Has China Already Flown a Space Plane?

garymortimer writes that according to a report published by China Aviation Journal, "China has successfully launched its own space plane prototype; the news came out shortly after the US Air Force announced the successful test of their advanced X37B space plane. This story has now been deleted. Hong Kong's Ming Pao daily on Tuesday said Shaanxi TV last Saturday quoted acting provincial governor Zhao Zhengyong as saying China has 'succeeded in the test flight of a prototype aircraft that can fly through the atmospheric layer.' Zhao was visiting a state-run aircraft corporation at Xi'an high-tech industrial development zone."

Comments

Hermes?

[MichaelSmith]

China’s “Hermes” Space Plane: A December 16 photo shows a model of the Shenlong and a new model of the Chinese “Hermes” space plane. China has made significant progress toward the development of an unmanned trans-atmospheric vehicle and a Space Plane. Beijing’s technological advancement has obvious commercial and scientific uses, however the military significance of the plane cannot be denied.

But Hermes was a European vehicle. Sounds like somebody in China has been cutting and pasting, and has a bad case of the mee toos.

Re:Hermes?

[rsmith-mac]

Sweet crested myna of China! Someone find the Professor before they steal him too!

Re:Hermes?

[Sulphur]

But Hermes was a European vehicle. Sounds like somebody in China has been cutting and pasting, and has a bad case of the mee toos.

Sounds Xi'antific.

Re:Hermes?

[funwithBSD]

It was old footage from Capricorn One.

Re:Hermes?

[roc97007]

I'm thinking Marooned (1969).

Top Gun

[WED Fan]

To prove this, the Chinese news agency used clips from the movie "Airplane II".

Re:Top Gun

[ddd0004]

In related news, China has also developed a wise cracking robot car and placed it in the body of a Trans-am. In addition to this exciting development, they have found a dead ringer for David Hasselhoff only he's 30 years younger.

Re:Top Gun

[Syberz]

Think bigger, this is China we're talking about!

Here's a pic of their spaceplane.

Re:Top Gun

[ayvee]

Wait, there was a second one? *scuttles off*

Re:Top Gun

[Phoghat]

And the space plane is controlled by a Chinese iClone

Yes

[Mike Mentalist]

Yes. I mean no. I mean... I don't know.

What was the question again?

Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[antifoidulus]

China's space technology is pretty much a verbatim copy of the Russian stuff(and ever since Russia realized what China was doing with technology it lent China to go to space, China hasn't been back there. Not a coincidence in my opinion). So if Russia has a space plane then maybe China has one, otherwise I doubt it.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia had a space plane (Buran), but I don't know if they were speaking to China at the time (the Soviet Union and China fell out in the early 1970s, and Buran ran from 1974 until 1993). Buran itself never achieved that much - its one orbital flight was unmanned.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[AmiMoJo]

Why do you assume they are incapable of developing anything themselves? Maybe the reason they copy other nation's technology is to catch up in the shorted time possible. That doesn't mean they don't have talented people who can build on those designs.

Just look at some of the high end audio gear they are producing over there. I have a pair of PK1 headphones which surpass all other in-ear buds IMHO. They do some damn good amps and DACs too. These are not copies of other countries designs, they are original Chinese products.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[Jafafa Hots]

Yes, Russian has... or rather had.
Not only did they have the Buran shuttle copy which flew once and landed unpiloted, they also has some small delta-wing vehicles launched on expendable rockets in the lat 1970s and early 1980s, built to float and recovered at sea. Either photo spy program or developmental tests for Buran tech or both...not sure.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[Ephemeriis]

China's space technology is pretty much a verbatim copy of the Russian stuff(and ever since Russia realized what China was doing with technology it lent China to go to space, China hasn't been back there. Not a coincidence in my opinion). So if Russia has a space plane then maybe China has one, otherwise I doubt it.

Just because they've been copying Russia's space technology doesn't mean they're incapable of developing their own. Ever hear the phrase "don't re-invent the wheel"? We IT folks routinely re-use other people's code where we can, and then write our own where we can't?

Regardless, Russia did have some space plane-ish stuff. The Buran comes to mind...

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[JasterBobaMereel]

The Buran was Russia's answer to the Space Shuttle ... except they saw it was pointless earlier than the USA and only did the test flight to prove it worked then scrapped it and went back to rockets ....

