Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Government Politics

China To Launch Second Manned Mission 155

Posted by Zonk from the weee-look-at-the-view! dept.
the_central_kingdom wrote to mention a Xinhuanet article discussing a second upcoming Chinese spacecraft launch in October. From the article: "Although Sun did not provide details about the new mission, space officials earlier said China has been preparing for the second manned venture into outer space since the first mission, piloted by Yang Liwei, almost two years ago. Sun Laiyan, chief of the China National Space Administration, earlier told China Daily that Shenzhou VI will carry two men into orbit for five or six days. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China To Launch Second Manned Mission More

China To Launch Second Manned Mission

Comments Filter:

  • Hey! (Score:5, Funny)

    by PopeAlien ( 164869 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @09:51PM (#13084735) Homepage Journal
    I can see my wall from up here!
  • wondering at how quickly and why the Chinese are catching up with the US.

    Commentary on /. trends aside, is there any particular reason for America's tendency to send many, many more unmanned than manned missions into space? Surely the fact that unmanned missions are cheaper alone did not result in the creation of this policy.
    • wondering at how quickly and why the Chinese are catching up with the US.

      Not really. Unless something has changed, they are still using Russian technology, not home built. When they get there, then they will have 'arrived' in my book.

    • Re:Queue /. alarmists... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They did one launch with one guy, kind of like our Mercury program. Now they've already moved on to two people which is like our Gemini program. Make the next launch will be to the moon.
    • Because when unmanned missions fail, equipment dies; when manned missions fail, people die?

      • Re:Queue /. alarmists... (Score:4, Funny)

        by agraupe ( 769778 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:07PM (#13084792) Journal
        And in China, no one will notice if they don't come back. (laugh, I'm not serious...)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • That, and NASA is more about research than impressing other countries nowadays.

          It might be more interested in research than impressing other countries. But what it's truly interested in is drumming up good publicity for the current administration (ex: Mars manned missions). People dying is very bad publicity that manned missions simply can't counteract. Therefore manned missions is dropped to a low, with unmanned missions emphasized.
        • Yeah, when are they gonna load a lifting body onto a mass driver? That's what I wanna see. :)

          With all the shuttles gone, I hope NASA takes the opportunity to rebuild from the ground up on a more assembly-line style module so that we can dominate the chokepoints of space... er I mean more effectivly conduct scientific research and observation.
      • People are cheap in China. They can kill off a few and not put a significant dent in their population. Sad, but true.

    • Re:Queue /. alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by uberdave ( 526529 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:07PM (#13084794) Homepage
      Of course it's all economics. If it were cheaper to send a manned module up to put a satellite in orbit, NASA would be doing it that way. However, it is far, far cheaper to send up just the satellite, rather than the satellite plus the astronauts plus their life support equipment and supplies, plus the re-entry vehicle. Oh, and let's not forget all the safety constraints that a manned launch requires that an unmanned one doesn't.
    • I guess that's because the USA already has mastered the current technology for manned missions. And now most experiments can be carried on automaticaly without direct human inferference.

      China still has a lot to learn from manned missions, surelly there's a lot of papers published from the past missions by USA, Russia and Europe... but to master this technology, they have to try it themselves.
      • I guess that's because the USA already has mastered the current technology for manned missions.

        I'd say it has yet to master the not-blowing-people-up-when-going-to-space technology. Or the space-station technology (it could be massively improved).

        Let's not forget future tech such as living on other celestial bodies.

    • wondering at how quickly and why the Chinese are catching up with the US.

      I hear this all the time. China is not "catching up with the US.". To "catch" up to us, China will need to get rid of their communistic government. Their current hodgepodge [reference.com] of communism and sudo-capitalism just wont work in the long run.

      China's GDP as of 2004 is $7,262,000,000,000 (7.26 trillion) while the GDP of the USA as of 2004 is $11,750,000,000,000 (11.75 trillion). Growing a nations GDP by 1 trillion is a few years let

      • Maybe it is time to stop all this "China is catching up" paranoia.
        Maybe you need a reality check, but the US GDP is barely growing at all. Look at the dollar, which is worth half of what it was 2 years ago vs. the euro, for evidence of this. We are in a recession - well, maybe not a full blown one, but we are barely creeping forward. In the meantime, china is beginning to overcome the technological gap that has been the only thing keeping them making cheap plastic household goods instead of our expensi
        • Here's my favorite stat from a book I just read on China:

          "Three hundred million rural Chinese will move to cities in the next fifteen years. China must build urban infrastructure equivalent to Houston's every month in order to absorb them."

