What's new

China rushing to beat US in the race to space

The article was written by an American for CNBC. No need to get emotional. I would say US is still way ahead in overall space technology, and China is playing catch-up. Through the gaps in certain area are narrowing, China is still far behind. 2049 may be a good time to do some dick-measuring.
 
. .
The article was written by an American for CNBC. No need to get emotional. I would say US is still way ahead in overall space technology, and China is playing catch-up. Through the gaps in certain area are narrowing, China is still far behind. 2049 may be a good time to do some dick-measuring.

The CNBC Article is not about Space race at all. You have just been hacked by the OP....

The original title of the CNBC article :

China's Space Missions in 2016 ties to Military Ambitions

with the heading

Is China's race to space a military ploy?

The CNBC article is to investigate whether or not the Chinese 2016 space mission are military related.

And it is exacerbating tensions with U.S. defense officials and security analysts concerned by China's focus on enhancing its military capabilities in space.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/china-rushing-to-beat-us-in-the-race-to-space.422675/#ixzz40cPZmC9p

The article did mentioned a point where the Chinese is hurrying up the Space development, but only limited to what have been done by the US.

There were no space race mentioned in the article at all. The OP just sensationalize the article to make it look that way

Google it first.That's the original title Yahoo news adopted.

I googled it. Here are the result

Google.jpg


The only result churned out the title as China Rushing to beat US in Space Race

in 2 sites (Not counting the PDF one )

Scoopnest.com and

xperiment.com

But no Yahoo.

You can try and google the title if you want,
 
.
Actually, I have said these many time, NASA can actually colonize the moon if they want. They have the technology and know how to do it.

The problem with colonizing moon is not just simply send men into moon and somehow build a colony (Well, this is the premises of moon colony) The actual colonization is a lot more complicated than that. You need to first select a spot, where you are shelter from the Sun radiation when the moon is not sheltered by the earth, Moon does not have an atmosphere, unlike earth, so any direct expose of Sun's radiation would immediately kill those are in moon.

Another problem related to the location is soil structure, something you need to first went to the moon to know. Soil and material science is the next important step to build colony in moon. Even on earth, you would not build a building on loose dirt. You won't do it in moon which only have 1/6 gravity.

Then you need to be precisely land on the spot you choose (Given if you have chosen the right spot with all the data you got) Unlike here on earth, you cannot take a bus if you are like 3 block away from your destination, meaning you have to get to the right spot ALL THE TIME. and precision landing on moon is something one can get after landed several time on moon.

Then come the sustainability. how you can sustain the colony, how you can provide to and from transport from moon to earth, how you can develop the moon you want to. Again, it's not like you have some sort of space truck that you can haul your material from A to B. You either land them from Earth precisely at those point, or you have to rely on man power. Then comes the living part of the colony, where you find water, electricity, build housing, waste management, all that you need to take care off. Like you want to use nuclear power plant or build a solar farm on the pole of moon so they will always have solar energy? But then you will have to connect those solar energy to the grid, but if you build a small nuclear plant, then you can only support a small colony.

NASA actually investigated all that and have a proposal for all the question. Hence they are good to go. Even if China can send men to moon tomorrow, unless NASA do them a favour and share their data with them, there are no way China can get to a point where all these question is answered immediately after they went to the moon, and that's just facts.

People here underestimate what NASA done for their living, just because they are fading thru the lime light without moon landing and space shuttle launch, that does not mean they are actually doing nothing. But well, maybe we should simply let them think like that lol


1) Not entirely correct.. The moon does have an atmosphere-Like you stated yourself, the moon has 1/6 the gravity acceleration of the Earth's, what do you think that does to gases trying to escape. You're wrong here. Radiation on the moon is not as bad as in a vacuum in space.

2) The us doesn't have the capacity to settle on the Moon at this point, only 'exploration' due the lacking number of people they can get to the moon at a feasible cost. America lacks propulsion efficient enough shuttle enough people and enough resources with limited settlers back and forth. VASIMR is a good idea, if they can make magnetic propulsion feasible, then it would be a more sound plan from a financial standpoint. Essentially, the us cannot afford to settle the moon, because they lack the technology to do it to make it feasible enough at a practical level.

3) The term 'space race' is very relative, there may still be a race; it simply is a measure of what. The race to Alpha Centauri? The race to achieve >300,000 km/s travel aka light speed? The race to develop anti-gravitational, or nuclear fusion propulsion? In that regard, there may very well be a space race for new-comers to compete in. Hence, you're wrong again.

@jhungary, you really ought to be more impartial to different parties, because you sound exactly like yankee users here, but with bad English grammar usage.
 
.
the race to space. we've already won the race to space :wave: well technically the Soviet Union won the race to space, but we won the space race in general.

now it's private companies that will lead the way :guns:
post-58433-12812001004828.jpg

China is just now playing catch up is all :haha:

Whether China will be the leader in the NEW ERA of space technology and travel is to be seen

This is why you gotta love privatization..USA is an empire built on privatization...
 
.
Is China's race to space a military ploy?
Clay Dillow, special to CNBC.com
10 Hours Ago
China plans to launch more than 20 space missions in 2016, making the year ahead the busiest ever for the nation's rapidly growing space program.

After successfully launching 19 missions in 2015, the People's Republic plans a range of civilian and military missions that will test new rockets, launch a space laboratory, hone China's manned spaceflight capability and loft new satellites into orbit — all while furthering plans to bring a habitable space station online by 2022 and put Chinese astronauts on the moon in the mid-2020s.

At the same time, the Asian colossus is investing in anti-satellite technologies that would destroy or disable space-based assets in the event of conflict. Considering the fact that the U.S. relies upon satellites for a lot of its intelligence collection and communication, it's a worrisome trend.

And it is exacerbating tensions with U.S. defense officials and security analysts concerned by China's focus on enhancing its military capabilities in space.

Behind the red curtain
Right now China spends $2 billion to $3 billion on its space program annually, a fraction of the $19 billion NASA will spend this year. Although China remains decades behind the U.S. in terms of space technology and know-how, it has managed to fast-forward innovation by leveraging existing technologies and its inexpensive labor and material markets.

The strategy is working: Over the last 15 years, it's been able to start closing the gap with U.S. and Russian rivals — likely helped along by funding from the Chinese military.

The accelerating tempo of China's civilian space activities now presents a further threat to U.S. space dominance. The fear is that at some point in the foreseeable future, the Chinese could overtake — and even rocket past — the U.S. industry.

"You've got this combination of civilian projects for prestige and military projects for power," said James Andrew Lewis, a senior fellow and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "It shows that the Chinese are moving to be a leader in space — if not the leader."

Among the 20-plus launches scheduled for this year are maiden flights of China's Long March 7 and Long March 5 rockets, the latter being its heaviest and most technically sophisticated rocket to date.

China will launch communications and Earth-imaging satellites into orbit for Argentina and Belarus (marking the first time China has exported a satellite to Europe) as well as several satellites of its own. At least two scientific satellites, two navigation satellites and three spacecraft to augment China's High-Resolution Earth Observation System are slated for launch before the end of the year.