They now have more efficient rocket motors, a more reliable launch system, and a 10 year head start on long duration space habitation .... the USA has the Shuttle which it is now (finally) getting rid of ...

Space planes were the solution to a problem that no longer exists, much like the U2, SR52, and Concorde ...

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[filthpickle]

SR71 I think you meantersay

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[brusk]

(the Soviet Union and China fell out in the early 1970s

Early 60s, actually.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[kenrblan]

Unless the SR52 was a super secret plane that combined the bombing payload of a B-52 with the high altitude and velocity of the SR-71. Now, that would be an impressive aircraft.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[Ihmhi]

Everybody steals from everybody else; China's just the worst at hiding it.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[funwithBSD]

that was the YF-2, a weaponized version of the SR-71. Really, it was a fighter/interceptor, not a bomber.

I used to have a conceptual art poster of it from Lockheed.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[SDF-7]

Pretty sure you meant the YF-12A, not YF-2.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[operagost]

The U-2 is still active.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[slick7]

that was the YF-2, a weaponized version of the SR-71. Really, it was a fighter/interceptor, not a bomber.

I used to have a conceptual art poster of it from Lockheed.

What is aYF2? Do you mean the SR-71 forerunner, YF-12A ? The SR was never weapon-ized. It did, however, carry an . unmanned reconnaissance vehicle.
The initial flight dynamics testing was performed in the 10 x 10 SWTat NASA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio back in the mid 50's. One note that is not really explained is that it has no top end, only operational limits. This is still the fastest non-orbital craft ever. It will continue to increase its speed to engine failure.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[slick7]

The U-2 is still active.

So is the SR-71.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[shutdown -p now]

The original Soviet atomic bomb was also a direct copy of US one, because that was the fastest way to get started, and time was of utmost importance. That didn't preclude Soviets from developing their own self-sustainable nuclear weapons program from there.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[damnfuct]

Plus, you have to justify all that espionage somehow.. :)

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now name something from the last 1000 years.
 
You can't; their culture suppresses creativity. Thought is controlled far to much and anything that goes against The Powers That Be is crushed. Establish order must be torn down every generation or society cannot advance, and that simply isn't possible in china.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[arivanov]

Russia had multiple space plane projects:

Buran - which the entire USSR space industry loved to hate as it was contrary to what they wanted to develop and done as a tit-a-tat with the shuttle

Multiple early Buran prototypes - much smaller, but closer to what is on the "Chinese" picture. Some flew unmanned for at least some test flights. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/maks_2.jpg other media can be found around the web

Mig 105/Spiral - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105

Uragan Space Interceptor - rumoured to be a 105 on steroids - http://www.astronautix.com/craft/uraeptor.htm

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[arivanov]

One more actually.

LKS by Chelomey

So that makes at least 5 projects, some of which have been launched.

Re:Depends, have the Russians flown a space plane?

[JasterBobaMereel]

Yes SR71, My Dyscalculia strikes again ....

It's was the SR-72 Blackbird, like the U3 Spyplane, F-23 Raptor, F-36 Lightning etc ...

Top Gun

[willodotcom]

Sure this wasn't from a movie as well?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12321492

uhhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the news came out shortly after the US Air Force announced the successful test of their advanced X37B space plane, which is widely regarded as a next-generation super weapon that is even more dangerous than atomic bomb"

right guys
this is definitely a story that needs to be taken seriously!

Re:uhhh...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

"the news came out shortly after the US Air Force announced the successful test of their advanced X37B space plane, which is widely regarded as a next-generation super weapon that is even more dangerous than atomic bomb"

right guys this is definitely a story that needs to be taken seriously!

Which one, the "Chine space plane" one, or the "next-generation super weapon that is even more dangerous than atomic bomb" one?

Interesting idea

[allaunjsilverfox2]

If they manage to militarize space, commerce might begin in full force. Sadly, you don't get the kind of focus you need on something unless it has military applications. If you can get a nation to make a outpost in space, we're free and clear as far as surviving a major disaster.

Re:Interesting idea

[ArcherB]

If they manage to militarize space, commerce might begin in full force. Sadly, you don't get the kind of focus you need on something unless it has military applications. If you can get a nation to make a outpost in space, we're free and clear as far as surviving a major disaster.

An outpost in space is worthless until it becomes self sustaining. If you destroy a country that has space outposts, you will suddenly have those space outposts begging the victorious country for supplies to survive or a ride home.

