China Conducts First Test of New Ultra-High Speed Missile Vehicle

[gambit]

And therein lies the problem.
The US doesn't have the same level of national focus and intensity anymore.
The great competitor is gone, the one you have today is a lot more clever, and thanks to people like you is not going to be taken as seriously as the previous one.

National focus is a different issue. Am trying to understand the TECHNICAL reasons as to why the US cannot return to the Moon. Has space between Earth and Moon changed?

But the real issue is you don't command the same percentage of the global economy as in the 60s.

So what? It cost roughly 2 bils per Space Shuttle. An aircraft carrier cost double that. If we can build a couple of carriers today, we can certainly build another Shuttle, or a better version. Our economic standing is irrelevant.

As for the technology, if it is such a none issue then why is the US taking rides on Russian Soyuz to the ISS and for how long the US has been doing it already, and for how long it will continue?
Why is it taking the US so long to find a replacement for the space shuttles, if technology is not the issue then what is the issue?

There is something call a 'budget'. Heard of it? Also, the Space Shuttle fleet proved the point: That it is feasible to have a reusable vehicle. Neither Russia nor China have done it, but both countries will benefit from US. Now that the reusable vehicle is a proven concept, why not turn the idea over the commercial sector? Yours is really an astoundingly ignorant question. A budget is something that is common to all, from an individual to a country.

There is. The Van Allen belt.

You mean the Van Allen Belt never existed before? Great...More 'Chinese physics'.

 

[shuttler]

What yankies? Russia is the first country in the world to fly hypersonic vehicle.

zzzzzzzz

 

[nangyale]

National focus is a different issue. Am trying to understand the TECHNICAL reasons as to why the US cannot return to the Moon. Has space between Earth and Moon changed?

Getting something right once doesn't mean that you will get it right every time. Things that were achievable yesterday may not be today.
So the space remains the same but American resolve and economy doesn't.

So what? It cost roughly 2 bils per Space Shuttle. An aircraft carrier cost double that. If we can build a couple of carriers today, we can certainly build another Shuttle, or a better version. Our economic standing is irrelevant.

Not so quick. Economic standing is the basis for all else. You may have excellent plans but If you can't afford them they are useless. In the 60s because of the strength of the US economy, it was able to afford all that but today it can't. It's one or the other.

There is something call a 'budget'. Heard of it? Also, the Space Shuttle fleet proved the point: That it is feasible to have a reusable vehicle. Neither Russia nor China have done it, but both countries will benefit from US. Now that the reusable vehicle is a proven concept, why not turn the idea over the commercial sector? Yours is really an astoundingly ignorant question. A budget is something that is common to all, from an individual to a country.

That is exactly my point. You have a budget that cannot be stretched to cover everything (its being wasted on useless wars in the Middle East). You did something before, probably better then the Russians. But today you are dependent on the Russians to give you lifts.
It's not the sign of rising power but a declining one.
Also one needs to be smart, you spent billions upon billions of dollars on your ABM system, thinking it will give you first strike capability. The Russians and Chinese spend wisely come up with a solution that now makes that investment useless.
You can keep on singing about your glory days, how you have done every thing before everybody else. But in the real world what counts is what you can and are doing today.
But hey yours is syndrome common to all declining powers, so I know you are not going to stop. So keep on singing about the glories of your empire.

 

[Esc8781]

Getting something right once doesn't mean that you will get it right every time. Things that were achievable yesterday may not be today.
So the space remains the same but American resolve and economy doesn't.



Not so quick. Economic standing is the basis for all else. You may have excellent plans but If you can't afford them they are useless. In the 60s because of the strength of the US economy, it was able to afford all that but today it can't. It's one or the other.



That is exactly my point. You have a budget that cannot be stretched to cover everything (its being wasted on useless wars in the Middle East). You did something before, probably better then the Russians. But today you are dependent on the Russians to give you lifts.
It's not the sign of rising power but a declining one.
Also one needs to be smart, you spent billions upon billions of dollars on your ABM system, thinking it will give you first strike capability. The Russians and Chinese spendisely come up with a solution that now makes that investment useless.
You can keep on singing about your glory days, how you have done every thing before everybody else. But in the real world what counts is what you can and are doing today.
But hey yours is syndrome common to all declining powers, so I know you are not going to stop. So keep on singing about the glories of your empire.

Buddy, research this orbital test vehicle. Hint: Unseen innovations onboard.

Anyways, the US is researching on safer launches, more efficient and cheaper satellites, and better reusable orbital vehicles. Go read about the research that NASA (and private companies) did over the past decade. Dunno bout you, but I sure don't want anything like challenger happenning again.

