aero04 0 #1 October 16, 2003 So what does everyone else think? Is there a chance in hell of another "space race" now that China has sent someone up? Here is a bit from cnn. I sure hope a "race" of some sort begins. I'll have a degree in aerospace engineering in May and this would be excellent for the aerospace industry. Unfortunately, my cynical half thinks the majority of Americans don't see the space program as all that important and the thought of China eventually passing us in space technology does not concern them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkvapor 0 #2 October 16, 2003 I don't think the race will involve America. I think the next race is going to be with countries more similar to China in terms of technological advancement. India, Pakistan, maybe even some Middle Eastern countries. The american aerospace market is horrible though. In a survey of aerospace industry workers, asked if they would recommend the industry to their children, something like 3 out of 4 said no. It is rough. The pay is par with other engineering disciplines, but still not enough. You can make more money doing something else. There is a lot of beauracracy in the system, and I think a lot of engineers are getting jaded. Part of it is government, they have gotten so accustomed to us being an aerospace powerhouse, that they cut funding and research. Meh.. it's too early in the morning for me to really rant. If this thread takes off some more, I will rant later.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,162 #3 October 16, 2003 Quote I'll have a degree in aerospace engineering in May Quote Job market for Aeros sucks. Suggest you add another string to your bow - maybe Mechanical or Materials.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 643 #4 October 16, 2003 We wonder what the long term goal is for the Chinese space program. Considering the capabilities of unmanned satellites, one has to wonder if putting a man in orbit is more than merely an ego issue. ????? What are your thoughts people????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,121 #5 October 16, 2003 >I don't think the race will involve America. I think the next race is > going to be with countries more similar to China in terms of > technological advancement. India, Pakistan, maybe even some > Middle Eastern countries. I agree. The first person to walk on Mars won't be an American or a European. We've lost too much - the courage to risk our lives doing something dangerous, the fortitude to sacrifice comforts to achieve something worthwhile, the desire for greatness. Great Britain used its navy to expand its tiny island nation into an empire that spread around the world. China (or India) may take the same approach to the solar system, but I have a feeling we won't be very involved with that effort. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,121 #6 October 16, 2003 >We wonder what the long term goal is for the Chinese space program. They have stated they are aiming for a lunar base by 2010. Interestingly, the design of their spacecraft is nearly ideal for a EOR (earth orbit rendezvous) lunar mission. (For reference, we went with the lunar orbit rendezvous mission format, where the 'return' vehicle parked in lunar rather than earth orbit while the lander was on the surface.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #7 October 16, 2003 We had better get our butts in gear or they will think that they own the moon.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kiltboy 0 #8 October 16, 2003 You can only conquer with the cunning use of flags, hence the no flag no country rule. The US already has a flag there so you should be all set. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,121 #9 October 16, 2003 >We had better get our butts in gear or they will think that they own the moon. Hey, if they have people there, they _will_ own the moon. Possession is 9/10 of the law and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #10 October 16, 2003 Quote>We had better get our butts in gear or they will think that they own the moon. Hey, if they have people there, they _will_ own the moon. Possession is 9/10 of the law and all that. We should have just lowered Mir down there and occupied it.... Seems pretty simple... Just launch a shuttle every six months or so with a payload of supplies...I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aero04 0 #11 October 16, 2003 Quote>I don't think the race will involve America. I think the next race is > going to be with countries more similar to China in terms of > technological advancement. India, Pakistan, maybe even some > Middle Eastern countries. I agree. The first person to walk on Mars won't be an American or a European. We've lost too much - the courage to risk our lives doing something dangerous, the fortitude to sacrifice comforts to achieve something worthwhile, the desire for greatness. My thoughts exactly. Damn shame too. But I hope beyond words your wrong. I hate the idea of sitting on the sidelines and watch someone else go back to the moon or or take that