Your statement is mostly correct however. It should read:

If you can get a nation to make a self sustaining outpost in space, we're free and clear as far as surviving a major disaster.

Re:Interesting idea

[DNS-and-BIND]

Gosh, we seem to have military bases everywhere that require resupply and are not self sustaining. It's called logistics and it is something that has been part of the art of warfare since the first man picked up the first rock.

Re:Interesting idea

[d0nster]

I think it depends on what kind of disaster we have and where the self sustaining outpost is. If the disaster is that our solar system is bombarded by enough gamma rays to kill all life on earth and our outpost is on the moon, we're still extinct.

Re:Interesting idea

[vegiVamp]

True. The logistics of "100km east" are rather less complex than those of "100km up", however. Also, if said disaster is indeed so major as to make space outposts a major asset, it is reasonable to assume that the home nation can no longer provide those logistics.

Re:Interesting idea

[ceoyoyo]

I think you missed his point. In order to have a space outpost work in a survival of the species situation after a planet wide disaster, it has to be self sustaining. A regular old dozen cargo flights a day military base isn't going to be much use in that situation, even if it is in space.

The regular military logistics problem with space bases is that the supply line is necessarily very long and tenuous. It's not that hard to disrupt rocket flights and you wouldn't have to do so very long to put a space military base out of operation. It's also an important maxim in the art of warfare for a very long time that you want your supply lines as short and secure as possible.

Re:Interesting idea

[cyn1c77]

An outpost in space is worthless until it becomes self sustaining. If you destroy a country that has space outposts, you will suddenly have those space outposts begging the victorious country for supplies to survive or a ride home.

You need to read about the concept of mutually-assured destruction.

Re:Interesting idea

[Plekto]

But using this as a platform to work your way to a base on the Moon is a viable plan. Oh, wait - China already says that it has plans for exactly this sort of thing.

We ran out of money and have nothing. We're *so* repeating the collapse of the British Empire that it's not funny any more. At this point, we simply should give up and maybe with the EU we can manage something together. Spending money on something that we can't possibly beat the Chinese in any more when we're about to go belly-up is simply absurd.

Re:Interesting idea

[ceoyoyo]

A base on the moon is pretty useless militarily, is a far worse logistics problem, and would still need to be self sustaining, which is highly unlikely for a long time, if it were to be any use as a species lifeboat.

Re:Interesting idea

[funwithBSD]

China can make a self sustaining moonbase.

They will just keep shipping dissidents up there until an atmosphere forms.

Re:Interesting idea

[Plekto]

A base on the Moon is out of range of conventional missiles and weapons, allows for effortless spying, can be easily hardened against an attack, and if you build most of it underground, creating a self-sustaining ecosystem isn't that unreasonable as there's tons of room. Also, we are finding out that aside from the radiation and micro-meteorite blasted "eggshell" exterior layer, the Moon is pretty much normal rock and dirt underneath. There's even water and it appears to also have a small internal heat source/liquid core. So if we dig down deep enough, we'll have no issues with heat and/or power, either. Also, low gravity is dozens of times better for our bodies than none at all as all you'd have to do is wear weighted suits to keep your muscles in reasonable shape.

Space is a massive problem by comparison. One small nudge or one errant bit of debris and there's a hole and a massive problem. One small explosive or missile and it's doomed. A base on the Moon could easily be build as tough and as resistant to external forces as a typical bunker(if we're talking in the next hundred or so years as a "lifeboat") Remember, when it hits the fan, low orbit will be a literal ring of debris and exploded ordinance that will effectively stop us from even getting into space for a couple of decades. There's zero possibility that in a worst case scenario that they would not target everything and anything that their missiles could reach.

Re:Interesting idea

[ceoyoyo]

If you can get people to the moon you can certainly send a missile there. If someone built a military base on the moon it wouldn't take long before everyone else built missiles that could hit it. And nukes aren't such a big deal on the moon either.

But supposing you did build a base on the moon. If it's supposed to be a military base it's pretty much useless because, as you point out, it's a long way away. There's nothing like launching a nuclear strike and giving your enemy three days to notice and retaliate.

Building a self-sustaining ecosystem is hard. We've never managed to do it, despite several tries, right here on Earth. Doing it on the moon, with the cost of shipping stuff up is MUCH harder. Currently we don't even have the ability to make oxygen on the moon in a sustainable way. Some theories and small scale demonstrations yes, but nothing you'd bet your life on. So as a lifeboat, a moonbase would still have to be self sustaining to be any use, and that's a LONG way away.