The most visible and most ambitious mission will launch in the second half of the year, when a Long March 2F rocket sends the Shenzhou XI spacecraft and its crew of three astronauts to dock with China'sTiangong 2 space laboratory, a habitable module that will launch into orbit separately sometime in the first half of the year.

Tiangong 2, while not designed for long-term habitation, is an important steppingstone toward building a Chinese space station that can be inhabited long term, similar to Russia's Mir or the International Space Station.

The Shenzhou XI mission will allow Chinese scientists to research technologies and identify potential engineering flaws or other issues before launching the core module of its permanent space station sometime later this decade. If the schedule holds, China hopes to have its very own space station online by 2022 — a space station that some security analysts worry could be used for military applications.
103377765-RTR33BVO.600x400.jpg


Those missions will join an already lengthy Chinese mission portfolio as several ongoing science and technology programs launched in previous years continue to progress. Those missions include a lunar orbiter that is presently scouting locations for a future robotic landing on the lunar surface (likely in 2017) that will pave the way for Chinese astronauts to land on the moon by the mid-2020s — a feat that would make China the only nation capable of putting astronauts on the moon a full five decades after Americans terminated the Apollo program.

"The significance of all this is that China clearly intends to have a competitive space capability," said Dr. John Logsdon, a space policy expert and professor emeritus at George Washington University. If the Chinese hit all the milestones they've set for themselves, they'll still be where the U.S. and Soviets were three decades ago, but they'll also have ticked many of the boxes on the modern space-power checklist.

"These are steps in the logical development of a highly capable space program," Logsdon noted. "They're not successes or milestones to get worried about as long as our own program moves forward."


Given the huge lead the U.S. enjoys over China in space in the entire spectrum of technology and capability, the notion of China's space program leapfrogging the United States' in the foreseeable future is somewhat alarmist, Logsdon said. But the fact that China's civilian space program is so closely linked to its military space activity is worrisome, particularly for the U.S.

Alongside its civilian and scientific space programs, China has invested heavily in anti-satellite technologies that would destroy or disable space-based assets in the event of conflict — weapons like ground-based missiles capable of destroying targets in orbit, as well as experimental lasers and signal jammers that could disable or otherwise "blind" satellites that can be used in a military conflict.

In 2007, China publicly demonstrated one such weapon by launching a ground-based interceptor missile at one of its own defunct satellites in orbit, destroying it (and creating a cloud of dangerous space debris). The test was largely viewed as a shot across the bow for U.S. military planners that rely heavily on military satellites for everything from navigation and communication to intelligence gathering, weapons targeting and piloting its drone aircraft.

While the Pentagon retains its own means of interfering with an adversary's satellites in orbit — including ship-based anti-satellite missiles — U.S. military and commercial interests maintain a far greater presence in orbit and thus have the most assets to lose there.

"There are a lot of avenues to go after satellites, and what worries people is that the Chinese are pursuing all of them," CSIS's Lewis said. "The question becomes: If they're so into peace, why are they building so many weapons?"

What lies ahead?
The uptick in Chinese space activity has political ramifications as well, Lewis said, even on the purely civilian side of things. In the last space race, putting astronauts on the moon represented the pinnacle of space-based capability, catapulting the U.S. ahead of the Soviet Union in terms of international prestige.

With the U.S. space program now focused on abstract goals like amanned mission to Mars at some vague point in the future, China is making concrete plans to return humans to the moon at a time when U.S. astronauts rely on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for rides to the International Space Station.

"The Chinese are persistent and will probably get back on the moon before we do, so in round two of the space race, we come in second place," Lewis said. "When China lands on the moon and we aren't there, what's the world going to think?"

But the Chinese space program still remains several years away from doing so, and in the meantime, its increasing presence in space also creates room for cooperation if China and the U.S. can push past their mutual distrust on national security matters. While the military aspects of Chinese space ambitions need to be monitored and understood, Logsdon said, the best way to do that is to engage with the Chinese and their space program.

"We can get more done if countries in space work together," he said. "The days of one country being the dominant space power are behind us."

China's space missions in 2016 tied to military ambitions

Dude, you're posting a stupid article from CNBC and you expect not to get reactions from insecure American posters?

Just tell them to direct their concern and questions to Clay Dillow.

:crazy:
 
.
I wasn't going to reply to your post, but in the spirit to crush you on this topic, I will make an exception.

1) Not entirely correct.. The moon does have an atmosphere-Like you stated yourself, the moon has 1/6 the gravity acceleration of the Earth's, what do you think that does to gases trying to escape. You're wrong here. Radiation on the moon is not as bad as in a vacuum in space.

This paragraph is WRONG IN EVERY CONSIDERABLE LEVEL

The vacuum effect on radiation is minimal. However, the earth atmosphere displayed 2 properties that would have seriously hampered the incoming radiation from the Sun. According to Columbia University

Solar Radiation, Earth's Atmosphere, and the Greenhouse Effect.

35% of Sun's radiation were reflected out back into space by our atmosphere. While 17.5% of the radiation were absorbed by our atmosphere. The other 25% were scattered by both skies and cloud and another 22.5% of radiation directly absorbed by the Earth Surface.

A person sitting outside facing sunlight in effect were only absorbing 25% of scattered radiation from the sun, which basically depending on the weather condition, it range from 10.5% if there were no cloud, 14,5% if there are clouds.

On the moon, that's different stories, since the moon rotate with respect to the earth, the daylight coming from the sun would not be the same as the earth itself, a day in earth time is roughly 24 hours, but on moon, 1 day on moon would take 29.5 earth day, which mean daylight will shrine on moon for 14.7 days for a full rotation.

What it does to the moon is this, since the moon does not have an atmosphere to reflect and absorb the radiation from the sun, and the sunlight lasted 14.7 days per rotation. According to NASA, the moon itself become radioactive

Radioactive Moon - NASA Science

While day light were scattered after entering our atmosphere, daylight remain concentrated when enter the moon. And the first thing those radiation hit would be the moon surface. And the moon surface will bounce off the sun's radiation and scatter the 100% concentration back down to the moon due to moon's gravity. Meaning the moon surface is constantly irradiated. Resulting the moon crust itself becoming Radioactive.

Solar Wind, which will create another effect on moon by bounding those radiation into the surface material of moon, along with the Helium-3 Gas (Moon Gas), which basically making the moon one giant radiation core.

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute

According to NASA, the main threat to the astronauts would be the Radiation on Moon, which as of 2005, would only be safe for any human to be on the moon for "a few day", which is not something as you said "Not any different than any vacuum space"


2) The us doesn't have the capacity to settle on the Moon at this point, only 'exploration' due the lacking number of people they can get to the moon at a feasible cost. America lacks propulsion efficient enough shuttle enough people and enough resources with limited settlers back and forth. VASIMR is a good idea, if they can make magnetic propulsion feasible, then it would be a more sound plan from a financial standpoint. Essentially, the us cannot afford to settle the moon, because they lack the technology to do it to make it feasible enough at a practical level.

Again, Wrong.

