Tiangong - Chinese Space Station

[Phillip Clark]

Assembly on ground in larger volume modules would have been cheaper than multiple modules which means multiple projects / launches and would have enabled the ISS to be completed sooner.

Unsubstantiated and basically wrong.  There is no data to support your claim.

Out of curiosity, do actual data exist which definitively support one point-of-view over the other?

[Steven Pietrobon]

From page 86 of the August 2012 ESA Bulletin

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/ESA-Bulletin-151/offline/download.pdf

CREW TRANSPORTATION

International Berthing and Docking Mechanism (IBDM) IBDM dynamic testing was completed at SIRRIS in Leuven, Belgium. The results confirmed the feasibility of a design compatible with both NASA and Russian designs.

International Docking System Standard (IDSS)

Docking standardisation discussions continued with representatives of the Chinese Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO) at ESTEC in May. The Chinese have shown interest in discussing possible adaptations of their docking system to an international standard and to the joint definition of a new large-diameter mechanism, capable (like the IBDM) of docking and berthing, for the permanent connection of major modules of their Space Station. The exchanges on the development of docking systems with the Chinese showed that also China identified the need for a docking system that could work for space vehicles of various masses and deliver moderate impact loads.

An International Docking Systems Workshop at ESTEC in May involved about 30 experts (from USA, Europe, Canada, Russia, China and Japan), bringing together for the first time the IDSS partners from the ISS countries and new participants, offering an opportunity to enlarge the docking standardisation discussions to a new set of international partners (for example, China).

The need for a standard docking interface was reconfirmed and the design of ESA’s IBDM system appeared as a very promising candidate for such a standard. ESA was asked to organise a follow-up workshop at the IAF Conference in October. Discussions with NASA and the Canadian Space Agency looked at the possible joint development of a new docking system based on the IBDM.

[manboy]

The need for a standard docking interface was reconfirmed and the design of ESA’s IBDM system appeared as a very promising candidate for such a standard...Discussions with NASA and the Canadian Space Agency looked at the possible joint development of a new docking system based on the IBDM.

Sounds like ESA is trying to give themselves much more credit than they deserve. Their "International Berthing Docking Mechanism" (IBDM) is simply an implementation of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS).

[cheesybagel]

All I see is tech copied from Russians. They have a lot of money, they are starting to outsource tech outside (I was asked to develop a cheap auto focus lenses 2y ago) but the general feeling is that they have too much cash in hand to bother developing on their own. I've worked with Chinese engineers and believe me that they have a very long way to go.

The Chinese have had LOX/LH2 upper stage engines for years now. The Russians still do not even though they developed one for the Indians which is supposed to be used in Angara.

If it is cheaper to buy a license rather than doing all the R&D from scratch why bother? Their technological gap is so wide that currently this is the best way of proceeding. Eventually they will start doing more things on their own.

Talk about cultural differences blocking R&D development are just that: talk. I have heard the same thing applied to Japan and South Korea. They have been proven wrong time and again. China has enough skilled people and resources to pull it off. They import a lot of tech, but so did Russia between WWI and WWII. They still managed to put Sputnik, Gagarin and Leonov in space.

[PeterAlt]

I think the unknown here is launcher development.

The ISS was hobbled by utilising the Space Shuttle to launch many of its components.

I think the chinese will aim for a larger station (by volume) with less modules launched by larger rockets.

Fallacy

It wasn't the size of the shuttle that hobbled the ISS, it was that it was the only launcher.

ISS does not need more volume, nor did it need larger launchers

Jim, I think he is thinking Skylab as the method of assembling a station. The Saturn V was able to put very large and very heavy components into orbit. If the equivillant of Skylab was to be assembled in orbit by shuttle, how many shuttle flights and EVAs would it have required? Whatever your answer is, I'm sure it would have required more flights and EVA time, costing more, while increasing risk.

[Lsquirrel]

Won't Tiangong-3 serve as the core module?
  I'm taking my info from Wikipedia.  Tiangong-3 will have the size and
mass of each of the modules of the planned Modular Chinese Space Station. And according to Wikipedia, Tiangong-3 will be launched
around 2015. 
So for at least five years it appears, Tiangong-3 will orbit without additional modules.
Leaves me wondering what the Chinese manned psace program plans to
do between 2015 and 2020?
Send an upgraded Shenzhou to circle the Moon?
Send one to a NEO asteroid?

