<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s scarier than the Chinese on the Moon?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon</link>
	<description>Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not In Kansas Anymore &#187; China, NASA, and the Moon</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-287480</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Not In Kansas Anymore &#187; China, NASA, and the Moon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-287480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Foust&#8217;s recent post, &#8220;Whatâ€™s scarier than the Chinese on the Moon?,&#8221; continues the discussion of NASA&#8217;s recent change of direction: One major criticism of [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Foust&#8217;s recent post, &#8220;Whatâ€™s scarier than the Chinese on the Moon?,&#8221; continues the discussion of NASA&#8217;s recent change of direction: One major criticism of [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Castro</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-287047</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Castro]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-287047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Chinese, if they are smart &amp; pragmatic, WOULD DO a lunar mission!  Why the hell should they COPY US and chain themselves to LEO with another dull &amp; boring space-station?!  Enough of this damned going around in circles!! GO SOMEPLACE!  Only the staunchest of the Mars fanatics will say &quot;so what.&quot; Once the full implications of this Chinese feat sink through, America will feel the sting of being incapacitated, and left at the starting gate! Imagine, if their spacemen visit one of the Apollo landing sites! Our relics of past glory will be televised by the Commies. Even if its through the lens of a long-distance moving rover, sent over from a landing module. And consider the sight of the Red Flag planted firmly on Luna firma....maybe coupled with a taikonaut with the Earth in the deep black sky! What will the Mars zealots have to say for themselves then?? On what angles will they choose to trivialize it?? Uglier still, will be how they will justify their support for getting President Obama to destroy our would-have-been Lunar program, ten or twelve years previously (by that time.). Charles Bolden is a total jackass, to go in front of Congress and tell them a Chinese Lunar Landing would not matter. People, let&#039;s rescue Constellation right now! Like that song says....&quot;I swear it&#039;s not too late.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Chinese, if they are smart &amp; pragmatic, WOULD DO a lunar mission!  Why the hell should they COPY US and chain themselves to LEO with another dull &amp; boring space-station?!  Enough of this damned going around in circles!! GO SOMEPLACE!  Only the staunchest of the Mars fanatics will say &#8220;so what.&#8221; Once the full implications of this Chinese feat sink through, America will feel the sting of being incapacitated, and left at the starting gate! Imagine, if their spacemen visit one of the Apollo landing sites! Our relics of past glory will be televised by the Commies. Even if its through the lens of a long-distance moving rover, sent over from a landing module. And consider the sight of the Red Flag planted firmly on Luna firma&#8230;.maybe coupled with a taikonaut with the Earth in the deep black sky! What will the Mars zealots have to say for themselves then?? On what angles will they choose to trivialize it?? Uglier still, will be how they will justify their support for getting President Obama to destroy our would-have-been Lunar program, ten or twelve years previously (by that time.). Charles Bolden is a total jackass, to go in front of Congress and tell them a Chinese Lunar Landing would not matter. People, let&#8217;s rescue Constellation right now! Like that song says&#8230;.&#8221;I swear it&#8217;s not too late.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286802</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286802</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;There is a design that goes well beyond Space Dev Dream Chaser.&quot;

I am sure there is and an example might be the Russian Klipper. I wish there&#039;d be more stuff out there. But I don&#039;t think that the capsule vs. lifting-body argument holds water. A capsule is what you do when you want to fly something quickly, not a lifting body. Most problems were solved by adding &quot;wings&quot; to the lifting bodies for stability. As for the TPS it depends wher you&#039;re coming back from...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;There is a design that goes well beyond Space Dev Dream Chaser.&#8221;</p>
<p>I am sure there is and an example might be the Russian Klipper. I wish there&#8217;d be more stuff out there. But I don&#8217;t think that the capsule vs. lifting-body argument holds water. A capsule is what you do when you want to fly something quickly, not a lifting body. Most problems were solved by adding &#8220;wings&#8221; to the lifting bodies for stability. As for the TPS it depends wher you&#8217;re coming back from&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286645</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286645</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The problems you mention were mostly solved by the time of the X24-B. came about. The old timers found the solutions including the Russians. There is a design that goes well beyond Space Dev Dream Chaser. I have not been granted permission to speak of it in detail. It is well developed and currently rest with one of the new space companies. It is fully reusable, and capable of sub-orbital , point to point to orbital. Why it has not seen the light I&#039;m not sure but I think it may soon. It would be a game changer in cost and performance.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problems you mention were mostly solved by the time of the X24-B. came about. The old timers found the solutions including the Russians. There is a design that goes well beyond Space Dev Dream Chaser. I have not been granted permission to speak of it in detail. It is well developed and currently rest with one of the new space companies. It is fully reusable, and capable of sub-orbital , point to point to orbital. Why it has not seen the light I&#8217;m not sure but I think it may soon. It would be a game changer in cost and performance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286612</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Much of the work is already done and waiting including drop test and TPS. &quot;

