China's Space Program News Thread

[NikeX]

Re:

I saw it based on Elon Musk's track record of those startups, and failures of other semi-private space ventures such as Sea Launch. Oh I also saw that you simply refuse to accept the fact that private space ventures in their current state is pretty far from being profitable.

There are no private space ventures to compare your thinking to. Space X is the first. If you disagree then name the space ventures you are referring too. Regarding Elon Musk, selling his start-up Pay Pal put him in a position to invest $100 million of his own money into Space X. And it should be recalled that most leaps in the technical progress of mankind have come as the result of passionate individuals working in small committed units rather than massive cumbersome organizations lumbering along. Modern rocketry was started out of garage sized operations. Do you catch my point?

Don't worry about Space X as they will be alright

 

[hmmwv]

Re:

You have missed the point again, there is no question that Elon Musk is an admirable individual who should be commended for willing to pay the price to jump start the private space industry. But we are talking about profitability here, and passion alone doesn't mean profitable, he's passionate about electric cars too but look at the Tesla today. Also I have clearly stated in my post the other space venture's name, Sea Launch. I'm sure SpaceX will be fine as Elon still has some personal wealth to invest in it, and the down payment for future launches are slowly coming in, but it's a long way to become profitable.

 

[Equation]

Re:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can't wait for the prices to go down when this starts to open.

 

[NikeX]

Re:

It sounds like you know nothing about doing research. Research is research, no matter it's biology, physics, archaeology, aerospace engineering, or even paranormal activities. It's all out proposing a hypothesis and design experiments to test it. In fact, the current trend is "interdisciplinary research", meaning collaboration across different fields, like biology and physics. ever heard of biomedical engineering? When I was in graduate school, we used to collaborate with NASA to study how human body sense gravity. It's biology combined with aerospace engineering. I had absolutely no problem working with those aerospace engineers as we speak the same language, i.e. the language of science, reasoning and logic!

And the people doing "protein research" are not pioneers??? I thought the definition of a pioneer is the first one to venture into the unknown. I don't think I like your tone when discussing medical research. We, biologists, biochemists and biophysicists, are working on things that might potentially save millions, if not billions, of lives. So show some respect!

I counter that you know next to nothing about aerospace. It is unlikely that a person could develop a viable product based upon protein research in a garage, but you could develop an advanced rocket engine or aerospace design in a garage like a Burt Rutan.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Who says my funding is cut? I clearly said in my previous post that NIH funds my projects, as in present tense. In fact, I just got TWO million $$ grants from NIH and am feeling on top of the world now. I don't know where you got the idea that my funding was cut... Go back and read my post again!!

You live from grant to grant. Miss a grant and you are out of job. It is decades before you can see the rewards of your work. While with aerospace I can build an aircraft or rocket in my backyard on a shoestring. Its just the nature of the game

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

You have missed the point again, there is no question that Elon Musk is an admirable individual who should be commended for willing to pay the price to jump start the private space industry. But we are talking about profitability here, and passion alone doesn't mean profitable, he's passionate about electric cars too but look at the Tesla today. Also I have clearly stated in my post the other space venture's name, Sea Launch. I'm sure SpaceX will be fine as Elon still has some personal wealth to invest in it, and the down payment for future launches are slowly coming in, but it's a long way to become profitable.

There is no point to miss. Passion equals commitment and it is the fire and zeal in the hearts of the innovators like Musk, Burt Rutan and others that drives things forward. Slow incremental advances like you see in the various space programs today are alright, but in order to get on a fast track to Mars it will take leaps of faith like what is going on in the Mars Society's Mars Mission simulator rather than bloated organizations with rows and rows of drone workers plodding along like oxen. Give me innovation anyday

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can't wait for the prices to go down when this starts to open.

There are several Spaceport type operations setting up shop as the American space industry undergoes a renaissance and surge

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[hmmwv]

Re:

There is no point to miss. Passion equals commitment and it is the fire and zeal in the hearts of the innovators like Musk, Burt Rutan and others that drives things forward. Slow incremental advances like you see in the various space programs today are alright, but in order to get on a fast track to Mars it will take leaps of faith like what is going on in the Mars Society's Mars Mission simulator rather than bloated organizations with rows and rows of drone workers plodding along like oxen. Give me innovation anyday

Obvious there is, I agree with everything you said in this paragraph, but it still doesn't change the fact that SpaceX is a long way from being profitable. Anyway this discussion is getting way off topic so I'm just gonna stop here.

