New space race?
- Thread starter Humus
- Start date
Why race a country 40 years behind in technology?
Because in October 2003 there were only two countries on Earth that could put a person in orbit, and the US wasn't one of them.
And while the Shenzhou capsule may be crude it's a derivative of a perfectly useful design (Soyuz) rather than fundamentally flawed like the shuttle.
Because in October 2003 there were only two countries on Earth that could put a person in orbit, and the US wasn't one of them.
And while the Shenzhou capsule may be crude it's a derivative of a perfectly useful design (Soyuz) rather than fundamentally flawed like the shuttle.
I'd buy #5, but #6 doesn't make any political sense. Texas is a strongly republican state. Bush has no worries here for the 2004 race.L233 said:
Your answers are only partially true.Rugor said:
The US could have put a person in space--the shuttles are still quite capable, though they are grounded due to safety concerns.
I don't see how the Soyuz is any more "perfectly useful" than the shuttle.
Well we could easiliy go back to using more disposable vehicles as well.
The space shuttle is completely fine, but it was not supposed to be used this long, or for all that they use it for now. It should have been retired and replaced, but due to cut funding the shuttle has been used for too long.
Now if you are thinking that the shuttle should have had a long lifetime, well that was originally true, but then we were going to have many more of them. The actual number of missions they are performing per shuttle is way higher than the vehicles were planned for.
In any case, I think that multivehicle launchers are the best design, like Rutans, were a jet (way more efficient) takes the rocket to altitude where it launches.
The space shuttle is completely fine, but it was not supposed to be used this long, or for all that they use it for now. It should have been retired and replaced, but due to cut funding the shuttle has been used for too long.
Now if you are thinking that the shuttle should have had a long lifetime, well that was originally true, but then we were going to have many more of them. The actual number of missions they are performing per shuttle is way higher than the vehicles were planned for.
In any case, I think that multivehicle launchers are the best design, like Rutans, were a jet (way more efficient) takes the rocket to altitude where it launches.
horvendile
Regular
jvd said:
But won't we still have to get them to the moon first? And then the moon is just another gravity well to climb up from - if a smaller one than Earth. AFAIK there are virtually no minerals (as in metals) on the moon, so unless you are in dire need of stone there is nothing of use there.
2XBTW:
* A few years ago there was much noise about water possibly being found on the moon. Does anyone know what became of that?
* As a variation of Sxotty's answer earlier, in zero-g you can manufacture e.g. crystals that do not rely on diffusion. You don't have gravity-based diffusion (or at least very little of it) but you aren't entirely free from it; it turns out that surface tension-based diffusion becomes a disturbing factor.
And as an amazing fact, it also turns out that it is easier to make astronauts of experienced crystal manufacturers (or whatever that trade is called in English) than the other way around!
horvendile
Regular
As for the shuttle, I have been taught that the fundamental flaw was one of economy rather than function.
The original plans called for a turnaround time of two weeks, IIRC. That was made impossible when it turned out that testing the termal protection plates takes several months.
The original plans called for a turnaround time of two weeks, IIRC. That was made impossible when it turned out that testing the termal protection plates takes several months.
RussSchultz said:
Yes, #6 probably isn't relevant.
I think he's trying to pull a Kennedy. Give the nation an inspiring new goal. He wants to distract from the fact that he's a liar who started a war under false pretenses. It's a PR stunt. I doubt it will work though because he is not Kennedy, he's Dubya.
Another motivation is probably Adolf Rumsfeld'ss obsession with space war. Researching, designing and deploying new weapons which can dominate the world from space.
And I bet there will be some multi-billion dollar contracts for Halliburton and other major campaign contributors.
horvendile
Regular
Can't we let this be a space thread to humour us SF and space buffs and keep the political war somewhere else? Please?
The shuttle has two fundamental flaws, one on each side. We normally call them wings. The shuttle's wings, which are not necessary for the functions it was actually designed for are a huge problem. They forced the shuttle to the side rather than the top of the stack, rendering a launch escape system so difficult that we haven't been able to implement one. Their leading edges are extremely fragile, much more so than the heat shield on any other spacecraft, yet it is the only such vehicle where the heatshield is exposed to all the stresses and debris of launch. It is also much less resistant to heat than Apollo. Apollo's heat shield could have withstood a direct insertion on a Mars return trajectory, where the shuttle would have difficulty with a direct Lunar return. The wings also limit the shuttle's ability to land. It can only put down where there is a suitable runway.
