Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DigitalSea wrote:I'm personally hoping for a China & Russia vs USA competition for the first humans on Mars (and back). It's well within our capability at this point, and as stated above, just need that national pride push.
Tugger wrote:There is no way China will team with Russia for something like that. They will do it on their own if/when they do it.
Tugg
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Congrats to the Chinese and other teams involved.
Shame all the news about this leaks out so slowly. A side effect of how things are done in China.
DigitalSea wrote:I'm personally hoping for a China & Russia vs USA competition for the first humans on Mars (and back). It's well within our capability at this point, and as stated above, just need that national pride push.
WKTaylor wrote:georgiabill... RE USA Lunar exploration... 'been-there, done-that'.
Between 1969 and 1972 six Apollo missions brought back 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface. The six space flights returned 2200 separate samples from six different exploration sites on the Moon.
WKTaylor wrote:georgiabill... RE USA Lunar exploration... 'been-there, done-that'.
neutrino wrote:WKTaylor wrote:georgiabill... RE USA Lunar exploration... 'been-there, done-that'.
But not to the far side, so that's not entirely true.
keesje wrote:
The Chinese don't have the drive to proudly make every know their achievements. There is no need / no rewards for it. They just do it.
caoimhin wrote:keesje wrote:
The Chinese don't have the drive to proudly make every know their achievements. There is no need / no rewards for it. They just do it.
Sorry, this isn’t at all correct. I haven’t a clue why you think this, but the Chinese are indeed very quick to “proudly make every know their achievements”.
What’s more, they ostentatiously purchase naming rights at all sorts of high profile m international events just for the sake of it. Have a look at the recent “sponsorship” of the US New Year’s Eve celebration in New York.
The Chinese often do things for the explicit purpose of international recognition.
keesje wrote:There are 385.000 electrical busses in the world, 99% are in China. They churn out 9500 every 5 weeks and growing.
Tugger wrote:keesje wrote:There are 385.000 electrical busses in the world, 99% are in China. They churn out 9500 every 5 weeks and growing.
Off topic so I'll keep it brief but the big problem in China right now is that while production has soared, the ability to recycle or even deal with the batteries when then finish their life cycle has not kept pace. There are millions of tons of batteries headed for end of life and the ability to deal with them is not there yet in China. (And oddly Lithium batteries were not listed as hazardous waste)
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-china ... KKBN1CR0Y8
But this is a global issue really, with the increasing use of electric based systems. It really deserves its own thread.
The Chinese are very innovative and technologically capable, they have been throughout their history. That they can land on the moon and produce equal to the most advanced countries in the world should be of no real surprise to anyone.
Tugg
keesje wrote:There are 385.000 electrical busses in the world, 99% are in China. They churn out 9500 every 5 weeks and growing. Nobody knows & cheers for Tesla.
trpmb6 wrote:Well apparently they didn't plan to well. The plants that sprouted all died.
parapente wrote:But you can't get to Mars either without perfecting this trick so I guess it's high on Elon's agenda for manned space flight.A couple of articles I read suggest that his Starship 'rush' is to replace the SLS ( and it's funding).Due to politics I can't see this happening but you never know.The SLS is a misguided project imho.But we will see.
Not in my lifetime but.I couldn't help noticing that the Russians have dusted off their Nuclear Thermal Engine project ( cancelled in 80's after working fine).In response NASA is dusting off their Nuclear thermal Engine project from the 70's it also worked fine - but no doubt they could do an even better job now.
If one is hell bent on taking humans to Mars this imho is the 'only' way.Not for taking off from Earth or landing on Mars that's best for chemical engines.But for going there and back ( in a reasonable time) Nuclear propulsion is the only practical way.So one day perhaps.
trpmb6 wrote:Hmm, I thought the goal was to essentially create a little biodome where the fruit flies ate the yeast generating carbon dioxide to help the plants grow beyond sprouts. But it seems you're saying they only planned on a two week experiment (at most considering the window is only two weeks and includes landing etc). So the experiment, therefore, must have been about proving the concept of a bio dome, that each portion of the spectrum needed to grow plant material worked - generate carbon dioxide - adequate humidity and temperatures etc. In that regard they were quite successful.