          So they've got their work cut out for them just getting a basic infrastructure in place. Once they do, their people will get sick of crappy wages and their tyrannical government and their growth will level off -- hopefully they will get rid of the tyrants too.

          Persona

      • Re:Queue /. alarmists... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @12:49AM (#13085275)
        GDP per capita is a usefull comparison when you are trying to measure quality of life but not when you try to measure scientific progress. Granted at current levels Chines might not be able to afford SUVs in every driveway but they can afford to spend on centrally funded programs. As you said there are 4 times many Chinese thus if you want to spend 100 million on a mission every Chines just needs to afford 10 cents but every american needs to afford 40 cents. Larger population is generally an advantage given similar levels of education. Moreover while the Chinese GDP might be 7 trillion on paper everyone knows the Chinese currency is artificially lower by 20% so in real terms it is already larger than the US GDP. Things like space exploration are a kind of national luxury and they are affordable based on the whole GDP and not GDP percapita. After all their is only 1 NASA and 1 CNSA. Even not considering the exchange rates your argument about US remaining ahead falls apart as China is growing faster 9% compared to 4% . According to WB and IMF projections Chinese GDP will overtake US GDP by 2015 and by 2050 GDP per capita too will overtake US GDP. This is assuming no major wars. Given that the US is currently stuck in an expensive war which may drag down growth these points may be reached earlier. Its already becoming obvious that the US is no longer as attractive as before. Just look at the number of foreign students who stay on in the US. Earlier most foreign students would never go back to their countries as the US had the leading industry and the best opportunities but nowadays more and more Chinese and Korean students go back as opportunities at home are equal or better than in the US. So their really is no place for complacency

      • Re:Queue /. alarmists... (Score:4, Informative)

        by proxima ( 165692 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @01:17AM (#13085350)
        China's GDP as of 2004 is $7,262,000,000,000 (7.26 trillion) while the GDP of the USA as of 2004 is $11,750,000,000,000 (11.75 trillion). Growing a nations GDP by 1 trillion is a few years let alone more than 4 trillion is just impossible. China has _at least_ 1 billion people. Divide their GDP by their population and you get about $7,262 per person. The USA has about 300 million people. Divide our GDP per person and you get about $39,166.66 per person. A _huge_ difference, more than five time the amount _per person_!

        A few notes:

        1.) Your figures are probably from the CIA World Factbook, which reports purchasing power parity GDP. Comparing nominal GDP makes your argument stronger, as the PPP GDP for China is substantially smaller. One source [chinadaily.com.cn] has the figure for 2004 at $1.65 trillion US. However, the PPP number is useful in that it's probably a better comparison with US output, I believe due to the rather extraordinary circumstances with the yuan dollar peg kept artificially low. Still, that said...

        2.) China's GDP growth is pretty spectacular, and has been so for the past several years (check the World Bank's World Development Indicators database). 9.5% reported growth in 2004 is probably unsustainable, but China had GDP growth of 7-9% for 1999-2003 (according to the WB). The US, by comparison, had growth of 1-4% between 1999 and 2003 (admittedly including a recession).

        3.) Your argument about per-capita GDP works against you. Few believe that the average Chinese person will be as wealthy as the average "first world" person any time soon. The point is that China, as a political and economic powerhouse, will likely become even more huge in the near future. The large population bolsters this goal, as it provides low-cost labor and a quick opportunity for growth. One only needs to raise per-capita productivity a small amount to see huge gains in overall GDP for the country as a whole.

        4.) Let's take your original figures of $7.26 trillion versus $11.75 trillion. Assuming China can keep up a 7% growth and the US has about 3% growth, China will reach the $11.75 trillion mark within 8 years. At those rates of growth, China will exceed the US within 13 years. Even if these figures are quite off, China is still likely to have a much larger economic role than it does now in the coming decades.

        • PPP GDP for China is substantially smaller

          That should read, "nominal GDP for China is substantially smaller".

        • Divide their GDP by their population and you get about $7,262 per person. The USA has about 300 million people. Divide our GDP per person and you get about $39,166.66 per person.

          Interesting train of thought. Since the U.S. has about the greatest class differences outside Swaziland (I've read that the top 1% own as much as the bottom 90% in the U.S.), I wonder how much closer average income would be if someone subtracted that richest top 1% from each country. Anybody know the figures?