Re:Interesting idea

[SunSw0rd]

Not exactly true that we have never built self-sustaining ecosystems -- if you mean an enclosed environment that can produce its own air. Submarines have been able to do this for a very long time. Just add water and electricity.

Re:Interesting idea

[Plekto]

Yet, suppose that you dug out a several mile cavern (or found a large set of caverns)? You simply can't do that in space. If there's heat, water, and light that we add, it being self-sustaining becomes much easier. There are plenty of examples of self-sustaining ecosystems on Earth that can be found in caves. Our idiocy is trying to build it all in a small sealed dome. Of course if you could make it several miles across it would be easier to accomplish.

Yes, it could be hit by a missile, but it also would have several days advanced notice of the incoming rocket. Which only a couple of nations have the ability to build. While a normal missile can hit a satellite, virtually none can send a decent sized payload as far as the Moon. If the main area is a few miles underground, nothing will penetrate anyways.

http://www.appletravel.cn/news-10166.html
So far, we've made a 20km cave here on Earth. All we have to do on the Moon is dig and dig some more. It can even be done by robots for the most part. Of course, if we could find a stable cave underground, it would simplify things greatly.

Re:Interesting idea

[rufty_tufty]

But the fall of the British empire lead to America's rise.
America's rise got man on the moon so...
What is China's rise going to give us? Something equally awesome hopefully.

And let's face it the UK isn't doing too bad at the moment, it might not be a world leader anymore, but being an also-ran isn't too bad...

Re:Interesting idea

[mrchaotica]

Submarines have been able to do this for a very long time. Just add water and electricity.

You forgot food and fuel.

"Self-sustaining" means your submarine would have to be able to operate forever without being resupplied.

Re:Interesting idea

[steeviant]

Submarines need to be resupplied with food and fuel (nuclear fuel rods or diesel) they are not self-sustaining just because they can stay underwater "indefinitely".

Indefinite becomes definite very quickly when the crew are starving to death because their food supply was cut off, or suffocating because they have no more fuel or batteries to surface.

Re:Interesting idea

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Gosh, we seem to have military bases everywhere that require resupply and are not self sustaining. It's called logistics and it is something that has been part of the art of warfare since the first man picked up the first rock.

Don't you mean: "since the first man picked up a couple of rocks and then climbed onto a really big rock."

Verified?

[worip]

Not knowing how independant the Chinese press is from the Chinese government - has anyone verified this independantly? How about any photos (besides from the plastic model in the article)?

Buzzing the ISS

[horza]

They seem to have deleted any videos. Perhaps this is linked to the fact when you do a frame capture and zoom in, through the cockpit window you can see Tom Cruise giving the bird?

Phillip.

Shuttle Replacement

[ticklish2day]

Do these space planes have the technology to be a viable space shuttle replacement?

Re:Shuttle Replacement

[northernfrights]

No, they are too small to carry a significant payload or people, and are designed to operate right at the edge of the atmosphere in a very low orbit.

Which atmosphere

[kombiman]

Most of those 'Father and son sent camera into space with a balloon' are not in space. And if it explodes does it go all Top Gun too?

how can believe anything outta china?

[arbiter1]

"A Chinese state news broadcaster has apparently been caught passing off dogfight footage from the Hollywood movie “Top Gun” as footage of China’s latest fighter jet destroying a target drone in a live fire exercise." ^ when they get busted trying that how could believe anything from their news agencies.

Re:how can believe anything outta china?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Uhh...the Western media has been busted many, many times doing the same thing. All the big names: CNN, AP, NYT, you name it. It's just that, surprisingly, stories like this aren't given much publicity in...the Western media.

Re:how can believe anything outta china?

[francium de neobie]

It happens a lot more than you think. Very often when reporters interview someone, take photos, or take in news materials from another party - the materials on their hand aren't sufficient for them to tell a good story. In that case they'd have to improvise by e.g. adding their own interpretations to make the story complete, and by extension they may add in their own materials as well.

What happened at CCTV can be something like this.. reporter got military footage on flying fighter planes, but no explosion or no good explosion. Reporter wants to make a convincing story on how awesome these new J-10 planes are. Reporter adds in Top Gun footage to make it look awesome.

Now I'm not saying CCTV's practice isn't shoddy - it is. But it's nothing new. Anyone having been interviewed by reporters would tell you the same thing - reporters DO add their own stuff in your story, get used to it.

