Jump to content

Next Nation that will walk on the moon?

piggysanTH

By piggysanTH
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

What is second Nation that you think gonna walk on moon?!  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. What is second Nation that you think gonna walk on moon?!

    • Russia
      7
    • China
      102
    • ESA(Europe Space Agency)
      3
    • Japan
      0
    • USA(Walk on it for second time)
      18
    • Co-Operation between two or more country
      18

Recommended Posts

peadar1987

peadar1987

Posted
Posted
I would die if neither Russia or US were next to walk on the Moon. I'd like it to be the U.S., but Russia's the only other country I could stand to also have walk on the Moon.

Why's that? I think it'd be pretty cool for, say, an Indian to walk on the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NASAFanboy

NASAFanboy

Posted
Posted
The United states won't return to the moon without Europe that is for sure. It seems that most people here forget that.

If NASA were to return without a private partnership, then they would return with Europe.

If NASA were to return with a private partnership, all Europe would do is provide the service module for Orion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted
If NASA were to return without a private partnership, then they would return with Europe.

If NASA were to return with a private partnership, all Europe would do is provide the service module for Orion.

So no matter what, Europe will be involved unless they are going to use a completely different vehicle than the Orion mpcv and if they don't i am pretty sure european Astronauts will also be onboard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brethern

Brethern

Posted
Posted
Simple answer USA

No other country is even in the ball park in terms of potential genuine heavy lift capability

Simon

The only way the US would ever consider returning to the moon is if the entire core of it was filled with oil.

They went there in the 60's to prove the power of the free world. They brought enough scientific equipment to say they did science up there. But all in all it was a publicity stunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NASAFanboy

NASAFanboy

Posted
Posted (edited)
The only way the US would ever consider returning to the moon is if the entire core of it was filled with oil.

They went there in the 60's to prove the power of the free world. They brought enough scientific equipment to say they did science up there. But all in all it was a publicity stunt.

A publicity stunt is better than no landing at all. I'd rather have the Americans pull a Mars landing as a publicity stunt rather than see no landing for another twenty years.

So no matter what, Europe will be involved unless they are going to use a completely different vehicle than the Orion mpcv and if they don't i am pretty sure european Astronauts will also be onboard.

It depends on how you define "Europe" (I only define nations by government - for example, I don't call Nintendo a "Japanese company", but just a "company"). Just because NASA has a European contractor doesn't mean it's Europe getting involved.

Edited by NASAFanboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brethern

Brethern

Posted
Posted
A publicity stunt is better than no landing at all. I'd rather have the Americans pull a Mars landing as a publicity stunt rather than see no landing for another twenty years.

It depends on how you define "Europe" (I only define nations by government - for example, I don't call Nintendo a "Japanese company", but just a "company"). Just because NASA has a European contractor doesn't mean it's Europe getting involved.

So you'd rather have a country send a single mission for no other purpose other than waving instead of waiting for a time when someone will send a mission for the right purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canopus

Canopus

Posted
Posted

It depends on how you define "Europe" (I only define nations by government - for example, I don't call Nintendo a "Japanese company", but just a "company"). Just because NASA has a European contractor doesn't mean it's Europe getting involved.

All i could find says that Astrium builds the service module for the ESA and doesn't just sell directly to NASA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mythic_fci

mythic_fci

Posted
Posted (edited)

Honestly, I'm going for China. They're the only country ATM that's focusing on sending people up on a yearly basis for true exploration and scientific purposes, not just transfer missions to ISS (Not saying that isn't scientific based, just saying it's like a shuttle service - nothing special about it). They don't just send people up - they do lots of testing while they're at it. And by the way, the CZ5 is launching in 2015, WAY before the Angara or any private company in the USA (Except SpaceX, and the lifting capacity of the CZ5 exceeds that of the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy). That means that: The mid-sized versions of the CZ5 exceed the Falcon 9 v1.1 by about 3000kg, and the largest version exceeds the Falcon Heavy by 5000kg.

