Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Another Taikonaut Launch This Week 229

Posted by Zonk from the stepping-out-and-seeing-the-sights dept.
JPThorne writes "BBC Online is reporting that China will launch a manned space mission sometime between Wednesday and Sunday of this week. Two as yet unnamed Chinese Astronauts will undertake the mission." From the article: "The launch comes almost exactly two years after China's first manned space flight, which made astronaut Yang Liwei a national hero. Unlike the last mission, Xinhua said a live broadcast of the launch would be provided to foreign media. Analysts say the fact the authorities are being more open about this launch may indicate that they are more confident of its success. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another Taikonaut Launch This Week More

Another Taikonaut Launch This Week

Comments Filter:

  • I swear (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:14PM (#13767223)
    I read "Take Out Naut".
    • Maybe I shouldn't have prank called the Chinese Government years ago for 1 sweet and sour pork order to be delivered on the moon...
    • Hey, I read Talkonaut, and thought to msyelf must be a stupid new name for a podcaster. "We are the Talk-O-Nauts, today we will be interviewing my dog and his experience with neuticles. Do they lick the same?"

    • Re:I swear (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shotfeel ( 235240 )
      Astronaut
      Cosmonaut
      Taikonaut

      Not knowing either Russion or Chinese, I have to ask why the need to change the first part of the term, but keep the last part of the term the same? Or is that actually what the Russians and Chinese call their astronauts?

      OK, wikipedia gives some info. Still seems strange to me. At least the "Cosmonaut" is an anglicization of the Russian word ????????? (kosmonavt), makes sense.
    • Analysts say the fact the authorities are being more open about this launch may indicate that they are more confident of its success. "

      It may indicate that and then again, it may not. Are you sure that you want to go out on a limb and actually commit yourself, your career, and your family's future to such a profoundly confrontational and opinionated statement?

      Perhaps we should best call in another team of $200,000 a year analyists before we let something like this actually go

  • Wanna bet China reaches the moon before we go back (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:15PM (#13767228) Homepage Journal
    Meanwhile, back in the US, the Republicans claim they want to take us back to space but aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is (though they're quite happy to cut funding for robotic exploration in order to free up the funds!), the Democrats seem to be opposing space exploration on the grounds that the Republicans are for it, and NASA's manned space division doesn't seem to be able to get its act together enough to actually give us a safer orbiter, never mind something that can take us to the Moon or Mars.

    Dontcha love partisan politics?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • just a PR move to jumpstart the publics love of the government ... land man on the moon a few times and never go back ... pure politics and not science.

        Amazing how even governments with philosophies as different as the US and China play the space card the same. Manned spaceflight is about giving the public something to cheer for - a human face on a program that is most efficiently done with robots loaded with tools that the average person doesn't understand.

        • Re:Wanna bet China reaches the moon before we go b (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CaptainFork ( 865941 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:46PM (#13767544)
          Yep, well, governments are all the same of course.

          The differences are with the ideologies. But ask yourself this: Do you own your ideology, or does it own you?

          An alien visitor to earth would probably say "take me to your leading meme".

        • Amazing how even governments with philosophies as different as the US and China play the space card the same. Manned spaceflight is about giving the public something to cheer for - a human face on a program that is most efficiently done with robots loaded with tools that the average person doesn't understand.

          The need for good propaganda, and being perceived as doing something, is not unique to idealogy.

          The more you can get the people on your side, the more they go along with what you say.

      • Re:Wanna bet China reaches the moon before we go b (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:34PM (#13767443) Homepage Journal
        I bet that China will land man on the moon a few times and never go back. Basically, it's pure politics and not science. ...been there, done that.

        Just like the US...

        If we'd been interested in going to the moon for the sake of exploration and science instead of just getting there before the Russians did, we'd probably still be there.
        • If we'd been interested in going to the moon for the sake of exploration and science instead of just getting there before the Russians did, we'd probably still be there.

          Or maybe we'd never have gotten there at all. Politicians aren't known for spending money for the sake of exploration and science, but since it was billed as a must to beat the damn dirty Reds to the moon, no cost was considered too high.