Not true, not really anyway. There is a lot of work still required to ensure these lifting bodies work. In particular for the TPS and the so called runway landing. Most of them would land at speeds that no tire can sustain, today anyway. There are several issues with stability at low speed. Hence most require the use of &quot;wings&quot;. I believe the X-33 originally did not have any wings (can&#039;t find any pic though). Wings are a problem since they create additional mass that has no use in space not to mention leading edge heating. However one might argue that parachutes have mass too and there is a trade space here. But wings may require a landing gear. Also a &quot;winged&quot; lifting body on a LV will induce a lot of non symmetrical loads and these are not trivial. The TPS is exposed in most cases like for Dream Chaser. Etc. I will argue that X-38 is the closest we ever came BUT it suffered from some aero heating issues if I remember correctly, if nothing else. Also remember the darn thing landed under a parafoil... So many concepts so little cash and time.

No one on CEV wanted to hear anything about lifting bodies after Griffin came onboard, take it for what it is...

On a side note. You&#039;re lucky you knew Dale Reed. Another time another era and he faced a lot of challenges with his ideas... But people were willing to take (some) risks back then:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iBgJP3jQKcgC&amp;dq=Dale+reed+lifting+body&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=bn&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=qBCHS83INY3ctgO0253hBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=4&amp;ved=0CAwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Much of the work is already done and waiting including drop test and TPS. &#8221;</p>
<p>Not true, not really anyway. There is a lot of work still required to ensure these lifting bodies work. In particular for the TPS and the so called runway landing. Most of them would land at speeds that no tire can sustain, today anyway. There are several issues with stability at low speed. Hence most require the use of &#8220;wings&#8221;. I believe the X-33 originally did not have any wings (can&#8217;t find any pic though). Wings are a problem since they create additional mass that has no use in space not to mention leading edge heating. However one might argue that parachutes have mass too and there is a trade space here. But wings may require a landing gear. Also a &#8220;winged&#8221; lifting body on a LV will induce a lot of non symmetrical loads and these are not trivial. The TPS is exposed in most cases like for Dream Chaser. Etc. I will argue that X-38 is the closest we ever came BUT it suffered from some aero heating issues if I remember correctly, if nothing else. Also remember the darn thing landed under a parafoil&#8230; So many concepts so little cash and time.</p>
<p>No one on CEV wanted to hear anything about lifting bodies after Griffin came onboard, take it for what it is&#8230;</p>
<p>On a side note. You&#8217;re lucky you knew Dale Reed. Another time another era and he faced a lot of challenges with his ideas&#8230; But people were willing to take (some) risks back then:</p>
<p><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=iBgJP3jQKcgC&#038;dq=Dale+reed+lifting+body&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;source=bn&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=qBCHS83INY3ctgO0253hBw&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=4&#038;ved=0CAwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&#038;q=&#038;f=false" rel="nofollow">http://books.google.com/books?id=iBgJP3jQKcgC&#038;dq=Dale+reed+lifting+body&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;source=bn&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=qBCHS83INY3ctgO0253hBw&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=4&#038;ved=0CAwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&#038;q=&#038;f=false</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286606</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Moreover, do you have any idea what it will take to make the Dream Chaser work when compared to a capsule? Let me remind you that the â€œgapâ€ starts next year&quot;.