 

[Juice]

As far as the shuttle...the US had a bunch...no other country has ever had any. It is soooo old-hat for us we already retired them. The Chinese have never had any to retire.

 

[bolo]

National focus is a different issue. Am trying to understand the TECHNICAL reasons as to why the US cannot return to the Moon. Has space between Earth and Moon changed?


So what? It cost roughly 2 bils per Space Shuttle. An aircraft carrier cost double that. If we can build a couple of carriers today, we can certainly build another Shuttle, or a better version. Our economic standing is irrelevant.


There is something call a 'budget'. Heard of it? Also, the Space Shuttle fleet proved the point: That it is feasible to have a reusable vehicle. Neither Russia nor China have done it, but both countries will benefit from US. Now that the reusable vehicle is a proven concept, why not turn the idea over the commercial sector? Yours is really an astoundingly ignorant question. A budget is something that is common to all, from an individual to a country.


You mean the Van Allen Belt never existed before? Great...More 'Chinese physics'..

When did I say it never existed before Nam man? typical low IQ person

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

As far as the shuttle...the US had a bunch...no other country has ever had any. It is soooo old-hat for us we already retired them. The Chinese have never had any to retire.

U.S Shuttle is just white elephant, economically non-viable, it's just a political tool, if it was so great U.S will certain build a new one similar to it. Know the failed design this has avoid China to commite the same mistake, I think China is still exploring move economical viable concept. Only Russia has attempt to pursue Shuttle concept and the fate is well know.

 

[terranMarine]

As far as the shuttle...the US had a bunch...no other country has ever had any. It is soooo old-hat for us we already retired them. The Chinese have never had any to retire.

You are underestimating the Soviets too much.
Buran (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buran programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[terranMarine]

Dunno bout you, but I sure don't want anything like challenger happenning again.

And the Columbia disaster. Though the space shuttle concept has been very useful to the US space program it proved to be very expensive not to mention 2 shuttle disasters gave NASA more reasons to retire these planes.

 

[gambit]

Getting something right once doesn't mean that you will get it right every time. Things that were achievable yesterday may not be today.

Am still waiting for a credible TECHNICAL explanation on how the US COULD NOT return to the Moon. The Apollo's computer memory was about 2k. Today's toaster have more memory than that. But hey...The US could not return to the Moon.

So the space remains the same but American resolve and economy doesn't.

Yeah...The US economy today is better than back in the 1960s-70s.

Not so quick. Economic standing is the basis for all else. You may have excellent plans but If you can't afford them they are useless. In the 60s because of the strength of the US economy, it was able to afford all that but today it can't. It's one or the other.

This does not make sense. An aircraft carrier cost nearly thrice a Space Shuttle, no matter how the rest of the world does. So if we are wealthy enough to build an aircraft carrier once every few years, what does our global economic standing have to do with this?

That is exactly my point.

No...That was not your point. You had no point. You got cornered by your own ignorant arguments. A budget is a financial plan to pay for priorities, so if we put the Moon as highest priority, our budget will reflect that and we will achieve the goal. If we put building a luxury condo at the bottom of the Mariana Trench as highest priority, our budget will reflect that and we will build that condo.

U.S Shuttle is just white elephant, economically non-viable, it's just a political tool,...

Then what is China doing on the Moon? Any economic returns there?

 

[j20blackdragon]

Here's Naval Station Norfolk.

How about sending an ICBM launched conventional hypersonic glide vehicle through each and every one of these ships?

If you want to respond with nukes, we will respond in kind with the DF-41. Have a nice day.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Craney Island Fuel Terminal

Same comments as above.

 

[nangyale]

Yeah...The US economy today is better than back in the 1960s-70s.

Are you actually that stupid dude or just trying to fool others?

Here is how much the US economy has lost in the decade from 2001 to 2011.

This is what the world economy be in 2021 based on current projections.

and for your information the US economy was 38.69% of the world's economy in 1960.
Tell me how the US economy is better today than 1960s - 70s?

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Then what is China doing on the Moon? Any economic returns there?

you're compare an apple to an orange? Moon exploration is like oil exploration, you don't get the first economic returns, it's an long term investment same as U.S Mars exploration. But Shuttles has been repeately used knowing that the cost effectiveness is not comparable to the conventional rocket launcher, U.S continue to finance until the retirement just for face saving. you could imagine what will happen if U.S government declare that the Shuttle just an white elephan...how Amperican public will react?

