Slashdot Mirror
China To Launch Second Manned Mission
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. "
I can see my wall from up here!
air and light and time and space
Because when unmanned missions fail, equipment dies; when manned missions fail, people die?
The problem with chinese space travel, is 30 minutes later you want to go into space again.
Don't know how good this source is, but:
Here is something from Global Security 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.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
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.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
And in China, no one will notice if they don't come back. (laugh, I'm not serious...)
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'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou
Might want to double-check your link next time.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
He was destined to go into the space exploration field.
PS - Yes, yes, I know Sun in Chinese means "grandson". Cheap joke, I know.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
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!
How good are Chinese hydrogen fuel sensors? Just wondering...
"Made in China" is on everything else in this country, so just checking.
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.
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.
The article says that they'll 'venture into outer space'. Isn't it just 'space', not 'outer space'??
It would be nice if China had some kind of realization when their astronauts are up in space, flying around the Earth, looking down on a fragile ball, without any borders visible on the 'map' - that we are all one people, one race, one world.. a very fragile and exceedingly precious world.. here in our tiny, five mile thick zone of comfort, balanced between a world that is very very cold (space) and one that is very very hot.. (magma)
But instead, the Chinese that I have spoken to don't see this as some kind of triumph for mankind and instead, see it as 'catching up with America' - a continuation of what has become a national obsession.. Of course, they are catching up with America in 1963.. (which was catching up to the then-USSR a year earlier) but...
Ultimately, I think its a good thing.. The space cooperation between the US and the USSR was clearly, in retrospect a BIG thing in improving the relations between our two countries.. It may have saved us from a nuclear war during those years..
Now I'm praying that we don't end up in one in the 21st century.. Seems like both China and the US are currently ruled by the same kinds of idiots.. the kind that doesnt mind seeing millions of people die if its good for profits..
But.. any scientist could tell them.. IT WONT BE..
As Einstein said "We can't tell you what weapons World War III will be fought with, but we can tell you that World War IV, IF THERE IS ONE will be fought with sticks an arrows..
If we live to see it.. if the human race survives..
Just say NO..
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_! The whole time China is trying to grow to "catch up", the USA will be growing too. In fact, if you look at the CIA World Factbook, there is not one other single nation that even comes close to the GDP of the USA. The #2 rank is the European Union which is like 25 seperate nations. If you take the average GDP of the whole EU it is only like $466,000,000,000 (466 billion) per nation per year. The USA does more than twice that per month!
Maybe it is time to stop all this "China is catching up" paranoia.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
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.)
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.
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 be required for an unmanned rocket, which makes it cheaper to launch. Expendable missions are that cheap and cost-efficient today. In future with further development of reuseable vehicles, it could be a day when manned vehicles would be far more efficient and norm someday. (Or one can only dream...)
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
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
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 without affecting their own. Blowing them up might cause large debris fields that are a danger to their own satellites. Maned missions could be sent up do attach de-orbiting rockets or more simply, spray paint the lenses and break off the antennae.
A US military without satellites has limited recognisance, communications, and command and control abilities. Some soldiers won't even know where they are.
I think the frightening thing for the US is that they won the cold war by simply outspending the USSR. With China's incredible growth it not many years before the opposite situation could occur.
Of course, Einstein didn't use caps, and he spelled properly, and he didn't even say that bit in caps if you want to be really picky, but you know.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
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
**Life is too short to be serious**
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 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.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
n.
cue2
n.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network