SinoDefence Forum

Red Moon · 01-07-2010

Quote:

There is no Soyuz shell involved, as the Shenzhou spacecraft is bigger than the Soyuz. The docking mechanism is an international "standard".

I think there IS a Soyuz shell involved, but China added propulsion to it, and this is what makes it bigger.

Bltizo · 01-08-2010

An article from washington times on China and the Moon, and the US.
I'm interested in where they got the "Senior Chinese space officials have told their state media that China could be on the moon by 2022 at the outside."

Anyway the article's quite optimistic on China's moon landing opportunities while pessemestic on the US.
Pro China people of the world unite!!

China space program shoots for moon - Washington Times

Quote:

By John J. Tkacik Jr. SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

NEWS ANALYSIS:

In November, Chinese air force commander Gen. Xu Qiliang observed that "competition between military forces is now turning toward the realm of space, [and] military modernization is ceaselessly expanding into space."

But during his visit to Beijing a few days later, President Obama talked about "cooperation" rather than competition. In a joint statement with Chinese President Hu Jintao, the two leaders called for "a dialogue on human space flight and space exploration, based on the principles of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit."

China's aerospace industry firms - which for decades have supplied dangerous missile technologies and equipment to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, and which have been sanctioned ceaselessly by four successive U.S. presidents for their transgressions - will find the United States in a new suppliant posture.

The atrophying U.S. space program suggests that America will be forced to cooperate with China in space, or else cede the high frontier of space to China altogether.

In October, a White House committee headed by former Lockheed Martin Chairman Norman Augustine, reported that without $3 billion in additional funding, NASA has no plan that "permits human exploration to continue in any meaningful way."

October's launch of the experimental Ares 1-X heavy lift rocket, while flawless, may well mark the end rather than the beginning of America's next-generation Constellation manned-space program. The space shuttle is scheduled for retirement this year and until Constellation gets off the ground, future American astronauts will rely on Russians - or Chinese - to get into orbit - if they want to get there at all. America's multitrillion-dollar deficits over the next 10 years are likely to dissuade the Obama administration from budgeting for Constellation until well after Mr. Obama leaves office, if then.

The Pentagon is clearly alarmed by the prospect. The chief of U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. Kevin Chilton, told reporters Nov. 3, "With regard to China's [space] capabilities, I think anyone who's familiar with this business ... would have to be absolutely amazed at the advancement that China has made in such a short period of time, whether that be in their unmanned program or the manned program."

Senior Chinese space officials have told their state media that China could be on the moon by 2022 at the outside. Other authoritative Chinese space engineers see a moon landing as a next step in the Tiangong program that will launch three Chinese space stations into Earth orbit between 2011 and 2015. In 2008, NASA scientists told the Bush White House that, with the technology currently available to the Chinese space program, Chinese cosmonauts could be on the moon by 2017.

NASA sees China's strategy for a manned lunar landing as launch vehicle intensive. While America's notional Constellation moon project centers on a single - and still unbuilt - Ares-V "superheavy" lift booster for a direct ascent to the moon and two "lunar orbit rendezvous" operations, China will likely opt for two complex "Earth orbit rendezvous" maneuvers.
This will require four "Long March V" rockets - in the same class as the Pentagon's Delta IV heavy lift launch vehicles - to put their cosmonauts on the moon. Launched in pairs over a two-week period from China's new Wenchang Space Center on the South China Sea island of Hainan, the four Long March Vs will each loft 26-ton payloads into low Earth orbits. The first mission will orbit the rocket for the translunar journey which will then join a second payload of an empty lunar module (LM) and its lunar-orbit rocket motor. Those first two unmanned payloads will rendezvous in Earth orbit and then fire off for the quarter-million-mile journey to the moon.

Once the unmanned LM is in a stable lunar orbit, the second pair of missions will be launched into Earth's orbit; the first with another translunar rocket motor and the second with a combined payload comprising the lunar orbiting module, a modified service module, an Earth re-entry module and the manned Shenzhou capsule with three Chinese cosmonauts.

NASA's experts understand the capabilities, talents - and intentions - of their Chinese counterparts perhaps better than anyone outside China and Russia. China's Long March V rockets are in development now; Russian space scientists now aid their Chinese counterparts in perfecting the Shenzhou class of manned vehicles - closely modeled on the rugged, tried-and-true Soyuz; China has also purchased Russia's spacesuit designs and the KURS and APAS rendezvous and docking systems.

In contrast, NASA has resigned itself to the realities that America's space shuttles will be decommissioned by 2010 and, while the test-launch of the Ares 1-X heavy lift booster was successful, the follow-on Constellation manned program does not have a budget that will get it off the blueprint tables. Nor is NASA staffed with the scientists needed to support it. The median age of NASA's manned space engineers is now over 55. Over a quarter are past retirement age. Meanwhile, China's average lunar probe engineer is about 33 years old and the Shenzhou manned-space program engineers average about 36.

