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.
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.
Haolong (Score:1, Funny)
Re: Haolong (Score:2)
Haolong did it take for them to build it?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if 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
Hinges (Score:3)
They stole our IP...oh yes they did!! (Score:3)
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!!
Re:They stole our IP...oh yes they did!! (Score:4, Funny)
Hao long will it take for people to make that claim?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:2)
actually, they belong to the golden age of scifi, so what was your point?
were you raised to be insulting or did you come up with that on your own? just asking
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re:They stole our IP...oh yes they did!! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying we need an orbital economy to make an orbital economy feasible.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: They stole our IP...oh yes they did!! (Score:3)
Re: They stole our IP...oh yes they did!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bunko Artiste already is claiming Taiwan stole America's chip making foo.
They may have done so, but they were much better at it. Why?
Because caucasians are just too damn tall. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No engines in the rear. In this respect it's more like the Dream Chaser or the Russian Buran than the Space Shuttle. Like X-37 or Dream Chaser, it's launched by a separate booster (presumably a Long March, although the articles I've seen in English don't make that specific). That's the docking port in the back, not engines.
The design pulls elements from several different designs, but isn't a copy of any of the previous spaceplanes.
Re: Clone ... (Score:2, Troll)
All these different space companies keep coming up with completely different designs.
SpaceX: A huge rocket with a giant second stage with heat shields and flaps to skydive with
NASA: A small space plane with that launches on top of a rocket with small wings and normal aircraft control surfaces.
Rocket lab: a rocket with an incredibly light second stage that can be treated as effectively disposable, with a first stage that envelops it and returns to launch site.
Stoke Space: a multi chamber engine that can fire
Space Shuttle it is not. (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the lunch system? In the cafeteria, where else?
Re: (Score:2)
Not clear why this would be beneficial at all.
Uh...it might be cheaper to send back people and cargo in one ship?
Re: (Score:2)
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?).
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Lunch (Score:2)
Mmm, lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Launch, sure, stupid language. Have fun, eat some lunch while I launch ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
No scale (Score:2)
Haolong is it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "convergent engineering", if you're going to design something like a spacecraft or submarine simple physics forces everyone to come up with a similar design.
The US doesn't seem to be able to copy much tech from China, we have too much cruft of "installed base" in place and capitalism demands that it be utilized until completely amortized. Their electrical grid for example is decades ahead of ours, their cellular system is far superior with real 5G rather than our "marketing-speak" 5G, incredibl
Re: when do we get to copy something from China? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So does the US, but China executes corrupt officials whereas we send ours to Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
Rocketry was invented in China. As were guns and handguns.
Re: (Score:2)
true... anything in the last 100-300 years?
first recorded use of rocketry was in the 1300's....
(guns and hand guns are a natural progression from that development so not sure they can be counted individually)
and i don't mean this as trolling (which apparently the original post is viewed as)... but genuinely.. in the last 100 years... when it comes to technology and innovation... it really is odd to me how one sided it has been. Any meaningful innovation (5G as an example) has been thanks to a multinationa
Re: (Score:1)
Seems you know nothing about China.
They are the most innovative country.
EVs
Batteries
Energy Storage Systems
Solar Cells
Industrial Robots
Internet - WiFi - G5
Fusion Research
Space Exploration
Stealth Fighters
Re: (Score:2)
EVs - name one single innovation worth copying? design specs for motors and batteries are copies from EU and US designs. Like wise for automation tech (i.e. Robo taxies)Their only selling point is price... build quality is horrendous.... and underlying tech/software was stolen.
Batteries - see above
Energy Storage Systems - see above
Solar Cells - they are manufacturing.. not innovating, please don't confuse the two
Industrial Robots - see all of above
Internet - WiFi - G5 - 5G was a multi national effort wher
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry.
You are uninformed or an idiot.
Chinese cars are lightyears ahead from European or American EVs.
And the battery tech is LIPh ... no one in Europe or US is using that.
If someone produces something "better" then it is innovative, e.g. the above mentioned solar panels.
The rest of your stuff is just bollocks. Chinese are not dumping. How would that work in such gigantic volumes of products.
They are they beyond the time when they "copied". They are the most innovative country on the planet.
And looking at ot
Re: (Score:2)
Sust going to say this to the one actual point you made- Look up who and where LFP (LiPH) was invented - North America.. and them made commercially viable in North Ameria... China's companies were the ones that jumped on the tech and incorporated it into their products magically when the patents were expiring (2022).
And no, LFP batteries are not solely in Chinese EV's... they're also in the lower end Teslas, and amongst multiple other products.
On a personal note - please maybe consider watering down the pro
Re: (Score:1)
Does not matter where they were invented.
Point is: China is leading in world production.
So they at least invented how to mass produce them.
Stupid China haters ;)
Re: (Score:2)
But they didn't even do that. It was a group at a university in Montreal, Canada that made it commercially viable (how to mass produce)... you have literally gotten everything backwards... even the definition of "innovate", and "copy"... which i do need to thank you for the laughs.. needed those chuckles.
You've managed to call me an idiot, uninformed, and a China hater.. mostly agree on the first two.. definitely wrong on the latter. Have nothing against China, The People are fine. The governments policie
Re: (Score:1)
I think you have gotten everything backward. But up to you.
Glad you are not a China hater, there are to many of them!
It could happen to us any day (Score:2)
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
X-37 clone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right, yep, they can't invent anything.
How many Chinese-made parts are in your computer. And your phone. And your car?