Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Completes First Space Docking Test

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-got-craft-in-my-lab dept.

MrSeb writes "China has joined two space vehicles together in orbit for the first time. The unmanned Shenzhou 8 craft, launched earlier this week, made contact with the Tiangong-1 space lab at 1729 GMT. The union occurred over China itself. Being able to dock two space vehicles together is a necessary capability for China if it wants to start building a space station towards the end of the decade."

72 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Fast track into space by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    China's certainly moving at a brisk pace. I expect they learned as much as they could from the US and Russia and are throwing their full weight behind it.

    Best of luck to them, but please be honest with your setbacks (you will have them) rather than attempt to snow the world media with tales of a program which makes no mistakes at all, ever.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Fast track into space by EdZ · · Score: 2

      Fast? They're already nearly a year late! The Leonov would beat them by miles even without a refueling stop at Europa.

    2. Re:Fast track into space by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China's certainly moving at a brisk pace.

      NASA:

      First manned flight: 1962
      First orbital rendevouz: 1965
      First orbital docking: 1966

      China:

      First manned flight: 2003
      First orbital docking: 2011

      I'd say more 'glacial' than 'brisk'

    3. Re:Fast track into space by damburger · · Score: 2

      A little unfair. Tiangong 1 is quite a bit more sophisticated than the Agena Target Vehicle, and Shenzhou 8 can perform an automated docking whilst Gemini could not.

      In any case, what is the rush?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Fast track into space by khallow · · Score: 1

      A little unfair. Tiangong 1 is quite a bit more sophisticated than the Agena Target Vehicle, and Shenzhou 8 can perform an automated docking whilst Gemini could not.

      I agree with the original poster. Especially when you note that the first US person on the Moon came three years after the first US docking. Russia was similarly aggressive.

      In any case, what is the rush?

      Everything has time value. All else being equal, it's worth more doing something today than putting it off. You are right that China is not in a rush, but that's because they're treating the manned program currently as pure propaganda.

    5. Re:Fast track into space by isorox · · Score: 1

      China's certainly moving at a brisk pace.

      NASA:

      First manned flight: 1962
      First orbital rendevouz: 1965
      First orbital docking: 1966

      Last manned flight 2011

    6. Re:Fast track into space by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2

      NASA did the first docking 4 years after the first flight because they were racing for the moon. We've already gotten to the moon, and so China doesn't need to race. Instead, they can go slower and more thoughtfully (and had we done that, arguably Apollo 1 would never have happened) and end up with something stronger at the end (unlike us, who ended up going to the moon 6 times and then pretty much giving up on space advancement beyond an LEO pickup truck).

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    7. Re:Fast track into space by Rik+Rohl · · Score: 1

      but that's because they're treating the manned program currently as pure propaganda.

      What do you think the entire race to the moon was?

    8. Re:Fast track into space by khallow · · Score: 1

      I suppose it was, but more like pyramid-building. That is, making something that would be talked about for generations, not merely used as an indication that the US could play in the space game.

    9. Re:Fast track into space by Morty · · Score: 1

      China's certainly moving at a brisk pace.

      NASA:

      First manned flight: 1962
      First orbital rendevouz: 1965
      First orbital docking: 1966

      Last manned flight 2011

      Most recent manned flight: 2011
      Next planned manned flight: 2014

      SpaceX says they'll be ready to launch people to LEO in 2014. So far they've hit their schedule targets.

    10. Re:Fast track into space by Confusador · · Score: 1

      SpaceX says they'll be ready to launch people to LEO in 2014. So far they've hit their schedule targets.

      Part of me hates to go off topic, and part of me hates to argue when your basic point is correct, but the pedant in me wins.

      COTS was supposed to be done in 2010 so that CRS could start in 2011 (before the Shuttle retired), and as it stands we're looking at that being all pushed back a year. That's close enough for aerospace work, but not exactly on target. Not to mention that NASA isn't planning to have a crewed flight until 2016 (not because the vehicles couldn't be ready, but because that's how long NASA will take to certify them), and it'll probably be at least a year from that.

      The point stands, though: Both the United States and China have ongoing plans to put people in space.