Tiangong-3 will be launched around 2015，while core module of chinese  future space station will be launched around 2018~2020
there isn't  Human mission to Moon or NEO ,Cargo spacecraft will be docked with Tiangong-3

[tonyq]

There are some interesting statements about the Chinese Space Station plans in this blog/report by Clive Simpson, who was previously editor of 'Spaceflight'.

http://simcomm.blogspot.com/

Some of these comments were not previously know to me, and I don't think they had been explicitly stated by China:-

- The Chinese space station is expected to be completed and fully operational around 2020.

- The Space Station will conduct long-term man-tended operations with the nominal status of three crew who will alternate every half year

- The construction phase would see intermittent visits and stays depending on mission requirements and that some EVAs would be performed

- There will also be a cargo re-supply ship sent up to the orbiting complex between one and two times a year

[Lsquirrel]

http://www.stdaily.com/stdaily/content/2012-11/30/content_546525.htm

论坛上，中国载人航天工程总师周建平介绍了空间站建设总体构想：在轨运营10年以上，基本构型为T字型，由3个22吨级舱段组成，核心舱居中，实验舱Ⅰ和实验舱Ⅱ分别连接于两侧。核心舱前端设两个对接口，接纳载人飞船对接和停靠；后端设后向对接口，作为货运飞船补给端口。站上设气闸舱用于航天员出舱，配置大小两个机械臂用于辅助对接、补给、出舱和科学实验。在空间站运营阶段，还将发射第二个核心舱进行前向对接，最终整站形成十字构型，并具备进一步的舱段扩展能力。

some statements of future modular space station circa 2020:
the space station will have two mechanical arms
baseline configuration: core module + experiment module 1 + experiment module 2
final configuration: core module + experiment module 1 + experiment module 2 + core module 2 (china version MIR?)

[Zero-G]

This mockup of a "Mechanical Arm for Space Station" was exhibited at the China Airshow 2012 in Zhuhai in November:
(Sorry for the low quality of the pic of the artwork. It's just a cutout from the other picture, since I did not take a separate shot of the artwork.)

[Satori]

From Xinhua, China's space station will be energy-efficient: lead designer.

[ChileVerde]

From Xinhua, China's space station will be energy-efficient: lead designer.

That notes,

The green technologies to be applied in the station will raise its recycling rate and reduce its reliance on input from the ground.

For example, waste water and urine will be used to extract oxygen, and carbon dioxide and other human waste will also be recycled, Zhou said.

Which, interpreted optimistically, sounds like working in the direction of a DSH ECLSS.

[Lsquirrel]

kktt have scanned the newest paper of china space station，here is url：
http://liuqiankktt.blog.163.com/blog/static/121264211201342864744355/

photos：

baseline configuration(up to 90mt)：
1 core module，experiment module 1，experiment module 2，big mechanical arm&small mechanical arm

extended configuration(up to 180mt)：
2 core module，experiment module 1，experiment module 2，big mechanical arm&small mechanical arm，experiment module 3，experiment module 4， exposed facility 1、2、3、4

cargo spacecraft:
mass: up to 13.5mt
upload: up to 6.5mt
module design : pressurized,semi-pressurized,unpressurized configuration, upload cargo、suppuly、 propellant,  and solar wing, exposed facility, small station module ...

[manboy]

What does this say?

[Galactic Penguin SST]

What does this say?

That's the model of the future Chinese cargo supply spacecraft. 

[baldusi]

I don't speak Chinese, but I see no radiators there. Are this notional, an artist impression or what exactly?

[manboy]

What does this say?

That's the model of the future Chinese cargo supply spacecraft. 

But specifically what does the text say?

EDIT: I did some research and the first four characters (货运飞船) say "cargo ship". I wonder what the last two say.

[Kryten]

I don't speak Chinese, but I see no radiators there. Are this notional, an artist impression or what exactly?

The first image has radiators, and some of the 'solar panels' on the others appear to be mostly the same size, shape and location as those radiators; looks like they've just been translated from design to CGI incorrectly, like those images of Tiangong being docked with at the wrong end.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Thanks to Zero-G for pointing this out in the Shenzhou 10 thread. Click on the second link from right (highlighted in blue in the attached image) to see a 3D view of the Chinese Modular Space Station.

http://news.qq.com/zt2013/shen10flash/3D.htm

[newpylong]

Assembly on ground in larger volume modules would have been cheaper than multiple modules which means multiple projects / launches and would have enabled the ISS to be completed sooner.

Unsubstantiated and basically wrong.  There is no data to support your claim.

There is no data to prove him wrong either. Common sense says that if two of anything can been combined into 1, it is faster and more economical.

[Star One]

There is a graphic of this in the BBC article covering this launch, how good or bad is the representation here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22843318