          Personally I think it also had a lot to do with the fact of JFK being assassinated. Going to the moon w

      • Re:Wanna bet China reaches the moon before we go b (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:36PM (#13767456) Journal
        Let's face facts here. China is a space power now. Sure they're where the Russians and Americans were in the early 1960s, but considering the costs and expertise required to get a human into space and back again alive, it's an extraordinary feat for a country that just a half century ago was recovering from the ravages of a civil war and a foreign occupation of a good portion of its soil. China realizes what the US and Russia have temporarily forgotten, that with virtually all the borders on this planet drawn for good, power and security rest in space.

        Going to the Moon may be just a PR stunt (it pretty much was when the US did it), but the technologies and expertise gained from that are enormous, and China is taking its rightful place as the third space power. It's a few decades behind, but moving fast, and say what you like, the Kremlin and the White House will very much be watching when a Taikonaut steps off the land on to the surface of the Moon.

      • Hmm, but really, what have we got from all the space research investment put into so far?
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Now days, if China or India are after the research, they can just buy copies of the reports from both Russia and US now.

            Dude, this is oversimplification. US (and Russia) spent billions if not trillions of dollars into space research, NASA will just handover the blueprint for a fee? Considering some of these research are confidental and maybe related to security to their country.

        • Hmm, but really, what have we got from all the space research investment put into so far?

          Dude, it's called a military-industrial complex.
    • Here is one thing I don't understand. Why doesn't NASA cooperate with other countries in exploration, technology etc? Why not get Russia, China and even India involved in design a new space orbiter? When they share costs and brain power wouldn't it be cheaper and faster? What will Democrats have to complain at that point. This lone ranger philosophy has got to stop. It is only hindering us.
      • The problematic word is "share". It probably sounds a bit too socialist, if not downright communist, for many American politicians to accept.

        Besides, such cooperation is quite easily shot down with accusations of such activities being "dangerous to national security".

      • We're usually willing to collaborate, but only as the senior partner. The Canadian arm on the mostly-domestic shuttle, the ESA's Huygens probe on the Cassini spacecraft, etc.
      • IMO when it comes to manned missions to the moon or Mars, the science and technology part is easy compared to the political part, even if a single nation is involved.

        IOW, we're technologically capable, just not politically capable/inclined.

      • Why doesn't NASA cooperate with other countries in exploration, technology etc?
        To some degree they do. The ISS is funded and developed by multiple countries. The Cassini-Huygens probe was a co-operation between NASA and the ESA.

        Why not get Russia, China and even India involved in design a new space orbiter? When they share costs and brain power wouldn't it be cheaper and faster?
        It likely would be cheaper, but the problem is how politicians view federal dollars being spent. If money isn't spent in someone
      • Why doesn't NASA cooperate with other countries in exploration, technology etc?

        Because the last time someone thought that, we ended up with the International Space Station. No thanks.

        Seriously, having to deal with the red tape and bureaucracy of one nation's government, and making sure all the state constituencies get the proper allotment of pork-barrel spending, is enough. Problems tend to increase exponentially with the number of governments involved.
    • Meanwhile, back in Pakistan they wait for aid while China and the US debate who will spend the most resources to control the totally barren lifeless peice of junk orbiting the earth.

      • The US has enough problems of its own to take care of. Perhaps you have not noticed, but New Orleans is still a mess (though getting better it will take years to recover). Sure it would be nice to help everyone in trouble, but there is only so much that can be done - even when you are as large in the world as the US is, your abilities are limited.

      • The international community is sending a lot of aid, but it appears that Pakistan's congenital disunity is a bigger problem than anything else.

        But what saddens me most out of your post is that it shows a lack of vision. The universe is a place of nearly unlimited promise. Our solar system alone holds innumerable wonders. Why shouldn't we allocate the resources to go to the Moon, Mars and beyond? The side benefits that have come out of the space program in material technologies, medicine, computers and h

        • What is the point of colonizing other planets when we are struggling to survive on a planet we are designed to live on? When you can't even properly distribute food and water and shelter to people on earth, what makes you think we can do it across planets? I have plenty of vision, but all the problems we face on earth arn't going to suddenly disappear because we can travel space.
          • And cutting space exploration isn't going to make those problems disappear either. The reality is that many of those problems are either the result of political instability or environmental problems. Space travel at least offers the promise of innovations, and perhaps broadening our collective horizons, and generally, those are what contribute to the well being of humanity.