The NASA Astronauts Corp is basically the biggest group there are on earth, with 82 active astronauts (Both flight and non-flight status) and 339 potential candidate

Management Astronauts
Astronauts

Compare it with China, which today have 10 flight status astronaut with less than 50 selection candidate as of 2010

Cosmonaut Selection: China

About propulsion, US have make a separate run with NASA developing Cargo Payload spacecraft that have at least Saturn V payload with more fuel efficient rocket. The SLS will launch in 2017-2018 and the Block 3 (Comparable to Saturn V in term of Payload) would be launch in 2020. Saturn V is currently the biggest payload rocket in history at 140 ton (140,000 kgs) LEO Where as SLS block 3 would have 150 tons payload LEO.

Space Launch System | NASA

Long March 5 - 25 ton LEO
Long March 7 - 13.5 tons LEO
Long March 9 - 130 tons LEO in development

NASA also farmed out the Commercial Spaceflight to basically bring Astronaut to the moon. Which will lower the development cost for NASA (Basically they don't need to do them all) and also it would be a parallel development with the SLS. Which mean they don't draw resource away from SLS.

For this, China have to basically need to do them all themselves, without the know how, and with 1/10 of NASA budget.

Financially, NASA is a lot better off than the Chinese.

3) The term 'space race' is very relative, there may still be a race; it simply is a measure of what. The race to Alpha Centauri? The race to achieve >300,000 km/s travel aka light speed? The race to develop anti-gravitational, or nuclear fusion propulsion? In that regard, there may very well be a space race for new-comers to compete in. Hence, you're wrong again.

Technically, The race to achieve > 300,000km/s is not about space race, it's about technological race. So does anti-gravitational device or fusion propulsion, all these don't just have their usefulness in space.

Also, proplusion rate does not quite matter in space travel anyway, it is more important than breaking the escape velocity. most space flight travel in space are without proplusion, as space are gravity-less and near frictionless.

And China would NEVER reach Alpha Centauri before American. Unless the Voyager Probe are abducted by the Alpha Centurion....Breaking the Escape Velocity of the solar system require the minimal speed without propulsion about 500km/s, which mean they would all travel at near the same speed regardless of the different between engine output.

@jhungary, you really ought to be more impartial to different parties, because you sound exactly like yankee users here, but with bad English grammar usage.


I don't sound like an American, I am an American, you on the other hand, probably wise to go read some books before comment.

Another thing, I don't do spell check nor grammar check. So what? A word of advice, those who live in glass house should not throw stone. When your own grammar is bad, you really should not comment on another's grammar.

like this, you said "America lacks (Should be lacking) propulsion (What is an America Propulsion?) ("that") efficient enough (to) shuttle enough people and enough resources with limited settlers (missing a verb, may I suggest "going") back and forth." I honestly cannot begin to tell you how grammatically inappropriate it was. And by the way, that's a direct translation from Chinese to English. Because, again, you missed at least 3 prepositions in one sentence....

The only different between you and me? while I know my shit, and well, I don't know what you know, you know how to cook?

Dude, you're posting a stupid article from CNBC and you expect not to get reactions from insecure American posters?

Just tell them to direct their concern and questions to Clay Dillow.

:crazy:

We are more concern about his brain than the allegedly "Insecurity" you guys charging us with.

The article wasn't even talking about a space race.....He is seeing things that weren't there.
 
Last edited:
.
I wasn't going to reply to your post, but in the spirit to crush you on this topic, I will make an exception.



This paragraph is WRONG IN EVERY CONSIDERABLE LEVEL

The vacuum effect on radiation is minimal. However, the earth atmosphere displayed 2 properties that would have seriously hampered the incoming radiation from the Sun. According to Columbia University

Solar Radiation, Earth's Atmosphere, and the Greenhouse Effect.

35% of Sun's radiation were reflected out back into space by our atmosphere. While 17.5% of the radiation were absorbed by our atmosphere. The other 25% were scattered by both skies and cloud and another 22.5% of radiation directly absorbed by the Earth Surface.

A person sitting outside facing sunlight in effect were only absorbing 25% of scattered radiation from the sun, which basically depending on the weather condition, it range from 10.5% if there were no cloud, 14,5% if there are clouds.

On the moon, that's different stories, since the moon rotate with respect to the earth, the daylight coming from the sun would not be the same as the earth itself, a day in earth time is roughly 24 hours, but on moon, 1 day on moon would take 29.5 earth day, which mean daylight will shrine on moon for 14.7 days for a full rotation.

What it does to the moon is this, since the moon does not have an atmosphere to reflect and absorb the radiation from the sun, and the sunlight lasted 14.7 days per rotation. According to NASA, the moon itself become radioactive

Radioactive Moon - NASA Science

While day light were scattered after entering our atmosphere, daylight remain concentrated when enter the moon. And the first thing those radiation hit would be the moon surface. And the moon surface will bounce off the sun's radiation and scatter the 100% concentration back down to the moon due to moon's gravity. Meaning the moon surface is constantly irradiated. Resulting the moon crust itself becoming Radioactive.

Solar Wind, which will create another effect on moon by bounding those radiation into the surface material of moon, along with the Helium-3 Gas (Moon Gas), which basically making the moon one giant radiation core.

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute

According to NASA, the main threat to the astronauts would be the Radiation on Moon, which as of 2005, would only be safe for any human to be on the moon for "a few day", which is not something as you said "Not any different than any vacuum space"




Again, Wrong.

The NASA Astronauts Corp is basically the biggest group there are on earth, with 82 active astronauts (Both flight and non-flight status) and 339 potential candidate

Management Astronauts
Astronauts

Compare it with China, which today have 10 flight status astronaut with less than 50 selection candidate as of 2010

Cosmonaut Selection: China

About propulsion, US have make a separate run with NASA developing Cargo Payload spacecraft that have at least Saturn V payload with more fuel efficient rocket. The SLS will launch in 2017-2018 and the Block 3 (Comparable to Saturn V in term of Payload) would be launch in 2020. Saturn V is currently the biggest payload rocket in history at 140 ton (140,000 kgs) LEO Where as SLS block 3 would have 150 tons payload LEO.

Space Launch System | NASA

Long March 5 - 25 ton LEO
Long March 7 - 13.5 tons LEO
Long March 9 - 130 tons LEO in development

NASA also farmed out the Commercial Spaceflight to basically bring Astronaut to the moon. Which will lower the development cost for NASA (Basically they don't need to do them all) and also it would be a parallel development with the SLS. Which mean they don't draw resource away from SLS.

For this, China have to basically need to do them all themselves, without the know how, and with 1/10 of NASA budget.

Financially, NASA is a lot better off than the Chinese.



Technically, The race to achieve > 300,000km/s is not about space race, it's about technological race. So does anti-gravitational device or fusion propulsion, all these don't just have their usefulness in space.

Also, proplusion rate does not quite matter in space travel anyway, it is more important than breaking the escape velocity. most space flight travel in space are without proplusion, as space are gravity-less and near frictionless.

And China would NEVER reach Alpha Centauri before American. Unless the Voyager Probe are abducted by the Alpha Centurion....Breaking the Escape Velocity of the solar system require the minimal speed without propulsion about 500km/s, which mean they would all travel at near the same speed regardless of the different between engine output.