    11. Re:Fast track into space by khallow · · Score: 1

      (and had we done that, arguably Apollo 1 would never have happened)

      Apollo probably wouldn't have happened at all. Not that that's a bad thing...

      But I don't see that we would have had less accidents per launch. One of the things you buy with high launch frequency is knowledge of how your vehicle works.

    12. Re:Fast track into space by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I'd say more 'glacial' than 'brisk'

      Ah, but glacier kan suddenly move fast sometimes, and then it is time to step aside. And China have been putting on speed steadily, whereas America's achievements have slowed down in the recent how many decades?

    13. Re:Fast track into space by cobbaut · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, then the first American *automated* docking was in 1976. 14 years after the first American man in space.
      Overall I get the impression China is working long term, steadily going forward, not racing to plant a flag, but building to stay.

      --
      European Linux user, living in Antwerp
    14. Re:Fast track into space by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's NASA that's holding up the COTS demo flights, not SpaceX. NASA is insisting on having two trained astronauts on board the ISS for the SpaceX demo. One is on board now, and one is grounded due to the Soyuz mishap. SpaceX is fine with having only one trained astronaut guiding things.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Fast track into space by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Apollo 1 was largely the result of rushing into the program without being willing to eliminate problems. The original Apollo capsules were poorly designed, poorly assembled death traps. In addition to the emergency hatch that took too long to open, the lax assembly methods set up the spark that ignited the fire in the first place. And running on 100% oxygen was a pretty obvious mistake as well.

      You don't need any launches to figure out that careless assembly, an impossible-to-open-quickly emergency door, and running 100% fire fuel as your atmosphere invites disaster. This, of course, is proven by the fact that there had been no Apollo launches before 1, and the post-1 redesign happened before any further Apollos were launched.

      Apollo forced NASA to do what it should have done all along - put the brakes on and examine the program for catastrophes-in-waiting. Many people involved with Apollo have said that if it hadn't been for the fire, the program probably wouldn't have been successful - at least not by 1969. Flip that statement around and you arrive at the idea that Apollo 1 was the result of haste getting priority over right (which actually all NASA loss-of-crew incidents can be traced to). The space race with the Russians was in Apollo's case the cause of that haste, just as the race to give the President something cool to say in his State of the Union address was a contributing factor to the haste that doomed Challenger, and just as the desire to get missions completed was the cause of Columbia because they didn't want to stop and redesign the ET to avoid insulation impacts on the orbiter.

      In other words, that China appears to be taking things slow is not something they should be ashamed of or mocked for.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    16. Re:Fast track into space by khallow · · Score: 1

      You don't need any launches to figure out that careless assembly, an impossible-to-open-quickly emergency door, and running 100% fire fuel as your atmosphere invites disaster. This, of course, is proven by the fact that there had been no Apollo launches before 1, and the post-1 redesign happened before any further Apollos were launched.

      That's nice but irrelevant to my point. A more deliberate pace might have prevented the Apollo 1 fire and deaths of three astronauts, or it might not (recall please that if a point is "arguable" then automatically that means its negation is also "arguable"). But it would have opened up a variety of operational risks that don't exist with higher launch frequency.

      The most complete test of a system is an "all up" test where you use all the systems of the vehicle (including testing the launch procedures on the ground as well) as it is intended to be used, but it's also the most risky. Things will show up that didn't appear on component tests or systems modeling. Turns out, actually using the vehicle for a real launch is a free all up test.

      Also the higher the launch frequency, the less changes in the vehicle per launch. In addition, more real launches means more value per fixed cost of the rocket. An extremely low launch frequency tells me that someone doesn't think the launches provide inherent value (hence my accusation that the program is pure propaganda). If there was additional value beyond that, then they could realize that value sooner with a higher launch frequency.

      In other words, that China appears to be taking things slow is not something they should be ashamed of or mocked for.

      I didn't say it was something to mock. But perhaps they should be ashamed of it. Such a low launch rate is both dangerous and fundamentally not serious.

    17. Re:Fast track into space by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      I'm still not sure why you think it's more safe to launch in rapid succession, especially in the early phases of a given program.