Not Surprised

[shoehornjob]

They have been working on this for a while. I'll bet they don't have an X37B though. I find the quote at the bottom of the page a bit humorous though: "Man is a military animal, glories in gunpowder, and loves parade." P.J. Bailey. Can you say secret military satellite

weird sentence in article

[somersault]

the news came out shortly after the US Air Force announced the successful test of their advanced X37B space plane, which is widely regarded as a next-generation super weapon that is even more dangerous than atomic bomb

Whaaa? How so? If it was dropping a nuke I could see it being dangerous, but how is it more dangerous on its own? Covert information gathering?

Re:weird sentence in article

[Vectormatic]

it can server as an orbital weapons platform, at which point a simple metal bar suddenly becomes an very dangerous high energy kinetic weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

Re:weird sentence in article

[Bigbutt]

Yea. I'm reading Footfall again and that's what the Snouts were using. Essentially a crowbar with a maneuverable tail fin and a mini-brain to id and make subtle changes in direction.

[John]

Re:weird sentence in article

[somersault]

What size of blast radius would you be looking at with something like that?

Re:weird sentence in article

[Nadaka]

Somewhere between 1 meter and big enough that the moon can coalesce from the debris blasted out of the hole. Depending on the size of the bar and its speed.

Re:weird sentence in article

[biryokumaru]

<anecdotal evidence>

I heard that that particular project was never really taken very seriously inside the military. I mean, we explore everything, and that was just another option to explore.

</anecdotal evidence>

The obvious logistical problem of putting a really freakin' heavy hunk of metal up in space aside (and it has to be big enough to have something left when it makes it through the atmosphere at high velocity (why not slow it down? well, that would defeat the purpose, now wouldn't it?)), you now have a really giant, relatively slow-moving target up in space, and one that'll likely never be orbiting anywhere near above what you want to target when you want to target someplace.

Why not geosynchronous orbit? Well, your slow moving target just became a non-moving target. What, just put a butt-ton up there? Hello logistical nightmare issue again...

Additionally, we have enough trouble trying to figure out where our dummy return vehicles are going to land already, and to turn that into a precision strike? Ha!

Why not make it like the shuttle, maneuverable, right? Yes, let's spend as much on a single, non-exploding weapon as we spent on the shuttle... Hell, if it even cost half as much as the shuttle, to eliminate the problems of keeping pesky humans from toasting and just making it a problem of keeping pesky electronic controls from toasting, it'll still be cheaper just to hire an army to dig a big hole at the target instead.

Space to earth bombardment? Neat in theory, but it's still a lot cheaper just to blow people up. Projects like the space plane reduce some obstacles, but not by as much as you'd think. Until a cruise missile stops being 1/10th the cost of just putting something that heavy into space, it's not likely to happen.

Re:weird sentence in article

[Vectormatic]

the wiki link suggests 25 foot accuracy, and the X37B already has demonstrated ability to change its orbit multiple times. The upside of orbital bombardment would be that if you have a platform over target, time to impact is just a few minutes.

Also, i think an X37B is hardly a slow moving, easy to hit target, you would need a kill-vehicle (missile, heavy metal rod etc..) capable of reaching orbit, and it would need to cope with active avoidance/countermeasures from the target.

I still agree that it is a bit far-fetched and probably not very efficient in real world usage, but that is about the only scenario in which i can make any sense of the whole "spaceplane more dangerous then nuke" quote

That is footage from 2001

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Their claims are belied by the fact that the footage is taken from 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Only if their...

[alchemy101]

demonstration video doesn't show Bruce Willis in it!

The Art Of War

[pasv]

"All armies prefer high ground to low and sunny places to dark." - Sun Tzu. Space is the ultimate high ground, it's just a matter of time.

Re:The Art Of War

[tomhudson]

"All armies prefer high ground to low and sunny places to dark." - Sun Tzu. Space is the ultimate high ground, it's just a matter of time.

And all armies can be beaten by much smaller forces of guerillas who prefer the low and dark places where the armies can't operate.

Think of the tunnel rats in Viet nam, etc.

Re:The Art Of War

[ceoyoyo]

We may take it then that an army without its baggage train is lost; without provisions it is lost; without bases of supply it is lost. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Re:The Art Of War

[blackraven14250]

As it turns out, those tunnels in Vietnam were both supply lines and bases for said guerrillas.

