New Space Race: How China Will Win

[Dorian Gray]

China has invested trillions in the US market. Water ice was found on the moon (or signs of it were). China has a full-blown space program, while the US's space program is lacking.

China will win the race to be the first to colonize the moon, because they can collapse our economy by pulling out their money should we try to focus on beating them.

Did they plan it this way? ;)

[drkitten]

China will win the race to be the first to colonize the moon, because they can collapse our economy by pulling out their money should we try to focus on beating them.

Er,.... no. They can't collapse our economy that way any more than you can chop down a tree that you're sitting in. Or rather, you can, but the result in either case will hurt the subject of the verb as much or more than the object.

[Seismosaurus]

Why would anybody want to colonise the moon?

[Donal]

And why is China's space program better than ours? We've been to the moon and send our satellites out of the solar system.

What has China done remotely like those accomplishments?

[Safe-Keeper]

I wouldn't mind seeing some breakthroughs in space exploration, but the enthusiasm is just not there in the world any more. Although I'm a layman when it comes to this subject, I think space tourism is a far more likely thing to hope for. Lots of people seem to share my view on space exploration; that a moon/Mars base would be nice, but not one of the "I have to experience this before I die" deals.

Space tourism, though, that's an entirely different story. To strap yourself in and feel the friction of the rocket during take-off; to see the space station and perhaps a space shuttle up close; to experience the weightlessness of space and see the Earth unfold beneath the space ship... that is something I feel I have to do before I die.

[Whiplash]

Why would anybody want to colonise the moon?

Because it's going to happen, eventually, as well as expansion into other planets and perhaps even other solar systems. If it doesn't, then one day the human race dies, completely, with our sun.

So some want to be first and get choice dibs on good locations and making sure they are a power to be respected and reckoned with as that eventually becomes reality.

[Dorian Gray]

And why is China's space program better than ours? We've been to the moon and send our satellites out of the solar system.

What has China done remotely like those accomplishments?
China's space program is better than ours because it's actively pursuing a moon landing, a Mars landing, and eventual colonization, whereas NASA is.... retiring the Space Shuttles next year and... um... We have no plans to colonize anything, and the only thing we've done is the International Space Station, which is obviously not just us.

Since this is the Conspiracy Theories forum, I can also hilariously say that there is plenty of evidence that we've faked going to the moon...

[Dorian Gray]

I wouldn't mind seeing some breakthroughs in space exploration, but the enthusiasm is just not there in the world any more. Although I'm a layman when it comes to this subject, I think space tourism is a far more likely thing to hope for. Lots of people seem to share my view on space exploration; that a moon/Mars base would be nice, but not one of the "I have to experience this before I die" deals.

Space tourism, though, that's an entirely different story. To strap yourself in and feel the friction of the rocket during take-off; to see the space station and perhaps a space shuttle up close; to experience the weightlessness of space and see the Earth unfold beneath the space ship... that is something I feel I have to do before I die.
Yeah, even the first viable space tourism company is mostly owned by Richard Branson, a Brit. So even private space is not on the US tip, yo.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why would anybody want to colonise the moon?

I don't see any end in sight to the increased use of space. Someday it will be cheaper to get oxygen and aluminum needed in space from the Moon rather than the Earth. Hard to say when that day will come though.

I wouldn't mind seeing some breakthroughs in space exploration, but the enthusiasm is just not there in the world any more. Although I'm a layman when it comes to this subject, I think space tourism is a far more likely thing to hope for.

Space tourism might galvanize public opinion again. But what's wrong with the "enthusiasm" we have now? The world's space capability is growing driven by military security, making money and some amount of scientific curiousity. Those seem more sustainable than fickly public opinion.

[rjh01]

I do not think the Chinese will land a man on Mars any time soon. It is too hard for the USA to do so the Chinese will have no chance.

As for landing a man on the moon, yes they could do it for political reasons, but a colony? What would the function of the colony be? In other words what would it export to the Earth?

The only thing I know is to build huge satellites to generate solar energy to relay to the Earth. Not even sure that will ever be economic.

