It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Valhall
Update on China...this article just released:
Report: China manned moon trip by 2020
BEIJING (AP) -- China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief space official said in comments broadcast by state television.
"By 2020, we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes a human act.
www.cnn.com...
Originally posted by Cyrus
intelgurl's gone for a few days'...
thx 4 the info. val, the chinese on the moon seems like a likely thing to motivate the U.S/U.S.S.R into doing something bigger.
competition? no doubt..
the U.S.S.R is likely to part-take in the chinese project, *oppinions change*
fact is...china is likely to help the U.S.S.R on it's way, no doubt, from my point of view, it seems the russians r hitch-hiking on the chinese with financial aid etc...to get them back onroute.
too bad it's 2020
Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Well, it isn't as fast paced as it used to be, but I believe NASA needs better funding and scientists if they want to move into space further than they already are...if you understand me..
-wD
Originally posted by Lampyridae
F.O.R.D. = Fuel. Oil & Repair Daily
Originally posted by intelgurl
Do you think that the US has a secret space program and if so to what extent, ie: Space planes, secret space stations ???
Obviously Russia seems to think so, below is a link to an article in Pravda:
Pravda: The USA has been working on secret, new-generation space planes
Thoughts anyone?
Originally posted by HerExcellency
Originally posted by intelgurl
Do you think that the US has a secret space program and if so to what extent, ie: Space planes, secret space stations ???
Obviously Russia seems to think so, below is a link to an article in Pravda:
Pravda: The USA has been working on secret, new-generation space planes
Thoughts anyone?
It makes strategic sense that someone in the American military industrial complex is. I'm not suggesting that the Americans have "black programs" (we all know that they have and probably do), what I am suggesting is that it makes good business sense that someone is and will market the ideal to the USA military planners.
War is shifting vertically to the ionosphere and near space. It has been for quite some time. It is the American thought process to have overlapping layers of offensive and defensive capabilities. A space plane fits into that envelope quite nicely.
Remember the initial designs of the Space Shuttle had an offensive laser onboard. As the mission changed it was removed (that and the powerplant needed to fire it would have taken up most of the cargo bay.)
So if Lockheed, or Boeing is working on a concept for future sale to the Government it only makes sense.
hrxll
India is planning a moon mission
Originally posted by Cyrus
"mais bravos!!
well done madame an excellent point made
*takes a deep bow and lets cape sweep majestically*"
I'd curtsey, but that always looks idiotic in blue jeans.
Thanks for the gesture...
"ok, so we come to an agreement that the U.S is concurrent with the hypothesis that a war could emerge whereas the U.S.S.R would most likely try to ask for too much from the U.S black projects are being made for a purpose, billions are spent for a purpose, a grand finale maybe?"
No, I only said it made good business sense. I wouldn't even care to extrapolate past that.
"who's behind all of this...no i dont mean on a small scale
i mean, the muppeteer?
ouf, i need to go back thru some notes' i made on this, i recently had a discussion with an unnamed source on this matter, it is likely that the U.S is simply reparing for "something" that is likely to happen eventually...ie a war? the Nasa space program doesn't need to be cut back, since resources can easily be saved from other unnecessary goals'...no, no , no, there's something hindering the whole attitude towards space."
Perhaps it's something called, "failure." Americans are prideful people and rightfully so. They take it very hard when they fail. NASA has taken it on the chin and lost alot of public "face", as the Japanese would say.
"my hypothesis states the existence of : parallel universes coexisting at different time lapses from our globe.
this could have been found out by the americanos, and they are likely plowing in everything they've got into it...that's where the attention's shifted, ie: a wormhole
far-fetched? no doubt
it frustrates me so much to have to think this through with virtually NO concrete facts on the real reason behind the NASA underfunding calamity.
any suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Cordially
Cyrus
i am held not responsible for any of the information in this post, i take no responsibility for it's misuse."
