Slashdot Mirror
China Aims To Build World's Largest Rocket
hackingbear writes "Back in March, China revealed it is studying the feasibility of designing the most powerful carrier rocket in history for making a manned moon landing and exploring deep space, according to Liang Xiaohong, vice head of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology. The rocket is envisaged to have a payload of 130 tonnes, five times larger than that of China's current largest rocket. This rocket, if built, will eclipse the 53 tonne capacity of the planned Falcon 9 Heavy from SpaceX. It will even surpass the largest rocket ever built, the 119-tonne Saturn V. China's next generation rocket Long March 5, currently scheduled to debut in 2014, has a payload capacity of 25 tonnes to LEO."
Trying to compensate for something China?
Anyone know the cost/weight? Absolute capacity is nice but dammit I'm not getting my trip to moon at these prices.
SpaceX and NASA are studying the possibility of a 150 ton payload class heavy lift launcher, based on SpaceX Falcon technology. NASA Studies Scaled-Up Falcon, Merlin
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Ah yes, but this might be what the US needs in the way of a kick up the arse to improve it's space programs. We should have been on Mars ten years ago. A new space race should be healthy for the world again. I want to see an orbiting construction station or something considerably bigger than the ISS. We have the technology, but no real desire/need to do it.
What's the point of going to Mars? All you can do is walk around and then, if you're lucky, leave again.
that's made in China.... is funding this rocket
http://www.moonsociety.org/whitepapers/moonreturn_positionpaper.html
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Mr. President, I'm afraid we have a missile gap!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
There's no point in people being on earth either. We just are.
Stick Men
A Soviet design or a US design?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Exactly. There's no point in sending people to Mars either.
The Earth is already terraformed, so we might as well stay here.
Also, I don't buy your claims that we can easily reach Mars, and/or basically terraform it for free. And even if we could, there's not much to be gained in doing so.
<1492>
What's the point of going to America? All you can do is walk around and then, if you're lucky, leave again.
</1492>
This is not about a paid moon trip but about a states ambitions to power itself from a backwater nation to a world power.
So money is not counted in a way that makes sense on a small individual scale. It is not like if the claim is made that it costs 1 billion dollar that Bill Gates could buy 6 rocket developments. And as to what it is worth. Well, what is GPS worth? The US launched it with tax payers money and the research leading up to it also was payed by the tax payer, but at what total cost and for what total benefit? Even foreign benefit?
The press likes to print big numbers because simple people think money at this level still is real. But government has one advantage business doesn't have. It gets to take back a lot of your salary right at the start and then often also a large portion whenever you spend. So even a simple salary isn't exactly the same as it is for normal business.
Suffice it to say, a lot, no it won't break China's bank and no, you can't fly on it. But the real cost to the US will be that China has a manned space program and the US won't. And that is something the Chinese might find very amusing.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Going to America was a billion times cheaper, and you didn't have to leave. Instead, you could claim a piece of land, and live there more comfortably than the place you came from.
Of course, just like the first race for the moon, much of this is about national pride, so maybe the Chinese want the biggest booster just for bragging rights. Some things never change.
Why is Snark Required?
Then read here: http://www.marssociety.org/ Or read the red mars, blue mars green mars novels. Or: just think about how you would do it, lol. It is *that simple* angel'o'sphere
That simple? If you actually looked at "Red Mars" carefully, he lives in a "Star Trek" world of virtually infinite resources. Need a nuclear reactor? Just drop ship a Rickover. Need compressed gasses? Just drop ship a 737 with a bunch of compressors. It's great science fiction - it broad brushes little details like money, and especially later, the ability to create extremely complex high technology items from robotic factories. It would probably work out better if we figured out those little issues here as opposed to there. Hell, we aren't really at the level of technology that we would need to be to bolt the Ares together. Construction in outer space is slow, tricky and dangerous.
Yes we can get better. If the Chinese are trying to do it then great, we can come from behind like usual (insert tasteless joke here). But the Mars Trilogy is not yet an instructional video.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Uh no, humans had been sailing for quite a long time at that point.
In 1492 sailing to America from Europe was about like going to the moon, today...
Except America had abundant resources, shared the same atmosphere, gravity, and temperature?
They had to have a project to use the money they saved from the (now illegal) time machine program..
-- Don't call me "Sir," I increase entropy for a living!
The Soviet Union produced th biggest rocket ever, bigger than any the US ever produced (and bigger than SpaceX's new "biggest ever"). Financing its space race in competition with the US was the final stroke that killed the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the US is devolving launches into what will be a healthy industry serving global customers, but by US rules.