Every single one of your Post is a treat to read man.:enjoy:I consider myself very fortunate that I have been given this opportunity to read your posts:pop:
 
.
Every single one of your Post is a treat to read man.:enjoy:I consider myself very fortunate that I have been given this opportunity to read your posts:pop:

Oh well, thanks :)

I actually only knows a little about Space Flight, just that standing next to a person who know next to nothing make me looks like I m a fountain of wisdom...

lol
 
.
Likewise, I really didn't feel like responding to this, because your response is a huge tangent to what I posted. In other words, I don't like to waste time on hobo's, because that's what you make yourself sound like. Go and get yourself a college degree in a STEM field before you come back and discuss technical with me.

You've been debunked as a useless professional, so remove your 'professional' from your tag. I'll crush you at every level, but I'm quite sure you're well aware of that by now.

Onto the point 1)

You pointed out that the Moon had no atmosphere, which is clearly incorrect:

Is There an Atmosphere on the Moon? | NASA

Although minuscule, it's still present. Having an atmosphere, albeit a very small one will shield at least a small portion of cosmic rays. That's all I was pointing out, CLEARLY, you are wrong here.


Point 2)

Did I mention anything about the astronaut training program? I was talking about the impracticality of relying on rocketry for frequent supplies and passenger delivery. LEARN TO READ, IT CLEARLY SHOWS YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY IN RESPONDING APPROPRIATELY TO WHAT I WRITE. Until mankind can ditch chemical propulsion once and for all, settlement and low-cost ferrying will remain a challenge. I don't care what figures spacex provides, until they actually deliver in setting up a colony, it's yet to be proven. I've attended multiple Newspace conferences between 2010-2012, I've seen a lot of great ideas on Moon and Martian colonisation, but they are limited by our current methods/means of propulsion. What we lack right now is ENGINE EFFICIENCY. This is where electro-prop comes in. Your beloved NASA can tell you all about its projects on solar sails etc. They need to make this means readily available, it's the way to settlement in neighboring celestial bodies.

VASIMR Rocket Could Send Humans To Mars In Just 39 Days


Point 3)

Space race is a relative term, again like I mentioned earlier. The ORIGINAL space race, between the USSR and usa is over. The current space race can be anything you make of it, including technological feats. Again, this is relative, so it can be anything anyone wants to label in terms of accomplishments in space travel.


You, a Yankee? Ha! I almost fell of my chair lmao. Anyways, I don't care if you are, but your Chingrish is extremely irritating to read. Coupled with the fact that you completely responded off-topic to my original response, you clearly demonstrated that you are a total waste of people's time, and I pity those who look up to learning from you. Also, let me edit what you wrote earlier,

"The only different between you and me? while all I know is shit...
Agreed, finally.

Also, as an FYI, I've been historically reporting every darned post you've made as I come across them; you get all emotional on every single one of them, and start insulting people that disagree with you. I don't usually post like this, but for the sake of using your usual writing style to respond to your posts, I'll do it just for show.

I wasn't going to reply to your post, but in the spirit to crush you on this topic, I will make an exception.



This paragraph is WRONG IN EVERY CONSIDERABLE LEVEL

The vacuum effect on radiation is minimal. However, the earth atmosphere displayed 2 properties that would have seriously hampered the incoming radiation from the Sun. According to Columbia University

Solar Radiation, Earth's Atmosphere, and the Greenhouse Effect.

35% of Sun's radiation were reflected out back into space by our atmosphere. While 17.5% of the radiation were absorbed by our atmosphere. The other 25% were scattered by both skies and cloud and another 22.5% of radiation directly absorbed by the Earth Surface.

A person sitting outside facing sunlight in effect were only absorbing 25% of scattered radiation from the sun, which basically depending on the weather condition, it range from 10.5% if there were no cloud, 14,5% if there are clouds.

On the moon, that's different stories, since the moon rotate with respect to the earth, the daylight coming from the sun would not be the same as the earth itself, a day in earth time is roughly 24 hours, but on moon, 1 day on moon would take 29.5 earth day, which mean daylight will shrine on moon for 14.7 days for a full rotation.

What it does to the moon is this, since the moon does not have an atmosphere to reflect and absorb the radiation from the sun, and the sunlight lasted 14.7 days per rotation. According to NASA, the moon itself become radioactive

Radioactive Moon - NASA Science

While day light were scattered after entering our atmosphere, daylight remain concentrated when enter the moon. And the first thing those radiation hit would be the moon surface. And the moon surface will bounce off the sun's radiation and scatter the 100% concentration back down to the moon due to moon's gravity. Meaning the moon surface is constantly irradiated. Resulting the moon crust itself becoming Radioactive.

Solar Wind, which will create another effect on moon by bounding those radiation into the surface material of moon, along with the Helium-3 Gas (Moon Gas), which basically making the moon one giant radiation core.

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute

According to NASA, the main threat to the astronauts would be the Radiation on Moon, which as of 2005, would only be safe for any human to be on the moon for "a few day", which is not something as you said "Not any different than any vacuum space"




Again, Wrong.

The NASA Astronauts Corp is basically the biggest group there are on earth, with 82 active astronauts (Both flight and non-flight status) and 339 potential candidate

Management Astronauts
Astronauts

Compare it with China, which today have 10 flight status astronaut with less than 50 selection candidate as of 2010

Cosmonaut Selection: China

About propulsion, US have make a separate run with NASA developing Cargo Payload spacecraft that have at least Saturn V payload with more fuel efficient rocket. The SLS will launch in 2017-2018 and the Block 3 (Comparable to Saturn V in term of Payload) would be launch in 2020. Saturn V is currently the biggest payload rocket in history at 140 ton (140,000 kgs) LEO Where as SLS block 3 would have 150 tons payload LEO.

Space Launch System | NASA

Long March 5 - 25 ton LEO
Long March 7 - 13.5 tons LEO
Long March 9 - 130 tons LEO in development

NASA also farmed out the Commercial Spaceflight to basically bring Astronaut to the moon. Which will lower the development cost for NASA (Basically they don't need to do them all) and also it would be a parallel development with the SLS. Which mean they don't draw resource away from SLS.

For this, China have to basically need to do them all themselves, without the know how, and with 1/10 of NASA budget.

Financially, NASA is a lot better off than the Chinese.



Technically, The race to achieve > 300,000km/s is not about space race, it's about technological race. So does anti-gravitational device or fusion propulsion, all these don't just have their usefulness in space.

Also, proplusion rate does not quite matter in space travel anyway, it is more important than breaking the escape velocity. most space flight travel in space are without proplusion, as space are gravity-less and near frictionless.

And China would NEVER reach Alpha Centauri before American. Unless the Voyager Probe are abducted by the Alpha Centurion....Breaking the Escape Velocity of the solar system require the minimal speed without propulsion about 500km/s, which mean they would all travel at near the same speed regardless of the different between engine output.




I don't sound like an American, I am an American, you on the other hand, probably wise to go read some books before comment.

