Author Topic: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station  (Read 292571 times)

Offline eeergo

-DaviD-

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1313
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1652
  • Likes Given: 1086
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #241 on: 05/28/2020 10:39 am »
Andrew Jones: China outlines intense space station launch schedule, new astronaut selection

Quote
Launch of the Tianhe core module on a Long March 5B could take place at Wenchang in early 2021. This will be followed by a crewed Shenzhou flight, from Jiuquan, and a Tianzhou cargo mission. The first of two experiment modules will then launch for docking with Tianhe.

In total 11 launches will be conducted to complete the construction of the space station by around 2023
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline SciNews

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Romania
  • Liked: 736
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #242 on: 05/28/2020 02:30 pm »
Short interview with Zhou Jianping, chief designer of China’s human space program

Online BrianNH

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 228
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 631
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #243 on: 05/28/2020 03:27 pm »
Does this mean that the launch of the first module has been pushed back to 2021?

Online Satori

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14036
  • Campo do Geręs - Portugal
  • Liked: 1621
  • Likes Given: 933
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #244 on: 05/28/2020 04:01 pm »
Does this mean that the launch of the first module has been pushed back to 2021?

It was already known for some time that the launch would take place in the first quarter of 2021.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8351
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2530
  • Likes Given: 8045
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #245 on: 05/29/2020 07:47 pm »
https://vk.com/chinaspaceflight?w=wall-119361981_6416


I've just realized: the docking port is androgynous. At least it has the hooks to act as active or passive.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 750
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #246 on: 05/29/2020 09:22 pm »
https://vk.com/chinaspaceflight?w=wall-119361981_6416


I've just realized: the docking port is androgynous. At least it has the hooks to act as active or passive.
It has an active SCS due to the presence of dampening and realignment actuators.

Offline Sizzy

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Hongkong
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #247 on: 07/17/2020 03:41 am »
Surely, it would just be a case of redesigning the 'LOX Turbopump fault' and flying again when the problem is resolved - however long that takes? I doubt the Chinese space agency would just shelve something for good when a problem could be fixed.

https://www.iso.org/standard/61847.html
ISO 18238:2015
Space systems — Closed loop problem solving management

Offline zandr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Russia
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #248 on: 10/22/2020 09:06 pm »
From Xinhua:
China Focus: 18 reserve astronauts selected for China's manned space program
Quote

One astronaut can operate the mechanical arm inside the capsule while another works outside. The space station will have two kinds of mechanical arms, and the coordination between astronauts and mechanical arms will enable the construction and maintenance of the station.

Offline B. Hendrickx

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Liked: 1481
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #249 on: 12/21/2020 09:53 pm »
The latest issue of NPO Lavochkin's in-house magazine has an article on a joint Indian-Russian ultraviolet telescope (SING: Spectroscopic Observation of Nebular Gas) to be flown on the Chinese space station. It will complement observations made by the Spektr-UF observatory.

https://www.laspace.ru/upload/iblock/0aa/0aa8d098b9691940a4bd13f03a64255a.pdf
(in Russian) (p. 4-7)

SING was one of two international scientific experiments selected for the CSS in June last year, the other being a gamma-ray burst instrument jointly proposed by Switzerland, Poland, Germany and China. Seven more were expected to be selected at the time.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1154057.shtml

More on SING here:
https://jcuva.ucm.es/NUVA2020_Posters/NUVA2020OnlineWorkshop_Poster_Murthy.pdf

Offline otter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Belarus
  • Liked: 503
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #250 on: 12/25/2020 12:23 pm »
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-12/25/c_139618817.htm

China to launch core module of space station in first half of 2021
2020-12-25 20:41:57

CHANGSHA, Dec. 25 (Xinhua) -- China plans to launch the core module of its manned space station in the first half of 2021, a senior official said Friday.

The core module will be sent by a Long March-5B Y2 rocket from the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site in Hainan Province, said Zhou Jianping, chief designer of China's manned space program, at a handover ceremony for the return capsule of the Shenzhou-10 manned spacecraft in Shaoshan, central China's Hunan Province.