China's space program also seems to have all the funding and resources it needs, partially due to the fact that seven of China's nine most senior leaders - the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo - are themselves engineers.

China may already be the second-largest manufacturing power on Earth and possesses a highly advanced industrial infrastructure. It now has more than $2.3 trillion in excess foreign exchange holdings - adding another $300 billion just in the past nine months, equal the entire gross product of Argentina. And China's top universities are rolling in research money, possess the latest laboratory equipment, and have their pick of the most brilliant students.

In 2005, China produced 351,537 engineers, with at least a bachelor's degree, nearly double the United States figure of 137,437; and a healthy chunk of China top engineers get their doctoral training at American universities. For example, of the 99 doctorates in engineering awarded by the University of Virginia from August 2007 to August 2008, one third - 33 - went to scholars from Chinese universities.

To be sure, China's imaginative and capable aerospace engineers have devised quite workable spacefaring designs, and their access to Russia's space science has helped accelerate their progress. And what the Chinese can't buy from the Russians, or learn at America's top universities, they can still pilfer from U.S. industry.

In July, Dongfan Chung, a former stress engineer with Boeing, was convicted of economic espionage involving 300,000 pages of sensitive data, including information about the space shuttle and the fueling system for America's biggest booster rocket, the Delta IV. In his ruling, the judge in the case noted that Mr. Chung, a U.S. citizen, had decided "to serve the [People's Republic of China], which he proudly proclaimed as his 'motherland.' " In 2008, Shu Quan-sheng, an American physicist living in Virginia was convicted of transferring to the Chinese People's Liberation Army details of liquid hydrogen tanks for the Delta IV.

This combination of financial wealth, educational excellence, advanced technology and a penchant for plundering intellectual property has enabled China's space program to develop swiftly. In 2003, China's gained entry into the exclusive manned-space club previously restricted to the United States and Russia. By 2008, Chinese astronauts were taking space walks and buzzing tiny "BX-1" nano-satellites around their space capsules, a technology that puts them on the cutting edge of "space situational awareness" that America's military space assets still lack.

Beijing's political and military leaders alike foresee "competition" in space with the United States. They certainly plan to seize the high ground of low-Earth orbit and then will likely move to the even higher ground of moon landings perhaps before this decade is out. Judging from the past behavior of China's state-owned aerospace firms especially in their unseemly eagerness to proliferate ballistic missile technology to rogue states, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama can count on much "cooperation" with China in space - except on China's terms.

c John J. Tkacik, a retired Foreign Service officer, was chief of China analysis in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration.

tphuang · 01-08-2010

I have not gone through this article, but I have to say that this guy is the absolute worst. He over hypes the China threat more than anyone else does.

Engineer · 01-11-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Moon

I think there IS a Soyuz shell involved, but China added propulsion to it, and this is what makes it bigger.

You are contradicting yourself. If there is a Soyuz shell involved, then Shenzhou couldn't be bigger because the spacecraft's size would be constrained by that shell. On the other hand, if Shenzhou is bigger, then there couldn't possibly be a Soyuz shell involved because the shell wouldn't fit.

As to propulsion, Soyuz has that too. It is a basic requirement for all spacecraft, along with communication and power.

Red Moon · 01-11-2010

Quote:

You are contradicting yourself. If there is a Soyuz shell involved, then Shenzhou couldn't be bigger because the spacecraft's size would be constrained by that shell. On the other hand, if Shenzhou is bigger, then there couldn't possibly be a Soyuz shell involved because the shell wouldn't fit.

As to propulsion, Soyuz has that too. It is a basic requirement for all spacecraft, along with communication and power.

type "does soyuz have its own propulsion" into google, and you will get a long list of articles from all kinds of sources, all telling you that the Shenzhou orbital module has it's own propulsion, solar panels and more, where as Soyuz does not. There are other smaller differences, but otherwise they are similiar.

Aside from this, I think I did read something a while back from a Chinese source such as China.org or Beijing Review basically stating the Russians helped by providing them with the design of the Soyuz, although the Shenzhou is not a copy.

rhino123 · 01-11-2010

I am wondering why peoples are so obsessed with whether the chinese have help from other people in developing their manned space flight and mission. The bottomline is... WHO CARES???

As long as the space ship flies and mission is accomplished, it is a crediable feat for the Chinese.

Btw, as I have always believe - unless there is no one with previous experience or not willing or wanting to impart these experience, "Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?"

Infra_Man99 · 01-12-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhino123

I am wondering why peoples are so obsessed with whether the chinese have help from other people in developing their manned space flight and mission. The bottomline is... WHO CARES???

As long as the space ship flies and mission is accomplished, it is a crediable feat for the Chinese.

Btw, as I have always believe - unless there is no one with previous experience or not willing or wanting to impart these experience, "Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?"