    • Re:Queue /. alarmists... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nunchux ( 869574 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @11:03PM (#13084950)
      Commentary on /. trends aside, is there any particular reason for America's tendency to send many, many more unmanned than manned missions into space? Surely the fact that unmanned missions are cheaper alone did not result in the creation of this policy.

      Unmanned missions are a necessity with the present-day American mindset. Haven't you noticed that every time one of our astronauts dies, our space program grinds to a halt for years?

      We (the USA) have lost the pioneer spirit... If we're really going to stay ahead of the Chinese (and Indians, and Russians, and whoever else) the USA as a country has to understand that tregedies will happen, and some brave souls will die in the name of progress, and they knew the risks of that happening when they signed on for the job. Because a Shenzhou crash will not slow the Chinese down for a second (really, we likely wouldn't even know it happened.)
    • is there any particular reason for America's tendency to send many, many more unmanned than manned missions into space?

      You answered your own question. Because it's cheaper. Hell, much cheaper.

      The fact that, if you were to put an astronaut on board an unmanned rocket, you'd kill the bastard by exploding his guts internally plus squishing via high Gs during the launch. So to make it safe for manned mission, each rocket has to be designed with more safe proof structure for human bodies.

      None of that would
    • wondering at how quickly and why the Chinese are catching up with the US.

      It's always easier to follow than to lead. So far they're not doing anything new just copying what has already been done.

      They may also be able to catch up faster by taking fewer precautions. If our current space program had the same level of redundancy as our Apollo missions we'd probably be spending a lot less, running many more missions and possibly losing more people.

    • Re:Queue /. alarmists... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Frodo Crockett ( 861942 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @02:21AM (#13085518)
      queue
      n.
      1. A line of waiting people or vehicles.
      2. A long braid of hair worn hanging down the back of the neck; a pigtail.
      3. Computer Science.
        1. A sequence of stored data or programs awaiting processing.
        2. A data structure from which the first item that can be retrieved is the one stored earliest.


      cue2
      n.
      1. A signal, such as a word or action, used to prompt another event in a performance, such as an actor's speech or entrance, a change in lighting, or a sound effect.
        1. A reminder or prompting.
        2. A hint or suggestion.
      3. Music.
        1. An extract from the music for another part printed, usually in smaller notes, within a performer's part as a signal to enter after a long rest.
        2. A gesture by a conductor signaling the entrance of a performer or part.
      4. Psychology. A stimulus, either consciously or unconsciously perceived, that elicits or signals a type of behavior.
      5. Archaic. One's assigned role or function.
      6. Archaic. A mood; a disposition.
  • The good news is that soon our astronauts can fill up on General Tso's Chicken . The bad news is they'll be hungry again in 15 minutes . Are there cats in space :leaving:
  • The problem with chinese space travel, is 30 minutes later you want to go into space again.
    • This isn't redundant. It's a joke. And appropriate given these sudden dearth of Chinese space missions while most of their people languish.
    • I don't get the joke. Did I miss something? Yes, I'm Chinese. :(
  • watch out for these Chinese dudes. Everybody was glued to the screen back when Russ^H^H^H^H the USSR was doing the space race thing, but people aren't paying as much attention to Red^H^H^H China, but here goes one, then another, then two, then three, then space station, then moon...they'll be on Mars before long.

    • Re:I'm tellin' ya... (Score:4, Funny)

      by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:15PM (#13084824) Journal
      Everybody was glued to the screen back when Russ^H^H^H^H the USSR was doing the space race thing, but people aren't paying as much attention to Red^H^H^H China,

      One of these days, they'll invent software that can interpret the backspace button properly. Who knows what will happen then, perhaps slashdot posts won't have as many errors. Who knows! The possibilities are endless!

  • Technology Transfer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:04PM (#13084782) Homepage Journal
    Don't know how good this source is, but:

    Here is something from Global Security [globalsecurity.org] about the origin of the tech.

    Supposedly the tech is not just a copy of Russian stuff, and the Chinese are talking about what they are doing because they want to make money off of space services. You have to talk about it to sell it.

  • Reminds me of early NASA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:07PM (#13084791)
    When you look at the history of NASA's space adventures, it's pretty clear that we sort of peaked with the the 1960s and early 1970s. Then they sort of went soft.

    China's missions remind me of NASA's early days, when John Glenn and others made simple manned orbits. Sure, there was some scientific value to them, but the primary reason was: look what our country can do.

    I not only hope China will continue to plan and conduct these manned missions -- but also I hope all of their missions are a tremendous success.

