Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated April 10)
Space Race V2? Ignore Report Reply
Mike Brown - Mon, 26 May 2014 18:47:57 EST ID:+aDq/RZj No.53857
File: 1401144477469.jpg -(190826B / 186.35KB, 600x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 190826
So um, how likely does it seem that we will get another space race between nations/private corps?

Possible Contenders:
The Ghost of USSR *Ahem* "Russia"
UK (If Skylon manifests.)
India (Unlikely)
Japan (Unlikely)

Discuss this shiznt.
William Lassell - Tue, 27 May 2014 03:40:49 EST ID:ILYTISHs No.53862 Ignore Report Reply
China has a pretty clear goal of reaching the Moon, with a good step-by-step plan to do so--and the way their government works, there's no reason to assume they won't do it. More than any other nation outside the United States or Russia, they have the means, the know-how, and thewill to do it. They fund all kinds of shit that doesn't make money or lead to good science, so something that could work toward military tech or scientific value should be a no-brainer for China, even if it's essentially throwing money down a hole to start.

My guess is that the second they get close to pulling it off, the U.S. will swoop in and return to the Moon. If not before China, then right after, just to prove, "yeah, we still got this." The U.S. doesn't like to be upstaged when it comes to shit everyone on the planet will pay attention to.

I see Russia as very utilitarian right now. They're not shooting for any crazy achievements, but they're still just chugging along and doing shit that needs to be done, when it needs to be done. They're not going for the Moon, but they know they are necessary to maintain human space flight ever since the Space Shuttle program ended. I don't see a lot of innovation, but they're really good at doing what we need right now.

India and Japan are 40+ years behind the U.S. and Russia. They're lucky enough to get to tack on a few bits of equipment to a satellite or probe right now. Even with modern technology, they're good with the science and engineering, but they don't have the means to do anything large-scale.

Private enterprise is the wild card. Funding is hard to achieve since nobody wants to invest in anything that won't turn a profit, and right now, private space-flight is not making anybody any money. One day, sure, space tourism will be a thing, but it's not really an industry right now, and it definitely can't recoup the costs it takes to do it. That said, to me it seems that public-sector space exploration might be harder at first, it has a much bigger potential than a government-funded space presence. The second it becomes profitable, there will be a ton of companies all throwing everything they have into it, and there's basically no limit to what they could achieve.

the one downside I see to for-profit space exploration is that the main goals of exploring space will probably shift from "who cares why, we just want to learn as much as possible," to "what will turn the biggest profit in space." While those two angles are not mutually exclusive, they can diverge in a big way because money is involved.

I guess that was long.
Edward Pickering - Wed, 28 May 2014 03:37:18 EST ID:joBHD+Y1 No.53872 Ignore Report Reply
You forget one of the worlds largest and most capable space agencies, ESA. The UK would never do it alone, the industry doesn't exist. They have a large space sector but commercial and science not launchers. ESA is more likely than Japan or India but even it would never do something like this. Their agency isn't driven by nationalism.
China too is unlikely as they are in absolutely no rush as it stands, they very much like cooperation.
I honestly don't see it happening in Russia either, their politics is mad enough but RKA has too many problems right now.

>India and Japan are 40+ years behind the U.S. and Russia. They're lucky enough to get to tack on a few bits of equipment to a satellite or probe right now.
That's completely untrue. JAXA has a module on the space station, an unmanned resupply vehicle and recently achieved the first sample return from an asteroid. JAXA have the know how but not the political will. Both countries build and launch domestic satellites, it's not a case of "tacking things on".
Bart Bok - Wed, 28 May 2014 06:35:14 EST ID:+FjHJrhB No.53873 Ignore Report Reply
This will probably sound very naive but why the fuck aren't NASA/ESA/the rest just cooperating as a single space agency?
I mean probes and all cost fuckloads, why the silly competition and nationalism?
The goal is to advance knowledge not to be able to say "lel my country did X and yours only Y"
Roger Penrose - Wed, 28 May 2014 15:48:36 EST ID:s9ydQlLO No.53875 Ignore Report Reply
1401306516227.gif -(2535382B / 2.42MB, 320x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well, you've answered your own question:
>why the fuck aren't NASA/ESA/the rest just cooperating
>silly competition and nationalism