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with learning from others as long as you don't' become too dependent on others or helpless on your own.

Engineer · 01-12-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Moon

type "does soyuz have its own propulsion" into google, and you will get a long list of articles from all kinds of sources, all telling you that the Shenzhou orbital module has it's own propulsion, solar panels and more, where as Soyuz does not.

You are now deliberately misinterpreting facts to fit your skewed viewpoint. Orbital module is part of the spacecraft. Just because said portion of Soyuz does not have propulsion, that does not mean Soyuz itself does not have propulsion. I can assure you without looking into Google that Soyuz has propulsion, because a spacecraft without propulsion would be absolutely useless with no ways of bringing back the astronauts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Moon

There are other smaller differences, but otherwise they are similiar.

Similarities are superficial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Moon

Aside from this, I think I did read something a while back from a Chinese source such as China.org or Beijing Review basically stating the Russians helped by providing them with the design of the Soyuz, although the Shenzhou is not a copy.

No doubt engineers in China studied the Soyuz extensively to arrive at their own design, but there is no Soyuz shell involved.

Infra_Man99 · 01-12-2010

It's obvious China learns from others, just like Russia, Europe, the US, and many other nations. Throughout history nations learned from each other. Nations have been taking and stealing people, knowledge, resources, and real estate from other nations for who knows how long. There is a reason why the US is always searching the world for the best and brightest minds. There is a reason why the US media and US companies are constantly traveling around the world and collecting data around the world. It's the same reason China searches around the world.

Absorb what is useful and reject what is not. ---Bruce Lee

It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. ---Capitalist communist Deng Xiaoping

HKSDU · 01-12-2010

If we say China copies this in that, then we can say university students who graduate copied the theory from their lectures. No, uni students learn from lectures and materials, then apply that in projects. Thats what China is simply doing learning and studying. People see China technology in one parameter copying. I dont I see it as 4 catergories:
*Studying/Learning (Eg. QBZ 95)
*Reliance (AL-31)
*Influenced (Type 99)
*Copy (EQ2050)

Red Moon · 01-12-2010

Quote:

I am wondering why peoples are so obsessed with whether the chinese have help from other people in developing their manned space flight and mission. The bottomline is... WHO CARES???

As long as the space ship flies and mission is accomplished, it is a crediable feat for the Chinese.

Btw, as I have always believe - unless there is no one with previous experience or not willing or wanting to impart these experience, "Why do you want to reinvent the wheel?"

I agree

Quote:

You are now deliberately misinterpreting facts to fit your skewed viewpoint. Orbital module is part of the spacecraft. Just because said portion of Soyuz does not have propulsion, that does not mean Soyuz itself does not have propulsion. I can assure you without looking into Google that Soyuz has propulsion, because a spacecraft without propulsion would be absolutely useless with no ways of bringing back the astronauts...
Similarities are superficial...
No doubt engineers in China studied the Soyuz extensively to arrive at their own design, but there is no Soyuz shell involved...

Whatever...

erikh · 01-27-2010

Obama aims to ax moon mission

By Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews
Orlando Sentinel

Quote:

NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station — a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

The White House budget request, which is certain to meet fierce resistance in Congress, scraps the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration and signals a major reorientation of NASA, especially in the area of human spaceflight.

"We certainly don't need to go back to the moon," said one administration official.

Everyone interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they are not authorized to talk for the White House or because they fear for their jobs. All are familiar with the broad sweep of Obama's budget proposal, but none would talk about specific numbers because these are being tightly held by the White House until the release of the budget.

But senior administration officials say the spending freeze for some federal agencies is not going to apply to the space agency in this budget proposal. Officials said NASA was expected to see some "modest" increase in its current $18.7 billion annual budget — possibly $200 million to $300 million more but far less than the $1 billion boost agency officials had hoped for.

They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the International Space Station to at least 2020. One insider said there would be an "attractive sum" of money — to be spent over several years — for private companies to make rockets to carry astronauts there.

But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.

That panel, led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, concluded that to have a "viable" human space-exploration program, NASA needed a $3 billion annual budget hike, and that it would take as much as $5 billion distributed over five years to develop commercial rockets that could carry astronauts safely to and from the space station.

Last year, lawmakers prohibited NASA from canceling any Constellation programs and starting new ones in their place unless the cuts were approved by Congress. The provision sends a "direct message that the Congress believes Constellation is, and should remain, the future of America's human space flight program," wrote U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., last month.

Nevertheless, NASA contractors have been quietly planning on the end of Ares I, which is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget. NASA has already spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and more than $5 billion on the rest of Constellation.