Revelation wrote:parapente wrote:But you can't get to Mars either without perfecting this trick so I guess it's high on Elon's agenda for manned space flight.A couple of articles I read suggest that his Starship 'rush' is to replace the SLS ( and it's funding).Due to politics I can't see this happening but you never know.The SLS is a misguided project imho.But we will see.
Not in my lifetime but.I couldn't help noticing that the Russians have dusted off their Nuclear Thermal Engine project ( cancelled in 80's after working fine).In response NASA is dusting off their Nuclear thermal Engine project from the 70's it also worked fine - but no doubt they could do an even better job now.
If one is hell bent on taking humans to Mars this imho is the 'only' way.Not for taking off from Earth or landing on Mars that's best for chemical engines.But for going there and back ( in a reasonable time) Nuclear propulsion is the only practical way.So one day perhaps.
Going to Mars is a bad idea, here's five reasons why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQ1bKd7Los
Tugger wrote:Well of course it is but so is cars (I mean really, it required development of so much infrastructure to support it is utterly ridiculous, from manufacturing to roads to refining to environmental damage, to deaths they cause.... it was and is a bad idea).
But that has never stopped humans before. We love overcoming the "bad" part of any idea with our ingenuity and inventiveness.
Tugg
parapente wrote:I guess the question is whether 'we' will do a Moonshot type programme using chemical engines.Trained Astronauts ( right stuff) only.
If Elon is determined to do it then I guess it might happen and it's possible NASA will try ( but I can't see both frankly and I am sure neither can Elon).
Perhaps he is trying to force the governments hand.Ie ' I am going to do this with or without you'.Right now it's 'without us mate',but presidents come and go.Somehow I can't see them letting a privateer going solo on this one.Can you?
But- before any of that happens what Elon is really trying to do with this BFR is launch literally thousands of Starlink Satellites and make a load of wonga.
He may also fancy putting a fly in Trumps ointment by landing on the moon ( or at least threatening to do so before the government darlings of Boeing and Lockheed.)Will be interesting all round.
GDB wrote:A bit naughty Tugger! Because I have seen that video so know that this You Tuber also made a rebuttal to himself!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MJgqTerw9o
It's less detailed, more pithy perhaps but also shows just why a certain billionaire is so keen, it's not that he could not make money, lots of it, by not trying to get there.
Revelation wrote:GDB wrote:A bit naughty Tugger! Because I have seen that video so know that this You Tuber also made a rebuttal to himself!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MJgqTerw9o
It's less detailed, more pithy perhaps but also shows just why a certain billionaire is so keen, it's not that he could not make money, lots of it, by not trying to get there.
Thanks for the pointer. I hadn't seen it, although I've been watching quite a few of his videos lately.
I think he makes the points well, but personally I'm not convinced.
In particular, I'm not convinced about the beneficial spin offs of human space travel (HST). We had satellites before we had HST. We had ICBMs before we had HST. ICBMs were used to launch Mercury and Gemini. We had computers before we had HST. The Cold War SAGE program begat SABRE and both were on line in the early 60s. ICBMs were already driving the miniaturization and hardening of computers for space flight, along with advanced guidance/navigation solutions. Things would have been driven along due to the need to solve issues in commerce and defense. We didn't need HST for these things to happen.
If spin off is true, show me what spin offs we've gotten from decades of investment in the Shuttle. I'll wait...
