A solar-powered rocket could concievably generate 50 lb of thrust at about 900 seconds of specific impulse.
So there's the trade: high thrust and low performance OR low thrust and high performance.
Before someone mentions NERVA/Kiwi (Nuclear thermal rockets)--yes, they work, they have very good performance (about twice that of chemical engines) BUT their weight makes them hopeless as launch engines. Thrust-to-weight of ~10. The SSME has a thrust-to-weight of 70 or more. And the crazies would never let you build or test a nuclear thermal rocket on Earth.
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.