    This and only this will spur NASA out of safety/budget land and go back to the cock&balls manned flights of yester-century.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • China's missions remind me of NASA's early days, when John Glenn and others made simple manned orbits. Sure, there was some scientific value to them, but the primary reason was: look what our country can do.

      What else is there? Science? Sort of. You can use the scientific method to study anything there is, including space of course.

      It's interesting to speculate how far behind the Chinese really are, or aren't. It was only 8 years between America's first man in space and the apex of manned space e

    • and current NASA (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Seraphim_72 ( 622457 )

      And where the hell is NASA? The Chinese are putting men in space and we cower in our launch craft waiting for the safty teams to tell us it is only "damn dangerous". I will put my life where my mouth is - put me in space, and damn the hazards - let the cowards fly for NorthWest - I want to be on space!!!!

      Sera

      • Re:and current NASA (Score:5, Funny)

        by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @12:05AM (#13085145) Journal
        I'm devising a home-made method of getting into space. Now would you please hop into my cannon and I can shoot you into space, hazards be damned.
      • I have a feeling that the military space program is getting all the NASA funds/govt. attention. Which imho isn't the smartest, sure they can blow away foreign sattelites, spy from space with multiple optical frequencies and high granularity, and probably a bunch of land targetting weapons aswell, but all of this is classified military stuff. So getting beaten in the public arena by the chinese will harm the american self-image, a space arms race is already in progress, lack of technology that is transferabl
    • While China's current space program might seem similar to early NASA or Soviet programs, there is one big difference... the earlier space programs didn't have existing space technology to draw on, everything had to be invented from scratch (so far as space technology goes) and the dangers in such a young field were higher.

      there was some scientific value to them, but the primary reason was: look what our country can do

      You clearly haven't put much thought into that statement. Space travel technology is ex

  • He Was Destined (Score:4, Funny)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:09PM (#13084810) Homepage
    Sun Laiyan, chief of the China National Space Administration...

    He was destined to go into the space exploration field.

    PS - Yes, yes, I know Sun in Chinese means "grandson". Cheap joke, I know.

    • And it's also pronounced "soon", IIRC
    • If you think that's an appropriate name, there was a space tourist named Shuttleworth...
    • Sun [pronounced "soon"] Laiyan, chief of the China National Space Administration...
      He was destined to go into the space exploration field.

      Try pronouncing his whole name - Soon Layin'?
      "Hey baby, I'm an astronaut. Wanna go back to my place?"

      Joke attempt #2: Why would someone named "Sun" be destined for space exploration? Wouldn't the Sun be a little hot to visit? Oh yeah, of course, you go at night.

      PS Two cheap jokes are better than one (unless neither is funny).

  • One Question (Score:2, Funny)

    by richdun ( 672214 )
    How good are Chinese hydrogen fuel sensors? Just wondering...

    "Made in China" is on everything else in this country, so just checking.

    • Re:One Question (Score:5, Funny)

      by mikejz84 ( 771717 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:33PM (#13084876)
      The rocket does not run on hydrogen, but on 100% clean burning political dissidents.
    • Hey their rockets may well work reliably.

      Think of when India will send people up to compete with China, and Pakistan will send their own to compete with India. We'll run out of elbowroom on the moon.

      And with that, we'll see the first spacesuits that can fit long beards. You can bet they'll all land on American soil and claim to be refugees!

      and spend their remaining days driving yellow cabs downtown NYC.
    • The rocket motors on the Long March derived rockets use Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and Nitrogen Tetroxide as the oxidiser source. (probably due to it being related to the Dongfeng ICBM)

      The smaller upper stages do use LOX/LH2 like the Shuttle system.

      I am told the main reason for the ECO system on the Shuttle is that if the fuel runs out, the roket's turbopumps are liable to over-rev and disintegrate (bye-bye engine).

      Assuming the long March motors use turbopumps to inject the oxidant, then t
  • I mean, the lunar missions all used what, 1960's technology? And now that the X-Prize MIGHT result in commercial orbitals, how much harder is it to go the moon once you are up there?
    Seriously, I'm asking how much harder. I'm no rocket scientist.
    Seems some rogue millionaire could have someone construct his a ship with all that extra cash using at least 1980's technology.

    • Re:When's a private company going to the moon? (Score:4, Informative)

      by gvc ( 167165 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:54PM (#13084925)
      "Seriously, I'm asking how much harder."

      A lot harder. You can reach orbit at about 25,000 km/hr. Escape velocity, which is necessary to reach the moon, is 40,000 km/hr.