first step on mars. edited for clarity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites darkvapor 0 #12 October 27, 2003 QuoteMy thoughts exactly. Damn shame too. But I hope beyond words your wrong. I hate the idea of sitting on the sidelines and watch someone else go back to the moon or or take that first step on mars. I know exactly how you feel. It's certainly nice that there is a slight resurgence in the aerospace engineering youth, however, there remains a huge gap between the young and the old. Something like the median age of an AE is like late 40s and early 50s. The result is that the aerospace industry is left run by managers and politicians and not engineers. Government isn't going to be pushing for research and development like they did during the Cold War. And everything is so success driven, that there will be very few attempts to challenge previous thought and try to really accomplish something great. Look at the Columbia disaster; while the loss of a space shuttle and 7 astronauts is a devasting loss, it is a small price to pay for the knowledge gained, the human experience, and the technological breakthrough of space travel. And days later, the media, and just about everyone else, were screaming that we need to stop space travel all together and stick to sending communication satellites up. And no one wants to fund the research necessary for a new "shuttle" technology. Everyone wants a one size fits all solution. Along with a "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" mentality. Look at the JSF program. While there are a few components that are technologically brilliant, it is not an amazing feat of engineering. I doubt we will ever see the likes of the SR-71, and other planes that were really a break-away from conventional thought. With most entry level AE jobs will just be stuck writing FORTRAN simulation code all day, it is no wonder there are so many new grads that just get jaded after a few years. Enjoy school while you are still in it. It's probably going to be the best taste of real engineering work you might see for a while. I'm an AE as well. I'm also still in school, but I've been cooping for a while now, so I've got a decent taste of the job industry. While it's fun and pays the bills now, it's not going to keep me satiated for very long. As soon as I finish my AE degree, I'm going for a MS in another engineering field. Don't get me wrong, an AE degree is very nice to have. Although many say to get an ME degree instead, an AE can do everything an ME can, and then some. In most top engineering schools, an AE degree is much more intensive than an ME degree. Personally, I think an AE degree is a good place to start, but not a good place to stop. While there are some very good AE jobs out there, there are many that are not. I think I've gotten a bit off-topic, but I finally got around to ranting.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #13 October 27, 2003 I wish it would, but I don't think it will. It would be nice to see us striving to move outside and explore the rest of the universe, but you could make the argument that we need to solve our problems here on earth before we take those same problems to other planets. America isn't interested in human achievement, and I really don't think it ever has been. The space race of decades ago was fueled by fear, not by a desire to increase human potential. Right now, in terms of space exploration, we don't have anything to fear from a country that is technically decades behind us. America is interested in money, and it will continue to take only baby-steps in space exploration until there is an economic incentive to do so. All those interplanetary probes that are always scanning for heat and water should be scanning for gold or diamonds. You can bet if there was gold on Mars, we would be halfway there by now. The next space race won't be between countries. It will be between corporations that are trying to extract a profit from whatever dollars are out there.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #14 October 27, 2003 A few late night thoughts from TheAnvil on the space situation. Random and such. Space Race - China has managed to do something we did years ago. With help from the Russki's. Good for them. Great achievement, don't get me wrong, but even if they were to send a man to the moon, they would be doing something we did YEARS AGO. They are welcomed into the first grade. We're in high school. Chinese Moon Base: 2010 is optimistic as HELL given the fact that they first orbited in '03. Possible? 