China's Space Program News Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
That is one possibility, and as long as the PRC government does not respond it moves closer to that conclusion for officials in the DOD.

now before I am accused of something this particular topic is a two way street. This year NASA captured one of its own satellites. And Darpa is running a program called phoenix.
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Phoenix.aspx
who's stated goal is to allow the upgrade, repair, rebuild and repurposing of satellites in orbit. Presumably with the aim of building a modular next generation satellite system. Its possible that the Chinese have the same idea or are worried that the US would rebuild Chinese satellite into weapons against them.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
A Chinese space shuttle? Reminds me of dream chaser in terms of a aerodynamic lifting body. Still it would need a booster as I don't see any chance at that scale of a single stage lift.

correction it is dream chaser some one took a photo of it cast in dark lighting and covered it in Chinese water marks.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you can see that same photo on the second link.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Now then The nail in the Coffin.

The image in Question
5l7x.jpg

No it's not a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


And the proof of the pudding The True Original Image... It's DREAM CHASER!
Sierra-Nevada-Corporation-SNC-Dream-Chaser-Commercial-Crew-NASA-posted-on-AmericaSpace.jpg


Dream Chaser is a 7 man lifting body style mini Commercial Shuttle that looks kinda like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
! She is intended to be launched like the X37B on the top of a Atlas Rocket. The project is under the direction of Sierra Nevada corporation of the USA. Its one of three Commercial space planes nearing completion the other the Almost Ready Virgin Galactic Spaceship 2, And The UK Skylon. at the moment the only operational space plane remains the X37B of the USAF which is supposedly being used to test sensitive electronics in the ultra high altitude environment.
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Hope may spring eternal, but a little rationality and news following should have made clear from the very beginning this could not have been a real Chinese project. For one thing, although Chinese space (and military) programs may not have been transparent in the manner of custom in the west, the Chinese do go through the trouble, step by methodical step, though judicious leakes, appropriate image and model placements, and seemingly offhanded but clearly intentional remarks during interviews, to make very sure nothing major they do is really a surprise to anyone who even casually follow this sort of things, and the foreign media have at least 5 years of warning when the Chinese are about making a major step in space or military fields.

Where were the customary leaks and lead in to an actual Chinese mini-shuttle that has reached at least mock up stage?

Also, relatively accomplished Chinese space program may setem, it is still a shoe string operation running on an extraordinarily tight budge. It would be shocking to me if they should abandon their custumery economy and conservatism and go for a fancy, costly, risky mini-shuttle of dubious incremental utility at this point in their program.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Chuck on three occasions in the past we have seen the "Divine Dragon" a conceptual Chinese space shuttle type. So the Chinese have a interest but no drive for it yet. The advantage of a shuttle is that well you can place a crew up with a capsule you have to loose most of the craft to get them back with a shuttle more of the craft comes back in a controlled manor. This is especially useful if you don't have a space station and build a large shuttle.
a large shuttle can allow you to play space station and conduct longer term experiments and research. The US space shuttle at its size offered a cargo bay space the size of of a full size greyhound bus. From the fall of Skylab until the fall of the soviet union, NASA used the shuttles space as a makeshifts space station. Then came Mir and building of the ISS which changed the game. The space shuttle and most space missions of that nature became subjects to the space station.
As it stands today the Chinese still lack a permanent space station most of there spaceflight scientific research has to end as soon as the capsule starts running out of resources which is not long due to size constraints. A large shuttle would be a boom for them and is well in there capabilities. Even seven man mini shuttle like Dream Chaser would offer capability's over the current system. That said a mini shuttle like Dream Chaser is better suited to cargo and.crew runs for a space station.
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Chuck on three occasions in the past we have seen the "Divine Dragon" a conceptual Chinese space shuttle type. So the Chinese have a interest but no drive for it yet. The advantage of a shuttle is that well you can place a crew up with a capsule you have to loose most of the craft to get them back with a shuttle more of the craft comes back in a controlled manor. This is especially useful if you don't have a space station and build a large shuttle.
a large shuttle can allow you to play space station and conduct longer term experiments and research. The US space shuttle at its size offered a cargo bay space the size of of a full size greyhound bus. From the fall of Skylab until the fall of the soviet union, NASA used the shuttles space as a makeshifts space station. Then came Mir and building of the ISS which changed the game. The space shuttle and most space missions of that nature became subjects to the space station.
As it stands today the Chinese still lack a permanent space station most of there spaceflight scientific research has to end as soon as the capsule starts running out of resources which is not long due to size constraints. A large shuttle would be a boom for them and is well in there capabilities. Even seven man mini shuttle like Dream Chaser would offer capability's over the current system. That said a mini shuttle like Dream Chaser is better suited to cargo and.crew runs for a space station.

NASA experience with the shuttle has shown the construction and maintenance cost of the shuttle prorated to each flight, plus the incremental launch cost imposed by the need to loft the greater weight of a returnable shuttle type craft, is generally greater by a significant margin than the cost of building and launching a single use space craft tailored to perform the same mission for 90% of the missions undertaken by the shuttle.

The ability of the shuttle to return large payloads from orbit has also not been shown to be of much value. The reason is very very few large payload really needs to be returned to earth in its entirety in order to fulfill its mission objective, and the added cost of using the shuttle to retrieve the payload is generally higher than the cost of building another payload.

It is not the requirement of Re-useability per-se that drive the true operating cost of the shuttle so high. It is actually the requirement for substantial atmospheric cross range flight and horizontal landing capability that made the shuttle so much heavier than a single use disposible space craft tailored for the same mission. A capsule can be made reuseable without the costly atmospheric performance of the shuttle, and it would be much lighter and therefore cheaper to launch.

