Chinese Crew Blasts Off for Space Mission

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


What would this be good for?

Making spaceships in orbit.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sandman
Slinging asteroids into Earth orbit strikes me as pretty dangerous. The physics are simple enough, but the technology isn't.

That's why you do most of your maneuvering far away, giving yourself a lot of time to correct any thrust errors. You spiral that ****er in over the course of many orbits. The delta-v required isn't that great, and you have years to correct any errors.

[KrazyHorse]

Listen, the fact is that without something like a space elevator the current model of building everything on the ground and putting it into space is never going to be economical for large-scale industry. You can't burn off 95% of your mass just getting to where you're going and expect things to pay off.

Building **** where the delta-v costs are lower is the obvious way to go.

It's only small-minded thinking that's prevented us from doing this so far...

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I don't see any evidence that the Long March series of rockets are "off Russian equipment and technology." Neither are the Shenzhou series of space capsules.

Again and again, just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's not true.

Both the Long March and Shenzhou are very similar to Russian rockets, with some Chinese modifications. Even some components of the Shenzhou are not only Russian designed but Russian built. However, it can not be ignored that the Chinese rockets are significantly improved from the Russian versions they mimic.

Now, I've never heard of a case where Chinese leaders have not eaten babies, therefore I must conclude that they all do.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see any evidence that the Long March series of rockets are "off Russian equipment and technology." Neither are the Shenzhou series of space capsules.

That's probably because you didn't read the OP.

The Shenzhou — or Divine Vessel — capsule is based on Russia's workhorse Soyuz, though with extensive modifications. China also bought technology for spacesuits, life-support systems and other equipment from Moscow, though officials say all of the items launched into space are Chinese-made.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Whoha
Well, so far the US has been the only country to ever land anything on mars period, so I'd say we have a good head start.

I hate to break your heart, but first thing on Mars was a Soviet National Emblem delivered there by Mars-2 in 1971. At the same year Soviet Mars-3 landing module for the first time in human history successfuly landed at Mars surface. The "Mars" program continued in 1973-1974 with Mars-4,5,6 and 7.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Serb


I hate to break your heart, but first thing on Mars was a Soviet National Emblem delivered there by Mars-2 in 1971. At the same year Soviet Mars-3 landing module for the first time in human history successfuly landed at Mars surface. The "Mars" program continued in 1973-1974 with Mars-4,5,6 and 7.

neither probe managed to function from the surface. the usual definition of 'landing' requires that the the 'landing' not kill the lander. When it does kill the lander we call it a 'crash'. I will give those two probes the dubious distinctions of being the first objects to crash on mars.

Edit - Ok Mars-3 was only badly damaged during a dust storm but it still transmitted a total of 20 seconds of data, including the first hazy television images from the Martian surface. Orbit of the Mars 3 orbiter was successful. So overall I have to concede that the mars 3 lander deserves the distinction of a successful soft landing despite it's very short useful life on mars.

[Dinner]

Hell, that short life span was still longer then the useful life of most Soviet built cars.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DanS


You must not pay income taxes or something. That's the only way that I can explain this attitude.

And just so that we're clear, this a per-year thing. The Apollo program on an ongoing basis cost 2x the Iraq War operations on an ongoing basis. And the Apollo program lasted more than 10 years.

Excuse me? perhaps you misunderstand my attitude. I am not so much unhappy that the government isn't spending more money rather I'm bitter that it wastes it on totally useless irrelevant crap like a war in the middle east that accomplishes absolutely nothing for me or any other US tax payer long or near term. unless maybe we get a warm fuzzy if the place doesn't descend back into chaos when (if ever) we can leave and avoid future generations claiming the iraqi military "kicked our arses" in a conventional war because of an unfriendly government taking over after we are long gone.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Geronimo


neither probe managed to function from the surface. the usual definition of 'landing' requires that the the 'landing' not kill the lander. When it does kill the lander we call it a 'crash'. I will give those two probes the dubious distinctions of being the first objects to crash on mars.

Veryyy funny. It's nice to see you made a valuable addition to your initial sneer.

Edit - Ok Mars-3 was only badly damaged during a dust storm but it still transmitted a total of 20 seconds of data, including the first hazy television images from the Martian surface. Orbit of the Mars 3 orbiter was successful. So overall I have to concede that the mars 3 lander deserves the distinction of a successful soft landing despite it's very short useful life on mars.

Good.
As for Mars-2, from what I heard, it wasn't intended for soft landing and conduct any research on surface/make pictures,etc. It was the first artificial satellite of Mars which carried out its research from the Mars orbit. Its only mission on surface was to deliver a National Emblem of USSR.
This one:

[Serb]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hell, that short life span was still longer then the useful life of most Soviet built cars.

Ha-ha-ha
How do you like this car?

[Patroklos]

Soviet Science , where would the human space exploration effort be without a now defunked mass murdering state's emblem on Mars.

At least when America put a flag on the moon, we took the time to take some rocks back with us.

[Agathon]

I can't believe that some people think that the Apollo program was a waste of money.

I mean, **** that Magellan guy, who needs to sail the seas. And that Columbus clown, etc. etc.

...

The Apollo program is far and away the greatest achievement of the United States. It is universally admired among normal people.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Serb

Veryyy funny. It's nice to see you made a valuable addition to your initial sneer.

Good.
As for Mars-2, from what I heard, it wasn't intended for soft landing and conduct any research on surface/make pictures,etc. It was the first artificial satellite of Mars which carried out its research from the Mars orbit. Its only mission on surface was to deliver a National Emblem of USSR.
This one:

At speed of impact it's safe to say the delivery failed in much the same way the delivery would have failed if someone sent you a gift and the cargo plane crashed into your home incinerating it's cargo.

Mars-2 could claim the title of first man made crater on mars I suppose or even the delivery of material of earth origin to mars but surely not the delivery of the emblem.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's why you do most of your maneuvering far away, giving yourself a lot of time to correct any thrust errors. You spiral that ****er in over the course of many orbits. The delta-v required isn't that great, and you have years to correct any errors.

Why not mine it on site and then transfer the ore to Earth orbit, presuming most of the mining is done by robots? Although the robots could be controlled real-time if in Earth orbit.