      As I said, the "hurry up and launch!" attitude was the direct cause of Apollo 1. You could have launched 20 Apollos and never run across the Apollo 1 problems. They only figured out (by which I mean "finally agreed with the astronauts") that the door was a death trap when opening the door quickly was actually needed. If you launch 20 missions that never have an emergency, you don't need the door to open quickly and therefore don't learn anything about the problems with it, whereas you can find out about the problems without launching a single rocket by running a fire drill and discovering that, hey, that door opens kinda slow.

      I agree with you that an all-up test is the most complete test of a system, however I don't agree with the implication that we should proceed to all-up tests as quickly as possible, and then consider operational launches to be all-up tests. There is plenty to learn from non-all-up tests. Not to overly harp on the door problem, but it would have been exposed with a static ground test of "pretend the capsule is on fire and try to get out." They could have done that at the factory - they didn't even need the rest of the rocket to be built yet, much less launched.

      The crew wanted that as well - remember the famous prayer photograph? But NASA's response was, essentially, "Screw that! We ain't got time! We gotta beat the Ruskies!"

      High launch frequencies may be safer when the vehicle is fully tested, and its assembly (if non-reusable) is down to a fine science strictly on the basis of crew familiarity - you're better at things you do often than things you do rarely. But in the experimental stages, launches should be analyzed for problems and near problems that crop up rather than blindly launching rocket after rocket and hoping that there isn't some undiscovered defect somewhere that will bite you when you're not looking.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    18. Re:Fast track into space by Confusador · · Score: 1

      It's not NASA's fault that SpaceX didn't launch in 2010. I'll grant that the last 3 months of the delay is caused by the Soyuz failure, but it's not like they were going to be on time anyway; if they were, it would be the second CRS flight being delayed. They compare favorably to e.g. Constellation (even before it was cancelled), but launching rockets is still a hard business and timelines need a bunch of salt to be palatable.

    19. Re:Fast track into space by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the late reply. The thing here is that rushing through something is not the same as high launch frequency. Apollo took a lot of chances and got lucky with only one significant accident involving astronauts (There may have been plenty of others behind the scenes involving normal workers. Those aren't high profile.) I didn't claim that moving untried things to "all up" testing was a god idea, but rather that one gets a lot of all up testing with a high launch frequency.

      In my view, a sensible program has a testing process before things get on a high priority, real mission.

      The Chinese program is actually taking very big risks with their low launch frequency. A lot of changes can be made in a couple of years. So how do you know it's all going to work before you put it in space? You don't. For example, I recall that some thought the Apollo program had a 1 in 15 or so risk of losing the crew. A similar risk could be hiding in China's missions as well. But because they've only done 10 of them, they haven't found it yet.

    20. Re:Fast track into space by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      I see where you're coming from, but it seems to me that China would still be in the testing phase at this point. They didn't exactly get started in space at the same time the US and USSR did.

      I get the idea that a lot of changes can be made in a couple of years, but that doesn't mean the changes have to go into the spacecraft. The shuttle ran on computers that were outdated at the time of install, but they did it that way because those computers were proven. Even when they got a computer upgrade later in life, the upgraded computers couldn't hold a candle to the desktops being sold in stores at the time as far as processing power goes. But again, they wanted reliability rather than new shiny. I haven't seen any indications that the Chinese program is eager to install massive amounts of untested upgrades. Whether you launch 10 rockets in 1 year or 5, if you aren't making changes between launches then you're not any more unsafe from a hardware point of view.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
  2. Now, to add to their military base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, few seem to realize that China's Space program is a miltiary only. They are more military than was USSR's

    1. Re:Now, to add to their military base by couchslug · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to cede Asia to China.

      The idea that the US should build a military-industrial complex to defend people who REFUSE to match our level of effort is absurd, doubly so when both sides are our economic competition and do nothing for the US.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. Re:A Space Race with one runner by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Depressing. It's like watching the old Space Race all over again -- except the only people competing are the Chinese.

