We shall call it "Mini-Mir".
http://www.space.com/16161-china-female-astronaut-shenzhou-9-infographic.html
http://www.space.com/16161-china-female-astronaut-shenzhou-9-infographic.html
China moves forward
- Thread starter E-DUB
- Start date
Well more like a mini-Salyut really..
http://jalopnik.com/5917943/chinas-new-space-station-isnt-really-a-space-station
It's a good step, but hardly the 'World Beater' some Chinese media outlets have proposed.
I'll hand it to the Chinese, each manned flight has been a leap that took the original spacefaring nations
many launches to complete, but it's small scale has hardly been impressive.
http://jalopnik.com/5917943/chinas-new-space-station-isnt-really-a-space-station
It's a good step, but hardly the 'World Beater' some Chinese media outlets have proposed.
I'll hand it to the Chinese, each manned flight has been a leap that took the original spacefaring nations
many launches to complete, but it's small scale has hardly been impressive.
They will work on larger systems-- take a look at page 32 of the March 12, 2012 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, where you may find this quote:
"The engine developers have quite a few ideas of how they can spend the money that Ma (Xingrui) is obtaining for them. beginning with the expectation that China needs TWO launchers bigger than Long March 5--one lifting more than 35 tons to low Earth orbit, and the 'super-heavy' Moon rocket...CALT has said that a Moon rocket would need 3,000 tons of thrust at lift-off. In an earlier paper Li Ping and Li Bin showed two possible launcher configurations. Both had 9-meter-dia. core stages." One version uses hydrogen, the other, now being looked at, uses kerosene.
SLS has an 8 meter core.
"The engine developers have quite a few ideas of how they can spend the money that Ma (Xingrui) is obtaining for them. beginning with the expectation that China needs TWO launchers bigger than Long March 5--one lifting more than 35 tons to low Earth orbit, and the 'super-heavy' Moon rocket...CALT has said that a Moon rocket would need 3,000 tons of thrust at lift-off. In an earlier paper Li Ping and Li Bin showed two possible launcher configurations. Both had 9-meter-dia. core stages." One version uses hydrogen, the other, now being looked at, uses kerosene.
SLS has an 8 meter core.
Knight Templar
Commodore
It is a pretty impressive advance considering how moribund western space agencies have been for the last several decades.
I know it's more like Salyut One. (Here's a link to a model of Salyut that I built from scratch. The Soyuz came from a kit.) http://s1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd396/EmsleyWyatt/Salyut One/
I just couldn't resist the joke.
I just couldn't resist the joke.
This image of the ISS significantly diminishes its size. While it nicely illustrates the main power truss, European and Japanese labs, the Russian segments (with their solar panels) and US lab are hidden behind the US docking adapter and node2/hub.(snip)
(snip)
If he's correct about Tiangong-1's true intentions -- being the prototype of a cargo ship as much as a space station -- it gives some clues as to China's long-term plans. As with almost everything else China has ever done in aerospace, they're pretty much taking the old Soviet space program, scaling it up 150% and supercharging it with new technologies.
I suppose, that since the Chinese are emulating and enhancing the Soviet space program, that the Soviets, and now the Russians, have won the Cold War space race. The Americans won the race to the Moon, but their space program proved untenable and expensive. The Americans have abandoned the space shuttle, and are building spacecraft that are enhanced versions of their Apollo era ships. So, what have the Americans gained from their experience with the space shuttle? Even the Russians abandoned the space shuttle concept. In hindsight, I think the American space agency when presented with a choice by President Nixon should have chosen to invest in a space station, instead of a space shuttle, as the core program of the manned missions and concentrated their efforts on building better space capsules.
Nah, all we're looking at is the seeds being planted for a second space race. I've always maintained that it would take other countries stepping up to the plate (or reaching parity) to make space a priority for the U.S. again.
I think the only thing the U.S. can be at fault for is not having something ready in place to immediately replace the orbiters when they were retired.
Though I would like to believe that the Unites States will be competitive in the second space race in my dreams, I must accept reality.
