Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space China

China Unveils 'Haolong' Space Shuttle (space.com) 60

A reusable uncrewed spaceplane was unveiled this week for delivering and returning cargo from the Chinese Tiangong space station. It was built by the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute (part of the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China). (See YouTube footage here...)

Long-time Slashdot reader Geoffrey.landis writes: Like the Sierra Space "Dream Chaser" [still under development], the vehicle is to be launched as a payload on a separate launch vehicle, and land horizontally on Earth on a runway. The design is aerodynamically a hybrid, incorporating features of both winged and lifting-body designs. A model of the Haolong will make its debut at the 15th "Airshow China", November 12 to 17 in Zhuhai.
"The China Manned Space Agency shortlisted the spacecraft as one of two proposed affordable cargo spacecraft designs," reports Aviation Week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Unveils 'Haolong' Space Shuttle

Comments Filter:
  • Haolong (Score:1, Funny)

    by SaBumNim ( 1336135 )
    Haolong, has this been goin' on?
  • by hubang ( 692671 ) on Sunday November 17, 2024 @12:00PM (#64952071)
    Those exterior hinges look odd to me. Seem like they'd create a lot of drag (and therefore heating) during re-entry. Probably just for use in a mock-up, but still.
  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Sunday November 17, 2024 @12:06PM (#64952085)

    I know it won't be long before I hear some fellas scream...

    "That's our IP...they stole it..."

    Even with no evidence! Huh!!

    • by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Sunday November 17, 2024 @12:11PM (#64952099)

      Hao long will it take for people to make that claim?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

        we've had forty years to build a real rotating space station and a moonbase, no surprise sooner or later someone would bypass us

        our greed destroyed our dreams

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          If NASA had maintained the minuscule 4% of the budget they maxed out at during the Apollo push they expected to be opening a moon base in the early to mid-80s. Instead the congresscritters decided that killing brown people (and its associated graft) was a higher priority than the future of our species. Predictable for a herd of lawyers, I guess.

          • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

            they had the budget, they spent it on expensive remote control 'probes' to take get date (pretty pictures) to use to get more funding

            not to even mention all the years of vanity science 'experiments' going on at the ISS

            we could have an orbital economy if NASA hadn't wasted it it on astronomically high salaries, benefits and pensions and all those unnecessary bureaucratic positions with built in tenure

            we built an earthbound bureaucracy, not a spacebase

            • by cusco ( 717999 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ybxib.nairb'> on Sunday November 17, 2024 @03:58PM (#64952533)

              No, they did **NOT** have the budget, after Apollo their budget collapsed by 90%, from 4% to 0.4% and has stayed stubbornly there. By Reagan's first term the military and intel agencies were spending more on space than NASA, now the five year-old Space Farce already has a 25% larger budget and as far as anyone can tell has done absolutely nothing of note.

              • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

                the fact is they still have a massive budget and they blew it, not to mention how the military could have easily financed this as well

                thanks for pointing that out

                we've been ripped off by far more than just one branch of 'our' government

            • by hey! ( 33014 )

              Why do you want an orbital economy? What do you think that would do for you that can't be done now?

              The economics of space travel is dominated by the cost of moving stuff out of gravity wells and changing its momentum and position. If there were a 100kg lump of pure platinum sitting in a known orbit between Mars and Jupiter, it wouldn't be economically worth going to get it. Not by *multiple orders of magnitude*.

              That's why the one commodity it makes sense to retrieve from space, given anything near our c

              • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

                we need an orbital assembly platform to assemble zero g vehicles, factories and habitats

                we need it to be economical so that it's not just a drain of government revenues and to ensure the long term growth and stability

                obviously

                please, step up the level of your criticism, this is all too easy

                • by hey! ( 33014 )

                  Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying we need an orbital economy to make an orbital economy feasible.

                  • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

                    which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

                    yes, we need to start the economic cycle so that it can continue to 'cycle'

                    momentum is a thing

                    • by hey! ( 33014 )

                      Why does there have to be a chicken? To answer *your* question, what comes first isn't a chicken or an egg. What comes first is an Asian jungle fowl that over the course of hundreds of generations of selective breeding becomes ever more chicken-like.

                      The same for a future space economy. You can't bootstrap it in any way that is financially justifiable. Instead you do thing things that are worth doing for other reasons, i.e., basic research. Otherwise you're putting people into space without even know

                    • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

                      basic research? we did that years ago

                      this is just rich kids playing with other people's money, as in classism and corruption

                      sure we can bootstrap it, with things in in orbital satalitte repairs and withinstenmtation platforms instead of independent sateliites

                      you don't seem like you're up to speed on this

                      the worst part is all the earthbound cowards draining the resources away from rel science real exploration and real development

                      greed and corruption are killing our society and they are killing us too, evil r

          • But then we would have stockpiled radioactive waste on the opposite side of the moon, it would have ignited, propelling the moon, along with the base and those on it, into deep space.
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      The Bunko Artiste already is claiming Taiwan stole America's chip making foo. To say he makes shit up is to give him too much credit, he is merely mouthing whatever zephyr is wafting through his brain at the time. Saw a good one, I think it was from TikTok, if the Bunko Artiste became infected with a brain eating microbe, the microbe would die of starvation.

  • by 4wdloop ( 1031398 ) on Sunday November 17, 2024 @01:34PM (#64952267)

    It's tiny-tiny (look at 0:25). Where is the lunch system? It is not the "Space Shuttle" comparison at all. It's just a crew/cargo module that can glide back to the surface. Not clear why this would be beneficial at all.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      10m long, 8m wide. Like the Buran, it will launch on the back of a rocket, it doesn't have main engines like the US Shuttle. It's called a "shuttle" because it glides to back to a runway landing, and is fully reusable. It's for cargo only.

      Very useful vehicle for getting stuff to their space station, and should be low cost since they are also developing reusable boosters on the same timeframe.

    • Where is the lunch system? In the cafeteria, where else?

    • Not clear why this would be beneficial at all.

      Uh...it might be cheaper to send back people and cargo in one ship?

      • No I mean, how is a glide back ship cheaper than, let's say a Dragon capsule. It may be, not saying it is not. Just how? Reusable Space Shuttle was not really less expensive than a disposable vehicle after all, as the whole program. Though, SpaceX proved a reusable rockets are cheaper (I guess mostly the gear in the engines?).

        • Ah! Is a "space plane" cheaper than a capsule? I would say that the answer depends on a few things.

          Consider that Crew Dragon lands in the ocean. So you need a ship to go pick it up and transport it. In theory, a "space plane" could land at the launch site, which decreases turn-around time and cost. While, in theory, a capsule could do the same thing, since they come down on parachutes, the accuracy may not be good enough.

          Also, there's usually less "G"s on landing, which could be worthwhile for returnin

          • Yup. Perhaps there is also a difference in weight? I'd think a glider, with wings and landing gear will be heavier. And it costs a slot to lift it all up? For a cargo delivery one could probably build an expandable capsule much cheaper?

    • Mmm, lunch.

    • by necro81 ( 917438 )
      It's a clone of the X-37B [wikipedia.org], which is often likened as a "mini" space shuttle. No crew capabilities, though.
  • Haolong is it?

  • Well, your friends with their fancy persuasion
    Don't admit that it's part of a scheme
    But I can't help but have my suspicions
    'Cause I ain't quite as dumb as I seem
    Haolong has this been Tiangong

  • Probably got the design plans from some spy in the USA.
    • by whitroth ( 9367 )

      Oh, right, yep, they can't invent anything.

      How many Chinese-made parts are in your computer. And your phone. And your car?

It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.

Working...