NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => Chinese Launchers => Topic started by: Star One on 02/15/2014 09:33 pm
-
Article from the New Scientist very much talking in positive terms of China's space future. One message from the piece seems to be that eventually the US is going to have too at the very least consider talking with China over cooperation in the space sector.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129560.500-red-star-rising-chinas-ascent-to-space-superpower.html#.Uv_qOn8gGSM
-
Well, if New Scientist allowed comments I would point out that the esteemed Prof. Holdaway's comments about China's manned space program is "progressing a lot faster than the US did with theirs in the sixties" is flat out wrong.
It took both the US and China 11.5 years to go from first animals in space to a manned docking with an unmanned spacecraft. Details:
http://swfound.org/media/90819/SWF%20-%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Programs%20Fact%20Sheet%20Sept%202012.pdf
What utter crap.
-
Well, if New Scientist allowed comments I would point out that the esteemed Prof. Holdaway's comments about China's manned space program is "progressing a lot faster than the US did with theirs in the sixties" is flat out wrong.
It took both the US and China 11.5 years to go from first animals in space to a manned docking with an unmanned spacecraft. Details:
http://swfound.org/media/90819/SWF%20-%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Programs%20Fact%20Sheet%20Sept%202012.pdf
What utter crap.
So do you disregard the whole article?
-
It took both the US and China 11.5 years to go from first animals in space to a manned docking with an unmanned spacecraft. Details:
China is using a lot less money and Shenzhou vehicles are pretty much the same.
What utter crap.
This certainly was:
China's rocket technology has a similar tale to tell. Its Long March rockets are an original design, and quickly became more advanced than Russian rockets, which have changed very little over the years, relying primarily on kerosene, a low-power but easy-to-use fuel source. The Long March 3 – which sent the Jade Rabbit on its path to the moon – uses a more advanced hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide fuel. "It's something the Russians have tended to stay away from," says McDowell. "It has more oomph but it's harder to work with." He refers to the Chinese success with this fuel as a "high-tech achievement".
-
So do you disregard the whole article?
Yes. It doesn't say anything useful and in fact creates a fairly confusing and inaccurate picture of what's going on in reality.
With the exception of Holdaway, I know everyone quoted in the story and I'm pretty sure most of them are going to take issue with how the reporter contextualized their comments. It seems as though he really didn't know what he was talking about and tried to weave together juicy tidbits from the various people to fit a story line he already had.
-
Well, if New Scientist allowed comments I would point out that the esteemed Prof. Holdaway's comments about China's manned space program is "progressing a lot faster than the US did with theirs in the sixties" is flat out wrong.
It took both the US and China 11.5 years to go from first animals in space to a manned docking with an unmanned spacecraft. Details:
http://swfound.org/media/90819/SWF%20-%20Human%20Spaceflight%20Programs%20Fact%20Sheet%20Sept%202012.pdf
What utter crap.
Yeah, that statement stood out as a howler. Another way to look at it is that it took the U.S. eight years to go from first manned launch to landing on the Moon, and China hasn't done that yet. It took the U.S. 13 years to go from first manned launch to first extended-stay space station, and China isn't planning on achieving their first extended-stay space station until 2020.
Now this is no straight-up comparison. China has taken fewer steps to get to the same points. But they have not been faster.
-
A few other things in the article bothered me:
"quipped one commenter on Weibo, China's version of Twitter."
I'm getting tired of lazy reporters who use one or two comments on China's equivalent of Twitter to make a point. China has over a billion people. I suspect that they have a lot of dummies making stupid posts on Weibo, just as we have a lot of idiots making idiotic posts on YouTube, or Twitter. Would you really trust an article about the American space program that included quotes from YouTube? [shudder]
"the mission was accomplished using knock-off equipment"
Huh? CE-3's lander and Yutu are both original designs. Not knockoff equipment.
"By 2012, the country had surpassed the US with 19 launches in a single year."
Yeah, but who ever said that counting launches is a good way to assess progress? Here's a clue: the U.S. doesn't have to launch as many satellites because A-it has mature satellite constellations and is not building them up, and B-because US satellites last longer in orbit. Counting launches is not terribly meaningful, and is really rather lazy, because it doesn't require the reporter to dig deeper into other measures of capability, such as lifetimes, power, bandwidth, resolution, sophistication, etc.
UDMH and hydrazine are advanced?
I think that a big omission was that there was no mention of China's military space capabilities. Those are real, and increasing, and yet reporters don't mention them because it's harder to get details on them. At the very least he should have interviewed Andrew Erickson, who has written a number of articles about China's military space programs:
http://www.andrewerickson.com/
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1685/1
I don't know the reporter. However, what often happens is that reporters drop into a new subject and they don't know anything, so they talk to some experts and then write an article. But because it is not their regular beat (and nobody regularly covers China's space program) they don't know the things that they do not know.