- - - Updated - - -

Simple answer USA

No other country is even in the ball park in terms of potential genuine heavy lift capability

Simon

@Brethern

Didn't say they would do it, what I said was they are the only nation that can do it

Simon

As I said above, the CZ2 and CZ5 exceed ANYTHING the US can come up with in the near future, and it's going to launch in 2015, before the US even test-flies the SLS. If you want to say "Falcon 9!", then again, the CZ5 exceeds even the Falcon 9 in terms of lift capacity (heaviest model).

Edited by FCISuperGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten

Kryten

Posted
Posted
All i could find says that Astrium builds the service module for the ESA and doesn't just sell directly to NASA.

Yup, the SM is an official ESA contribution to the Orion, the same way ATV is their official contribution to the ISS program. It's funded by ESA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peadar1987

peadar1987

Posted
Posted (edited)
@FCISuperGuy

Maybe I am missing something blindingly obvious here, but how does even the heaviest CZ5 configuration (CZ-5-504) give China a credible moon landing capability ?

Simon

I had a look at the specs for both craft. I know KSP isn't the same as real-life, but the lowest-mass Mun landings I've done have been with Earth Orbit Rendezvous.

The Saturn IVB (third stage of the Saturn V) had a wet mass of about 119,000kg, and a dry mass of 10,000kg. It burned for 2.5 minutes of the orbital insertion burn, and 6 minutes for translunar injection, meaning that for TLI, as a rough estimate, ignoring any increases in TWR, it used roughly 80,000kg of fuel for the TLI burn. This means they needed 90,000kg worth of rocket to get the LM and CSM (which together had a mass of just under 30,000kg) to the moon.

The Long March V's heaviest variant has a payload to LEO capacity of 25,000kg.

Maybe, maybe if the Chinese were able to shave off 5,000kg from the LM and CSM and put them in LEO, they could launch a 10,000kg booster with 15,000kg of fuel, then run two refuelling missions to it (which are not nearly as easy in real life as in KSP, and you can't use the most efficient fuels, because they're cryogenic and would boil off), they could assemble a craft in LEO that would be capable of putting a man on the moon. However, this is an immensely difficult mission profile, with a huge number of things that can go wrong.

That said, how incredibly cool would it be if they decided to do it?!

Edit: I know you said credible in your post, and this really does stretch the definition of that!

Edited by peadar1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mythic_fci

mythic_fci

Posted
Posted
I had a look at the specs for both craft. I know KSP isn't the same as real-life, but the lowest-mass Mun landings I've done have been with Earth Orbit Rendezvous.

The Saturn IVB (third stage of the Saturn V) had a wet mass of about 119,000kg, and a dry mass of 10,000kg. It burned for 2.5 minutes of the orbital insertion burn, and 6 minutes for translunar injection, meaning that for TLI, as a rough estimate, ignoring any increases in TWR, it used roughly 80,000kg of fuel for the TLI burn. This means they needed 90,000kg worth of rocket to get the LM and CSM (which together had a mass of just under 30,000kg) to the moon.

The Long March V's heaviest variant has a payload to LEO capacity of 25,000kg.

Maybe, maybe if the Chinese were able to shave off 5,000kg from the LM and CSM and put them in LEO, they could launch a 10,000kg booster with 15,000kg of fuel, then run two refuelling missions to it (which are not nearly as easy in real life as in KSP, and you can't use the most efficient fuels, because they're cryogenic and would boil off), they could assemble a craft in LEO that would be capable of putting a man on the moon. However, this is an immensely difficult mission profile, with a huge number of things that can go wrong.

That said, how incredibly cool would it be if they decided to do it?!

Edit: I know you said credible in your post, and this really does stretch the definition of that!

Why not use the same approach as Constellation would've used? The Shenzhou could be sent up by the CZ2, then a lander sent up by the CZ5. The two would dock and the CZ5's upper stage used to do the TLI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peadar1987

peadar1987

Posted
Posted (edited)
Why not use the same approach as Constellation would've used? The Shenzhou could be sent up by the CZ2, then a lander sent up by the CZ5. The two would dock and the CZ5's upper stage used to do the TLI?

