Idle Chinese shuttle speculation

[pberrett]

Without doubt at some point (possibly sooner than we may think) the Chinese are likely to emerge with their own shuttle.

In the interests of encouraging  idle speculation what do we speculate that the "Chuttle" will look like? Here are my questions

1. Will the Chuttle be a Shuttle mark 1 or 2.0?

2. What sort of rocket will it be launched on and where on that rocket will it be placed (ie will they solve the foam problem?)
 
3. Will the tiles be as fragile as those on shuttle or will they develop a newer stronger TPS?

4. Will the Chuttle feature some kind of abort system? Ejection seats? LES?
 
5. Will reusable boosters be used?

6. Will the Chuttle be capable of autonomous landing (like Buran)

7. Will the Chuttle be a heavy payload vehicle (like Shuttle) or much smaller and intended for carrying passengers and maybe a small bit of cargo only?

Speculate away...

cheers Peter

[Jorge]

Without doubt at some point (possibly sooner than we may think) the Chinese are likely to emerge with their own shuttle.

In the interests of encouraging  idle speculation what do we speculate that the "Chuttle" will look like? Here are my questions

...


Speculate away...

cheers Peter

My speculation: the Chinese will launch no human on anything other than a Shenzhou until after 2020.

Out that far, speculation is merely mental masturbation, rather like trying to predict the low temperature in Peoria on October 15, 2020.

Masturbate away...

[cheesybagel]

Without doubt at some point (possibly sooner than we may think) the Chinese are likely to emerge with their own shuttle.

In the interests of encouraging  idle speculation what do we speculate that the "Chuttle" will look like? Here are my questions

1. Will the Chuttle be a Shuttle mark 1 or 2.0?
2. What sort of rocket will it be launched on and where on that rocket will it be placed (ie will they solve the foam problem?)
3. Will the tiles be as fragile as those on shuttle or will they develop a newer stronger TPS?
4. Will the Chuttle feature some kind of abort system? Ejection seats? LES?
5. Will reusable boosters be used?
6. Will the Chuttle be capable of autonomous landing (like Buran)
7. Will the Chuttle be a heavy payload vehicle (like Shuttle) or much smaller and intended for carrying passengers and maybe a small bit of cargo only?

Speculate away...

cheers Peter

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.174/pub_detail.asp

1. ?
2. If it is like the news leaks it will be on top, so no foam can drop on it.
3. Probably fragile. Cheaper.
4. Doubt it. Shuttle does not have any either.
5. The Chinese supposedly will get reusable engines, but seemingly the stages will not be reusable.
6. Sure, why not. The Chinese did a lot of unmanned tests with Shenzhou, why would this be any different.
7. Smaller.

Of course this is all wild speculation on my part.

[Danderman]

Whatever replaces Shenzhou would probably be some sort of hybrid hypersonic jet/rocket, like on the Jetsons. That's very far in the future.

[scott6428]

I suppose we could look at what the chinese have done the past in order to speculate what they might do in the future.

Their current launch system is Russian based so any 'Chuttle' might actually be based on Buran with perhaps improved capability.

In this budget constrained era you might further speculate that ISS countries might one day be buying cheap seats on the Chuttle!

[Patchouli]

Whatever replaces Shenzhou would probably be some sort of hybrid hypersonic jet/rocket, like on the Jetsons. That's very far in the future.

Wrong it likely would be a vehicle like the soviet LKS shuttle or even a TSTO type RLV.
This could happen as soon as a decade or so.
OT but this is also why I believe the US's ESAS architecture is an evolutionary dead end and should be killed ASAP.
The head of the Chinese space program referred to Shenzhou as an egg which means it is only the beginning of much larger plans.

But since the Chinese infrastructure is based on Russian technology any shuttle also would be Russian derived.
But anything STS like such as Buran might be too expensive which would put vehicles like the LKS or even the MAKS as likely next generation vehicles.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lks.html
http://www.buran-energia.com/documentation/documentation-akc-maks-multipurpose.php

It's even possible they might partner on a resurrected kliper program since ACTS appears to be dead as a canned mackerel.