    • Re:Wanna bet China reaches the moon before we go b (Score:4, Informative)

      by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @03:42PM (#13768140) Journal

      Wanna bet China reaches the moon before we go back

      Yes, I would. If China succeeds in there next mission they will equal the result of Gemini 4. That puts them only 40 years behind. Remember that they got a jump start too by buying Russion Soyuz spacecraft. Their booster is similar to a Proton. When China produces a real innovation I'll take notice. In the meantime they are also rans.

      Meanwhile, back in the US, the Republicans claim they want to take us back to space but aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is (though they're quite happy to cut funding for robotic exploration in order to free up the funds!)

      What??? NASA's budget continues to grow in real terms. Robotic exploration of the solar system has never been in better shape. You have the wildly successful Cassini. We have two excellent orbiters circling Mars with a 3rd more powerful one on the way. The Mars rovers are arguably the most successful robotic exploration mission in history! There is another huge rover headed there in 2009, a new Lunar Orbiter... What are you talking about?

      and NASA's manned space division doesn't seem to be able to get its act together enough to actually give us a safer orbiter, never mind something that can take us to the Moon or Mars.

      NASA has proposed a very workable and exciting exploration plan with the CEV. The major launch components are already there. Where is the risk in its design? NASA kept the wheels on the shuttle program admirably. Nobody can make it safe. The CEV goes back to what works. Real skepticism is healthy. Your nihilism is not.

    • And if Bush had been assassinated shortly after putting forth the challange to return to the moon, the money will be flowing to NASA. NASA would be struggling to find ways to spend all the money and the American people would be looking forward to the first foot prints on Mars.

      Right now, it would be my guess that China stands the best chance at a run for the moon. They are actively launching ships (slowly but actively). They are not tied to the ISS like we have left the Russians (because we can't get a
    • I'll give the straight answer: no.

      The reason is simple: China is still many years from building a launch vehicle capable of flying a manned mission to the Moon. While the Americans can adapt Space Shuttle hardware for Moon missions, I don't know of any other nation that have the proven hardware to fly Moon missions.

      The Chinese could ask for Russian help, but alas, the Energia launcher program was dismantled a long time ago and it's a major unknown how well can you assemble a spacecraft for a Moon mission wi
      • The reason is simple: China is still many years from building a launch vehicle capable of flying a manned mission to the Moon. While the Americans can adapt Space Shuttle hardware for Moon missions, I don't know of any other nation that have the proven hardware to fly Moon missions.

        Bullshit (sorry), spaceshuttle can only fly 300 kilometers high, nothing of that will aid in going to the moon, which btw is a thousand times farther...

        cheers,
        pol :)
        • Didn't I just say "adapt Space Shuttle hardware"?

          If you read NASA's web page on their future manned space program, they are adapting a lot of the launch hardware from the Space Shuttle program--though of course not the Space Shuttle itself--for the future missions.
          • Indeed, NASA is currently adapting hardware that puts stuff in orbit, the Chinese also have different rockets to put stuff in orbit, and are actively developing larger rockets.

            My bet is on China. Russia is currently the leading space power, but they lack money. China has money and will surpass the russians soon. The US is no longer in the game, because the US spends all it's resources on lawyers and internal politics.

            cheers,
            pol :)
            • I'll take the chances of China going to the Moon more seriously when they start building larger launch pads to accommodate large-sized boosters. Given that imagery from commercially-available imaging satellites and our NRO spysats hasn't seen any major construction activity for bigger launch pads at China's major launch facilities lately, I still can't take China's vision of going to the Moon seriously just yet.

  • So I guess... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:16PM (#13767235) Journal
    I guess this means that since China can now afford to send (two) ships into space, it doesn't need any more Foreign Aid from the EU, Japan or the US.

    • Re:So I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rovingeyes ( 575063 )
      Actually its the US that owes China. Currently I believe US owes China close to $250 billion and a similar amount to Japan.
      • I believe you are confusing the "trade deficit" with "Foreign Aid". They are not the same thing.
        • and that's still different from the actual US debt that is financed by China! Ack!

          • Don't forget, the Chinese have fixed the price of the yuan as compared to a dollar (there has been some movement over the past few months - but the fact is that the Yuan is much cheaper than it should be). That fixed price has resulted in a significant amount of economic displacement in the United States. The cost of manufacturing in China is much lower than it should be. This low cost is moving business from North America and putting it in Shanghai or other Chinese ciites.