Basically the space industry was founded on ideals of "My rocket is bigger, yours vaporized your engineers."
Friedrich von Struve - Thu, 29 May 2014 05:53:20 EST ID:psUbi2cW No.53878 Ignore Report Reply
>India and Japan are 40+ years behind the U.S. and Russia. They're lucky enough to get to tack on a few bits of equipment to a satellite or probe right now.
India is currently one of the leading nations concerning satellite launches. They hold the record of launching the most satellites in a single launch. Launching 10 satellites in a single launch isn't as easy and backwards as it sounds.
George Airy - Thu, 29 May 2014 18:26:53 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.53879 Ignore Report Reply
>This will probably sound very naive but why the fuck aren't NASA/ESA/the rest just cooperating as a single space agency?
>I mean probes and all cost fuckloads, why the silly competition and nationalism?
It's precisely due to all the costs, that you do NOT want to cooperate.

Each politician want the costs to be spent on generating jobs in their own area. Having joint projects means adding more politicians to represent each member. Adding more politicians to oversee the thing just mean more headache in having to spread out the employments over wider area.

You want lean national projects, not bloated multinational projects.
Thomas Henderson - Thu, 29 May 2014 19:53:25 EST ID:5O93DDXg No.53880 Ignore Report Reply

Both of these reasons are silly nationalism. Resources are out in space in abundance. If we can expand enough then we will want for nothing for we shall have all we require. Home is where the heart is but the stars are made of latinum.
James Elliott - Fri, 30 May 2014 15:58:40 EST ID:PbSTSCyI No.53883 Ignore Report Reply
>the stars are made of (p)latinum.
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Fri, 30 May 2014 20:15:03 EST ID:psUbi2cW No.53885 Ignore Report Reply
That's why they're white/silvery dots and shine so nicely, didn't you know?
Giovanni Cassini - Fri, 30 May 2014 21:07:00 EST ID:joBHD+Y1 No.53886 Ignore Report Reply
Yes but what you ignore is that the jobs are already spread out. Adding cooperation won't change that. It will simply allow more stable projects and hence reduce risk and cost. Each project doesn't have to be spread over all member states.

ESA practices a great system where members contribute fixed fees to core projects and negotiate non-core programs for economic return to their nation among other factors.

The real reason is politics. Let's take NASA ESA cooperation. The US government demands that all programs great or small come back to Capitol Hill every 2 years at least to rescuer funding. They can kill any program at any time even if ESA has sunk a billion dollars into the program. ESA therefore want to draw on the US to an extent but 50/50 splits are very dangerous.
Walter Baade - Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:10:26 EST ID:U+R6IXBA No.54521 Ignore Report Reply
1413609026904.gif -(509100B / 497.17KB, 240x169) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Japan will most likley be our biggest competitor.

Space flight will slowly become more commercial and givernmental space operations will most likley be limited to rescue, repair, dispatch, and high level space colony governing.

This is important because Japan has very few natural resources to rely upon in the trade field, so they will be the ones who pick up the trump card senario.

Each time we get better technology japan will lead in pushing the cutting edge.

Russia will be focused on colonization, the United states will be focused on maintaining a top standard, China will lead other countries like India into space and there will be peace, Korea will then begin to become a reconized competitor as it begins its first steps Very independantly. the UK will help adding "gem stones" to americas colonization efforts. and the majority of wealthy european countries like France and Sweden will develop very specific systems with great value, many african countries will have Great hopes but terrestrial disputes and a volitile economy will cut many short of more than a few satelites, Canada will focus on Earch biodomes and economies, Mexico will be a heavy investor in American efforts, India in particular will yield many marvlous archetectual structures on earth which will in later years be picked up by the united states and east asian think groups.

