# China eyes Mars Exploration



## CougarKing (20 Jul 2006)

Probably posted before, but worth posting anyway if not. This is not directly military related, but something that shouldn't be ignored. The race is on over whose nation's flag will fly on Mars.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/07/19/china.space.reut/index.html


----------



## tingbudong (20 Jul 2006)

The Chinese space program is of considerable pride to the Chinese people as well as a instrumental tool in spurring nationalism and invoking a positive image of a post-industrial society to the rest of the world.  It does not surprise me to read of such ambitious claims made by Xinhua.

I've noticed that some media sources have begun to trump the emergence of a new "Space Race" between China and the United States.   However, I view this labelling schematic as somewhat misleading, as the gap that remains between these two nations is considerable, in both technology, money and probably most importantly, experience.

That said, I still find it impressive that this country was able to sucessfully enter the world of manned space flight (even if it was heavily subsidized with Russian technology and knowledge).  Yang Liwei is a household name and it is extremely nice to see him emerge as an alternative to stale and manufactured c-pop entertainment stars and Yao Ming as a role model for Chinese childern.


----------



## CanadaPhil (20 Jul 2006)

I say let them go for it.

We all know that NASA will never get it done.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2006)

If the last space race is any indication, the US will engage in a mad scramble at the last possible minute, pull a rabbit out of the hat (strap a nuclear engine on the back of the ISS or something equally crazy) and beat the Chinese to Mars by a handy margin. Once the dust settles, NASA will settle back down to a well deserved nap, and no one will be back to Mars for another 30, 40 years.

In the mid 1960's, while the space race was on, NASA was confidently forcasting permanent moon bases, missions to Mars by the 1980's and deep space exploration by nuclear powered spacecraft by the turn of the century, with enough technological detail and credibility that Stanley Kubrick was using this as a template for "2001: A Space Odyssey". Lack of interest by the public and politicians killed those ideas. (Interesting side note, a secret project known as ORION running in the late 1950's early 1960's called for the use of nuclear explosions to be harnessed to propell a 4000 tonne spacecraft to Saturn by 1970! Google this, it was one of those ideas just crazy enough to work).

In theory, a Mars mission was possible as early as the mid 1950's (Von Braun's "Das Marsprojekt"), so the problem isn't technology, but willpower.


----------



## chaos75 (20 Jul 2006)

Im all for space exploration, it belongs to no country so whoever gets there first it just benefits us all.  Mabye a new space race of sorts will have the side benefit of putting space back onto the agenda in a big way, mind you GB has made some move forward in getting back to space (moon, mars etc).  I for one wish I could be a part of it all.


----------



## rz350 (21 Jul 2006)

I'd happy to see anyone get there, USA, Russia, China, whoever has the capability and will to go, just because its a such cool endeavour and accomplishment for the Human race as a whole.


----------



## dglad (21 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In theory, a Mars mission was possible as early as the mid 1950's (Von Braun's "Das Marsprojekt"), so the problem isn't technology, but willpower.



I don't think I quite agree with this.  While willpower is definitely a prerequisite, I don't think our current technology is, actually, up to the task.  Unfortunately, humans are quite delicate cargo, requiring an enormous mass of "logistics" in the form of food, water, breathable air and radiation shielding.  This, in turn, ups the mass that has to be accelerated, hugely increasing the requirements for reaction mass.  We either need very large and complex spacecraft that can transport everything required in one package, or the means to make use of Martian or other extraterrestrial resources for some of the logistic requirements (water, power, reaction mass).  While a member of the Planetary Society, I noted that there was much discussion about how we probably have the individual pieces of the required technology now (powerful rocket motors, reasonably reliable life sustainment systems, effective radiation shielding), but lack an effective means of uniting them into a workable mission.

Of course, this brings us back to willpower.  If we really WANTED to expend the resources to refine existing technologies and develop new ones that would be required, I'd accept that, in time, we would succeed.  Probably better to head back to the Moon first and use it as a proving ground, before heading off to Mars.

Not a very military topic, I guess, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2006)

I won't be packing my ruck for a Martian deployment any time soon, the point I was making was that even back in the late 1950's, scientists and engineers had a firm grasp of what would be required to do the job, and a fairly well thought out plan for how to do it. 

"Das Marsprojekt" seems rather improbable now, with a fleet of ten or so spacecraft the size of ocean liners heading to the red planet, but based on the technology known or reasonably forcast in the 1950's, it made technical sense. Getting anyone to pony up for about a thousand shuttle launches to build the orbiting infrastructure and the actual space hardware was another thing altogether. NASA was fairly convinced that Mars was the next logical step after landing on the Moon, and there were lots of plans in the works to make it happen based on 1960 era hardware. I'm pretty sure there will be a few knowing smiles in 2020 when people read "The Case for Mars" and Robert Zubrin's plans for "Mars Direct", but based on what was possible in the late 1990's (and even today) it seems perfectly sensible. Once again, where is the roughly $10 billion dollars to build the ARES heavy lift booster and the various pieces of space hardware supposed to come from?



			
				dglad said:
			
		

> While a member of the Planetary Society, I noted that there was much discussion about how we probably have the individual pieces of the required technology now (powerful rocket motors, reasonably reliable life sustainment systems, effective radiation shielding), but lack an effective means of uniting them into a workable mission.