Re:The Art Of War

[ceoyoyo]

Ha, sorry, I actually meant to reply to the guy you replied to.

Guerrillas do very well with supply lines even without tunnels, because they can usually depend on at least some of the populace to help out, and they're independent and sparse enough to make foraging practical. Space battle stations, not so much.

Even if you do occupy the "high ground" it's not worth much if the tunnel rats or a conventional military shoot down your supply rockets or bomb the launch facilities. Mountaintops are high ground too, but armies don't like to fight on them or occupy them.

Re:The Art Of War

[SteveFoerster]

For some reason my brain ended your Sun Tzu quote with Ricardo Montalbán saying, "It is very sunny... in spaaaaaaaace...."

Why was it pulled?

[_merlin]

I doubt they've flown it. They probably have a prototype they plan to fly, and a pre-written press release to print the moment it flies. They accidentally published it early, and had to pull it. Similar things have happened with other parts of various space programs.

has china allready flown a space plane?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, no, maybe

next question

dangerous?

[mijelh]

from TFA:

even more dangerous than atomic bomb

How is a space plane more dangerous than the atomic bomb?

Hyperbole much?

[bitrex]

"...the US Air Force announced the successful test of their advanced X37B space plane, which is widely regarded as a next-generation super weapon that is even more dangerous than atomic bomb."

Strictly speaking, the X-37B doesn't do much of anything in and of itself other than go round and round the Earth, so I'm not sure the above is exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Sure, why not?

[Vandil X]

The Chinese are actively developing their LEO space functionality. The US's own Mercury and Gemini astronauts were farmed from test pilots of extremely high altitude planes. Why wouldn't the Chinese do the same thing (high altitude planes) as part of developing their space science/talent?

Depends on What Plans They Have

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The answer to this question depends on what US spaceplane plans the Chinese have been able to either,
a) Obtain via espionage
b) Obtain via bribery/coercion
c) Obtain as part of a trade deal
d) Outright purchase
from designers in the US.

Basically my point is, like everything else nowadays, this plane was most likely designed in California, but built in Shanghai.

Re:Depends on What Plans They Have

[arisvega]

you missed e) they have actually built one themselves.

How can you underestimate 1.4e9 people like this? There are bound to be several brilliant engineers among them.

Even so, what if they start using it to

a) spy on you,

b) knock down your birds,

c) bomb you, or

d) all of the above,

what are you going to do, start crying out 'doesn't count', 'fake' and 'I'll sue you for copyright'? See how ridiculous this sounds?

Be more responsible, don't underestimate people.

Re:Depends on What Plans They Have

[arivanov]

Because they think positively as a matter of a 2000+ year tradition. Read Confucius and Kuhn before making such a comment for crying out loud.

Positive thinking innovative engineering and revolutionary science does not make.

You must think negatively and strongly dislike something which is in use today to produce something better for tomorrow. If you think positively about what you have today, you have no reason to make your brain look for something better. In fact as long as you continue thinking positively your brain will always at some instinctive level refuse to look into improving it. Further to this, in a positive thinking environments a paradigm shift - throwing out the old and bringing the new is guaranteed to be suppressed. You do not throw out the old and bring the new if you are thinking positively about it.

When they start thinking negatively about themselves, what they create, what they do, what they invent, etc they will start to create innovative stuff. Until then the list in the GP post is pretty much spot on.

What are US Government Bonds for ?

[axonis]

With trillions owing in US Government bonds, what sort of space program could you build with that ?, airport scanners and the TSA are the entry point for doods like Sir Richard to get his space flights on Galactic going from the US.... what would China charge for a Space flight ?, can you export it ? I'm sure Egypt would agree with China doing a few more sorties to get the Stargate back.

Re:What are US Government Bonds for ?

[nibbles2004]

i think the Egyptian government would want there star-gate back, they might need it need it quite soon

Made In China

[meyekul]

Well duh, where do they think our space plane was built?

Weapon?

[erixm]

From TFA: "...widely regarded as a next-generation super weapon that is even more dangerous than atomic bomb." Could anyone please explain that? I haven't read anything similar before.