[Danderman]

Ever since Shenzhou 1, speculation has been rampant about what the Chinese would do in the future. Most of this speculation has assumed rapid development and operations, whereas the reverse has been true. Given the historic pace of Chinese launch activity, I would imagine that we would see in the next decade:

A handful of interplanetary and/or lunar probes

and

A handful of crewed launches, perhaps to a Salyut type station.

When that type of operations is finally surpassed by a new technology, it could be some sort of hypersonic aircraft capable of orbit, or it could be a starship. Its waaaaaaaaaay too far off to make a credible guess today.

[Nascent Ascent]

I really don't think the Chinese will pursue a shuttle.  They should have learned from our mistake.

[sdsds]

Whatever replaces Shenzhou would probably be some sort of hybrid hypersonic jet/rocket, like on the Jetsons. That's very far in the future.

Agree the Chinese are unlikely to replace the Shenzhou spacecraft any time soon.  Why would they?  It is a great design!

In particular, an orbital module that can operate independently from the re-entry and service modules was a huge advance over Soyuz.  This allows the program to "grow" another vehicle (e.g. a space station) incrementally over time by leaving behind the orbital modules from visiting spacecraft.  (Yes, they are like legos than can be snapped together any way you want. <grin>)

[Jorge]

Ever since Shenzhou 1, speculation has been rampant about what the Chinese would do in the future. Most of this speculation has assumed rapid development and operations, whereas the reverse has been true. Given the historic pace of Chinese launch activity, I would imagine that we would see in the next decade:

A handful of interplanetary and/or lunar probes

and

A handful of crewed launches, perhaps to a Salyut type station.

Bingo.

When that type of operations is finally surpassed by a new technology, it could be some sort of hypersonic aircraft capable of orbit, or it could be a starship. Its waaaaaaaaaay too far off to make a credible guess today.

RIght. It could just as easily be a Chinese sleigh powered by reindeer.

[Patchouli]

Whatever replaces Shenzhou would probably be some sort of hybrid hypersonic jet/rocket, like on the Jetsons. That's very far in the future.

Agree the Chinese are unlikely to replace the Shenzhou spacecraft any time soon.  Why would they?  It is a great design!

The vehicle is limited in capabilities and they likely will want a more capable vehicle in the near future.
Plus the CZ-2 LV is outdated even by their standards.

It's the same reason the US did not keep flying Gemini even though it was a great design in someways superior to the later Apollo.
Mission requirements change and new vehicles are needed.
Though Apollo was started before Gemini.

The shuttle and Soyuz's long lives were a fluke due to politics and budget's then anything technical.
A properly budgeted program with direction replaces it's hardware on a regular bases.
See the com sat sector.
Really no vehicle should stick around largely unchanged for more then 15 to 20 years if so something is very wrong.
If the USSR did not fall Soyuz likely would have been replaced by the Zarya vehicle,TKS, or MAKS.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/zarya.htm
Zarya in someways has capabilities similar to the much later Dragon vehicle which probably represents the direction for future evolutions for capsule type vehicles.

Small lifting bodies like the HL-20/Dreamchaser probably also should be grouped with capsules since they are used in the same manner and can be adopted to different LVs.

China probably will choose to skip over the early Salyut stage in space stations and go with a design similar to Mir or even Bigelow's.
Why go with such a crude design when you have help from Russia who has experience in modular stations?
China already skipped two generations of spacecraft with Shenzhou.

It also should be noted a Chinese shuttle could be very different from the US shuttle it could even be a VTOL type vehicle.
As for lessons from the US shuttle program the important lessons have far more to do with how not to run a program then technical issues with RLVs.
If the vehicle stayed within it's original mission requirements it probably would be heralded as a success and already spawn it's successor.

[Danderman]

China probably will choose to skip over the early Salyut stage in space stations and go with a design similar to Mir or even Bigelow's.

Why go with such a crude design when you have help from Russia who has experience in modular stations?
China already skipped two generations of spacecraft with Shenzhou.