      Because energy is proportional to the square of velocity, that's about 2.5 times as much energy.

      But it gets worse - since liftoff weight is dominated by fuel and propulsion, that's 2.5 times as much weight. etc.

      Then, when you re-enter the earth's atmosphere, you have 2.5 times as much energy to burn. Simple ballistic re-entry techniques won't work for this; you need aerodynamic negative lift to sweep a big arc while you're re-entering.

      Of course all these problems were addressed in 1969, but it was a massive undertaking. Much more massive than just sticking a tin can with an asbestos heat shield on top of an ICBM booster.
    • Once you've got your life support systems tested, your astronauts trained and into LEO, etc, it's not a big leap to the moon. Assuming you've already got a lander...

      The X-Prize was further from LEO than LEO is from the moon, for instance.

  • Good luck to them (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @10:35PM (#13084879)
    I have a feeling we are coming up to the next great Space Race sometime later this decade/ next Space Race. It seems to me that every country should have the right to be able to end people into space. With Japan starting to launch its own rockets, and India not too far behind, I wonder if Asia will have its own Space Race. It seems to me that the US will probably just sit there with the Shuttle and ISS until someone (maybe China) decides to go further out into interplanetary space, and then we might see some serious action on behalf of the US to ramp up its space initiative.
    • I too wish that this will spark the next wave of space exploration and discovery.

      However, even if the NASA gets the space exploration budgets in place, by that time there will be a shortage of brain power to compete with all the PhD's that have since stayed home for education in China and India. By then, can we even compete? I hope the brain drain in our higher ed gets reversed before some drastic situation like this happens.
    • Sure, NASA will sit there scratching their balls, but my money isn't on NASA. It isn't on China, India, or Japan either. I'll place my bets on good old fashion 100% American corporate greed. Eh, if we are stuck with this capitalist system, might as well use it. Honestly though, I think the corporations are going to be the ones to win this race. I bet while NASA and Russia are still dicking around with the ISS, China is trying to figure out how you can combine a ICBM and a tin can to make a rocket to th
    • every country should have the right to be able to end people into space.

      Paging Dr. Freud! Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

  • 'outer' space (Score:2, Insightful)

    by EreIamJH ( 180023 )
    The article says that they'll 'venture into outer space'. Isn't it just 'space', not 'outer space'??

  • Man, 10 years down the road there will be another (Score:3, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Saturday July 16, 2005 @11:09PM (#13084971) Homepage
    Man, 10-15 years down the road there will be another cold war and another arms/space/tech race. And for the layman, that's great news. More jobs here in the US, more investment into tech with all the trickle-down effects, more investment into education, too.

  • Why are they going? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by matt21811 ( 830841 )
    The Chinese seem to be copying the old US space program fairly closely.
    Why? National pride? To make money? Because its there?

    The real reason the Chinese want to go into space is the same reason the US went there. It's the military application. If any country in the world wants to go toe to toe against the US in anything except a world destroying nuclear match up then they have to take the GPS and satellite spying monopoly from the USA.

    It works even better if they find out a way take out US satellites wit
    • The chinese economy is strongly linked to the US, the US is china's #1 export partner. Military attacks on your primary source of income doesn't seem terribly smart to me.

      Taking out the entire GPS constellation would appear no small task either. It's also a lot of expensive effort on an inexpensive target. Compared to other space projects, GPS is dead cheap. Take out a couple GPS satellites, they're replaced almost instantly and very cheaply. So in the end you've accomplished little.

      I think the frighteni
      • That it's not economically advantageous doesn't mean it isn't worth being prepared for it. Presenting a credible threat means noone in the pentagon will suddenly get the bright idea of trying to pull another Iraq on them. Keep in mind that China won't be planning just for today, but need to take into account what might happen if the US government keeps getting more aggressive over the next decades.
    • If any country in the world wants to go toe to toe against the US in anything except a world destroying nuclear match up then they have to take the GPS and satellite spying monopoly from the USA.

      What on earth is wrong with you people? Why is it anything any other country does is believed to be an attack specifically on the US? Do you think we all wake up each morning and consider how best to annoy/attack America that day?

  • I'm all for more people getting into the space race.

    Fuck NASA, lets get everyone involved!
  • I found an interesting BBC story [bbc.co.uk] on the upcoming launch. Apparently they will be testing pig sperm. The article also says that the astronauts will orbit the earth 5-6 times, not 5-6 days, which leaves me wondering which article is correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close