50-50. Likely - hell no. Also - look at the logistics and resupply. A 'cycler' type resupply ship could POSSIBLY be built, but could China afford such an undertaking? Look at the % GNP they put just to getting to that first orbit. Also look at how intent they are on modernizing their military. I don't think the 2010 goal for a lunar base all that realistic. Add 10 years to that and - perhaps. Mars. Isp, my friends. Isp. It takes a ton to get there. I think that we COULD actually do such a thing, and also think that if we were to set such as a national goal and had the will to actually reach it, good things would come out of it. Unfortunately, I think it unlikely to happen. THe travel time, $$, will, and technological feats combined make this an unlikely venture anytime in the near future. I really think some advance in propulsion technology will be required to make this a palatable option for some folk. Space industry. We're in the hurt locker here. Look at the age demographics of many of our space comapanies. Scary. We're going to be losing a lot of 'tribal knowledge' due to retirements pretty soon with few replacements in the works with a lot of experience. Lockheed has been doing some new hires as of late - kudos to them. Some of them are even hot-chick skydivers. Yaawn. I'm tired. I could talk about this all day/nite. Early AM run in the works for TheAnvil to start the week off right. Beers to all, Vinny the AnvilVinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #15 October 27, 2003 Haven't we al find of forgot the original idea behind the "space-race" of the 1950's-60's? the fact tht "we can put a manned space capsule into orbit, and bring it down intact anywhere we want when we want" Skylab, Salyut: We can put a manned missile platform up there and keep it manned!" Moon landings: No-one went back 'cos from a military point of view it wasn't cost effective and the moon, being a ball of dirt had nothing (especially water) to help sustain a moon base which would have made a very visible doosday deterrent. The advent of the Trident class of missile submarines with their effective invisibility killed the space race. While "national prestige" was a wonderful reason, sending the appropriate message was the real motivation. So what have the Chinese really said? Up to now their nuclear deterrent was relatively short range, detectable and strikable. They have pronounced themselves a world power by showing their ability to put a manned spacecraft into orbit, and bring it down safely (and with the cargo fully functioning) anywhere they want. Cynical? Moi? Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites darkvapor 0 #16 October 27, 2003 Very true. A lot of the aerospace industry is (or was) driven by political posturing. 'Our country has a bigger dick than your country!' ... However, a lot of people within the industry felt that it was noble and very much worth doing. Back in the Cold War, I was told (by several of my professors) that one of the most patriotic things you can do for your country was to be an aerospace engineer. Of course! The commies were about to win! However, past administrations, and many future ones will not put themselves in the situation of another Cold War. At least not on the military and technology side of it. Unfortunately, it's going to take a major event before America realizes how far back it is before something initiating another technological push. My personal opinion is that the Columbia shuttle disaster is part of this manifestation. We are falling behind in space technology, with not enough support from the leaders of this country. The aerospace industry's decline will start to show other gaps in technology, unfortunately, with devasting consequences. There is a big workforce gap, there is insufficient new talent being brought and sought into the workforce. It's all about cutting corners and stretching 40 year old technology to its limits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #17 October 27, 2003 Incidentally, I seem to remember that the current shuttle was the "cheap" option. There was another design, more fuel efficient, 100% re-usable, bigger proportional payload, in effect the "2001" space shuttle. But.... A LOT more expensive. I understand that the decision was to "build the cheap one meantime and we'll see..." I doubt that we'll see another push in space technology. The west has already proved all it needs to, does all it feels it has to do, and only uses the "boy-scout / space cadet" public opinion when it wants to. What I do see is a "levelling" of technological achievement. Anyone want to bet against an Indian manned orbit in the next 5 years, closely followed by a Pakistani manned orbit? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #18 October 27, 2003 Political posturing was a major driver in the 50's/60's advances in the space industry. However, saying we're behind in ANY area of space technology with the exception of heavy lift is stretching things WAY WAY WAY too far.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,162 #19 October 27, 2003 QuotePolitical posturing was a major driver in the 50's/60's advances in the space industry. However, saying we're behind in ANY area of space technology with the exception of heavy lift is stretching things WAY WAY WAY too far. I agree - for now. However, the US put a man on the Moon just 8 years after Gagarin's flight. I'm not going to bet that the Chinese can't do it by 2010. They have far better computers and materials and rocket design know-how than the US had in 1963. And right now the US does not have the technology nor the will to go back to the Moon. For that matter, right now we don't even have an operating manned Earth-orbit system. Trouble with a democracy is that all decisions cater to an average IQ of 100.