The United States is segregating itself into two nations, with one half of the nation openly opposed to science and mathematics. Scientists are being openly attacked by the right wing blogosphere as members of the left, and, by extension, scientists are being equated to a vast left wing conspiracy to undermine the free enterprise system in this nation. In North Carolina, the legislature has proposed a bill that would prohibit current models of sea level rise from appearing in official state documents. The concept of a sea level rise has been deemed a left wing term. This bill has been copied in Virginia.
http://www.care2.com/causes/nc-ignores-science-tries-to-make-sea-level-rise-illegal.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/va-scientists-banned-from-saying-sea-level-rise.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ses-it-from-state-report-on-coastal-flooding/
This segregation stems from what is fundamentally a difference in how human brains are wired. There is a conservative brain and a liberal brain. We live in an era where the conservative brain is dominant.
http://www.alternet.org/books/15564...hate_science_(helping_to_confirm_the_science)
As if that isn't enough of a problem, states are slashing education budgets, laying off teachers, and closing schools. Universities and colleges are raising tuition fees to cover the cuts, and more Americans are seeing their dream of attaining a degree vanishing.
Finally, the students of the United States are in the lower third of developed nations in both science and math.
Before this nation can compete in a second space age, these problems have to be tackled. I think it more likely that the US will suffer a major economic or societal collapse before it lands a human on an asteroid or, even, Mars.
The United States is segregating itself into two nations, with one half of the nation openly opposed to science and mathematics. Scientists are being openly attacked by the right wing blogosphere as members of the left, and, by extension, scientists are being equated to a vast left wing conspiracy to undermine the free enterprise system in this nation. In North Carolina, the legislature has proposed a bill that would prohibit current models of sea level rise from appearing in official state documents. The concept of a sea level rise has been deemed a left wing term. This bill has been copied in Virginia.
http://www.care2.com/causes/nc-ignores-science-tries-to-make-sea-level-rise-illegal.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/va-scientists-banned-from-saying-sea-level-rise.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ses-it-from-state-report-on-coastal-flooding/
This segregation stems from what is fundamentally a difference in how human brains are wired. There is a conservative brain and a liberal brain. We live in an era where the conservative brain is dominant.
http://www.alternet.org/books/15564...hate_science_(helping_to_confirm_the_science)
As if that isn't enough of a problem, states are slashing education budgets, laying off teachers, and closing schools. Universities and colleges are raising tuition fees to cover the cuts, and more Americans are seeing their dream of attaining a degree vanishing.
Finally, the students of the United States are in the lower third of developed nations in both science and math.
Before this nation can compete in a second space age, these problems have to be tackled. I think it more likely that the US will suffer a major economic or societal collapse before it lands a human on an asteroid or, even, Mars.
Bushwah.
My Name Is Legion,
Why is this bushwah? I believe that we live in a universe that is dualistic. Life/Death; Night/Day; Male/Female; Gay/Straight; Positive/Negative; etc. When a thing or being carries both dualities, this is either a compromise between two poles (omnivore - both carnivore and herbivore), or represents a transition from one state to another (twilight - day to night). Why couldn't there exist a state where there are two essential types of minds - "liberal" vs. "conservative"?
Why is this bushwah? I believe that we live in a universe that is dualistic. Life/Death; Night/Day; Male/Female; Gay/Straight; Positive/Negative; etc. When a thing or being carries both dualities, this is either a compromise between two poles (omnivore - both carnivore and herbivore), or represents a transition from one state to another (twilight - day to night). Why couldn't there exist a state where there are two essential types of minds - "liberal" vs. "conservative"?
Not really. The penultimate goal of the Space Race was to get a man on the moon. In that regard, the USA won. What happened after that (i.e. the space shuttle, various space stations, the Chinese manned space program) has nothing to do with the original Space Race, nor do I believe that there is a current space race going on or one that will happen in the future. The Chinese are not in a race against anyone. Yes, they want to go to the moon, but if, say, Japan sent an astronaut there first, that wouldn't effect the Chinese plans at all. They are slow and methodical in their approach (which is probably why they've so far been successful), and they don't care what other nations are doing nor feel in competition with anyone else.
IMHO, the only "space race" going on is between the various private companies vying for NASA's COTS. And nobody's doing anything at breakneck speed in that department.
Since their (immediate) goal is to do a space station, it is no surprise that their approach emulates the only long-term single-nation space station program to date, that of the Soviet Union/Russia. It's a combination of form following function and imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. If/when they get to the point of doing moon landings, their craft of choice, at least initially will doubtless resemble the US LEM.
^ Don't be so sure. China's first dablings in stealth technology actually looked nothing like their American counterparts and were even noticeably different from the Russian designs they supposedly aped. The same can be said for China's submarine fleet, which again makes no attempt to emulate American technology and stopped emulating the Russians decades ago.