Another thing, I don't do spell check nor grammar check. So what? A word of advice, those who live in glass house should not throw stone. When your own grammar is bad, you really should not comment on another's grammar.

like this, you said "America lacks (Should be lacking) propulsion (What is an America Propulsion?) ("that") efficient enough (to) shuttle enough people and enough resources with limited settlers (missing a verb, may I suggest "going") back and forth." I honestly cannot begin to tell you how grammatically inappropriate it was. And by the way, that's a direct translation from Chinese to English. Because, again, you missed at least 3 prepositions in one sentence....

The only different between you and me? while I know my shit, and well, I don't know what you know, you know how to cook?



We are more concern about his brain than the allegedly "Insecurity" you guys charging us with.

The article wasn't even talking about a space race.....He is seeing things that weren't there.
 
Last edited:
.
Likewise, I really didn't feel like responding to this, because your response is a huge tangent to what I posted. In other words, I don't like to waste time on hobo's, because that's what you make yourself sound like. Go and get yourself a college degree in a STEM field before you come back and discuss technical with me.

You've been debunked as a useless professional, so remove your 'professional' from your tag. I'll crush you at every level, but I'm quite sure you're well aware of that by now.

Using insult word like "Hobo", that make you looks desperate to win an argument, not making you a hero.

On the other hand, I never considered myself to be an "expert" in space, in fact, I just said so after I replied on your previous post to some other member, still, standing next to you, I can still hold my own.

Let's crack open on what you say again, shall we?

Onto the point 1)

You pointed out that the Moon had no atmosphere, which is clearly incorrect:

Is There an Atmosphere on the Moon? | NASA

Although minuscule, it's still present. Having an atmosphere, albeit a very small one will shield at least a small portion of cosmic rays. That's all I was pointing out, CLEARLY, you are wrong here.

You Chinese have a thing for quoting an article jumping on the conclusion without actually finishing the article.

While indeed there are a thin layer of gas forming an atmosphere on moon. But the Moon's atmosphere is completely different than Earth's, while the term "atmosphere" is correct to be used on moon, the actual definition of "atmosphere" on moon and on earth is actually extremely different.

1st Point. NASA said this on your article.

recent studies confirm that our moon does indeed have an atmosphere consisting of some unusual gases, including sodium and potassium, which are not found in the atmospheres of Earth, Mars or Venus

The composition of the atmosphere on earth and moon are different, which the make up is different. Also

At sea level on Earth, we breathe in an atmosphere where each cubic centimeter contains 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules; by comparison the lunar atmosphere has less than 1,000,000 molecules in the same volume. That still sounds like a lot, but it is what we consider to be a very good vacuum on Earth. In fact, the density of the atmosphere at the moon's surface is comparable to the density of the outermost fringes of Earth's atmosphere where the International Space Station orbits.

Which explain that while the atmosphere exist on moon, their composition is virtually vacuum, meaning it is so thin, that they are considered not exist at all.

Now, a more important argument is not this tho, the more important argument is actually, WHAT'S THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MY POINT?

For argument sake, let's say that I conceded that I am wrong about the atmosphere, does it change the fact that Moon radiation is 40-50% higher than that on Earth, and the moon itself is radioactive? No, it doesn't

So, for a person to say this, it's like saying since I guessed it wrong on Hitler's favourite color, then I must be wrong on him being a bad guys too. That's some kind of logical jump from A to B there. With total lack of critical thinking.

I am not interested on whether or not you have a STEM degree, I am much more interested on where do you get your degree which allow this kind of critical thinking??

Point 2)

Did I mention anything about the astronaut training program? I was talking about the impracticality of relying on rocketry for frequent supplies and passenger delivery. LEARN TO READ, IT CLEARLY SHOWS YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY IN RESPONDING APPROPRIATELY TO WHAT I WRITE. Until mankind can ditch chemical propulsion once and for all, settlement and low-cost ferrying will remain a challenge. I don't care what figures spacex provides, until they actually deliver in setting up a colony, it's yet to be proven. I've attended multiple Newspace conferences between 2010-2012, I've seen a lot of great ideas on Moon and Martian colonisation, but they are limited by our current methods/means of propulsion. What we lack right now is ENGINE EFFICIENCY. This is where electro-prop comes in. Your beloved NASA can tell you all about its projects on solar sails etc. They need to make this means readily available, it's the way to settlement in neighboring celestial bodies.

VASIMR Rocket Could Send Humans To Mars In Just 39 Days

You did mentioned the Astronauts training program when you say this on your last post.

The us doesn't have the capacity to settle on the Moon at this point, only 'exploration' due the lacking number of people they can get to the moon at a feasible cost

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/china-rushing-to-beat-us-in-the-race-to-space.422675/page-4#ixzz40fDVCD6O

But then I will have to admit, due to your bad grammar, I don't quite understand what you say by it. I assume you mean the NASA lack the manpower to do so feasibly .

On the other hand, your point is invalid. The question is never about cost-efficient. No space program ever was cost-efficient to begin with. Rather can America colonize the moon lies on two parameter. "Practicality" which means do they have the mean, ANY MEAN to do it. And "Sustainability" which mean can they keep doing it or in other word sustain the operation.

In no way they need to do it at a cost-effective manner. It's either they can do it, or they can't. Because what you said is simply illogical. Because essentially what you are saying is "if they cannot do it effectively and efficiently, they could not do it at all." Again, I would like to know where you graduate from college that allow this kind of critical and logical thinking

Can US colonize the moon lies on two factors, 1. Do they have the mean to do it? 2. Can they afford it?

1.) US have assorted rocket technology, both in development or old, they can and is currently the only country that can bring people on the moon (you can still see the American flag on the moon as proof) Either they going back to the 70s drawing board and remake the Saturn V rocket with lunar module, or they redo the space shuttle program from the 80s. Or they would wait for the newer SLS and Dragon 9 space craft to finish their deployment is their problem, if they so decided, they can rebuild Saturn V rocket (which in the same manner the Russia produce the Soyuz rocket) and bring them on the moon. It may not be cost effective to do so, but still, this is, as of today, is the ONLY means that is tried and proof that they can bring people up to the moon.

2.) Can they afford it? Even using the 70s and 80s method? Why not? With 150 to 1.5 billions each launch of space shuttle. They could afford them had they need to. It's not a astronomical figure that the US government and NASA cannot afford.

Just because you claim you have been to some new space conference and self professed to having a college degree does not make you an expert. I have been on F-15 joyride and on a F-16 Flight Sim in Colorado Spring several time, did it make me a Topgun fighter ace?? Beside, your whole argument is illogical to begin with

Point 3)

Space race is a relative term, again like I mentioned earlier. The ORIGINAL space race, between the USSR and usa is over. The current space race can be anything you make of it, including technological feats. Again, this is relative, so it can be anything anyone wants to label in terms of accomplishments in space travel.

LOL, everything is relative. EVERYTHING, we can have a space race to see who have a space race first too, if you so desired. What's your point?