Credible

[Konster]

Probably about as credible as this:

http://online.wsj.com/video/cctv-tries-to-pass-off-top-gun-clip-as-real/43EC0FC2-A440-4522-8E81-437EC747D30A.html

Pictures from Chinese television

[Penguin]

Following their recent pictures of their J-10 fighter aircraft here are the pictures of their prototype space craft:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/given/rb/tyd-door.jpg

Good time to wave goodbye to the space shuttle

[Viol8]

Why not just hand China the keys to manned spaceflight on a plate and be done with it?

Re:Good time to wave goodbye to the space shuttle

[The Grim Reefer2]

Why not just hand China the keys to manned spaceflight on a plate and be done with it?

Or even better, trade it for absolving the US debt.

Re:Good time to wave goodbye to the space shuttle

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Because compared to the current state of the U.S. space industry, China is decades behind. And if you don't believe that, then you've been reading too many sensationalist headlines. As someone who has been actively watching space industry jobs worldwide I can guarantee you that nobody, not even China, is employing as many folks in a Space industry as the U.S. government and various U.S. based commercial companies. China may be kicking our ass economically, but when it comes to space, we Americans are still top dogs.

Knowing how many of our military plans "leak..."

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

...I really have to wonder if this Chinese space plane has X37B on the fuselage but Krylon-ed over with primer.

Whose propaganda is this anyway?

[517714]

In the 1960's the US military-industrial complex consistently reported that the US was suffering a "Missile Gap" with the USSR claiming, falsely, that the US had less offensive nuclear armed missile capability. I wonder who has the most to gain from this type of report.

Re:Whose propaganda is this anyway?

[jgtg32a]

Question: Wasn't this found out to be the fact after the cold war? From my understanding USSR would make outrageous claims and the US treated it as fact, and would then build something.

We'd know

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Space planes are not exactly stealthy; heat emissions, contrails, etc., make them show up really clearly. Unless China managed to also make it the stealthiest plane ever designed, we'd know about it.

Re:We'd know

[fezzzz]

Yeah, but we will only be able to read it on wikileaks. One day.

Re:We'd know

[BJ_Covert_Action]

That's kind of what I was thinking. We pay attention to all of China's launch facilities (hell, you can read about every one of their launches on most space websites). You can't exactly keep a rocket launch under wraps. To the best of my knowledge, we have known well ahead of time which payloads were launched on which Chinese boosters. So, I would be really surprised if they somehow concealed an entire launch and/or payload from but the U.S. government and the very active space enthusiast news agencies.

Google cache?

[hcdejong]

If the original news articles were spidered before deletion, the information may still exist. I don't speak Chinese so I can't do much to try and find it though.

this article has more info incl 2 images.

Hermes?

[Zorpheus]

Funny that they give it the same name as the former european spaceplane prototype

Wait a second

[wernox1987]

Isn't the X-15 considered to be a space plane?

Re:is something wrong with the posting system?

[Seggybop]

Yep. =/

Re:Do not be alarmed!

[ArcherB]

All they have to do is look at what has happened in the last 10 years to figure out that it doesn't pay at all the invade other countries. You lose friends and lots of money in the process and people hate you and get absolutely nothing in return.

Whether true or not, history would disagree. Nearly every time a country becomes an economic and military force to be reckoned with, they start getting visions of world domination. I would say the US is an exception. Granted, we use our military pretty freely, but not to take ownership of foreign lands. Well, at least not since we expanded to the Pacific coast anyway, but that was well before our post WWII rise to become a world power.

Get a grip, folks

[Ancient_Hacker]

"Flying" a "space plane" is a meaningless accomplishment, even if it happened.

It takes a spitload of details, gotten exactly right, to make a safe, practical, reliable aerospace gadget.

The history of development of every thing that zooms has been fraught with a long if not also steep learning curve.
It took many tries for the USA to get the X-15 working smoothly.
Look up how many years the C-5A, C141, B-58, Atlas, B-1, and Patriot were in "development". Count up how many of those had to go back to the factory after a year to get new wings.

Anybody can put some metal on a booster and call it a "space plane". That does not make it one.

Test flight might not mean what you think it does.

[jbeaupre]

The US flew lots of space plane prototypes. Most of the X-plane series way back when. We'd strap them to a B-52 and drop them. Not hard to do compared to sending them to orbit.

As a matter of fact, Branson is doing the same thing privately.

Re:Do not be alarmed!

[biryokumaru]

As a note here, I think our western expansion was all land purchased from empires that didn't really want to have to manage it anymore, unless I'm mistaken. So, even then, we hardly did anything like conquest.