The "help" from Russia is greatly overstated here. China has a Soyuz copy because they were fortunate enough to have a Soyuz land on their territory and studied it for many years. They have acquired limited Russian systems and advice beyond that.

As a result, they use a Soyuz-based system, flying on a very limited scale.

There is zero evidence that China plans a great expansion beyond a 20 ton class station, and little evidence that they significantly plan to ramp up their manned space activities much beyond what we have seen to date, a launch on the average of less than one per year. Their plans for 2011 seem interesting, in that they will launch twice.

To claim anything beyond that is more a question of religious conviction, not their track record.

[Jorge]

Whatever replaces Shenzhou would probably be some sort of hybrid hypersonic jet/rocket, like on the Jetsons. That's very far in the future.

Agree the Chinese are unlikely to replace the Shenzhou spacecraft any time soon.  Why would they?  It is a great design!

The vehicle is limited in capabilities and they likely will want a more capable vehicle in the near future.

"near" means "> 2020" by Chinese cultural standards.

When Zhou Enlai (first Premier of the PRC) was asked about the 1789 French Revolution, his reply was, "it is too soon to say."

Shenzhou development started in 1992. First manned flight in 2003, two manned flights since.

The Chinese take the long view of things. They will be using Shenzhou for quite some time, I think.

Plus the CZ-2 LV is outdated even by their standards.

It's the same reason the US did not keep flying Gemini even though it was a great design in someways superior to the later Apollo.
Mission requirements change and new vehicles are needed.

Do not apply western Cold War thinking to China. Their mission requirements are to learn EVA and rendezvous techniques, and to service a LEO space station. Shenzhou will suffice for that.

[Patchouli]

Do not apply western Cold War thinking to China. Their mission requirements are to learn EVA and rendezvous techniques, and to service a LEO space station. Shenzhou will suffice for that.

Actually that's probably was why it was chosen it can do all of these things.
 BTW the capsule was found to be able to fly ten years before the shuttle as the Chinese industry did not have the means to produce the needed components.
So in this case China actually chose the faster route.

BTW it's probably wrong to use Zhou Enlai remarks to describe modern China as this is an outdated view.
Post cultural revolution China probably thinks more like the West on these things then Ancient China.
That mode of thinking has been outdated since the turn of the 20th century.
Back on space vehicles the start of the design of a replacement for Shenzhou around 2013-2015 sounds about right.
The flight rate has been painfully low likely due to that fact China has many internal issues which causes funding to be short vs any mythical patience.

They do have a bit of a race with India so some cold war thinking likely will apply.

It would be interesting to see who gets a moon base and an RLV flying first.
Despite China's early start my money is on India as they seem to have been progressing much faster recently.
GSLV III is very much ahead of CZ-5 at the moment.

Making a detailed plan 30 year plan and going at a tortoise's pace is probably very much the wrong mindset to have with a space program.

It's better to be flexible and be ready to change plans as new technology comes about.
A good example is an Apollo type infrastructure is laughably outdated today.
 Why do it it's been rendered obsolete by standardized modular LVs and robotic LEO assembly.

[HappyMartian]

How about a Chinese taikonaut flying on an American Space Shuttle and a US astronaut on a Shenzhou spacecraft? The International Space Station could benefit from a little more frequent visits. Could Shenzhou spacecraft be invited to dock there?

Such a beginning could lay the groundwork for future cooperation in the human exploration of the Moon. Taikonauts could regularly fly on Orion flights and American astronauts on a future Chinese Shuttle Spacecraft or Shenzhou spacecraft headed for Earth or Lunar orbit. One does need to take the long view on this sort of thing, but it might be nice to get started sooner rather than later.

How about a Shenzhou flying on an Atlas and then another on a Jupiter 140?  Cooperating to make Kennedy Space Center a place friendly to Shenzhou and Suyuz flights on US rockets might be the only affordable options for human spaceflight after the Space Shuttles are retired and many of the KSC staff wait a few years or more for Orion flights to begin. Setting up some ground support for both spacecraft at KSC could be an inspiring and clearly understood part of the "flexible path" buzz word world...

