Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
China is great at reverse engineering and copying everyone elses hard work. Let's see if they can step it up and actually innovate.
It is the one major weak spot they have and one thing abouit the U.S. Russian space Race was we all had to solve the same issues of putting a man in space but they way we solved some problems to the way we solved it is quite amazing and only a Country that can innovate ways to create ways to solve complex problems will be the country that is the leader in the world
china will find out the hard way like we did, and finally give up after throwing billions of dollars down a big hole..
we did not give up we got lazy and complacent and had no reasonto, comntinue because Russia gave up the Quest for a manned moon Mission and they built Buran shuttle and the biggest plane in the world to piggy back it on wit the antov-225
Buran The Russian Space Shuttle - YouTube
They just coluld not afford to keep it going by the time the program aended in fact the Bruan had the Roof of the Building it was stored in have the Roof collapse and damage it beyond Repair it not too long ago an no Russia did not sreal the design since they build there to carry weapons and deplot able re-entry vehicles and was 100% able to fly unmanned missions like the X-37B does today.
Just look at the the ***-141 and F-35 JSF II and we acuaslly bought the right to use their design in the fly off for the new JSF and the YF-22 and YF-23 blackwidow duled it out to wuin the 5th gen Air -Air superity fighter
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,728,425 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTOlover
we did not give up we got lazy and complacent and had no reasonto, comntinue because Russia gave up the Quest for a manned moon Mission and they built Buran shuttle and the biggest plane in the world to piggy back it on wit the antov-225
Buran The Russian Space Shuttle - YouTube
They just coluld not afford to keep it going by the time the program aended in fact the Bruan had the Roof of the Building it was stored in have the Roof collapse and damage it beyond Repair it not too long ago.
the space shuttle was and still is a high tech piece of crap.. it would make one hell of a smash up derby vehicle though,, bet people would pay big money to go see it in action
the space shuttle was and still is a high tech piece of crap.. it would make one hell of a smash up derby vehicle though,, bet people would pay big money to go see it in action
Life on the International Space Station HD - YouTube
you miss the fun of space and we should be doing more of it and going forward I mean the ISS looks like a nice place to go live in and see some amazing sights.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,728,425 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTOlover
Life on the International Space Station HD - YouTube
you miss the fun of space and we should be doing more of it and going forward I mean the ISS looks like a nice place to go live in and see some amazing sights.
there going to decommission that piece of crap in the coming years,, now if they can figure out how to get some wheels on it,?? it could go up against the shuttle in the biggest smash up derby contest in this countries history now that would be something to see!!!
I bet you use a varient of the RD-170 or RD-180 Rocket engine Because even today Russian Rocket engine designs still power the Atlas V Rockets and bet you have not come close to the power of the RD-33 which is the most powerful Rocket engine in terms of the amount of thrust it can put out and we are just starting to use them and they were all thank the N-1 moon Rocket...The N-1 NK-33 engines were even better then any engine we ever built.
The NK-33 is a nice rocket engine, absolutely the best performing Lox +Rp1 engines ever made
I would niot say much about Russia since have to show respect to their innovation and they pushed us to build Rockets and beat us in many miliestones and we would beat them in another milestone and we pushed each other to a level that we did things that just now other countries are able to do and China just haing first manned spacecraft in 2003 is as around 40 years late but you take 3rd place in the rank of countries that have succesfully had manned space flight and safe Return.
Plus som far your space program has not inveted any new rocket but Rather are all based of U.S. and Russian technolgy and designs that we had in the early-1960's..
China needs to surpass Russia and the U.S. I innovation and build something that beat the Appllo and Proton Rockets which Rank as the two most powerful heavy lift Rocket platforms ever built and took us many places ahnd the Porton M and the not to long ago Retired Shuttle built the ISS but
I belive China is still not allowed to go to the ISS because of advanced experiments, technology,sensors and software and hardware that we would have a Memorandum of Understanding agreement on technolgy Transfers and the sharing of advanced technolgy to do with the ISS.
