China's space program: Do you think China will be able to catch up with U.S.?

[EG417]

Hi! everybody. I would like to see your comments about the above topic. Please send your opinions :) so that we can share our thoughts together. :)

[mercaptan]

Well, that depends on many factors. One is of course the political state and how it changes since this controls how much budget is available for the program. And as we all know, budget is directly related to space program advancement.

I think a more reasonable thought is when will China's space program surpass Russia's space program. China's been in space twice so far...they still have a long way to go.

It also depends on how willing the people are to spend money on space missions. I don't see CNSA or even ESA competing with the NASA budget anytime soon.

[Communist Hamster]

Hopefully, yes. Competition will be good for space science.

[phlogistician]

Do they need to catch up? Or do they just need to be able to compete, and be in a position to prevent the USA from dominating space?

China is not as reliant on space technology as the west. So China only need enough technology to be able to destroy satellites in geosynchronous orbit, and western civilisation is dealt a pretty big blow. No satellite comms, no GPS, and the playing field is levelled somewhat.

From a peaceful perspective, why bother tying to catch up? They only need to achieve what is beneficial to themselves as a society, it's not about volume, but benefit. Hence manned programs are a complete waste of money, when we can derive much more benefit from automated probes and telescopes. But for some reason, we think we have to launch people to prove something.

China will launch as much as it needs, and also do some PR launches, to establish itself as a credible space faring nation. I don't think they will try and surpass the volume of launches made by the USA, because there seems little in that for them.

[mercaptan]

From a peaceful perspective, why bother tying to catch up? They only need to achieve what is beneficial to themselves as a society, it's not about volume, but benefit. Hence manned programs are a complete waste of money, when we can derive much more benefit from automated probes and telescopes. But for some reason, we think we have to launch people to prove something.

What makes you think manned missions are a complete waste of money? Probes are not yet that reliable and provide limited data gathering. You should know that a well educated human is way more beneficial than some machine.

But that's not all of it. When we plan manned missions, we take extra care in making sure the technology is reliable and safe. This research and development is far superior to probe based research and development and will increase our knowledge faster and more efficiently.

Last of all but certainly not least, we humans have a natural desire to go out and explore. To physically be there is something entirely different than something you built being there. To see something with one's own eyes is something we educated men should hold of value.

[Communist Hamster]

And, eventually, we will need to be able to colonise other worlds. And we can't do that unless we start somewhere, developing the technology needed.

[hug-a-tree]

Welcome!!!!!!!!!!

[MetaKron]

A little over eight years from the first orbit of the Earth to the first moon landing. We're planning to leave the Chinese with no competition for a bit longer than that, and they, like everyone else on the globe, have access to the technology that got us to the moon and a few more things, plus they have a lot of experience with heavy lifter rockets already. They are going to pass us so fast it will look like we are standing still. Actually, this will be because we are standing still.

[snake river rufus]

China's politicions plan for long term goals, unlike our system of changing goals every election. I think they will get to the moon, but it will be a long time (if ever) before they will catch up with the number of launches

[MetaKron]

Give it ten years. Once they have a design that they have decided works, they will mass produce and put not less than ten ships on the moon by the time ten years are up, and they will include cargo vessels and more than three astronauts on a ship.

[snake river rufus]

They might make more moon or even manned launches but they will never match our total number of launches

[Facial]

With purchasing power parity, they are probably only a few short steps behind the US and Russia.

[QuarkMoon]

I certainly don't see why not. I'm surprised they have started so late, their space program will grow faster than Russia's and the United State's programs ever did. They have the resources, education, sheer man power, and a government that does what it wants. Whether they will use it for "good" and share their discoveries (if any) with the World is yet to be seen I guess.

[MetaKron]

They might make more moon or even manned launches but they will never match our total number of launches

How many satellites have they put up in the last ten years?

You know, if someone puts together an assembly line that can build launch vehicles out of standardized parts, they come out a lot cheaper. The huge expenses are because each vehicle is pretty much custom-made. It can cost two billion dollars to build the first vehicle of a type then only ten million dollars each for each new one, so we'd better be thinking that if China can build one launch vehicle with two billion dollars, they can build anywhere from twenty to two hundred of that vehicle with another two billion dollars. And they have hundreds of billions of dollars cash, qualified workers, and are able to pay the locals in other than hard currency, practically "rice." I think we had better look forward to the capability of producing tens of moon-capable vehicles in ten years and hundreds in twenty years. They will not be more difficult to build than a 757 airliner, and in many ways they will be easier.

And yet we can still take them if we wake up and simply start to compete. Even if they do have a doomsday device, they're not going to blow up the world just to keep us from having a freaking moonbase or a colony on Mars, or if we want to treat our workers a little better.

