I think China has made great achievments with its budget, and I see no reason to assume the chinese space program is just for show and 'no committment'. In my eyes, deciding to send humans into space in the early 90's and having achieved two successful manned flights by 2005 with many more (and more complex) planned is nothing but pure committment.
they have been working on it since 1970s. yes the CNSA is committed, just like NASA. but it is the funding that decides how much is done. my language was directed at CCP for underfunding this program and they funded it minimally just to show they have a manned program. can anyone dig out the budget of the chinese manned space program; that is it around 2 billion?
the achievments are great, but i don't feel CCP should be credited for something they are not willing to pay for..
3. ISS is not in worse state than MIR was. MIR suffered an on board fire and a collision with a resupply vehicle. The ISS has minor maintenance problems--so no comparison if you ask me.
yes you are right, but the ISS is less capable then the MIR is with only 1 lab compare to 3 functioning and working ones. i was thinking capability and did not write properly, sorry. but my point was there is no major improvement in capability from doing the latest space station program.
the japanese and european lab are ready but how they are going up will be an interesting problem to watch. anyone guesses...
4. As for the CEV being 60s tech, well not quite. The CEV capsule concept is based on the same physics as the 60's Apollo capsule, and its mission (manned moon and mars missions) does not require any type of lifting body design, whereas the space shuttle was designed to carry large objects to and from orbit and be reusable.
well it is 60s tech, because the required technology were already prefected back then. rendevous, docking, descent and accent, all pretty much the same technique were used. i was hoping they would go with the space tug system (STS) which would allow a more reusable and sutainable system. in the end the CEV prove to be as unreusable as the apollo!
i fear the apollo-like mission profile, show they don't have much intend to stay, it is only the duration that has be lengthen, the reusablity will make the cost too high to maintain a base. maybe they are aiming for mars; if so moonbase will be unlikely.
It is time to move beyond a manned vehicle for delivering payloads into LEO. That is a mission easily done with conventional launchers.
yes, but there was already such capability in the 60s, so it was a step backward which show it was a wrong move. the spaceshuttle did little because it took away NASA's superlift capability away. in fact the new lifter for the moon mission has lesser power than the saturnV and requires 2 launches. a mission profile the russian had developed in the 60s for their moon race bid! talk about irony for the russian.
just my thought. i am just looking from a very long term view... as space program tend to die down very quickly as seen with the ISS...
Actually I just some think tank guy being interviewed on TV say that China now spends more than Russia on its space program.
the Russian has to singlehandedly fund the entire ISS operations since the shuttle grounding as the US has a law against paying russia for tech services. putin reallocate additional money for the space program saying they would keep the ISS afloat even if they have to do it themselve. only recently did the law change to allow space services and allow NASA to pay russia for ferrying their crew again. but many flights with US equipment and astronaut had been done for free.
don't you hate doing business with your formal enemy? very political...