Edit. One major problem with sending humans to the moon is that you must build a huge rocket (think Saturn 5). This is very difficult thing to do. The Russians never solved this problem.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Edit. One major problem with sending humans to the moon is that you must build a huge rocket (think Saturn 5). This is very difficult thing to do. The Russians never solved this problem.
Well, I think it's clear the Russians were close to solving it. Their Energia booster was in the same class. But more importantly I think it would be a mistake to assume that the way we went to the moon was the best way to do it. It was a politically motivated tour de force. Prior to the push of the 60's most visionaries conceived of more sustainable ways to get to the Moon that didn't involve one huge mission.

[rjh01]

Well, I think it's clear the Russians were close to solving it. Their Energia booster was in the same class.

That proves my point. Their rocket did not work. When you get a huge engine it gets very unstable. The Americans solved the problem by making the engines able to withstand with instability. They proved it by firing explosives into the engine. The Russians tried to solve the problem by only building small engines and lots of them. They lost a lot of rockets. A good book to read is Space Race by Deborah Cadbury.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Are you thinking of the N1 or the Energia? The Energia launched twice successfully (although one had a payload failure). Many of it's components are stil in use, even in a US rocket.

[rjh01]

You are right. I was talking about the N-1 rocket. In 1969 it had 30 engines and a thrust of 4500 tones. I think the number of engines changed over time.

[rjh01]

There have been only two launches of the Energia rocket. One was only partly successful. It ended with the breakup of the USSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_rocket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

[Tolls]

China's space program is better than ours because it's actively pursuing a moon landing, a Mars landing, and eventual colonization, whereas NASA is.... retiring the Space Shuttles next year and... um... We have no plans to colonize anything, and the only thing we've done is the International Space Station, which is obviously not just us.

Since this is the Conspiracy Theories forum, I can also hilariously say that there is plenty of evidence that we've faked going to the moon...

NASA is also pursuing a return to the moon. That's what the Constellation program is all about, with the Orion vehicle and the Ares rockets. Just, sadly, there'll be a gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the new stuff coming on line.

[McHrozni]

China's space program is better than ours because it's actively pursuing a moon landing, a Mars landing, and eventual colonization

A bit of a long shot for a country that had to buy a capsule and a rocked for their trip into Earth orbit, don't you think? Kind of like sniping a man behind a brick wall 5 miles away with a sawed-off shotgun with bird shot is a long shot.

McHrozni

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why does buying already existing functional hardware seem like an impediment to you? I think one of the keys to cheap access to space will be a willingness to outsource to countries with cheap labor. Get rid of the "national pride" aspect.

[Cuddles]

China's space program is better than ours because it's actively pursuing a moon landing

This rather shoots down the premise of the thread. China being the only one actively pursuing a Moon land means that there really isn't a race for them to win.

However, even given that I doubt they will be the first to colonise the Moon. The main reason for the lack of a race is that no-one is interested in colonising it at all. It's just not useful to do so at the moment. We may be able to set up a base there, but we certainly can't get a significant number of people living there, and there's really not much useful they could do there anyway.

[Whiplash]

I've seen some science shows that imply that colonizing the moon would be a huge boon to our future exploration of the rest of the solar system. Because the moon would be a much cheaper place to launch from (less gravity, if nothing else).

While there may not be anything much for people to do there, now, we aren't going to get ourselves going in that direction until we actually do something about it. We gotta get started somewhere. Why NOT colonize the moon? Why not start the ball rolling? I appreciate there are some other real problems in the world, but I don't think they are so insurmountable that we can't also afford to have a space program.

We also don't ever know for certain that a huge asteroid or comet won't pulverise us to oblivion in the near future. While the idea of the only remaining humans being on the moon, or mars, is somewhat depressing.. at least there would be someone left. Maybe they could find a way to survive and thrive.

[Toke]

Sure, launching from the moon require less fuel than from the earth.
Problem is what to launch and with what fuel.

For a moon base to make any sense there will have to be water for fuel, and minerals useful for continuing out in the system.

[Whiplash]

Well, the show I saw actually was showing a potential mars mission that starts from the moon, with some kind of inflatable bag like section that would draw water from the moon to be used as part of the fuel, and then going from there directly to mars. They also made a case for us going first to one of the moons of mars, rather than the red planet itself, as it would be easier and cheaper, and safer. And we could work our way down to the surface from there, over time.