 

[CottageLV]

Re:

There's no need to argue on this topic. We can just agree that there are disagreements in our opinions. It's called freedom of speech.

But we all can agree that private venture are more effective in minimizing unnecessary wastes caused by bureaucracy. Usually the smaller the companies are, the lesser these wastes will happen. However, too many small entities also cause another waste. Forgot what it's called (apology to my econ prof), it's multiple companies doing the same thing repetitively, such as building 10 pipelines from Alaska, all of which are underused. In this case, government ran programs are much more efficient. The existence of government also pool together more resources, which could be unattainable for small companies.

Personally, I believe SpaceX is currently the best solution for the US space program. It minimizes the wastes caused by bureaucracy, but at the same time, it is closely monitored and supported by NASA/government. This gives it all the fund and technology transfer it needs to achieve its goals.

If you really think about it, this concept really isn't new. Weapon companies like Lockheed and Boeing are really the same thing. They live almost solely on government contracts, but operate in a purely corporate manner. Because of the way they're managed, having to use their funds efficiently and having to report to shareholders, they waste almost nothing compared to crown corporations. However, because of their immense size and complete support of the government, they also have infinite amount of funds to research all the best and latest technologies. At the same time, because of their nature as a government contractor, they have access to all the technologies innovated by government agencies, such as NASA, DARPA, and countless other national laboratories. A lot of think that these companies develop the technologies themselves, which is not true. They are just like the computer and cellphone manufacturers, whom don't really research much foundational technologies, but instead just buy the parts and put them together. (I know this is drifting off topic, but if you look at the jets and ships they make, they make none of the parts inside, it's all made by suppliers. On top of that, they don't have many research labs. They get their technology transferred directly from the government owned laboratories.)

It's true that SpaceX is currently a private company, but we'll very soon see its IPO. It will quickly transform into something along the lines of Lockheed and Boeing, which is private in operation, but almost crown in nature.

Personally, I think it's the best way to go.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Obvious there is, I agree with everything you said in this paragraph, but it still doesn't change the fact that SpaceX is a long way from being profitable. Anyway this discussion is getting way off topic so I'm just gonna stop here.

I do agree with your idea. But don't forget that Elon Musk is more of an investor than a business owner. He's more orientated towards building a business and quickly cash out after IPO. In his eyes, SpaceX doesn't have to profit. He's smart, because currently, perhaps in the foreseeable future, space programs are not lucrative. It takes too much funding and returns very little. However, if you're someone like Musk, whom knows that although SpaceX will produce will little profit. But because of the government funded programs, it will expand and explode in value, without earning high corporate profit. That's why he's able to make a lot of money without his company profiting.

 

[vesicles]

Re:

I counter that you know next to nothing about aerospace. It is unlikely that a person could develop a viable product based upon protein research in a garage, but you could develop an advanced rocket engine or aerospace design in a garage like a Burt Rutan.

Sighhh... I feel like talking to a wall... Yes Yes, aerospace engineering is different from biology (please do not say "protein research" again because there is no such thing as "protein research"). However, it does not change the fact that research is research, no matter what the subject matter is. I've been arguing about the fundamental aspects of research, which makes small private companies less capable, be it aerospace engineering or chemical engineering. I've also mentioned that I have collaborated with aerospace engineers on projects and found that their thought process is exactly the same as mine, as well as people in other fields, such as chemistry, chemical engineering, physics, archaeology. By the way, one of my department alumni, a fellow biochemist, went on and became an astronaut and spent 6 months in the ISS. If a biochemist can become an astronaut, it means our training is close enough to make the transition possible. I've listed some important aspects of doing research. If you think aerospace engineering is fundamentally different, explain to me what aspects, such as proposing a hypothesis and designing experiments to test hypothesis, aerospace engineering lacks. An empty statement like "I know next to nothing about aerospace" is not sufficient nor logical.