I think the survival of the species argument is vapid. Do we really think it's important to be able to stare at that asteriod bearing down on Earth and say, "Well, at least those 8 people living in the biosphere bubble on Mars get to live"? 99.999999999% of mankind get incinerated but at least most of us go out with a clear conscience that we did our all to save 0.0000000001% of mankind, yet we'll never be around to know if they could some how do a reboot of civilization from that nasty planet. What do the survivors say to themselves? Damn, I'm lucky, or damn, I'm screwed? Given the way things are currently going, I think they get to say damn, I'm glad I'm a multi-billionaire! It's all sci-fi nonsense, IMHO. Let's work on sorting out our problems on Earth. That'll be easier to do if we're all in this together, instead of having the 0.00001%ers building themselves a potential cocoon on Mars.
The only point I think he made that had some (but not a lot) of merit is that it can/does inspire some people to get involved in science and tech. Personally I think there are plenty of problems in sci/tech that are inspirational (fusion: limitless energy, no core meltdowns, no radioactive waste) to be solved, but I guess some people get their rocks off by thinking some day they will be Buzz Lightyear and/or build Buzz Lightyear's space ship.
GDB wrote:Zubrin pointed out that Space X has proved that the costs of launch were not down to science/engineering but to management.
Just under a year ago Falcon Heavy proved that and then some, compare with estimates of time and cost to develop a larger launch vehicle as cited by the Augustine Commission, with Falcon Heavy, true the latter is not as large as what the commission had in mind but anything they came up with wasn't 3/4 re-useable either! $36 Billion and 12 years, versus Falcon Heavy, in half the time and 1/30th the cost.
Then I cannot help but recall the more significant finds, samples, in particular in the later Apollo J missions, which even a modern rover might well miss.
When I told a friend not not ago just how far NASA's Curiosity rover has gone in over 6 years, they were shocked at how small the distance was, I explained about the time lag for commands, the way it looks at and samples areas, how it's a wonderful machine, even so, a crew could do it a a fraction of the time and in a lot more detail.
Some of the arguments against, to me recall what was said by many, including intelligent people, about powered flight, just 120 years or so ago. And when it happened, what use was it for?
Revelation wrote:GDB wrote:Zubrin pointed out that Space X has proved that the costs of launch were not down to science/engineering but to management.
Just under a year ago Falcon Heavy proved that and then some, compare with estimates of time and cost to develop a larger launch vehicle as cited by the Augustine Commission, with Falcon Heavy, true the latter is not as large as what the commission had in mind but anything they came up with wasn't 3/4 re-useable either! $36 Billion and 12 years, versus Falcon Heavy, in half the time and 1/30th the cost.
Then I cannot help but recall the more significant finds, samples, in particular in the later Apollo J missions, which even a modern rover might well miss.
When I told a friend not not ago just how far NASA's Curiosity rover has gone in over 6 years, they were shocked at how small the distance was, I explained about the time lag for commands, the way it looks at and samples areas, how it's a wonderful machine, even so, a crew could do it a a fraction of the time and in a lot more detail.
Some of the arguments against, to me recall what was said by many, including intelligent people, about powered flight, just 120 years or so ago. And when it happened, what use was it for?
Thanks for the strong points you are making.
I think the thing we can agree on is that SpaceX shows what can happen when you have highly motivated intelligent and focused people working on a problem independent of the need to be a jobs creator and spread itself across many jurisdictions in order to get financial support.
On the other hand, I think it's easy to say how much more humans could do without accounting for all the costs associated with supporting humans, and the problems and costs increase orders of magnitude for Mars versus the Moon. From what I can tell, you go orders of magnitude when you go from rover to human and you go orders of magnitude when you go from Moon to Mars.
I think similar things can can be said for fusion research. Look at all the waste in ITER just because each participant feels the need to bring home the bacon. It's reminiscent of the NH-90 with six final assembly lines in six countries, workshare spread amongst four prime vendors and countless subcontractors so that if anyone tries to cancel it there will be lots of different politicians screaming.
Another 'Answers by Joe' video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZm_mpbKX5c ) addresses fusion. The good news is we are at the point where private capital is showing interest in the fusion arena. He says that VC interest is a good sign for the viability of fusion and I agree. The bad news is that it is the showcase project for fusion is ITER and it's a political boondoggle.