Re: China aims for moon

Andrew Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kaido Kert wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rand Simberg) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> Nonsense.  If it were important to get back to the moon in a hurry, we
> >> could do it, just as we did forty years ago. 
> > 
> > While im in general agreement with you, are you absolutely certain
> > about that point ?
> > As far as i understand, it took more than just dollars to get there.
> > You know, the right people, skills, talent, public support etc.
> 
> The US didn't stop training engineers in 1970. There's a few less rocket
> engineers now than there were in 1965, no doubt, but it's not an Arcane
> And Mystical Art.
> 
> Public support is lacking, or certainly directed public support is. I'm
> not saying there's a vast undercurrent of US support to go to the moon,
> but if there was it'd need political manifestation. But, given that,
> there's no reason the US government couldn't have a lunar program of
> some form.
> 
> > As a thought experiment, try imagine a situation where US would
> > absolutely inevitably need to get a man on the moon in a decade ( for
> > whatever urgent reason, a black monolith making an appearance or
> > somesuch )
> > How exactly would it happen ?
> 
> Hrm. Decision right now? OSP rescoped, a translunar stage designed for
> an EELV - or, possibly, a new HLV started - and some form of LEM built
> to work with it. Other details are fudgible. Expensive, but hey. If
> there's public support, political support, it's only money. And this is
> a thought experiment :-)
> 
> Wouldn't bet on it happening before 2010, dependent on the details, but
> if Congress turned round tomorrow and signed the cheques a government
> program could easily enough have someone there for 2015, at the latest,
> assuming they're given at least moderate kicks occasionally. A private
> one, ditto, but they're harder to model mentally :-)

Not that it would matter, but i, for one, am not convinced at all.
First, your answer seems to ignore some realities that we are faced
with today. I'll list them in no particular order, and probably omit a
bunch of what i have thought about but wont cross my mind right now
-in 60'ies, we did not have many decades of "solid knowledge" that
everything space-related is hideously expensive and hard by
definition. Just this "perception buildup" is one factor to actually
make stuff harder today.
-theres that one big space agency, that would politically be
impossible to ignore or get around. Plus there are its usual suspect
contractors. Those guys havent designed, built and flown anything new
and successful in decades.
-there are scant few people still around who actually have designed
and flown manned deep-space vehicles. most of them retired.
-IMO, some of the general paradigms of designing new hardware have
radically changed. There were a _lot_ less nannies and safety
inspectors around thirty years ago. 'twas a different world, then.
Some unfortunate managagement practices werent invented then, either.
The word "Dilbert" didnt mean much.

Perhaps all im saying is "we're half the men we used to be", and
someone will comment with "speak for yourself" anyway.

Still, 
> OSP rescoped, a translunar stage designed for
> an EELV - or, possibly, a new HLV started - and some form of LEM built
> to work with it.
I just cant imagine any of that happening at this day and age, not in
situation where space industry is currently in. Even mere "rescoping
the OSP" would probably take a few years, and at that point you would
have only viewgraphs to show. Considering all the political, budgetary
and technical realities, exactly who would be designing and building
all this stuff ?
IMO, nothing radical can happen before somebody, somewhere will stand
up straight, and admit in a clear, loud voice that we need to get back
to square one in space development. And i just either cant see this
happening with the reality we live in, or the loud voice just wont be
heard in all the noise.

-kert