You, a Yankee? Ha! I almost fell of my chair lmao. Anyways, I don't care if you are, but your Chingrish is extremely irritating to read. Coupled with the fact that you completely responded off-topic to my original response, you clearly demonstrated that you are a total waste of people's time, and I pity those who look up to learning from you. Also, let me edit what you wrote earlier,

lol, again, let me remind you, those who lives in glass house should not throw stone. Your "Chinglish" is just as bad as mind. And at least I do admit I am of Chinese background, unlike someone. You want me to put more of your "Example" to show you how much Chinese you were and how much "Chinglish" you used? Which you refused to admit lol

Well, at least I do not suffer from identities crisis.

Oh, by the way, you misspell "Chinglish"........it's C-H-I-N-G-L-I-S-H.

You spelt C-H-I-N-G-R-I-S-H, lol I mean, if you want to insult my language, at least please do get your own insult right, it's so funny you try to insult my English with a mis-spelling, I think it's a common courtesy for you to be superior, not worse, if you are trying to insult someone...

Agreed, finally.

Also, as an FYI, I've been historically reporting every darned post you've made as I come across them; you get all emotional on every single one of them, and start insulting people that disagree with you. I don't usually post like this, but for the sake of using your usual writing style to respond to your posts, I'll do it just for show.

lol, you do it for show alright, showing that YOU ACTUALLY KNOW NOTHING.

The more you talk, the more you exposed how you have inadequate knowledge, not just in space science, but also as a general scholar and academia. You may try to insult your way out, but meh. If this is how you want to win an argument. Please continue
 
Last edited:
. .
Ok, a one-word response to your entire post- What????!!!!!!!!

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, I don't know how to respond to such immaturity or cluelessness, whatever you possess...

I guess let's just respond with the following format:

On the other hand, I never considered myself to be an "expert" in space, in fact, I just said so after I replied on your previous post to some other member, still, standing next to you, I can still hold my own.

Fair enough, and noted. Nothing more need be said here.

Using insult word like "Hobo", that make you looks desperate to win an argument, not making you a hero.

On the other hand, I never considered myself to be an "expert" in space, in fact, I just said so after I replied on your previous post to some other member, still, standing next to you, I can still hold my own.

Let's crack open on what you say again, shall we?


You Chinese have a thing for quoting an article jumping on the conclusion without actually finishing the article.

I mentioned in a different thread. Half Pakeha, half Samoan. Learn to read, or be more attentive, whichever one applies.

While indeed there are a thin layer of gas forming an atmosphere on moon. But the Moon's atmosphere is completely different than Earth's, while the term "atmosphere" is correct to be used on moon, the actual definition of "atmosphere" on moon and on earth is actually extremely different.

I never said the two atmosphere's were composed of the same elements. You pointed out that the Moon had no atmosphere earlier, I countered that statement. THAT'S ALL, STOP PUTTING ADDITIONAL POINTS I DIDN'T STATE IN MY MOUTH, please!


1st Point. NASA said this on your article.



The composition of the atmosphere on earth and moon are different, which the make up is different. Also



Which explain that while the atmosphere exist on moon, their composition is virtually vacuum, meaning it is so thin, that they are considered not exist at all.

Now, a more important argument is not this tho, the more important argument is actually, WHAT'S THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MY POINT?

For argument sake, let's say that I conceded that I am wrong about the atmosphere, does it change the fact that Moon radiation is 40-50% higher than that on Earth, and the moon itself is radioactive? No, it doesn't

So, for a person to say this, it's like saying since I guessed it wrong on Hitler's favourite color, then I must be wrong on him being a bad guys too. That's some kind of logical jump from A to B there. With total lack of critical thinking.

I know gravitational acceleration on the moon is significantly smaller, but it does not signify a moot point. The article is just simplifying numbers to make for an easy assumption, as zero, because the numbers are small. However, take this as an example, in fluid dynamics, engineers take anything greater than M>0.3 as compressible flow, even though numbers close to M=0.3 technically CAN be modeled as incompressible fluid. But to obtain accurate numbers, one can't live off of an assumption when dealing with instruments of great precision, which brings me to my point. You think biologists would assume the Moon to have nought atmosphere just because the numbers are so small when modeling radiation?

Also, I NEVER STATED THAT THE MOON'S RADIATION WAS THE SAME LEVEL AS OUR'S. I SAID IT WAS WRONG TO ASSUME 0.

On a different note, why would you think the vacuum just outside of the Moon's atmosphere would contain the same amount of radiation as within the moon's atmosphere? Again, although a very thin layer, it does still deflect cosmic rays like any layer of trapped gasses would on any relatively sized massed celestial body.


I am not interested on whether or not you have a STEM degree, I am much more interested on where do you get your degree which allow this kind of critical thinking??

As in where I got my education? Purdue University '14 School of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, major concentration in compressible flow aerodynamics, and minor concentration in air breathing propulsion systems..

Yes, a level that trumps yours, because clearly you have comprehension problems, and a serious one.

You did mentioned the Astronauts training program when you say this on your last post.

Yes, in my last one, because you brought it up for no reason. I was referring to a lack of a feasible propulsion system, and then you brought up the budget the usa invests is its astronaut training program for whatever reason. I was not the first one to bring this issue up, otherwise, prove it.


But then I will have to admit, due to your bad grammar, I don't quite understand what you say by it. I assume you mean the NASA lack the manpower to do so feasibly .

Perhaps you need to learn decent English first... I don't know how old you are, but you seriously sound like a international FOB student who's finishing off high school, whilst picking up his/her second language.

I said Nasa lacks the the technology in engine efficiency to provide transportation to settle either Moon or Mars.

On the other hand, your point is invalid. The question is never about cost-efficient. No space program ever was cost-efficient to begin with. Rather can America colonize the moon lies on two parameter. "Practicality" which means do they have the mean, ANY MEAN to do it. And "Sustainability" which mean can they keep doing it or in other word sustain the operation.

Chemical propulsion simply isn't efficient enough to make a long-term settlement on Moon or Mars feasible. Period.

In no way they need to do it at a cost-effective manner. It's either they can do it, or they can't. Because what you said is simply illogical. Because essentially what you are saying is "if they cannot do it effectively and efficiently, they could not do it at all." Again, I would like to know where you graduate from college that allow this kind of critical and logical thinking

Refer above, no they cannot. You simply cannot understand me because you are still developing your brain...

Can US colonize the moon lies on two factors, 1. Do they have the mean to do it? 2. Can they afford it?

1.) US have assorted rocket technology, both in development or old, they can and is currently the only country that can bring people on the moon (you can still see the American flag on the moon as proof) Either they going back to the 70s drawing board and remake the Saturn V rocket with lunar module, or they redo the space shuttle program from the 80s. Or they would wait for the newer SLS and Dragon 9 space craft to finish their deployment is their problem, if they so decided, they can rebuild Saturn V rocket (which in the same manner the Russia produce the Soyuz rocket) and bring them on the moon. It may not be cost effective to do so, but still, this is, as of today, is the ONLY means that is tried and proof that they can bring people up to the moon.

2.) Can they afford it? Even using the 70s and 80s method? Why not? With 150 to 1.5 billions each launch of space shuttle. They could afford them had they need to. It's not a astronomical figure that the US government and NASA cannot afford.