The first step could be a Chinese taikonaut flying on an American Space Shuttle. This might be off topic, "Re: Idle Chinese shuttle speculation." But the political and technical potential of a future Chinese Space Shuttle becomes a lot more interesting if it will have diverse international crews, including US astronauts, and if it also sometimes docks to a future International Space Station II. If we want to build toward that future, setting some healthy precedents now should form the strong foundation for where we want to get to.

Narrow nationalism isn't going to get a lot of American support or international excitement about humans exploring the Moon or Mars. International cooperation is just about the only real game that gets the money that is needed for humans to go anywhere in space other than LEO. But what happens in LEO during the next decade could set the stage for the cooperation needed to take humans across the solar system.

Cheers! 

[hop]

How about a Chinese taikonaut flying on an American Space Shuttle

There are no seats left on the manifest, and and even if their were, the time left isn't sufficient to negotiate the agreements, train, and fly. You could probably fly someone purely as a passenger in the time remaining, but that has no chance of happening.

and a US astronaut on a Shenzhou spacecraft? The International Space Station could benefit from a little more frequent visits. Could Shenzhou spacecraft be invited to dock there?

Theoretically, such an arrangement could be reached, but it would require many years and a great deal of work to come about. In reality, all the ISS partners would require deep technical insight into the Shenzhou program before allowing it anywhere near ISS. This means that the Chinese have to open up their program (which they may or may not be willing to do), vast quantities of engineering documents need to be translated, detailed analysis done on both sides, divergent engineering cultures reconciled, technical compromises made, etc.

The historical examples of ASTP and Shuttle-Mir should give you some idea of what is actually involved (although ISS would be more complex, because there are more parties involved)

How about a Shenzhou flying on an Atlas and then another on a Jupiter 140?

Why ?  This would only add complexity and expense, for the reasons mentioned above. The idea that this would be cheaper than flying a US built vehicle is absurd. If you could ignore politics and just wanted to save money, the way to do it would be to buy flights as a service, including both the LV and spacecraft. I'm sure both Russia and China could offer very competitive bids.

Of course, in reality you cannot ignore politics. Our dependent relationship with Russia in space is (rightly, IMO) uncomfortable to many, and entering into a similar relationship with China is would be even more so. This isn't purely based on some unreasoning nationalism.

[HappyMartian]

hop notes, "There are no seats left on the manifest, and and even if their were, the time left isn't sufficient to negotiate the agreements, train, and fly. You could probably fly someone purely as a passenger in the time remaining, but that has no chance of happening."


On the Direct thread Ross notes,

"In addition to that, there appear to be a couple of 'spare' External Tanks being processed and some sources indicate that there will be a couple of full sets of 4-seg SRB's left over at the end of the current manifest (and I am accounting for the final LON already)."

And... "I would not be at all surprised if that isn't the result of a little bit of "strategic pre-planning" on the part of SSP, to ensure the ability to add two (maybe three if LON can be covered by Soyuz or Dragon HR) more flights to the manifest if they can get the green light.  Very smart."

And.. "But at present, I have seen/heard no such plans to add those extra flights.   I'm not even hearing about discussions yet.   That doesn't mean they aren't happening, only that I haven't heard about them through our fairly good network of sources yet."

So, maybe there could be some seats.

hop goes on to note,

"Theoretically, such an arrangement could be reached, but it would require many years and a great deal of work to come about. In reality, all the ISS partners would require deep technical insight into the Shenzhou program before allowing it anywhere near ISS. This means that the Chinese have to open up their program (which they may or may not be willing to do), vast quantities of engineering documents need to be translated, detailed analysis done on both sides, divergent engineering cultures reconciled, technical compromises made, etc."

And... "The historical examples of ASTP and Shuttle-Mir should give you some idea of what is actually involved (although ISS would be more complex, because there are more parties involved)"

Are we less capable of doing ASTP and Shuttle-Mir types of missions today? If China is willing, would not its openness in explaining the details of the Shenzhou program and ours and our partners in explaining the International Space Station be some positive steps in some international relationships that don't seem to be doing very well? Building trust is difficult.

hop also notes, "Why ?  This would only add complexity and expense, for the reasons mentioned above. The idea that this would be cheaper than flying a US built vehicle is absurd."