[Toke]

Well, the show I saw actually was showing a potential mars mission that starts from the moon, with some kind of inflatable bag like section that would draw water from the moon to be used as part of the fuel, and then going from there directly to mars. They also made a case for us going first to one of the moons of mars, rather than the red planet itself, as it would be easier and cheaper, and safer. And we could work our way down to the surface from there, over time.

I love the idea of the Copernicus spaceship yard and Kepler solar powered fuel refinery. :)
The problem is that I have not heard of any useful water on the moon or anything that can be used to build spaceships from.

[RecoveringYuppy]

For a moon base to make any sense there will have to be water for fuel, and minerals useful for continuing out in the system.

Aluminum oxide is readily available on the Moon. Aluminum and oxygen could be used as a fuel. But despite that, I agree the Moon doesn't make sense as a launch point. A station in LEO or similar makes more sense as an assembly and launch point for deep space missions.

[theprestige]

Places that would be substantially easier and cheaper to colonize than the Moon:
Antarctica.
Siberia.
The Gobi Desert.
The Sahara Desert.
The Continental Shelf (any of them--take your pick).
The Surface and Subsurface Oceans.


Humanity has a looong way to go before the Moon--or even Mars--becomes a preferred site for expanding human habitation. Even with catastrophic climate change, the Earth will still be more hospitable than the Moon.

[Safe-Keeper]

theprestige: you forgot the most vast, and probably far more profitable, uninhabited area on Earth: The bottom of the oceans. Which would also probably be easier to colonize than the Moon.

ETA: Silly me. Sorry, I'm tired and not concentrating, apparently.

[Dorian Gray]

This rather shoots down the premise of the thread. China being the only one actively pursuing a Moon land means that there really isn't a race for them to win.

snipNegative. I said China is pursuing a moon landing, not that they're the only country pursuing a moon landing.

[Dorian Gray]

No one's ever had a program to colonize those places. Several countries have had programs, or have programs, to colonize the Moon. It's not about what's easier.

Oh, by the way, China OWNS the Gobi Desert, so where's the prestige in colonizing it? And how can any other country colonize it, or the Sahara? By your logic, no nation should ever have a space program until every square inch of Earth is colonized. By your logic, no one should have ever gone to the Western Hemisphere.

[WildCat]

Why would anybody want to colonise the moon?
To be the first to have sex on the moon of course.

[theprestige]

No one's ever had a program to colonize those places. Several countries have had programs, or have programs, to colonize the Moon. It's not about what's easier.

Oh, by the way, China OWNS the Gobi Desert, so where's the prestige in colonizing it? And how can any other country colonize it, or the Sahara? By your logic, no nation should ever have a space program until every square inch of Earth is colonized. By your logic, no one should have ever gone to the Western Hemisphere.
Are you sure you understand what "colonize" means?

[Seismosaurus]

Because it's going to happen, eventually, as well as expansion into other planets and perhaps even other solar systems. If it doesn't, then one day the human race dies, completely, with our sun.

I think the idea that we have to spend money on space colonisation because the sun will burn out in five billion years is ridiculous. We don't have the remotest clue if there will even be a human race in five billion years. I know there's such a thing as long term planning, but five billion years? Nonsense.

[Donal]

China's space program is better than ours because it's actively pursuing a moon landing,

Uh, ya, I'd like to welcome you to after 1969. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

a Mars landing,

We're closer, we actually have robots exploring Mars[/quote]

and eventual colonization,

They have yet to leave Earth's orbit.

whereas NASA is.... retiring the Space Shuttles next year and...

You mean upgrading.

um... We have no plans to colonize anything,

Says you. We have robots on Mars and are exploring the outer solar system and beyond.

In fact, I can go and get a real time map of Mars. (http://www.google.com/mars/) Does China have anything like that?

and the only thing we've done is the International Space Station, which is obviously not just us.

Ya, but who is doing the bulk of the work? And seriously, you think a fully functioning permanent space station is no big deal? Has China accomplished anything close to that?

The United States actually builds the equipment NASA uses to explore space. China is leasing Cold War Era Russian equipment.