    Where are they racing to? There's nothing out there but rocks and craters, craters and rocks. If there were one Risa, one class M environment, even one blade of grass out there, I could see making the effort.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  4. Re:A Space Race with one runner by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Enceladus and Europa could have alien orcas swimming under all that ice. Or alien aqua-people. (Why not?)

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To be honest with you guys, the U.S. won't be able to seriously compete with China in the next-gen space race, at least not with the current generation of engineers and manufacturing capacity. Many senior professors in my University expressed this concern long time ago: the smartest American kids are not into STEM anymore, they just following the trashy reality shows and wanna get some quick money without hard working. NASA is in great trouble recruiting new scients/engineers who know how to operate the old stuff built by the last (and better) generation of American scientists/engineers, let along finding someone who can actually come up with something new. The big tech companies are in a better position than NASA b/c companies can hire non-U.S. workers while NASA, for obvious reasons, can only hire Americans. And even if the few real fine young American scientists can still design something cool, it is very dubious that 10 years from now the U.S. will be able to implement/manufacture that piece of very complicated thing which requires a whole solid manufacturing base.

    So yeah, the future is pretty pessimistic, you won't see another round of space race because you can't expect a country full of wall street elites, lawyers, reality show stars but no real scientists, engineers, and even quality manufacturing workers to put another man to the Mars ---- that generation has long GONE.

    P.S.: I was born and raised in China but I've been living in America for more than a decade, I wrote the above not because I hate America, quite the opposite, I love America and I am so sorry to see such a great country slowly but inevitably spiral into irrelevance.

    1. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was born and raised in the US and been having this discussion for years. Ironically with many of those potential engineering students.

      You know what? Those of us who aren't just sitting around our cheap apartments or parents basements decided against going into engineering and went for the high-profit jobs, mostly in software and/or communications industries. Great for the pay but lousy for the advancement of humanity. Additionally most stopped being free thinkers as they found cliques they'd like to be a part of, and slowly faded into irrelevance.

      Maybe it's different elsewhere, but it seems like a disturbing downward trend to me.

    2. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, intelligent people are betting lots of their own money that you are wrong:

      Why the U.S. Can Beat China: The Facts About SpaceX Costs, Elon Musk

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      Great for the pay but lousy for the advancement of humanity. Additionally most stopped being free thinkers as they found cliques they'd like to be a part of, and slowly faded into irrelevance.

      Maybe it's different elsewhere, but it seems like a disturbing downward trend to me.

      Not everyone has the dedication and discipline for purely altruistic endeavors such as.. trolling the internet and posting flamebait, but kudos to you.

    4. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by couchslug · · Score: 1

      China spends and humanity benefits in the end, as with the US space effort.

      I've heard tale of countries without large military-industrial complexes and which don't participate in any "space race" which are pleasant to live in.

      Can anyone else verify?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by tsotha · · Score: 1

      To be honest with you guys, the U.S. won't be able to seriously compete with China in the next-gen space race

      Uh huh. Maybe you can explain what we would be racing to. Mars? Are we going to spend a few trillion dollars to plant a flag on Mars? Why?

      The problem is outside of things we already do pretty well (spy sats, communications) and the odd science mission there isn't a hell of a lot to do up there. I mean, something that makes sense to do from an economic standpoint. I'm all for making sure we stay ahead on the military side, to the extent one exists, but putting people in space is a big waste of money. China is welcome to win that race.

    6. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 1

      With even small asteroids containing roughly 20 trillion dollars worth of industrial and precious metals there is nothing that makes going into space valuable from an economic standpoint?

      I suspect the first nation that successfully exploits space economically will basically get catapulted to premier world status simply by the competitive advantage that such disruptive technology would bring.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    7. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Part of what makes the metals precious is their rarity. What do you think will happen to the price if you suddenly doubled the supply? That's right. That $20 trillion dollar asteroid plummets in worth. Besides, it would take trillions of dollars to build the infrastructure needed to extract those metals.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:The U.S. won't be able to compete with China by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I think your estimation of the costs here is a few orders of magnitude too low. Mining space asteroids just isn't economical and never will be, unless the goal is to use the materials for construction in space. But then we're back to the question of what we intend to do there. It doesn't make sense to mine asteroids so we can build a habitat so we can mine asteroids unless the end result is cheaper minerals back on earth. But there isn't any material worth that kind of expense,

      Why don't we mine the 3/4 of the earth that's covered with ocean? Because it's too expensive. But that would still be orders of magnitude cheaper than mining asteroids.