Well, thats it.

Karl Jansky - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:59:56 EST ID:t1vMK9Uc No.54540 Ignore Report Reply
so assuming its not a typo he could be referring to a fictional currency from some scifi series (wiki redirects to fictionary currency)

there's also like a .01% chance he was being fluffy, and was referring to Latium. A tribe of people called the Latins settled a volcanic area of Italy, and one group within founded Rome (which is why the language of Rome was called Latin). So he might be going all imperial
Harlow Shapley - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:10:26 EST ID:cEGy78pj No.54548 Ignore Report Reply
y'all niggas need Star Trek
William Fowler - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 05:17:29 EST ID:LFWqwaom No.54566 Ignore Report Reply
space launch vehicles are essentially ICBMs with a unique payload.
scientific instrumentation is essentially reconaissence equipment.
teaming up with other countries in matters of strategic missiles and reconaissence equipment is a very very stupid thing...especially considering the geopolitical relations of everyone.

>the US has tension with Russia and China
>China has some closet-skeletons with India
>India has reasons to not piss off their buddy Russia

literally the only cooperation I can see ATM is between US and the ESA...

basically, though, you don't share strategic defense weapons technology with your enemy. that would be dumb.
Chushiro Hayashi - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:37:10 EST ID:ng7uFEBM No.54573 Ignore Report Reply
>No weapons are aloud in space, No bombardment based weaponry to be in orbit

our launch vehicles themselves ARE weapons.

when you strap a bomb to it, they call it an "intercontinental ballistic missile"
when you strap a telescope or communications satellite to it, it becomes a "space launch vehicle".

I'm not saying people are putting orbital weapons up...I'm saying that launch vehicles themselves are a weapon. The same rockets that carry men to the ISS can be used to deliver MIRVs to enemy cities, and can be used to deploy ASAT devices that kill incoming MIRVs.

Space travel is nothing more than strategic warfare with the pretty ribbon of humanitarian science strapped to it... And with this in mind, you don't share your most advanced strategic missile ("launch vehicle") designs with your competitors.
Chushiro Hayashi - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:44:32 EST ID:ng7uFEBM No.54574 Ignore Report Reply
>And collaboration doesn't mean handing over every detail of manufacturing. There is a lot of collaboration.

the post I was replying to specifically stated

>why the fuck aren't NASA/ESA/the rest just cooperating as a single space agency?
>single space agency?

In tune with the anti-nationalist sentiment expressed in the post, I took this to mean, essentially, "why don't we have a transnational, utopian, united federation style cooperative that's perfectly transparent about everything with everyone".

Basically, I assumed ol'boy was proposing a scenario where every detail of manufacture IS being shared for some idealistic "common good of mankind" nonsense.

As for general cooperation, of course it exists...there's an ISS up there that proves it, but I doubt US scientists will be benefitting anytime soon from Russian and Chinese advancements in hypersonic SCRAM launch vehicles anytime soon...that's what I was getting at.
Thomas Henderson - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:16:55 EST ID:Im3GVW// No.54623 Ignore Report Reply
Because those countries don't have space programs or weapons of mass destruction. If the issue ever arose they would be pushed into it.
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:49:03 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54624 Ignore Report Reply
It would be an interesting day if some small but tech-advanced country ever build a mass driver to launch stuff back from a lunar mine, and the big countries accuse it of building a kinetic weapon and threaten to invade. Plenty of small countries would push back against the blatant attempt of neo-imperialism.
Giovanni Cassini - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:16:34 EST ID:yZpPrhjN No.54626 Ignore Report Reply
>our launch vehicles themselves ARE weapons.
>when you strap a bomb to it, they call it an "intercontinental ballistic missile"
>when you strap a telescope or communications satellite to it, it becomes a "space launch vehicle".

No need to strap a bomb, when you could just carry a tungsten rod and just drop it down the gravity well.

When we're dealing with space tech, the energy involved means everything can be dual-use as weapon.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.