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.
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:
What utter crap.
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?
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.
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 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 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?
A "Milspace" section on the NSF boards sure would be interesting.
It certainly deserves as much server space as Direct & SpaceX
My humble $0.02