 

[gambit]

you're compare an apple to an orange? Moon exploration is like oil exploration, you don't get the first economic returns, it's an long term investment same as U.S Mars exploration. But Shuttles has been repeately used knowing that the cost effectiveness is not comparable to the conventional rocket launcher, U.S continue to finance until the retirement just for face saving. you could imagine what will happen if U.S government declare that the Shuttle just an white elephan...how Amperican public will react?

The Space Shuttle proved that reusable vehicles are feasible. The firsts of any thing are bound to be exploratory in terms of manufacturing, operation, and the fleet have provided much more knowledge such as space operations or large vehicle maneuvers in zero gravity, than expendable vehicles can.

In my area of interests -- avionics and specifically flight controls -- zero-g maneuvering is absent one crucial item for gyros and accelerometers to rely upon -- gravity -- thereby forcing engineers to be creative in terms of writing flight control laws sensitive and responsive enough so that the ship does not collide with the Space Station in operating the reaction control thrusters: 24 large primaries and 4 vernier jets.

gyroscopes

One reason that gyroscopes are not usually used to control spacecraft orientation is due to the fine print in the description of the behavior of gyroscopes: "A gyroscope keeps its axle pointed in the same direction, in the absence of torques." Torques are the twisting forces mentioned earlier. When you twist the lid off a peanut butter jar, you are applying a torque to the lid. If there are any torques on a gyro, its direction of spin will precess and the gyros axis will point in a new direction. All mechanical gyroscopes in use today have some frictional torques on them: either from the bearings in their gimballed mounts, or from air drag against the moving gyroscope. Over hours or days these frictional torques cause the gyroscopes to precess away from their original headings. A spacecraft which depended on the original heading would then be in trouble.

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science

Time and space, according to Einstein's theories of relativity, are woven together, forming a four-dimensional fabric called "space-time." The mass of Earth dimples this fabric, much like a heavy person sitting in the middle of a trampoline. Gravity, says Einstein, is simply the motion of objects following the curvaceous lines of the dimple.

If Earth were stationary, that would be the end of the story. But Earth is not stationary. Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space in 2004 to check.

The idea behind the experiment is simple:

Put a spinning gyroscope into orbit around the Earth, with the spin axis pointed toward some distant star as a fixed reference point. Free from external forces, the gyroscope's axis should continue pointing at the star--forever. But if space is twisted, the direction of the gyroscope's axis should drift over time. By noting this change in direction relative to the star, the twists of space-time could be measured.

Knowledge gleaned from discoveries by actually building and doing things are intangible and cannot be criticized without running the risk of being intellectually dishonest, which you have done by exusing the Moon landing by China as long term investments but technical knowledge, such as how gyroscopes behaves in zero-g, that WILL have immediate benefits for future space vehicles -- are not worth the money and efforts spent by US.

What the American Space Shuttle fleet have contributed to space exploration have been far more than China have contributed and there is no guarantee that China will ever be able to match by using expendable vehicles. The future of space exploration will be in reusables, not expendables. Why do you think the commercial sector in the US is heading that direction?

The Tauri Group Announces Release of Report: 'Suborbital Reusable Vehicles: A 10-Year... -- ALEXANDRIA, Va., Aug. 1, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Aug. 1, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The Tauri Group, LLC announces the release of a forecast of demand for suborbital reusable vehicles (SRVs). SRVs are a new class of rocket-powered vehicles designed to cross the threshold of space, carrying cargo or people. The report, "Suborbital Reusable Vehicles: A Ten-Year Forecast of Market Demand," analyzes emerging SRV markets and identifies drivers of growth.

Space Florida (Florida's spaceport authority and aerospace development organization) and the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) jointly funded the study, which The Tauri Group conducted.

The Tauri Group estimates baseline demand for SRVs – reflecting predictable trends that exist today – at between 400 and 500 seat equivalents each year, for people and cargo. A growth scenario sees that number nearly triple to between 1,000 and 1,500 seat equivalents per year. Additional potential demand is possible from unknowns such as research discoveries, commercial applications, or a viral consumer response. Price reductions would also increase demand.

The dominant SRV market is Commercial Human Spaceflight – human spaceflight experiences for tourism or training – generating more than 80% of SRV demand. Five additional markets are predicted to be active in the 10-year forecast period: Basic and Applied Research, Aerospace Technology Test and Demonstration, Satellite Deployment, Education, and Media and Public Relations.

But you go on believing your own limited thinking. I hope China employ more and more people like you. It will only assure US dominance and leadership in space.