I like the way this story looks to develop. Because I'm an American who wants to beat China in a race that takes us all into space.
--
make install -not war
Yeah, exactly like goin to the moon. There was no food or water there when you got there and you would be killed by radiation.
I see you've read my novel "Christopher Columbus and the Hordes of Radioactive Zombie Indians", then?
China's space program makes pronouncements like this all the time, but they don't yet have the ability to make things like this happen. Heck, just the other day personnel from China's aerospace organization said that they were confounded by SpaceX's price/kg and unable to compete with it:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/04/15/11.xml&headline=China%20Great%20Wall%20Confounded%20By%20SpaceX%20Prices
Heck, SpaceX has designs for both 125 and 140 tonne vehicles, but it doesn't mean it plans on building them before it makes economic sense.
Overpopulation ? The Gobi desert is still mostly empty, last time I looked, as is the Australian outback, the Sahara, Antarctica, Greenland, and our oceans. All of those areas are much more hospitable than the surface of Mars. There's more room too. Don't forget Mars is a lot smaller than the Earth.
Besides, you can't fix overpopulation by going to Mars. How many people are born on Earth every minute, and how many could you realistically send to Mars ? Not enough to make a difference.
the Chinese have something to offer
That's engineering effort, or man power, or what you would call cheap labor. I think if China and American could work as one nation, humans could be on the Mars a lot sooner.
In manufacturing, there is something called the "learning curve". As you run a production line and optimize how you do things, you learn to do it faster and cheaper. But one thing Boeing learned is production below 2 units a month did not produce a learning curve. People were not doing the tasks often enough, and *forgot* between repetitions when they were more than two weeks apart.
For a conventional rocket that climbs from the ground, they all have the same amount of atmosphere to push through. The drag is produced per square meter of frontal area, so you want a certain amount of mass of rocket per unit area to keep the drag losses within reason. That's why most rockets are around 50-100m tall. Once drag is taken care of, you get more efficient by going closer to spherical tanks. So rockets tend to get fatter once they are tall enough.
So at the lower payload limit you are bound by efficient shape for the rocket, and at the upper limit you want to launch often enough to learn from experience. In between will be the optimal size for lowest launch cost.
Don't forget Mars is a lot smaller than the Earth.
Not disagreeing but actually Mars has about the same land area as Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
SpaceX most clearly has credibility in terms of launching larger payloads into orbit. I guess the Dragon capsule doesn't count as something credible?
As for anything that Senator Shelby wants to fund, most especially the SLS system, I have my doubts that anything will clear the launch tower much less actually make it into space. It is going to be canceled before it gets built, much like Constellation before it, and the dozens of other NASA projects for manned spaceflight that all showed promise but never really went anywhere.
The last manned spaceflight program to actually make it to orbit was the Space Shuttle, and that was originally started under the Johnson Administration (although the heavy work on it happened during the Nixon Administration). The singular failure of NASA to put any sort of meaningful program together is a sign of what that bureaucracy is able to accomplish, and I doubt any change in the Presidency is going to make any difference on that. Neither Ronald Reagan nor Bill Clinton were able to make any significant moves in that arena... except for the ISS project if you want to give both of those Presidents at least a little bit of credit.
"What's the point ? All you can do on the moon is walk around, and then leave again."
I was not your moderator, so I can only offer a guess as to how you received a "Troll" moderation, but I think the main reason was that the brevity of your statement makes it appear flippant or curt, whether or not that was your intent.
To quote wikipedia's definition of a "troll" on the internet (emphasis mine):
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, [B]with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[/B][2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". "
Without offering elaboration on your skepticism, this statement simply dismisses a raft of arguments in favor of traveling to the moon without specifics. Without specifics, meaningful responses are impeded. It would be far more productive to recognize the pro-moon travel arguments, and explain why you disagree with them, and in turn, present your own arguments as to how the resources might be more efficiently spent, or even moral arguments on why resources should be spent in certain ways, etc. The other possibility is that you truly do not know of any arguments in favor of travel to the moon, and are unable to comprehend potential benefits, however remote. This would be ignorance that is most likely willful given Slashdot's obvious enthusiasm in favor of travel to the moon, it would be trivial to read further to discover reasons offered for what can be accomplished.
Slashdot has an obvious bias in favor of space travel, and posting a short message simply dismissing all arguments in favor of space travel, neatly fits the image of an internet trolling. Even if it was not your original intention.