Yes, like I said before in previous posts, the US does have the capability to for expeditions, but those chemical rockets are not efficient enough to deliver frequent trips back and forth between Earth and the Moon.

Look, this is mainly the issue: Congress would rather put money towards what's proven, and some radical, because they prefer not to risk their investment. Is it that the US can't afford electro/nuclear/etc propulsion? No, it's simply the fact that Congress does not want to invest because it's risky investment. Hence, currently, The US DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE MOON/MARTIAN SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE WITH CHEMICAL PROPULSION. The Isp's on chemical rockets SUCK.


Just because you claim you have been to some new space conference and self professed to having a college degree does not make you an expert. I have been on F-15 joyride and on a F-16 Flight Sim in Colorado Spring several time, did it make me a Topgun fighter ace?? Beside, your whole argument is illogical to begin with



LOL, everything is relative. EVERYTHING, we can have a space race to see who have a space race first too, if you so desired. What's your point?



lol, again, let me remind you, those who lives in glass house should not throw stone. Your "Chinglish" is just as bad as mind. And at least I do admit I am of Chinese background, unlike someone. You want me to put more of your "Example" to show you how much Chinese you were and how much "Chinglish" you used? Which you refused to admit lol

Well, at least I do not suffer from identities crisis.

Oh, by the way, you misspell "Chinglish"........it's C-H-I-N-G-L-I-S-H.

You spelt C-H-I-N-G-R-I-S-H, lol I mean, if you want to insult my language, at least please do get your own insult right, it's so funny you try to insult my English with a mis-spelling, I think it's a common courtesy for you to be superior, not worse, if you are trying to insult someone...



lol, you do it for show alright, showing that YOU ACTUALLY KNOW NOTHING.

The more you talk, the more you exposed how you have inadequate knowledge, not just in space science, but also as a general scholar and academia. You may try to insult your way out, but meh. If this is how you want to win an argument. Please continue


Good for you. Your writing reflects that of a high school student on exchange. You can fool others into believing you of your military accolades, but whatever, that's on them. All I'm getting from you is your Bad Chingrish, because that's what you literally sound like.

Oh, and I'll leave you with this. I think I taught you more today than you've learned your entire life.

Using insult word like "Hobo", that make you looks desperate to win an argument, not making you a hero.

On the other hand, I never considered myself to be an "expert" in space, in fact, I just said so after I replied on your previous post to some other member, still, standing next to you, I can still hold my own.

Let's crack open on what you say again, shall we?



You Chinese have a thing for quoting an article jumping on the conclusion without actually finishing the article.

While indeed there are a thin layer of gas forming an atmosphere on moon. But the Moon's atmosphere is completely different than Earth's, while the term "atmosphere" is correct to be used on moon, the actual definition of "atmosphere" on moon and on earth is actually extremely different.

1st Point. NASA said this on your article.



The composition of the atmosphere on earth and moon are different, which the make up is different. Also



Which explain that while the atmosphere exist on moon, their composition is virtually vacuum, meaning it is so thin, that they are considered not exist at all.

Now, a more important argument is not this tho, the more important argument is actually, WHAT'S THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MY POINT?

For argument sake, let's say that I conceded that I am wrong about the atmosphere, does it change the fact that Moon radiation is 40-50% higher than that on Earth, and the moon itself is radioactive? No, it doesn't

So, for a person to say this, it's like saying since I guessed it wrong on Hitler's favourite color, then I must be wrong on him being a bad guys too. That's some kind of logical jump from A to B there. With total lack of critical thinking.

I am not interested on whether or not you have a STEM degree, I am much more interested on where do you get your degree which allow this kind of critical thinking??



You did mentioned the Astronauts training program when you say this on your last post.



But then I will have to admit, due to your bad grammar, I don't quite understand what you say by it. I assume you mean the NASA lack the manpower to do so feasibly .

On the other hand, your point is invalid. The question is never about cost-efficient. No space program ever was cost-efficient to begin with. Rather can America colonize the moon lies on two parameter. "Practicality" which means do they have the mean, ANY MEAN to do it. And "Sustainability" which mean can they keep doing it or in other word sustain the operation.

In no way they need to do it at a cost-effective manner. It's either they can do it, or they can't. Because what you said is simply illogical. Because essentially what you are saying is "if they cannot do it effectively and efficiently, they could not do it at all." Again, I would like to know where you graduate from college that allow this kind of critical and logical thinking

Can US colonize the moon lies on two factors, 1. Do they have the mean to do it? 2. Can they afford it?

1.) US have assorted rocket technology, both in development or old, they can and is currently the only country that can bring people on the moon (you can still see the American flag on the moon as proof) Either they going back to the 70s drawing board and remake the Saturn V rocket with lunar module, or they redo the space shuttle program from the 80s. Or they would wait for the newer SLS and Dragon 9 space craft to finish their deployment is their problem, if they so decided, they can rebuild Saturn V rocket (which in the same manner the Russia produce the Soyuz rocket) and bring them on the moon. It may not be cost effective to do so, but still, this is, as of today, is the ONLY means that is tried and proof that they can bring people up to the moon.

2.) Can they afford it? Even using the 70s and 80s method? Why not? With 150 to 1.5 billions each launch of space shuttle. They could afford them had they need to. It's not a astronomical figure that the US government and NASA cannot afford.

Just because you claim you have been to some new space conference and self professed to having a college degree does not make you an expert. I have been on F-15 joyride and on a F-16 Flight Sim in Colorado Spring several time, did it make me a Topgun fighter ace?? Beside, your whole argument is illogical to begin with



LOL, everything is relative. EVERYTHING, we can have a space race to see who have a space race first too, if you so desired. What's your point?



lol, again, let me remind you, those who lives in glass house should not throw stone. Your "Chinglish" is just as bad as mind. And at least I do admit I am of Chinese background, unlike someone. You want me to put more of your "Example" to show you how much Chinese you were and how much "Chinglish" you used? Which you refused to admit lol

Well, at least I do not suffer from identities crisis.

Oh, by the way, you misspell "Chinglish"........it's C-H-I-N-G-L-I-S-H.

You spelt C-H-I-N-G-R-I-S-H, lol I mean, if you want to insult my language, at least please do get your own insult right, it's so funny you try to insult my English with a mis-spelling, I think it's a common courtesy for you to be superior, not worse, if you are trying to insult someone...



lol, you do it for show alright, showing that YOU ACTUALLY KNOW NOTHING.

The more you talk, the more you exposed how you have inadequate knowledge, not just in space science, but also as a general scholar and academia. You may try to insult your way out, but meh. If this is how you want to win an argument. Please continue

While on the topic of efficiency, this table backs up what I was saying, chemical propulsion does not provide the efficiency needed for frequent travels to settle a planet or moon (Forgive me for using Wiki):

Spacecraft propulsion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the delta-v (think of this as eff.) of each row.


Here's the equation for Isp:

Specific Impulse
upload_2016-2-19_21-17-57.png


Essentially, it's how much Force you can get with the rate of mass flow through the nozzle, hence why you can think of this as efficiency** of a rocket.
 