The Apollo lander had a mass of about 15,000kg. The CSM had a mass of about 30,000kg. (I actually forgot to add them together in the last calculation).

You're going to use up pretty much all of your CZ5's delta-V just getting either of those two into LEO. I really doubt you'll have enough left over for a lunar burn, even if you were able to put together a lander and CSM significantly lighter than those used for Apollo, you'd need a separate booster. Maybe if you were able to really cut down on the mass of your LEM/CSM, you could get the size of that booster down to 25,000kg and put it up in a single launch, but I'd say it's still an extremely long shot.

Edit: Maybe with a tiny lander. You could probably reduce the volume of the CSM and the LEM, drop the crew from 3 to 1, and have a robotic command module that doesn't need a pilot, use composite materials instead of aluminium in the construction, cut down on safety margins, and be able to get there and back with a 25 tonne booster. I think that with all the advances that would have to be made, you're probably better off in terms of both time and funds just to build the Long March 9 or the Falcon Heavy, and do it properly in two launches.

Edited by peadar1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NASAFanboy

NASAFanboy

Posted
Posted (edited)
So you'd rather have a country send a single mission for no other purpose other than waving instead of waiting for a time when someone will send a mission for the right purposes.

Yes, I'd rather. It's still a landing mission. I don't couldn't give less than a single crap about the purpose, it could he installing missiles on the Moon as much as I care; I just prefer for it to be a scientific/colonization mission. The progress of the human race is more important than anything else, and that includes logic and purpose.

They're the only country ATM that's focusing on sending people up on a yearly basis for true exploration and scientific purposes, not just transfer missions to ISS (Not saying that isn't scientific based, just saying it's like a shuttle service - nothing special about it). They don't just send people up - they do lots of testing while they're at it.

If you're on the same scale of space advancement as me, I'd take the mentality of the ISS having a regular shuttle service as something that is more advanced than China. China has a lower budget than NASA ($1.3 Billion according to Euroconsult, $500 Million officially), it's just put into three or four major projects(Tiangong, Shengzheng, Chang'e, and Long March). Even if they started tomorrow, they would make it to the moon no earlier than 2019. I personally believe that the space-capability of China is rather exaggerrated on the forums - they've only have a edge in political will.

Edited by NASAFanboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Holo

Holo

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yes, I'd rather. It's still a landing mission. I don't couldn't give less than a single crap about the purpose, it could he installing missiles on the Moon as much as I care; I just prefer for it to be a scientific/colonization mission. The progress of the human race is more important than anything else, and that includes logic and purpose.

Why does putting people on Mars or the Moon for no reason count as progress? There's no sort of metaphysical counter which says that going to space gives you the most achievement points.

Edited by Holo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NASAFanboy

NASAFanboy

Posted
Posted (edited)
Why does putting people on the Moon for no reason count as progress?

Because it demostrates that we can. Do you need a purpose for everything? If NASA offered to land a crew on Callisto for no specific purpose, you wouldn't support it? Do we need a darned reason for everything? Every landing will generate support for the space program in both the world and most importantly, in the halls of Congress. That's progress. Every landing will generate spinoff technologies. It will generate pride in humanity, faith in the fact that we can do great things, inspire a whole generation of engineers and scientists. That's progress toward a spacefaring civilization, and that's what counts.

Edited by NASAFanboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NASAFanboy

NASAFanboy

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yes. (1234567890)

A flag-and-footsteps mission to another celestial body is better than no mission for another ten years. It'll fuel faith in our space program, and as I said before, inspire a generation to pursue careers in engineering and science instead of more profitable industries, create spinoff technologies, fuel faith in humanity and give many of us a will to progress humanity as a whole instead of ourselves. That's progress. That's getting ourselves in the mindset we need to conquer this solar system and this galaxy, the mindset we need to better and advance humanity to the next level. We need that mindset, as soon as possible.

Edited by NASAFanboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...