Last time I checked, America and its International Partners were not going to have redundant transportation for humans to the International Space Station after the Space Shuttles are retired. All of our eggs seem to be with the Russians and the Soyuz system. China might be willing to help provide the needed redundancy for human spaceflight to the International Space Station.

hop questions, "Why ?  This would only add complexity and expense, for the reasons mentioned above. The idea that this would be cheaper than flying a US built vehicle is absurd."

What "US built vehicle"? For political reasons, there isn't one. Absurd in the extreme, but nonetheless a reality created by American politics. I worry about the potential of the International Space Station becoming a piece of garbage in a decaying orbit simply because America didn't do what it could to maintain needed human spaceflight redundancy to LEO. How would that play out on the international stage?

hop goes on to add, "Of course, in reality you cannot ignore politics. Our dependent relationship with Russia in space is (rightly, IMO) uncomfortable to many, and entering into a similar relationship with China is would be even more so. This isn't purely based on some unreasoning nationalism."

It has always been an "uncomfortable" world. Narrow nationalism can seem or actually be quite reasonable. Reasonable thinking can also invite some big and little wars. Maybe many of the readers here don't want a "dependent relationship with Russia in space" and yet the one nation that actually could help out with avoiding a major increase in that reality is also objectionable for reasons that of course are not "based on some unreasoning nationalism."

hop, maybe you are right about many things and still wrong in the direction you see America as needing to go. Maybe even a new major power struggle is inevitable or has already come into being, a sort of Cold War II. Reality and the big world we live in can be annoying in many ways. Maybe the best thing one can do is to try to provide some hope and vision for a peaceful reality by encouraging that the power game be played in a desirable manner. Since I lived through most of the last Cold War, you'll understand my desire to try for something better in the near future. 

Cheers!

[hop]

"In addition to that, there appear to be a couple of 'spare' External Tanks being processed and some sources indicate that there will be a couple of full sets of 4-seg SRB's left over at the end of the current manifest (and I am accounting for the final LON already)."

I.e., not on the manifest. Even a couple more flights would assume a pretty compressed timeline for the negotiations and training, and it's not clear what NASA would gain by giving valuable "extra" seats to people who would essentially be tourists.

Are we less capable of doing ASTP and Shuttle-Mir types of missions today?

I didn't say we couldn't. I was suggesting you should look at the history of the programs to understand the level of time and effort required. Getting two vehicles together in space is never easy, and trying to do it between nations with different languages, management and engineering cultures makes it even more difficult.

Last time I checked, America and its International Partners were not going to have redundant transportation for humans to the International Space Station after the Space Shuttles are retired.

Redundant access is an side benefit of a particular quirk of history, not a requirement. Skylab didn't have it, generations of Soviet space stations didn't have it.

What "US built vehicle"? For political reasons, there isn't one. Absurd in the extreme, but nonetheless a reality created by American politics.

A Chinese docking wouldn't realistically occur much before a US vehicle could be available with a similar level of commitment. Even if there was an agreement today, a Shenzhou docking would be years away. Keep in mind they haven't docked with *anything* yet, their flight experience is far less than what Russia and the US had at the time of ASTP, and their program to date has operated a very slow pace.

It has always been an "uncomfortable" world. Narrow nationalism can seem or actually be quite reasonable.

It would be great if we could all sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya, but that isn't the world we live in. Pretending otherwise is an extremely dangerous practice.

edit:
This is not to say that cooperation in areas of mutual interest isn't possible or even desirable, even with nations that are antagonistic in other areas. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The point is that the broader relationship to potential partners warrants due consideration, and taking into account undersirable actions of potential partners is common sense, not "narrow nationalism".

[HappyMartian]

hop notes, "It would be great if we could all sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya, but that isn't the world we live in. Pretending otherwise is an extremely dangerous practice."