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #20 October 27, 2003 QuoteThey have far better computers and materials and rocket design know-how than the US had in 1963. Shit, my frigg'n TI-83 has more computing power then NASA used to get to the moon.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #21 October 27, 2003 QuoteQuoteThey have far better computers and materials and rocket design know-how than the US had in 1963. Shit, my frigg'n TI-83 has more computing power then NASA used to get to the moon. Dave, a FURBY has more computing power than the LM main flight computer! 4K of ROM, 32K of RAM, system clock speed 300Khz. It was comprised mainly of flatpack XOR gate chips, was the size of a suitcase, and weighed 75 lbs. I have the Grumman source for those figures, BTW. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,121 #22 October 27, 2003 >Isp, my friends. Isp. It takes a ton to get there. We've got a lot of options there. Even with today's chemical rockets, the Mars Direct approach would work. The first mission would require 3 launches of a Saturn-5 type vehicle (or an Energiya) to get the return vehicles and lander there, then every additional mission would require 2 additional launches. There are plenty of options that reduce that further. We've got good designs for NERVA-type nuclear engines, we've flown ion engines, and there are plenty of other options (like VASIMR) that cut trip times and launch weights dramatically. But you don't need any of that stuff if you don't want to develop it - we could get there on chemical rockets alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,121 #23 October 27, 2003 >Incidentally, I seem to remember that the current shuttle was > the "cheap" option. There was another design, more fuel efficient, > 100% re-usable, bigger proportional payload, in effect the "2001" > space shuttle. There were dozens of designs. Flyback boosters, SSTO shuttles, LRB's instead of SRB's. The shuttle is what it is largely because of a limited budget and a requirement to launch (and retrieve) military satellites from Vandenburg. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #24 October 27, 2003 Yes, we could do it now. Check out the costs. I like ion engines - DS1 showed what they can do. Very nice. VASIMR has some promise as well. I don't think we have the will to go however, so I doubt we'll do so anytime soon. good book - THE ORION PROJECT - describes some of the research on nuclear propulsion done way back when. Quite interesting reading.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #25 October 27, 2003 There are a couple of thoughts on this. First, China has demonstrated that it can put a man in orbit. Good for them. Next, and here's what's important, China has also demonstrated to all doubters that it has the technology to deliver a man to any continent (well, maybe not Antarctica - we don't know if there are polar orbit capabilities or a launch site for it). This means that they can deliver weapons, too. Rest assured, part of the reason for the space race was military-political. China can now state global delivery system capabilities. Most knew this before. Now everyone does. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
riggerrob 643 #4 October 16, 2003 We wonder what the long term goal is for the Chinese space program. Considering the capabilities of unmanned satellites, one has to wonder if putting a man in orbit is more than merely an ego issue. ????? What are your thoughts people????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #5 October 16, 2003 >I don't think the race will involve America. I think the next race is > going to be with countries more similar to China in terms of > technological advancement. India, Pakistan, maybe even some > Middle Eastern countries. I agree. The first person to walk on Mars won't be an American or a European. We've lost too much - the courage to risk our lives doing something dangerous, the fortitude to sacrifice comforts to achieve something worthwhile, the desire for greatness. Great Britain used its navy to expand its tiny island nation into an empire that spread around the world. China (or India) may take the same approach to the solar system, but I have a feeling we won't be very involved with that effort. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #6 October 16, 2003 >We wonder what the long term goal is for the Chinese space program. They have stated they are aiming for a lunar base by 2010. Interestingly, the design of their spacecraft is nearly ideal for a EOR (earth orbit rendezvous) lunar mission. (For reference, we went with the lunar orbit rendezvous mission format, where the 'return' vehicle parked in lunar rather than earth orbit while the lander was on the surface.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #7 October 16, 2003 We had better get our butts in gear or they will think that they own the moon.