This is the panic I was talking about. Like back in sixties panic = knee jerk capsule. The Dream Chaser has a development plan that dates back to the HL-20 and Russian Bor lifting body. Including drop test and actual re-entry test. There are other lifting body designs besides Dream Chaser that have been thoroughly wind tunnel tested by FDL, designs scrubbed and production ready. Many are unaware of the extensive amount of research done on lifting bodies back in late 60&#039;s and 70&#039;s. Having known the late Dale Reed and absorbed some of his knowledge and insights along with other lifting body old timers I can assure you the learning curve is not as steep as many imagine. Much of the work is already done and waiting including drop test and TPS. If the money is available many of these designs could be fast tracked to flight ready vehicles in a very short time span. 

I could get a lifting body up and flying including the launch system in three to four years if the money was made available today. You just need to know the right people and companies to make it happen. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1la44B5odeg]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Moreover, do you have any idea what it will take to make the Dream Chaser work when compared to a capsule? Let me remind you that the â€œgapâ€ starts next year&#8221;.</p>
<p>This is the panic I was talking about. Like back in sixties panic = knee jerk capsule. The Dream Chaser has a development plan that dates back to the HL-20 and Russian Bor lifting body. Including drop test and actual re-entry test. There are other lifting body designs besides Dream Chaser that have been thoroughly wind tunnel tested by FDL, designs scrubbed and production ready. Many are unaware of the extensive amount of research done on lifting bodies back in late 60&#8217;s and 70&#8217;s. Having known the late Dale Reed and absorbed some of his knowledge and insights along with other lifting body old timers I can assure you the learning curve is not as steep as many imagine. Much of the work is already done and waiting including drop test and TPS. If the money is available many of these designs could be fast tracked to flight ready vehicles in a very short time span. </p>
<p>I could get a lifting body up and flying including the launch system in three to four years if the money was made available today. You just need to know the right people and companies to make it happen. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1la44B5odeg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1la44B5odeg</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcel F. Williams</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286564</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marcel F. Williams]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ aremisasling

China&#039;s not communist, its fascist. NAZI Germany was not socialist, it was fascist. The ruling oligarchy in China are making themselves into a new ruling aristocracy where most of the wealthy in China come from the politcal ruling class. This has nothing to do with communism.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ aremisasling</p>
<p>China&#8217;s not communist, its fascist. NAZI Germany was not socialist, it was fascist. The ruling oligarchy in China are making themselves into a new ruling aristocracy where most of the wealthy in China come from the politcal ruling class. This has nothing to do with communism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286562</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286562</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Lets not panic this time letâ€™s get right from the start. &quot;

Too late! The panic already happened back in 2005.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Lets not panic this time letâ€™s get right from the start. &#8221;</p>
<p>Too late! The panic already happened back in 2005.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286560</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:45:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Seems like the fix is in for Space-X they hog the funding &quot;

Another unreal argument. SpaceX did not win any CCDev while Sierra Nevada did. Moreover, do you have any idea what it will take to make the Dream Chaser work when compared to a capsule? Let me remind you that the &quot;gap&quot; starts next year.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Seems like the fix is in for Space-X they hog the funding &#8221;</p>
<p>Another unreal argument. SpaceX did not win any CCDev while Sierra Nevada did. Moreover, do you have any idea what it will take to make the Dream Chaser work when compared to a capsule? Let me remind you that the &#8220;gap&#8221; starts next year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/24/whats-scarier-than-the-chinese-on-the-moon/#comment-286559</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3141#comment-286559</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;It does not matter what you have once done, but what you can do, as a nation that stands out in the world arena. &quot;

Absolutely and so what did Constellation demonstrate? I mean really demonstrate? That we cannot do it anymore, great! What a proof of super power dominance!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It does not matter what you have once done, but what you can do, as a nation that stands out in the world arena. &#8221;</p>
<p>Absolutely and so what did Constellation demonstrate? I mean really demonstrate? That we cannot do it anymore, great! What a proof of super power dominance!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
