Eric Mc

I was a bit premature Maybe they didn't want to attempt a landing on Friday 13th.

Aye, the moon has been badly neglected. Since 1976 there have been 7 successful soft landers ( -Vikings 1 and 2, Pathfinder/Soujourner, Spirit and Opportunity, Phoenix and Curiosity -4 with rovers) on Mars and NONE on the moon.

The new Chinese Lunar Lander and Rover is scheduled to touch down on the moon today. It will be the first controlled landing on the moon (as opposed to impact) since 1976. Too long. (If a Mod could change the title to read "Chinese" I'd be most grateful)

Sounds like they are getting a bit hot under the collar.

Airfix's 727 was originally a Series 100 too (in TWA markings - later Lufthansa). They modified the moulds in the late 70s/early 80s to turn it into a 200.

I wonder when the building was erected? Here in Farnborough, a trading estate was opened at Southwood in the mid 1980s. It has street names such as - Apollo Rise Armstrong Mall Aldrin Place

So they expect to have developed the boosters, spacecraft and habitation modules for a manned mission to Mars within a timeframe of 5 years? There is something extremely incredulous about this whole project.

Nice footage captured by the Juno space probe as it swung by earth back in October. Very "2001".

Lots of things are technically feasible right now. But, as has been mentioned above, there has, up to now, been little political, public or economic will to spend the funds necessary to do these things. We are beginning to see the start of private enterprise launch systems over and above those commercial entities that have built to government contracts. So, gradually the technology is becoming less dependent on governments and taxpayers. On that basis, I see the next two decades as being a new renaissance in space technology. In the far east, we are seeing the birth of a new political space race - this time between India and China. Both countries have announced grandiose ambitions but whether they will both be able to sustain the momentum to see these ambitions fulflled is still open to debate. Hopefully, if either of those two countries start stepping into territories that had previously been the preserve of the US and Russia, we might see an upsurge in public willingness in those countries to support a more ambitious set of space goals - preferably involving human spaceflight.

What are you trying to say? Is there something wrong with this model? It looks fine to me - although a bit on the expensive side for my taste.

I think my "Mars" reference was based on ancient speculation I'd dredged up from the nether regions of my brain - so a bit woolly to say the least. I might have read it "Red Star in Orbit" by James Oberg way back in 1982 as I think he mentioned the Nedelin explosion as being a "Mars Mission". But a lot of clarification has emerged since those days. Rockets are dangerous beasts and even the most safety conscious and meticulous regime can still slip up and have an accident. Having said all that, I am currently re-reading "Challenger - A Major Malfunction" by Malcolm McConnell. This book was published the year after the Challenger accident and is still one of the best accounts of the background leading up to the disaster. Some NASA officials should have gone to jail - in my opinion.

It's often forgotten that two pad workers were killed in the run up to the launch of the first Space Shuttle flight in 1981. They were overcome and suffocated by nitrogen gas when working on the pad a few weeks before the launch. The Soviets had a massive disaster when a rocket being prepared for a launch to Mars exploded on the pad, killing around 100. The Chinese also had a massive disaster when a rocket crashed onto a village, killing hundreds.

100% agree. The Shuttle turned out to be a blind alley. It was the worst of both worlds, not fully reusable enough to fulfill its operator's needs and sufficiently NOT reusable enough and fragile to make it very expensive to operate. If the Saturn production line (both the 1B and the V and the associated rocket motors) had been kept going, economies of scale would have kicked in and the overall launch cost of using such vehicles would have come down. The cost of building a single Saturn V when you manufacture 16 of the things is a lot more expensive per rocket compared to when you build 200 of them. And, if they had continued to use this technology over the decades, I am sure elements of the Saturn system could have been made reusable - such as the F1 rocket motors of the first stage - or perhaps the first stage entirely. I am also sure that a modern Apollo Command Module would also be fully reusable and lighter. Using Saturn V technology, the International Space Station could have been put into orbit with a handful of launches in a year or two - instead of 30 plus launches over a decade.

In the spirit of starting some threads on real space hardware, I thought it might be an interesting experiment to see what people think about the legacy of the Space Shuttle programme. Having read quite a bit about the whole background to the concept and the politics behind getting it approved - followed by the struggles NASA had in keeping it operational - not to mention the fact that it killed 14 astronauts - my overall feeling is that the Space Shuttle was a bit of a disaster for American manned spaceflight. I was wondering what others might think.

It's true that a lot has been written on Apollo but there is is still. tons of stuff to, learn. It was such a vast project that new information is coming out all the time. Every time I read a book on Apollo, I learn new things - and I've been reading on the project since it was still going on. I most definitely will start a few threads on Apollo and other real space projects - as I think that is what this forum should be all about. So - for now - I will leave the UFO lovers to discuss amongst themselves.

Excellent. That's EXACTLY the type of thing I'm talking about. Time to open a few threads with "proper" topics methinks.

Time to leave this discussion. I just wish it were in a forum for silly debates though rather than what should be a sensible discussion forum on real technology, science and related models. Anyone want to talk Apollo or Space Shuttle?

Politicians discussing something is not quite "proof" of anything. Talk, talk, waffle, waffle, fuzzy video - blurred photos etc - that's the best I have seen so far - and it doesn't get any better than that. Can we not have a "Pseudoscience, Tinfoil and Conspiracy Forum" please where this topic can be moved while real discussion on real space technology can be retained here?

Is that the best proof that can be dragged up? That is proof of absolutely nothing. Come on - as I said, I want genuine HARD proof - materials, metals, actual aliens turning up and demanding to talk to people that matter - like me Not schlocky faked videos. The whole subject is a total pile of excrement of the highest order packed full of liars, charlatans, idiots, the guillible, the deranged and generally people who should not really be allowed out too often - for their own good. In all my 5 decades plus on the planet and having read and seen lots on the matter over those years NOTHING of any serious note has ever been presented in such a way that it was even REMOTELY conclusive in any way, shape or form. I love space technology. I love space science. I am interested in cosmology. I would LOVE there to be space faring aliens dropping by to say hello every other day. BUT, despite being generally predisposed to accepting the existence of alien life and possibly even alien intelligence, I cannot bring myself to accept that anything that emanates out of this branch of "interest in aliens" is any indication of any sort of intelligent life either in space - or on earth. .

Why are all the photos and film/video clips so poor. Surely, after all these decades and the thousands of "sightings", somebody, somewhere should have got at least one, decent and conclusive image. And surely, after all these years, there should be some piece of material from one of these craft. Reports are words - nothing more. Words are never "evidence".

The discussion on the possibility of biology occuring on other planets (or moons) is a worthwhile discussion with lots of new scientific data coming in all the time. This is a very different discussion to that of whether some of that biology might be paying us rather odd and rather dumb sounding flying visits. The likelihood of habitable planets near earth is growing all the time. Whether any of these planets are actually inhabited by anything is another matter entirely. But it is a fascinating new area of astronomy and one I am keeping a watching brief on.

Will need to catch it on the iPlayer. Thanks for the alert.

I don't want to "be fair". I would prefer intelligent discussion of "real space" topics on the "Real Space" forum.

"Believing" or "Not-Believing" has little place in what should be a discussion about science and facts. Isn't it a real shame that this topic gets more posts than a topic on actual REAL space related matters?

It's a proof of concept demonstrator rather than a fully operational system. But it does show where the money is these days in US space engineering.