America losing new Space Race

[tomnackid]

Russia made ICBM's first.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />The USSR had something they called an "ICBM" but it was not at all practical. It was too big to hide. Too slow to launch. And its targeting was "iffy" at best. The whole reason they got into the space business was because their R-7 rocket made a far better launch vehicle than it did an ICBM. With all due respect to the Soviet scientists and cosmonauts their space program was mainly about sensational stunts not engineering or science. Explorer 1 (the US's first satellite) did more science in one hour than Sputnik did for its entire lifetime (it discovered the Van Allan belts). The US has more satellites, more probes, more landers than any other nation. So regardless of who did what first, and even if we didn't land men on the moon, it would be very misleading to say that the US "lost" the space race in any way.

 

[qso1]

The space race, there was a space race which became a moonrace. You mentioned it wasn't important to the Soviets, yet they built the N-1 rocket for the purpose of sending man to the moon. It wasn't important perhaps in the early 1960s but it became important in the mid 1960s. So much so, the Soviet Union continued trying to just get the N-1 to fly without blowing up through 1972. As for the other firsts, the Russians did rack up a large list of impressive firsts that will live on in history and most people who have any knowledge of the space race knows this. Nobody here IMO would deny the Russian firsts. But as I mentioned earlier, the race became a moon race and so far as space competition is concerned, the whole thing ended peacefully with ASTP in 1975 which I believe is what both sides wanted.<br /><br />Landing on the moon and getting there first is no longer seen by a significant amount of the public as important. As for any sort of race today, there would be no race with China for the reasons you assert the U.S. is such a looser. China would have to do something like land the first humans on Mars to win any new race.<br /><br />pupniks:<br />My personal opinion - we should fix up our own planet before idolizing the idea of ruining others. But history has shown that we won't, unless we break a long-stading human tradition of apathy.<br /><br />Me:<br />Not to worry, the cost barrier and the argument of fixing our own planet have made any hope of humans exploring other worlds pretty remote these days. My only problem with the argument itself is that it pegs us as a serial society, that is, we are unable to operate on problems in parallel when you have to wait for one to be fixed before moving to another.<br /><br />IMO, we will never fix the earthly problems before moving on to space travel simply due to human nature. We should do what we can in parallel which would be continue working on earthly problems while doing space exploration.<br /><br />You ought to be asking why <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[owenander]

Well the difference is China is using a higher percentage of their resources to reach those goals, while NASA is pretty much just cruising. We could kick it up into a higher gear if we wanted to, what's sad is they will probably wait until the last minute.

 

[qso1]

Correct, NASA cruises because the public will to fund exploration is not there. China uses a higher percentage of its resources because they are currently more committed to going into space. Looking at the Bush proposal as an example, get us to the moon, and maybe Mars, all on the current budget. Just shift from other programs. This is why scientists do not like the Bush plan. I'd like to see the plan take place in some form but I suspect it'll be DOA after 2008 with a new Administration.<br /><br />Contrary to popular belief (At least here) China is anything but racing into space. 2 manned flights in 2 years. No human flights planned for the moon before 2020. China is going at its own pace and does not appear to be really concerned as to who gets where first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[edawg]

the russians build everything rugged and cheap,we do everything delicate and high tech...so witch is better?

 

[owenander]

Well obviously Russia has a great record for safety and reliablity, but the problems with their systems is they don't have the scientific capabilities that ours do.<br /><br />I personally think if all $1.6 billion of NASA's budget went to prizes for private coorporations getting to space, we'd have a colony on the Moon within 10 years easily.<br /><br />=)

 

[qso1]