            One could argue that the loss

        • Of course my economics is weak, but how would you be in a position to give aid when you indeed have a trace deficit? I am sure there is an explanation to this.
          • Take a look at this [worldbank.org]. Remember, GW Bush just appointed Paul Wolfowitz (the man that is the considered the lead neo-conservative in the United States) to head the World Bank.
      • From ye old Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

        The country holding by far the most debt is Japan which held $679 billion at the end of March, 2005. In recent years the People's Republic of China has also become a major holder of Treasury debt, holding $223.5 billion at that time.

        So while China doesn't have the US exactly by the proverbial economic balls, it has a big chunk of it. Lets just say that it would be more likley that China could control the US policy by threat of economics than threat of force. Main reason why US would be

    • China's not a poor country. It currently should be the #2 economy in the world in terms of GNP (I haven't seen data more recent than 2000, but by some measure, it should be there), passing Japan.

      I think that China will get ahead of the space race because of three reasons:
      1. It wants to.
      2. It is growing economically fast enough to have enough money to.
      3. It has a lot more people, whose lives are not as "fragile" as American's.

      By #3, I mean, since it is not a democracy, they are going to be able to more risk
      • Your GNP measurement is exceedingly silly. As other people have pointed out, the GDP of Bangladesh is ten times that of Luxembourg. Having been to Luxembourg and with friends who've lived in Bangladesh, I know which one I'd count as rich...

        But back to the point. China is still a poor country. While the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese people have improved greatly over the last couple of decades, there are still large parts of China which are very poor. Nearly one-third of all children in some p

        • This reminds me of a 70-year-old neighbor of mine that has Alzheimer's. When we have him over for dinner, he would sometimes blurt out "Be sure to eat all your food, son, and dontcha waste it! There are kids in Japan starving right now..."
    • Um you do know Everyone owes China money :P
  • Q: What is the difference between the Chinese and US space programs.
    A: In China tang in an astronaut.

  • This will certainly upset Bush! (Score:3, Funny)

    by uncoveror ( 570620 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:22PM (#13767301) Homepage
    The whole reason he wants to go back to the moon is so Red China can't control all the green cheese. [uncoveror.com]

  • waiting for aussie to go into space (Score:4, Funny)

    by ptr2004 ( 695756 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:23PM (#13767308)
    Then we will have a real AUSTRONAUT

    • Yes, but, can you sober them up long enough to get them into space? Maybe there should be a Scotland vs. Australia space race?

      I volunteer to be Scotland's first astronaught. The challenge is keeping me away from alcohol for 3 days in a row and keeping me away from lardy food to make the weight for launch.

    • Actually, there WAS an Australian astronaut. Andy Thomas was on MIR in 1988 and on the "return to flight" mission of the space shuttle this past July.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Thomas [wikipedia.org]
    • When we finally use all of the expertise that we've gained from working with NASA (plus funding proportionate to our respective populations) and the bureacracy of the Canadian Space Agency (who make nice stickers, by the way), the world will tremble when the first CANNAUT* arrives on the moon **.

      * pronunciation is appropriate with our general Canadian approach to big science

      ** somewhere around Sudbury, I believe

  • Unified terminology (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KrancHammer ( 416371 ) <GunseMatt AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:24PM (#13767327)
    Can we please decide on a single term for those persons who travel into space? Must we have a unique term for every national space program? Cosmonaut, Astronaut, Taikonaut. Its one thing for speakers of a language to refer to an equivalent English term by their own unique word, but why must we (we being English speakers) adopt a different term? Its silly. We generally do not do this for any other nouns. We don't call a Russian sailor by the Anglicized Russian term for sailer, do we? Sorry. Pet peeve.

  • Biased Reporting - "Backward", Anti-Chinese (Score:5, Interesting)

    by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:25PM (#13767338) Homepage Journal
    From the Article:

    Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s.

    TFA (The F-ing Article) reads as if they are working with 1960-s era technology. I would suggest that this is biased reporting based on a premise that the Chinese technology is from the 1960's and they're using it now because that's the best they can do.