Last edited:
.
I mentioned in a different thread. Half Pakeha, half Samoan. Learn to read, or be more attentive, whichever one applies.

You can be half monkey, half *** (I do mean ***, as in donkey) for all I care.

This is the internet, you can claim what you are, but your writing indicated you are educated in South East Asia. (by the way Engrish is a unique spelling to people in East Asia.)

I never said the two atmosphere's were composed of the same elements. You pointed out that the Moon had no atmosphere earlier, I countered that statement. THAT'S ALL, STOP PUTTING ADDITIONAL POINTS I DIDN'T STATE IN MY MOUTH, please!

I did not put word into your mouth. I actually did not point out moon have no atmosphere in my post.

I said "Moon does not have an atmosphere TO REFLECT OR ABSORB RADIATION.

Learn to read is your best friend. In term of logic, my statement is still correct if moon indeed have an atmosphere but cannot reflect or absorb radiation

Also, having an atmosphere or not is not the argument of the point, it's always been radiation. It does not really matter, as it does not alter the FACT that the Moon is radioactive.
[/quote]

I know gravitational acceleration on the moon is significantly smaller, but it does not signify a moot point. The article is just simplifying numbers to make for an easy assumption, as zero, because the numbers are small. However, take this as an example, in fluid dynamics, engineers take anything greater than M>0.3 as compressible flow, even though numbers close to M=0.3 technically CAN be modeled as incompressible fluid. But to obtain accurate numbers, one can't live off of an assumption when dealing with instruments of great precision, which brings me to my point. You think biologists would assume the Moon to have nought atmosphere just because the numbers are so small when modeling radiation?

Key word "Assumption"

You can assume any given situation, but again, would it matter to the fact that data from Lunar Rover suggested that Moon Crush is radioactive??

The article DID not simplified the assumption to zero. But it said it is comparative to the outer layer of our LEO where the ISS Space station currently at. It's NEAR ZERO, not ASSUMED ZERO. There two are very different word scientifically.

Also, I NEVER STATED THAT THE MOON'S RADIATION WAS THE SAME LEVEL AS OUR'S. I SAID IT WAS WRONG TO ASSUME 0.

Did I said you stated the moon radiation was the same level as Earth?

You said the Radiation on the moon is not as bad as in a vacuum in space. If you read my reply properly, I concurred, and said the vacuum effect on radiation is minimal. However, the effect on radioactive moon is not actually from the vacuum in space. But rather the unique way moon bounced off the unaltered radioactivity

In fact, the NASA used to estimate the value of Moon Radiation is the same as Radiation level in space vacuum in a reference I quote, but now with this new discover they would have to adjust at least 40% more back into their calculation..


On a different note, why would you think the vacuum just outside of the Moon's atmosphere would contain the same amount of radiation as within the moon's atmosphere? Again, although a very thin layer, it does still deflect cosmic rays like any layer of trapped gasses would on any relatively sized massed celestial body.

Solar Wind, and the unknown properties of the moon gas to reflect radiation. I do not assume, it's actual data collected from Lunar Rover, again, please do read the NASA article quoted in the relative paragraph.


As in where I got my education? Purdue University '14 School of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, major concentration in compressible flow aerodynamics, and minor concentration in air breathing propulsion systems..

Yes, a level that trumps yours, because clearly you have comprehension problems, and a serious one.

again, I don't really care, this is the internet, I can say I graduated from Columbia just to counter you, but meh why bothered.

Yes, in my last one, because you brought it up for no reason. I was referring to a lack of a feasible propulsion system, and then you brought up the budget the usa invests is its astronaut training program for whatever reason. I was not the first one to bring this issue up, otherwise, prove it.

How is it you can internet this (Which is what you said)

The us doesn't have the capacity to settle on the Moon at this point, only 'exploration' due the lacking number of people they can get to the moon at a feasible cost

into what you said now

I was referring to a lack of a feasible propulsion system

Is it the kind of logic Purdue teaches now?? Bravo.

Perhaps you need to learn decent English first... I don't know how old you are, but you seriously sound like a international FOB student who's finishing off high school, whilst picking up his/her second language.

another insult, is it all that you can do.

By the way, it's "You seriously sounded"

I said Nasa lacks the the technology in engine efficiency to provide transportation to settle either Moon or Mars.

so? Does it mean they Can't? because it's not efficiency enough?

Chemical propulsion simply isn't efficient enough to make a long-term settlement on Moon or Mars feasible. Period.

How?

Refer above, no they cannot. You simply cannot understand me because you are still developing your brain...

Oh so if they cannot do it efficiently, they cannot do it at all? Now who have a tiny brain?

Yes, like I said before in previous posts, the US does have the capability to for expeditions, but those chemical rockets are not efficient enough to deliver frequent trips back and forth between Earth and the Moon.

How frequent is frequent? US made 134 trips to and from space using the space shuttle, 14 trips to and from moon using Saturn V. How much is frequent you say??

Look, this is mainly the issue: Congress would rather put money towards what's proven, and some radical, because they prefer not to risk their investment. Is it that the US can't afford electro/nuclear/etc propulsion? No, it's simply the fact that Congress does not want to invest because it's risky investment. Hence, currently, The US DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE MOON/MARTIAN SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE WITH CHEMICAL PROPULSION. The Isp's on chemical rockets SUCK.

Yeah, and you are the expert on that?

Oh my, again, you are quite funny to say since chemical engine sucks ( just exactly how old are you?) they do not have the capability to make moon/Martian settlement possible?

lol. logic, logic logic...



Good for you. Your writing reflects that of a high school student on exchange. You can fool others into believing you of your military accolades, but whatever, that's on them. All I'm getting from you is your Bad Chingrish, because that's what you literally sound like.

Oh, and I'll leave you with this. I think I taught you more today than you've learned your entire life.

You taught me how bad one's English by still misspelling "Chinglish"

That's about the only thing I know that's new. I mean, your level of English is not even in East Asian ESLLaunguage level.

While on the topic of efficiency, this table backs up what I was saying, chemical propulsion does not provide the efficiency needed for frequent travels to settle a planet or moon (Forgive me for using Wiki):

Spacecraft propulsion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the delta-v (think of this as eff.) of each row.


Here's the equation for Isp:

Specific Impulse
View attachment 294658

Essentially, it's how much Force you can get with the rate of mass flow through the nozzle, hence why you can think of this as efficiency** of a rocket.

Again, no one is talking about efficiency here.

We are talking about practicality.

Doolittle raid is a prime example of practicality trump efficiency. It's is extremely inefficiency to load 24 B-25 bomber on a carrier deck and launch them with an airstrike to Tokyo. Basically it's a one-way mission where you are destined to lose all 24 B-25 bomber (representing 100% loss)

Sometime, if things forces people to do something, being practical would always trump being efficient. And if you are so hung up on efficiency, please go open another thread, because we are talking about can US do it, not can US do it efficiently.
 
.
Lol the technology & achievement gap are 40 years apart .
 
.
Back
Top Bottom