Perhaps what is missing is one critical insight of "how" everything links together. In theory, technology existed to create powered aircraft  in the mid to late 1800's, and hang gliders would have been possible in the stone age, but no one "put the pieces" together in the proper way to make it happen. When the key was discovered, everyone slapped themselves in the head for not thinking of it sooner......


----------



## exsemjingo (27 Jul 2006)

CanadaPhil said:
			
		

> I say let them go for it.
> 
> We all know that NASA will never get it done.



I disagree.  NASA has not been working very hard to get to Mars precisely because they know China can never get there.


----------



## CanadaPhil (27 Jul 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> I disagree.  NASA has not been working very hard to get to Mars precisely because they know China can never get there.



Anyone actually remember the days when NASA was actually sending out PEOPLE to explore space?? It was 3 decades ago. 

Remember when NASA's argument for having a fleet of shuttles was that they were going to be so busy with launching satellites for commercial clients? I think at one point way back when, they were even claiming that there were going to be BI-MONTHLY missions. 

Their last mission was mostly spent with the crew inspecting the exterior for tile damage. The sooner they retire the last of the Shuttles the better. Only then can they really move on. 

Right now its an accomplishment just to get their people back in one piece.


----------



## exsemjingo (28 Jul 2006)

Sending people into orbit is expensive enough.  Besides, the standard is not what NASA was doing 30 years ago, or their wild predictions from that time, but what their rivals are doing now.  China cannot get to Mars, and they lag behind NASA's current activity.
Besides, 30 years ago there were ICBMs to develop.  Make a rocket that can get to the moon, and you have a missile that can get to Russia.
Without the urgency of the Cold War, it is impossible to justify the expense of expanded space missions.  Should NASA's rivals pose a greater challenge, their funding would increase in response, and NASA would probably win.
But they have not, so it hasn't.


----------



## Enzo (29 Jul 2006)

I don't care who goes there, so long as it happens, but I'd prefer a solid plan w/ objectives as opposed to a race.


----------



## Bert (29 Jul 2006)

As noted in the news, alot of recent activity revolves around remote controlled scientific vehicles.  The US, Japan,
and the EU have sent probes to comets, Mars, and near-earth objects.  A mission to Mars must fulfill both
scientific curiousity as well as an increasing need for future resource extraction.  Though I am no astrophysist, Mars
may not be as interesting as other NEOs, the asteriod belt, the kuiper belt objects, or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn.


----------



## techie (29 Jul 2006)

If the entire world could unite under this one goal, major exploration of space, and resource extraction of the moon or mars, even colonization, we could do it in relative short time. As always though, the political/religious barriers everywhere right now prevent us from leaving the planet. If we don't destroy ourselves, the next logical step will be to leave the planet.

Also, one thing that people would have to get over, would be the safety of our first explorers. Radiation, antigravity boneloss, and all those wonderfull things have to be solved. We are not sure of all the effects that space, and living on another planet would have on our bodies, so(not to sound cold) some of the first explorers would have to be sacrificed to solve these problems. We cant and wont know everything from sitting here and theorizing. The best thing we can do is make our best guesses, and send them up for the betterment of man kind.


----------



## GAP (29 Jul 2006)

: Question: is that not what the "International Space Station " is supposed to do?


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2006)

Mars is probably a good target for manned exploration. The former USSR had teams on Saluyt and Mir for periods approximating the amount of time needed for a manned Mars mission, so we have a baseline of knowledge to start with. A mission to Jupiter, the Asteriod belt or deep space missions beyond Jupiter will require some pretty big advances in propulsion, life support and so on.

The only conceivable way of getting there faster with a big honking spaceship is the 1950 era "Orion" concept. This used a series of small atomic bombs firing behind the spaceship to transfer energy to a vast metal "pusher plate". It is still the only known system which combines high thrust and high efficiency, although you might not want to be too close to the launch pad. For fans of the movies, the spaceship in "Deep Impact" seems to be powered by some version of the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/probirth.htm


----------



## Bert (31 Jul 2006)

The difficulty with space travel is the energy required to get out of Earth's gravity well.
Mars is similar to Earth in that is has a relatively large gravity well.  Resources found
on Mars would have to be located, packaged, removed, lifted into orbit, and taken to where-ever.  
Asteroids, NEOs, and Kuiper objects (Jupiter-Saturn region) in an elliptical path may be 
further away in some respects are easier to manipulate, analyze, and quantify than planets.  
Other than a scientific curiosity, furthering geo-planetary knowledge, or for future 
colonization, Mars's usefulness as a alternate resource provider in the near future 
(200 years) may be limited.