Does the fact that people can make a rocket in a garage mean anything? Does it mean that these people are simply replicating what has been known, or does it mean that they are making revolutionary discoveries in a garage? People have been making stuff in garages for a long time and many of them have been very successful at it. ever heard of Orange County Choppers? However, give me an example of successful development of cutting edge technology in a garage. I'm not talking about simply making an "advanced rocket" based on existing technology, but actually making significant and qualitative advancement in the science of rocketry. Note that this is the basis of my argument. Anyone can develop a product based on existing technology, provided that you have enough funding. The key is that only govn't-funded programs have enough foresight and enough financial strength to allow revolutionary discoveries. So give me a historical figure who is critical in the development of rocketry and aerospace engineering and he/she did all that in his/her garage.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Check out the section "Theories of interplanetary rocketry". It talks about all the theoretical foundation for modern rocketry. Virtually everyone involved, Tsiolkovsky, Esnault-Pelterie, Goddard and Oberth, depended on govn't funding for their revolutionary discoveries. These are the kind of programs I'm talking about. Without any potential for profit, none of these pioneers was supported by companies. Their work was made possible because various govn't supported them. You may say some company made the first rocket propelled car, etc. These things were NOT revolutionary discoveries, but simply application of existing technology/theories. Without the theoretical foundation laid by these govn't-funded pioneers, like Goddard, people are still tying fireworks to chairs and pretend to fly into the space. Yes, tying fireworks to your chair can also be done in a garage, but does that make it revolutionary?

Again, my points are private companies lack long-term foresight and peer-to-peer communication. So please enlighten me what is wrong with my assessment. Leave my rocketry knowledge out of it. If you keep attacking my lack of rocketry experience, it will sound more and more like you also know nothing about aerospace engineering since you simply cannot explain anything in a concrete fashion.

---------- Post added at 09:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------

You live from grant to grant. Miss a grant and you are out of job. It is decades before you can see the rewards of your work. While with aerospace I can build an aircraft or rocket in my backyard on a shoestring. Its just the nature of the game

You are seriously missing the point. Take what you said here and think about it for a second. are you contributing anything to the science of rocketry by making a rocket in your backyard on a shoestring. At most, you can be called an enthusiast. your statement here actually proves my point. What people can do in a garage simply pales in comparison, in terms of qualitative contribution to a science, against a govn't-funded programs.

The difference you listed here is the fundamental difference between govn't-funded programs and private companies, NOT the difference between biology and aerospace engineering. aerospace engineering can also tale a long time. For instance, modern rocketry started with Tsiolkovsky who began his research on rocketry in 1880 and the first liquid-fueled rocket was launched in 1926. A whopping 46 years lied between the start of the work and the first solid physical evidence of success. And now you can make a rocket in your backyard on a shoestring. As yo can see, aerospace engineering can also take a long time. That, my friend, is the difference between theoretical ground work and simply replicating existing technology. Without the painful 46 years with full of boring equations and ridicules from the public and peers, which would be impossible without govn't funding, the first liquid-fueled rocket would have been impossivle. You would be tying fireworks to lawn chairs in your backyard.

---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------

There is no point to miss. Passion equals commitment and it is the fire and zeal in the hearts of the innovators like Musk, Burt Rutan and others that drives things forward. Slow incremental advances like you see in the various space programs today are alright, but in order to get on a fast track to Mars it will take leaps of faith like what is going on in the Mars Society's Mars Mission simulator rather than bloated organizations with rows and rows of drone workers plodding along like oxen. Give me innovation anyday

It's NOT the leap of faith, but leap of knowledge that makes advancement possible. If you look at development of science and technology, you will see that it does not increase linearly, but exponential and incremental. So it goes like steps. You see a sudden and huge increase in science and technology and then a long period of time with little to no growth. This is not because people living in those slow-growing periods had no passion and no fire in them. It is, however, because any qualitative advancement needs revolutionary change in the theoretical foundation. To do that, you need people who work on boring equations and highly abstract theories that have absolutely no potential for profit. Again, only govn'ts have enough funding to support people like these.