Also China has India trying to catch up to China and will be the 4th country to develop a Manned space program but like the U.S. and Russia it takes a good old fashion Rivalry to push the other one to do better and go farther.
NK-33 may be a good engine on paper but is really too small for a Moon Shot Booster since the first stage had 40 of those engines and 20 on the Second Stage and 8 on the third. The Russians could never get the system from either shaking itself apart or the engines from cutting out and the control system CORD was a nightmare. The longest flight of an N-1 was about 2 minutes, One actually shut down maybe 10-15 seconds after launch fell back on the launch pad and promptly exploded destroying the launch pad and the other N-1 sitting on the adjacent launch pad . It took the Russians nearly two years to recover from that disaster. The two minute flight was the 4th and longest but after that failure President Brezhnev fired Chief Designer Mishin and put his rival Glushko in charge who promptly killed the N-1 Project for his better idea called Energyia. It at least worked (twice) in 1986 and 1987 with those RD-170 engines.
Today our Atlas 5 uses a derivative of the RD-170 the 180 which Pratt and Witney is licensed to manufacture so thse RD-180s on the Atlases are made in America. China uses an engine on the Long March 2s and 3s that is neither a copy of the Russian school or fully American but something with some Chinese inovations. Its like the Shenzhou's that are similar to Soyuz but with a very good update by the Chinese. Shenzhou is using a docking system that is way more advanced with a Lidar system similar to the system NASA tested on the last couple of of Shuttle missions as a advanced technology effort for future craft like Orion or maybe Dragon.
Now to top the previous efforts the only way I see doing that is (1) figuring out how to make a fully reusible system that can reduce the cost of hauling up a pound of cargo into LEO for less than 100 S and maybe what it costs to send a one pound package by FEDEX to London (about $10-15). Oddly enough a 747 going to London burns enough fuel to produce the equivalent energy used to launch something to the ISS. The only difference is the 747 take 5 hours to burn the fuel and the rockets about 8-9 minutes. So its not an impossiblity and may be doable which DARPA, Mr Musk, or Jeff Bezos seems to understand. SpaceX is doing some work designed to make the Falcon 9 a reusible flyback booster. This was once proposed as something to do with a advanced version of the Saturn Vs by an engineer named Philip Bono at McDonald-Douglas in the 1960s. or
(2) using a nuclear engine even for launch. The last time this was done in the US was a project in the late 1980s called Timberwind which would have replaced the core of the Titan booster with a nuclear core booster and coincidentally increase the payload of the Titan 4 by a factor 4-5 so a Saturn V capability in the same small Titan 4 package. Neat huh!This was being done to launch an SDI component called Excaliber a nuclear powered x-ray lazer to zap incoming missiles but could send a unused Timberwind stage one fueled and ready to go to Mars just send the manned system (100 tons of stuff) up on another Timberwind powered booster and them send the crew up on a smaller booster. 1-2-3 and off you go to Mars or where ever you want to go. I knew the guys at Brookhaven who were tasked with designing the tungsten carbide fuel particles for Timberwind and built a thermal test system to subect the particles to the same heat and fuel flow expected in the Timberwind motor. They pumped hydrogen and oxygen and set it alight. On the first test they set a pine tree near the test stand on fire.
The Titan 4 was a good system for a TimberWind like system since the Titan core was not statrted on the launch pad as its solids hauled it off the pad and up to an altitude of about 50,000 ft were the core would ignite. Yes the TimberWind exhaust would be slightly radioactive but the launch site would stay relatively uncontaminated and you would just have mission rules about wind direction to ensure that the fallout would blow out to sea from the Cape.
Last edited by mwruckman; 07-22-2012 at 02:48 AM..
i agree that he N-33 just the desing of the Single engine even though it will never be used on a manned Rocket but the design is un matched by any other Lox+Rp1 Fuel engines in terms of performance but the use many diffrent more modren fuel mixtures depending on what is being launched are used.