  6. Re:Headline by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I thought the AC above you was trolling...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  7. Re:Or by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I'm not worried. Every super power has ICBM capability anyways. Unless you want to get creative with nukes, what's the point? Last man standing (in space)? For how long?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  8. Re:Headline by RobNich · · Score: 1

    I too didn't believe the above AC. Two thoughts, in no particular order:

    • That's fucking disgusting. And why?!
    • So the "internet savvy" should know every perverted thing that has a name? And avoid ever using a similar phrase?
    --
    Hello little man. I will destroy you!
  9. Don't talk, act by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2

    An old Chinese proverb - don't talk, act.

    Like it used to be, here and there.

    (No, it wasn't an old Chinese proverb, but it could have been)

  10. Bad omen? by Megahard · · Score: 1

    First headline: China completes docking test
    Second headline: Watch the fiery re-entry

    --
    I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    1. Re:Bad omen? by fightingstar215 · · Score: 1

      who knows China is building a secret base on the moon.

      --
      Personalized Banners
  11. Re:A Space Race with one runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So when you launch a single Han into space, does that make them a Han... Solo?

  12. Unreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. It was all faked on a sound stage in Bollywood. ;-)

  13. Re:I demand that this story be removed. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    You can think of it as "Wonder Twin powers: Activate!" if that makes you feel better.

  14. software and/or communications is needed for space by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    manufacturing is just part of space and let's face it mars is long term or one way type of trip right now. And going past it? any one working on wrap drives?

  15. Re:Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's no moon.....

  16. Congrats! by T-Mckenney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of playing who has the bigger cock here (I'm looking at you America, Russia, ESA). Lets congratulate another country making its way into space, opening the way for human expansion to the cosmos. We need to get over this "my country has a bigger cock than yours" or "the USA is doomed because China is now in space" and start concentrating on collaboration as a species. Congrats, China! Welcome to the club. -T

    1. Re:Congrats! by Clsid · · Score: 1

      Best comment ever!

    2. Re:Congrats! by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      Collaboration as a species only works if the other portion of the said species is also interested in such a collaboration.

      What you need to be asking is, is this a friendly nation? or is it a rival? And if latter, then will you be comfortable if the rival supersedes you at some point, or has an equal military technology/might? Last I checked, this situation did not sit so well between USA and USSR. And China happens be yet another semi-communist/fascist country, if I am not wrong.

  17. Re:A Space Race with one runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So when you launch a single Han into space, does that make them a Han... Solo?

    Yes. and in space, you can't hear the sound of one Han clapping.

  18. Re:In Soviet Russia by bpsbr_ernie · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to see the giant Hello Kitty space station, that will soon follow this accomplishment... :)

  19. Re:software and/or communications is needed for sp by Matheus · · Score: 2

    A wrap drive would be pretty cool... you wrap the universe around yourself and then everywhere is only a step away.

    Brilliant!

  20. Re:A Space Race with one runner by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

    Where are they racing to?

    Miranda.

  21. Re:In Soviet Russia by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    You'll have to get the Japanese going with their space program first before you'd see that. ;)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  22. Re:Or by cavreader · · Score: 1

    Space based kinetic weapon platforms are the next logical step in the arms race. Relatively cheap to build, all the required technology already exists, immune to any existing anti-missile technology, and can deliver all the destructive power of a nuke with none of the radioactive fallout to deal with. Add the X-37B launch vehicle into the mix and you have the means neutralize your opponents orbital assets and claim the ultimate high ground.

  23. Re:In other words.... by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

    I’m not surprised this post was anonymous. Otherwise the poster would have been identified as a vulgar, retarded and immature person that most likely never finished primary school.