"Subsequent space missions include the launches of Tianzhou-2 cargo craft and Shenzhou-12 manned craft after the core module is sent into orbit," Zhou said.

Tests on the core module have been completed, and astronaut training is underway. The astronauts will carry out a number of extravehicular activities.

China is scheduled to complete the construction of the space station around 2022. The construction project will be implemented in two phases. Six flight missions, including the launch of the core module, have been scheduled in the phase of key technology validation.

Offline ddspaceman

« Last Edit: 12/25/2020 09:27 pm by ddspaceman »

Offline gemmy0I

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Liked: 512
  • Likes Given: 1720
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #252 on: 12/26/2020 09:31 pm »
Some good shots of the station's docking ports here. Can anyone tell whether they look like APAS or IDS standard? (I'm not visually familiar enough with the differences to distinguish them...)

In the past China has used a derivative of APAS on their stations, but there have been reports/statements that they intend to make Tiangong (and visiting vehicles going forward) compatible with the newer IDS standard. I'm curious whether they are actually going through with that or if that was just an unfounded/misinterpreted rumor.

At the moment the idea of transnational space station visits with China (Dragon/Starliner/DC to Tiangong or Shenzhou to ISS) would seem like a pipe dream on legal grounds, but it would make a lot of sense to at least try to make them as compatible as possible, so as to keep options open. (IDS is supposed to be structurally superior to boot - less impact on the station's structure from repeated dockings, which also makes it easier to abort a docking since approach velocity is reduced.)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 750
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #253 on: 12/26/2020 10:15 pm »
Some good shots of the station's docking ports here. Can anyone tell whether they look like APAS or IDS standard? (I'm not visually familiar enough with the differences to distinguish them...)

In the past China has used a derivative of APAS on their stations, but there have been reports/statements that they intend to make Tiangong (and visiting vehicles going forward) compatible with the newer IDS standard. I'm curious whether they are actually going through with that or if that was just an unfounded/misinterpreted rumor.

At the moment the idea of transnational space station visits with China (Dragon/Starliner/DC to Tiangong or Shenzhou to ISS) would seem like a pipe dream on legal grounds, but it would make a lot of sense to at least try to make them as compatible as possible, so as to keep options open. (IDS is supposed to be structurally superior to boot - less impact on the station's structure from repeated dockings, which also makes it easier to abort a docking since approach velocity is reduced.)
APAS is the version of IDSS offered by RSC Energia. A newer version of APAS is in development for proposed projects (i.e. Gateway et al) that is fully IDSS compliant with built in redundancy features. The Chinese licenced version of APAS is known in English as CDS or China Docking System.
 
China required it to be built to ISS MCB docking system requirements so that each station can serve the other as well as commercial stations in emergency situations.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2020 10:19 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline gemmy0I

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Liked: 512
  • Likes Given: 1720
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #254 on: 12/27/2020 04:31 am »
Some good shots of the station's docking ports here. Can anyone tell whether they look like APAS or IDS standard? (I'm not visually familiar enough with the differences to distinguish them...)

In the past China has used a derivative of APAS on their stations, but there have been reports/statements that they intend to make Tiangong (and visiting vehicles going forward) compatible with the newer IDS standard. I'm curious whether they are actually going through with that or if that was just an unfounded/misinterpreted rumor.

At the moment the idea of transnational space station visits with China (Dragon/Starliner/DC to Tiangong or Shenzhou to ISS) would seem like a pipe dream on legal grounds, but it would make a lot of sense to at least try to make them as compatible as possible, so as to keep options open. (IDS is supposed to be structurally superior to boot - less impact on the station's structure from repeated dockings, which also makes it easier to abort a docking since approach velocity is reduced.)
APAS is the version of IDSS offered by RSC Energia. A newer version of APAS is in development for proposed projects (i.e. Gateway et al) that is fully IDSS compliant with built in redundancy features. The Chinese licenced version of APAS is known in English as CDS or China Docking System.
 
China required it to be built to ISS MCB docking system requirements so that each station can serve the other as well as commercial stations in emergency situations.
Thanks - that clears things up quite a bit!