Of course, to be fair, those empires basically conquered the native folks already living there. But, still, we didn't conquer. We just subjugated.

Re:Test flight might not mean what you think it do

[stiggle]

US X designation is just "experimental" rather than "space plane" so the X-35 became the F-35.

Test flights - mean just that. A flight to test various systems.

So the Chinese space planes successful test flight just means they've dropped it from a bomber and its flight characteristics have been tested and it landed. No space re-entry just yet.

Re:how can believe anything outta Fox?

[tekrat]

By the same token, Fox News tried to show a packed rally for Glenn Beck, and it became obvious that the footage was from different events with different weather conditions.

So China is as guilty as any other news organization. I don't believe much coming out of Fox, MsNbc, Cnn, or any other news agency that believes that ratings are more important than truth.

Re:Test flight might not mean what you think it do

[LWATCDR]

Actually a few of the X-Planes where "Space planes" in any real sense. The X-2 and the X-15 could possibly qualify and long the X-24. The X series explored everything from extreme high speeds, variable geometry wings, vertical take off, super maneuverability, to VSTOL. That being said the Shuttle is a "space plane" and it a product of late 60s to early 70's technology. So China I guess maybe could have started work on one... Welcome to 1969 China at least they will have better avionics than we did in the 70s.

Re:HAil China!

[jgtg32a]

.... You do realize that US troops are in Korea because of China right?

Re:how can believe anything outta Fox?

[poity]

What was the point of your comment really? The worst of our media outlets do it therefor nothing needs to be said about this story? In a story about Chinese media's claims to their supposed leaps in space technology, someone brings up Chinese media's most recent fakes as a way of framing the conversation. As dubious as Fox and CNN are, they still have nothing to do with this story.
Slashdot: Off-topic comments rated off-topic except comments critical of anything from the US, then it doesn't matter how off-topic they are.
Mods don't waste your points on me.

Re:And note:

[Kagura]

And please note: a faster bar > bigger bar, because of ½mv^2.

That's not what that means. You don't know what you're talking about.

Sputnik in more ways than you think!

[bedwards]

The Sputnik Moment happened because it meant the Soviets could bypass every defence a country could provide, and detonate an atomic weapon at any point on the earth's surface. as soon as that was realised NATO was united by one doctrine - "We need a space based capability equal or surpassing that of an offensive soviet force - NOW!"

What's important is not whether the China has achieved a space plane launch, but their apparent intentions:

Chinese military analysts clarify that a Space plane will definitely form the basis for a space combat platform. This space combat platform will be intended to attack targets on Earth or it could carry out counter-space combat missions. China is aggressively pursuing air-breathing hypersonic propulsion technologies, which will provide additional avenues to develop very rapid long-range “deep strike” weapons.

Although there are various treaties set out during the cold war to limit the military exploitation of space, China would appear to be focussing on offensive capabilities. Cant help but wonder who they imagine the target of these offensive capabilities to be. One thing is for sure; we in the west need an offensive space based warfare and deep strike force equal or surpassing that of an offensive Chinese force - NOW!

---
I actively oppose many if not the majority of US policies - and do the same to the policies of my own country - the UK. Especially the draconian "anti-terror" laws brought in recently to curb our freedoms and liberties in the name of a largely exaggerated threat - but the thought of a country like China having this capability is genuinely frightening!

Re:Do not be alarmed!

[TheEyes]

As a note here, I think our western expansion was all land purchased from empires that didn't really want to have to manage it anymore, unless I'm mistaken. So, even then, we hardly did anything like conquest.

Of course, to be fair, those empires basically conquered the native folks already living there. But, still, we didn't conquer. We just subjugated.

Texas, California, and all the land in-between was annexed as spoils of the Spanish-American War.

Civilization

[slycrel]

This reminds me of close to end game in civilization, where the AI who has been antagonistic to you pretty well all game catches up technologically with you and passes you in some branches while you're off doing other tech advancements. Isn't always a bad thing, but can be devastating if you're not paying attention to it, and definitely something important.

Stealth fighter, Space Plane ....

[fygment]

.... believe it when you see it at an international airshow held in an credible country. Otherwise ...

Re:Test flight might not mean what you think it do

[rerogo]

You appear to be right in the specific case, (which surprised me), but you're completely wrong in the general case. Most prototypes are given Y designations. For example, the F-22 started life as the YF-22, while the X-22 is a V/STOL technology demonstrator, not an air superiority fighter.