[may_wentee]

China in time will put into orbit it's own space station and within 10 to 15 years, probably put some men on the moon and build a moon base. China may even land some men on Mars someday and maybe even establish a small base on Mars and probably do without any help from then U.S. or even Russia. Don't believe it? Wait & see. :D

[phlogistician]

What makes you think manned missions are a complete waste of money?

Because they are limited, expensive, and there are very few things an astronaut can do in space that a machine cannot. Apart from the repairs to the HST (and I met the guy that did some of that work), there's been nothing done on the shuttle that couldn't have been done with an unmanned mission.

Probes are not yet that reliable and provide limited data gathering. You should know that a well educated human is way more beneficial than some machine.

Probes hold all the distance/longevity and speed records. Go look up the Voyager probes to see how long they lasted in space. Some are still transmitting data right now! Therefore, they have gathered and transmitted more data than any manned mission could ever hope to achieve! So what about well educated humans? The Martian rover experiments still have educated humans in the loop, they just don't need to be on Mars! The Martian rovers were made to last just 90 days, btw, but being so reliable, have lasted nearly 700 days, and covered a combined 12km of distance, transmitting data all the way.

But that's not all of it. When we plan manned missions, we take extra care in making sure the technology is reliable and safe. This research and development is far superior to probe based research and development and will increase our knowledge faster and more efficiently.

That sadly, is just not true. Check out how many lives have been lost through rocketry, and you'll come to learn that human life is just another expense. Maybe you've been living in a hole, but the Shuttle has so far killed 14 Astronauts, and is still grounded, providing ZERO scientific data whilst doing nothing. Probes and satellites, meanwhile, are still being launched, and still functioning, and still doing their job. The Challenger disaster was caused by politics, the president wanting the prestige of a shuttle launch before his 'state of the nation' address. It was recommended by the manufacturers of the SRBs not to operate them in the prevailing weather conditions, but it was done anyway. 'Extra' care was therefore certainly not taken, those lives were gambled for presidential glory.

Last of all but certainly not least, we humans have a natural desire to go out and explore. To physically be there is something entirely different than something you built being there. To see something with one's own eyes is something we educated men should hold of value.

We can't send safely humans to all the environments we want to study, so your viewpoint is flawed. Humans cannot see in all the wavelengths we need to gather data in, yet another flaw. Sure, I'd love to go into space, to stand on the Moon, or Mars, but you have to be realistic about the difference between Science, and tourism, especially with a limited budget. We dont need to send humans to hold a camera or telescope, or use a dril to cut core samples. Machines can do all of that. Manned space travel is just about capturing the imagination of the taxpayer, because most don't understand the importance of the data that probes send back

[MetaKron]

I believe it, May. I believe it.

[mercaptan]

That sadly, is just not true. Check out how many lives have been lost through rocketry, and you'll come to learn that human life is just another expense. Maybe you've been living in a hole, but the Shuttle has so far killed 14 Astronauts, and is still grounded, providing ZERO scientific data whilst doing nothing. Probes and satellites, meanwhile, are still being launched, and still functioning, and still doing their job.

Yes, your point is of course true, but you miss the fundamental point in what I am trying to get across. Sure we've lost 14 Astronauts in Shuttle missions, but what about all the failed robotic missions? I.E. Beagle 2 and the more recent Cryosat. Think about it, if we lose a robotic mission, it doesn't impact us nearly as much as a lost manned mission since there weren't any humans involved. So your analysis of my comments did not take into consideration that we "treat" manned mission disasters at a whole different level of seriousness than say a robotic mission.

Also, the technology involved in manned missions is directly related to what one would think...."human-friendly space technology." Whether it be life support systems or human safety protocols in space, the research and development that goes into manned missions will only help us as we will maybe one day need to rely on this technology to ensure the ongoing of human civilization.

You have to admit, though, that "some" research and development has to go into solving problems involving humans and space...since I don't expect we'll be on this planet forever.

[MetaKron]

One problem we are going to have is that China is going to be able to send manned missions for far less money than we spend on robotic missions. They are going to standardize man-rated designs and mass produce them. If those designs are a bit heavier, they will use larger boosters. Their solid rocket boosters will be one-piece, solid as rocks, and built close enough to be transported that way. A lot of our stuff is fragile enough that we can't use higher accelerations for fear of stack failure, and the difference between a 3 G takeoff and a 5 G takeoff is a lot of tons of payload for the same fuel.

I'm sorry, but China is going to pass us because between stupidity, greed, and stupidity, we are defeating ourselves and giving them far too much help. They aren't doing anything that we couldn't be doing for ourselves far better if we just wanted to do it and worked smarter.

If they own the moon, they will own us. We don't want to be pwn3d by China.

[Zephyr]

Don't believe it? Wait & see. :D

I'm waiting, but all I see is this stupid reply page :(

[may_wentee]

I'm waiting, but all I see is this stupid reply page :(

Then don't reply. :D

[phlogistician]

Yes, your point is of course true, but you miss the fundamental point in what I am trying to get across. Sure we've lost 14 Astronauts in Shuttle missions, but what about all the failed robotic missions?