I think its probably a combination dependant on needs. The Russian stuff is rugged and thats in part driven by where they physically process their vehicles. Bitter cold weather which resulted in different methodologies for processing. Including much shorter times at the pads especially in winter months.<br /><br />Capsules such as Soyuz, by their very nature are simpler to build than winged shuttles which is why we entered the space race with capsules ourselves rather than winged vehicles. If you have ever seen some U.S. space flight hardware, its not all delicate. The electronics boxes, the electrical connectors, most of which are quite rugged in and of themselves. Systems such as TPS are delicate yet achieve a high degree of ruggedness. Despite Russian ruggedness in their Soyuz manned craft, they have a flight rate comparable to ours in actuality.<br /><br />In short, while they may have an edge on ruggedness, they use high tech as well. We have some ruggedness while leaning towards high tech.<br /><br />As for cheapness, I have never seen cost breakdowns on their systems. I have seen estimated costs and conversions to U.S. dollars which on the face of it seem cheaper but relative to their GDP, I'm not sure. I could say that the cost of either program is determined in large part by what it costs to maintain the pool of technical personnel required to support such programs. Where our support people are generally private contractor employees and theirs are active duty military. Our personnel are probably more expensive to maintain.<br /><br />As they used to say in the cold war arms race days, we are probably roughly equal in capability overall. They have systems we don't have and we have systems they don't have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Some years back, a similar question was raised about gold plating as its known, our rockets. The implication in the article was that we kept going to new vehicles while the Russians stayed with tried and true vehicles. The reality is shown below especially where manned spaceflight is concerned.<br /><br />Some useful comparisons:<br /><br />Soyuz launcher:<br />Used for Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz and Progress. In use for Soyuz since 1967 and the primary rocket for numerous other unmanned Russian spacecraft. It is mass produced in several major variations.<br /><br />Atlas:<br />Atlas has been around since its first launch in 1957. The higher tech vehicle was high tech to get maximum performance. The most bang for the buck. The current variation of Atlas is practically a brand new vehicle but that was dictated by growing mission needs.<br /><br />A similar story with Delta which dates back to its days as the Thor Delta.<br /><br />The point here basically is that we too, utilize tried and proven designs until mission requirements dictate otherwise. Capsules were for us, the easiest way to get humans into space and back as opposed to winged vehicles. The problem was capsules were not reuseable. Nor were the launchers which in Apollos case, were the mammoth Saturn V series vehicles. This led in the 1970s to development of the shuttle. A winged vehicle that was to fill all launch needs and at low cost. This proved untrue where cost was concerned.<br /><br />But in looking at the shuttle...high tech? The glass cockpits are, and so far, I'm not aware of major issues with them. The TPS is relatively high tech where thermal protection is concerned but nonetheless work well. A couple of high tech items among many aboard the shuttle. But shuttle has low tech components as well. SRB casings...cast iron if memory serves me, or at least industrial strength steel at an inch thick. Rubber O rings, while quite large, are hardly high tech in any way other than how they may be manufactured.<br /><br />A <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[edawg]

i say we eliminate the defict by platinum mining on the moon and switching to a hydrogen economy...any other way outs of the deficit?

 

[craig42]

Make the hydrogen with renewable technology like Solar Power Sats. To elimnate cost ofoil imports. Then sell excess hydrogen to become a net energy exporter.<br /><br />Slighty O.T. Legalise the use, sale and growth of illict drugs and tax. A new industry would spring up almost overnight and tourism would probably get a boost from it too.

 

[j05h]

> Make the hydrogen with renewable technology like Solar Power Sats. To elimnate cost ofoil imports. Then sell excess hydrogen to become a net energy exporter.<br /><br />Now that is an interesting idea: bootstrap SPS by gearing it to produce storable hydrogen. Edawg's suggstion of mining PMGs fits in as well, because you'll need a lot of catalyst material for all those fuel cells. Use our high technology to step around the problem, then turn it into profitable industry. It's a really good idea. Perhaps a power company would be interested in it? Automobiles aren't particularly polluting, except for the engine. If we can replace the engine with a fuel cell and electric motors, we will be far into fixing our pollution problems. <br /><br />A hydrogen-fuelcell energy economy is easier, in some ways, to extend off-planet. Making new machinery starting from electric motors and simple to manufacture fuel cells would easily adapt to Mars and provide reliable power in other places.<br /><br /> /> Slighty O.T. Legalise the use, sale and growth of illict drugs and tax. A new industry would spring up almost overnight and tourism would probably get a boost from it too.<br /><br />Sin Taxes instead of the War on Sin? Sounds great to me. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I hope that this will be proven and that a space revolution does get underway. I sometimes wonder if it was so easy, why didn't it happen sooner? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

The deficit was a surplus during the last few Clinton years. A surplus of something like $30 billion or about twice NASAs current budget. Yet even then, NASA was considered a luxury, not something that can be properly budgeted when resources are available. The surplus was the available resource and the first time the government had a surplus budget since 1969.<br /><br />The Clinton surplus was thought to be impossible to achieve in the early 1990s but it happened. I think in part to the internet business revolution and if there was a peace dividend resulting from the cold wars end, that may have been it.<br /><br />BTW, hydrogen and moon mining would be excellent steps towards the industrialization of space. The hydrogen based ground infrastructure would be the roots of a space based lunar mining economy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[edawg]

yup,i spoke to a member of the chinas lunar program at the isdc,china has already stated that they are doing this for econonmic and industrial reasons..and so has india,russia and japan.What i found funny that durningthe q&a of the international lunar probes is everyone admiited to competition but not a space race...what an oxymoron

 

[pupniks]

first of all, that whole ICBM thing is just not true.<br /><br />second of all, what about everything else russia did first? and yes, explorer did more than the first sputnik. What about Sputnik 2, also launched before Explorer, with a passenger. The Soviet program was just faster and better in all areas besides a moon launch.