-
I am not sure if picking technical holes in the piece engages with the points the article makes especially in regards with the need for the consideration of cooperation.
-
I am not sure if picking technical holes in the piece engages with the points the article makes especially in regards with the need for the consideration of cooperation.
But I don't think these are merely "technical." Is it technical to point out that the author completely ignored the Chinese military space program? And things like emphasizing that China launches more rockets than the U.S., or claiming that China's pace of human spaceflight development is faster than the U.S. during the 1960s, indicate that the reporter had a poor grasp of the issues and what things are important and what things are unimportant. In other words, it's not like he goofed on a minor point or points, there is reason to believe that he doesn't understand the overall subject.
Taking that from another direction--yeah, there might be opportunities (if not "need") for cooperation, but you cannot honestly discuss that issue without at least acknowledging China's substantial military space buildup.
-
I am not sure if picking technical holes in the piece engages with the points the article makes especially in regards with the need for the consideration of cooperation.
But I don't think these are merely "technical." Is it technical to point out that the author completely ignored the Chinese military space program? And things like emphasizing that China launches more rockets than the U.S., or claiming that China's pace of human spaceflight development is faster than the U.S. during the 1960s, indicate that the reporter had a poor grasp of the issues and what things are important and what things are unimportant. In other words, it's not like he goofed on a minor point or points, there is reason to believe that he doesn't understand the overall subject.
Taking that from another direction--yeah, there might be opportunities (if not "need") for cooperation, but you cannot honestly discuss that issue without at least acknowledging China's substantial military space buildup.
I had taken the fact that there was a degree of skewing in the article towards human space flight in China as a possible reason as to why the author hadn't covered the military program.
-
I think calling China a space superpower is a bit much. Their space program seems to beb funded at levels lower than the US. Manned launches every other or third year compares nothing to US manned programs (when we had manned programs). The thing to consider is that China got a big boost from Russia. Their manned capsule is modeled after the Soyuz. Their hypergolic fueled rockets again were Russian inspired. Then there is the fact that the knowledge base for space flight is a lot better than it was in the 60s. Look at what SpaceX has been able to do in just a decade or so. If China is a space superpower, then so is SpaceX.
-
I had taken the fact that there was a degree of skewing in the article towards human space flight in China as a possible reason as to why the author hadn't covered the military program.
Except that the title refers to "space superpower" and the article includes lines like this:
"China is a force other space superpowers ignore at their peril. The ripples are reaching out to affect everything from your phone's settings to the first future footprints on Mars.
To get an idea of China's burgeoning space programme, look no further than its satellites."
So failing to discuss their expanding military space capabilities is a definite hole in the article.
I've seen enough articles like this to kind of guess at the reporter. He certainly called a number of the right people, like Dean Cheng and Gregory Kulacki. But I can also see that being a reflection of writing an article by checklist--he got Cheng as the conservative voice and Kulacki as the liberal voice, and then a couple of people who don't have clear ideological agendas. But I also would have liked to see him dig deeper. There are some people who are not always quoted like Cheng and Kulacki. Why not: Kevin Pollpeter, Mark Stokes, Owen Coté and Brian Weeden, who all spoke at a 2011 symposium on Chinese military space capabilities?
http://thespacereview.com/article/1970/1
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a horrible article. It's just that the level of discussion on China's spaceflight program that has appeared in the press could be better.
-
I had taken the fact that there was a degree of skewing in the article towards human space flight in China as a possible reason as to why the author hadn't covered the military program.
Except that the title refers to "space superpower" and the article includes lines like this:
"China is a force other space superpowers ignore at their peril. The ripples are reaching out to affect everything from your phone's settings to the first future footprints on Mars.
To get an idea of China's burgeoning space programme, look no further than its satellites."
So failing to discuss their expanding military space capabilities is a definite hole in the article.
I've seen enough articles like this to kind of guess at the reporter. He certainly called a number of the right people, like Dean Cheng and Gregory Kulacki. But I can also see that being a reflection of writing an article by checklist--he got Cheng as the conservative voice and Kulacki as the liberal voice, and then a couple of people who don't have clear ideological agendas. But I also would have liked to see him dig deeper. There are some people who are not always quoted like Cheng and Kulacki. Why not: Kevin Pollpeter, Mark Stokes, Owen Coté and Brian Weeden, who all spoke at a 2011 symposium on Chinese military space capabilities?
http://thespacereview.com/article/1970/1
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a horrible article. It's just that the level of discussion on China's spaceflight program that has appeared in the press could be better.
I wonder if these kind of articles don't cover China's military space program because it's far from easy to cover in any meaningful way?