Sorry, I had to google Kumbaya. Bad memory. Yep. I should have learned that song and a lot of other songs too... I remember in the fall of 1996 sitting near two campfires some Chinese young people had built in the middle of some fields in pretty much the middle of China. It was a lovely night. They were trying to cook some meat over the flames and wanted me to teach them some English songs. I couldn't think of any. They had a guitar or two and Kumbaya would have been nice if I had known it. Mostly I kept an eye on the fires because I didn't think burning up some fields would win anyone any prizes from the local peasants.

Knowing Kumbaya might also have been useful the first time I went to China in 1984. I remember one Chinese guy in Heilongjiang who was terribly disappointed that I didn't know one of the latest pop songs in America. He could only sing a few words and they didn't ring any bells in my head. Singing isn't my forte.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden might know Kumbaya and it could even be useful for him to practice singing it. Lots of Chinese seem to enjoy singing karaoke at social gatherings and parties, and hey it's not a bad song now, is it? But he's a smart guy so I don't think anyone needs to to give him any social advice about how to make new Chinese friends.

hop added,
"edit:
This is not to say that cooperation in areas of mutual interest isn't possible or even desirable, even with nations that are antagonistic in other areas. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The point is that the broader relationship to potential partners warrants due consideration, and taking into account undersirable actions of potential partners is common sense, not "narrow nationalism"."

I'm not quite sure what the meaning is behind "taking into account undersirable actions of potential partners is common sense, not "narrow nationalism". Narrow nationalism is when you aren't really interested in the big picture from anybody else's viewpoint or what one of the up and coming players might be worried about. China has its concerns and so do the International Space Station Partners. If there is a willingness, there is a way. Things can be worked out.

The Russians weren't all that friendly in the early 1970's and I certainly don't remember them singing Kumbaya or any other songs, and yet both countries sat down and made the 1975 Apollo Soyuz Test Project a reality.  Maybe we didn't really try to focus on our fears or on that "common sense" process of "taking into account undersirable actions of potential partners..."

As for me, the first time I went to China in 1984, I hoped to never return. The country was just too poor. I traveled and saw and didn't get that magic feeling. Today, it is much better, but still poor. I've spent about a total of nine years on the mainland and four years on Taiwan. I've talked to a large number of interesting and, for the most part, very friendly Chinese people. In the summer of 1996, I even spent six days on a Chinese military base. I wasn't a very good guest, but they treated me well.

While living and traveling in China, I've seen more than I want to think about. Yet, what I can't quite figure out is: Why should China today be considered as more "dangerous" than the Soviet Empire in 1975? It really doesn't compute. We should be planning human spaceflight projects with the Chinese taikonauts and government.

Like I noted, "The first step could be a Chinese taikonaut flying on an American Space Shuttle. This might be off topic, "Re: Idle Chinese shuttle speculation." But the political and technical potential of a future Chinese Space Shuttle becomes a lot more interesting if it will have diverse international crews, including US astronauts, and if it also sometimes docks to a future International Space Station II. If we want to build toward that future, setting some healthy precedents now should form the strong foundation for where we want to get to."

At:   http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7058.90
spacex noted three months ago,

"Fascinating and insightful article on AW:  China Shows U.S. Delegation Next Spacecraft"     
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/china092809.xml&headline=China%20Shows%20U.S.%20Delegation%20Next%20Spacecraft

Happy New Year and Cheers!

[hop]

Yet, what I can't quite figure out is: Why should China today be considered as more "dangerous" than the Soviet Empire in 1975?

Who said they were ? I certainly didn't. Unlike the Soviets, they do not appear interested in forcing their own totalitarian system on the rest of the world. That's a good thing, but it doesn't mean they have our best interests at heart. It also doesn't mean that it is in our interest to engage in stunt like ASTP with them. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it needs to be evaluated on it's own merits, taking into account how it will affect the rest of our relationship.

The fact that you found ordinary Chinese citizens to be friendly is completely irrelevant to this. You'd most likely find the same to be true of people anywhere, but it doesn't say anything about the desirability of entering into a joint venture with their government.