Technologies like habitats, remote mining (human or robotic), propulsion, and centrifugal 
force simulating gravity could also be furthered and demonstrated on the Moon, in Earth's 
orbit, or on NEOs.  

The initiatives of the US, Japan, and the EU using remote vehicles to characterize comets 
and "asteroids" may likely suggest the direction of future interplanetary exploration.


----------



## exsemjingo (31 Jul 2006)

Bert said:
			
		

> The difficulty with space travel is the energy required to get out of Earth's gravity well.
> Mars is similar to Earth in that is has a relatively large gravity well.  Resources found
> on Mars would have to be located, packaged, removed, lifted into orbit, and taken to where-ever.
> Mars's usefulness as a alternate resource provider in the near future
> (200 years) may be limited.


Save it for a science fiction book.  We have all the iron we could ever need on earth; it's just in the centre.  Come to think of it, we have all the heat energy we could ever use on earth as well, but once again, it is inaccessible.
If in the distant future we ever establish colonies in space, or on other planets (not just manned research stations), trade between them and earth (and each other) would have to be non-existent.  Such a thing would not only be difficult, as you have said, but economically impossible.
Space exploration has never been about exploiting other-worldly resources.


----------



## Bert (31 Jul 2006)

I'm not catching your key point.  

There is a number of issues and motivations every individual/organization/state that
could drive space exploration.  It takes alot of money, engineering, and sustenance to maintain
space endeavors.  Resources may not be the only driving force yet its a reality.

Take the Moon as an example, keploping a habitat on the surface is easier said than done.
Spare parts, repairs, water, air, food, energy, among others has to maintain the site.  It would be 
less difficult to sustain operations by placing the habitat closer to sources of water,
hydrocarbons, minerals where it can be extracted, manufactured, and placed in service locally.
Constant re-supply from Earth for every necessity may be problematic or impractical.  Sites
that have a key variety of resources would have to be located.

Again this is speculative.  Initiatives are best viewed as long term projects rather than expecting
quick results now.  Global climatic change, the competition for resources, depletion of resources
(oil, fish, water), may not affect us so much now, but in years to come may put huge stress on nation 
states and populations.  Acquiring experience, technology, and engineering in interplanetary
development may be one other tool for the future.


----------



## exsemjingo (31 Jul 2006)

My key point is that other-worldly resources can never replace earthly ones.
If global warming, whatever it's cause, renders the earth's climate less favorable than it is now, it would still be a far better climate than that found on any other world.
Reasources are not a factor in space exploration at all, and they never will be, no matter how far our technology advances.

By the way, where would hydrocarbons on the moon have come from?


----------



## GAP (31 Jul 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> By the way, where would hydrocarbons on the moon have come from?



It is thought that part of them came initial formation and locked in, and part from largely hydrocarbon comets/asteroids crashing into the moon


----------



## exsemjingo (31 Jul 2006)

I see, you mean methane.  That is common on gas giants, but as all other gasses, would float away from the moon.  
Even so, good luck running methane from the moon back to earth.


----------



## GAP (31 Jul 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> I see, you mean methane.  That is common on gas giants, but as all other gasses, would float away from the moon.
> Even so, good luck running methane from the moon back to earth.



No, not methane, but water, which is what NASA searched for recently (I can't remember the date -within 3 years). They found spectral analysis revealed fairly large deposits of frozen water largely covered with dust and rubble. There was a bit of a hullabaloo for a short while about the feasibility of a selfsustaining station...haven't heard much since


----------



## rz350 (31 Jul 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> By the way, where would hydrocarbons on the moon have come from?



They would of come from hydrogen and carbon, and a few other elements maybe (in complex ones) along with heat and pressure.


----------



## rz350 (31 Jul 2006)

Ooh you said the moon, I though you meant other places, my bad. I don't know of any hydrocarbons on the moon.


----------



## Bert (1 Aug 2006)

This link might provide an overview of what being discussed:

http://galileo.spaceports.com/~helmut/exploration99/

It glosses over most issues but is more or less accurate as a quick brief.

As it relates to China and Mars, I think there is a viable interest in exploring whats out there
in space and the technologies that go with it.  As we seen Europe and China juggle for Russia oil,
the issues in the mid-east and finite resources, growing populations in underdeveloped areas,
securing of other resources, and the current emphasis characterizine comets and NEOs, we
will likely see more interest in space-based ventures.  Perhaps not a big issue for today, but 
odds are it will in the future.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2006)

The real motivators for going to Mars or wherever? Desire for glory, the need to get away from oppression, the desire to get away from the established order and the lure of wealth. Once technology brings the price of getting into orbit down to something reasonable, we are "halfway to anywhere".

Once that happens, look for revolutionaries, religious groups, holy warriors and adventurers to head on out. Think of Conquistadors, the Pilgrims, and the East India Company you get the idea.I don't think you will see too many bureaucrats out there.....


----------