So the upshot is NASA style shuttle with wings and strong atmospheric cross range flight capability was an economic mistake. The mistake was really understood by NASA early on, but the shuttle wasn't scrapped in favor of a returnable capsule because re-uesable manned spacecraft with atmospheric cross range flight capability was judged during the early to mid 1970s to have great military value, and NASA had counted on the defence department to heavily subsidize the shuttle and cover up the fact that the shuttle is uneconomic for virtually all civilians space access requirements. As it turns out, the perceived military value of rapid response manned space mission that could come back after one orbit and use it cross range capability to land near the location from which it was launched declined drastically in the late 70s and early 80s, so defence department gradually backed out of subsidizing the space shuttle, leaving the shuttle a much hyped, highly popular, and technologically impressive, but a bureaucratically stranded financial millstone around the neck of NASA.

Nothing has changed for the Chinese. A winged reuseable craft designed for horizontal landing would suffer the same problems.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
A few good points however I counter with the following. First the most expensive part of shuttle flight was launch not reentry. The power, fuel and resources needed to lift the craft and.recover those parts as well as the risks. Both shuttle losses involved faults at launch. The failure of a O ring seal in Challenger and the damage to the heat shield in Columbia.
its my view that both types.of accidents were and are possible with capsule type launch systems.
the only way to correct those would be to develop a new launch system either single stage or using a less risky first stage launch
second the shuttle as we knew it was obsolete by the mid nineties, however a proper follow on was delayed and then terminated. Due to first technical issues and then politics. Finally the saving grace for Dream Chaser is that its much smaller. The size of a large capsule, this is due to the large payloads already being.in orbit in the form of the ISS. This means that mini shuttle can pay dividends by removing the need for specialized boosters and allows the return to the easy recovery of the shuttle that with a intact heat shield is much less expensive then the complex search and rescue operations demanded of water and land drops.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




US scientists boycott Nasa conference over China ban

Nasa facing backlash from US researchers due to rejection of Chinese nationals from conference

Ian Sample, Science correspondent

theguardian.com, Friday 4 October 2013



A law passed in March prohibits anyone from China from setting foot in a Nasa building. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP


Nasa is facing an extraordinary backlash from US researchers after it emerged that the space agency has banned Chinese scientists, including those working at US institutions, from a conference on grounds of national security.

Nasa officials rejected applications from Chinese nationals who hoped to attend the meeting at the agency's Ames research centre in California next month citing a law, passed in March, which prohibits anyone from China setting foot in a Nasa building.

The law is part of a broad and aggressive move initiated by congressman Frank Wolf, chair of the House appropriations committee, which has jurisdiction over Nasa. It aims to restrict the foreign nationals' access to Nasa facilities, ostensibly to counter espionage.

But the ban has angered many US scientists who say Chinese students and researchers in their labs are being discriminated against. A growing number of US scientists have now decided to boycott the meeting in protest, with senior academics withdrawing individually, or pulling out their entire research groups.

The conference is being held for US and international teams who work on Nasa's Kepler space telescope programme, which has been searching the cosmos for signs of planets beyond our solar system. The meeting is the most important event in the academic calendar for scientists who specialise in the field.

Alan Boss, co-organiser of the Kepler conference, refused to discuss the issue, but said: "This is not science, it's politics unfortunately."

Geoff Marcy, an astronomy professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has been tipped to win a Nobel prize for his pioneering work on exoplanets, or planets outside the solar system, called the ban "completely shameful and unethical".

In an email sent to the conference organisers, Marcy said: "In good conscience, I cannot attend a meeting that discriminates in this way. The meeting is about planets located trillions of miles away, with no national security implications," he wrote.

"It is completely unethical for the United States of America to exclude certain countries from pure science research," Marcy told the Guardian. "It's an ethical breach that is unacceptable. You have to draw the line."

Debra Fischer, professor of astronomy at Yale University, said she became aware of the ban only when a Chinese post-doctoral student in her lab, Ji Wang, was rejected from the conference. When Nasa confirmed that Ji was banned because of his nationality, Fischer decided to pull out of the meeting. She told her students: "I cannot say don't go, but I'm boycotting the meeting." Her team followed suit and has withdrawn from the meeting.

The law allows Nasa to apply for a waiver against the ban in special circumstances, but any appeal would have been rejected under a moratorium that has been introduced by the agency's administrator, Charles Bolden.

Chinese applicants were told they could not attend the conference in an email sent by Mark Messersmith, a Kepler project specialist at Nasa Ames. "Unfortunately … federal legislation passed last March forbids us from hosting any citizens of the People's Republic of China at a conference held at facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Regarding those who are already working at other institutions in the US, due to security issues resulting from recent Congressional actions, they are under the same constraints," according to the email, seen by the Guardian.

The recent Congressional action refers to a broader law passed in July which prohibits Nasa funds from being used to participate or collaborate with China in any way. The law has raised fears among some Nasa-funded scientists that they will have to sever ties with their Chinese collaborators, and no longer take on Chinese students.

Marcy said the law would damage relationships built up between US and Chinese researchers that could be valuable lines of communication if conflicts arose between the two nations in the future.

Sir Martin Rees, Britain's astronomer royal, said he "fully supported" Marcy's position and called the ban "a deplorable 'own goal' by the US".

Chris Lintott, an astronomer at Oxford University, called for a total boycott of the conference until the situation had been resolved. "I'm shocked and upset by the way this policy has been applied. Science is supposed to be open to all and restricting those who can attend by nationality goes against years of practice, going right back to cold war conferences of Russian and western physicists," he said. "The Kepler team should move their conference somewhere else – and I hope everyone boycotts until they do."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top