I keep forgetting that the IDSS standard, like APAS before it, allows for substantial independence in how it's implemented mechanically by different nations and companies, even as the interface itself is mutually compatible. The last time the U.S. built a docking system indigenously prior to NDS was for Apollo-Soyuz, and apparently their implementation of that original version of APAS was quite different mechanically than the Soviet one. So I can see how NASA/U.S.-focused sources would draw a sharper terminological line between "APAS" (referring to the legacy high-impact system as implemented by the PMAs and Shuttle's docking adapter) versus "IDS/NDS" (the modern low-impact system as implemented by the IDAs and Commercial crew vehicles), compared to Russian/Chinese-focused sources. NDS, NASA's reference implementation of IDSS developed by Boeing out of the LIDS project and used by the IDAs, seems to be a clean-sheet design deriving from neither the historical American Apollo-Soyuz APAS implementation, nor from the Russian-proprietary implementation used on Shuttle-ISS/Mir, hence NASA doesn't refer to their new ports as "APAS". Likewise SpaceX, which opted to do their own clean-sheet implementation of IDSS instead of buying Boeing's, wouldn't be able to claim APAS heritage per se. But since Russia has been continuously producing and evolving docking hardware from the 60's to the present day, it stands to reason their implementation of IDSS would have more substantial mechanical heritage in APAS, hence why they continue to use that term to describe it. (Did I get all that right? :) )

I do find it interesting that China is choosing to put its new space station in a ~42° orbit instead of a ~51.6° orbit matching the ISS's. Having compatible docking ports is nice but not especially useful when the two stations are separated by so much delta-v; it limits the utility in "emergency situations" to ones where one nation's vehicle is launching fresh from the ground to visit the other's station, as opposed to traveling from one station to the other. Just as Mir and the ISS were supposed to overlap and allow for cross-visits (as was done between Mir and Salyut 7), it seems most if not all near-term commercial stations will be joining the 51.6° inclination for that reason. (Axiom Station in particular, being the most credible plan for a commercial station right now, will have to be at 51.6° because it will start out as an extension to the ISS.)

It also freezes out Russia from sending Soyuz/Progress/Oryol vehicles to the Chinese station since none of their launch sites can reach 42°, which strikes me as strange considering how closely involved Russia and China have been on this project (and Russia's recently stated intent to double down on that partnership in the future instead of getting more involved with the U.S.). Even if they launched straight east from Baikonur (which I suppose they could do in partnership with China, since Baikonur's azimuth restrictions are driven by the need to avoid overflying Mongolia), they still wouldn't be able to get any lower than ~45° without a substantial dogleg. Are China's launches for station modules and visiting vehicles so mass-constrained that they can't spend the small extra delta-v to go to 51.6°? It just seems like the smarter play considering that's where all the action is.

Or am I overestimating the difficulty of the dogleg necessary to get to 42° from Baikonur or Vostochny? I can't imagine Soyuz-2.1a being able to pull it off given it's tightly mass-constrained on Soyuz and Progress launches, but maybe if they bumped it up to a Soyuz-2.1b they could do it?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 750
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #255 on: 12/27/2020 05:57 am »
Some good shots of the station's docking ports here. Can anyone tell whether they look like APAS or IDS standard? (I'm not visually familiar enough with the differences to distinguish them...)

In the past China has used a derivative of APAS on their stations, but there have been reports/statements that they intend to make Tiangong (and visiting vehicles going forward) compatible with the newer IDS standard. I'm curious whether they are actually going through with that or if that was just an unfounded/misinterpreted rumor.

At the moment the idea of transnational space station visits with China (Dragon/Starliner/DC to Tiangong or Shenzhou to ISS) would seem like a pipe dream on legal grounds, but it would make a lot of sense to at least try to make them as compatible as possible, so as to keep options open. (IDS is supposed to be structurally superior to boot - less impact on the station's structure from repeated dockings, which also makes it easier to abort a docking since approach velocity is reduced.)
APAS is the version of IDSS offered by RSC Energia. A newer version of APAS is in development for proposed projects (i.e. Gateway et al) that is fully IDSS compliant with built in redundancy features. The Chinese licenced version of APAS is known in English as CDS or China Docking System.
 
