Future Chinese Space Colonisation Projects

C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:
A moon base would serve more functions than just launching shuttles to Mars. It would also serve for scientific research and resource mining, so you will need regular supply trips from Earth. Those supply trips can bring prefabricated shuttle modules which can then be assembled on the moon.

Technology doesn't stay static, and you need to be able to plan for the future. Modular construction has already proven itself with China's skyscrapers, and as technology evolves, it will soon become viable for space-faring vessels. The moon base certainly does not need to refine its own raw materials.

The distance between Earth and Moon is only 384,400 km. The minimum distance between Earth and Mars is 54.6 million km, and between Earth and Venus is 38 million km. Venus is 100 times further from Earth than the Moon is, so if we can't make round-trips to the moon economically worthwhile, then Venus colonization would not be worthwhile either. Same thing goes for Mars, except it's even further.

So the logic is, if we're planning to colonize another planet, we might as well do it from the Moon, because if we can't even get that right, we shouldn't be aiming for another planet.
Click to expand...

Bring components from earth to the moon just so you can launch it from the moon again to somewhere else simply doesn't pay. It may be true that you can't get to Mars without having acquired the ability to also get to the moon. But there is noreason why it behoves you to make any stops on the moon on the way to Mars.

Moon as a outpost for launching interplanetary missions is one of the bogus ideas left over from 1960s science fiction. At best it is a trial ground, sort of like a death valley in orbit, just as death valley on earth was used to validate Apollo technology.
 
Last edited:
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:
What is the point of colonizing another planet at all? Is it solely to gather that planet's resources like a swarm of locust?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Futuristic romanticism doesn't pay the bills of colonization efforts. The profitable geathering of resources, like a swarm of locusts as you say, is the absolutely indispensible bedrock upon which any significant, even moderately sustainable, colonization efforts must be founded.
 
Last edited:
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

chuck731 said:
Bring components from earth to the moon just so you can launch it from the moon again to somewhere else simply doesn't pay. It may be true that you can't get to Mars without having acquired the ability to also get to the moon. But there is noreason why it behoves you to make any stops on the moon on the way to Mars.

Moon as a outpost for launching interplanetary missions is one of the bogus ideas left over from 1960s science fiction. At best it is a trial ground, sort of death valley on earth which was used to trial technology used to validate Apollo technology.
Click to expand...

Space shuttles are limited by the amount of fuel they can bring. You need more fuel to escape higher gravities, but the fuel itself has mass, thus creating a curve of diminishing returns.

By bringing shuttle components to a shallower gravity well, you can bypass that curve of diminishing returns and obtain greater fuel efficiency. For the same mass of shuttle launched from Earth, you need much less fuel if it was launched from the Moon. That mass can be replaced with more life-support systems and equipment. If you tried to do the same thing with a bigger shuttle on Earth, you will need to expend a lot more fuel to get that shuttle lifted than if you shipped individual components to the moon.
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:
Space shuttles are limited by the amount of fuel they can bring. You need more fuel to escape higher gravities, but the fuel itself has mass, thus creating a curve of diminishing returns.

By bringing shuttle components to a shallower gravity well, you can bypass that curve of diminishing returns and obtain greater fuel efficiency. For the same mass of shuttle launched from Earth, you need much less fuel if it was launched from the Moon. That mass can be replaced with more life-support systems and equipment. If you tried to do the same thing with a bigger shuttle on Earth, you will need to expend a lot more fuel to get that shuttle lifted than if you shipped individual components to the moon.
Click to expand...

You only need less fuel to launch a shuttle from the moon because you've already burned all the fuel it would be required to launch it directly from earth, and more, by shipping all the components from earth to the moon. This is why overall, stopping over on the moon on the way to some interplanetary destination simply does not pay.
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:
What is the point of colonizing another planet at all? Is it solely to gather that planet's resources like a swarm of locust?

A Venusian colony can provide invaluable opportunities for scientific studies. If the colony can support itself just with the solar energy it gathers, that would be a phenomenal success already. Venusian atmosphere is also rich in sulfuric acid, which has numerous industrial applications. So if we ever come to a point were the Venus colonies need to export something, they can export sulfuric acid.
Click to expand...


Sulfric acid is not exactly expensive to manufacture on earth. Launching it from the gravity well of Venus will be almost as expensive as launching it from earth. So it seems unlikely the sulfric acid trade will support the cost of setting up a floating colony in the Venusian atmosphere.

