Chinese Launch 4th Shenzhou

Heartbreak writes "Spaceref and others are reporting that China has launched its fourth and possibly final unmanned test of the Shenzhou capsule atop one of their Long March missiles---with a possible manned orbital flight to follow next year. The Shenzhou appears to be essentially a larger and more maneuverable version of the venerable Russian Soyuz. Aside from a boost to Chinese national pride, the point of duplicating Soviet space achievements of the '70's and '80's escapes me. Will they eventually send four men to the moon?"

Comments

Yes, the point seems to have escaped you.

[Ouroboro]

Aside from a boost to Chinese national pride, the point of duplicating Soviet space achievements of the '70's and '80's escapes me. Will they eventually send four men to the moon?"

The point is that they don't have their own manned launch vehicle. If they want to have any sort of manned space program, they need to start somewhere, and why not with a proven design. You have to realize that given their current standing in the world it would probably be hard for them to rent out time on the space shuttle, which is the only other currently viable option for getting your ass into space. Unless you count in the gondola of a high altitude baloon.

Re:Yes, the point seems to have escaped you.

[Ouroboro]

Notice how the "capsule" is nicely affixed to the top of a "missle".

A couple of questions, and a point:

• Where would you want to affix the "capsule" to a missile. It seems to me that the top has been established as the appropriate position. If you have a design to allow the suspension of the capsule underneath the missile, I would suggest you get that patented as soon as possible. ;)
• What else would you expect them to affix a capsule to the top of. A catapult? Would you be happier if they had called it a rocket, or a launch vehicle?
• Placing quotes around something only makes you look like a "sarcastic bastard", and doesn't really help to make your point.

Short-sighted

[duffbeer703]

70's technology like the Space shuttle and Delta rockets are sending US payloads into space every day. The Soyuz spacecraft is/was providing essential supply replenishment missions to the ISS on a monthly basis.

Dismissing a technology because it is old is a dumb idea -- the technology behind the Soyuz is tested and reliable, and I'm sure that the improvements the Chinese make will modernize the platform further.

If NASA had invested billions in refurbishing the Space Shuttle, rather than squandering billions on a "Space Plane" that does the same thing as the shuttle, we'd probaly have a cheaper, more effective and more efficient space shuttle today.

Re:Short-sighted

[medcalf]

If NASA had invested billions in refurbishing the Space Shuttle, rather than squandering billions on a "Space Plane" that does the same thing as the shuttle, we'd probaly have a cheaper, more effective and more efficient space shuttle today.

True, but you have to go back further. If NASA had developed out the Saturn series further, and had worked on getting truly low-cost access to space (like this, perhaps), we would have a good heavy-lift booster (and the capability to use it to get to and supply the Moon and Mars) and cheap manned access to space. The Shuttle is a disaster in every way except as a technology demonstrator.

Not duplicating, superceding

[apsmith]

The Russians have the only space tourism business going right now, based on very old (and reliable) Soyuz technology. The Chinese design is apparently an improvement - they mention better heat shields for one thing. Note also that the Russian Soyuz capsules are only rated for 6 months in space and haven't gone beyond low Earth orbit; the Chinese have stated plans to to a bit more than that...

Slashdot and anti-China

[jman11]

What is it with bringing down China on /. at the moment? It seems that due to China being behind the USoA and Europe that everything it tries to do, in a technological sense (see the Dragon chip comments), is demeaned as being about Chinese ego and sticking it to the West.

The comments of "it's already been done - yeah by us!" and that "they should just use Company X's shit" seem to be bandied about with gay abandon.

There are very good reasons for China to try and develop their own technologies, and for the most part they aren't about ego. More than what follows, but these are a couple.

• One is self sufficiency: China has been a terribly unpopular country and to be secure doesn't want to be absolutely dependant on the USoA and EU for it's survival. In fact all countries do this for various items, it shouldn't be surprising that the world's largest does it too.
• Another is that 1 billion people live in China and surely they could make a contribution to technology, but first you have to catch up to where everyone is. You can't catch up just by copying; you just have to develop it yourself. Do they teach automotive engineers how to designa car by showing them a Ferrari and saying "OK improve that?" No, they get them to design dinky little things and learn about what has already been done by others.
• Also Western technology isn't always that good or the best. Maybe someone in China doesn't like the failure rates, maybe they don't like the implementation, hell maybe they just don't like the colour. For whatever reason some one in China thinks they can do it better and tries.
• And this is the ultimate. Maybe one day in the future they won't have to put up with the sanctimonious crap from the USoAians and EUians.

That's right, the continual we are better than you from the EU and the USoA. Where's the huge stink that the EU is putting up a GPS system when the USoA already has one there. What about all those dickheads in the EU (and some in the USoA) trying to build a new OS, we've already got a great one that is ubiquitous. That's right this is the EU, the EU is advanced and can justify what they are doing. China isn't and can't.

Moderators, here's a tip. This disagrees with the majority opinion and is maybe a little controversial. So you must vote this "-1: Troll", rather than "+1:controversial" or "+1:thought provoking" (which you'll note are not options). Yeah and to end this note fork you.