China required it to be built to ISS MCB docking system requirements so that each station can serve the other as well as commercial stations in emergency situations.
Thanks - that clears things up quite a bit!

I keep forgetting that the IDSS standard, like APAS before it, allows for substantial independence in how it's implemented mechanically by different nations and companies, even as the interface itself is mutually compatible. The last time the U.S. built a docking system indigenously prior to NDS was for Apollo-Soyuz, and apparently their implementation of that original version of APAS was quite different mechanically than the Soviet one. So I can see how NASA/U.S.-focused sources would draw a sharper terminological line between "APAS" (referring to the legacy high-impact system as implemented by the PMAs and Shuttle's docking adapter) versus "IDS/NDS" (the modern low-impact system as implemented by the IDAs and Commercial crew vehicles), compared to Russian/Chinese-focused sources. NDS, NASA's reference implementation of IDSS developed by Boeing out of the LIDS project and used by the IDAs, seems to be a clean-sheet design deriving from neither the historical American Apollo-Soyuz APAS implementation, nor from the Russian-proprietary implementation used on Shuttle-ISS/Mir, hence NASA doesn't refer to their new ports as "APAS". Likewise SpaceX, which opted to do their own clean-sheet implementation of IDSS instead of buying Boeing's, wouldn't be able to claim APAS heritage per se. But since Russia has been continuously producing and evolving docking hardware from the 60's to the present day, it stands to reason their implementation of IDSS would have more substantial mechanical heritage in APAS, hence why they continue to use that term to describe it. (Did I get all that right? :) )

I do find it interesting that China is choosing to put its new space station in a ~42° orbit instead of a ~51.6° orbit matching the ISS's. Having compatible docking ports is nice but not especially useful when the two stations are separated by so much delta-v; it limits the utility in "emergency situations" to ones where one nation's vehicle is launching fresh from the ground to visit the other's station, as opposed to traveling from one station to the other. Just as Mir and the ISS were supposed to overlap and allow for cross-visits (as was done between Mir and Salyut 7), it seems most if not all near-term commercial stations will be joining the 51.6° inclination for that reason. (Axiom Station in particular, being the most credible plan for a commercial station right now, will have to be at 51.6° because it will start out as an extension to the ISS.)

It also freezes out Russia from sending Soyuz/Progress/Oryol vehicles to the Chinese station since none of their launch sites can reach 42°, which strikes me as strange considering how closely involved Russia and China have been on this project (and Russia's recently stated intent to double down on that partnership in the future instead of getting more involved with the U.S.). Even if they launched straight east from Baikonur (which I suppose they could do in partnership with China, since Baikonur's azimuth restrictions are driven by the need to avoid overflying Mongolia), they still wouldn't be able to get any lower than ~45° without a substantial dogleg. Are China's launches for station modules and visiting vehicles so mass-constrained that they can't spend the small extra delta-v to go to 51.6°? It just seems like the smarter play considering that's where all the action is.

Or am I overestimating the difficulty of the dogleg necessary to get to 42° from Baikonur or Vostochny? I can't imagine Soyuz-2.1a being able to pull it off given it's tightly mass-constrained on Soyuz and Progress launches, but maybe if they bumped it up to a Soyuz-2.1b they could do it?
The IDA's development, design and manufacture involved Boeing, RSC Energia et al. The IDSS calls for an impact range supporting legacy APAS impact velocities to LIDS ultra low impact velocities. This may change in a future revision years to decades in the future.

Chinese launches can reach 51.6. They have been back and forth on the planned inclination. Also Russia has been given frozen water over the past few years in Chinese discussions because China's Central Committee et al have declined to give authorization and the Chinese side has to have approvals for anything beyond pondering discussion. If you have a subscription Russian Space Web this is greatly detailed and goes in to the repeated deal breakers including topics outside of space. It heavily relies on Russia increasingly not having much to offer major technologies wise with China having lapped Russia in many fields. It also comes down to that if it is not approved in China's 5 year plans and not proposed first by them then approvals are hard to come by.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 750
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #256 on: 12/27/2020 06:07 am »
Some good shots of the station's docking ports here. Can anyone tell whether they look like APAS or IDS standard? (I'm not visually familiar enough with the differences to distinguish them...)