  24. Re:Headline by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    My preferred defense for all the imaginatively named, but very unlikely sexual acts (e.g. space docking, Alaska pipeline, Cleavland steamer, * Sanchez etc etc), is to assume they were all invented by a bored virgin somewhere in his mothers basement. Pure gadankin experiments reflecting anger at the girls that ignore the little troll.

    I sometimes wounder what his /. id is.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  25. Re:A Space Race with one runner by lgw · · Score: 1

    Like the US and Russia were, they're racing to show that they have a viable system of ICMBs that can deliver a nuclear payload anywhere in the world. You don't get the political bullying advantage until the end of that road.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  26. Re:A Space Race with one runner by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

    Oh I'm sure someone will come up with something more original in the way of a racial slur for the Europans...

  27. Re:A Space Race with one runner by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

    I don't think even the Chinese have the balls to start WWIII no matter what their capabilities are...

  28. Re:A Space Race with one runner by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

    You know they're just scouting locations for new Foxconn factories and gold farmers, right?

  29. First Space Docking Test by Lueseiseki · · Score: 1

    Well that's kind of strange. I've seen headlines describing the advent of sex in space before but this is two guys doing it to each other? Not that there's anything wrong with that I mean...

    1. Re:First Space Docking Test by Rob+Nance · · Score: 1

      Well that's kind of strange. I've seen headlines describing the advent of sex in space before but this is two guys doing it to each other? Not that there's anything wrong with that I mean...

      This would have been funnier if you had actually used the term correctly (hint: it's not two dudes).

  30. Re:A Space Race with one runner by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You don't need to start WW3 to win that game. You just need to have the ability to do so - then you're a part of the big boys' club.

  31. Re:A Space Race with one runner by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    It kinda makes you wonder... if moon colonies and whatnot all end up being Chinese, and the Western world sits back and does nothing, what does it say about the respective socio-political systems of either entity?

  32. Re:A Space Race with one runner by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    You could go back and revisit all of the Firefly episodes, or you could wait to see what happens. The Chinese are essentially at 1965. It is a bit early to worry about learning Mandarin in in order to be an astronaut.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  33. Re:A Space Race with one runner by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Oh so this is a new form of trolling. And you're troll-stalking me. You must have a sad life.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  34. Congratulations... by Methos137 · · Score: 1

    Congratulations...your military space station now has 113 anti satellite missiles now targeted at it China....welcome to the space race. Play nice. Remember, no one can hear you scream in space.

  35. Is their docking mechanism compatible with the USS by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    If I understand correctly, the Russians, Americans, Japanese, and several other nations agreed a long time ago on a common docking mechanism so that everyone's vehicles could dock with each other. This is a major advantage for international cooperation. Since so many nations use the same system, I assume that this is not a top secret design. Did the Chinese use the same mechanism, or are they standard a new competing-standards problem? I hope not the latter. It would really suck for all future space vehicle interactions to be subject to screwy adapters - especially when lives may be in immediate danger. IMHO the real test of Chinese docking would be to dock successfully with the USS.

    I like to believe that the essential 'differentness' of space will quickly mean that the folks who are working in space will feel more cooperative and protective toward fellow space travelers than the groundlings below them. This will encourage more cooperation between teams in different orbital stations than the sponsoring nations might prefer. Geopolitics may affect space for a while, but I think in the long term the conflicts will be more about space folks needing less control from their terran sponsors. But maybe I read too many old SF stories with that thesis.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  36. Re:A Space Race with one runner by amliebsch · · Score: 1

    InterContinental Mallistic Bissiles?

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  37. Space Docking? by muirnin · · Score: 1

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space-docking Might have gone with different wording on that headline if I were you.

  38. Let them compare by phorm · · Score: 1

    If comparing themselves to others makes them actually *do* something, then I'm all for it. A lot of US research/exploration in the past was to beat Russia, so perhaps progress from China will spur others to invest in some more research of their own.

  39. Few seem to realize that coward is ignorant... by qwerty765 · · Score: 1

    Please mod this parent down. Of all books, news, and visits to China, I have never heard of China's space program being military only. The only thing that is military in CASA is when CASA, like NASA and USSR's space programs, picked the best air force pilots for manned missions. It is a normal activity, not a military activity. So, click your heels and salute!