Because of the astronomical cost of sending bulk materail out of planetary gravity wells with foreseeable technology, the first profitable trade between human settlements on different planets has to involve extremely high value, low mass, goods.

Basically, if there is pure gold lying around on the surface of Venus, the gold still can't pay for the cost of its own transport to earth.

So in the near future, colonization efforts and interstellar trade has to depend on the ability to find and mine raw materials on another planet and refining them in situ to a point where they are worth much more than their weight in gold.
 
Last edited:
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

Good discussion so far fellas lets keep this ball rolling!

I believe an orbital station to house the shuttle would be more sufficient to launch any inter planetary trips for near future. The station can use the centripetal force as gravity when it rotates, plus you have a weightlessness in space orbit to make things easier to move, lift, push large crates, cargoes, and other heavy industrial equipment to support life upon the station.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

Equation said:
Good discussion so far fellas lets keep this ball rolling!

I believe an orbital station to house the shuttle would be more sufficient to launch any inter planetary trips for near future. The station can use the centripetal force as gravity when it rotates, plus you have a weightlessness in space orbit to make things easier to move, lift, push large crates, cargoes, and other heavy industrial equipment to support life upon the station.
Click to expand...

That's true, although the moon base has the advantage of being able to build its own energy plants (i.e. nuclear reactors). Quite possibly both will be used, as you can only have so many things in orbit around Earth before collision becomes a real danger.


chuck731 said:
Sulfric acid is not exactly expensive to manufacture on earth. Launching it from the gravity well of Venus will be almost as expensive as launching it from earth. So it seems unlikely the sulfric acid trade will support the cost of setting up a floating colony in the Venusian atmosphere.

Because of the astronomical cost of sending bulk materail out of planetary gravity wells with foreseeable technology, the first profitable trade between human settlements on different planets has to involve extremely high value, low mass, goods.

Basically, if there is pure gold lying around on the surface of Venus, the gold still can't pay for the cost of its own transport to earth.

So in the near future, colonization efforts and interstellar trade has to depend on the ability to find and mine raw materials on another planet and refining them in situ to a point where they are worth much more than their weight in gold.
Click to expand...

We maintain Antarctic bases that don't produce anything, so why won't we do the same for off-planet colonies? The primary purpose of any colony should be research. Space colonization is not going to be profitable for a long time, but that doesn't mean we should discount its value. A successful Venusian colony will potentially have easy access to an entire planet's worth of sulfuric acid. Don't underestimate how much wealth that represents. Certainly it's not profitable with today's technology, but then fur trade with the New World wasn't profitable with Viking longboats either.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

Space craft will always be easier to launch from orbit than from the ground, but it doesn't have to be Earth's orbit. Lunar orbital stations can benefit from the lower lunar gravity well. The moon base would then become a supply and support post for the lunar orbital station.
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:
We maintain Antarctic bases that don't produce anything, so why won't we do the same for off-planet colonies? The primary purpose of any colony should be research. Space colonization is not going to be profitable for a long time, but that doesn't mean we should discount its value. A successful Venusian colony will potentially have easy access to an entire planet's worth of sulfuric acid. Don't underestimate how much wealth that represents. Certainly it's not profitable with today's technology, but then fur trade with the New World wasn't profitable with Viking longboats either.
Click to expand...


Arctic base is not exactly a colony. It is an bunch of small outpost stations. The cost of the entire world's annual artic research budget is a fraction of the the cost of one space shuttle launch.

It really doesn't matter how much sulfric acid there is on Venus if you will lose money on every kilogram you attempt to send to earth.

Fur trade with New World certainly wasn't profitable with Viking long boats either. Which is precisely why their colonization effort sputtered and died. The first successful colonization effort in America didn't occur until the Spaniards found gold in central America and silver in Andes. Again, profitable exploitation of local resources separates successes from furloin hopes in the colonization game.
 
C

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:
Space craft will always be easier to launch from orbit than from the ground, but it doesn't have to be Earth's orbit. Lunar orbital stations can benefit from the lower lunar gravity well. The moon base would then become a supply and support post for the lunar orbital station.
Click to expand...

Again, NO. You have to get the parts into orbit, or lunar base, first. That costs more energy than you could ever save later by launching the complete thing from orbit or lunar base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top