I just think the N-1 looks so overpowered with and yet so awsome beacuse of that fact but manned Rpackets tjhe simple the design the better since less to go wrong and the N-1 series had alot that could go wrong and that is why it was cancelled it is expensive and dangerous when the Rockets debris and fuel rain down back to earth and ther is a lot of Fuel to burn up.
China is pushing alot of launch dates and they seem to be getting ahead of themselfs and not taking time to study the data of the the flight and see how it Really did and where they can imprve but rather just keep going bigger and hope it makes it..I mean both the U.s,. and Russia took huge risks and sometimes it paidoff and other times it was a total failure and china is not doing all these Launches at such an acclerated rate to go to the moon they are putting up military SATs to form a GPS/Glossnass type system.
I mean it just seems why the would take the added Risks of their very accelerated program to not goover the data.
i agree that he N-33 just the desing of the Single engine even though it will never be used on a manned Rocket but the design is un matched by any other Lox+Rp1 Fuel engines in terms of performance but the use many diffrent more modren fuel mixtures depending on what is being launched are used.
I just think the N-1 looks so overpowered with and yet so awsome beacuse of that fact but manned Rpackets tjhe simple the design the better since less to go wrong and the N-1 series had alot that could go wrong and that is why it was cancelled it is expensive and dangerous when the Rockets debris and fuel rain down back to earth and ther is a lot of Fuel to burn up.
China is pushing alot of launch dates and they seem to be getting ahead of themselfs and not taking time to study the data of the the flight and see how it Really did and where they can imprve but rather just keep going bigger and hope it makes it..I mean both the U.s,. and Russia took huge risks and sometimes it paidoff and other times it was a total failure and china is not doing all these Launches at such an acclerated rate to go to the moon they are putting up military SATs to form a GPS/Glossnass type system.
I mean it just seems why the would take the added Risks of their very accelerated program to not goover the data.
N-1 was not overpowered for the mission it was intended to carry out. Building large space stations and sending a man to the Moon. The best way to appreciate the Moon rockets is to have a accurate scale model of both. I do each is 1:144 scale and both are a meter tall. The N-1 is distinctly cone shaped and is almost 3 times the diameter of the US Saturn 5 at the base. It looks very much like the Rocket von Braun designed for the Collier's magazine articles in the early 1950s painted by a great illustrator Chesley Bonestell if you take off the wings von Braun put on it to allow the stages to glide back into the atmosphere for a slashdown landing and reuse. I painted my N-1 completely white to match N-1s in the few images that survived the Soviet attempt to erase the project from history. One picture shows the 4th and final attempt to launch the N-1 in 1974. This time the rocket cleared the tower and was rising one a magnificent plume of fire and smoke as viewed from the city of Leninsk the community just south of the Baikonur Cosmosdrome. This one was the one that lasted 2 minutes and the first stage worked. The pronlem was the second stage that exploded just after staging. Although N-1 looks biger than our Saturn V it was less powerful and could only get a 75 ton payload into Earth orbit whereas the Saturn V could put a 120 ton Apollo package into Earth orbit. This had consequences for the Soviet Moon mission. The lander was about half the size of the ours and could only take a single cosmonaut down and he couldn't stay very long. Just enough time to get a few rocks plant the Soviet flag and snap a picture of it. I think the Soviet LK lander was un pressurized so the cosmonaut would have to were his Moon suit all the time and to get into it had to go out side the Soyuz mothership for it lacked a tunnel through the docking apparatus. It also lacked a hatch so the Cosmonaut didn't have to worry if that would work or face the problem of a closed hatch that might not open when needed. We didn't know much about the LK and the LK-3 complex until after the USSR fell apart and westerners got to see the equipment. I am impressed by how fragile the Lunar Module that took our guys down to the Moon and back 6 times looks . The one down at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. It took men with guts to do that. Now from what a see in the pictures of the Soviet lander I would have taken even more guts. Alexi Leonov and a handful of cosmonauts were training to fly the LK lander on its suicide mission. If the N-1 had been able to get it there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