-
The public and media tend to disregard and be oblivious to military space activities in general. Most people think NASA is in charge of all US space activities and are shocked to find out that the US spends far more on national security space than it does on NASA. A big part of this is the historical secrecy of national security space programs. By contrast, civil space programs intended for prestige are very public and media-savvy by default.
In the case of China, many make the argument that their civil/human spaceflight program IS their military program (or at least part of it). That's technically correct, as China doesn't have the same "separation" of civil and military space programs as the US does (China is more like the Soviets in that sense).
-
I wonder if these kind of articles don't cover China's military space program because it's far from easy to cover in any meaningful way?
Yeah, but that's just laziness. It's not that there's no information available or that there are no experts who can talk about this stuff (I cited five of them). It would be worthwhile for a reporter to follow this kind of reasoning: China is launching a lot of rockets each year. What is on top of each of those rockets? What are their missions? What missions get the highest percentage of launches?
One of the things that would pop out is that a large number of China's launches are military, and not just navigation satellites, which seem to be the only dual use technology that many reporters understand. Going down that avenue would indicate that China is building up space-based military capabilities. And it would raise some interesting questions. For instance, China has recognized that the U.S. is militarily vulnerable in space, but is China itself increasing its own vulnerability by fielding so many military satellites?
-
A "Milspace" section on the NSF boards sure would be interesting.
At least we have the names of subject matter experts to research.
Good thread.
-
A "Milspace" section on the NSF boards sure would be interesting.
Yeah. Right now it's mixed all over the place, including a lot of stuff in the launch sections. I'd contribute more to a milspace section. Right now I don't search out all the launch stuff individually.
-
It certainly deserves as much server space as Direct & SpaceX
My humble $0.02
-
It certainly deserves as much server space as Direct & SpaceX
My humble $0.02
Well, the fact that big chunks of it are classified and that it is difficult to get information even on the unclassified stuff would limit that.
But as I am fond of occasionally whinging, this site spends way too much time talking about rockets and way too little time talking about the other 99% of the missions.
-
Since way more money is spent on national security space than civil space, it should absolutely have it's own forum.
The classification is an issue but not that big of a problem. It's harder to keep things a complete secret than most think.
-
It certainly deserves as much server space as Direct & SpaceX
My humble $0.02
Well, the fact that big chunks of it are classified and that it is difficult to get information even on the unclassified stuff would limit that.
But as I am fond of occasionally whinging, this site spends way too much time talking about rockets and way too little time talking about the other 99% of the missions.
I hope this isn't too OT but talking about declassifying of documents, not sure if people have seen this or not?
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb457/
-
http://spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39665china-pushing-ahead-on-hi-res-satellite-system
China Pushing Ahead on Hi-Res Satellite System
By Peter B. de Selding | Feb. 28, 2014
PARIS — China’s push into high-resolution optical Earth observation through its seven-satellite CHEOS system is slightly delayed but will see the launch of a second satellite this year and three more satellites by 2016, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) said.
The China High-Resolution Earth Observation System, whose first satellite, Gaofen-1, was launched in April 2013 aboard a Chinese Long March 2D rocket, includes airborne instruments and what CNSA calls a “near-space airship,” apparently a high-altitude balloon, equipped with optical, laser and synthetic-aperture radar payloads, CNSA said.
In a presentation to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, whose Scientific and Technical Subcommittee met Feb. 10-21 in Vienna, CNSA said the satellite component of CHEOS has a 1-meter ground resolution at nadir. A similar presentation of the system in October said the system could provide 80-centimeter resolution.
**********
The airship thing makes no sense to me.
-
http://spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39665china-pushing-ahead-on-hi-res-satellite-system
China Pushing Ahead on Hi-Res Satellite System
By Peter B. de Selding | Feb. 28, 2014
PARIS — China’s push into high-resolution optical Earth observation through its seven-satellite CHEOS system is slightly delayed but will see the launch of a second satellite this year and three more satellites by 2016, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) said.
The China High-Resolution Earth Observation System, whose first satellite, Gaofen-1, was launched in April 2013 aboard a Chinese Long March 2D rocket, includes airborne instruments and what CNSA calls a “near-space airship,” apparently a high-altitude balloon, equipped with optical, laser and synthetic-aperture radar payloads, CNSA said.
In a presentation to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, whose Scientific and Technical Subcommittee met Feb. 10-21 in Vienna, CNSA said the satellite component of CHEOS has a 1-meter ground resolution at nadir. A similar presentation of the system in October said the system could provide 80-centimeter resolution.
**********
The airship thing makes no sense to me.
What an odd description, just cannot visualise this?
-
I think that "airship" is simply a mis-translation of "spaceship" = satellite and the confusion flows from that.
-
I think that "airship" is simply a mis-translation of "spaceship" = satellite and the confusion flows from that.
That does seem more logical.