What about the failed robotic missions? We can build more, and launch again, and it doesn't matter, that's the beauty of robotics. Human deaths cause severe delays. The fact that we've lost 14 living, breathing people shows we don't take enough care of our astronauts. I don't get what your point is. Rockets fail, regardless of what is riding on them. If it's humans, humans die. Rocketry has risks, and these risks are not mitigated by having a pilot.

I.E. Beagle 2 and the more recent Cryosat. Think about it, if we lose a robotic mission, it doesn't impact us nearly as much as a lost manned mission since there weren't any humans involved.

That's the whole point of doing robotic missions! Beagle~2 was a partial success, btw, the lander was only part of the mission (I used to work with the Project Manager for that mission btw) Beagle~3 could be made, and launched easily.


So your analysis of my comments did not take into consideration that we "treat" manned mission disasters at a whole different level of seriousness than say a robotic mission.

I don't think so. Robotic missions are just as serious. I used to work with people that made satellite parts and instruments for scientific satellite missions. It was serious work. It's very serious when you see three year's effort detonated one mile up over French Guyana, and fall back to earth in little chunks. It's bad news for the guys who were relying on getting the data for their PhD theses.

Also, the technology involved in manned missions is directly related to what one would think...."human-friendly space technology."

You need to get inside some launch vehicles! They are certainly NOT 'human friendly'. They are cramped, claustrophobic, crammed with instruments, and pretty uncomfortable. If it wasn't for zero-g, you'd hate to be inside one, as there isn't exactly room for comfy chairs. Here is a picture from inside the now defunct Russian Mir space station. Note the round black shape to the right hand side? That's an entrance hatch. Astronauts had to pick their way through all of that mess.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/mir-panel.jpg

Here's one of the state of the art and nearly as cluttered ISS;

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/iss-space.jpg

Whether it be life support systems or human safety protocols in space, the research and development that goes into manned missions will only help us as we will maybe one day need to rely on this technology to ensure the ongoing of human civilization.

There's nothing in space that we need that we don't have under our feet already. All we have to do is learn to use and conserve what we have. Who is going to get off the planet and survive some disaster or resource collapse, anyway? Do I want to pay for a bunch of people to live happily ever after while I die? Do I care that 'humans' continue to exist if the earth suffers some catastophe? Do I fuck.

You have to admit, though, that "some" research and development has to go into solving problems involving humans and space...since I don't expect we'll be on this planet forever.

No, I don't have to admit that at all. We need to concentrate on solving the issues that affect everyone, like global warming, and depleting the earth's resources. Why should we be allowed to go and live on another planet, if we can't look after this one? Do you think colonising another planet solves, or doubles our problems? Soon, that planet would be fucked too, and the ever expanding population would need another, and another, it would grow exponentially.

Assuming ot course it's feasible to find and travel to another earth like world, and find it uninhabited by intelligent life. so we could take over, of course, That sounds pretty unrealistic.

[Billy T]

In addition to points phlogistician made, I note that when nothing on board, instead of every thing on board, need be "man rated" the cost is at least an order of magnitude lower. (Hell stuff from radio shack can be used and has been, instead of custom designed gold plated paper clips etc.) Thus even with 4 failures and one success, you cut the expenses exploring space at least in half.

We went to the moon with men for political reasons, not science.

[Communist Hamster]

Very true BillyT. There was only 1 bona-fide scientist that walked on the lunar surface, the geologist Jack Schimdt. He did of course make superb discoveries.

And the point you raise about using "stuff from radio shack" is relevant to another story from the space race i find particularly amusing. NASA spent thousands on developing a "space pen" that would write in zero-g and other extreme enviroonments (you can buy them today through those mail order gift catalogues). Thousands of dollars spent on developing a new, space ready pen. And what did the soviets do? They used ... pencils.

[phlogistician]

In addition to points phlogistician made, I note that when nothing on board, instead of every thing on board, need be "man rated" the cost is at least an order of magnitude lower. (Hell stuff from radio shack can be used and has been, instead of custom designed gold plated paper clips etc.) Thus even with 4 failures and one success, you cut the expenses exploring space at least in half.

We went to the moon with men for political reasons, not science.

Very true. One place I worked was having a clear our, and I was dumping some stuff in the dumpster, when one of the engineers approaches me in a HAZMAT suit. I laughed, and he asked me to leave the area because someone had thrown a beryllium plate away, and it was in the dumpster. We'd thrown it out in error, after it had to be removed from an experiment that was going to be launched from a manned mission, as beryllium wasn't certified for manned flight.(being toxic).

BTW, Communist Hamster, I love that pencil story! In a similar vein, I have a nice inexspensive soviet astronaut watch, a 'Poljot' 'Sturmanskie'. I can't afford an Omega, as used by the USA!