---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------

By the way, even small private companies need govn't funding. the US govn't have many many grants to support small high-tech companies, be it pharmaceutics or aerospace engineering. In fact, if you check the website of the companies you admire so much, you will most likely find that these companies have many grants from the govn't. In a sense, these small companies are also govn't-funded. Let alone small companies, even Lockheed Martin and Boeing support their R&D using govn't funding since many of their projects are simply too costly for them to absorb and only the US govn't has the strength to support them. Also, the US military gives contracts to various small companies that lost design competition to manufacture parts of air crafts/tanks/battle ships, etc. In a way, all these companies live with govn't funding. They would not have survived without govn't funding because their designs were not accepted by the govn't and would have been bankrupt if it weren't because of the subcontracts given by the govn't. In fact, part of why US weapons are so expensive is that the govn't has to pay/fund private companies whose goal is to make a profit.

 

[icbeodragon]

Re:

I do agree with your idea. But don't forget that Elon Musk is more of an investor than a business owner. He's more orientated towards building a business and quickly cash out after IPO. In his eyes, SpaceX doesn't have to profit. He's smart, because currently, perhaps in the foreseeable future, space programs are not lucrative. It takes too much funding and returns very little. However, if you're someone like Musk, whom knows that although SpaceX will produce will little profit. But because of the government funded programs, it will expand and explode in value, without earning high corporate profit. That's why he's able to make a lot of money without his company profiting.

I don't believe you can speak for what Elon Musk believes, unless you personally know the man?

As it is he's been publicly very reluctant about opening an IPO, stating simply to questions that address such that it might happen a few years down the line.

SpaceX actually as of today is profitable, if the money recieved for contract services without the services themselves being performed yet are considered.

SpaceX themselves has been very public about how they could not have come to existence without the help of NASA, and I for one believe them considering the troubles they faced when they were testing the falcon 1.

With the recent (and pretty much flawless I might add) test mission to supply the ISS behind them, they have proven themselves to be more than talk and they are genuinely cheaper than the rest, even if they eventually fall short of their own cost goals (which is always a possibility). This does not mean they have proven their reliability yet, that comes with getting successive missions right, but they at least have earned the right to be taken seriously instead of being dismissed as just another venture that will die out in a few years time, such as the debacle of Solyndra.

I am very excited about the future of the US Spaceflight Industry, whether commercial or government. It seems to be entering a period of great change, perhaps even a rennaissance (best case scenario) of interested involvement by the 'geek' entrepreneurs (tech sector basically) and renewed interest by the American public at large.

 

[NikeX]

Re:

@vesicles

However, give me an example of successful development of cutting edge technology in a garage. I'm not talking about simply making an "advanced rocket" based on existing technology, but actually making significant and qualitative advancement in the science of rocketry.

Answer: Lets start with this innovator / inventor. There is no better example

Robert Hutchings Goddard (October 5, 1882 – August 10, 1945) was an American professor, physicist and inventor who is credited with creating and building the world's first liquid-fueled rocket,] which he successfully launched on March 16, 1926. Goddard and his team launched 34 rockets[3] between 1926 and 1941, achieving altitudes as high as 2.6 km (1.6 mi) and speeds as high as 885 km/h (550 mph).

Goddard's work as both theorist and engineer anticipated many of the developments that were to make spaceflight possible.[5] Two of Goddard's 214 patents — one for a multi-stage rocket design (1914), and another for a liquid-fuel rocket design (1914) — are regarded as important milestones[6] toward spaceflight. His 1919 monograph A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes is considered one of the classic texts of 20th-century rocket science. Goddard successfully applied three-axis control, gyroscopes and steerable thrust to rockets, all of which allow them to be controlled effectively in flight.

Goddard received little public support for his research during his lifetime. Although his work in the field was revolutionary, he was sometimes ridiculed in the press for his theories concerning spaceflight. As a result, he became protective of his privacy and his work. Years after his death, at the dawn of the Space Age, he came to be recognized as one of the founding fathers of modern rocketry. He was the first not only to recognize the scientific potential of missiles and space travel but also to bring about the design and construction of the rockets needed to implement those ideas.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That picture is Goddard in his garage workshop

 

[PakistaniDragon]

Re:

Can we please have the latest on Chinese Space Program and not Space X.

Thanks.