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #8 October 16, 2003 You can only conquer with the cunning use of flags, hence the no flag no country rule. The US already has a flag there so you should be all set. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #9 October 16, 2003 >We had better get our butts in gear or they will think that they own the moon. Hey, if they have people there, they _will_ own the moon. Possession is 9/10 of the law and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #10 October 16, 2003 Quote>We had better get our butts in gear or they will think that they own the moon. Hey, if they have people there, they _will_ own the moon. Possession is 9/10 of the law and all that. We should have just lowered Mir down there and occupied it.... Seems pretty simple... Just launch a shuttle every six months or so with a payload of supplies...I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aero04 0 #11 October 16, 2003 Quote>I don't think the race will involve America. I think the next race is > going to be with countries more similar to China in terms of > technological advancement. India, Pakistan, maybe even some > Middle Eastern countries. I agree. The first person to walk on Mars won't be an American or a European. We've lost too much - the courage to risk our lives doing something dangerous, the fortitude to sacrifice comforts to achieve something worthwhile, the desire for greatness. My thoughts exactly. Damn shame too. But I hope beyond words your wrong. I hate the idea of sitting on the sidelines and watch someone else go back to the moon or or take that first step on mars. edited for clarity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkvapor 0 #12 October 27, 2003 QuoteMy thoughts exactly. Damn shame too. But I hope beyond words your wrong. I hate the idea of sitting on the sidelines and watch someone else go back to the moon or or take that first step on mars. I know exactly how you feel. It's certainly nice that there is a slight resurgence in the aerospace engineering youth, however, there remains a huge gap between the young and the old. Something like the median age of an AE is like late 40s and early 50s. The result is that the aerospace industry is left run by managers and politicians and not engineers. Government isn't going to be pushing for research and development like they did during the Cold War. And everything is so success driven, that there will be very few attempts to challenge previous thought and try to really accomplish something great. Look at the Columbia disaster; while the loss of a space shuttle and 7 astronauts is a devasting loss, it is a small price to pay for the knowledge gained, the human experience, and the technological breakthrough of space travel. And days later, the media, and just about everyone else, were screaming that we need to stop space travel all together and stick to sending communication satellites up. And no one wants to fund the research necessary for a new "shuttle" technology. Everyone wants a one size fits all solution. Along with a "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" mentality. Look at the JSF program. While there are a few components that are technologically brilliant, it is not an amazing feat of engineering. I doubt we will ever see the likes of the SR-71, and other planes that were really a break-away from conventional thought. With most entry level AE jobs will just be stuck writing FORTRAN simulation code all day, it is no wonder there are so many new grads that just get jaded after a few years. Enjoy school while you are still in it. It's probably going to be the best taste of real engineering work you might see for a while. I'm an AE as well. I'm also still in school, but I've been cooping for a while now, so I've got a decent taste of the job industry. While it's fun and pays the bills now, it's not going to keep me satiated for very long. As soon as I finish my AE degree, I'm going for a MS in another engineering field. Don't get me wrong, an AE degree is very nice to have. Although many say to get an ME degree instead, an AE can do everything an ME can, and then some. In most top engineering schools, an AE degree is much more intensive than an ME degree. Personally, I think an AE degree is a good place to start, but not a good place to stop. While there are some very good AE jobs out there, there are many that are not. I think I've gotten a bit off-topic, but I finally got around to ranting.