In the past China has used a derivative of APAS on their stations, but there have been reports/statements that they intend to make Tiangong (and visiting vehicles going forward) compatible with the newer IDS standard. I'm curious whether they are actually going through with that or if that was just an unfounded/misinterpreted rumor.

At the moment the idea of transnational space station visits with China (Dragon/Starliner/DC to Tiangong or Shenzhou to ISS) would seem like a pipe dream on legal grounds, but it would make a lot of sense to at least try to make them as compatible as possible, so as to keep options open. (IDS is supposed to be structurally superior to boot - less impact on the station's structure from repeated dockings, which also makes it easier to abort a docking since approach velocity is reduced.)
APAS is the version of IDSS offered by RSC Energia. A newer version of APAS is in development for proposed projects (i.e. Gateway et al) that is fully IDSS compliant with built in redundancy features. The Chinese licenced version of APAS is known in English as CDS or China Docking System.
 
China required it to be built to ISS MCB docking system requirements so that each station can serve the other as well as commercial stations in emergency situations.
Thanks - that clears things up quite a bit!

I keep forgetting that the IDSS standard, like APAS before it, allows for substantial independence in how it's implemented mechanically by different nations and companies, even as the interface itself is mutually compatible. The last time the U.S. built a docking system indigenously prior to NDS was for Apollo-Soyuz, and apparently their implementation of that original version of APAS was quite different mechanically than the Soviet one. So I can see how NASA/U.S.-focused sources would draw a sharper terminological line between "APAS" (referring to the legacy high-impact system as implemented by the PMAs and Shuttle's docking adapter) versus "IDS/NDS" (the modern low-impact system as implemented by the IDAs and Commercial crew vehicles), compared to Russian/Chinese-focused sources. NDS, NASA's reference implementation of IDSS developed by Boeing out of the LIDS project and used by the IDAs, seems to be a clean-sheet design deriving from neither the historical American Apollo-Soyuz APAS implementation, nor from the Russian-proprietary implementation used on Shuttle-ISS/Mir, hence NASA doesn't refer to their new ports as "APAS". Likewise SpaceX, which opted to do their own clean-sheet implementation of IDSS instead of buying Boeing's, wouldn't be able to claim APAS heritage per se. But since Russia has been continuously producing and evolving docking hardware from the 60's to the present day, it stands to reason their implementation of IDSS would have more substantial mechanical heritage in APAS, hence why they continue to use that term to describe it. (Did I get all that right? :) )

I do find it interesting that China is choosing to put its new space station in a ~42° orbit instead of a ~51.6° orbit matching the ISS's. Having compatible docking ports is nice but not especially useful when the two stations are separated by so much delta-v; it limits the utility in "emergency situations" to ones where one nation's vehicle is launching fresh from the ground to visit the other's station, as opposed to traveling from one station to the other. Just as Mir and the ISS were supposed to overlap and allow for cross-visits (as was done between Mir and Salyut 7), it seems most if not all near-term commercial stations will be joining the 51.6° inclination for that reason. (Axiom Station in particular, being the most credible plan for a commercial station right now, will have to be at 51.6° because it will start out as an extension to the ISS.)

It also freezes out Russia from sending Soyuz/Progress/Oryol vehicles to the Chinese station since none of their launch sites can reach 42°, which strikes me as strange considering how closely involved Russia and China have been on this project (and Russia's recently stated intent to double down on that partnership in the future instead of getting more involved with the U.S.). Even if they launched straight east from Baikonur (which I suppose they could do in partnership with China, since Baikonur's azimuth restrictions are driven by the need to avoid overflying Mongolia), they still wouldn't be able to get any lower than ~45° without a substantial dogleg. Are China's launches for station modules and visiting vehicles so mass-constrained that they can't spend the small extra delta-v to go to 51.6°? It just seems like the smarter play considering that's where all the action is.