    Instead, I would suggest that they are probably using a derivative of the Soyuz technology updated with modern materials and techniques. The U.S. is using Delta launch vehicles which had their roots in the 1960's as well, but we don't advertise that a rocket was a "Delta-IV, a model developed in the early 1960's" because most of the innards have been updated and redesigned with techniques and materials that are the latest in rocket design.

    The Chinese program may not use as advanced a technology as the U.S. Delta and E.U.'s Ariane programs, but that doesn't mean the rocket was designed in the 1960's and they're stuck still using that level of ability.

    Space reporting should not be politically biased.

    • The Chinese program may not use as advanced a technology as the U.S. Delta and E.U.'s Ariane programs, but that doesn't mean the rocket was designed in the 1960's and they're stuck still using that level of ability.

      Space reporting should not be politically biased.

      You've (mis)read too much into the article's use of the word "based". Sometimes a word means just what its suppose to mean. There's no shame in basing a design on an older one, especially if that original one was successful. It was obvious to me, w
      • In a short article, mentioning "Soyuz" and "1960's technology" in the same sentence has the effect of biasing the audience.

        Original version: "Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s."

        Alternatives:

        * Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is a modern derivative of Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model undergoing refinement since the late 1960's.
        * Shenzhou VI, like Shenzhou V, is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a modern derivative of a model originally d
    • // [http]http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/34496.ht m/> Pic

    • ISS docking prospects (Score:4, Interesting)

      by matt me ( 850665 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @04:13PM (#13768454)
      As stated, the Shenzou capsule is based on the Russian Soyuz (the most robust and reliable craft ever) - this means, interestingly that China have the technological potential to dock with the ISS. But would the US would ever allow them? Politically, no, but it is an INTERNATIONAL space station, and arguably given Russian have been keeping it alive for the past two years, they should. be presured into it. Maybe after the US have pulled out, China could go up there.
  • From a technical aspect China is in somewhere between Gemini and Apollo.  An individual with enough money could do the same thing.  The reality of this endeavor does not really justify any fears of space/technology domination by China.

    It good, however, for the general public to see this kind of headline.  It reminds them that space exists and that the U.S. doesn't run the show up there anymore.  Hopefully this leads to funding...

  • These odds [ideosphere.com] are from Ideosphere [ideosphere.com].

    If the Chinese go to the moon, I don't think it will be just a publicity stunt-I expect they'll develop a real economic presence there. Stuff like a Lunar space elevator [wikipedia.org] could be a highly profitable enterprise.

    This may be what is needed to show just how short-sighted the folks running the US these days really are.

    • "If the Chinese go to the moon, I don't think it will be just a publicity stunt-I expect they'll develop a real economic presence there. Stuff like a Lunar space elevator could be a highly profitable enterprise"

      Please, explain the profitability. Where are they going to get the revenue that pays off the capital expenditure? A space elevator could perhaps be more cost-effective than an surface-launch based space program, but it's not even close to profitable.

      If you believe that other governments (such a
  • Also reported on the People's Daily Online [peopledaily.com.cn]. Including an interesting story [peopledaily.com.cn] about how they aren't experimenting with "space mutation breeding".

    Aww, and I was so looking forward to the catchphrases that would've spawned.
  • ..... Likely kick start efforts to get the Space Shuttle back into the air along with accelerating efforts to get a moon shot going ASAP. Just like the old days with the USSR!

  • Taikonaut to confirm GreatWall is visible in Space (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2005 @02:56PM (#13767633)
    'Chinese officials say they want to land an unmanned probe on the moon by 2010, and also build a space station.'

    this reminded me of the quote:
    "That's no moon, its a space station."

    Many insights to the moon could be gained from a new and sophistacated moon probe, I am not as sure about the benefits of the space station other than for scientific experiments and spacedocking practice.
    The question now is: Should the US, Russia, EU, Japan and China all be obligated to share individual research and information acquired from each mission in the hopes to further the overall objective of creating reliable space travel?
    Also, once some country lands on the moon, can they just claim it as territory and start building on it in any fashion?
  • Sounds like the ultimate in Chinese take-out.
  • This is a good thing, no matter how you slice it. If this provokes another space race, the Western world will have to put its money where its mouth is regarding space exploration, and great scientific advancements could be made by both sides. Having just one superpower does lead to some degree of stagnation.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close