China has announced (already in 2000 if i'm correct) that it heads for a manned mission to the moun. So far two succesfull spaceflights (Shenzou 5 and Shenzou 6) have been performed. Japan also has this intension, although they did not as of yet succesfully conduct a manned space flight. The USA has also claimed they want to return to the moon. However, the space shuttle program seems to be seriously in trouble (intended launch of the space shuttle at 1-st of july has been procrasted again, and some claim that the space shuttle program has come to an end).

The purpose of Chinese moon plans are exploiting the moons minerals.

But perhaps a serious conduction of moon travel for exploiting the minerals on the moon would need a different approach, and would need an involvement of several countries.

A moon mission - building a permanent moon base and regular landings - would be possible and be cheaper, if a three stage approach would be installed, and if carried out as an international long term project, involving USA, China, Russia, Europa, Japan and perhaps others (India? Brasil?).

1st stage: Using a reusable launch vehicle (possible horizontal take off winged carier) launch cargo/components and passenger modules into a low earth orbit. The launch and return vehicle docks at a low orbit earth station.

2st stage: A cargo/component and passenger carrier for the trafic between low earth orbit to a moon orbit. The carrier docks at a moon orbit station.

3rd stage: A moonlander that undocks from the moon orbit station and lands on the moon, and returns from the moon to the station.

For the 1st stage a cheap launch vehicle should be developed. Such a project needs international cooperation. Currently, NASA has a study/development program to develop a new launch system.
But conventional vehicles (such as Soyoez, Shengzhou, Progress and the space shuttle as long as it is in function) could be used as well, as long as they can dock at the low earth orbit station.

A long term project would be to develop a (two stage) horizontal take-off and landing launch vehicle as a winged transporter, carrying a return vessel (shuttle) that can dock at the low earth orbit station. Such a launch vessel could be much smaller then current launch vehicles, if a magnetic levitation glide way would be used that would accelerate the launcher to a speed of approx. 1000 km p/hour. This would reduce the costs for the launch,

[ However, a magnetic levitation horizontal take-off system would of course not be cheap, but due to reduces costs per launch would reduce costs in the long run, if many launches are performed ]

The docking station in low earth orbit is permanently manned and has regular visits of unmanned cargo vessels. Components/modules for the low moon orbit station are transported to a moon orbit using carrier vessels and are assmbled there to form a permant moon orbiting base.
Carrier vessels carry cargo/modules and passengers on regular basis from and to the moon orbit station, once installed.

The moon orbit station in normal operation has two moon landing units, a return vessel, a fuel tank and a cabine that can house 2-4 persons permanently.

A normal visit to the moon and back would look like this:

The shuttle is launched from the launch vessel. The launcher itself (the winged launcher) returns to earth and can be reused. The shuttle docks at the low earth orbit station and remains there for the trip back.
A passenger carrier vehicle then heads to the moon orbitting station where it docks. The moon mission is then carried out using the moon landing unit. After completion of the mission the return vehicle is launched and returns to the moon orbit station, where the trip to earth (using the same type of transport vehicles) can be undertaken.


The moon landing unit btw. is the only vehicle in the moon transport system that can not be reused for practical reasons, and every mission to the moon needs a new moon landing unit. When departing from the moon, like the lunar landing unit in the apollo program, the lower part would stay at the moon and functions as a launch platform. The moon return vehicle after completing it mission and having returned the passengers to the moon orbit station, is not reused and could perhaps best be crashed on the moon for seismic research.

Notes:
1) Although in theory, the cargo carrier could resupply the landing part of the landing unit, which is then reassembled as a complete landing unit for following landings on the moon. A moon landing unit that can return from the moon as a whole and would - after refueling and resupplying - be reusable find an obstacle in the soft surface of the moon, and would be too much of a risk for a safe return from the moon.

2) For building a permanent base - at least in the initial phase - a landing unit could be used, that could land on the moon automatically, and would stay on the moon permanently. This unit carries cargo, fuel and supplies (as for instance: instruments, a moon rover/vehicle, etc.) for the crew that land on the moon, and would land prior to the crew in the vincinity of the landing site for the mission.
Also this landing unit could offer an alternative escape from the moon, in case the manned landing unit would malfunction.
The dismerit would be however that per moon landing/mission two landing units would be needed.

They generally say there is rarely anything new under the sun and this idea was proposed back here. There is likely even some discussion on it in the thread.

as to "The USA has also claimed they want to return to the moon. However, the space shuttle program seems to be seriously in trouble (intended launch of the space shuttle at 1-st of july has been procrasted again, and some claim that the space shuttle program has come to an end)." Why is this a threat, or problem for the new US Lunar missions? They are planned to be done using the new CEV after the Shuttles are retired. If anything, an early demise of the Shuttle is likely to result in the schedule for the CEV to be brought forward to help complete the ISS.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Why would you want to use a magnetic catapult on earth to get you to 1000kph on earth? You'd still need a lot of rocket to get you the rest of the way to orbit. It probably be simpler and cheaper to just use rocket exhaust to get you to 1000kph. Rocket fuel is not really that expensive, but a shiny new EM Cat could cost many billions in construction including the dedicated power planet before you launch anything. (while we're looking at long term projects we might as well go for a Single-Stage-To-Orbit spaceplane instead of two stages.)

An EM Cat would probably be much more useful on the moon. Besides using it to launch from the moon it might be designed for braking incoming vehicles as well.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Your "seriously in trouble" is nothing more than some thunderclouds above the launch pad. It is common practice to scrub a day's launch window for that case. And you can't control the weather. There really is nothing special about it; it does not indicate any trouble whatsoever.

It's like saying your marriage is in serious trouble because your wedding garden party must be moved inside due to the rain.

Technically, the Shuttle was fully ready for launch on both days. (1 and 2 july 2006)

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I think the shuttle procrast is also a bit of `show´ to the audience, since 4-th of july is also Independence Day. That way they got more attention from the public audience who fund the space program.

The 3-stage approach perhaps isn't any good idea after second thought, since there is no benefit for this approach (see the mentioned thread in the 1st comment: the problem is how to get rid of the velocity gain when getting back from the moon to earth).

Remains the question however: why not undertake that journey together with other nations?

It seems that China wanted to join the ISS, but USA was against that.

Space travel is expensive as it is and apart from scientific knowledge, there is no way of gaining something in the short terms from space exploration (even if new materials can be minded on other celestial bodies - the costs of bringing those to earth would be immense).

Not that I'm against space travel, but the question is wether it's worth the immense costs.

When those costs are spreaded amongst several nations, it becomes more affordable, and international cooperation is a good thing.
If we want to solve the problems on earth (which should stay our main priority), such a joint space program would realy pay off.

The Chinese unmanned Lunar mission is planned for an April ’07 liftoff
China Moon exploration

I don't get that one bit.

What does the govt think will happen if China also uses the ISS?
With that type of thinking, the Apollo-Soyuz dockign would've never happened.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Is it possible that China was looking for some easy PR benefits, but was either unable or unwilling to meet the same standards of operational rigor as Russia and the US, and so were denied participation on those grounds?

What was the reason given for denying China participation in the ISS project?

I doubtr that China can currently reach the inclination of the ISS with Shenzhou. I recall there was an opinion that China had not yet reached the operation maturity to carry out missions to the ISS.

However if they develop the capability to reach the ISS and successfully demonstrate orbital rendezvous and docking, Then these reasons are no longer relevant. It would be good to see.

Jon