Or am I overestimating the difficulty of the dogleg necessary to get to 42° from Baikonur or Vostochny? I can't imagine Soyuz-2.1a being able to pull it off given it's tightly mass-constrained on Soyuz and Progress launches, but maybe if they bumped it up to a Soyuz-2.1b they could do it?
The IDA's development, design and manufacture involved Boeing, RSC Energia et al. The IDSS calls for an impact range supporting legacy APAS impact velocities to LIDS ultra low impact velocities. This may change in a future revision years to decades in the future.

Chinese launches can reach 51.6. They have been back and forth on the planned inclination. Also Russia has been given frozen water over the past few years in Chinese discussions because China's Central Committee et al have declined to give authorization and the Chinese side has to have approvals for anything beyond pondering discussion. If you have a subscription Russian Space Web this is greatly detailed and goes in to the repeated deal breakers including topics outside of space. It heavily relies on Russia increasingly not having much to offer major technologies wise with China having lapped Russia in many fields. It also comes down to that if it is not approved in China's 5 year plans and not proposed first by them then approvals are hard to come by.
Link to subscription article that details why Russia and China won't be doing anything jointly anytime soon. Yes it is not about space stations but the same applies: http://russianspaceweb.com/protected/spacecraft-manned-lunar-china.html

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6533
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1494
  • Likes Given: 1410
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #257 on: 12/27/2020 06:27 am »
China is choosing to put its new space station in a ~42° orbit
The Jiuquan launch center is at 41°N so if the station were orbiting in that inclination, Shenzhou 12 (and presumably subsequent Shenzhou) would have regular opportunities to launch due east into the orbital plane of the station.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline newfrontiers

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #258 on: 12/27/2020 04:21 pm »

Offline eeergo

Re: Tiangong - Chinese Space Station
« Reply #259 on: 04/21/2021 10:44 am »
Great thread about Xuntian (free-flying, Tiangong-tended space telescope):
https://twitter.com/dr_guangtou/status/1384547272264925188
Transcript below, but do check the Twitter thread for images:
Quote
Here is a thread about CSST (Chinese Space Station Telescope): A low-orbit, 2-m NUV-optical space telescope focusing on large sky surveys. It is a separate module of the new space station and planned to launch around 2025.
The telescope has an off-axis TMA design using SiC mirrors with some "active" capability for in-orbit adjustment. It has ~1.1 deg^2 FoV for the main sky survey while having four separate small instruments. The designed resolution is around 0.12-0.15 arcsec.
The main goal of CSST is a multi-band (NUV, u, g, r, i, z), large area (17500 deg^2) sky survey to r>25 mag that also has grism spectra coverage (r~22). There is also a 400 deg^2 deep field and 1 or 2 much smaller UD fields.
The main instrument is a very complicated camera for the main survey. Instead of a sophisticated filter change mechanism, the focal plane may remind you of the original SDSS survey: each detector has a fixed filter on it.
Another important component is a multi-channel imager (MCI) that can observe in three-band simultaneously. It has a 7.7x7.7 arcmin FoV with 0.05 arcsec/pixel resolution. It will bring ~30 broad+medium+narrow band filters. I call it "poor man's WFC3".
CSST will also carry a small optical IFU instrument using an image slicer, mainly for scientific demonstration. It has a 6x6 arcsec FoV, 0.2 arcsec spatial resolution, and covers 0.4-0.9 micron in wavelength with R>1000.
Another interesting aspect of CSST is: it can dock to the space station for maintenance and upgrade in the future! In the current design, >20 modules of the telescope can be replaced or have the potential for upgrade.
[...]
Some personal notes: I have been involved in CSST science preparation for a little bit, and it will be an important part of my plan for the next five years. While being super excited about it, I also feel very nervous... Chinese astronomy community is still pretty new and relatively small. Compared to the American and European communities, we still lack the experience to handle such a complex space telescope project. So there will a lot of trial and error... Luckily, we do have a group of brilliant young scientists working on it, and that gives me all the hope I need. Hopefully, I can put this ambitious project on your radar. And hopefully, we can develop many international collaborations using CSST data.
-DaviD-

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0