It turns out that wings aren't very useful on a spacecraft.
As to using the Moon for a base, yes it does suffer the disadvantage of a gravity well, but it also has the advantage of being in a gravity well. If humans are to actually do any physical labor, it's a lot easier in a low-gravity environment than microgravity. It's a matter of adjusting reflexes rather than learning new ones. We also have the advantage of better chance of shielding during solar storms. Moonrock can make an effective radiation shield, and we don't have to haul it there.
It turns out that wings aren't very useful on a spacecraft.
As to using the Moon for a base, yes it does suffer the disadvantage of a gravity well, but it also has the advantage of being in a gravity well. If humans are to actually do any physical labor, it's a lot easier in a low-gravity environment than microgravity. It's a matter of adjusting reflexes rather than learning new ones. We also have the advantage of better chance of shielding during solar storms. Moonrock can make an effective radiation shield, and we don't have to haul it there.
horvendile
Regular
L233 said:
The race, yes. The thread, no. (Hopefully.)
horvendile
Regular
Yes but the latter was starting to dominate over the former, and I've seen where it usually ends. Speaking of taking over, that's exactly what this discussion is about to do, so I'll just try to end it here.
Lord.....
the General board is to politics what the Console board is to finance...
All the threads in the Gen board end up discussing politics, All threads on the console forum end up talking about how the companies will afford X,Y and Z...
i must say, the gen board is getting much worse than the console boeard which is funny to see... may i advise a temporary lock-down of the gen board with subsequent huge thread on the "Site feedback forum" on why, how, when, who for it was closed? it worked WONDERS for the console forum... i'm serious!
the General board is to politics what the Console board is to finance...
All the threads in the Gen board end up discussing politics, All threads on the console forum end up talking about how the companies will afford X,Y and Z...
i must say, the gen board is getting much worse than the console boeard which is funny to see... may i advise a temporary lock-down of the gen board with subsequent huge thread on the "Site feedback forum" on why, how, when, who for it was closed? it worked WONDERS for the console forum... i'm serious!
They allow for a guided re-entry. Allowing it to land at an air-force base, rather than in the middle of the steppes of Kazakhastan.Rugor said:
And what would the Soyuz mid launch escape system be? The problem isn't so much the configuration of the space craft, its the fact that its travelling at Mach 15 in the atmosphere.
That has more to do with the landing gear and the chosen mode of landing, not the wings.
As for minerals on the moon: http://www.permanent.com/l-minera.htm
Using a smelter these minerals could be broken into their constituent elements and reformed into useful materials.
Yes there is water on the pole of the moon to the best of our knowledge.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html
There is all kinds of minerals as was already shown by russ, and the exciting part is that it is usually possible to remove the oxygen from minerals via chemical processes. While they may not be extrememly efficient it is more efficient that shipping it to the moon.
One thing russ, the landing does have to do with both the wings, and the gear. You know that the gear has to withstand way more force than that of one on a 747 or some other huge aircraft. The reason though is because of the lack of large wings to create lift (which means the glide angle is very steep and the force high).
The thing that needs to be done is some kind of extremely heat resistant, strong and durable material needs to be built (yeah that is like saying we need a miracle). But if we could build something that has these characteristics it could have more than those stubby wings, and therefore would change a great deal of the problems of the shuttle. Unfortunately, the new problem would be the dynamic pressue on re-entry would tear the wings off unless they were extremely strong, but the pluses involve having a much safer more forgiving vehicle, a much lighter landing gear assembly, and a shorter runway (i.e. it could land on any regular runway).
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html
There is all kinds of minerals as was already shown by russ, and the exciting part is that it is usually possible to remove the oxygen from minerals via chemical processes. While they may not be extrememly efficient it is more efficient that shipping it to the moon.
One thing russ, the landing does have to do with both the wings, and the gear. You know that the gear has to withstand way more force than that of one on a 747 or some other huge aircraft. The reason though is because of the lack of large wings to create lift (which means the glide angle is very steep and the force high).
The thing that needs to be done is some kind of extremely heat resistant, strong and durable material needs to be built (yeah that is like saying we need a miracle). But if we could build something that has these characteristics it could have more than those stubby wings, and therefore would change a great deal of the problems of the shuttle. Unfortunately, the new problem would be the dynamic pressue on re-entry would tear the wings off unless they were extremely strong, but the pluses involve having a much safer more forgiving vehicle, a much lighter landing gear assembly, and a shorter runway (i.e. it could land on any regular runway).