I really can't speak to this part. Theoretical Physics was never a strong suit. Even if there are parallel existences, I find enough interesting in this one to keep me here right now. Buenos dias, senor' Cyrus.
hrxll
[Edited on 1-12-2003 by Cyrus]
Originally posted by ZeroDeep
India is planning a moon mission
All that money should be set aside to help out the poor not send a little Hindu to the moon.
NEW DELHI, India -- India will send a spacecraft to the moon by 2008, prime
minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said in his Independence Day address to the
nation Aug. 15. The announcement has put an end to suspense over the fate of
the roughly $100 million project of the Indian Space Research Organization
(ISRO) that was waiting for a formal sanction for over eight months.
www.tdf.it...
This money could go a long way to build hosptials, and relief clinics for the poor.
www.kamat.com...
I find it pathetic that goverments can just spend so much money on meaningless things.
Deep
Originally posted by Lampyridae
Cyrus & HerExcellency: excellent points to consider.
One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?
Originally posted by Lampyridae
Cyrus & HerExcellency: excellent points to consider.
One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?
Originally posted by Lampyridae
One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?
Originally posted by HerExcellency
Originally posted by Lampyridae
One of the obstacles now impeding space exploration and NASA in general is a lack of public interest in government space operations. Granted, you have many, many people who would pay good money for a trip into space, as the X-Prize shows, but that's only a suborbital shot or a few days on the ISS. The real problem is low cost-to-orbit figures... the technology exists for reusable, cheap vehicles - such as laser launch systems, but there is no desire to get them flying. Why? Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al make billions of dollars of revenue through building Delta, Titan and Atlas rockets... rockets that have basically been flying since the 1960s... in other words, we are using 40-year old technology to loft 21st century satellites into orbit... is it because contractors have a vested interest in making alternatives NOT work? Would they in fact lose out, perhaps because the market for the thousands of launches required to make up the difference in revenue that would be created by cheap, reusable spacelift systems?
Ok. Although the Americas have more billionaire & Millionaires than anywhere else in the world, they are still the only ones who can afford a "cheap" ride.
some new russians have been known to buy entire factories' in the U.S, cash in hand... a well known ukranian took all the tax money in a go, went off to the U.S, and bought himself a house with two heli-pads in NYC
What do you define as cheap? Look at what your considering. This is not a ride on the Ferry, or "hoppin the bus". Even if the passenger does nothing else other than be payload, due to scientific, insurance and liability consideration the individuals would have to be tested and monitored. This takes time, and of course money.
that is...after all, liable to controversy, humans have been launched into space ever since gagarin the russian
Payload is weight, weight cost fuel even if you use a exotic (personally I think that statement funny) propulsion system your individual cost money.
true
I vaguely remember during a tour of the Kennedy Space center that the guide mentioned how much it cost to launch something into orbit per pound at it was some Astronomical number like 18 million dollars per pound, and this was 1979 dollars, adjusting for inflation you're looking at something like 25-40 million per pound if you take the Saturn V route.
again....launching from the U.S cost 14b this year, russia launched 4 times' as many crafts, and did it for 230m!!
So what is today's price? The Space Shuttle does it MUCH cheaper, but still not cheap enough for everyday.
Don't get me wrong, space now is commercial. Satellites go up all the time.
moscow has a sattelite in parallel orbit with earth, another possible missile interceptor launched this year
Your point about 40 yr tech is noted, but look at it from a business point of view. If General Dynamics could launch cheaper than say Thiokol wouldn't that attract customers?
It's in the vested interest for the aerospace companies to find less expensive ways to do business, because it makes good business sense. The aerospace companies biggest client is the US Government and last time I checked they put all their projects up for competitive bid and take the LOWEST contracted price. (broad stroke generalization, but it serves for this discussion)
As much as we might like to think it, space travel isn't cheap, at least not yet it is.
hrxll
[Edited on 2-12-03 by HerExcellency]