Seems to me the Chinese bootleg Russian technology as a starting point only because Russian tech is a lot easier to copy and even easier to upgrade. They've mostly avoided copying even successful American designs where Russian technology was available, and it's served them pretty well in the past.
It has to be remembered, after all, that the Soyuz was originally developed as part of the Soviet lunar exploration program in the first place. Shenzhou, which is based on Soyuz, wouldn't need a lot of modification to serve that purpose, but if they were REALLY creative they would develop a command module based on Tiangong-1 and equip it with an expanded propulsion stage and enough provisions to maintain a five-man crew for a month at a time.
Seems to me the Chinese bootleg Russian technology as a starting point only because Russian tech is a lot easier to copy and even easier to upgrade. They've mostly avoided copying even successful American designs where Russian technology was available, and it's served them pretty well in the past.
It has to be remembered, after all, that the Soyuz was originally developed as part of the Soviet lunar exploration program in the first place. Shenzhou, which is based on Soyuz, wouldn't need a lot of modification to serve that purpose, but if they were REALLY creative they would develop a command module based on Tiangong-1 and equip it with an expanded propulsion stage and enough provisions to maintain a five-man crew for a month at a time.
So - the chinese are getting ready to land on the moon; FAR more importantly, their long-term plan seems to be the establishment of a significant human presence in space.
In the mean time - the USA/EU/etc are, at present, both objectively incapable and lacking the will to do the same.
The new NASA launch vehicle in development follows the shuttle tradition of inefficiency; at this rate, there will be at least 10 years before NASA even has another expensive/unfit for its purpose launcher (it's strangely similar to the shuttle under these respects).
And there is in this thread a discussion about the semantics of 'space race'.
In a limited interpretation, wining the 'space race' means 'land a human on the moon'; in this interpretation, NASA won. The only problem is that this interpretation's only purpose is to make americans feel good about the 1960.
A FAR more important/relevant interpretation is 'conquer space aka establish a significant economy/human presence in space'.
USA/CCCP were, by far, in the lead in the 1960's in this 'space race'. But, shortly afterwards, their space programs all but self-destructed - either due to utter lack of will (USA) or due to lack of resources (CCCP). Nowadays, they have zero momentum, either regarding the will or the know-how.
The chinese, on the other hand, are far more dynamic and they acquired the necessary know-how; they ARE in the lead in this 'space race' and their position is not in the least endangered - no wonder they feel no pressure to act rushedly.
In the mean time - the USA/EU/etc are, at present, both objectively incapable and lacking the will to do the same.
The new NASA launch vehicle in development follows the shuttle tradition of inefficiency; at this rate, there will be at least 10 years before NASA even has another expensive/unfit for its purpose launcher (it's strangely similar to the shuttle under these respects).
And there is in this thread a discussion about the semantics of 'space race'.
In a limited interpretation, wining the 'space race' means 'land a human on the moon'; in this interpretation, NASA won. The only problem is that this interpretation's only purpose is to make americans feel good about the 1960.
A FAR more important/relevant interpretation is 'conquer space aka establish a significant economy/human presence in space'.
USA/CCCP were, by far, in the lead in the 1960's in this 'space race'. But, shortly afterwards, their space programs all but self-destructed - either due to utter lack of will (USA) or due to lack of resources (CCCP). Nowadays, they have zero momentum, either regarding the will or the know-how.
The chinese, on the other hand, are far more dynamic and they acquired the necessary know-how; they ARE in the lead in this 'space race' and their position is not in the least endangered - no wonder they feel no pressure to act rushedly.
Is this similar to the camel toe, but for temperate regions?
This has much more to do with how our (simplistic) brains are wired than with the universe at large. Grativity is only positive. Temperature have a lower limit but not an upper one. There are animal species with more than two sexes. Viruses and prions blur the line about what is alive and what is not. There is nothing special about duality.
Cherry picking, and not particularly good either. What about fungivores? Bacteriovores? Coprophages? Geophages? Tidally locked planets do not experience twilight or dawn. Your argument is easily dismissed.
For a number of reasons, not last the fact that, outside of a US-like two-party systen, most coutries have many more social movements and political parties than "liberals" and "conservatives".
So, in short, bushwash.
I suffer from mental blocks when it comes to certain words. My browser's spell check failed me this go around.
Some day I'll learn to build something with those mental blocks. Then everyone will be in trouble.
Similar threads