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #13 October 27, 2003 I wish it would, but I don't think it will. It would be nice to see us striving to move outside and explore the rest of the universe, but you could make the argument that we need to solve our problems here on earth before we take those same problems to other planets. America isn't interested in human achievement, and I really don't think it ever has been. The space race of decades ago was fueled by fear, not by a desire to increase human potential. Right now, in terms of space exploration, we don't have anything to fear from a country that is technically decades behind us. America is interested in money, and it will continue to take only baby-steps in space exploration until there is an economic incentive to do so. All those interplanetary probes that are always scanning for heat and water should be scanning for gold or diamonds. You can bet if there was gold on Mars, we would be halfway there by now. The next space race won't be between countries. It will be between corporations that are trying to extract a profit from whatever dollars are out there.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #14 October 27, 2003 A few late night thoughts from TheAnvil on the space situation. Random and such. Space Race - China has managed to do something we did years ago. With help from the Russki's. Good for them. Great achievement, don't get me wrong, but even if they were to send a man to the moon, they would be doing something we did YEARS AGO. They are welcomed into the first grade. We're in high school. Chinese Moon Base: 2010 is optimistic as HELL given the fact that they first orbited in '03. Possible? 50-50. Likely - hell no. Also - look at the logistics and resupply. A 'cycler' type resupply ship could POSSIBLY be built, but could China afford such an undertaking? Look at the % GNP they put just to getting to that first orbit. Also look at how intent they are on modernizing their military. I don't think the 2010 goal for a lunar base all that realistic. Add 10 years to that and - perhaps. Mars. Isp, my friends. Isp. It takes a ton to get there. I think that we COULD actually do such a thing, and also think that if we were to set such as a national goal and had the will to actually reach it, good things would come out of it. Unfortunately, I think it unlikely to happen. THe travel time, $$, will, and technological feats combined make this an unlikely venture anytime in the near future. I really think some advance in propulsion technology will be required to make this a palatable option for some folk. Space industry. We're in the hurt locker here. Look at the age demographics of many of our space comapanies. Scary. We're going to be losing a lot of 'tribal knowledge' due to retirements pretty soon with few replacements in the works with a lot of experience. Lockheed has been doing some new hires as of late - kudos to them. Some of them are even hot-chick skydivers. Yaawn. I'm tired. I could talk about this all day/nite. Early AM run in the works for TheAnvil to start the week off right. Beers to all, Vinny the AnvilVinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #15 October 27, 2003 Haven't we al find of forgot the original idea behind the "space-race" of the 1950's-60's? the fact tht "we can put a manned space capsule into orbit, and bring it down intact anywhere we want when we want" Skylab, Salyut: We can put a manned missile platform up there and keep it manned!" Moon landings: No-one went back 'cos from a military point of view it wasn't cost effective and the moon, being a ball of dirt had nothing (especially water) to help sustain a moon base which would have made a very visible doosday deterrent. The advent of the Trident class of missile submarines with their effective invisibility killed the space race. While "national prestige" was a wonderful reason, sending the appropriate message was the real motivation. So what have the Chinese really said? Up to now their nuclear deterrent was relatively short range, detectable and strikable. They have pronounced themselves a world power by showing their ability to put a manned spacecraft into orbit, and bring it down safely (and with the cargo fully functioning) anywhere they want. Cynical? Moi? Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkvapor 0 #16 October 27, 2003 Very true. A lot of the aerospace industry is (or was) driven by political posturing. 'Our country has a bigger dick than your country!' ... However, a lot of people within the industry felt that it was noble and very much worth doing. Back in the Cold War, I was told (by several of my professors) that one of the most patriotic things you can do for your country was to be an aerospace engineer. Of course! The commies were about to win! However, past administrations, and many future ones will not put themselves in the situation of another Cold War. At least not on the military and technology side of it. Unfortunately, it's going to take a major event before America realizes how far back it is before something initiating another technological push. My personal opinion is that the Columbia shuttle disaster is part of this manifestation. We are falling behind in space technology, with not enough support from the leaders of this country. The aerospace industry's decline will start to show other gaps in technology, unfortunately, with devasting consequences. There is a big workforce gap, there is insufficient new talent being brought and sought into the workforce. It's all about cutting corners and stretching 40 year old technology to its