 

[pupniks]

The man on the moon was only more important than any other part of the race in America because we won that part. As for the N1 failures, there were two unsuccessful launches before the program was cut. Not exactly war-like commitment.<br /><br />As for all of the deficits and expenses you mention - thats exactly what I'm talking about. We need to put people in power that will support the Earth and its people before we look towards space for any purposes besides research. As for what you say about human nature, I entirely agree. Thats the problem.

 

[pupniks]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You can only say that because you don't seem to have an appreciation of just what a great engineering challenge that was in the 1960's. Russia may have been "first" in many aspects of the Space Race, but that doesn't alter the fact that we won the prize. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />In Russia, landing a man on the moon was NOT the "prize". In fact, that was only considered the "prize" anywhere because we won it, and not much else. So we glorified it and pretended to ignore everything the Soviet Union did first.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The only reason we weren't first in those other things was because government and military bureaucracy hindered us from getting into the game sooner out of a misguided attitude that we were technologically superior to Russia in almost every way. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly. We got a late start, making us LOSING at first, and though we have more better technology, Russia/the Soviet Union has always been ahead of us in making new technologies.

 

[qso1]

There were four N-1 launch failures:<br />21 February 1969.<br />03 July 1969.<br />27 June 1971.<br />23 November 1972.<br />N1 canellation was official on 18 May 1974. The idea of putting people to work for Earth has been largely underway since the Skylab days. NASAs approach after Apollo was to demonstrate the benefits of space research to the people living on Earth. The second part of that approach was a shuttle that would provide routine access to space. Neither effectively occured in part due to 50 plus percent funding cuts after the 1973-74 fiscal budget year.<br /><br />My question to those who still advocate cutting NASAs budget for any reason...has it not been cut enough already?<br /><br />My other question, where are the benefits from largely flat NASA spending since 1973-74? Why isn't cancer cured as space critics of the Apollo era claimed we could do? Why haven't inner city woes been corrected since NASA budgets went from 2 plus percent GDP prior to 1973 to less than 1 percent GDP on average since 1973?<br /><br />Where are all these wonderful things that were supposedly held up because of supposed wasteful spending on space research?<br /><br />The most important question...first off, NASA is taxpayer funded and those funds are managed by our elected officials. Where did space spending critics get the idea that if we cut or eliminate manned spaceflight, that these same elected officials who bring us deficit spending, S&L scandals, etc are trustworthy enough to manage money saved by eliminating NASA manned space flight?<br /><br />One things for sure, the social problems are not going to be solved entirely because as we agree...human nature. And even though we won the moon race, read any serious book about human spaceflight and you will see acknowledgement of the Russian firsts. So its not as though we gloat about it. We won, and then proceeded to deconstruct the infrastructure we could have had to establish a permanent presence in space.<br /><br />America can aff <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Offsprey5:<br />IIRC, The Clinton surplus was $238 billion by the end of the 1990's.But even then, NASA was a low poriety(sp?). <br /><br />I think solar cells could also become viable industry emerging from space technology R&D.<br /><br />Me:<br />I didn't have a source handy but if the surplus was that high, all the more reason to see that any talk of being unable to afford reasonable increases in NASA budgets is just crap, especially during his Administration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[edawg]

the system is becoming taxed,to bring the rest of the world the western quality of living will take the resources equivelent of 2 more earths(World Wildlife Foundation)what we need to do is bring in a massive influx of energy and resources.Are their any other feasible plans with a ten year time frame..?

 

[craig42]

Perhaps a power company would be interested in it? I doubt they would until a power sat is shown to work. Unfortunately IIRC NASA cancelled their program to do just that. I don't know if the Japanese are still working on theirs. It would be a nice way to get companies involved in the VSE.

 

[j05h]

I think power companies, both utilities and "energy companies" like BP are ripe for investing in beamed-power. A demonstrator showing in-space remote power would probably be enough to attract their attention. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

SPS generation isnt competitive with other forms of generation at current launch prices. Costs to GEO would have to drop two orders of magnitude before utilities and energy companies would become even remotely interested.<br /><br />VSE if anything is only helping to increase those costs.

 

[lucas78]

It's really depressing that in 2006 someone (politicians, but probably a certain portion of the general public as well) still portrays the exploration of our solar system as a "race".<br /><br />It could be true during the "Cold War", but now the approach should be radically different. It's good, infact, to see the collaboration between the various space agencies. <br /><br />As an european, I actually don't care if Russia gets there first, if the US do or any other Country. A succesfull mission of any of them, is a success for the entire mankind.

 

[edawg]

true,but i honestly dont see the USA being around for another 500yrs unless we establish ourselves first....