Since this is the Conspiracy Theories forum, I can also hilariously say that there is plenty of evidence that we've faked going to the moon...

Sadly, that would be the most sensible thing you've said this thread.

[uruk]

Why would anybody want to colonise the moon?

All that cheese.

[uruk]

I don't see any end in sight to the increased use of space. Someday it will be cheaper to get oxygen and aluminum needed in space from the Moon rather than the Earth. Hard to say when that day will come though.
~snip~.


The first part is being worked out.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/05may_moonrocks.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090108-am-pisces-hawaii.html

The oxygen and water is there already. You just need to perfect the process and make it cost effective.

The biggest cost is the initial launch of equipment to the moon. Make space travel cheaper.

Allow private industry to get involved.

[uruk]

I think the idea that we have to spend money on space colonisation because the sun will burn out in five billion years is ridiculous. We don't have the remotest clue if there will even be a human race in five billion years. I know there's such a thing as long term planning, but five billion years? Nonsense.

There is going to come a time in the not too distant future when genetic engineering and nanotechnology will allow human life spans to increase into centuries.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/08/11/2331197.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=aging-controlled-by-genes

This is something that may happen within the next couple of hundred years. The population will skyrocket with more people being born than dieing. Most forms of population control are spotty at best. Especially where culture and religion are involved.

Besides, putting all of your eggs in one basket is usually not a good idea, considering the case of asteroid strikes, ecological distruptions, and plauges.

The sooner we learn how to live and exploit resources "out there" the better off we will be in the future.

We don't have to go off "whole hog" like Apollo. But a steady and conservative approach might be more suitable.

[Tandem Thinking]

China's space program is better than ours because it's actively pursuing a moon landing, a Mars landing, and eventual colonization, whereas NASA is.... retiring the Space Shuttles next year and... um... We have no plans to colonize anything, and the only thing we've done is the International Space Station, which is obviously not just us.

Current NASA Missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

Future NASA Missions:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html

I can't actually find a list of present and future missions at the China National Space Administration Website (http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/index.html

But this comes pretty close:
http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/n620681/n771967/69198.html

[theprestige]

In almost any apocalyptic scenario short of total destruction of the Earth, the Moon is already less hospitable to human life than the Earth could ever be. There's almost no set of conditions--even overpopulation--that would make the Moon a better option for human habitation than the Earth.

[Corsair 115]

One major problem with sending humans to the moon is that you must build a huge rocket (think Saturn 5). This is very difficult thing to do. The Russians never solved this problem.


Not necessarily. You could use smaller rockets to launch sections of your lunar craft into Earth orbit, assemble the lunar vehicle there, and then proceed to the Moon.

Von Braun was in favour of that approach in the early days of the various proposals made as to how NASA could get to the Moon.

[rjh01]

That would lead to its own problems. Every part must be in the same place at the same time. Then time must be spent assembling the vehicle. There would have been reasons why that approach was not used.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yeah, political "have to beat the Reds" reasons.

[Corsair 115]

That would lead to its own problems. Every part must be in the same place at the same time. Then time must be spent assembling the vehicle. There would have been reasons why that approach was not used.


The story of how Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was chosen as NASA's path to the Moon is an interesting one. There were a lot of methods discussed, including some crazy ideas (the most notable being the one where the astronaut is landed on the Moon and resupplied regularly by automated rockets while engineers back on Earth figure out the best way to get him home).

If I recall correctly, at the time the basic concept was Direct Ascent, meaning you create a big lunar ship with everything you need on it to get to the Moon and back, and you take it all with you. But such a vehicle would be very heavy, and it would either need a very powerful booster rocket to get it into orbit, or a series of launches using smaller rockets. Von Braun felt the latter was a much quicker route than developing the enormous Nova rocket.

Eventually, weight concerns put Direct Ascent out of the race. In its place the idea of throwing away on each step of the lunar journey the equipment you no longer needed slowly evolved, resulting in the way NASA actually got to the Moon.

All that said, there's nothing preventing a series of launches with smaller rockets and assembling the lunar ship in orbit. It's mostly a matter of each extra launch increasing the chances of something going wrong and throwing a wrench into the timeline.