limits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #17 October 27, 2003 Incidentally, I seem to remember that the current shuttle was the "cheap" option. There was another design, more fuel efficient, 100% re-usable, bigger proportional payload, in effect the "2001" space shuttle. But.... A LOT more expensive. I understand that the decision was to "build the cheap one meantime and we'll see..." I doubt that we'll see another push in space technology. The west has already proved all it needs to, does all it feels it has to do, and only uses the "boy-scout / space cadet" public opinion when it wants to. What I do see is a "levelling" of technological achievement. Anyone want to bet against an Indian manned orbit in the next 5 years, closely followed by a Pakistani manned orbit? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #18 October 27, 2003 Political posturing was a major driver in the 50's/60's advances in the space industry. However, saying we're behind in ANY area of space technology with the exception of heavy lift is stretching things WAY WAY WAY too far.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,162 #19 October 27, 2003 QuotePolitical posturing was a major driver in the 50's/60's advances in the space industry. However, saying we're behind in ANY area of space technology with the exception of heavy lift is stretching things WAY WAY WAY too far. I agree - for now. However, the US put a man on the Moon just 8 years after Gagarin's flight. I'm not going to bet that the Chinese can't do it by 2010. They have far better computers and materials and rocket design know-how than the US had in 1963. And right now the US does not have the technology nor the will to go back to the Moon. For that matter, right now we don't even have an operating manned Earth-orbit system. Trouble with a democracy is that all decisions cater to an average IQ of 100.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #20 October 27, 2003 QuoteThey have far better computers and materials and rocket design know-how than the US had in 1963. Shit, my frigg'n TI-83 has more computing power then NASA used to get to the moon.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #21 October 27, 2003 QuoteQuoteThey have far better computers and materials and rocket design know-how than the US had in 1963. Shit, my frigg'n TI-83 has more computing power then NASA used to get to the moon. Dave, a FURBY has more computing power than the LM main flight computer! 4K of ROM, 32K of RAM, system clock speed 300Khz. It was comprised mainly of flatpack XOR gate chips, was the size of a suitcase, and weighed 75 lbs. I have the Grumman source for those figures, BTW. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #22 October 27, 2003 >Isp, my friends. Isp. It takes a ton to get there. We've got a lot of options there. Even with today's chemical rockets, the Mars Direct approach would work. The first mission would require 3 launches of a Saturn-5 type vehicle (or an Energiya) to get the return vehicles and lander there, then every additional mission would require 2 additional launches. There are plenty of options that reduce that further. We've got good designs for NERVA-type nuclear engines, we've flown ion engines, and there are plenty of other options (like VASIMR) that cut trip times and launch weights dramatically. But you don't need any of that stuff if you don't want to develop it - we could get there on chemical rockets alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #23 October 27, 2003 >Incidentally, I seem to remember that the current shuttle was > the "cheap" option. There was another design, more fuel efficient, > 100% re-usable, bigger proportional payload, in effect the "2001" > space shuttle. There were dozens of designs. Flyback boosters, SSTO shuttles, LRB's instead of SRB's. The shuttle is what it is largely because of a limited budget and a requirement to launch (and retrieve) military satellites from Vandenburg. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #24 October 27, 2003 Yes, we could do it now. Check out the costs. I like ion engines - DS1 showed what they can do. Very nice. VASIMR has some promise as well. I don't think we have the will to go however, so I doubt we'll do so anytime soon. good book - THE ORION PROJECT - describes some of the research on nuclear propulsion done way back when. Quite interesting reading.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 October 27, 2003 There are a couple of thoughts on this. First, China has demonstrated that it can put a man in orbit. Good for them. Next, and here's what's important, China has also demonstrated to all doubters that it has the technology to deliver a man to any continent (well, maybe not Antarctica - we don't know if there are polar orbit capabilities or a launch site for it). This means that they can deliver weapons, too. Rest assured, part of the reason for the space race was military-political. China can now state global delivery system capabilities. Most knew this before. Now everyone does. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
