WIederling wrote:GDB wrote:WIederling wrote:
Anything substantial known about how the Chinese went by their Moon sample return mission?
More qualified COTS stuff?
Back when, to get high performance we went for some industrial ( even P packaging ) semiconductors for MIRO.
Nothing available in MIL. Worked nicely, ...
While China is not as secretive as Cold War USSR was, it's not open either, there is hope that science findings from it's Lunar and Mars missions will be fully shared. the operative word here is 'hope', not certainty.
Any industrial/technical spinoffs I imagine they'll keep for themselves, whether that's in advance of the state of the art generally, who knows?
Unlike the US Space Program then, any industrial/commercial spinoffs didn't do the USSR much good.
Not that sort of a system.
Some answers as to why, (rather beyond the scope of spaceflight however);
An early doc from my favorite film maker, (who this month dropped 6 films over 8 hours on the BBC i-player and available on this site too), this one filmed just before the USSR collapsed had both good access and with as it turned out, great timing too, if you have i-player access a better version on there;
I'll look into that ... when I have some idle time at hand.
spinoffs are to a large part folklore. fewer things than is "known" passed that line.
Soviets had some very interesting line of sensors and other tech solutions diverging from the west.
( Just like their healt research is much less "expensive prescription drug and machinery" oriented.)
competition is a driver. But in the western system it has developed choking autonomy from lack of regulation.
Soviets had academic and political competition but not for production.
China seems to go for political leadership deciding on objectives and competition/markets for solutions.
( contrast with markets have leadership and look to politics to fix the problems they created
When Frank Borman, after his historic Apollo 8 flight, did a tour, in the UK at the Ministry Of Technology, the Minister, Anthony Wedgewood Benn (prior to 70's 'reinvention' to further left 'Tony Benn'), recalled in his diary how he asked Borman about spinoffs, he replied 'how to manage a large, complex program'. Something lost today it seems.
In fact the main one was the huge influx of what is now called STEM graduates, after Apollo they spread out in other areas of industry, in particular what would now be called 'Silicon Valley', the need to develop very fast, reliable and most of all small computers for the Apollo spacecraft, would go on to bear massive economic fruit.
Come 1975 and the Apollo-Soyuz link up, it would be the lowest an Apollo would ever fly in low Earth orbit, even on missions such as Apollos 7 and 9, plus Skylab. However in 1975 at least, it was the highest a Soyuz could get, the Apollo had to do all the docking, given the Soyuz really could go up, quickly dock with a Salyut and that was it.
Inside the Soyuz's computer was a rotating metal drum, which was a shock to many at NASA.
Now of course in the decades since, Soyuz has been greatly upgraded, still cannot do what Apollo did however.
(Hence my desire to see a proper replacement, at last, for Apollo, in the shape of Orion, it's been far too long after that wrong turn with STS).