In recent days, NASA has been soliciting concepts for a new heavy-lift rocket from major contractors, including Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Pratt & Whitney. Last week, a group of moonlighting NASA engineers and rocket hobbyists proposed variations on old agency designs that use the shuttle's main engines and fuel tank to launch a capsule into space. According to officials and industry executives familiar with the presentations, some of the contractor designs are very similar to the one pressed by the hobbyists.

Officially, companies such as Boeing still support Constellation and its millions of dollars of contracts. Some believe that in a battle with Congress, Ares may survive.

"I would not say Ares is dead yet," said an executive with one major NASA contractor. "It's probably more accurate to say it's on life support. We have to wait to see how the coming battle ends."

Few doubt that a fight is looming. In order to finance new science and technology programs and find money for commercial rockets, Obama will be killing off programs that have created jobs in some powerful constituencies, including the Marshall Space Flight Center in Shelby's Alabama. But the White House is said to be ready for a fight.

The end of the shuttle program this year is already going to slash 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center.

One administration official said the budget will send a message that it's time members of Congress recognize that NASA can't design space programs to create jobs in their districts. "That's the view of the president," the official said.

Robert Block, who reported from Cape Canaveral, can be reached at rblock@orlandosentinel.com or 321-639-0522. Mark K. Matthews, who reported from Washington, can be reached at mmatthews@

Well, maybe China can close in the gap with the US now

EdT586 · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladerunner

Me Bad for overlooking that aspect.and I do think China should be proud on what she's achieved.

The point I was trying to get across is that although each country or private enterprise that has space ambitions, has its own hurdles to cross, I think it is easier for the later starters such as China India Japan etc than it was for the Pioneers in space travel, as they had to go through alot more trial and error.

However IMO a huge gap still remains in space technology and achievement between USA and China even when she does land on the moon.

History will only record two notable facts !, China’s ascendancy to the first rank of space powers becoming only the third member of the elite club of nations capable of flying humans in space and only the second nation capable of landing man on the moon ! ...doesn't sound too bad a 100 years from now does it ?

bladerunner · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdT586

History will only record two notable facts !, China’s ascendancy to the first rank of space powers becoming only the third member of the elite club of nations capable of flying humans in space and only the second nation capable of landing man on the moon ! ...doesn't sound too bad a 100 years from now does it ?

I think you are wrong, The History books will show it was a race between USSR and the USA, the Americans got to the moon first, end of story.

But then again History is often analysed, dissected and put into perspective, im willing to wager that between here and a hundred years in the future, more countries than China and the USA will have been to the moon.

Its a bit like the discovery of the New World. At the time Columbus sailed to America, there would have been at least 3 other maritime powers that had the boats and sailing prowess to have done it,even China, had the curiosity or political will been there.

By the same token the Russians could have got to the moon eventually if they had persevered, The E.U. certainly has the technology to get there, perhaps Japan too, if it had so wanted but as the history books will also indicate, the space fearing powers lost interest in the moon and money was directed at more pressing concerns and other space ventures.

Personally I dont really care a less about whos 1st 2nd or 3rd as long as all mankind benefits. I prefer to regard them as mans achievements rather than any specific country. Afterall, scientists of many ethnic origins have contributed to mans venture into space.

@ erikh

Who knows, maybe the direction that Obama is directing NASA to take, and the greater inclusion of private industry into space flight may prove more beneficial in the long run.

ZTZ99 · 02-09-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladerunner

I think you are wrong, The History books will show it was a race between USSR and the USA, the Americans got to the moon first, end of story.

But then again History is often analysed, dissected and put into perspective, im willing to wager that between here and a hundred years in the future, more countries than China and the USA will have been to the moon.

Its a bit like the discovery of the New World. At the time Columbus sailed to America, there would have been at least 3 other maritime powers that had the boats and sailing prowess to have done it,even China, had the curiosity or political will been there.

By the same token the Russians could have got to the moon eventually if they had persevered, The E.U. certainly has the technology to get there, perhaps Japan too, if it had so wanted but as the history books will also indicate, the space fearing powers lost interest in the moon and money was directed at more pressing concerns and other space ventures.

Personally I dont really care a less about whos 1st 2nd or 3rd as long as all mankind benefits. I prefer to regard them as mans achievements rather than any specific country. Afterall, scientists of many ethnic origins have contributed to mans venture into space.

@ erikh

Who knows, maybe the direction that Obama is directing NASA to take, and the greater inclusion of private industry into space flight may prove more beneficial in the long run.

I think you two are both skewed to extremely biased polar opposite points of view regarding this issue. History on lunar landings is yet to be written, and it will tend to favor the preeminent power(s) of the time. If China is the preeminent world power in 50 years and it has moon bases dotted all over the lunar landscape mining deuterium while the US has gone the way of Great Britain, the fact that the US beat Russia to the moon will be a sidenote of history. If the US continues to be the dominant space power in the world, this sidenote will continue to receive emphasis.

SinoDefence Forum

china manned space - news and views

china manned space - news and views

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster