Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Reveals Its Space Plans Up To 2016

Posted by samzenpus on from the moving-on-up dept.

PolygamousRanchKid writes "China plans to launch space labs and manned ships and prepare to build space stations over the next five years, according to a plan released Thursday that shows the country's space program is gathering momentum. China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time, although it lags far behind the United States and Russia in space technology and experience. The country will continue exploring the moon using probes, start gathering samples of the moon's surface, and 'push forward its exploration of planets, asteroids and the sun.' Some elements of China's program, notably the firing of a ground-based missile into one of its dead satellites four years ago, have alarmed American officials and others who say such moves could set off a race to militarize space. That the program is run by the military has made the U.S. reluctant to cooperate with China in space, even though the latter insists its program is purely for peaceful ends."

37 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. The final frontier by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    At this rate, if we want Star Trek to remain at all within the thinnest stretches of credibility, the next reboot of the series will have the Enterprise captained by Sulu and Kirk will be pitching manure in Iowa.

    1. Re:The final frontier by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Welll..... if it is going to be captained by Sulu I think the love scenes are going to turn out a bit differently.....

    2. Re:The final frontier by SteveFoerster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, except that Sulu is Japanese.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    3. Re:The final frontier by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh Myyyyy....

    4. Re:The final frontier by mug+funky · · Score: 3

      to be fair, NASA is sitting about where NASA was 50 years ago. their idea of advancement now is a rocket just about as powerful as the Saturn V was.

    5. Re:The final frontier by rust627 · · Score: 2

      My Mission
      To Camply go where no hand has set foot
      To explore new Vistas
      Quash new Monsters
      And make Space
      A safe Place
      For the Human Race
      For I, Am,
      CAPTAIN KREMMIN (He's so hunky)

      Thanks to the late Kenny Everett
      I know its off topic but after the eat them comment......

      --
      da da da dum indeed.
    6. Re:The final frontier by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      They have their own copies of the Sokol and Orlan suits. The Orlan was based on a suit formerly intended for the first Soviet Cosmonaut. So they can do the spacesuits quite fine.

    7. Re:The final frontier by murdocj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. 50 years ago we were landing rovers on Mars. 50 years ago we had orbiters around Saturn and Mercury. 50 years ago we were sending a probe to Pluto. 50 years ago we had two spacecraft entering interstellar space. 50 years ago we had landed on an asteroid.

      The December Scientific American outlines a step by step program that makes small, incremental increases in our capability that eventually get us to Mars. Unlike the "invest tons of money and build a huge rocket" approach, this gradually increases our capability within our means to pay for it, so at no point are we going to lose ground, unlike the Apollo program where once the massive funding dried up, we were done.

  2. Uh, yeah by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA:

    China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time

    NASA went from the first manned spaceflight to walking on the moon in around seven years. China first flew a manned spaceflight eight years ago; what major breakthroughs have they made in comparison?

    1. Re:Uh, yeah by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, what all has NASA done since then? :)

      More than what China has done before or since? Not denigrating the Chinese efforts, but NASA hasn't exactly been sitting on their hands. How many Mars probes, Lunar orbits, or comet flybys has the Chinese space agency done?

    2. Re:Uh, yeah by Guillermito · · Score: 2

      A lot? For instance, I would say sending 3 probes past the orbit of Pluto is quite a feat.

    3. Re:Uh, yeah by youn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not denigrating Nasa efforts... discovery of water on the moon is awesome... can't wait for curiosity to land... but china is definitely moving forward for MANNED exploration... while the world is in a recession. When they announced they wanted 10 space stations in orbit (not a typo), i thought they were mad... now, I am thinking... hey it might not have been such a crazy announcement after all... all that because they were not allowed to participate in the ISS.

      It actually may be a good thing for Nasa too... because soon china space program will increasingly be doing more interesting stuff, there may be a new space race and therefore an incentive to increase the budget.

      The problem with Nasa is so many awesome projects get canceled every new election as its direction changes... and they keep reinventing the wheel... stalling the space program, wasting resources.

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    4. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the US merely built some big missiles based on captured German technology and found some nutcases from the USAF to ride them. they haven't gone back since because the budget was justified by the Cold War, not science & exploration.

      the ISS and defunct STS have always been massive financial black holes and i'm thankful the Aussie government has been smart (or stupid) enough avoid them and to remain a "user" rather than "provider" of space services.

      china will have their play and show the world how great they are, then realize how pointless it is, and put it all on the back burner. russia is probably the only country in any position to actually make some money from launch services, but they're smart enough to balance the risk

      until the "moron" gene is discovered and eliminated, humanity isn't ready for space. we are still a bunch of feudal states teeming full of all the seven sins. nothing we do in space could possibly be for the good of anything but self-serving corporate shareholders, and the more we go there the more we're likely to fuck it up for future generations.

      believe it or not i'm a space fanatic - i'm just a bit more pragmatic than the pathetic mars-roving wannabes

    5. Re:Uh, yeah by stox · · Score: 2

      4 probes. Pioneer's 10,11 and Voyager 1, 2.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    6. Re:Uh, yeah by crutchy · · Score: 2, Funny

      pushing back our knowledge of the universe to mere instants before its creation.

      ...for what exactly? has it paved the way for a better toothbrush or something?

      But you just sit there and gripe.

      You must be new here.

    7. Re:Uh, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're making breakthroughs in THEIR space program, not in ours. Yes, for us it just looks like catch-up, and it is. But they have to start somewhere, and the point is that they are catching up very quickly while we seem to be going nowhere.

      Case in point: NASA's 2010 budget was $19 billion. The Chinese Space Agency's annual budget is estimated by analysts at $1.3 billion. NASA has 14.6 times the funding and yet the technology gap is rapidly closing. China may not be doing things better just yet, but they're certainly doing it faster and cheaper.

      Let's also not forget that the cost of the Apollo program was $136 billion, adjusted to 2007 dollars. That's enough to keep the CNSA at current funding for the next 100 years. China is nowhere near committing itself to the level of funding that we needed to put a man on the moon; why would you even make the comparison to Apollo unless you are simply ignorant of context? If they manage to do it on their own terms within the next century, then they would have done it more smartly than we did. Personally, I think they have plenty of breathing room to make it happen, which is not very good news for 'patriotic' types clinging to something that happened over 40 years ago. I remember as a child of the 80s that WWII seemed like ancient history, but at the time it was also only about 40 years past. Does that put things in context? Children of today and tomorrow can't relate at all to the Apollo program. You might as well be talking about the thirteen colonies for all it means to them. Sure they'll see Neil Armstrong on hilariously old tapes, but they'll be seeing the Chinese space program in the here and now, streaming live on the interwebs (okay, with censor delay), something happening within their own lifetimes. No amount of "we got there first" is going to save NASA's reputation. Ford did it first too, and nobody cares now because Honda eventually did it better.

      Politically, China has the advantage that it's not involved in a dick-waving contest with some Soviet boogeyman, and instead of racing toward a symbolic goal that serves no tangible purpose, they're slowly and steadily building up a knowledge base to make the space program a sustainable benefit for their society. Instead of figuring how to get to the moon first, they're trying to figure out if the moon can be exploited somehow, and the best way to do so. Their goals are strategic and practical, compared to NASA's which seem to be made up mostly of unspecific ambitions fueled by the academic curiosity to study things far beyond our grasp, and being content to leave them there.

    8. Re:Uh, yeah by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      put together a space shuttle. Put up multiple space stations. Have numerous probes all over the solar system. Landed on 3 different surfaces with multiple probes on 2 of them. Flown a probe OUT of the solar system. Massive telescope in orbit. Have found numerous planets around our galaxy. etc. etc. Have funded multiple private launch systems which will carry cargo and shortly ppl. Got the ISS going with multiple other space organizations. Helped most of these other space organizations to make them a success with the ISS. Likewise, developed the VASIMR, Transhab which were taken private. Did the original nuke engines that are capable of sending us all over the solar system.

      But otherwise, nothing much.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:Uh, yeah by cavreader · · Score: 4, Informative

      Russia and the various allied countries after WW2 all used captured German rocket technology and China has basically purchased all their space related systems from Russia. The best US space based technology today is the X-37 orbital vehicle that can destroy or deploy satellites if necessary. Most of the newest US tech is targeted towards unmanned vehicles because we have reached the level that a human pilots cannot handle. For example the F-22 does not use it's full capabilities because a human pilot can not withstand the experience. Exploring the solar system is a perfect job for unmanned vehicles. If they discovery any thing really interesting a manned mission could be justified. Also the satellite China took out was in very low earth orbit. The really critical satellites are deployed in high orbits.

    10. Re:Uh, yeah by Teancum · · Score: 2

      The problem with the American spaceflight effort wasn't the construction of the STS or ISS, it was the notion that they were the ultimate and final product and the pinnacle of what human spaceflight could ever achieve. More specifically, it was the problem of putting "all of the eggs in one basket" and hoping that a high flight rate would keep costs down for individual missions.

      Just as important, once these programs were seen as fiscal black holes (which I will openly admit), they should have been shut down with other alternatives serious considered.

      The jab at "capturing German technology" is patently unfair. Yes, the German rocket team that helped to develop the V-2 was brought to America and put to work for the U.S. Army (it wasn't even the Army Air Corps, it was the Artillery branch that ended up getting the missile program), but there were very much indigenous efforts for building rockets in America as well. This remark completely dismisses the efforts of Robert Goddard, not to mention the tens of thousands of engineers who ended up working for NASA and NASA contractors to help build the rockets that ended up going to the Moon and elsewhere.

      For those so clueless to think that all you need is a modified ICBM in order to go into space, I need to point out that the problem domains are really quite different, and the "advanced" spaceflight rockets really can't be used for ICBMs or the other way around either. Yes, when rocketry was first being established you could have a "dual purpose" rocket that could both deliver a heavy warhead and put somebody into space, but even then it was design compromises that ultimately were unsustainable.

      What needed to happen with both the ISS and the STS program was a series of iterative programs that would build upon the successes and failures of the previous designs. In other words, there should have been a Shuttle Mark II, version 3, 4, 5 and so forth. It also should have been a much smaller vehicle and there should have been an operational tempo to have many more flights removing the ego of having the perfect design.... which it never had. The Skylab program ended up putting into space a station that had about half of the volume of the ISS (and about the size of MIR) for a substantial fraction of the cost of the ISS. The question should not have been why the ISS, but why there wasn't a Skylab II mission built in the 1980's. Oh.... of course the Saturn V, arguably one of the most successful rockets produced by NASA, was dumped down a rat hole too in favor of the "one true program" that redid everything.

      Otherwise, I'm trying to figure out why this post was modded anything but "troll" and "flamebait". It certainly deserves it.

  3. Qeng Ho beginnings? by ridgecritter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Feels odd to be living through the prequel to a Vernor Vinge novel....

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

  4. Re:We should have nuked them 30 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    we should start nuking nascar events. biggest concentration of retard mutants I can think of.

  5. Lunar Water Not Discovered by NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to correct, but it was the research team led by Carle Pieters of Brown University which discovered water on the Moon, using the M3 instrument on the Indian-launched Chandrayaan-1 space probe.

    NASA just followed up with a bunch of announcements after the fact, to drown out that landmark announcement with their own also-ran announcements.

    1. Re:Lunar Water Not Discovered by NASA by youn · · Score: 3, Informative

      My apologies, it was Chandrayaan indeed... Though, it is interesting to note Nasa did contribute the M3 mineral maper module that made the discovery... I may be wrong but without it, I do not think that without this instrument, it would have been possible to make the discovery (not to diminish in any way Chandrayaan's accomplishment... awesome to see a new country doing something interesting, Kudos to the Indians). To be fair, I was more referring to the Nasa LCROSS mission which actually settled for sure there water was present in big quantities... before that, there was a lot of speculation

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    2. Re:Lunar Water Not Discovered by NASA by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, no. What it did was CONFIRM that it was water. Clementine and Lunar Prospector actually found the water. It was Chandrayaan-1 that confirmed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  6. American funded space programs ... by drnb · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well at least one of the American funded (Walmart shoppers, etc) space programs has a plan. Too bad its not the US based one.

  7. What the hell is wrong with you? by sabernet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, not even going to post this anonymously.

    Whatever you think of how China's gov't works. No matter the motivations. How is this anything other than an overall good thing? Seriously? We have a space agency in the world right now with both the government funding, the will and potentially the skills to advance manned spaceflight again!

    Worse case scenario, things don't work out and remain as they are(not counting deaths here since that's always a possibility with these and NASA as well as the Russians have had their fair share).

    Best case scenario: They pull off something here and either succeed or encourage this awesome spirit of competition we've been sorely lacking since the Soviet Union and the US fought over the moon.

    Please, keep your racist, xenophobic, nationalist or just plain ignorant bile to yourselves and enjoy what MOST people who admire the stars have been wishing for for a very long time: a renewed interest in space travel.

    1. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Worse case scenario, things don't work out and remain as they are(not counting deaths here since that's always a possibility with these and NASA as well as the Russians have had their fair share.

      Worst case scenario is actually: they mount weapons on space stations (nuclear, most likely) and start an arms race that ends in all out war. But the aggressive expansionist Chinese government surely wouldn't do anything like that. It's not like they expanded their military budget by 12% last year or anything.

      Unlikely? Maybe. Possible? Yes.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by sabernet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a) Repeat after me: China will NOT shoot at the US any time soon. The two nations are connected at the hip economically. They'll continue to play games with each other, for sure. there will be some sabotage, some espionage, some tensions, but China and the USA have the dollar bill version of Mutually Assured Destruction.
      b) Both the Russians AND the USA have weapons in space regardless of treaties. How's that World War with Russia going?
      c) How much did the USA expand their military budget last year? Or the year before that? Or before that? Heck, when's the last time it DIDN'T? How did that affect the ability of the last space race to allow a man to walk around on the moon?
      d) Doesn't the tinfoil hat itch?
      e) Given current sentiments(as demonstrated by your post) and the fact that the USA owes all the money, it's technically more likely the USA would act first. but again, see point a) for why this won't happen any time soon.

    3. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by drnb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Both the Russians AND the USA have weapons in space regardless of treaties.

      Whoa whoa whoa, what? What weapons do the Russians and the U.S. have in space?

      A fixed blade knife in a survival kit maybe?

    4. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      Umm.... a long time ago they apparently had 23mm cannons on space stations..... tested them successfully as well. Would likely have been able to shred an Apollo capsule quite nicely. Or the later Space Shuttle.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut#Salyut_3

      Salyut 3
      OPS-2 (Salyut 3)
      Main article: Salyut 3

      Salyut 3 (OPS-2) (Russian: -3; English: Salute 3) was launched on June 25, 1974. It was another Almaz military space station, this one launched successfully. It tested a wide variety of reconnaissance sensors, returning a canister of film for analysis. On January 24, 1975, after the station had been ordered to deorbit, trials of the on-board 23 mm Nudelman aircraft cannon (other sources say it was a Nudelman NR-30 30 mm gun) were conducted with positive results at ranges from 3000 m to 500 m.[1] Cosmonauts have confirmed that a target satellite was destroyed in the test. The next day, the station was ordered to deorbit. Only one of the three intended crews successfully boarded and crewed the station, brought by Soyuz 14; Soyuz 15 attempted to bring a second crew but failed to dock. Nevertheless, it was an overall success. The station's orbit decayed, and it re-entered the atmosphere on January 24, 1975.

    5. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by Teancum · · Score: 2

      I don't buy the economic arguments. Here is some food for thought:

      In the year 1938, who was the largest importer of goods from Germany? Would you believe France? #2 was Russia and #3 was Britain.

      And in the same time period, who was Japan's largest trading partner? America, followed by China.

      Yeah, all of those economic ties did a whole lot of good in terms of convincing the leaders of Germany and Japan to not bomb and destroy their leading customers.

      If a country will go to war, they will have their reasons for doing that which has absolutely no relevance as to what economic ties may exist. Still, in regards to China, I think they are more likely to get involved in a conflict with India than to deal with America. At least they share a common border with India (even if it isn't all that large).

    6. Re:What the hell is wrong with you? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      You were clear and blunt, I shall also be. It's not xenophobia that makes me concerned about the Chinese program, it's simple geopolitical self-interest..

      Nations conflict; that's human history. They conflict in many venues - on the ground, sea, and air militarily; in media culturally; in commerce economically - and the next venue will be space. I think that's almost inarguable.

      There's a reason that the otherwise-economically-worthless islands in the Pacific were fought over so bitterly in WW2 - they were unsinkable aircraft carriers, allowing their owner control of the region that was durable and extremely painful/complicated/expensive to break.

      In near-earth space, there are some important points of geography - low-earth orbit, geosychronous orbit, the Lagrange points, and the moon. Considering them militarily, all of these except the moon suffer from the significant handicap of all space operations: extreme vulnerability. On the moon there are precisely two points that have nearly permanent visibility to both the sun (for power) and earth (for communications). Two. Whoever gets there first and plants a base will enjoy a positional advantage FOREVER.

      Certainly the US government is inept, inefficient, and a host of other negative adjectives. But the Pax Americana has laid relatively lightly for the bulk of the world; for a number of reasons I wouldn't expect a Chinese one to be quite as benign.

      --
      -Styopa
  8. What is "space technology"? by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time, although it lags far behind the United States and Russia in space technology and experience.

    Other than the considerations of zero gravity environmental safety, radiation protection, and atmospheric preservation, I can't think of anything special about "space technology." Sound engineering practices and safety standards come from long established research and experience and are applied to space exploration by NASA and others.

    It seems trite, but even rocket science isn't rocket science any more. The nations have shared too much data and information for anyone to really be starting from scratch.

    China has some pretty aggressive schedules tabled. It's interesting how much more can be done by a government which supports a space program than one that lets the bean counters cut such budgets. But it's not surprising -- China has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to tackle huge long term projects that would never even get approved in the US or Canada over the bleating of NIMBYs and environmentalists.

    It's a subtle difference, but Chinese society has always emphasized the importance of the nation over the rights of an individual. I realize it's shocking to North Americans, but the Chinese immigrants and exchange workers I've talked with over the years think it's a good idea for the government to restrict the activities of protesters to quell dissent and social unrest. Most seem to consider it an honour to make a personal sacrifice in support of a big government program, rather than doing their best to stop the government from proceeding because it would inconvenience them.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:What is "space technology"? by crutchy · · Score: 2

      there are a few notable differences between terrestrial and space tech; one being that most of the time is has one chance to work and one only. with such a low frequency and high cost of launches, there is no room for infant mortality or MTBF data or consumer grade crapware. its a good industry for QA people to refine their knowledge. as with aviation, everything is MIL spec (or equivalent) and traceable back to the billet of origin material, with dozens of inspections at various levels. its also an industry that demands the highest performance-to-weight ratio. in the good old days (before the financial black hole space programs of today) plastics and microchips were technologies that came about due to the needs of space programs, and what starts out as space-tech can find its way into everyday life such that it loses its "space-techiness". the Lexan cutlery you can get now started life in the helmets of the astronauts that walked on the moon for instance.

      there are technologies in waiting for the next generation of space programs. aerospikes, aerogels, nanotubes, biosteel/silk, etc.

      when the world wakes up and realizes that corporations and governments will never have the money to tinker in space with anything more than flying washing machines, and that non-profit cooperation is essential for large-scale colonization, these technologies will go to space and new ones will join them as new challenges are met and overcome. the problem with today's space programs is that they aren't really coming across technological challenges that haven't already been solved. there are a lot of studies of effects of long term microgravity environment on the human body to justify the cost of the ISS, but even much of this stuff was already studied on Mir.

      the real challenges like cheap, safe, reliable and regular access to low earth orbit (the true enabler of space colonization) is being tossed into the too hard basket (especially with the economic failure of the X-33), but when someone finds the answer, you can bet that patents, copyright and a even a healthy head start won't save them from the corporate copycats. just don't be stupid enough to buy tickets on the first 100,000 rides in a corporate-sponsored SSTO space shuttle.

      putting a man on the moon was an awesome achievement, but the challenge there that will require development of new technologies will be mining and smelting ore to create structural materials that can be used in lagrange point space stations. aluminium cans and inflatables aren't going to be enough to permit large-scale colonization.

    2. Re:What is "space technology"? by msobkow · · Score: 2

      I think you overestimate how special NASA technology is. The same high-quality "must not fail" principles have applied to the entire aerospace industry for decades, particularly for any company working on missile and aircraft technologies.

      The only thing "special" about a mil-spec part is that it's tested to tighter tolerances than the regular commercial product. It's not inherently more reliable or produced by a different manufacturing process -- it's just been tested more stringently before being shipped to the customer.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:What is "space technology"? by msobkow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's a "mil-spec" tidbit for you. Back with my first job at SED Systems in Saskatoon, SK fresh out of university two weeks before I started with them, I was assigned to work on a project delivering to the Canadian military.

      We failed a mil-spec inspection because some valves we were shipped were the commercial versions. The difference between the mil-spec and commercial versions? mil-spec meant they were spray painted Canadian military olive green; the commercial version was spray painted black.

      We took out the valves, spray painted them green, and put them back. We passed the next inspection.

      You wouldn't believe how much extra the company charged to spray paint the valves green instead of black.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    4. Re:What is "space technology"? by crutchy · · Score: 2

      the difference between commercial & mil spec has nothing to do with the paint color; it's the guarantee you supply with your product. if your valves caused an accident and you were caught out, you're in deeper shit than if you were making valves for commercial applications. indemnity insurance won't cover you for criminal negligence.

      if the mil spec valves were painted a different color to indicate a certain material used or to indicate certification for use in certain temperature range, and the commercial versions you spray painted don't meet the same standards, then both you and the inspector who passed them wanna make sure you have good lawyers if something fucks up as a result. mil specification involves a paper trail that doesn't come with commercial products, so even if the only difference was the color, just spray painting a commercial item to look like a mil spec item isn't usually enough to make it mil spec.

      thank goodness i don't fly with the canadian military